POSTHARVEST ASSESSMENT OF FOOD

LOSSES IN THE MAIZE SUB-SECTOR IN

NAMIBIA

FINAL REPORT

Field work and report writing by:

Adedayo A. Ogunmokun (University of Namibia)

Benisiu Thomas (University of Namibia)

Cecil Togarepi (University of Namibia)

Contribution to field work:

Mr. Mathew Mushabati (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry)

LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................................................II
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................II
ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... V
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1
A) GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN THE MAIZE SUBSECTOR: - DEVELOPMENTS OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS. 1
B) INVENTORY OF ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNT FROM PAST AND ON-GOING INTERVENTIONS ........................................ 4
C) NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORKS OR STRATEGIES RELATED ON MAIZE FOOD LOSS ......................................................... 6
D) RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR ROLES IN TERMS OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT IN SMALL AND MEDIUM MAIZE
SUBSECTOR ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

2 SITUATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 12

A) THE MAIZE SUPPLY CHAINS ............................................................................................................................ 12
B) THE SELECTED MAIZE SUPPLY CHAIN: ZAMBEZI REGION ......................................................................................... 16
C) MARKETING SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 23
D) THE SUPPLY CHAIN ACTORS ............................................................................................................................. 24
3 THE FOOD LOSSES STUDY FINDINGS AND RESULTS ............................................................................. 35
A) FOOD LOSS RISK VARIABLES ALONG THE MAIZE SC CHAIN ..................................................................................... 35
B) DESCRIPTION OF THE LOSSES ALONG THE MAIZE SUPPLY CHAIN............................................................................... 35
C) CRITICAL LOSS POINTS.................................................................................................................................... 37
D) LOW LOSS POINTS ........................................................................................................................................ 37
E) FOOD LOSS REDUCTION PLAN AND STRATEGY...................................................................................................... 41
F) RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................................... 48
ANNEX 1: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 49
ANNEX 2: LIST OF EXPERTS CONSULTED......................................................................................................... 50
ANNEX 3: QUALITY SCORING OF MAIZE GRAINS ............................................................................................ 52
ANNEX 4: QUALITY ANALYSES OF MAIZE GRAINS COLLECTED FROM FARMERS GRANARIES ......................... 53

List of figures
Figure 1: Map of major maize production areas .................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Rainfed and irrigated maize production in Namibia 2013/14 season (Source: NAB, 2014) .... 2

Figure 3: Maize grain production (tonne) 2009/2010 to 2013/2014 seasons (Source: NAB, 2014) ...... 3

Figure 4: Maize supply chain................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 5: Maize products on display at Ms Simasikus stall at Katima Mulilo open market................. 27

List of tables
Table 1: Production information of maize subsector ............................................................................. 3

Table 2: Maize Quality standards............................................................................................................ 8

ii
Table 3: Food supply chain in the maize subsector .............................................................................. 13

Table 4: Importance of the maize supply chains .................................................................................. 14

Table 5: Products in the maize supply chain......................................................................................... 15

Table 6: Food safety management mechanisms .................................................................................. 15

Table 7(a): Estimates (%) of food loses at different stages from different sources ............................. 17

Table 8: Detailed description of the food supply chain basics ............................................................. 19

Table 9: Detailed description of the supply chain: Zambezi ................................................................. 26

Table 10: Output ii-4: Detailed Description of the Food Supply Chain Social Structures .................. 32

Table 11: Output Ii-5: Detailed Description of the Food Supply Chain Economics............................ 33

Table 12: OUTPUT II-1: FOOD LOSS RISK FACTORS ............................................................................... 35

Table 13: Summary result matrix of food losses................................................................................... 38

Table 14: Summary table of food losses, causes and solutions ............................................................ 39

Table 15: Develop national postharvest management strategy and implementation plan ................. 41

Table 16: Budget for Training of farmers on good postharvest management (e.g. timeous operations,
promotion of shellers, crop varieties, mechanisation of activities) .............................................. 42

Table 17: Cost Benefit Analysis for development of National Postharvest Management Strategy and
Implementation Plan and recruitment including logistical arrangements ................................... 43

Table 18: Budget for Piloting mechanisation of PH operations (shellers, dryers) ................................ 44

Table 19: Cost Benefit Analysis for Piloting mechanisation of operations (shellers, dryers) ............... 44

Table 20: Budget for Marketing and financing of appropriate technology manufacturing (shellers,
dryers) ........................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 21: Cost Benefit Analysis for marketing and financing appropriate technologies and
manufacturing (shellers, dryers) ................................................................................................... 45

Table 22: Provision of storage facilities (PICS bags, Grain pro, metal/plastic silos) ............................. 46

Table 23: Cost Benefit Analysis for Provision of storage facilities (PICS/Grainpro bags, metal/plastic
silos) .............................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 24: Crop breeding for improved varieties ................................................................................... 47

Table 25: Cost Benefit Analysis for Crop breeding for improved varieties and integrated pest
management ................................................................................................................................. 47

iii
ACRONYMS

ADC Agricultural Development Centre

AGRIBUSDEV Agricultural Business Development Agency
AMTA Agro-Marketing and Trade Agency
APA Agronomic Producers Association
CAC Cardno Agrisystems Consortium
CLP Critical loss point
CRISP Caprivi Region Integrated Storage Project
DAPEES Directorate Agricultural Production, Extension and Engineering Services
RCPP Rainfed crop production programme
DRD Directorate Research and Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FIVISMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems
FSC Food supply chain
FSNDP Food Security and nutrition development Programme
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GMO genetically modified organisms
GRN Government of Republic of Namibia
HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LLP Low loss Point
MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry
MAWRD Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
MGECW Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare
MHSS Ministry of Health and Social Services
MISMED Ministry of Industrialisation, and SME Development
MRLGHRD Ministry of Regional, Local Government, Housing and Rural Development
NAB Namibian Agronomic Board
NAP National Agricultural Policy
NAU Namibia Agricultural Union
NDP National Development Plans
NFNP National Food and Nutrition Policy
NNFU Namibia National Farmers Union
NSFR National strategic food reserve
NSI Namibian Standards Institute
RDC Rural Development Centres
SAFEX South African Futures Exchange

iv
Executive summary
The main objective of this study was to assess food losses and obtain a clear view of the critical loss
points in selected food supply chains (FSC) in the maize subsector in Namibia, and to identify
interventions to reduce food losses and improve the FSC efficiency. The first step was to conduct a
situational analysis involving a review of relevant information from secondary data, documentation
and reports and expert consultations (by phone, e-mail and in person) without travelling to the field.
This initial screening step provided insight into the information gaps and gave an overview of the
food supply chains in the maize subsector and subsequently enabled the selection a maize supply
chain in the Zambezi Region for conducting a more detailed assessment. In order to get more
information about the supply chain, a study was conducted by interviewing 131 smallholder
producers and several experts in the Zambezi region.

Wild animals cause considerable damage to crops in Zambezi because several farmers lands are in
the migration corridors of the wildlife. Around 10 % farmers who are unfortunate to experience
wildlife damage stand to lose from 50-100 % of their production! It is estimated that about 5 % of
the grains (618 tonnes) is lost in the stages constituting the broad harvesting processes from drying
in the field to dehusking and cutting and finally to transportation to the drying place. These losses
are mainly due to poor handling and infestation by termites due to delays in transporting the
harvest. Post-harvest Handling (drying) losses are estimated at 3 % of the maize (352 tonnes) mainly
caused by termites, domestic animals, rodents, wild animals, and over drying. The major causes of
grain loss at shelling are grain breakages, termites, poor weather and domestic animals. It is
estimated that 1 % (114 tonnes) of the dried maize is lost during shelling.

Due to high prices on offer (and not because of surplus production), farmers tend to sell up to 55 %
of their maize and store 45 % for other uses (consumption, seed, and long term storage). The main
causes of stored maize loss were given as: weevils, termites, moths, fungi, flour beetle, rodents, and
theft. The majority of the households (86 %) do not apply anything to protect the stored maize.
Though the quantitative storage losses in the households vary from 1-3 % of the grains depending on
how long the grains are stored for, these different storage losses are aggregated as 3 % or about 338
tonnes. Of importance, however, are the very high qualitative losses noticed in stored grains, which
can range from 10-40 %. There may be health implications for these qualitative losses. The last
critical loss points are in the bagging and transportation of grains destined for sale to buyers due to
overfilling and over-reuse of grain bags that can result in splitting of bags and subsequent spillage of
grains. It is estimated that the combined losses from bagging and transportation are about 1.5 % of
sold maize or 93 tonnes.

In order to reduce food loss as well as womens (who are shown in the study as the main actors in the
maize supply chains) labour burden, some affordable interventions that may lessen the workload of
women as well as reduce food losses and increase income for smallholder producers have been
suggested. These include: developing a national postharvest management strategy and
implementation plan, research on improved varieties, integrated pest management, improved
storage capacity and quality, piloting and providing appropriate postharvest technologies
(dryers/shellers) and training on postharvest loss reduction management practices.

There is a need to improve food security in Namibia through reduced food losses and increased value
addition. As a result, Namibia should design specific strategies and policies on the reduction of food
losses and value addition. Farmers should receive support both from the public and private sectors to
access local and international markets by strengthening their capacity in storage, processing,
marketing, safety standards and ensuring the quality of grain.

v
1 Introduction and background
Despite Namibia being one of the driest countries in the world, the agriculture sector remains
central to the lives of the majority of the population. Directly or indirectly, it supports over 70 % of
the country's population. It also contributes about 7 % to the national Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). Namibias agricultural sector is dominated by livestock farming, followed by crop farming. The
difference between the two sectors was huge in the 1980s but has reduced significantly since 1996.
Crop farming even contributed more to the GDP than livestock farming between 2001 and 2005.
Farming can also be divided into three subsectors as: private commercial farming (capital intensive,
relatively well developed and export oriented), government farms (comprised of about 15 irrigation
schemes) and communal farming (subsistence-based, high-labour, low-technology and input). There
are approximately 4,000 commercial farms occupying approximately 44 % of farmlands of which
3,000 are white-owned. The communal sector is comprised of about 170,000 households (NSA,
2015) occupying about 38 % of the total farming area of Namibia.

Due to the dryness of the country, cereal production is limited to subsistence dry land production of
pearl millet, maize and sorghum in the Northern Communal Areas (NCA) comprising the North
Central Regions -NCR- (Omusati, Oshana, Ohangwena and Oshikoto), Kunene Region; Kavango East
and West Regions; and the Zambezi Region (Figure 1). Commercial production of maize (mainly
white maize), wheat, pearl millet and rice occur in large-scale farms and irrigated schemes around
the country. Cereals contributed 14 % to the Gross Agricultural Production of which pearl millet
grown in the NCAs accounted for 64 % (Mendelsohn, 2006).

a) Government and private sector involvement in the maize subsector: - developments

over the last 15 years
Maize is planted under rainfed and irrigation in different parts of Namibia (Figure 1). Maize
production has three distinct national food supply chains, namely the communal (Zambezi, Kavango,
eastern and central areas), the government farms (green scheme projects at Hardap, Kavango and
Omusati Regions), and the commercial farms (Maize triangle; Figure 2). The communal food supply
chain produces exclusively under dry land conditions (rain fed); the government farms produce
exclusively under irrigation while the commercial farms produce under both dry land and irrigation.
Dry land white maize is mainly produced in the maize triangle (Grootfontein, Otavi and Tsumeb), in
Omaheke, and in Kavango (East and West) and Zambezi Regions. Maize is produced under irrigation
at the Hardap Irrigation Project (near Mariental), the Haakiesdoorn at the Orange River (Karas
region), Etunda in Omusati region, and the several irrigation schemes in the Kavango West and East
Regions (Uvhungu vhungu, Sikondo, Ndonga Linena, Musese, Shitemo, Shadikongoro and Mashare).
Increasing volumes of white maize under irrigation is also produced in the Stampriet, Tsumeb,
Grootfontein, Kombat and Otavi areas and near the Orange River in the far south (Figure 2).

The five-year average production of maize is 64,466 tonnes from an estimated land area of 45,600
ha (NAB, 2014, Iita, 2012; CAC, 2011). However, annual production has fluctuated with the lowest
yields with 36,694 tonnes in 2013/2014 to the highest yields with 72,438 tonnes in 2012/2013
(Figure 3). On a five-year average, maize production in the communal areas is estimated to be
14,550 tonnes with a value of US$3.2 million based on an average price of N$2 878/ton (NAB, 2014).
The average production in the Governments farms is 16,050 tonnes with a value of US$3.6 million,
while large commercial farms producing an average of 33,866 tonnes worth US$7.5 million (Table 1).

1
Figure 1: Map of major maize production areas
16000
14000
12000
10000
Tonnes

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Central and
Zambezi Hardap Kavango Maize Omusati
eastern
Region Irrigation Region triangle Region
areas
Irrigation 0 397 10792 13382 6812 2170
Rainfed 3284 310 0 12 1869 0

Figure 2: Rainfed and irrigated maize production in Namibia 2013/14 season (Source: NAB, 2014)

2
 75000
70000
65000
60000
tonnes

55000
50000
45000
40000
35000
2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Figure 3: Maize grain production (tonne) 2009/2010 to 2013/2014 seasons (Source: NAB, 2014)

Table 1: Production information of maize subsector

Volume Value
NATIONAL ton/yr USD/yr Remarks
Raw materials annual Average production, at N$2878.57/ton NAB database,
production 64,466 14.3 million NAB (2014) and FAOSTAT (2014)
Communal production 14,550 3.2 million 14,700 small producers in Zambezi Region producing
13,740 tonnes and of which around 4,000 is marketed,
from an area of 25,000 ha (1.7 ha average).
Kavango (810 tonnes of which only 12 tonnes are
marketed from an area of 1,300ha (average of 0.1 ha)
(adapted from Census, 2011, CAC, 2011, NAB, 2014).
Government farms 16,050 3.6 million 8 green schemes projects involved (Shadikongoro,
Etunda, Sikondo, NdongaLinena, Shitemo, Uvhungu
vhungu, Musese, Mashare). Total production for
2014/2015, AgriBusDev Data, Total number of farmers
145 (NAB, 2015), Total area of 6,600 ha (Iita, 2012).
174 producers (NAB database (2015)
Large commercial farms 33,866 7.5 million Total area of 12,700 ha (CAC, 2011)
Maize grain 58,020 12.8 million Average from NAB database, NAB 2014
10% of total average production. Based on experts
Green Maize on cob 6,446 2.5 million opinion, 2015; Farm gate price of N$2 for 0.4kg cob.
Whole meal formal Made up of local maize grain production and imported
(sifted and unsifted) 157,280 94.8 million maize (total consumption) N$7835/t
Whole meal (small scale Exact figure Small scale processors (Vendors) buy directly from
processors) unknown farmers and often sell informally to individuals
5 years average (2009/10-2013/14) season, NAB
database, NAB, 2014 (Some illegal import of maize
Imports 99,260 22 million through the border from Zambia is unaccounted)
Exports 5 years average (2009/2010-2013/2014) season, NAB
Flour 6,729 4.1 million database, NAB, 2014. (Some exports also takes place
Grain equivalent 6,060 3.7 million informally through the borders with Angola;
unaccounted)
2 large registered Millers (process both domestic and
imported grain) 20% from small scale, 70% from
Level of processing imported grain and 100% from private commercial
operations Large -11,737 7.1 million farmers
25 registered medium processors process from local
Medium - and imports (20% from small scale, 30% from imports
48,788 29.4 million and 100%* from green schemes)
3
 Small ->8,370 Small millers number unknown (process the remainder
(Estimate) of the maize grain for household consumption which
>5 million 60% of total production)
Large
Level of trading/ Medium Trading and Wholesale (number unknown)
wholesale operations Small
Level of retail operations Large
Small formal and informal, large formal supermarkets
Medium
(numbers unknown)
Small

However, estimates for the 2015 maize crop production were 38,000 tonnes which were around
40 % lower than the five-year average output. In the communal sector, maize production fell by 73 %
from the five year average while the commercial irrigated crop estimate is 46 % lower than in 2014.
In addition, more than half of dry land commercial farmers are reported to have experienced total
crop failure. This was due low rainfall and high temperatures which affected mainly the rain-fed
production (FAO, 2015).

b) Inventory of activities and lessons learnt from past and on-going interventions
There have not been many interventions in maize production because maize was already
commercialised before independence in 1990 albeit targeting only the commercial sector. The few
projects available cover mainly small-scale and irrigation scheme producers. These interventions
focussed more on aspects of marketing and processing (mainly market access, storage and milling).
Lack of proper infrastructure has also been an important issue, as is the lack of enabling institutional
frameworks, and low entrepreneurial capacity among small-scale producers mainly in the Zambezi
and Kavango regions. The main interventions of note are listed below.

Integrated grain storage (1998):

This project aimed to address post-harvest grain handling and storage problems through funding
interventions at the household, village and regional levels and to enable rural farmers to deal with
grains surpluses/gluts in the Regions. This project started in 1998 with the construction of three
community stores at Sangwali, Chinchimani and Muyako in the Zambezi (Caprivi) region. However,
there were no more stores built after this and the stores visited in the course of this study were
abandoned and/or now used for other purposes. Rather, in 2006, the Government embarked on
establishing silos in different grain producing regions to ensure food security. Silos were constructed
in Katima Mulilo (Zambezi region 7,400 tonnes), Rundu (Kavango East region- 4,000 tonnes),
Omuthiya-Gwiipundi (Oshikoto region 3,000 tonnes), Okongo (Ohangwena region 500 tonnes)
and Tsandi (Omusati region 3,000 tonnes). The plan is to have food reserves with 60,000 tonnes
capacity, equivalent to four months of emergency food relief.

Caprivi Region Integrated Storage Project (CRISP) (2000-2002):

Recognising the vital importance of grain storage in providing food security, the Government
financed this pilot storage project in the Caprivi (now Zambezi Region) in 2000 and it was completed
in 2002 with limited success. The project consisted of interventions at three levels: improving on-
farm stores, encouraging community stores and providing a regional central store to ensure safe
storage during bumper harvests. The implementing agency was the Namibian Agronomy Board
(NAB) while the then Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development (MAWRD) funded the
project. The beneficiaries were farming communities in the Region and a small number of
Agriculture Extension Technicians (AETs) who were closely involved with the development process
and, at the community level, the board members and candidate-storekeepers of the three storage
co-operatives (at Muyako, Chinchimani, Sangwali). The purpose of CRISP was to develop an
4
integrated system of storage and marketing processes, by which grain losses would be minimized
and income to farmers would be maximized. The management of post-harvest grain was to improve
the flow and availability of local maize to the local millers (in Katima Mulilo, the capital town of the
region) thereby reducing the markets dependence on cross-border imports with the goal of having
the integrated system of storage and marketing stimulate maize production in the Caprivi (Zambezi)
Region. This partially successful project, the first of its kind in Namibia, produced recommendations
for further application in other Regions of Northern Namibia and provided for a roadmap for maize
subsector integrated storage. However, the three stores are currently not being used as integrated
storage facilities.

Rainfed Crop Production Programme (RCPP) (2010-on-going):

The RCPP aims to promote food security at the household level through the provision of improved
seeds and fertilizers as well as ploughing and weeding services to communal farmers at subsidized
prices. The RCPP started first in 2010 and was implemented in Kavango (west and east), Zambezi
(Caprivi), Oshikoto, Oshana, Ohangwena and Omusati Regions. This programme is funded by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF). In the 2011/12 financial year, about 15,294
subsistence farmers benefited from the programme (Iita, 2012). However, the programme is marred
by some farmers limited knowledge on how to apply fertilizers for improved crop production. In
addition, insufficient funds and limited availability of ploughing service providers prevent the
programme to reach out to all targeted beneficiaries. Though the programme does not specifically
include post-harvest issues, there are prospects that these may be easily integrated into it.

Food Security and Nutrition Development Programme (FSNDP):

The FSNDP was established to assist in implementing the Food Security and Nutrition Policy in
Namibia aimed at raising and maintaining an acceptable level of nutrition and standard of living for
Namibian people. It started in 1995 and ended in 2006. The programme resulted in the
establishment of Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS) and
the Food Security Information and Early Warning System (FSIEWS) for Namibia. The programme was
implemented by the Division of Rural Development Planning, MAWRD, in collaboration with the
Nutrition Unit within the Ministry of Health and Social Services. The Government funded the
programme and FAO provided technical assistance.

Research and extension:

In Namibia, both agricultural extension services and crop research are managed by the public sector
or state (Kumba, 2003, NASSP, 2005). The extension approach is mainly characterised by various
elements such as being holistic, participatory, demand-driven, multidisciplinary and problem-solving.
Government has tried to decentralise or to bring extension services closer to the farmers, but this
has been often difficult because extension offices in many remote areas are situated far away from
the nearest Agricultural Development Centre (ADC). Although extension services are on-going, it is
unclear whether the extension strategies employed in Namibia are successful or not. Extension
services include training, technology dissemination (including postharvest storage technology),
advice and implementing research findings. Limited research information is available with regards to
maize crop improvement. Maize seeds are mainly sourced or imported from South Africa by
individual farmers and agri-business companies such as Agra. Many communal farmers get their
seeds through ADCs. There is no seed testing of imported seeds in Namibia and the application
process for importation of seed does not require that importers produce seed lot certificates
originating from the exporting country (NASSP, 2005). Therefore, there is a lack of information on
the planting quality of seed imports. However, as of the new production season, the government
farms have been mandated to grow seeds on a seventh of their total production area. As mentioned
earlier, national research and regular monitoring of post-harvest losses has been limited. Only one
study carried out by the MAWRD, and implemented between 2000 and 2002 for maize storage in
5
the Zambezi region (see CRISP above), could be found for maize post-harvest research in communal
areas.

Comprehensive Conservation Agriculture Programme of Namibia

The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry launched a five-year (2015 to 2019) Comprehensive
Conservation Agriculture Programme for Namibia to encourage farmers to adopt conservation
agricultural practices. The programme is based on the premise that the future of food security relies
not only on higher production and access to food, but also on the need to address the destructive
effects of production practices on the environment and the devastating and negative impacts of
climate change. The programme is expected to address the problem of low and erratic rainfall,
through the use of practices that reduce water losses and increase infiltration and improve low soil
nutrients, by increasing soil carbon and nitrogen through the use of organic soil covers and legumes
in rotation. The programme also aims at providing government assistance in the form of subsidies to
communal crop and livestock producers in the Omusati, Oshana, Ohangwena, Oshikoto, Kavango
East, Kavango West, Zambezi, Otjozondjupa, Kunene and Omaheke regions, as well as in Hardap,
Erongo and //Karas. Also to benefit are commercially rain-fed farmers, including resettlement
farmers, affirmative action farmers and irrigation farmers in the maize triangle, as well as farmers in
horticulture programmes and those involved in green scheme irrigation projects.

Namibia Census of Agriculture (2013/14):

The Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) conducted an Agricultural Census in the 2013/14 Agricultural
Year in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry with funding from FAO
and the African Development Bank (AfDB). The Namibia Agricultural Census collected detailed data
on crop production, crop storage, livestock production, and fish farming. The census was extensive
in its scope and coverage as it provides data that were disaggregated by sex and by region level. The
census covered both the Communal Agriculture and Commercial Agriculture Sectors, however only
the results of the Communal Sector are released as at the time of this report. According to the
Census, about 7% of the total maize produced in the communal sector for the 2013/14 year was lost
by the farmers, of which around 90% were lost in the field (including shelling and drying). The
remaining 10% of post-harvest losses took place during the storage and transportation processes.

Green scheme programme (2002 ongoing):

The Green Scheme programme started in 2002 and is promoted and funded by MAWRD (now
MAWF), with the aim to encourage development of agro-production under irrigation especially
along the perennial rivers (Zambezi, Kavango, Orange and Kunene) at the Namibian borders. This
programme is on-going and is partially successful as smallholder production is being implemented in
these schemes. However, some of the smallholder farmers struggle due to lack of management
(agriculture production, marketing) and entrepreneurship skills.

c) National policy frameworks or strategies related on maize food loss

The policy frameworks related to maize food loss are as follows:

Vision 2030:

The national long-term development goal outlined in the Vision 2030 commits the Government to
devise programmes and projects to ensure food security at national and household levels.
Therefore, the agricultural sector's vision is to modernise agriculture in line with the Vision. It is
hoped that modernised agriculture will contribute to high incomes and food security at household
and national levels, which in turn will lead to sustainable and equitable economic growth, whilst
maintaining and improving land capability. The focus on agriculture under the National Development

6
Plan 4 (NDP 4, 2012-2017) goes beyond production to include large-scale development of the
agribusiness and agro-industrial (agro-processing) sector.

National Development Plans (NDPs) (1995 ongoing):

Agriculture continues to be the priority focus under the NDPs. For example NDP 4 strategies to be
deployed to increase agriculture production and real growth include the promotion of green scheme
and establishment of national food reserve infrastructure (silos) and research stations.

The Green Scheme Policy (2008):

The Green Scheme Policy aims to increase Namibias food production capacity for both domestic and
export markets through irrigation on both commercial and communal land. The policy promotes an
increased synergy between government and the private sector for investment in agro-projects. It
aims at encouraging the development of irrigation-based agronomic production. The policy makes
provision for small-scale farmers to produce maize and also focuses on developing cereals storage
infrastructure for strategic food reserves. In recognizing the need to improve access to finance for
agricultural production, the policy also supports the reform of the existing finance scheme. Finally,
the policy states that government will continue to strengthen capacity building programmes through
the provision of training and extension services to ensure that the MAWF employs the best
technologies and farming practices that will make Namibias agriculture sector productive,
competitive and sustainable.

Namibia Agricultural Policy (NAP) 2015:

The NAP aims to (1) ensure food security and improve nutritional status; (2) create and sustain
viable livelihood and employment opportunities in rural areas; and (3) improve the living standards
of farmers and their families, as well as farm workers. The Namibia Agriculture Policy of 2015 is a
revision of the 1995 NAP that brought it in line with current development realities. The policy puts
more emphasis on expansion of production through intensification, innovation and marketing, as
well as encouraging government to work in partnership with private enterprises to jointly plan and
exploit the agricultural expansion potential.

National Food and Nutrition Policy (NFNP) 1995:

The NFNP aims to improve the nutritional status of the population, taking into account policy
initiatives in other sectors, particularly in health and agriculture. One of the specific objectives of the
NFNP is to improve the quantity and quality of food consumed by the population with the aim of
ensuring an adequate diet for all.

Namibia Food Safety Policy (2014):

The overall objective of the policy is to ensure food safety for all consumers in Namibia and provide
sufficient food safety guarantees on all food products traded nationally, or exported to other
countries. The food safety policy stipulates guidelines and standards that must be followed during
the processing of food so that it can be fit for human consumption in line with the Codex
Alimentarius. MAWF is responsible for the safe production of foods of animals and plant origin,
including primary processed forms.

7
Disaster Risk Management Policy (2004):

The policy aims to contribute to the attainment of sustainable development in line with Namibias
Vision 2030 through strengthening national capacity to significantly reduce disaster risk and build
community resilience to disasters.

Seed Policy (2005):

The Seed Policy focuses on the development and implementation of seed programmes in order
to avail adequate high quality seed and planting material to the farming community. This policy
addresses the challenges in the seed sector with respect to research and extension, seed
imports, seed production, processing and quality control, marketing, distribution and strategic
seed reserves, as well as the institutional and legal framework.

National Gender Policy (2010-20):

This policy aims to serve the following purposes: i) provide mechanisms and guidelines for all sectors
and other stakeholders for planning, implementing and monitoring gender equality strategies and
programmes in order to ensure effective strategies for gender equality and womens empowerment;
ii) create an enabling environment for the empowerment of women in order to ensure their full
participation in socio-economic and decision-making processes in all sectors and at all levels; iii)
define mechanisms and structures for institutional frameworks that can coordinate and guide
implementation of gender equality programmes amongst partners and in the society, and to
monitor and evaluate gender programming.

Cooperative Act of 1996:

The Cooperative Act mandates MAWF to promote the development of the cooperative movement.
Multipurpose Cooperatives are relevant to the farming community because they provide for the
savings and credits, agricultural inputs supply and farm produce marketing, and consumer goods
supply.

Quality standards and regulatory frameworks for maize:

The regulations relating to grading and classification of maize in Namibia are based on the
Agronomic Industry Act, 1992 (Act 20 of 1992), which divides white maize into three grades (WM 1,
2, 3; Table 2). Generally the moisture content of maize grain should not exceed 10-12.5% and all
grain must be free from a musty, sour or other objectionable odour; free from foreign matter; and of
standard suitable for human consumption, free from defective kernels and kernels of another colour
or pinked kernels.

Table 2: Maize Quality standards

Grade Allowable deviation from grade 1
WM1: defective kernels 7%, maize kernels of another colour 3%, foreign matter 0.3%, pinked
kernels 12%, deviation from all quality standards above within limits specified 8%
WM2: defective kernels 13%, maize kernels of another colour 6%, foreign matter 0.5%, pinked
kernels 12%, deviation from all quality standards above within limits specified 16%,
moisture not exceeding 12.5% but should be in the range of 10%-12.5%
WM3: defective kernels 25%, maize kernels of another colour 10%, foreign matter 0.75%,
pinked kernels 12%, deviation from all quality standards above within limits specified
25%.

8
The Agronomic Industry Act, 1992 (Act 20 of 1992) also prohibits the sale of maize products not
complying with the maximum standard of composition with respect to fat content, fibre content or
fineness by mass as specified by the Act.

The Biodiversity Act of 2006 (Act No.7, 2006):

The Biodiversity Act introduces systems and procedures for the regulation of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in Namibia. The Biodiversity Council, established under Section 5 of the
Biodiversity Act, is tasked to regulate: the import and export of a GMO or GMO product, the release
into the environment of a GMO or GMO product, the contained use, as well as the placing on the
market of a GMO or GMO product, the transportation of such product, including transport in transit
through Namibia and lastly the use, or handling in any other way of a GMO or GMO product. No
person is allowed in Namibia to deal with a GMO or GMO products unless the person is authorised
by a permit issued under this Act to deal with the GMO or GMO product including maize and maize
products.

d) Relevant institutions and their roles in terms of policy and management in small and
medium maize subsector
The following institutions are involved in the maize subsector:

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF):

The mission of the Ministry is to realize the potential of the Agricultural, Water and Forestry sectors
towards the promotion of efficient and sustainable socio-economic development for a prosperous
Namibia. The Directorate of Agricultural Production, Extension and Engineering Services (DAPEES)
and Directorate of Agricultural Research and Development (DARD), Directorate of Planning and
Business Development (DPBD) are especially important to post-harvest issues related to the maize
subsector.

DAPEES was created to provide agricultural extension services to farmers, agro-based industries and
other stakeholders in the form of information communication, advisory and training services.
DAPEES promotes the adoption of improved agricultural technologies and practices in order to
increase agricultural production, empower farmers and facilitate sustainable improvement in living
conditions of rural communities.

DARD aims to facilitate the development and management of MAWF human resources at all levels
and in all disciplines, and to undertake well-balanced crop, livestock and natural resource research
within the communal and commercial sectors, contributing to increased productivity and sustainable
utilisation of natural resources under arid, semi-arid and sub-humid condition, thereby improving
the living standards of the Namibian population.

DPBD: aims to inform and advise decision makers and other role players in the private and public
sectors on policy issues as well as facilitating and implementing some of the policies, programmes
and activities in the fields of agriculture and co-operatives.

Agricultural Business Development Agency (AGRIBUSDEV):

AGRIBUSDEV was created by the Namibian Government in 2011 as an Agency within the MAWF to
oversee the management of government Green Scheme Projects through monitoring and creation of

9
an ideal environment in order to achieve the Green Scheme Policy objectives. Smallholder farmers in
the green scheme have no organized formal structures such as cooperatives.

Agro-Marketing and Trade Agency (AMTA):

AMTA was created by the Namibian Government as a specialized Agency in 2013 to coordinate and
manage the marketing and trading of Agricultural Fresh Produce Business Hubs and National
Strategic Food Reserve (NSFR) infrastructure, towards the attainment of food safety and security in
the country. The AMTA officials are responsible for border controls and checking of import permits
that are issued by the Namibian Agronomic Board (NAB).

Namibian Agronomic Board (NAB):

The NAB is a statutory body instituted by the government of the Republic of Namibia in terms of the
Agronomic Industry Act (Act 20 of 1992). This Board was originally constituted as a statutory body on
1 April 1985 in terms of the Agronomic Industry Proclamations AG11 and AG12 of 1985 (NAB, 2005).
Its main objectives are to promote the agronomic industry and to facilitate the promotion,
processing, storage and marketing of controlled agronomic products (maize, mahangu, and wheat)
in Namibia. The NAB also issues import permits for maize grain. Under NAB, there are other
committees responsible for organising farmers and producers, namely the Namibia National
Producers Association (NNPA), the Namibia Grain Producers Association (NGPA) and the Namibia
Forum for Grain Producers (NFGP).

Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU):

The NAU spearheads organized agriculture in Namibia and has established itself well as the
mouthpiece and mediator of commercial farmers including maize farmers who are members of the
Agronomic Producers Association (APA). Membership into NAU is voluntary. Any entrepreneur 18
years and older who owns agricultural land, leases land, is a part-time farmer or occupies land
himself can become a member of the NAU via a farmers association. The NAU finances itself
through the subscription of its members and levies on products. The Agronomic producers
association has 174 members who are mostly male as a result of landownership. APAs objectives
include long-term profitability on crop farms, sustainable utilisation of natural resources; negotiation
of product supplies at the cheapest possible prices, food security and the economic development of
Namibia.

Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU)

The NNFU is a national federation of regional farmers unions. It was established in June 1992 to
serve as a mouthpiece for Namibias communal and emerging farmers. NNFU aims to increase food
production for household food security, enhance marketing of farming products to increase
household income, increase participation and recognition of women in farming, contribute to
environmental protection and sustainable utilization of natural resources. To reach these objectives,
the NNFU runs an advocacy/policy education program that aims to influence national policies,
ensures capacity building of farmers and facilitates the launching of tangible grassroots projects. The
NNFU also participates in networks at sub regional and international levels. For example, the NNFU
signed a contract with the NAB, from 2007 to 2010, to support smallholder farmers in marketing of
mahangu, maize and melon seeds.

Rural Development Centres (RDC):

The RDCs are expected to develop and produce appropriate equipment for land preparation,
planting, weed control, crop harvesting, shelling, milling etc. Because all labour is paid for by GRN,

10
the RDCs can sell equipment at subsidized rates as the price is only determined by raw materials and
a 25% overhead. The Ongwediva RDC has been manufacturing improved grain stores for many years
and is presently promoting corrugated iron bins. Three sizes are being sold as follows: the 1-sheet
bin for 0.5 tonnes of grain at N$ 2,750; the 2-sheet bin for 1 tonnes at N$ 3,500 and the 3-sheet bin
for 1.5 tonnes at N$ 4,250. These are subsidized prices and reflect only the hardware inputs as the
GRN pays for all labour involved.

Likwama Farmers Cooperative Union:

The name Likwama is derived from the rivers (Linyanti, Kwando and Mashi or Zambezi) in the
Zambezi region. The Likwama cooperative is a group of several smallholder farmers organisations or
cooperatives in the Zambezi region. The cooperative is a multi-purpose farmers cooperative with
about 1,000 members. About 250 (25%) of its members are women and the remaining are men. The
organization lobbies for subsidized services such as land clearance, ploughing (tractor hiring
services), weeding and for the procurement of production inputs (seeds, fertilizers). The cooperative
was also engaged in organizing improved marketing channels for maize in the Zambezi region. The
factors that have been constraining their growth and development include: (i) limited understanding
of and willingness to cooperate, in rural communities; (ii) difficulties in accessing capital in the form
of loans to fund new activities and (iii) low levels of management, technical and administrative skills
amongst the rural population which are necessary to run a cooperative organization and its different
activities (Vigne, 2001).

Northern Namibia Farmers Seed Growers Cooperative (NNFSGC):

The NNFSGC is comprised of producers responsible for seed multiplication including the Katima
Mulilo Farmers Seed Producers Association (KAFASEPA) and the Likorere Farmers Cooperative (LFC)
in Kavango. NNFSGC members tried to produce seeds during the dry season but they usually lost
foundation seeds harvest to birds.

Institutions of Higher Learning (e.g. UNAM & NUST):

Two institutions namely: The University of Namibia and the National University of Science and
Technology offer courses in agriculture including crop production. They have divisions that are
responsible for research and development in agriculture production including postharvest
management.

Agricultural Bank of Namibia (AGRIBANK):

The Agricultural Bank of Namibia, Act No. 5 of 2003, as amended, was promulgated in order to
expand the scope of business to capitalize on opportunities in the market and transform the bank
into a more versatile and responsive institution for/to all stakeholders in order to meet the demands
of the ever-changing business environment. For example, Agribank provide a production loan facility
that can be used for the acquisition of seeds, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, weeding, fuel and
oil, transportation costs, wages for temporary worker, horticulture and micro-irrigation.

National Commission for Research, Science and Technology (NCRST):

The NCRST is established in terms of section 4 of Research Science and Technology Act, 2004 (Act no
23 of 2004). The mission for NCRST is to establish a national system that promotes, develops,
coordinates and informs Research, Science, Technology and Innovation towards a knowledge-based
society.

11
2 Situation analysis
a) The Maize Supply Chains
The study started with a preliminary screening of food losses in the maize subsector in Namibia
based on secondary data, documentation and reports, and expert consultations (by phone, e-mail, in
person) without travel to the field. This resulted in the preparation of a Screening report as
summarised in Tables 1 and 3. Maize has three distinct supply chains based on the production
sectors as: communal, government farms (green schemes), and private commercial farms.

12
Table 3: Food supply chain in the maize subsector
Estimated Generation Contribution
Geographical area of % and sex of smallholder Market of final Project Economic Employment
FSC # Final product Volume of foreign to national
production producers product support importance provision
(ton/year) exchange food security
Green maize on cob 80
Maize grain 730
57% M, 43% F based on Home and Moderately Moderately Small to Very high,
Kavango region RCPP*
Maize samp 20 head of household informal market significant significant insignificant significant
Maize flour (grain
710
equivalent)
Green maize on cob 1,370
Communal Maize grain 12,370 Home, informal
55% M, 45% F based on Small to Very high,
production Zambezi region market, AMTA RCPP Significant Significant
Maize samp 370 head of household insignificant significant
and millers
Maize flour (grain
12,000
equivalent)
Kunene, Omusati, Green maize on cob
Oshana, Oshikoto, Maize grain
Insignificant Home and Not Not Not
Ohangwena, Maize samp RCPP Not significant
volumes informal market Significant significant significant
Omaheke and Maize flour (grain
Otjozondjupa equivalent)

Green Maize on cob 1,605 Government farms 66% M, Informal market

Very Very Very
34% F comprised of: Insignificant
Mainly Kavango, and AMTA, traders significant significant significant
Government Maize Grain 12,840 Shadikongoro 50:50, Government
parts of Omusati and millers
farms (green Sikondo 89% M, 11% F, Green Scheme
(Etunda) and Hardap Maize Flour
scheme) Ndonga Linena 79% M, 21% Project
near Mariental (Etunda & Traders, retailers Very Very Very
1,605 F, Etunda 63% M, 37% F, Insignificant
Shadikongoro) Uvhungu vhungu 50:50 and public significant significant significant
(10% of total)
Green Maize on cob Very Very Very
Private Maize triangle 1,690 Traders, retailers Insignificant
(5% of total product) significant significant significant
commercial (KARST), Omaheke,
Very Very Very
production Orange river Maize grain 32,170 Millers Insignificant
significant significant significant
Mainly South Africa Very Drain foreign Very
Imports Maize Grain 99,260 Millers Low
and Zambia significant exchange significant
*RCPP Rainfed crop production programme

13
These three maize supply chains are very important economically as the maize communal sector
employs around 70,000 people, the government farms employs around 4,500 while the private
commercial farms employ around 2,800 people with significant contributions to food security (Table
3). Women account for 59% of all those engaged in skilled and subsistence agricultural work in the
food supply chain process while men contribute only up to 41% of labour in the production
processes (Japan International Cooperation Agency -JICA, 2009).

The total number of communal producers (mainly from Zambezi and Kavango Regions) is 27,740,
while there are 145 smallholder producers in the government farms (green schemes) and 174
private commercial maize producers. The communal producers are 47% male and 53% female based
on the headship of the household, while on government farms, all managers who head the farms are
male (100%), whereas large commercial farms are family based farms headed by the husband in
most of the cases (Table 3). However, in terms of workers in government and commercial farms,
66% are male and 34% female. A large proportion of Female Headed Households (FHH) will not
include an able-bodied adult man (otherwise they would not be FHH) and these households are
often severely constrained for labour. Even if hired ploughing services are available (Draught Animal
Power or tractor), it may be more difficult for a woman to negotiate for quick services (e.g. a top
position in the waiting list) or to complain when the work is not well done.

The maize producing regions in Namibia are Kunene, Omusati, Oshana, Ohangwena, Oshikoto,
Otjozondjupa, Omaheke, Kavango (East and West) and Zambezi (Figure 1). The major communal
areas producing maize are Kavango and Zambezi Regions with the Zambezi Region being more
important both in terms of the scale of food production and in agro-processing and urban market
opportunities (Tables 3 and 4). The Zambezi region has the majority of the smallholder farmers who
depend on maize production which is very important in terms of job creation and income
generation. Furthermore, the environment in the Zambezi region allows for a sustainable production
of maize due to its soils and climate. The gender disaggregation of the producers in the Zambezi
Region is 56% Male and 44% Female (Table 3). The products derived from maize are green maize on
the cob, maize samp and maize flour. The samp is mostly consumed at household level. Samp
constitutes only about 3% of total maize grain (Table 5). The maize grain conversion factor to maize
flour is based on whole grain which is 100% to flour which is 90%. Thus the conversion factor is 1.1.

Table 4: Importance of the maize supply chains

FSC Economic Employment Generation of Contribution to national
Importance (USD) provision (no. foreign exchange food security (tonnes)
of people)
Communal (farmers& Grain (3.2 million) 70,000 n/a 14,550
family and workers in Samp (0.1 million)
Zambezi & Kavango) Flour (8.7 million)
Government green Grain (3.6 million) 4,500 n/a 16,050
scheme (workers, Flour (8.5 million)
farmers & labourers)
Private commercial Grain (7.5 million) 2,800 n/a 33,866
(farmers & labourers) Flour (27.3 million)

14
Table 5: Products in the maize supply chain
Process Product Weight from 100 Conversion Factor
Harvesting Maize green cob 100 1.0
Maize dry cob 100 1.0
Shelling Maize grain 90 1.1
Milling Maize flour 90 1.1
Harvesting Maize dry cob 100 1.0
Shelling Maize grain 90 1.1
Stamping Samp 80 1.25

Table 6: Food safety management mechanisms

Controller Control Actual Situation in the FSC Responsible agent

Exists and applies to
the whole FSC Namibia Standards
National food safety/
Institute (NSI), (NAB)
quality standards Exists but not rigorous YES
AMTA
Doesnt exist
Harvest Low
Transport Low
Government Frequency of checking
regulation and (None, Low, Medium, Storage High
AMTA
requirements High) Low/med
Process
ium
Market Medium
Obligatory registration of Exists YES
the food processing/ NSI and AMTA
preparation unit Doesnt exist
FSC actors - GAP Medium AGRIBUSDEV
food safety GHP/ GAP/ HACCP/
HACCP High NSI/AMTA
management voluntary standards
system ISO High NSI/AMTA

Governments are duty bound to ensure food safety for all citizens through enforcing legislation
(Table 6) governing safe production, handling, processing, preparation and serving of food. These
legislations are wide and involve several ministries and departments, hence require central
coordination through a national food safety policy. In Namibia, food production is primarily the
responsibility of Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, through its agencies (AGRIBUSDEV and
AMTA) which are responsible for enforcing food safety regulations at production and primary
handling level (including silos, pack-houses and slaughter houses) in compliance to food safety, in
line with Codex Alimentarius Commissions requirements. The Namibia Standards Institute under the
Ministry of Trade and Industry is responsible for implementing the Standards Act, which controls
standards such as additives, processing aids, and all products traded in Namibia. Food safety
standards of plant (e.g. maize) and animal products exported from Namibia is the responsibility of

15
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. Registration of food business operators, including food
retail and abattoirs for meat destined for national markets is done by regional authorities.

b) The selected maize supply chain: Zambezi region

The supply chain selected is that of maize and its products (cob, grain, maize samp, and maize flour -
sifted and unsifted) in the Zambezi Region. The post-harvest processing of maize includes:
harvesting, drying, dehusking, shelling, storing, transporting, milling and marketing. The maize are
consumed either as cooked maize from green cobs, and when dried, cooked and consumed as samp,
or milled into flour which is cooked as porridge. Maize harvesting (drying in the field cutting,
dehusking), transportation from the field to the drying place, shelling and storage are the important
post-harvest activities at smallholder producers in rural areas of the Zambezi region since most of
these activities are predominantly carried out manually by women and children and are often time
consuming and labour intensive.

In order to get more information about the supply chain, a Food Loss Assessment Survey was carried
out by administering questionnaires to 131 smallholder producers and interviewing some vendors,
millers and post-harvest experts (Annex 2) in the Zambezi region. This was complemented with field
observations and collection of some samples where possible. However, the Load Tracking and
Sampling Assessment (Sampling) that was to follow this did not take place due to several reasons.
Firstly, the field visit to Zambezi did not take place until around October 2015 by which time most of
the maize sale has been accomplished and many producers no longer have adequate maize for sale.
Secondly, the Terms of Reference given to the consultants only required them to carry out the
Screening and did not include the Load Tracking exercise as part of their scope of work.
Subsequently, no logistical provisions (sample bags, moisture meters, sampling tubes etc.) were
made to collect samples for load tracking. However, samples of grains found at the producers stores
and with some vendors were taken and analysed for qualitative losses (Annex 4) using a quality
analyses table as presented in Annex 3 (Quality scoring of maize grains). Thirdly, the study area is
located at the extreme north east of the country (over 1 000 km, see figure 1) thereby making it
difficult to access easily by the consultants after the field work. Meanwhile it was difficult to get
information from contacts in this region either by phone or email.

The quantitative losses in this study were arrived at from a combination of data from several sources
(Table 7a). The first source was data gathered by the consultants from the post-harvest actors
(farmers, vendors, millers and Extension Officers). These data were found to be too variable as it was
difficult for these people to quantify the losses. The second source was data from the National
Census of Agriculture 2013/14 (NSA, 2015). These data were only given for three post-harvest stages
as: pre-storage, storage and post storage, thereby making it difficult to assign values to individual
stages since data were collected in a limited period of six months or less. The last source was data
from The African Post Harvest Losses Information System (APHLIS, http://www.aphlis.net) which
were estimated for different stages for the years 2003, 2007 and 2008 for Caprivi (now Zambezi).

The APHLIS estimates were derived from data from other countries that have different socio-
economic and geo-political elements from Namibia. The consultants, therefore, had to depend on
arriving at a guestimate of the losses based on a consideration of loss values from these sources as
shown in the last column of Table 7a and used in Table 7b. These values were later validated at the
National Stakeholders Workshop.

16
 Table 7(a): Estimates (%) of food loses at different stages from different sources

Estimates from several sources (%)

Farmer and APHLIS APHLIS NCA Consultants
Step in the FSC
Experts 2003 2007/2008 (iv.) (v.)
(i.) (ii.) (iii.)
Harvesting: drying in the fieldExtreme: 50-100 Extreme 75
Harvesting: drying in the field,
Normal: 1-10 3.8 6.4 Normal: 5
dehusking and cutting
6
Transport to drying place n.s 1.9 2.4 n.s
Drying at the farm (house) 2-5 3.5 4 3
Shelling and cleaning 1-2 2.3 1.3 1
Storage on farm (July-Sep) 1-3 1
Storage on farm (Sep. Oct.) 2-5 2.7 4.3 1 2 3
Storage on farm (Nov.- Dec) 3-10 5
Bagging 0.5-2
1 1.7 1.5
Transport to market/miller 1-5
Storage at AMTA (up to 5%) NA NA
Market storage (miller) n.s. 2.7 2.7 NA n.s.
Traditional flour processing n.s. n.s.
Milling: service millers 0-1 NA NA 0.5
Market/retail n.s n.s
i. Farmers and experts estimates varied widely, thus the need to look for other sources before arriving at
the loss values
ii. Values generated for Caprivi (Zambezi) by African Postharvest Losses Information System (APHLIS) but are
based on data from other countries where the socio-economic and political situations are different from
Namibia (large farm)
iii. Values generated for Caprivi (Zambezi) by African Postharvest Losses Information System (APHLIS) but are
based on data from other countries where the socio-economic and political situations are different from
Namibia (small farm)
iv. Data gathered from the field and reported in the Namibian Census of Agriculture 2013/2014. Data were
gathered for a short period (within 6 months) and not for all the post-harvest segments.
v. Consultants guestimates of the loss values based on evaluation of the data from the other sources and as
confirmed by the stakeholders in a workshop.

Table 7(b): Screening of food losses in the selected Food supply chain
FSC, <Zambezi region>, <maize grain>
Step in the FSC Presumed losses
Quantitative Qualitative Description of cause of loss
(%) (%)
Harvesting: drying in the field Extreme Delayed harvesting, only happens in extreme
75% n.s cases where wild animals (mainly hippo, buffalo
and elephants) destroy the entire field.
Harvesting: drying in the Normal: Delayed harvesting, termites, rodents and
field, dehusking and cutting 5% 1% animals, late rains, spoilage, shattering,
fungi/mould and storage insect infestation
Transport to drying place n.s n.s Fallen cobs,
Drying at the farm (house) 3% 3% Over-drying, birds, animals
Shelling and cleaning 1% 5% Shattered grain, cracking, quantity lost to the soil
Storage on farm (July-Sep) 1% 10% Insect pests, rodents, fungi/mould
Storage on farm (Sep. Oct.) 2% 20% Insect pests, rodents, fungi/mould, termites
Storage on farm (Nov.- Dec) 5% 25-40% Insect pests, rodents, fungi/mould, termites,
beetles, moths and webbing, theft
Bagging 1.5% n.s Torn bags due to using second-hand bags
17
Transport to market/miller 1% n.s Torn bags due to using second-hand bags, bags
not properly sealed, spillage during
delivery/transfer
Storage at AMTA (up to 5%) Improper handling of grains in the silo due to
poor understanding of silo technology
Market storage n.s. n.s Spillage
traditional flour processing n.s. n.s Spillage
Milling service millers 0.5% n/a Spillage
Market/retail n.s n.s Spillage during transfer and packing
ns not significant

Primary production

The Zambezi region recorded a poor maize production in 2015, estimated at 70% lower than the
average output and resulting from insufficient rainfall and high temperatures. The rains not only
started late but the region also experienced a severe prolonged dry spell in February and March
during flowering, resulting in poor grain formation and general loss of grain quality. Consequently,
the survey questions were based on the average/normal information from previous seasons. The
total producing households in the Zambezi Region were 14,700 with 56% MHHs and 44% FHHs
producing an estimated 13,740 tonnes of maize (five year average, Tables 1 and 8).

From the interviews, the assets owned by the farmers include: sledge (22%), cell phone (16%), radio
(16%), vehicle (bakkie/pick-up truck) (15%), tractor (12%), scotch cart (9%), television (6%). The most
helpful asset was considered to be the sledge (23% of MHHs and 30% of FHHs) however, only 18% of
the FHH owned a sledge compared to 33% of the MHH. The equipment that they do not have but
which affects post-harvest operations the most was a tractor (MHHs 35%, FHHs 38% would like to
have tractors). The lack of tractor is mentioned by 72% of HHs as increasing maize losses while 21%
mentioned that it reduces quality, as they cannot carry out their activities on time.

In FHHs, the decision to harvest is mostly made by other people (60%) who are part of the
household other than the head of the household herself while in male headed households the
decision to harvest is made mostly by the husband (60%).

Most people (93%) do not borrow money for farm operations. Of the 7% who borrowed, only 33%
were FHHs while 67% were MHHs. The responsibility for postharvest handling is carried by other
people who are part of the household (33%), the wife (25%), husband (21%) and both wife and
husband (21%). Moreover, responsibility for postharvest handling in FHHs is made by other people
living in the household 27% of the time; while in MHHs, the husband (22.2%) makes the decision
most of the time.

Land is prepared mainly by draft animal ploughing and is mainly carried out by men (60-90%); while
sowing (90%) and weeding (>60%) are still considered as womens jobs together with hired workers.
Men, however, participated more in weeding (30%) due to the introduction of draught animal
mechanical welders.

18
 Table 8: Detailed description of the food supply chain basics

FSC stage Location Months of Number of actors (%) Products Quantity Facilities/ Duration Inputs and services
the year (ton) equipment /Distance
Men women
Primary Zambezi November Ploughing 60- Ploughing (10-40%); Raw Maize 13,740 Animal drawn plough, 3-5 months manure, fertilisers,
Production -March 90%; Weeding Sowing (90%); cultivator, tractor drawn seeds, extension
(30%) Weeding (60%+) Green maize sold or eaten on the cob -1,374 ploughing, and planter services and labour
Harvest Zambezi April-July < 10% 70%-90% Maize cob (Less green maize) 12,366 Sledge, scotch cart, tractor
(+ children, elderly Green Maize for drying (Less 5% loss 11,747.7 and trailer, hired truck, hand 2 - 4 months labour
and workers) field loss = 618.3 tonnes) harvesting, bags
Postharvest Zambezi April-July <10% Over 90% Dried Maize (Less 3% loss = 11,395.3 Drying place 2-4 weeks labour
handling (drying) 352.4 tonnes)
Post-harvest Zambezi April-July <10% Over 90% Shelled Maize grain (Less 1% loss = 11,281.3 Sheller, beating rod, bags 2 - 4 weeks labour
handling (shelling) 114.0 tonnes)
Zambezi July-June 23% Over 60% Maize grain (home consumption= 35% 3948.5 Living space, kitchen and varies between labour
of shelled grains) granary, bags and drums, 1-12 months
Maize grain (seed = 5%) 564.1 home pounding of grains
Storage at home
Maize grain (long term storage = 2%) 225.6 and use of service millers service millers
Maize grain (3% average storage loss at 338.4 are within
home = 338.4 tonnes) 100m-3km
Transportation of Zambezi July-Dec over 60% over 20% Total available for transport for sale 6,204.7 Sledge, scothcart, tractor 3 - 6 months/ loading labour,
grains for sale (55% of shelled maize) and trailer, hired truck 3km-200km transport hire
Total available for sale (Less 1.5% 6,111.7 (bakkie/pick-up truck) and
bagging & transport loss = 93 tonnes) lorry, bags
Sales Zambezi July-Dec. Married 20% Married 15%, single Maize grain (Millers) 88% of grains 5,378.3 grain cleaner, bags, scale, 3 - 6 months cleaning weighing,
(35%) brought for sale moisture meter, temporary grading, packaging,
Both husband and wife (30%), Maize grain (AMTA) 4% of grains 244.5 storage storage
brought for sale
Grain (89.5%) 437.6
Grain loss (0.5% = 2.6 2.4 Bags, pestle and mortar, Whole year (as Labour, transport,
All vendors encountered were Vendor available) packaging
tonnes)
females 8% of sale
Flour (7%) 34.2
Samp (3%) 14.7
Storage at AMTA AMTA Jan-Dec Maize grain (2%) 244.5 Silo Whole year labour
(loss unknown but could be up to5%
=12 tonnes)
Millers > more than 5,378.3 bags, roller mill Whole year labour, electricity
Millers Jan-Dec < 5% Flour (loss at 0.25% = 13.4 tonnes)
(processing) 95%

19
Wholesale/Retail Zambezi Jan-Dec flour warehouse, shelf Whole year labour, transport

20
Most of the interviewed households (78%) plant the local maize variety, followed by PAN 413 (50%)
and PAN 53 (10%). There is no gender differentiation in terms of crop variety for planting. The
majority of those interviewed (34%) rated the local variety as having the most quantity loss,
followed by PAN 413 (22%) and PAN 53 (13%). Nearly half of the MHHs reported local variety as
having the highest loss (46%) compared to 27% of FHHs. The local variety was also rated as having
the most quality loss (31% of HHs), followed by PAN 413 (26%) and PAN 53 (10%). None of the
farmers interviewed or the experts could deduce any reasons behind the differences in quality loss
among these varieties. This could, however be because producers grow the hybrid varieties mostly
for sale (as these are preferred by the millers) and they (hybrids) are therefore disposed of early
compared to the local variety which is mainly cultivated for home consumption and are therefore
stored for longer.

Harvesting: Dehusking and cutting- Harvesting is mainly carried out manually by detaching the cobs
from the plant mostly by women and children (90%) (Table 8) and this usually takes place around
May-June, though it can sometimes reach up to the end of July. This is then followed by dehusking,
which is the process of removing the outer layers, leaving only the cob of the maize which is mainly
done by women (90%). Some 30% of the households do not dehusk at this stage but only after the
drying stage.

Transport to drying place: After selling or consuming about 10% of the harvested cobs as green
maize, the remaining cobs are transported (mainly by women as headload) from the field to a
temporary storage place for further drying. When available, other forms of transport such as
sledges, scotch carts, canoes (in flooded areas) and hired trucks may be used. The lack of sledges for
FHH is very critical in the transportation of the grains cobs since 12% of the MHH have a bakkie/pick-
up truck compared to only 4% of the FHH.

Post-harvest Handling (drying)

Maize is dried as dehusked cobs by 59% of households while 33% dry maize with the sheath still on
the cobs. The majority dried their cobs in the field (70% HH), followed by an assigned drying place
(15%), or close to the house (7%). Maize is dried on a bare floor (32% HH), plastic sheets (26% HH) or
on a mat (18% HH). The major causes of grain loss at drying are reported to be termites (58%),
domestic animals (54%), rodents (41%), wild animals (24%), and overdrying (17%).

Post-harvest Handling (shelling)

Shelling is the process of detaching maize grains from the cobs. According to the respondents, maize
is shelled mostly by beating the cobs with a rod on the ground (71% HH), beating cobs placed in a
sack with rods (8%) or by hand shelling (5%). Slightly over half (54%) of the households reported
shelling problems with 97% of HH experiencing breakages and 43% experiencing blisters. The grain is
cleaned by winnowing (98% of the households). Women are responsible for shelling (71% of the
households) while 24% of the households reported employing workers, 20% involved the whole
family and 10% involved the men. Women complained that this activity causes fatigue and loss of
time.

Storage
Around 85% of the farmers interviewed in the Zambezi Region reported selling grains while 15% do
not sell any grains. This propensity for selling maize, due to high prices offered by the Millers (as
gazetted by the government), is a disincentive for investing in maize storage structures. 45% of the
production is stored as shelled grain (57% HH), as cobs without sheath (32%) or as cobs with sheath
(8%). Maize destined for sale is bagged and disposed of quickly without requiring much storage;
though some households (37%) are willing to sell some of the stored grains in years of good harvest.
The main storage types used are sacks (37% HH), traditional granaries (30%, figure 4a), metal bins or
drums (12%, figure 4b and c), and baskets (3%). The majority (69%) of those who store in bags
21
usually place the bags on raised platforms. The maize grain is stored for more than 6 months by 34%
of the households while 66% store it for less than 6 months. The most common storage place is the
living space (66%, could be easily monitored and as security against theft), outside the house (25%),
and in the kitchen (8%). Storage management is reported as the responsibility of women by most of
the households. There is no discernible gender difference the households having food for long (59%
of the FHH compared to 57% of MHH). Women are responsible for grain treatment (60% HH),
though 22% of the HH reported that it is the work of men and 17% reported that it is done by the
whole family.

4a Raised platform drying and 4b Drying and storage in a cut 4c Storage of cobs in drums
storage bin

4d Metal granary at MAWF office in Katima Mulilo 4e Plastic granary at MAWF office in Katima
Mulilo
Figure 4: Different maize storage containers in Zambezi region

The Agro-Marketing and Trade Agency (AMTA) buys grain from farmers and store them at the
national food storage reserve facility where a grading system (Table 2) is used to classify the maize
according to the maize standards of the Agronomic Industry Act of 1992 (Act 20 of 1992) which is
used as the basis to reject maize that does not meet the standards. The maize is then stored by
AMTA and later sold to the millers for further processing or it is distributed country wide for drought
relief purposes.

Community storage
There are community granaries (warehouses) built in 1998 in three communities (Sangwali,
Chinchimani and Muyako) where farmers from these areas are supposed to store their grains upon
the payment of an administration fee of 0.6% of the value of the grains to be stored. However, there
22
were no more stores built after these and the stores visited in the course of this study were
abandoned (Chinchimani and Muyako) and/or being used for other purposes. It was already
reported in 2002 that the three communities (Muyako, Chinchimani, Sangwali) faced challenges in
the management of the facilities especially on how to operate the storage co-operatives. Despite the
three stores not being used as integrated storage facilities, the cooperatives are still existing and are
very active in the marketing of the grains (but not in the storage). A basic question arises as to
whether farmers and farmers organizations are actually the best managers of grain stores as this is
a specialized business that needs properly trained management.

Bagging and Transportation

The most common (53%) mode of transporting grains from home storage to service millers are
sledges (figure 5) followed by hired vehicle (30%) and tractors (14%). Men/boys are responsible for
transporting these grains, compared to women and the whole family. The maize destined for sale to
the millers and AMTA is usually transported by hired vehicles. They are usually packed in 65 kg bags
(see box 1). Transport hiring can be done individually though many farmers usually combine to hire
vehicles or make use of cooperatives available in their localities.

Sales
Due to the high prices offered for maize in Zambezi region, farmers normally prefer to sell their
maize grains immediately after harvesting and keep the money to buy maize meal from millers after
their stored grains have been consumed. This has resulted in unwillingness to purchase appropriate
storage facilities among the households in this Region. It was found that 85% of the households
interviewed sell about 55% of their shelled maize and most of the maize is sold to private agro-
processing millers (88%), urban and rural vendors (8%), and AMTA (4%). The decision to sell maize is
made by the husband in 31% of the HH, husband and wife (17% of HH), wife (16% of HH) and by
other people in the household (35%). Before storage by AMTA and the private agro-processing
millers, the grains are cleaned, dried (if necessary) and fumigated.

Processing (milling)
There is one large scale miller (Namib Mills) which has since closed operations, 3 medium scale
millers (Kamunu Mills, Nusrias Food Manufacturers, and Ring Mills), all located in Katima Mulilo, and
about 32 service millers located in both rural and urban areas. The small-scale millers offer milling
services to their customers on a daily basis. Small millers use either diesel or electric units with
capacity to mill up to one hundred bags per day.

c) Marketing systems
Marketing of maize normally starts in July and runs up to December each year. Maize marketing in
Namibia is not liberalised like in other countries as maize is a controlled crop, and as such, prices are
fixed by the government (through the NAB) using the SAFEX pricing system from South Africa. Thes
prices are not influenced by forces of demand and supply. The price dictated by the government is
very attractive to the farmers, being almost twice the price for maize in neighbouring provinces in
Zambia, Consequently, the majority of farmers (85%) will reserve almost 55% of their output for
sale. This scenario is different from what transpires with maize marketing in other countries (and in
Namibia with other produce like Mahangu) where small scale farmers only sell grains that are
surplus to consumption and other household needs. The implication of this is that farmers tend to
ensure that the grains to be sold are of high quality as determined by the buyers (mainly the large
and medium scale millers, AMTA and vendors as elaborated in the next section). Though the
producers are not contracted to supply to any miller or national food reserve or traders, they usually
register with the millers beforehand to secure their delivery dates and quotas. Farmers seldom fail in
delivering their allotted quota at the allotted time as they can sell/exchange these (quotas and time)
with other farmers if their grains are not ready or are not enough. One may immediately conclude
23
that the proceeds from maize grain sale will be used to ensure food security in the household by
buying flour when needed, but there are indications that some of these farmers do register for
drought relief food later on in the season. This means that grains are sold to make money when
household food security is not yet satisfied. Despite this market incentive, farmers in the Zambezi
region rarely fulfil the maize grain requirements of the region and the millers have to source for
grains from other countries (mainly Zambia and South Africa) once the government is satisfied that
all the available local maize sources meant for sale have been delivered.

d) The supply chain actors

The supply chain of maize in Zambezi Region is shown in figure 4. Detailed descriptions of the food
supply chain are given in Tables 8 and 9a and b. The farm gate price for maize is estimated at
N$2000/tonne in Zambezi region (Table 9 a & b). The food supply chain in the Zambezi region has
several actors including producers, transporters, grain collectors (urban vendors and traders),
national strategic food reserve, millers and retailers (Tables, 10 & 11).

Producers

As shown in Table 8, there are about 14,700 communal producers in Zambezi region producing
about 13,740 tonnes of maize with estimated share of 55% male and 45% female producers based
on the head of the household. They sell about 55%, of the production and keep the rest for home
consumption (35%), seeds (5%), and long term storage (2%) while about 3% is assumed to be lost in
storage. The quantity marketed varies according to the quantity harvested due to climatic conditions
(drought or flood), household size and household food requirements, as well as to the incidence of
wildlife invasions of the fields. A larger proportion of the maize grain is sold to the large (Namib
Mills) and the 3 medium millers (e.g. Kamunu Mills). Some quantities are also sold to the national
food security reserve (AMTA) and to vendors. Limited sales of maize take place at the farm (home).
The major problems faced by the smallholder producers are high transport costs and inadequate
market information with the main source of information being radio followed by neighbours and
extension services.

24
 Inputs and FSC activities Actors
services
(products)

Farmers
Farming
14700
(maize plant)
Seed,
Fertiliser,
pesticides
labour Farmers
Harvesting 14700
Drying in the field, Cutting,
dehusking, transportation
(maize plant)

qn=5%
Drying Farmers
structure, Drying 14700
fuel temporary storage maize
cob (at the house)
ql= 3% qn = 3%
Farmers
Shelling maize cob
Manual shelling (manual )
14700
& bagging (marketed & household) hh=45%

s=48.4% s=2.2% qn=1%

qn=1% s=2.75% ql=21%
Storage, seed, Farmers
Collection s=1.65%
consumption (maize 14700
point (ADC) qn=0.25% grain)
qn=0.25%
cleaning & qn=0.25%
grading

qn=0.25%
Transportation
Sales Sales Sales Sales
market facilities
(maize grain) (maize (maize grain) (maize grain) Farmers/ village
Millers (large, grain) rural Urban traders traders 14700
medium) AMTA households (ventors)

qn=3%

Storage (AMTA) home consumption stored seed

Storage (Millers)
(National Strategic (34%) long term (5%),
(temporary)
reserve) storage (3%)

qn=0.5%
Millers ( large
Milling Milling Milling(service & Service (1), medium
Milling
(maize (maize grain) traditional)(maize grain) millers and (3), service
services
grain) traditional (32),
milling traditional)

Retail Office of the

(flour) Prime minister Open market Household supermarkets,
supermarkets (drought relief (flour) open markets
and shops programme

qn=quantitative, ql=qualitative, s=sales, hh=household consumption, seeds and losses

Figure 4: Maize supply chain

25
Table 9: Detailed description of the supply chain: Zambezi

9a. FSC stage Farmer to medium scale millers

Input costs Cost of Value of Value-
FSC stage (Large & medium Energy
production products added/Margins
millers) Source
N$/kg N$/kg N$/kg Gender/social pattern
Labour, Men do most of the ploughing,
manure, while women and boys do the
Primary production seeds, remainder. Women do most of
extension the planting and weeding
services assisted by the children.
Family labour Men are involved up to 10%
Harvest (drying, dehusking
while women do about 70%-
and cutting) Human
1.2 2.0 0.80 90%
power
Family labour Men only do up to 10% while
Post-harvest Handling
women do over 90% of the
(shelling)
shelling
Family labour Men are responsible for about
20% of storage activity while
Storage (household)
women are involved in storage
activity over 60% of the time
Men transport about 60% of
Transportation (N$75/65kg) 1.15 4.2 1.85 Fuel the time while women only
transport over 20%
Processing (milling) Electricity Milling machines operated by
1 6.4 1.2 workers (men or women)
(N$0.5/kg) /fuel
Wholesale/Retail 7.8 1.4 Workers - M (30%), F (70%)

9b. FSC stage Farmer to vendors

Input costs Cost of Value of Value- Gender/social pattern
Energy
FSC stage (vendors) production products added/Margins
Source
N$/kg N$/kg N$/kg
Labour, Men do most of the ploughing,
manure, while women and boys do the
Primary production seeds, remainder. Women do most of
extension the planting and weeding
services assisted by the children.
Labour Men are involved up to 10%
Harvest (drying, dehusking
while women do about 70%-
and cutting) Human
1.2 2.0 0.8 90%
power
Labour Men only do up to 10% while
Post-harvest Handling
women do over 90% of the
(shelling)
shelling
Family Men are responsible for about
labour 20% of storage activity while
Storage
women are involved in storage
activity over 60% of the time
Men transport about 60% of the
Transportation (N$95/65kg) 1.45 5.4 2.75 Fuel time while women only
transport over 20%
Market sale of grain Labour 16.2 10.8 Women
Labour Traditional processing
Processing (pounding) of flour 30.0 24.6 Human (pounding) is done by women
power vendors
Labour Traditional processing
Processing (pounding) of
(pounding) is done by women
samp
vendors

26
Vendors

Vendors buy maize grain from the farmers directly at the open market for resell at the open markets
in Katima Mulilo (Table 8b). They often do not handle large quantities of maize as they buy between
one to ten 65kg bags of maize. They do not have any organized structures for buying and they use
public transport which costs between N$50 N$70 per 65kg bag to transport grains if they have to
buy at the farm gate. Their main source of information is from fellow traders and long standing
relationships with producers. The vendors do not experience much loss in terms of quantity and
quality of maize products. The loss is minimal to insignificant (0.5% or about 2.4 tonnes) as they do
not hold stock for long and only buy good quality maize (Table 8).

BOX 1
A typical vendor is Ms Simasiku of the Katima Mulilo open market. She is a middle aged woman
who sells several grain products (maize grain, maize flour, samp, pearl millet, sorghum, etc.). She
also sells beans, dried leafy vegetables, dried fish etc. She started selling in 2001 with her mother
but has since taken over the business on her own. Farmers bring her grains from Sikubi (near
Mafwe) which she buys at N$350/65kg bag (N$5.38/kg or N$5380/ton). She buys and sells about
10 (65kg) bags of maize grain in a month. She sells nine of the bags as grains (and samp). She
does not use standardized packaging but rather sells in tins of different sizes (Figure 5) (i.e. she
sells by volume and not by weight). She gets 35 tins of grains from one (65kg) bag and sells each
tin for N$30 (N$1050/65kg bag = $16.15 /kg or over N$16,000 /ton). She uses the traditional
method to pound and sift 1 bag of grain to make flour for sale. She prefers to use the traditional
method of making flour to maximize her gains and because she believes her regular customers
prefer flour made this way. She sells a pouch of maize flour for N$10 and she gets about over
200 pouches from a bag of grain (N$2000/65kg bag = N$30,000/ton). Both men and women
patronise her and they usually buy for home consumption though some also buy grains as seed
for planting. She grades the grains quality visually. If the quality is not good, she will buy at a
discount and also sell at a discount. Her major problem is not having enough stock to sell this
year because of poor harvest.

Figure 5: Maize products on display at Ms Simasikus stall at Katima Mulilo open market
Transporters

The number of transporters is unknown in the Zambezi region, however, smallholder producers use
transport sourced from organized farmers groups, or cooperatives, hired from private individuals,
public transport or with their own transport when they have vehicles. Public transport costs
between N$50 N$100/65kg bag (average of about N$75/65kg) depending on the distance from the
farm to Katima Mulilo. There is about a 20% discount when transport is arranged in groups

27
especially through cooperatives. The arrangement of transport, either through farmer groups or
cooperatives, has no direct effect on quality or quantity loss as the actual loss depends on type of
transport used which is on average about 1% quantity loss while quality loss is insignificant.

Small scale processors (service millers)

There are 32 service millers in the Zambezi Region. However, they do not buy maize from farmers
but rather mill grains brought by farmers for household consumption. They are owned by private
individuals who are not organized in any structure. When they mill, despite not following the
regulatory standards, they encourage clients to bring maize grain cleaned and free from foreign
matter like stones, sticks etc.

BOX 2
Mangena Mills in Masokotwane, managed by Ms Thandy Chika, is a typical service mill in the
Zambezi region. Equipped with a Drotsky M16 hammer mill, it can handle up to 300 bags per
day though it seldom mills more than 190 bags at its peak. They get customers throughout the
year from within 10 km of their location but the busiest months are April/May and July. The
grains are weighed on arrival and they charge N$1 for each kilogramme of grain milled. Grains
are visually checked for quality and they will not mill grains with stones and impurities. They
dont sell flour and they estimated that about 0.5 kg of flour is lost in the machine from 1 bag
of maize. The milling machine was bought in 2007/2008 and it is still running well without
many problems.

Medium scale millers

The three medium scale millers (Kamunu Mills, Nusrias Food Manufacturers, and Ring Mills) buy
maize from farmers who bring their grain to the milling facilities where they are classified according
to the maize standards of the Agronomic Industry Act of 1992 (Act 20 of 1992) which is used as the
basis to reject maize grain that does not meet the standards (Table 8a). Information from the millers
shows that 90% of the farmers bring Grade 1 maize. The remaining grains are usually within
acceptable grades but farmers receive less for them.

28
BOX 3
A typical medium scale miller is Kamunu Mills. According to the Manager, Mr Suhail, Kamunu
Mills buys grains from farmers using a system of registering the producers ahead of the supply
period. Announcements are made through the local radio stations every year around March
for producers to register for maize delivery. This system of registration helps in the logistics of
grain handling as Kamunu Mills can only handle from 500-800 bags (65kg) every day. It is not
uncommon though for farmers to sell their slots to other producers if they do not meet
requirements (quantity and quality wise). The maize buying season starts in May and usually
ends in September. He considers the SAFEX price of N$4200/ton (October 2015) that they pay
to the farmers as a major incentive for them to prefer selling most of their grains since the
price across the border in Zambia is +N$2,000 (October, 2015) without transport. He indicated
that most of the farmers (+90%) brings in high quality grains (WM1), though he complained
that the grain sizes are smaller than grains from Zambia. Any grain that is rejected by millers is
kept by the farmer for consumption purposes. However, grains supplied later in the year
(September to October) usually show some level of deterioration due to insects infestation
(mainly weevil). From August onwards, they routinely fumigate the grains and cover them for
5 days before storage. Most of those selling to them (50%) are old women followed by young
women (20%) with old and young men being just at 15% each. He, however, indicated that the
older men tend to deliver larger volumes of grains at once. Kamunu Mills owns roller mills that
produce sifted mill for which he estimated a 15% reduction in the milling process (extraction of
grains to flour). He believes that this reduction is about 20% with the small grains supplied by
Zambezi farmers. They have temporary storage facilities and have branded products that are
packaged in different sizes and sold in their own store or at other retail outlets. They bought
over 6,000 tonnes of grains locally in 2014 and supplemented this with about 4,000 tonnes of
import. However, at the time of the interview in October 2015, they had only been able to
source 500 tonnes locally and had already imported nearly 3,000 tonnes from Zambia and
South Africa.
According to the Maize Standards, maize grains are supposed to be marketed in 50 kg bags but
each bag delivered by the farmers is usually about 65 kg. He claimed that the farmers do not
understand weight and to them, a bag is a bag. Moreover, they are charged for transporting
the grains from their village per bag, so the bigger they pack a bag, the lower their total
transport cost. By law, the millers are required to sell 50 kg bags (packaging) to the farmers for
which they are reimbursed with 60% of the cost once the grains have been delivered.
However, the bags that are returned are so stretched (because they are over filled) that they
are useless. Moreover, the Chinese shops have taken advantage of this by selling bigger bags
that accommodate the farmers preference of 65 kg bags. He did not report any direct losses
in the storage or transportation of their flour.

29
BOX 4
Namib Mills
Namib Mills opened a mill in Katima Mulilo in 2002 to tap into the large amount of maize
produced in the Zambezi Region. The mill operated as a milling facility as well as a depot and
used to employ 18 staff members until late September 2015 when it closed the milling service
but continues to operate the depot with 3 staff members. When it was operational, the mill
generated 2.5 tonnes of maize per hour. The decision to close the mill is due to the significant
drop in production at the Katima Mulilo Mill. Production dropped from 5,017 tonnes in 2013
to 1,460 tonnes in 2014 and then to only 343 tonnes in 2015 due to drought. Moreover, the
Katima Mulilo mill is only capable of producing special sifted and unsifted maize meal whereas
the maize meal market of Namib Mills in the Zambezi Region consists of 89% super maize meal
and only 11% of special and unsifted maize meal (Smit, 2015).

Namib Mills also use a process similar to that described for Kamunu Mills to register
prospective farmers for delivering their grains. Farmers deliver an average of 20-25 bags while
they keep on average a similar quantity (20-30bags) for home consumption. Namib Mills uses
the grading system as published in the government gazette to establish the farmers grains
quality. It is found that maize from the Zambezi farmers are always good grades (no broken
grains, little problem of pollutants) and they are clean because they are manually harvested
and processed. Namib Mills pay the same price for maize of up to 14% moisture content as for
maize at 12.5% (the gazetted moisture content for marketing grains). When the moisture
content is higher than 14%, the grains are dried on Namib Mills premises, turning the bags
every day for 2 weeks. When the grain has been bought from the farmer and taken in for
further drying, there is no price implication as the price remains the same. They do this so that
the farmers will not have to transport their grains back home, thereby experiencing triple
transport cost. Namib Mills fumigate all maize bags with phosphine tablets without sampling
as the 10kg samples required by law is considered too much to take from small scale
producers. They start receiving maize at the end of May, with a peak in June/July until the end
of September when the local sources dry up. Despite the milling operation being stopped,
Namib Mills Katima Mulilo continues to support the Zambezi regions smallholder farmers by
purchasing maize grain from them for processing in their Otavi mill (about 850 km from Katima
Mulilo) at door prices, to avoid disadvantaging the local producers. Thus, Namib Mills will
transport the maize received from these local farmers free of charge.

The gender ratio of the producers selling to Namib Mills is said to be 50:50. An interesting
comment made was that a producer bringing 20 bags does not necessarily own all the proceed
from the sale as some bags are for family members, e.g. 2 bags for the son, 1 bag for the
daughter in-law, etc. as these are compensation for work done. The major problem faced by
the Mill apart from reduced delivery of the grains is that of illegal maize marketed from
Zambia by other millers who buy this illegal maize at negotiated price lower than government
fixed price thereby selling flour at prices lower than Namib Mills. Another problem is that the
machine at Namib Mills cannot make the high quality maize mills required by the urban
dwellers who buy flour at retail shops. The cheap meals are not eaten by middle/upper class
people.

30
Retailers

Food retailing consists of both formal and informal retailers. The formal sector is dominated by
South African retail outlets but Namibian outlets are also very active. The retailers normally buy the
processed maize meal from the millers and in turn sell to the consumers.

31
Table 10: Output ii-4: Detailed Description of the Food Supply Chain Social Structures

Involvement of
Involvement of Men
Women
Organization Gender / social patterns
Who is mainly involved:
level of FSC Observations and remarks that explain the chosen
FSC STEPS Adult Adult women, men, children
Girls Boys actors1 qualifiers and/or give additional information
women men

Qualifier2 Qualifier Qualifier Qualifier

Ploughing is mainly done by
Men do most of the ploughing, while women and boys do the
Primary men, while planting ,and
2 3 2 3 Household level remainder. Women do most of the planting and weeding
production weeding is mainly done by the
assisted by the children.
women, girls and boys
Mainly women do the
Harvest 2 3 2 1 harvesting together with girls Household level Men are involved up to 10% while women do about 70%-90%
and boys

Post-harvest, Handling is mostly done by Men only do up to 10% while women do over 90% of the
3 1 Household level
handling women shelling

Storage is mainly done by

Men are responsible for about 20% of storage activity while
Storage 3 1 women and to a lesser extend Household level
women are involved in storage activity over 60% of the time
by men

Transportatio Individual/cooper Men transport over 60% of the time while women only
1 3 Mainly done by men
n ative transport over 20%

Market sales 3 Mostly done by women Household level Mostly done by women

Agro- Household/indivi Traditionally done by women, mechanically (workers 50-50

3 2 Mostly done by women
processing dual men to women)

Storage 1 3 Mostly men Mostly male workers

1
Options: Individual/Household level/Cooperative
2
Qualify the equipment, conditions, access to services and training: 4: excellent, 3: good, 2: moderately good, 1: bad.

32
Transportatio
3 men Mostly done by male workers
n
Wholesale 3 men Mostly done by male workers

Retail 3 3 Both men and women Both male and female workers

Table 11: Output Ii-5: Detailed Description of the Food Supply Chain Economics

FSC stage (Large & medium millers)

Main Cost of Value of Value-

Products production products added/Margins
USD/kg USD/kg USD/kg Remarks
Grain Standing crop with cobs ready
Primary production for harvesting

Harvest (drying, dehusking Grain Cobs

and cutting) 0.09 0.15 0.06
Post-harvest Handling Grain Grain after shelling
(shelling)
Grain Storage of grain mostly in bags
Storage (household)
and cobs in granary
Grain Grain
Transportation (N$75/65kg) 0.09 0.32 0.14

Processing (milling) Flour Milling at small or medium

0.08 0.49 0.09 millers
(N$0.5/kg)
Flour Flour sold by millers to
Wholesale/Retail 0.6 0.11
consumers
FSC stage (vendors)
Grain Standing crop with cobs ready
for harvesting
Primary production
0.09 0.15 0.06

Harvest (drying, dehusking Grain Cobs

and cutting)
33
Post-harvest Handling Grain Grain after shelling
(shelling)
Grain Storage of grain mostly in bags
Storage and cobs in granary

Grain Grain
Transportation (N$95/65kg) 0.11 0.42 0.21

Market sale of grain Grain 1.25 0.83 Grain sold to vendors

Processing (pounding) of Flour Pounding flour traditionally or
2.31 1.89
flour mechanically
Processing (pounding) of Flour Pounding traditionally
samp

34
3 The Food losses Study findings and results
a) Food Loss risk variables along the Maize SC chain
Table 12: OUTPUT II-1: FOOD LOSS RISK FACTORS

Relation to food losses: Result (observed in Zambezi

Variable Unit
contribution to low losses region)
Crop variety/maize Least resistant to postharvest
name Resistant variety
Pannar loss
Good Agricultural
Y/N Yes Yes (Not much practiced)
Practices
Rainfall during
mm Optimum range 700mm (Range 600 800mm)
production
Production
ratio <1 0.4
supply/demand ratio
Rainfall during
mm Low rainfall <50 (low)
postharvest phase
Postharvest technology L/M/H High Low
FBOs / Coops Y/N Yes Yes
Processing technology L/M/H High Moderate
Good Manufacturing
Y/N Yes Moderate
practices (GMP)
Packaging materials and
L/M/H High High
facilities
Transport duration hour Low duration + 2 hours
Market information L/M/H High High
Price incentive for
Y/N Yes Yes
quality
Knowledge of FSC actors L/M/H High High
Consumer access to food
L/M/H High High
product
Legend: Y/N = yes / no; L/M/H = low / medium / high

b) Description of the losses along the maize supply chain

Harvesting: Drying in the field
Wild animals cause considerable damage to crops in Zambezi because many farmers have land
within the migration corridors of the wildlife. The possibility of damage to crops by elephants, hippos
and other wildlife including baboons discourages farmers from increasing crop production in parts of
the Region. Around 10% farmers who are unfortunate to experience wildlife damage stand to lose
from 50-100% of their production!

Apart from wild animals, the greatest loss by far, estimated at 5%, was caused by delayed harvesting
while farmers are waiting for the crops to dry in the field, with the following major causes reported
by households: domestic animals (55% of the HH), termites (48%), wild animals (45%), rodents
(39%), poor weather (rain -29%), lack of labour (11%), and lack of money (to hire labour, 8%).
Though only 11 % of HH cited labour as a direct cause of drying losses, most of the households

35
opined that extended period of harvesting as a result of labour shortage leads to food loss as the
maize are exposed to attacks by the loss agents for longer periods.

Transport to drying place:

It is estimated that about 5% of the harvested grains (618 tonnes) is lost in these stages constituting
the broad harvesting processes from drying in the field to dehusking and cutting and finally to
transportation to the drying place.

Post-harvest Handling (drying)

The major causes of grain loss at drying are reported to be termites (58%), domestic animals (54%),
rodents (41%), wild animals (24%), and overdrying (17%). It is estimated that 3% of the maize (352.4
tonnes) is lost in this process. The most common methods used to check whether maize is dried
enough are visual checking of the colour of cobs (48% HH), the ease with which cobs can be twisted
(30%) and listening to the sound of cobs when shaken in a container (2%).

Post-harvest Handling (shelling)

The major causes of grain loss at shelling are breakages (48% HH), termites (27%), weather (23%)
and domestic animals (21%). It is estimated that a 1% (114 tonnes) quantitative loss is suffered
during maize shelling while the qualitative loss may be up to 5% mainly due to broken grains.

Storage
The main causes of stored maize loss were given as: weevils (82% of HH), termites (73%), moths
(37%), fungi (26%), flour beetle (24%), rodents (22%), and theft (5%). The majority of the households
(86%) do not apply anything to protect the maize in store with only 14% protecting their maize.
Moth attacks are reported to be highest in August, while flour beetles, termites and rodents attack
mostly in September. Though the quantitative storage losses in the households vary from 1-5% of
the grains depending on how long the grains are stored for, these different losses are aggregated as
3% or about 338 tonnes. Of importance, however, are the very high qualitative losses noticed in
stored grains, which can range from 25-40% (Table 6a,b). While farmers seem less concerned about
these since they store mainly for their own consumption, the experts are worried about the health
consequences of eating low quality grains since qualitative losses are usually correlated with
nutritional losses (reduction in nutritional value).

Bagging and Transportation

The losses from bagging are estimated at 0.5% and for transportation at 1% of maize destined for
sale (about 93 tonnes in total).

Figure 5: Use of ox-drawn sledge to transport grains and grain products (flour)
Sales
Losses experienced by the agro-processing millers are estimated at 0.25%, AMTA at 5% (about 13
tonnes) and the vendors at 0.5% (about 2.6 tonnes) (Table 8).
36
Processing (milling)
The small-scale millers estimated their average loss as 0.5% (2.4 tonnes) and the medium millers at
0.25% (13.4 tonnes).

c) Critical loss points

The major losses in the maize food supply chain in the Zambezi Region are rooted in the lack of
sound postharvest management practices among the farmers. Though farmers are found to be
generally aware of these losses and their causes, they seem not to be concerned about them and
would rather prefer discussing production problems and losses. The study found that the critical loss
points in the communal maize food supply chain were harvesting (drying in the field, cutting and
dehusking), drying at farm (house), shelling and storage stages (Tables 13 and 14).

Prolonged pre-harvest field drying ensures good preservation but also increases the risk of loss due
to attacks by pests (birds, rodents, and insects), moulds and theft. However, harvesting before
maturity brings the risk of loss through mould development leading to grain decay. The time needed
to fully dry maize grains depends considerably on weather and atmospheric conditions. Lengthy
drying in the types of structures used for drying maize in Zambezi expose the harvests to wandering
livestock and pillaging by birds, rodents or small ruminants. Apart from the actual wastage (3-5%
quantitative loss), the droppings left by these pests also result in qualitative losses. On the converse,
if grain is not dry enough, it becomes vulnerable to mould and can rot during storage. Meanwhile,
over-drying the grain makes it brittle, thereby making it susceptible to cracking during shelling or
milling, thus causing increased losses.

The causes of losses at drying in the field stage were domestic animals, termites, wild animals,
rodents, weather (rain), lack of labour and lack of money. Further, at drying at the farm (house), the
major causes of food loss were termites, domestic animals, rodents, wild animals, weather (rain),
and over drying. During the shelling stage, the major causes of loss were breakages, termites,
weather (rain), and domestic animals. During winnowing, broken grain may be removed with the
husks and is also more susceptible to certain insects (e.g. flour beetles and weevils). Lastly, over-
dried grain means a loss of weight and hence a loss of money at the time of sale. The majority of
households interviewed shelled maize by beating the cobs with sticks on the ground and this results
in a high percentage of broken grains and reduced quality (up to 5% loss in quality). At storage stage,
the major causes of food loss were weevils, termites, moths, fungi, flour beetle, rodents, and thefts.

Interventions suggested for reducing losses in the maize sector include developing a National
Postharvest Management Strategy and Implementation Plan, piloting and providing appropriate
post-harvest technologies (Dryers/ Shellers), improve storage capacity and quality, and carrying out
Research on Improved varieties and integrated pest management.

The fact that farmers sell more than half of their production soon after harvest and only store maize
for home usage means that they rarely pay serious attention to good storage hygiene practices or
invest in improved storage structures. Inappropriate insect pest and rodent-free storage facilities
and technologies result in not just high quantitative losses (up to 5%) but also in very high qualitative
losses (25-40%).

d) Low loss Points

The low loss points in the Zambezi region include market storage, milling, be it carried out in house
or by service millers, and at retailing stage. This could be due to good handling at these stages as
well as good manufacturing practices at the processing stage while low loss at retailing could be due
to business orientation of actors who actively invest in loss reduction. Vendors also experience low
maize grain loss for the same reason.
37
Table 13: Summary result matrix of food losses

FSC stage/process Type of loss in Cause of loss/Reason Reduced CLP/ Impact/ Stakeholders Perception of stakeholders Suggested solutions
the FSC (%) for low loss market LLP affected (men/women) (men/women)
Quantit Qualit value
ative ative (%)
Harvesting: drying Extrem QN- Wild animals, CLP Reduced farm output thus Compensation from MET is Change farmers perception and attitude
in the field e: 75% n/a Wind, rain less food -whole family low (N$800/ha) (Training, Awareness creation) to good
Harvesting: Normal QN - Termites, CLP Delayed harvesting Laborious and time post-harvest practices such as timely
dehusking & cutting : 5% n/a rodents, domestic probably due to lack of consuming for women harvesting, proper handling etc.). Place
Harvesting: n.s. animals, Falling cobs labour with only women Farmers are unaware of emphasis on training women.
Transport to drying LLP doing most of the Crop breeding for improved varieties
QL- rain spoilage quantity and value of
place harvesting until school losses (improved storability)
holidays National Policy for food loss reduction
Drying at the farm 3% n/a QN - chickens eating CLP Animal scaring is time Much effort by women to Promote use of cribs and raised platforms
(house) grain consuming on women and ensure proper drying Post-harvest research solar dryers,
QL Over drying 5% children Pilot and introduce solar dryers
Shelling 1% 5% QN - cracked grain, CLP Labour intensive and time Hand shelling by women Post-harvest research - maize sheller,
lost to the soil consuming for women. are effective in producing Pilot and introduce maize shellers
QL -broken grain 0 5% clean and quality grains
Storage on farm 1% 10% QN - weevils, CLP Not time consuming done Poor storage in Post-harvest research storage
(July-Sep) rodents, chickens, 10% by both men and women inappropriate structures Pilot and introduce different storage
Storage on farm 2% 20% termites, beetles CLP and poor sanitation in facilities (GrainPro/PICS bags, Metal/Plastic
(Sep. Oct.) QL Insect frass, 20% stores silos, Community storage, cocoons)
storage on farm 5% 25- rodents droppings, CLP Improve/expand Warehouse system
(Nov -Dec) 40% mould, fungi 40-100% post-harvest research - integrated pest
management
Bagging 1.5% n.s QN - spillage due to LLP time consuming done Use of bigger bags and Training in use of standardised bags (50kg),
over reuse of bags mainly by women reuse of bags saves on proper handling and sealing of bags and
cost proper market strategies
Transport to n.s n.s QN - spillage due to LLP Costly to hire transport. Overfilling of bags reduces proper handling of bags, better transport
market/miller overstretched bags bag and transport cost logistics, improved marketing strategy

Market storage n.s. n.s QN - spillage LLP Proper handling by millers Proper handling by millers and vendors
and vendors
traditional flour n.s. n.s QN - Spillage LLP Labour intensive/time Training and awareness in good processing
processing consuming for women practices
Milling service 0.5% n/a QN - Spillage LLP proper handling and proper handling and Continue with proper handling and
millers manufacturing practices manufacturing practices manufacturing practices
Market/retail n.s n.s QN - spillage LLP proper handling proper handling proper handling

+
n.s. means not significant

38
Table 14: Summary table of food losses, causes and solutions

Magnitude Economic Social Food security Environmental

Critical Loss of losses in Intervention to reduce losses implications implications implications implications
Point the FSC Cause of loss Loss reduction per year
% Intervention Actors Responsible
Cross Lack of Awareness raising, Farmers, MAWF More Improved Increased Not likely to be
Cutting understanding capacity building vendors, millers, FAO (training surplus to understandi food any
(Affect all and/or (training in good PH NGOs, and advocacy sell/and ng of post- availability
loss points) appreciation of practices; business Development as well as more harvest
post-harvest and marketing skills) agencies, awareness income issues
losses and organization. PH Specialists, materials Availability especially in
Develop a National Farmers, of income to relation to
Postharvest vendors Millers, Ministries of purchase marketing
Management Strategy academics Agric. FAO to food
and Implementation NGOs, support
Plan Parastatals
QN 75 wild animals, 1. Timely harvesting Farmers, 1. Farmers, More Improved Increased Not likely to be
Harvesting: 2. Promote use of 2. Farmers MAWF surplus to skills food any
drying in QN 5 wild/domestic cribs and raised NGOs, 2. Farmers, sell/and More time availability Concerns
the field, animals, platforms Development MAWF, NGOs more available to about
dehusking termites, 3. Crop breeding for agencies 3. Farmers, income women biodiversity
& cutting rodents, poor improved varieties 3. Farmers MAWF, Availability
weather, lack of (lodging, improved Researchers, International of income to
labour and storability) and Agencies, purchase
money food
Drying at QN 3 Termites, 1.Marketing and 1. Local 1. Farmers, Better Improved Increased Not likely to be
the farm domestic financing of financing Farmers quality grain skills food any
(house) animals, appropriate institutions, union, Ministry gives higher availability
rodents, wild technologies farmers, of Finance, prices
animals, and 2.Mechanisation of PH traders, MAWF
QN 1 overdrying. operations for small Vendors, NGOs 2. Private Increased Reduced
Post- QL 5 grains e.g. solar 2. Artisans, sectors with costs to labour and
harvest drying, and Shellers Farmers, governments producers time for
(shelling) (hand/pedal; tractor Traders, facilitation; women
pto, diesel powered) researchers, rural
development development
agencies, centres,
farmers union

39
 Magnitude Economic Social Food security Environmental
Critical Loss of losses in Intervention to reduce losses implications implications implications implications
Point the FSC Cause of loss Loss reduction per year
% Intervention Actors Responsible
Storage on QN 1 Storage insect 1. Expand grain Farmers union, MoF, MAWF
farm (July- QL 10 pests (especially market for farmers farmers coop,
Fear of
Sept) weevils and 2. Pilot & provide farmers, MAWF, Cost of
poisoning If not handled
Storage on QN 3 flour beetle), storage facilities vendors, millers, Artisans and technologies
through properly
farm (Sep - QL 20 termites, moths, (GrainPro/PICS bags, AMTA, local are high but
misuse of Increased chemicals
Oct) fungi, rodents Metal/Plastic silos, NGOs, manufacturers, incomes will
chemicals as quantity and might affect
storage on QN 5 and theft. Community storage, Parastatals Financial increase as
it is quality of other
farm (Nov QL 20-40 cocoons) Institutions there will be
dangerous if food unintended
to Dec) Insect frass, 3. Integrated pest less quantity
handled by animals and
rodents management PH specialists, MAWF and quality
untrained plants
contamination, loss
people
fungi & long
time storage

40
e) Food loss reduction plan and strategy
There is a general lack of awareness among many actors (especially farmers) in the Zambezi region
maize supply chain about the severity of the food loss in the chain coupled with the perception
among both buyers and farmers that the loss is part of the cost of doing business. Therefore,
interventions should encompass ways that lead to small changes in behaviour among these key
actors and thus improve the system leading to reduction in food losses (Table 12). The following
proposed intervention strategies were prepared in consultation with the stakeholders in the
agriculture industry value chain and the government through the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and
Forestry.

Intervention strategies on maize postharvest loss

The major problem facing post-harvest management in Namibia had been the lack of a Division
within MAWF solely responsible for post-harvest training and management (including services) for
small-scale producers. The latest restructuring of the Ministry has however led to the creation of a
Post-Harvest Unit within the Crop Production Division of the Ministry. Hitherto, most of the efforts
of the Ministry are directed to increasing production with many laudable programmes such as RCPP,
Conservation Agriculture programme, Green Schemes etc. This in turn has led to the farmers (and
Extension Officers) being more focussed on production issues and being largely unaware or ignorant
of several postharvest issues. There is little doubt that these production incentives are being
constrained by post-harvest factors. The first intervention, therefore, will be to recruit human
resources for the Post-Harvest Unit recently created within the Crop Production Division of MAWF
(To be funded from budgetary allocations to MAWF). The other interventions proposed are as
follows:

Develop a National Postharvest Management Strategy and Implementation Plan

One of the immediate interventions should be the development of a National Postharvest

Management Strategy and Implementation Plan that would drive the food loss reduction at the
communal level thereby improving the market possibilities of this sector. The strategy should
include: Advocacy, Awareness Creation, Capacity building (training of Trainers -Government and
private Extension Officers, Lead Farmers, Farmers and other actors in the supply chain), and
mainstreaming of postharvest issues in schools and training institutes curricula. The budgets for
these interventions are shown in Tables 15 and 16 and the cost benefit analysis is shown in Table 17.
The actors involved are the post-harvest experts, farmers, vendors, millers, academics, NGOs and
parastatals. The responsible institution could be the newly created Post harvest Unit of MAWF with
FAO providing support in awareness creation and training.

Table 15: Develop national postharvest management strategy and implementation plan

Inputs Required Associated cost Total Cost of

items/person USD intervention per
year USD
Setting up office and logistics (post-harvest unit) 100 000
(To be funded from budgetary allocations to
MAWF)
Awareness campaigns on postharvest technologies 40 000
in the 3 regions
Grand total 140 000

41
Table 16: Budget for Training of farmers on good postharvest management (e.g. timeous operations,
promotion of shellers, crop varieties, mechanisation of activities)

Inputs Required Associated cost Total Cost of

items/person intervention per year
USD USD
Training of Agricultural Extension officers (Duration 5 days)
Transport of officers to central training place (35) 138 4 846
Accommodation 5 days 308 10 769
Per diem (S&T) 154 5 385
Stationery 2.3 81
Venue costs and food 5 days 165 5 769
Subtotal 767 26 850
Training of Agricultural extension Technicians (35)
Transport of officers to central training place (35) 139 4 846
Accommodation 5 days 308 10 769
Perdiem (S&T) 154 5 385
Stationery 2.3 81
Venue costs and food 5 days 165 5 769
Field visits to the interventions e.g. Improved storage
88 3 077
granaries, etc.
Subtotal 855 29 927
Training of the farmers by Agricultural extension technicians (35 technicians)
Transport of agricultural extension technicians 519 18 173
Stationery 4. 154
Daily Allowance for 20 days 615 21 538
Subtotal 1 139 39 865
Stakeholder postharvest awareness campaigns
Transport of participants to central training place (50) 194 9 692
Accommodation 5 days 308 15 385
Daily allowance 154 7 692
Stationery 3 154
Venue costs and food 154 7 692
Subtotal 812 40 615
Grand total 137 258

42
Table 17: Cost Benefit Analysis for development of National Postharvest Management Strategy and
Implementation Plan and recruitment including logistical arrangements

Item Value unit Calculation

a Product quantity 13 740 ton/year 1.7* .55* 14 700 (total
production comprising
marketed and home
consumption) census,
2011
b Product value 4 200 N$/ton SAFEX maize price/ton
(NAB, 2015)
c Loss rate 10 % Average loss FSC
d Anticipated loss reduction 20 % CLP average
e Cost of intervention N$ 2.1 million N$
f Depreciation 5 years
g Yearly costs of investment N$413 000 N$/year e/f
h Yearly costs of operation N$50 000 N$/year Administration
i Total yearly costs of solution N$463 000 N$/year g+h
j Client costs per ton product N$33.70 N$/ton i/a
k Food loss 1 374 ton/year cxa
l Economic loss N$ 5.8 million N$/year kxb
m Loss reduction 274.8 ton/year kxd
n Loss reduction savings N$1.15 N$/year mxb
million
o Total Client costs N$463000 $/year i=axj
p Profitability of solution N$0.7 million $/year n-o

Pilot and provide appropriate post-harvest technologies (Dryers/ Shellers)

Post-harvest technology is essential in reducing post-harvest losses during on and off farm activities.
It is, therefore, important to develop affordable and appropriate technologies and techniques to
reduce post-harvest losses that meet the needs of the smallholder farmers. Due to variations in the
socio-economic situations, agronomic conditions and some other variables, a one-size-fits-all
solution cannot be proffered. It is assumed that technologies/innovations at different stages of the
value chain are basically for primary processing, value addition, low-cost storage facilities and
transportation. It is, therefore, important to identify existing technologies/innovations being used by
farmers and other value chain actors to reduce losses.

Using proper post-harvest management and appropriate handling facilities are the key to minimizing
losses along the post-production chain before suitable storage facilities. Solar dryers, such as the
Solar Bubble Dryers (SBD), can be used to dry the grains in situ so that they are transported directly
to the storage bags or granaries quicker. There will be a need to partner with the private sector to
enhance innovations that are beneficial to smallholder farmers. There is a need to introduce suitable
alternatives to the traditional methods of shelling and cleaning among small-scale farmers using
maize shellers such as: a hand-driven one, a pedal driven or a bicycle maize one or a diesel powered
one. These technologies will be tested and piloted among some farmers (budget in Table 18 and the
cost benefit analysis in Table 19) before the most appropriate ones are rolled out to the farmers
(Budget in Table 20 and the cost benefit analysis in Table 21).
43
Table 18: Budget for Piloting mechanisation of PH operations (shellers, dryers)

Inputs Required Associated cost Total Cost of

items/person USD intervention per
year USD
Pilot use of shellers and dryers to 5 farmers in each 8400 126 000
region (3)
Training component (on proper use of equipment) 58 825
Grand total 184 825
Training of farmers and extension officers will carried out by consultants

Table 19: Cost Benefit Analysis for Piloting mechanisation of operations (shellers, dryers)

Item Value unit Calculation

a Product quantity 13 740 ton/year 1.7* .55* 14 700 (total
production comprising marketed
and home consumption) census,
2011
b Product value 4 200 N$/ton SAFEX maize price/ton (NAB,
2015)
c Loss rate 10 % Cumulative loss FSC
d Anticipated loss reduction 20 % CLP average
e Cost of intervention N$ 2.4 million N$

f Depreciation 5 years
g Yearly costs of investment N$481 000 N$/year e/f
h Yearly costs of operation N$50 000 N$/year Administration
i Total yearly costs of solution N$531 000 N$/year g+h
j Client costs per ton product N$38.60 N$/ton i/a
k Food loss 1 374 ton/year cxa
l Economic loss N$ 5.8 million N$/year kxb
m Loss reduction 274.8 ton/year kxd
n Loss reduction savings N$1.15 N$/year mxb
million
o Total Client costs N$531 000 $/year i=axj
p Profitability of solution N$0.62 $/year n-o
million

Table 20: Budget for Marketing and financing of appropriate technology manufacturing (shellers, dryers)

Inputs Required Associated cost Total Cost of

items/person USD intervention per
year USD
Subsidy to RDCs to manufacture equipment for 20 000
piloting
Upscaling of manufacturing of appropriate 500 000
technology subsidy to equipment manufacturers to
44
 reduce selling price

Grand total 520 000

Subsidy will be provided to manufacturers to produce the equipment and reduce the cost of
manufacturing

Table 21: Cost Benefit Analysis for marketing and financing appropriate technologies and manufacturing
(shellers, dryers)

Item Value unit Calculation

a Product quantity 13740 ton/year 1.7* .55* 14 700 (total
production comprising
marketed and home
consumption) census, 2011
b Product value 4 200 N$/ton SAFEX maize price/ton (NAB,
2015)
c Loss rate 10 % Cumulative loss FSC
d Anticipated loss reduction 20 % CLP average
e Cost of intervention N$ 6.8 million N$
f Depreciation 5 years
g Yearly costs of investment N$1.4 million N$/year e/f
h Yearly costs of operation N$50000 N$/year Administration
i Total yearly costs of solution N$1.4 million N$/year g+h
j Client costs per ton product N$102 N$/ton i/a
k Food loss 1374 ton/year cxa
l Economic loss N$ 5.8 million N$/year kxb
m Loss reduction 274.8 ton/year kxd
n Loss reduction savings N$1.15 N$/year mxb
million
o Total Client costs N$1.4 million $/year i=axj
p Profitability of solution N$-0.25 $/year n-o
million

Improve storage capacity and quality

Farmers in Zambezi keep about 45% of their maize for long term use (6 months to a year) including
consumption, seed, and emergency sale. While it is projected that only 3% quantity loss is suffered
during this period, the quality loss is estimated at 10-40% due to pests infestation, use of
nonstandard bags (e.g. used fertiliser bags) and poor handling. The feeling is that, since these grains
are for home use, there is no need to maintain the same level of quality as used for grains to be sold.
However, experts and government officials are concerned about the health implications of
contaminated food consumption. Farmers, thus, should be trained to understand the importance of
proper grain storage and introduced to appropriate technology that has proven effective in other
places including hermetic bags (Grain Pro/Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) Bags), metal/plastic
silos and improved granaries. These have to be cost effective and adapted to the total production of
maize per farmer and production stored and the fact that farmers rather sell most of the grain for
higher price (budget in Table 17 and the cost benefit analysis in Table 18). The main actors will be

45
post-harvest specialists, farmers cooperatives, vendors, millers, academics NGOs and parastatals.
MAWF, artisans and local manufacturers will be responsible to carry out this intervention.

Table 22: Provision of storage facilities (PICS bags, Grain pro, metal/plastic silos)

Inputs Required Associated cost Total Cost of intervention

items/person per year USD
USD
Pilot distribution of PICS bags/Grainpro to 5 300 4 500
farmers per region (3)
Pilot distribution of metal/plastic silos to 5 300 4 500
farmers per region (3)
Training component on use of the PICS bags, 58 825
grain pro and silos
Grand total 67 825

Table 23: Cost Benefit Analysis for Provision of storage facilities (PICS/Grainpro bags, metal/plastic silos)

Item Value unit Calculation

a Product quantity 13740 ton/year 1.7* .55* 14 700 (total
production comprising marketed
and home consumption) census,
2011
b Product value 4 200 N$/ton SAFEX maize price/ton (NAB,
2015)
c Loss rate 10 % Cumulative loss FSC
d Anticipated loss reduction 20 % CLP average
e Cost of intervention N$ 881725 N$

f Depreciation 5 years
g Yearly costs of investment N$176345 N$/year e/f
h Yearly costs of operation N$50000 N$/year Administration
i Total yearly costs of N$226345 N$/year g+h
solution
j Client costs per ton N$16.50 N$/ton i/a
product
k Food loss 1374 ton/year cxa
l Economic loss N$ 5.8 N$/year kxb
million
m Loss reduction 274.8 ton/year kxd
n Loss reduction savings N$1.15 N$/year mxb
million
o Total Client costs N$226345 $/year i=axj
p Profitability of solution N$0.93 $/year n-o
million

46
Research on Improved varieties and Integrated pest management

Zambezi farmers grow hybrid varieties for sale but the grain sizes are considered to be small by the
millers compared to maize bought from Zambia and South Africa. There is a debate about the use (or
misuse) of storage chemicals by small scale farmers and the possible negative effects they may have
on the environment. Several bio-pesticides have been found to be useful in treating grains in store.
This brings about the need for research on specialty/hardy breeds with a high post-harvest shelf life
suitable and on integrated pest management for the Zambezi regions conditions (budget in Table 24
and the cost benefit analysis in Table 25). The actors involved here will be researchers, farmers and
farmers unions. The responsible authorities will be MAWF, international agencies and institutions.

Table 24: Crop breeding for improved varieties

Inputs Required Associated cost Total Cost of

items/person intervention per year
USD USD
Breeding improved crop varieties at research 35 000 70 000
centres (Mahanene & Manheim) and testing in
farmers' fields
Seed multiplication and training of farmers 20 000 60 000
Integrated Pest Management 80 000
Grand total 210 000

Table 25: Cost Benefit Analysis for Crop breeding for improved varieties and integrated pest management

Item Value unit Calculation

a Product quantity 13 740 ton/year 1.7* .55* 14 700 (total production
comprising marketed and home
consumption) census, 2011
b Product value 4 200 N$/ton SAFEX maize price/ton (NAB,
2015)
c Loss rate 10 % Cumulative loss FSC
d Anticipated loss reduction 20 % CLP average
e Cost of intervention N$ 2.7 million N$
f Depreciation 5 years
g Yearly costs of investment N$546 000 N$/year e / f
h Yearly costs of operation N$50 000 N$/year Administration
i Total yearly costs of solution N$596 000 N$/year g + h
j Client costs per ton product N$43.40 N$/ton i/a
k Food loss 1374 ton/year c x a
l Economic loss N$ 5.8 million N$/year k x b
m Loss reduction 274.8 ton/year k x d
n Loss reduction savings N$1.15 N$/year m x b
million
o Total Client costs N$596 000 $/year i=axj
p Profitability of solution N$0.6 million $/year n-o

47
f) Recommendations

Women were found to be the main actors in most of the post-harvest handling activities in the
maize supply chain and had a significant role in making decisions on harvesting, storage and
marketing. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed interventions must target the women for
effective results.

It is also important to set up regular monitoring and testing activities that identify food loss stages
for interventions to be tailored for each particular stage as surveys are done in short period of time
that might not be adequate to capture the critical loss points and intervention measures as it relies
on recall of farmers only. As an exploratory tool, surveys are very important to inform the activities
needed to be monitored and regular monitoring and testing will ensure that critical information is
obtained.

48
Annex 1: References
AMTA. (2014). Agro-Marketing & Trade Agency, Namibia; http//:www.amta.na/index.php

accessed October 2015

CAC (Cardno Agrisystems Consortium). (2011). Study to inform the design of an agricultural
Dry-land Productivity Project in Northern Communal Areas of Namibia, Final Report. Cardno
Emerging Markets (UK) Limited, United Kingdom.

CRISP .(2002). Caprivi Regional Integrated Storage Project (CRISP). NAB and MAWRD.
Windhoek.

FAO. (2015). GIEWS Country Briefs: Namibia Food security Snap Shot.

http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=NAM accessed 18 December

2015

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), (2009). Namibia: Country Gender Profile.
Japan International Cooperation Agency.
http://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/thematic_issues/gender/background/pdf/e09nam.
pdf. Accessed 01 February, 2016

Iita, J. (2012). Food Security Situation in Namibia. Development dialogue forum Polytechnic
hotel school.

Kumba, F., F. (2003). Farmer participation in agricultural research and extension service in
Namibia. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 10(3): 47-55.

Mendelsohn J.(2006). Farming systems in Namibia. Namibia National Farmers Union,

Windhoek.

Mushendami, P., Biwa, B. & Gaomab II, M. (2006). Unleashing the potential of agricultural
sector in Namibia. Windhoek: Bank of Namibia Research Department.

NAB (Namibian Agronomic Board). (2005). Annual Report, 18. Windhoek.

NAB (Namibian Agronomic Board). (2013). Annual Report, 26. Windhoek.

NAB (Namibian Agronomic Board). (2014). Annual Report 27. Windhoek.

NASSP (National Agricultural Support Services Programme). (2005). Namibia: draft seed
policy. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. Windhoek.

NSA (Namibia statistics agency). (2015). Namibia Census of Agriculture 2013/14 communal
sector. Namibia statistics agency.

Smit E. (2015). Namib Mills to close Katima Mulilo mill. NambianSun.

Vigne P. (2001). Cooperative in Namibia: Cooperatives studies for tertiary level students in
Namibia. Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Development. Out of Africa Publishers.
Windhoek.
49
 Annex 2: List of experts consulted
Expert name
Mr. Mathew Mushabati
Mr. Richard Nchindo
Mr. Changwana
Mr. Sinalumbu L. Chaze
Mr. Ollis K. Tjerije
Mr. Patrick Lubanda
Mr. Linus Lutuhezi
Mr. Linus Kwenani
Mr. Petrus Heumbo
Mr. Moses Kanhindu
Mr. A.J Machana
Mr. Obrien Yambwa Senior Agricultural Technician
Mr. Erasmus Lunga
Mr. Dane Poniso
Ms. Priscilla Siseho
Ms. N.L Nanhapo
Mr. Zozo Zambwe
Mr. Mbala A. Mathe
Mr. Lungameni Lucas
Ms. Wilhelmina Handunge
Mr. James Walubita
Ms. Antoinette Venter
Mr. Herman Du Toit
Mr. AlbertusViljoen
Mr. Florist Smith
Mr. Laffite von Landsbergis
Mr. Titus Andreas
Mr. Maxwell Nghidinwa
Mr. Michael Iyambo
Mr. Chris Le Roux
Mr. W.J.J Steenkamp
Mr. Suhail Bhamjee
Title/ position Institution
Chief Agricultural Officer, MAWF- Katima Office
Chief Agricultural Technician MAWF- Katima Office
Chief Agricultural Technician MAWF- Katima Office
Agricultural Technician, MAWF- Bukalo ADC
Agricultural Technician, MAWF- Ngoma ADC
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Katima Office
Senior Agricultural Technician MAWF- Sangwali ADC
Senior Agricultural Technician MAWF- Dudukabe ADC
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Ngoma ADC
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Impalala ADC
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Masokotwani ADC
MAWF- Katima Office
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Kongola ADC
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Chinchimani ADC
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Kasheshe ADC
Agricultural Scientific Officer MAWF-Katima Office
Senior Agricultural Technician MAWF- Sachona ADC
Agricultural Technician MAWF- Itomba ADC
Managing Director AMTA
Senior Manager, National Strategic AMTA
Food Reserves
Silo-Control Officer AMTA-Katima Mulilo
Administrative/Miller and White NAB
maize manager
Manager Kavango Mills
General Manager Etunda Irrigation Projects
General Manager Shadikongoro Irrigation Projects
Farm Manager Mashare Irrigation Project
Farm Manager Ndonga Linena
Assistant Manager
Chair- NHTT NAB commodity advisory committee and
Oshikoto Fresh Produce
Plant manager Namib Mills Otavi
Site Supervisor Namib Mills Katima Mulilo
Manager Kamunu Mills Katima Mulilo
50
Mr. Ricky Lilami Secretary Muyako Farmers Cooperative
Pastor Matias Semi Chairman Likwama cooperative
Ms. Thandy Chika Service Miller Mangena Miller Masokotwani
Ms. Simasiku Market-Woman Open-Market Katima Mulilo
Mr. Paulus Mungoba Senior Agronomist AGRIBUSDEV

List of Villages visited and the number of Households surveyed in each Village

Village Household surveyed

Un indicated 7
Chaka 2
Ibbu 10
Iseke 13
Kabajani (Libuyu) 2
Kabuku 1
Kakononga 2
Kakotokoto 1
Kalomo 1
Kalume 2
Kanono 6
Kapanga 1
Kashuu 1
Mahonga 1
Masamba 4
Masokotwane 2
Masuku 1
Matanka 1
Mazanino 1
Mbeha 1
Mukawa 3
Muyako 18
Naidonela 1
Ndozi 1
Newlook 1
Nkunga 2
Numwa 1
Sabelo 3
Shaile 20
Shakta 1
Sabina 7
Sikosinyana 4
Siloka 1
Simwanza 3
Sipopo 1
Tapiso 2
Wabona 2
Total 131

51
Annex 3: Quality scoring of maize grains

Quality Description of the quality %age reduction Images of Samples

Score/ of market value
Grade

0 Free from a musty, sour or other 0

objectionable odour; free from
foreign matter; of standard suitable
for the manufacture of products
suitable for human consumption,
free from defective kernels; and free
from kernels of another colour or
pinked kernels,

1 Allowable deviation from grade 0 10%

(class 1) defective kernels 7%, maize
kernels of another colour 3%, foreign
matter 0.3%,pinked kernels 12%,
deviation from all quality standards
above within limits specified 8% ,

2 Allowable deviation from grade 0 15%

(class 1) defective kernels 13%,
maize kernels of another colour 6%,
foreign matter 0.5%,pinked kernels
12%, deviation from all quality
standards above within limits
specified 16%, moisture not
exceeding 12.5% but should be in the
range of 10%-12.5%
3 Allowable deviation from grade 0 25%
(class 1) defective kernels 25%,
maize kernels of another colour 10%,
foreign matter 0.75%,pinked kernels
12%, deviation from all quality
standards above within limits
specified 25%

4 Infested with insects (moths, 100%

weevils), fungi, mould and dead
beetles and other foreign matter, not
fit for human consumption only fit
for animal consumption

52
Annex 4: Quality analyses of maize grains collected from farmers granaries
Unit Evaluated Overall quality Type of damage Potential
score (deterioration) if any cause and
symptoms
2.5 Over dried Left in the sun
for too long
(sun dried)

4 Weevilled, holed, webs Weevils,

moths,
beetles, holes,
fungi

2.5 Over dried, coloured, cracks Too much

exposure to
the sun during
dying,

4 Weevilled, holed, webs Weevils,

moths,
beetles, holes,
fungi

4 Weevilled, holed, webs Weevils,

moths,
beetles, holes,
fungi

53
4 Weevilled, drilled holes, Weevils,
powdered moths,
beetles, holes,
fungi

2 Over dried Too much

exposure to
heat in the
sun

2 Coloured grain (pink) good Mould

grade

54