A market approach to economic issues means an identification of consumer needs and the best way to satisfy them with profitability.
Such an approach is essential if the food system, stretching from the farmer to the consumer, is to function effectively.
Since the successive governments have gradually liberalised the economy and are permitting increased involvement of the private sector in the food market, the need for post-harvest improvements to be conducted within a market framework, has also grown.
Food issues stem from both post-harvest handling and over-production. If the consumer's demand for a product is limited, then its production should be undertaken only after the market has been clearly identified and assured.
This is particularly necessary for various crops although the government has been promoting excessive production of some grains beyond the ability to absorb it.
When profitable or at least economic marketing of over produced crops is not possible, the best thing to do is to plough it back to ground or to utilise it for annual feed.
The problem becomes all the more acute if the crop does not lend itself to long-term storage. A recent example is that of the union crop which was produced in excess of the domestic demand, and which faced hurdles in finding export outlets.
Production decisions which have an impact on post-harvest management and food losses relate to (a) which crop to grow (b) which varieties to grow, (c) how much to grow and (d) when to grow.
These decisions must be taken after ascertaining the capacity of the market to provide an acceptance return for the grower's effort.
While taking up post-harvest loss reduction measures the guiding principle should be that the assumed benefits must exceed the costs of the proposed improvement by factors sufficient to justify the risk, estimating the costs of improved handling, storage, etc, compared with estimating the expected benefits that might be easier to make. But it is also necessary to ensure that estimates of likely usage of improved facilities are economically feasible.
For instance, would it be possible to fill a new cold storage facility to the full or will it only be used at about 25 percent of its capacity? A cold storage facility may reduce losses but its location may not pay the transportation costs.
A particular problem facing those trying to improve post-harvest handling by small farmers is that they often see no inter-relation between improved handling and market return.
An individual small farmer practising improved techniques will receive no benefit if the produce is hauled into a larger consignment with the produce of others particularly when the trader is not applying any quality control measures.
Many modern, post-harvest techniques for horticultural produce are expensive, requiring a high initial investment. They also require highly trained staff.
Therefore, while there is a clear need to develop improved technologies such technologies, should not, as a general role, be significantly more complex than the general level of technology in a society.
Governments in the developing countries with agrarian economies like Pakistan do not involve themselves much in improving the rural and urban marketing infrastructure, maintaining roads, strengthening the marketing and post-harvest skills of their extensive services and carrying out training.
Even the provision of the basic marketing information, a sine qua non for farmers, to sell the produce at times, places and prices most beneficial to them generally go by default.
There has been a tendency on the part of the government to take physical control of the produce for improving the marketing process while food security concerns may necessitate some government intervention, the wide-spread establishment of marketing boards in the past decade is now seen as misguided government involvement in marketing and may well have retarded the cause of food losses prevention, as there is much evidence that farmers pay insufficient attention to post-harvest activities because government purchasing agencies do not reward improved quality.
But it should be remembered that no amount of expensive post-harvesting handling treatment will rescue a produce which is basically unsound. Nor many, private traders do not accept substandard produce offered for sale lest they lose financially.
This does not generally apply to the public section inspectors responsible for making purchase of specified government purchasing centres as they have to make purchases of targeted quantities, irrespective of quality.
Pricing and other legislation's can also disrupt the marketing system as government-determined prices for food grains often have little significance if sufficient funds are not available to purchase more than a small proportion of the crop.
Traders who are unable to compete with the announced prices may withdraw from the market, leaving considerable quantities unsold and in danger of being lost.
The government often bans inter-provincial or inter-district movement of foods, particularly grains.
This makes it difficult for traders to exploit price differentials in different parts of the country and this may mean that stored produce is losing quality in the area while there is shortage in another.
Planning for improved post-harvest management and loss reduction necessitates a full awareness and willingness to undertake research in the food system.
Factors such as demand, the role of marketing agents and their profit orientation are important elements to be considered in any food system analysis. Post-harvest improvements commence at the pre-production stage.
Available market information can be used to plan which crops or varieties to grow, when to grow, when to harvest and in what quantities, farmers support in providing information and marketing extension services is vital.
Various techniques to expand season and hence reduce seasonal gluts can be employed. Microclimates can be used effectively to provide almost year round availability of some crops.
Farmer and others operating in the post-harvest system are unlikely to accept new post-harvest techniques unless the please be careful of full stops benefits are shown to exceed the costs thereof.
Also. consumer requirements and the ability of the market to pay for improved quality must be taken into consideration.
Areas requiring government support may be judiciously identified for post-harvest activities. It must, in any case, include marketing information services and development of marketing extension skills, with the provision of improved market infrastructure and rural roads.
In Pakistan, continued efforts to improve the post-harvest system are very much required, such efforts need to put emphasis on the improvement and better application, existing technology as well as the general planning and the management of the food chain.
Comments
Comments are closed.