RAPID APPRAISAL OF POST HARVEST FACILITIES IN THE ...

NEXUS Agribusiness Solutions

RAPID APPRAISAL OF POST HARVEST FACILITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

Final Report

Nerlita M. ManaliliKevin F. YaptencoAlessandro A. Manilay25th November 2015

Study LeaderValue Chain

Specialist

DR. NERLITA M. MANALILI

Asst. Study LeaderAgri Engineer

DR. KEVIN F. YAPTENCO

Economist PROF. ALESSANDRO A. MANILAY

Statistician PROF. NELITA M. LALICANResearch Support Engr CARISSA JOY E. OZOA

MS. IMELDA V. VALENTONMS. MARA MICHELLE Q.

PANGILINANMS. MONINA ANN P. SAGUIN

STUDY TEAM

NEXUS Agribusiness SolutionsSOURCE: Rolle and Mazaud 2003; Bautista and Esguerra 2012; PHILMECH 2012; http://www.gov.ph/2013/06/05/republic‐act‐no‐10601/

1977Launching of FAO Action

Program for the Prevention of Food Losses

and

Establishment of the ASEAN PHTRC in UP Los Baños

1975UN General Assembly resolution to reduce losses by 50% by 1985

1973UP‐Cornell Univ

program introduces postharvest research and education in UPLB

1968FAO “war on

waste” campaign

1967FAO holds

symposium on crop losses

1978NAPHIRE created

through Presidential Decree 1380

2003FAO Global

Initiative for Post‐Harvest

Development

1981NAPHIRE expands

beyond postharvest of rice and corn

2011DA (Regional Offices + PHILMECH) implement Rice Mech Program1997

Agriculture & Fishery Modernization Act signed into law,

recognizes importance of postharvest

2013RA 10601 (AFMECH

Law) is passed

Postharvest Losses in the Philippines: RICE PADDY

Operation Average

Harvesting 2.03

Piling 0.08

Threshing 2.18

Drying 5.86

Storage 0.80

Milling 5.52

TOTAL 16.47

Postharvest Losses in the Philippines: FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Crop System loss (%)

Banana (‘Lakatan’) 15

Calamansi 13

Cabbage 19‐29

Mango 28Source: DA‐BPRE/UPLB‐PSSD (2009)

Establishment of Postharvest Facilities in the PhilippinesPROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

What are the impacts of these

projects?

General• Evaluate effectiveness of postharvest facilities and assets

Specific• Survey existing literature / secondary data to characterize PHF project selection, expenditures, assets and impacts

• Assess a representative set of PHF projects• Identify strengths and weaknesses in the project cycle of PHF projects

Project Objectives

• Literature review, initial data gathering

• Prioritization of PHF projects for evaluation

• Initial field assessments

• In‐depth field assessments

According to:• Size of investment• Potential impact• Relevance to government programs / thrusts• Duration of implementation• Representative distribution• Proximity to other PHF projects

Methodology

Project HighlightsPHF projects for evaluation

Island (Province) KOICA RPCsz MFT / BFTy Cold Chain Facilitiesx

LuzonRegion 1 (Pangasinan)

Region 2 (Aurora)

VisayasRegion 6 (Iloilo)

Region 7 (Bohol)

MindanaoRegion 11 / 12

zKOICA – Korean International Cooperation Agency; RPC – Rice Processing Center (PHILMECH Rice Mech Program)yMFT – Municipal Food Terminal; BFT – Barangay Food Terminal (DA‐AMAS Agri‐Pinoy Trading Centers Program)xDA‐PHILMECH Cold Chain Program

Project Highlights• Assessment of four

KOICA RPCs

• Assessment of FBDs, MFTs, BFTs, threshers, cold storage rooms

• South Korean grant = Php648‐M (2009‐2013)

• Philippine gov’t counterpart = Php136‐M, with Php20‐M operating capital per site (4 sites)

• Farmers’ organization counterpart = Php2‐M

KOICA Rice Processing Centers (RPCs)

• Objectives:

1. Increase farmers’ income

2. Increase processing capacity for rice self‐sufficiency

Expected impact:

• Reduced post-harvest losses

• Generated employment

• Stabilized local prices

• Improved milled rice quality

KOICA RPCs

• Mech. dryers (5 units, 6 t/day per unit), multi‐pass rice mill (2.5 tons/hr), cargo trucks

• Storage warehouse (capacity = 22,000 bags milled rice)

• 65% milling recovery

• Pickup, delivery service

• Custom milling, drying (some RPC’s only)

KOICA RPCs

RPC BUILDINGRPC BUILDING

RECIRCULATING DRYERSRECIRCULATING DRYERS

RICE HUSKERS / ASPIRATORRICE HUSKERS / ASPIRATOR

RICE HULLERRICE HULLER

COLOR SORTERCOLOR SORTER

LENGTH GRADERLENGTH GRADER

Location of KOICA‐supported Rice Processing Centers in the Philippines. Shaded areas show the top five rice production areas (with respect to value or volume (Source: http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/selection.asp).

• Baler (Aurora)

• Santa Barbara (Pangasinan)

• Pototan (Iloilo)

• Pilar (Bohol)

• Matanao (Davao del Sur)

KOICA RPCs

Sources of paddy for Pototan RPC (Iloilo)

Sources of paddy for Sta. Barbara RPC (Pangasinan)

Sources of paddy for Pilar RPC (Bohol)

Sources of paddy for Matanao RPC (Davao)

Paddy procurement for RPC’szzBohol RPC data not available

Estimated areaz serviced by RPC’szBased on national average yield of 3.47 tons ha‐1

469 ha

771 haUntil Sept 2014 only

245 ha

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10 20 30 40

Price of pad

dy (P

hp/kg)

Moisture content (%)

1st cropping (Jan‐May)2nd cropping (Jul‐Dec)

Pototan RPC buying price for paddy in 2014

Expected Impact Reported Findingsz Findings of External Assessment

Reduced post‐harvest losses

Reduced system loss by 4‐6%

Suppliers prefer selling wet paddy to RPC

Generated employment

Provided jobs for 33 professionals, 48 workers

Financial losses for 2 of 4 RPCs

zSource: Tolentino 2013

Outcomes: KOICA Rice Processing Centers

Expected Impact Reported Findingsz Findings of External Assessment

Stabilized local prices

Stable local prices especially during wet season

Feedback from farmers indicate improved prices even during peak harvest period

Improved milled rice quality

High head rice recovery, milling recovery = 65‐68%

Milled rice is premium gradey

zSource: Tolentino 2013yHead rice = 74%, brewer’s rice = 0%, damaged / discoloured grain = 0.4%, chalky / immature grain = 4.1%, red grain = 0%, MC = 13%

Outcomes: KOICA Rice Processing Centers

Agri‐Pinoy Food Terminals

• 12 regional trading centers

• 111 municipal food terminals (MFT) / barangay food terminals (BFT)


• Objectives:1. Provide immediate access to

markets2. Provide agri‐fishery

commodities and basic necessities at affordable prices

3. Create employment4. Develop entrepreneurship5. Strengthen LGU‐private

sector partnership

Expected impact:

• Increase income of agri-

fishery producers

• Provide safe, nutritious,

affordable food

• Create employment

• Income generation for

barangay LGU

2013 2014

Prospective sites for Municipal Food Terminals

Municipal food terminals

• Funding = Php500,000 to Php1.5‐M for building construction

• Used as consolidation areas, for market preparation and trading


Barangay food terminals

• Funding for trading capital, building improvement, training (Php150,000)

• Function as retail markets, provide clean, orderly environment

• Equipped with freezers, chillers, meat processing equipment, package sealers, weighing scales




Objectives Reported Impactz Findings of Impact Assessment

Provide immediate access to markets

Lako‐lako system eliminated, transport cost reduced, farmers paid in cash, by barter

Eliminated transport costs, mechanical damage

Provide agri‐fishery commodities, basic necessities at affordable prices

One‐stop shop serves daily needs of housewives; organic farming encouraged

Sourced from backyard gardens, eliminated transport cost, wide variety of produce available

zSource: DA‐AFMIS 2013

Outcomes: Barangay Food Terminals

Objectives Reported Impactz Findings of Impact Assessment

Create employment

Hiring of personnelfor BFT,provide support to local businesses

Locals hired to tend BFTs & as farmhand for expanded production

Develop entrepreneurship

Expansion ofproduction areas, development of additional products

Provides support for small business ventures

Strengthen LGU‐private sector partnership

BFT collects user fees for maintenance, supplies ingredients to processors

zSource: DA‐AFMIS 2013

Outcomes: Barangay Food Terminals

Objectives Findings of Impact Assessment

Provide immediate access to markets

Lako‐lako system eliminated, transport cost reduced, growers obtain better selling prices

Provide agri‐fishery commodities and basic necessities at affordable prices

Facilitates exchange of goods between growers and traders

Create employment Loading and unloading employment opportunities were created, trucking/ transport opportunities expanded

Outcomes: Municipal Food Terminals

Objectives Findings of Impact Assessment

Develop entrepreneurship MFT collects market fees (arkabala) from traders, stall rentals

Strengthen LGU‐private sector partnership

Issues and concerns jointly addressed; Municipal Ordinance issued for sustained patronage of MFTs, and organizing loading unloading areas

Outcomes: Municipal Food Terminals

Flatbed Dryers

• Philippines deficient in dryer capacity by 14.9‐M tonsz

• Drying operation is most critical, incurs highest loss (5.86%)

• Total system loss = 16.5%

zSource: PHILMECH / PHILRICE 2013

• FIELDS program of DA provided upgraded versions of UPLB flatbed dryer in 2007, 2008

• Components: grain bin, fan, burnerz or furnace

zSource: Ragudo (2011)

Flatbed Dryers

PHILRICE

DA RFU

Check, validate completeness of

documents; endorse to GMA Rice Program

GMA Rice Program

Compile a short list of recipients

NABCOR

Provide detailed engineering designs and plans for drying

facilities and equipment

Received project funds for transfer to

cooperating agencies

Validate list of recipients

PHILMECH

Fund administration, management and disbursement

Compile list of qualified IAs

NIA

Organize IAs, provide training, coaching and mentoring

Ensure utilization of drying facilities

IA

Undergo training, provide feedback on utilization, operation and maintenance

Provide land, storage shed, initial operating cost, labor

Coordinate, implement and monitor all GMA Rice Program

activities in each region

Procurement, bidding, delivery, installation of drying facilities and equipment

DISSEMINATIONOF DRYERSUNDER THEFIELDS PROGRAM

DISSEMINATIONOF DRYERSUNDER THEFIELDS PROGRAM

Aspect Findings of Impact Assessment

Utilization Over‐utilized during wet season, especially during simultaneous harvests; underused during dry season

Durability Perforated flooring of grain bin prone to corrosion; replaced with bamboo slat floor overlaid with netting; cracking of concrete lining of biomass furnace

Condition of dryer

Thermometer not operating, flooring deformed

Operator safety

Absence of shields for rotating / moving components

Outcomes: Flatbed Dryers

Instrumentation should be labeled to indicate what parameter is being measured (e.g. plenum air temperature, pressure)



BENEFIT‐COST ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF RICE POSTHARVEST TECHNOLOGY

PROJECTS

PHYSICAL LOSSES

Sundrying losses

Milling losses

VALUE (QUALITY) LOSSES

Delay in threshing

Delay in drying

TYPES OF POSTHARVEST LOSSES without appropriate PH technology

SUNDRYING: 5.8% OF HARVEST(PhilMech)

WHERE IT OCCURS:FARMER TRADER/PRIVATE MILLER

PH PHYSICAL LOSSES IN RICE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE POSTHARVEST FACILITIES

MILLING1) Broken grains due to

fissuring during sundrying

2) Use of technically inefficient mills

LOWER MILLING RECOVERY

WHERE IT OCCURS:RICE MILLER

MR = 60% (IRRI, 2014)

MR (%)= Total milled rice X 100Total rough rice

PH PHYSICAL LOSSES IN RICE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE POSTHARVEST FACILITIES

DRYING• VALUE LOSS DUE TO

DELAY IN DRYING:o 75% OF FULL VALUE

(3 DAYS DELAY)o 6% OF FULL VALUE (1

DAY DELAY)

PH VALUE LOSSES IN RICE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE POSTHARVEST FACILITIES

VALUE LOSS ESTIMATION:

PADDY VALUE(%)= 100 – 3.51D0.35 X (MC‐15)0.65

WHERE:D = no. of days wet paddy was left undriedMC = moisture content

(TETER, 1987)

POSTHARVEST LOSSES IN RICE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE POSTHARVEST FACILITIES

• DELAYS IN THRESHING AND DRYING WERE MINIMIZED (BATCH RECIRCULATING DRYERS‐RPCs; FBDs AND THRESHERS – FARMER COOPERATIVES)

• MILLING RECOVERY INCREASED FROM 60% TO 68% (MULTI‐PASS RICE MILLS – RPCs) (PhilMech and IRRI)

WITH THE PH FACILITIES

PH Losses in Rice With and Without Appropriate PH Technologies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

3 days delay 1 day delay Zero Delay

% of full value

Value Loss Due To Delay in Drying

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Sundrying Mechanical Dryers

Physical Lossess

Physical Lossess Due to Drying

PH Losses in Rice With and Without AppropriatePH Technologies

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

Single/Double Pass Mills Multi‐Pass Mills

Milling Re

covery

Milling Recovery of Traditional and Modern Rice Mills

• BASED ON ACTUAL PADDY PROCUREMENT OF RPCs:

A) VALUE LOSS ‐ JULY TO OCTOBER 2013 AND 2014: 7,238,178 KG (7.23 MT)

B) QUANTITY LOSSES: TOTAL PROCUREMENT 2013 AND 2014:

58, 444,801 KG (58.44 MT)

• FULL VALUE OF PADDY: PhP 20.50/KG

ESTIMATE OF PREVENTED VALUE LOSSES AND REDUCED PHYSICAL LOSSES USING RPC DRYING &

MILLING FACILITIES

REDUCTION IN VALUE LOSS BY USING RPC DRYER

VALUE OF PADDY WITH ZERO DELAY IN DRYINGFull value:PhP148.38M

VALUE OF PADDY WITH 3 DAYS DELAY IN DRYING (SUNDRYING)75% of full valuePhP 110.85M

VALUE OF AVOIDED LOSS

PhP 37.53M

REDUCTION IN QUANTITY LOSSES BY USING RPC DRYER

RECIRCULATING BATCH‐TYPE DRYERS:No significant lossess

SUNDRYING (5.8% LOSSES)PhP 82.88M

VALUE OF AVOIDED LOSSESPhP 82.88M

REDUCTION IN QUANTITY LOSSES USING RPC RICE MILL

RPC MULTI‐PASS MILL67.5% MRPhP 1.5B

SINGLE‐ and DOUBLE‐PASS MILL60% MRPhP 1.33B

VALUE OF AVOIDEDLOSSESPhP 166.57M

TOTAL VALUE OF AVOIDED LOSSES PhP 286.97M

ITEM VALUE (PhP) ASSUMPTION

Reduced value loss (delay in drying)

14.8 M PhP 10/Kg (Vietnam, 2003)

Prevented physical losses (recirculating

batch dryer)

40.25 M 2.9% of paddy wt. being dried

Reduced physical losses (multi‐pass

mill)

111.05 M 65% MR

TOTAL 166.12 M

ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN PADDY VALUE AND QUANTITATIVE LOSSES USING CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS

• INCREASE IN FARMERS‘ INCOME: PhP 13.96 M

• COMBINED NET INCOME OF RPCs: PhP 2.07M (2011 to 2014)

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS

• Reduced ph losses P 286.97M

• Farmers’ increase in income P 13.96M

• RPCs net income P 2.07M

P 303.00M

TOTAL ESTIMATED BENEFITS FROM RPCs

• PhP 865 M: PROJECT COST• PhP 303.00 M: BENEFITS

• CAPITAL RECOVERY APPROACH TREATS THE BENEFITS FROM THE RPC PROJECT AS REPAYMENT TO THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT (PROJECT COST) AND DETERMINES THE PROPORTION OF THE PROJ COST THAT HAS BEEN RECOVERED.

BENEFIT‐COST ANALYSIS: CAPITAL RECOVERY APPROACH

CONVERT BENEFIT AND COST TO ANNUITY VALUES

• P 865M (PROJ COST) P 101.21(15 YEARS USEFUL LIFE OF RPC; 8% OPPORTUNITY COST OF MONEY)

• P 303M (BENEFITS) P 138.5M(2.5 YRS LENGTH OF RPC OPERATION; 8%)

• CRR = 138.5M/101.21M = 1.37

• AFTER 2.5 YRS OF OPERATION, RPCs GENERATED A NET BENEFIT THAT WAS ABLE TO FULLY PAY ONE YEAR OF THE ANNUITY PLUS AN EXCESS OF 37% OF THE ANNUITY.

CAPITAL RECOVERY RATIO

BENEFITS:REDUCED PH LOSSES P116.12MFARMERS’ INCREASE IN INCOME P 13.96MRPC NET INCOME P 2.07M

P182.16MANNUALIZED BENEFITS: P83.26MCRR = 83.26M/101.21M = 0.82 (BENEFITS DERIVED ONLY

RECOVERED 82.3% OF PROJECT COST ANNUITY)

CAPITAL RECOVERY ANALYSIS USING CONSERVATIVE VALUES

THE CR ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THE RPC PROJECT IS SENSITIVE TO A REDUCTION IN THE ESTIMATED

BENEFITS (CRR = 0.82)

• FARMERS’ BENEFITS FROM FBDso FBDs more appreciated during the wet season harvesto low buying price for wet paddy o P 1.00/kg premium for dry paddyo Farmers who use FBDs sell paddy to private traders/millers (Credit‐mktg linkage)

FLATBED DRYERS (FBD)

o ONE FBD UNIT CAN ONLY SERVE ONE FARMER AT A TIME

o 8 HRS TO DRY ONE BATCH OF PADDY TO 14% MC

o FBDs are useful only if wet paddy can be dried

immediately (according to farmer respondents)

LIMITATION OF FBD PROGRAM

AN ADDITIONAL THRESHER FOR A FARMING COMMUNITY IS

CONSIDERED BENEFICIAL BECAUSE MOST FARMERS HARVEST

AT THE SAME TIME RESULTING IN SHORTAGE OF THRESHERS

PADDY MUST BE THRESHED SO FARMERS CAN SELL THEIR

HARVEST

THRESHERS

• WT. OF PADDY HARVESTED BY FARMERS WHO USED THE

THRESHERS: 144,920 KG

• COMPARE 1 DAY DELAY IN THRESHING WITH ZERO DELAY

ESTIMATED BENEFIT FROM THRESHERS

VALUE OF PREMIUM PADDY: P 20.50/KG

• VALUE OF PADDY WITH 1 DAY THRESHING DELAY: P 19.23/KG

(20.50 – (20.50 x 6.2%))

• Footnote: Determination of buying price by traders/millers

based on paddy condition is subjective

• PADDY VALUE WITH NO THRESHING DELAY:• 144,920 KG X 20.50/KG = P 2.97M

• PADDY VALUE WITH 1 DAY DELAY IN THRESHING:• 144,920 KG X P 19.23/KG = 2.78M

• VALUE LOSS = P190,000

• DELAYS IN THRESHING AND DRYING WERE MINIMIZED

(BATCH RECIRCULATING DRYERS‐RPCs; FBDs AND

THRESHERS – FARMER COOPERATIVES)

• MILLING RECOVERY INCREASED FROM 60% TO 67.5%

(MULTI‐PASS RICE MILLS – RPCs)

(PhilMech and IRRI)

OVERALL IMPACT OF RPCs, FBDs, THRESHERS

PHF within The Value Chain

Gaps and OpportunitiesProgram Planning and Implementation

The Rice Value Chain With RPC As A Major Player

GAPS/DELIMITING FACTORS

Operational CapitalPhP 20 million is a small capital vs private millers hundreds of millions

TruckingRPCs 2 vehicles used for delivery, servicing end users more than farmers

Farmers unable to supply RPC and benefit from better pricesCycle of farmer indebtedness:

Tied up with Traders for inputs and marketing; unable to supply RPC/ find better markets

In addition to interest, traders’ purchase price is Php 1 less than prevailing market price.

OPPORTUNITIES

Underutilized RPC capacity

Underutilized Service area of 1,000 ha of rice farm

Scheduling of planting and harvest for enhanced benefits

There is potential in Farmers education for better collaboration

Credit tie ups – Sikap Saka of Land bank (but with limitations)

Basic Commodity Value Chain With MFT’s and BFTs As Major Players

GAPS/DELIMITING FACTORS

Non Viability of MFTs cold storage High energy cost of operations Limited Volume of utilization

Poor site selection proximity to well functioning markets) Unmet volume of transactions Facilities used for other uses (fast food )

OPPORTUNITIES

Trading group (buyer & seller) Incentives to produce more; higher market absorbtive capacity Better prices – direct transaction Convenience for sellers reduced long walks as peddlers

One stop trading venue with varied commodities

ConsumersMore commodities to choose Convenience comparable

prices to major markets Reduce transportation cost

BFTs Distribution per RegionBFTs Distribution per Region

*Values obtained from DA‐AMAS

18

45132

25

75

126

11

52

75

70

71

60

105

66

72 88

167

*Source: Mapsof.net

10

1448

20

9

2

14

5

6

11

5

4

4

16

2 7

9

MFTs Distribution per RegionMFTs Distribution per Region

Program Planning & ImplementationPlanning

Wanting preparatory activities prior to implementation• Beneficiaries unaware of

extent of contribution (power, capital)

• Confusion as to roles and responsibilities (spiced with political flavor)

Cushion programs on political interference

Need to trace back issues to Project cycle

Implementation

Organization & Management• “champions” who push program

cause/objectives are success factoro Iloilo RPC, Leon MFT & MAO

Focus: Solutions more than problems

Coping mechanisms reflects project leadership/teamwork (PH Mgt team, regional line agencies)

Balancing facilitating & regulatingroles difficult, but crucial andworks best for farmer’s interest

Conclusions and Recommendations

ConclusionRecommendationAreas for Further Study

Conclusions• RPCs increase farmer’s income through

o production of good quality milled rice ando reduction of postharvest losses.Potential maximized if paddy procurement capital is increased.

• FBDs and threshers of the Rice Mechanization Program,o preserve grain quality and reduce postharvest losses by:

o augmenting existing thresher and dryer capacities.• Food terminals

o were well managed and able to provide agri‐suppliers with access tomarkets,

o improve the availability of commodities and basic goods,o create employmento enable operators to become entrepreneurs and strengthen

partnership between LGUs and private sector.

Conclusions

Functioning PHF enhanced rice and basic commodity value chains

Expanded Production (RPC MFTs BFTs)› Enterprise establishment› Enterprise management know how rubbed on to members (BFT); put up of their own small businesses(opportunity dependent – Panglao, tourist area)

› Value addingHousehold Processing of produce otherwise marketed fresh due to presence of market options

Recommendations

Rice Processing Center Increase operating capital from 20

M to PHP40‐80M to scale up procurement.

additional cargo trucks for each RPC for timely pick up and delivery.

Could be the second phase of KOICA project ‐ to ensure RPC sustainability.

However, release of additional funds and inputs by DA should be subject to performance of each facility.

Appropriate Financing and crop insurance services reduce

farmers’ dependence on private traders with high interest

rates.

Local Spare part distribution (if not fabrication)

› Train reputable and capable local distributors of Korean

RPC spare parts and equipment for RPC

(complying with PAES)

Flatbed Dryers &Threshers

Closely monitor accredited fabricators to ensure

quality of disseminated units,

specification compliance

proper and timely servicing if

defects are present.

Thorough evaluation of project beneficiaries

proper site selection (maximize use of dryers)

Incorporate design improvements (safety and durability)

Continuous monitoring and testing by appropriate

government agencies (proper operation & maintenance of

FBDs)

Food Terminals

Recommended Technical improvements

better lightingmechanized handling to:

reduce physical damage to producereduce labor requirement lessen worker’s injury.

Promote hygienic handling for food safety.

Project Planning and Implementation Well thought of Proposal: implementation strategy well developed . Short sighted planning is evident facilities established and maintained with scarce government

funds and without properly trained personnel Involve beneficiaries/project stakeholder as early as possible Strict adherence to project guidelines improve project implementation minimize political interference

Compliance of RPC products with NFA standards (milled rice) should be verified by mandated government agencies with corresponding action to correct violations

Recommendations

Measures of Performance For Better Decision ProcessRPC

• Service target areas of 1000 ha but with limited earnings or service other areas to sustain plant operation

• Cost Revenue treatmentGrant Mgt & Enterprise Mgt Not asset use is free or depreciated

• Treatment of added income spreading costs or simply profit add ons

• Sustainability measures clear as early as planning stage

MFT/BFTLocation selection far from existing trading

centers Farm to market roads a

problem Existence of production areas

within kilometer radius

Management Modality LGU Managed Cooperative Managed

Success and failures of MFT and BFT projects

need to be documented and

Disseminate results for learning insights.

To ensure maximum utilization,

› Include survey of existing food terminals and wet markets

during site selection stage

The study found the evaluated PHFs as worthy government(maybe in future private) investments, however, regularand thorough review should still be carried out to determinetheir further impact

Selection of sites and beneficiaries be based on a set of suitable criteria rather than a “divide by N” approach (prone to duplication and overlaps)

Strengthen information and education campaign on existing government programs ‐ inspite of years of program existence not many are availing of the said services.

Areas for Further Study

Possibility of locally produced RPC equipment,

parts and tools

Assessment of other PHF programs

› agricultural tramlines and

› cold chain programs

Documentation of PH best practices and

business models for outscaling/upscaling

In‐depth evaluation of success failure factors of

PHF across regions and organizational types

First Global Conference on PH Losses; Rome Oct 5‐7, 2015

NEXUS Agribusiness SolutionsNEXUS Agribusiness Solutions

Thank You!

RAPID APPRAISAL OF POST HARVEST FACILITIES IN THE ...

Documents