ANALYSIS OF P4P’ POSTHARVEST H S T FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF P F O S WFP...

ANALYSIS OF P4P’S POSTHARVEST HANDLING AND STORAGE TRAINING

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PARTICIPATING FARMER ORGANISATIONS,

AND THE STAFF OF WFP AND COOPERATING PARTNERS

November 2011

Rick Hodges and Tanya Stathers

Natural Resources Institute (NRI), UK on behalf of the World Food Programme

2 | P4P Postharvest Handling and Storage Training

Contents

Acknowlegements __________________________________________________________ 4

Acronyms, Abbreviations and definitions ________________________________________ 5

Executive Summary _________________________________________________________ 6

1. Introduction _________________________________________________________ 14

2. Method _____________________________________________________________ 15

3. Findings from the Questionnaire Survey and Field Visits ______________________ 17

3.1 Overview of the Farmer Organisations interviewed _____________________________ 17

3.1.1 Characteristics of the farmer organisations (FOs) _____________________________________ 17

3.2 Main grain quality and safety problems experienced in P4P transactions ____________ 19

3.3 Experiences of P4P’s Postharvest Handling and Storage Training to date ____________ 21

3.3.1 The Range of P4P PHHS Training Courses and Service Providers _________________________ 21

3.3.2 Delivery methods, Practicals, Assessment and Duration of P4P PHHS Training Courses ______ 25

3.3.3 Details of PHHS Training Course Materials __________________________________________ 28

3.3.4 Aims and Impacts of PHHS training Courses and Materials _____________________________ 30

3.3.5 Suggested Opportunities for Improving Farmers PHHS Training Experiences _______________ 32

3.3.6 The Blue Box __________________________________________________________________ 36

3.3.7 Language and Comprehension Issues of P4P PHHS Training Courses and Materials __________ 37

3.3.8 Farmer to Farmer Training Aspects ________________________________________________ 38

3.4 Comparisons with other PHHS Training Courses and Materials ____________________ 39

3.5 Monitoring and evaluation of P4Ps PHHS Training ______________________________ 39

3.6 FO and P4P staff views on further PHHS training required ________________________ 40

4. Conclusions __________________________________________________________ 42

4.1 Summary of the nature of P4P PHHS training _____________________________________ 42

4.2 Who needs to be trained _____________________________________________________ 42

4.3 Approach to training and nature of training materials ______________________________ 43

4.4 M&E of training ____________________________________________________________ 44

4.5 Keeping the trainees trained __________________________________________________ 44

5. The Way Forward - Development of the P4P PHHS Training Package ___________ 45

5.1 Design of the manual ________________________________________________________ 45

5.2 Technical content of the manual _______________________________________________ 46

5.3 Recommended approach and timetable for the way forward based on the Rome stakeholder

workshop 2nd

December 2011 ____________________________________________________ 48

ANNEXES _________________________________________________________________ 49

Annex 1: Training materials used in field visits to assess trainers and trainees responses to simplified

messages _____________________________________________________________________________ 49


Annex 2: Details of the Farmer Organisations which responded _________________________________ 52

Annex 3: P4P training course and training materials reported by WFP staff _______________________ 53

Annex 4: Poster used for farmer to farmer training in Uganda __________________________________ 56

Annex 5: Photos of postharvest models prepared by WFP Uganda and used in training ______________ 57

Annex 6: The aims and impacts of PHHS training courses according to selected FOs ________________ 58

Annex 7: Observation of WFP Staff of the degree of satisfaction expressed by FOs on the training they

have received and on the impact this training has had on the FOs. _______________________________ 61

Annex 8: Responses from FOs on what they found most useful, least useful and missing from training

courses ______________________________________________________________________________ 65

Annex 9: FO comparisons of P4P training course with others they have received ___________________ 69

Annex 10: Responses from WFP Staff in connection with monitoring training performance, what is done,

what could be done ____________________________________________________________________ 71

Annex 11: Example of training materials for use in adding whichever vernacular language is required __ 75


ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the many staff of farmer organizations who took time to help with

the completion of questionnaires and showed us hospitality in the field. We are also very grateful to

the WFP staff that assisted this project by completing questionnaires and organizing our field visits

particularly Naser Jemal, Charles Sembatya and Jorge Machanguana, and for the field support of

Charlotte Bienfait and Eleni Pantiora.

We are grateful for feedback on the draft report from Henri Chouvel (Afganistan), Mitsugu Hamai

(Malawi), Peter Kimotho (Kenya), Vincent K.Kiwanuka (Uganda), Emmanuela Mashayo (Rwanda),

Stephan Njukia (AGRA – Kenya), Eleni Pantiora, Sheryl Schneider (Guatemala)


ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

ACDI Agricultural Cooperative Development International

AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa

AMPATH Healthcare model for responding to the HIV pandemic in Kenya

CENPOSCO Centroamericana Poscosecha

CENTA Centro Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, El Salvador

CGA Cereal Growers Association

CP Cooperating Partner

CU Cooperative Union

CUNORI El Centro Universitario de Oriente, Guatemala

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN

FFT Field Farmer Trainers

FO Farmer Organisation

Grain Cereals and pulses unless otherwise stated

ICTA Institute for Agriculture Science and Technology

KMDP Kenya Maize Development Programme

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MiDA Millennium Development Authority, Ghana

NAADS Nationals Agricultural Advisory Services, Uganda

NRI Natural Resources Institute, UK

ORDS Office of Relief and Development Support, Methodist Church in Uganda

P4P Purchase for Progress

PC Primary Cooperative

PH Postharvest

PHHS Postharvest Handling and Storage

RUDI Rural Urban Development Initiatives

SAA Sasakawa Africa Association

SG 2000 Sasakawa Global 2000

ToT Training of Trainers

UN United Nations

VECO Regional programme of Vredeseilanden for East Africa

VOCA Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance

WFP World Food Programme


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

1. As of end September 2011, over 1,020 Farmers’ Organisations (FOs) in 20 developing countries

have been selected to participate in the P4P programme, a pilot initiative launched in September

2008 to learn whether and how the World Food Programme can enhance the development

impacts of food purchases in developing countries. Some of these FOs have difficulty in

supplying WFP with cereals and pulses that meet quality and safety standards. WFP and partners

under the P4P programme have supported training in postharvest handling and storage (PHHS)

for FOs to help the farmers meet these standards. At present, PHHS training is not co-ordinated

or standardised across countries, and no opportunity has been taken to capitalise on best

practice for both the method of delivery and for the training material content.

2. As the first step in developing a recommended handbook/set of training materials and training

approaches that can be used by all P4P countries, the training materials currently in use were

collected together by WFP staff and a screening report prepared. The second step, which is the

subject of this report, was a questionnaire survey undertaken to canvass the views of WFP staff,

and the FOs themselves on a wide range of aspects of the PHHS training delivered so far. The

questionnaires for WFP staff and for FOs were separate. The intention was that each of the 20

operational countries participating in P4P would return one completed WFP staff questionnaire

and five FO questionnaires.

3. A total of 10 WFP staff and 47 FO completed questionnaires were returned. To back up the

questionnaire survey, field visits by NRI postharvest experts were made in October 2011 to

Ethiopia, Mozambique and Uganda, accompanied by WFP Rome staff. This enabled them to

interact directly with the key stakeholders including P4P staff, managers and farmers of FOs and

a range of Cooperating Partners (CPs), in particular, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),

Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA), World Vision and Office of Relief and Development Support

(ORDS). NRI staff also screened the PHHS training materials produced to date by the different

countries training organisations (and collected together in the WFP screening exercise), to

familiarise themselves with existing P4P materials and identify any that might prove useful in

assembling the co-ordinated P4P PHHS training package.

4. Following the field mission, questionnaire analysis and the development of the first draft of this

report, a consultation meeting was held in Rome to present the findings and seek views on the

suggested way forward, this is reflected in section 5.3.

Overview of Farmer Organisations interviewed

5. Amongst the 47 FOs from 8 countries who responded to the questionnaire, the average age of

the FOs was ~7 years with a range from 1 to 35 years old. The average membership of the FOs

was 635 people, with a wide range from 20 to 7,000 members. While 42% of members of these

FOs were female, this ranged from 0 to 100% across different FOs. The Ethiopian and

Guatemalan FOs had the lowest female membership.

6. It was typically the chairperson, manager, president, treasurer, secretary who was interviewed

and they were mainly male. A few respondents (12 of the 47) had experience of both delivering

and receiving training. The FOs responding covered the range of stages of development

(nascent, medium and high). The P4P staff respondents explained that across the 10 countries

with which they work, ~60% of the FOs are classified as being in the medium developmental

stage, and only 12% in the high stage.

7. Of the FOs interviewed 28 of the 47 had supplied maize grain to P4P at some point during the

last four years, with quantities ranging from 22.5 MT to 1,235 MT/ year. While 10 of the 47 FOs

had supplied beans to P4P during the last four years, with quantities ranging from 7.5MT to 100

MT/ year. Some of the FOs (16 of the 47) had yet to supply either maize or beans to P4P.


Main grain quality and safety problems experienced in P4P transactions

8. The most frequent quality and safety problems experienced by FOs when supplying grain

(cereals and/or pulses) to P4P were:

• the moisture content of the grain being too high

• presence of insect pests in grain

• presence of foreign matter, debris and broken grains

• poor/ inappropriate storage structures

• insufficient storage capacity

• lack of drying materials (e.g. tarpaulins)

• unpredictable climatic events such as the rains ceasing prematurely or arriving unexpectedly

• difficulties in ensuring a proper fumigation is done

• delays in uplift of grain by WFP resulting in insect infestation

• difficulties aggregating sufficient quantities of grain from trusted members resulting in the

need to purchase more risky produce from other FOs

• lack of understanding by farmers of required drying and sorting standards

Several of the FOs explained that postharvest training under the P4P programme had already

reduced some of these problems. Training was seen by the interviewees as the solution for reducing

these problems.

FO and P4P staff experience of P4P’s Postharvest Handling and Storage

Training to date

The Range of P4P PHHS Training Courses and Service Providers

9. Over 20 different PHHS courses and materials were mentioned by WFP staff from the 10

responding countries. Most countries have more than one course and these cover farm level

operations and sometimes the operations expected in the stores where FO members assemble

their grain, and courses designed to address only warehouse management.

10. Only a small proportion of the total FOs members have been trained in PHHS and most of this

has occurred in 2010/2011. In Ethiopia, El Salvador and Guatemala the percentage of female

trainees reported by these FOs was 16% or less. In all but one country (Ghana), the vast majority

of FO members were considered to be literate and in the case of Kenya the majority had

attended secondary school.

Delivery Methods, Practicals, Assessment and Duration of P4P PHHS training courses

11. Lecture and group discussions were the most frequent PHHS training delivery methods

mentioned by the FO respondents. Handouts, PowerPoint and flip chart presentations were

some of the commonly used supporting tools. Practical activities were a key aspect of the

courses. In two countries needs assessments were used to shape the course content. Some

trainers mentioned a need to develop their own participatory training skills in order to deliver

more interactive and experiential learning experiences.

12. Practical exercises used included: taking samples; using a moisture meter; using scales; and in El

Salvador learning to do a UV analysis of fungus (aflatoxin screening); fumigation practices were

done in Tanzania; in Tanzania they also learnt how to differentiate authentic and fake pesticide

packaging and how to use the bottle and salt method for determining acceptable grain moisture

content. In Mozambique use of hand shellers and putting of grain into storage had been

practiced. Use of hermetically sealed bags, use of and maintenance of motorised shelling and

cleaning machines, theatrical activities, and mud silo and drying crib construction had also

occurred in some countries.


13. In nearly all cases assessment had been used during the PHHS training to check learning was

happening. This included oral question and answer sessions, follow up visits, review of course

objectives and participants expectations, checks on the quality of grain subsequently being

delivered by the FO to the depot, refresher trainings, formal tests, participant presentations and

recaps on the topics covered.

14. The P4P PHHS training courses for FOs varied in length from a minimum of 3 hours (Uganda,

Kenya) to a maximum of 3 weeks although this was not one continuous time period (Uganda).

There were several complaints by FOs that the course duration was too short (even for 3 day

courses).

Details of PHHS Training Course Materials

15. Participants on 20 of the courses received handouts, although seven of the 47 FOs responding

mentioned note taking by participants. In Ghana only one copy of the handout was available for

sharing between all the participants. In 17 of the courses, posters were used as training

materials, particularly in Mozambique and Uganda. In Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique

participants were given more detailed module booklets or manuals. The interaction with the

trainer and other participants was considered to have been how most of the learning occurred

with the posters and booklets where present acting as supporting materials. In Uganda, a

comprehensive poster (prepared by SG 2000) was used for farmer to farmer training.

16. Other course materials included: PowerPoints, flipcharts or oral presentations; manual shellers

and motorised shelling and threshing machines and their operating manuals; tarpaulins; the Blue

Box; data tables for calculations and field and store visits. Uganda was unusual as it included

models of postharvest equipment as training aides but respondents would rather have practiced

with real equipment.

Aims and Impacts of PHHS Training Courses and Materials

17. Participants’ views of the learning objectives of the PHHS courses were mainly related to gaining

skills for on-farm operations with harvesting, drying, shelling and storage, and occasionally

collective storage or warehouse management being mentioned. Most of the courses were

relevant to both maize and bean PHHS.

18. In some countries large amounts (>USD$350,000/yr) of PHHS equipment (e.g. motorised shellers

and cleaners, fumigation sheets, sprayers, sieves) had been donated to FOs.

19. Positive changes in behaviour associated with the increased PHHS knowledge had also resulted

including: using plastic sheet for drying crop on; separating old from new stock during storage;

reduced pest infestation due to adopting better hygiene and handling procedures. WFP staff

reported receiving better quality grain from the FOs, improved warehouse management by FOs,

increased use of mechanisation, and increasing use of centralised storage.

Suggested opportunities for improving farmers PHHS training experiences

20. Suggestions by WFP P4P staff for improving the PHHS training course delivery methods included:

• more illustrations to make the topic more interesting, and getting modules translated into

cartoon images on posters to popularise the issues

• posters that clearly depict the good and the bad PHHS practices

• increased duration of the training courses to enable farmers to gain a deeper

understanding

• making the training more practical and less theoretical in order to enhance farmer learning

• increased use of videos and group discussions as opposed to just lectures

• reinforcement of information with PHHS radio programmes (and perhaps even TV shows)

• ensuring more female participants and that the course timing suits them


21. The FO respondents provided long lists of the most and least useful topics in the PHHS courses

highlighting how much the perspective differs by participant, they also noted topics which were

missing which varied by country. In some countries, an obvious gap in training was the role, and

application, of insecticide admixture to grain to prevent insect infestation during bag storage.

This is potentially an important omission since the training given in support of P4P encourages a

change in storage practice, from storing maize cobs to storing maize grain. In several countries,

FOs appear not to have been presented with illustrations or samples of grain showing the actual

quality of grain required by WFP. A standard grain sample in a ‘blister’ pack could be made

available. Some FOs wanted to know more about fumigation practice, in most countries it is

illegal for anyone other than a registered fumigator to undertake fumigations but this does not

mean FO members cannot be trained in understanding key aspects of when and how to

fumigate in order that they can ensure a good quality fumigation is done.

22. The most frequently suggested improvements to the PHHS training materials by WFP P4P staff

were:

• need for more illustrations and cartoons and less text,

• need for them to be printed on UV resistant and tough materials, and

• need for them to be easily converted to local language versions for increased

understanding.

The Blue Box

23. The Blue Box (now silver coloured) is a grain quality testing kit established by WFP to enable

anyone interested in assessing the quality of their grain to do so. The box contains grain

sampling equipment, grading equipment, an aflatoxin test kit and a power supply. WFP have

implemented training in the use of the Blue Box in only one of the countries that responded to

the survey, Guatemala who commends it as a means of creating awareness of quality. In El

Salvador they have issued their own grain testing equipment to FOs and they caution that: for

adoption, several staff in any FO need to be trained to use the equipment; and although testing

works well it is only worth going to the trouble of supplying the equipment to FOs that are

regular grain traders. (Comment from WFP Rome – the HQ Blue Box package follows a diverse

implementation approach and has so far only been promoted by WFP HQ in African countries).

Language and Comprehension Issues of P4P PHHS Training Courses and Materials

24. National and local languages were typically used for the delivery of the PHHS courses. A few

Kenyan FOs would have preferred a greater use of the local language. However the training

materials were typically in English (Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda), French

(Burkina Faso), Portugese (Mozambique) or Spanish (El Salvador and Guatemala). With the

exceptions of Tanzania where they were in Swahili and Ethiopia where the primary trainers

translated their materials into local languages (e.g. Amharic, Oromifa), in Burkina Faso the

manual was published in Moore and Dioula as well as French. It was suggested that greater use

of illustrations in the materials could help overcome language barrier issues.

25. WFP P4P staff in all the ten responding countries felt that PHHS training courses and training

materials should be delivered in local languages and should contain lots of pictures and graphics

in order to have the most impact. Producing training materials in all the many local languages

used in each of the 21 P4P focal countries would be too complex if done centrally. However it

should be possible to create graphic cartoon style materials which can easily be copied and have

whichever local language is appropriate then inserted. It was suggested that PHHS radio

programmes could also be explored.

26. All the FO respondents said either ‘everybody had understood all of the PHHS training course’

(60%), or ‘some people understood some of it’ (40%).


Farmer to farmer training aspects

27. Only 8 of the 47 FOs said that formal arrangements had been put in place to facilitate farmer to

farmer training. These FOs were in Kenya and Uganda and in some cases the P4P implementing

partner had organised this and in others cases the FO appears to have been given funds to cover

the cost of hiring a venue, copying training materials, transport reimbursements and meals to

facilitate the farmer to farmer training. In two Mozambican FOs a PHHS training work plan had

been created.

28. However despite the lack of formal arrangements to facilitate farmer to farmer training, some

was happening organically although the scale and quality of it cannot be judged from this survey.

In only four of the 47 FOs had any training materials been passed on to other farmers.

Comparison with other PHHS training courses and materials

29. Seven countries listed a total of 10 other PPHS courses they had attended. Five of the other

courses were rated not as good as those supplied through P4P, in two cases respondents found

no difference and in one case the other course was better. In those cases where P4P was better,

the preferred features were – less theoretical; more practical with access to equipment; more

detailed; provided brochures; gave information on marketing; and, gave follow up. Where the

P4P course was said to be worse, the reasoning was that the other course worked with the

whole group rather than selected trainees, nevertheless the P4P course got credit for supplying

brochures which the other didn’t.

Monitoring and evaluation of P4Ps PHHS training

30. In most countries (7 out of 10) there has not yet been any assessment of training impact, but the

majority of FOs responded that checks on training were made through observation of conformity

to food quality specifications. This is a reasonable response in the sense that this conformity to

quality standards is a proxy for the adoption of suitable PHHS practices promoted during

training.

31. In a few cases there was an indication that successful adoption was being monitored. In

Mozambique, one respondent stated World Vision staff on routine visits talked about the

adoption of the recommended methods, and in Tanzania it was mentioned that AGRA (Alliance

for the Green Revolution in Africa) had undertaken cases studies of the training delivered to

smallholders and concluded that the training period was too short. In Uganda, P4P field staff

made checks and reported on adoption of PH practices by both those who have been trained

directly and those who have received training through a ToT cascade. In some countries there

was scepticism by WFP and implementing partners about the extent to which training cascades

work. In Ethiopia it was apparent that although significant resources had been invested in a 3

week ToT for 21 Ministry of Agriculture staff, only very limited resources and attention had then

been given to helping these officers train a few farmer leaders so any impact on grain quality

was highly unlikely.

FO and P4P staff views on further PHHS training required

32. There is a clear demand for further training for those many members of the FOs who have not

yet been trained and refresher training from those FO members who have already received

training. Only three countries explicitly demanded higher level training courses, which should

include refresher training following a needs assessment and follow up visits, plus higher level

training on technical issues such as fumigation, store construction, use of Blue Box. An El

Salvador respondent suggested that that the FOs should embark on a process of certification in a

recognized system for grain handling, this implies higher level training and compliance

monitoring of FOs.


Conclusions

Summary of the Nature of P4P PHHS training

33. From the questionnaire survey and field visits, an image of P4P training emerges that is diverse

in nature and generally appreciated by both trainees and trainers. The diversity is a result of the

contracting of different implementing partners with different PHHS and training experience in

each country. The P4P training materials and approaches that emerge are thus a mixture of what

is available and what has been generated to fill perceived gaps and reflects, to a greater or lesser

extent, the strengths and the weaknesses of the CPs.

34. Typically across the P4P countries responding, the household harvests and handles the grain to

the point that it is available in sacks. It may then be stored in the household for variable lengths

of time before being moved to a communal FO collection point, typically a small bag store. WFP

may pick up the grain from this or subsequent collection points, or the FOs may deliver to WFP.

Who Needs to be Trained

35. The FO members are the end users of the P4P PHHS training, however for the skills to reach

them it is necessary for P4P to facilitate the training of the different layers of trainers (e.g.

Primary – WFP, FAO, SAA; Secondary - NGO, Government Extension Staff; Tertiary - FO leaders,

model farmers etc) and the development of appropriate training topics, approaches and

materials for each level. In some countries a very small proportion of the PHHS trainees at all

levels including the end user level are women, if the P4P programme goal of transformation of

unequal gender relations and women’s empowerment is to be promoted then women’s access

to P4P’s PHHS training needs to be addressed.

Approach to Training and Nature of Training Materials

36. As PHHS technologies are more or less universal, the training needs of the different

developmental stages of the FO do not differ greatly. Although individual household’s socio-

economic status will of course determine which aspects they adopt. The FOs current or medium

term needs should be established at the outset of training and these will then dictate the

training topics. So for example if a group does not have access to a small warehouse, would not

use drying cribs or have no access to motorised maize shellers then detailed training on these

should only be provided when specifically requested. During the survey, farmers frequently

complained they had been taught to do things for which they do not have the equipment. The

trainers must be skilled in picking out those topics that are appropriate and in leaving others for

future occasions.

37. During the survey, primary and secondary trainers emerged as universally literate people with at

least some background in agriculture. The training manual used for the primary and secondary

trainers needs a thread of direct instructions on how to do PHHS that is illustrated by cartoons

and light text, with aside text boxes that explain technical issues to those who have the capacity

to benefit from this. While simplified visual material (mostly cartoons with very limited text)

could be used with the tertiary trainers and end users, taking more of a poster format. This is

substantially the current approach in Uganda and Mozambique, but not Ethiopia.

38. End users typically learn by doing, so it comes as no surprise that the practical elements of

courses were the most appreciated. It is therefore essential that any end user training is

practical in nature and supported by whatever equipment the end users are likely to be able to

access themselves, be it sheets, sieves, shellers, sacks, grain protectants, pallets etc. Well

illustrated posters that can be labelled in the local language can then act as aide-memoires and

can be used as a stepwise guide during this practical training. Courses for tertiary trainers and

end users must take account of the local language, time of day and duration of training in order

to encourage maximum participation; especially of women. The season should be chosen

carefully to match the relevant postharvest activities and the crop under consideration.


M&E of Training

39. There seems to have been almost no formal monitoring or evaluation of training performance

yet, so although staff at field level do interact with their trainees and establish their degree of

training success, this is not done in a way that allows critical appraisal. This limits the possibility

of upgrading training and assessing value for money.

40. The learning outcomes expected from the training courses for each FO need to be established at

the start of any training, and should be based on negotiations with each FO on their training

needs. These training outcomes should be expressed as the changes in practices (adoption of

new approaches) that will lead to the supply of more grain of better quality to the FO. The

success of training can then be tested by observations on the extent to which trainees have

succeeded in the adoption of new practices or changes in behaviour, which result in the delivery

of good quality grain.

Keeping the Trainees Trained

41. There was a clear demand for ‘refresher/ follow up’ training as a means of motivating farmer’s

to implement new practices. The tertiary trainers with direct access to farmers could play an

important role in implementing this prior to the start of PHHS activities each year. Higher level

training of end users should be based on specific needs, identified during the M&E. The

opportunity for FOs to achieve grain handling certification was suggested and could be explored

with regional organisations. Further P4P could benefit from the use of radio to broadcast topical

PHHS messages.

The Way Forward – Development of P4P PHHS Training Sessions

42. The current diversity of P4P training materials and training approaches, make it difficult to

ensure that any given training course has all the essential elements and that these elements are

being explained in detail in a meaningful context, that farmers are able to practice them and can

ask questions about them so that there is real learning. This situation is a justification for the

development of a standardized package of P4P PHHS courses, flexible enough to take account of

local circumstances.

Design of the Manual

43. The various P4P PHHS training sessions required will be presented in a single manual, of a ring

binder format to enable customisation by language and technical content (important given all

the local quality specifications, and cultural differences amongst the 21 countries) and enable

improvements and updates as necessary. The manual will be designed with resistance to rain

and sun in mind.

44. The nature of materials will be consistent with the approach described further above. There will

be simple A3 foldouts with cartoons and minimal text (equivalent to posters), A4 pages of

cartoons with rather more text and also separate blocks of text for explaining the theory behind

important PHHS issues. This approach will cater for the needs of each type of learner and each

type of trainer. Clear graphic materials will be provided that can then have words (in whichever

local language) added into them by the trainer.

45. To complement the manual, PowerPoint presentations will be developed that will be suitable for

the instruction of secondary trainers.


Technical Content of the Manual

46. The Manual will be divided into the following sections, further details of which are provided in

section 5.2 of this report.

Section 1 – How to deliver training

Section 2 – How to get good quality grain on the farm

Section 3 – How to maintain good quality grain at first aggregation

Section 4 – How to keep grain quality good in a warehouse

Section 5 – General principle of grain quality

Timetable and Priorities

47. After consideration of the nature of cartoon style materials for P4P countries, it was concluded

that they would need to be drawn in a region-specific manner. To achieve this it is proposed that

the training package should be developed in phases. The first phase will be for Sub-Saharan

Africa. There would be subsequent phases for Central America and Asia when budgets allow.

48. The proposed timetable for the development of the training package is as follows;

1. This report to be circulated by WFP to key stakeholders by 9th December 2011 for

information and comment. Comments to be sent to NRI ([email protected] and

[email protected]); the deadline for this is 8th January 2012.

2. The first draft of the training package should be prepared and available for comment by the

end of February 2012.

3. The draft package will be circulate to Country Offices (COs) and other stakeholders to obtain

buy in/validation.

4. The training package would be ready for printing in April/May 2012.


1. INTRODUCTION

Over 1,020 Farmers’ Organisations (FOs) in 20 developing countries1 have been selected to

participate in the P4P programme, a pilot initiative launched in September 2008, to learn whether

and how the World Food Programme can enhance the development impacts of food purchases in

developing countries. Depending on their state of development, these FOs have more or less

difficulty in supplying WFP with cereals and pulses that meet quality and safety standards. To meet

quality standards, FOs are trained in postharvest handling and storage (PHHS) usually by third

parties within country, occasionally with certain elements directly contributed by WFP. However,

training is not co-ordinated across countries, there is no standardisation and as yet no formal

opportunity has been taken to capitalise on best practice for both the method of delivery and for the

training material content.

As the first step in developing a recommended handbook/set of training materials and training

approaches that can be used by all P4P countries, a questionnaire was undertaken to canvass the

views of WFP staff and the FOs themselves on a wide range of aspects of PHHS training. The survey

was undertaken in order to establish:

• Best practice for both the delivery and for the content of training courses (taking account of

different developmental stages of FOs).

• The need for, and an approach to, refresher training/training reinforcement to develop and

maintain skills at FOs, and

• An approach to monitoring the success of the new Handbook/training materials that will

enable improved/revised editions of these to be developed over time as FOs use the

materials (the Handbook will be presented in loose leaf format to enable easy upgrading).

In undertaking survey work, the stage of development of FOs was taken into account, since this

might be thought to have a bearing on the nature of the most appropriate approaches to training

and on the content of training materials. The stages of FO development were defined as follows –

• Nascent FO – direct contract procurement, no supply side partner, capacity building needs

high

• Medium maturity FO - direct/ forward and limited soft tender contract up to 500 MT, some

capacity building still required, already working with supply side partner

• High maturity FO – has existing capacity to contribute regularly to LRP, minimal capacity

building required, extensive supply side support.

The targets for metric tons of food purchased and number of farmers P4P is purchasing from for

each country are shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. These are 5 year targets for all the countries except

El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua where it is a 4 year target, and Ghana, Sierra Leone

and South Sudan where it is a 2 year target. The greatest quantities of food are planned to be

purchased by P4P from Afghanistan, Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya. The greatest number of farmer the

programme plans to purchase quality products from are in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Zambia and

Uganda.

1 Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC, Burkina Faso, Mali,

Southern Sudan, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Laos


Figure 1.1: P4P target quantities of food to be purchased locally per country

Figure 1.2: P4P target number of beneficiaries per focal country

Data source: P4P Country briefings on website Sept 2011

2. METHOD

As the first step in developing a recommended handbook/set of training materials and training

approaches that can be used by all P4P countries, the training materials currently in use were

collected together by WFP staff and a screening report prepared2. NRI staff reviewed all the training

materials, prior to their field visits (see below) in order to separate those materials that might prove

useful in assembling a new P4P training package. Examples of two of the materials, plus others from

the NRI collection were taken on field visits to gauge the responses of trainers and trainees to them.

These included cartoon based and photograph based documents (Annex 1). The second step, which

is the main subject of this report, was a questionnaire survey undertaken to canvass the views of

WFP staff, and the FOs themselves on a wide range of aspects of the PHHS training delivered so far.

The questionnaires for WFP staff and for FOs were separate. The intention was that each of the 20

2Wamara, J., Bienfait, C., Pantiora, E. (2011). Post-Harvest Handling Training Package Development. Phase II. Review of

Existing Training Materials. P4P, WFP, Rome, 22pp.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Bu

rkin

a F

aso

DR

C

Eth

iop

ia

Gh

an

a

Ke

nya

Lib

eri

a

Ma

law

i

Ma

li

Mo

zam

biq

ue

Rw

an

da

Sie

rra

Le

on

e

Sou

the

rn S

ud

an

Ta

nza

nia

Ug

an

da

Za

mb

ia

Afg

ha

nis

tan

El S

alv

ad

or

Gu

ate

ma

la

Ho

nd

ura

s

Nic

ara

gu

a

Lao

s

Pla

nn

ed

fo

od

pu

rch

ase

s (m

etr

ic t

on

s)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Bu

rkin

a F

aso

DR

C

Eth

iop

ia

Gh

an

a

Ke

nya

Lib

eri

a

Ma

law

i

Ma

li

Mo

zam

biq

ue

Rw

an

da

Sie

rra

Le

on

e

Sou

the

rn S

ud

an

Ta

nza

nia

Ug

an

da

Za

mb

ia

Afg

ha

nis

tan

El S

alv

ad

or

Gu

ate

ma

la

Ho

nd

ura

s

Nic

ara

gu

a

Lao

s

Nu

mb

er

of

farm

ers

pu

rch

asi

ng

fro

m


operational countries participating in P4P would return one completed WFP staff questionnaire and

five FO questionnaires.

Questionnaires were sent out on 6th September 2011. Due to limited response by the end of

September, the deadline was extended to 31st October. Table 2.1 below shows where the 10 WFP

staff and 47 FO completed questionnaires received by the end of October were from. The

questionnaire responses were entered into an Access database, and then analysed for this report.

In addition to the questionnaire, field visits in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Uganda were made by the

NRI postharvest experts accompanied by WFP Rome staff and local P4P staff in October 2011.

The overall aim of the field visits was:

- to help inform the development of a Postharvest Handling Handbook and related training

materials suitable for the range of FOs from which P4P procures cereals and pulses.

Specifically the visits enabled the consultants to:

- discuss PHHS training activities and needs with the WFP/P4P teams, and interview staff from

both WFP and CPs involved in the implementation of P4P, in particular, the UN Food and

Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA), World Vision and Office of

Relief and Development Support (ORDS), in order to complete the PHHS questionnaire.

- gain a clear understanding of the PHHS training system used (who, what, when, where, how,

different levels) to date in each of these countries

- visit Nascent, Medium, and High maturity FOs from which P4P has purchased grain or pulses and

discuss (and visit) their: PH systems at household and communal level; experiences of the PHHS

training they have received; and suggestions for improved PHHS training (delivery and

materials). Interview members of several FOs in order to complete the FO PHHS questionnaires.

- develop an overview of opportunities for monitoring and evaluating the PHHS training and

follow-up/ refresher/ gap filling requirements of FOs to enable them to collect, store and supply

better quality produce.

Table 2.1: List of completed questionnaires returned by P4P countries

Country P4P staff Questionnaire

(target n=1 per country) Farmer Organisation Questionnaire

(target n=5 per country)

Kenya 1 14

Tanzania 1 4

Sierra Leone 1 Burkina Faso 1 Ethiopia 1 3

Mozambique 1 12

Uganda 1 6

Ghana 1 2

El Salvador 1 4

Guatemala 1 2

10 47

Key: Green shading = those countries programmes visited by NRI.

Following the field mission and the development of the first draft of this report, a stakeholder

workshop was held on 2nd December in Rome with P4P staff and other stakeholders. The purpose of

the workshop was to present the findings and seek views on the most appropriate way forward.

Most of the results of this consultation are presented at the end of Section 5, although for

convenience some elements have been inserted elsewhere in the text. This report is being circulated

to provide the opportunity for further consultation.


3. FINDINGS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND FIELD VISITS

3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE FARMER ORGANISATIONS INTERVIEWED

3.1.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FARMER ORGANISATIONS (FOS)

Age and Membership of FOs: Responses from 47 FOs were included in this analysis; an overview of

the Name, Age, Membership, and Geographical location of each of these FOs is given in Annex 2. The

average age of the FOs was ~7 years, although the range included cases of only 1 year as well as 35

years old. While the average number of members was 635, the membership size of the FOs varied

widely from between 20 to 7000 members. Mozambique, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda were

notable for the large membership size (>580) of their FOs. On average 42% of members were

female, however this ranged from 0% to 100% female membership across the different FOs. On a

country basis the Ethiopian FOs interviewed had the lowest average % of female members (≤11%),

and the two Guatemalan FOs included were also low (18%). In the other countries on average >32%

of registered members of the FOs responding to the questionnaire were female.

Although it was not specified in the guidelines, in all cases the FO interviewee was someone in a role

of authority within the FO (e.g. chairperson, manager, president, treasurer, secretary) rather than

just a member. It should also be noted that in the case of 38 of the 47 FOs interviewed, the

interviewee was male, at 2 FOs a man and woman answered together.

At 12 of the 47 FOs interviewed the person being interviewed had experience of both of delivering

and of receiving training.

Developmental stages and numbers of

FOs that P4P teams are interacting with:

The state of development of the

responding FOs is shown in figure 3.1.1.

In Ethiopia it was explained that the

developmental stage categorisation of

the FO was based on the amount of

working capital and functions of the

Cooperative Union (CU). Management of

the CU warehouses and warehouse

facilities were clearly stronger at the high

maturity CUs. In Mozambique the FOs

visited were all classified as medium and

this was justified as all had more or less

the same infrastructure, degree of supply

Figure 3.1.1: Stage of development (nascent, medium,

high) of the responding FOs

side support from a CP (in this case World Vision) and experience of supplying grain to WFP. In

Uganda a range of FOs were visited with development stages from Nascent to High. They differed in

the infrastructure and experience of the management but did not appear to differ much in terms of

postharvest equipment actually available to the farming household nor capacity of members in

terms of PHHS.

However when the P4P staff was asked to classify the developmental stage of all the FOs with whom

they are currently working, the following figures were provided (see Figure 3.1.2). 60% were

currently classified as being in the medium developmental stage, and only 12% as high. It should be

noted that in Ethiopia while the FOs interviewed were the Primary Cooperatives (PC), the

development stage actually refers to the Cooperative Union (CU) which the Primary Cooperative

supplies, so while P4P Ethiopia works with 16 CU, these 16 CUs will be supplied by about 300

0

5

10

15High

Medium

Nascent


Primary Cooperatives in total. In Uganda it was highlighted that there are 85 registered vendors but

P4P also has other unregistered suppliers, and

again.

Figure 3.1.2: Overview of developmental stage

(in parenthesis number of FOs concerned in each country)

Crop sales to P4P: 28 of the 47 FOs

during the last four years. The quantities supplied ranged from

of the FOs (Mozambique and El Salvador

Rejection issues were associated with insect infestation and higher than recommended moisture

content of the commodity.

Only 10 of the 47 FOs reported having

years. The quantities supplied ranged from 7.5MT

had any beans rejected by P4P. Seven of them had also sold maize to P4P.

Sixteen of the 47 FOs reported having not yet supplied either maize or beans to P4P.

this includes recently identified FOs who have yet to be contracted by P4P but with whom links have

been made, FOs in areas where the crop season has not been good this year

have a surplus to sell, FOs who may have defaulted on a contract with P4P

preference to supply a different market.

The P4P team in Ethiopia had bought 16,000MT of food locally in 2010 (

rate), but in 2011 had only managed to buy 2,900MT due to drought

52% contract default rate). The Cooperative Union (CU) managers said the P4P purchase prices were

too low, especially given all the cleaning required to reach the Grade 1 standard, and the delay that

can occur between agreeing the contract details and the actual delivery date. One

having to buy in an additional 10MT of

full contract amount and then having to selling it to P4P at 530 birr/ quintale. It appears that in the

first year some of the CUs sold at a loss

training and significant equipment they had received offset some of the loss. It is notable that in the

2011 writeshops undertaken by the Royal Tropical Institute of the Netherlands to review the resu

of P4P Capacity Building efforts in

3 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp238041.pdf

4 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/doc

0

20

40

60

80

100P

erc

en

tag

e

Postharvest Handling and Storage Training

In Uganda it was highlighted that there are 85 registered vendors but

P4P also has other unregistered suppliers, and the implementing partners work with different FOs

Overview of developmental stages of the FOs that are working with the

(in parenthesis number of FOs concerned in each country)

of the 47 FOs interviewed had supplied maize grain to P4P at some point

during the last four years. The quantities supplied ranged from 22.5 MT to 1,235 MT/ year. Only

of the FOs (Mozambique and El Salvador) recorded having had maize grain rejected by P4P.

n issues were associated with insect infestation and higher than recommended moisture

reported having supplied beans to P4P at some point during the last four

years. The quantities supplied ranged from 7.5MT to 100 MT/ year. None of them recorded having

Seven of them had also sold maize to P4P.

f the 47 FOs reported having not yet supplied either maize or beans to P4P.

FOs who have yet to be contracted by P4P but with whom links have

been made, FOs in areas where the crop season has not been good this year and so whom did not

, FOs who may have defaulted on a contract with P4P

erence to supply a different market.

bought 16,000MT of food locally in 2010 (with a

only managed to buy 2,900MT due to drought related crop shortages

The Cooperative Union (CU) managers said the P4P purchase prices were


can occur between agreeing the contract details and the actual delivery date. One

an additional 10MT of maize at 750 birr/ quintale in order to


first year some of the CUs sold at a loss due to delayed contract negotiations and they felt the


ken by the Royal Tropical Institute of the Netherlands to review the resu

Building efforts in both Kenya3 and Tanzania4, similar issues were highlighted in

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp238041.pdf

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp239158.pdf

In Uganda it was highlighted that there are 85 registered vendors but

the implementing partners work with different FOs

that are working with the P4P project

had supplied maize grain to P4P at some point

MT to 1,235 MT/ year. Only four

) recorded having had maize grain rejected by P4P.

n issues were associated with insect infestation and higher than recommended moisture

supplied beans to P4P at some point during the last four

to 100 MT/ year. None of them recorded having

f the 47 FOs reported having not yet supplied either maize or beans to P4P. It is likely that

FOs who have yet to be contracted by P4P but with whom links have

and so whom did not

, FOs who may have defaulted on a contract with P4P and those with a

with a 4% contract default

related crop shortages (and a

The Cooperative Union (CU) managers said the P4P purchase prices were


can occur between agreeing the contract details and the actual delivery date. One CU reported

ensure they met the


due to delayed contract negotiations and they felt the


ken by the Royal Tropical Institute of the Netherlands to review the results

similar issues were highlighted in

High

Medium

Nascent


association with FO contract defaults typically from the second year of interaction onwards. In

Ethiopia, P4P is targeting 16 CUs in the country, and if there are food shortages surrounding these

CUs then the priority is for the CU to store and sell food grains to the surrounding farmers as

opposed to selling them to other buyers.

3.2 MAIN GRAIN QUALITY AND SAFETY PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED IN P4P TRANSACTIONS

The main grain quality and safety problems experienced by farmer organizations (FOs) when

supplying grain to P4P are shown in Table 3.2.1 by country. The most frequently mentioned

included:

• the moisture content of the grain being too high (which the interviewees explained could be

due to various reasons including: farmers needing cash rapidly so trying to rush the drying

process in order to sell faster; unexpected rains post maturity or during drying; carelessness

by farmers; poor drying techniques; and a lack of access by farmers to equipment to test/

check the grain moisture content)

• presence of insect pests in grain

• presence of foreign matter, debris and broken grains – due to poor shelling and threshing

facilities and practices

• poor/ inappropriate storage structures

• insufficient storage capacity

• lack of drying materials (e.g. tarpaulins)

• unpredictable climatic events such as the rains ceasing prematurely during the field period,

or prolonged wet weather during drying

• difficulties in ensuring a proper fumigation is done

• delays in uplift of grain by WFP resulting in insect infestation

• difficulties aggregating sufficient quantities of grain from trusted members resulting in need

to purchase more risky produce from other farmer organisations

• lack of understanding by farmers of the required drying and sorting standards

Several of the FOs explained that postharvest training by P4P had already reduced some of these

problems. Training was seen by the interviewees as the solution for reducing or eliminating these

problems.

WFP P4P staff have similar perceptions about the main quality and safety problems experienced

when purchasing grain from FOs (Table 3.2.2). The most frequently mentioned issues were: high

foreign matter content; high moisture content; shrivelled, diseased, rotten and broken grains; and

discoloured grains.


Table 3.2.1: Main grain quality and safety problems experienced by farmer organisations in eight

different countries, when supplying grain to WFP P4P

Main grain quality and safety problems experienced To

tal

Eth

iopi

a (n

=3)

Ken

ya (

n=14

)

Uga

nda

(n=

6)

Moz

ambi

que

(n=

12)

Tan

zani

a (n

=4)

Gha

na (

n=2)

El S

alva

dor

(n=

4)

Gua

tem

ala

(n=

2)

Farmer skills/ decision making

Moisture content of grain too high when delivered by farmers (due to urgency for cash, unexpected rains, carelessness, poor drying, no equipment to test/check)

10 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 1

Insect pests present in the grain 10 0 2 2 2 0 0 4 0

Contaminants in the grain (foreign matters/ debris) and broken grains due to poor shelling and threshing practices and facilities

9 3 1 2 0 2 0 1 0

Mixing of different colours of maize grains 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Presence of aflatoxins 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Premature harvesting of grain leading to poor quality 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Need training on better maize production practices in order to harvest better quality grains

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Physical assets

Poor/ inappropriate storage structure 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Insufficient storage capacity 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lack of drying materials (eg tarpaulins) 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Would like to be given a fire extinguisher and trained in its use for safety reasons 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Poor transport arrangements (eg losses if sacks transported directly on donkeys backs) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lack of access to improved seed 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Climatic factors

Unpredictable climatic events (eg rains ceasing prematurely, prolonged wet weather when wanting to dry)

4 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

High temperature 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Discoloration due to extended/ slow drying time 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Logistical/ organisation factors

Difficulties in getting a proper fumigation done 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0

Delays in uplift of grain resulting in infestation 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Difficulties aggregating sufficient quantities of clean grain so then purchasing more risky produce from other organisations

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

Maximising the use of the sheller 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Interaction with P4P

Not understanding the P4P specifications regards drying and sorting standards 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

Difficult to arrange for a technician to check quality of consignment 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

WFP warehouse full resulting in having to return grain to FO for temporary storage and then refumigate it

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

WFP purchasing price is too low 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0


Table 3.2.2: Perceptions of WFP P4P staff of the main grain quality and safety problems when P4P

procures grain from FOs in eight different countries

Perceived grain quality problems To

tal

Eth

iopi

a

Ken

ya

Uga

nda

Moz

ambi

que

Tan

zani

a

Gha

na

Sie

rra

Leon

e

Bur

kina

Fas

o

El S

alva

dor

Gua

tem

ala

Farmer skills/ decision making

High foreign matter content 6 X X X X X X

High moisture content (especially if weather is rainy during drying) 5 X X X X X

Shrivelled, diseased, rotten, broken grains 3 X X X

Insect infestation (in El Salvador this resulted from contamination in hired transport) 3 X X X

Discoloration of grains 3 X X X

Poor agronomical practices 1 X

Poor fumigation techniques 1 X

Poor sewing up of bags 1 X

Aflatoxin incidence 1 X

Poor storage practices 1 X

Physical assets

Lack of adequate storage facilities at farmer and primary aggregation level 1 X

Farmer organization interaction with P4P

WFP quality standards perceived as too strict (particularly at beginning of interaction, resulting in frequent side selling)

2 X X

Weight deviations of sacks due to re-cleaning to meet quality requirements 1 X

Not cost effective to pay someone to clean the grain 1 X

3.3 EXPERIENCES OF P4P’S POSTHARVEST HANDLING AND STORAGE TRAINING TO DATE

3.3.1 THE RANGE OF P4P PHHS TRAINING COURSES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS

Responses from WFP staff on training courses/training materials available

The PHHS training courses and the materials listed by WFP Staff, across 10 countries include over 20

different courses as well as some training materials on which courses are based (Annex 3). The

approach taken to training is quite variable from apparently basic to elaborate and systematic. Most

countries have more than one course and these cover farm level operations and sometimes the

operations expected in the stores where FO members assemble their grain, and courses designed to

address only warehouse management. The following examples illustrate the range of responses.

In Ghana there is a single Post Harvest Handling course at farm level that has been delivered at

different times by one of three organisations (Millennium Devt. Authority Ghana, ACDI-VOCA

ADVANCE, and A&G Agro-Industries Ltd) and which is stated to be suitable for FOs of medium

development.

In El Salvador three courses have been used. The first is a training of trainers (ToT), suitable for any

stage of FO development covering crop planting through to storage so that FOs can train their own

staff. The second is a farmer workshop to promote the use of metal silos for grain storage, suitable

for all stages of FO development. The third is a course on warehouse management for FOs of

medium to high development. Each of the courses is delivered by a different training organisation,

due to their specialist knowledge and geographical location etc.

In Mozambique there is a ToT course provided by FAO (in collaboration with WFP) to

Implementation Partners (CPs – e.g. World Vision, Min. of Agric. and UN Volunteers), with the

information required to train FOs directly (i.e. end user training only, not training for trainers). The


trainers are supported with a five part set of booklets that cover each of five training modules. There

are also two simple posters that summarise the main features of the desired postharvest approach.

When the CPs interact with the FOs their training is largely practical in nature and supported by

depositing single copies of the five booklets and a copy of the two posters as an aide memoire.

Training is backed up by a further course on improved mud silos construction; demonstration mud

silos were constructed for the FOs by trainees at project cost. As farmers are being urged to change

from the storage of maize cobs to the storage of shelled grain, silo storage is a potential solution to

possible insect infestation problems.

In Uganda, there have been residential ToT courses for CPs, backed up by a detailed technical

manual, PowerPoint presentations based on the manual, small scale models of equipment and

practical exercises. The CPs then developed their own training materials (manuals, poster) to provide

training to their FOs, and were supplied with a limited amount of demonstration material

(tarpaulins, hand shellers, motorised maize shellers, grain cleaners, moisture meters) to facilitate

training. It was intended that the key farmers who had been trained would train others to create a

cascade of training but no incentives for this had been provided and so the impact of this may have

been limited. There was also an ancillary training programme, delivered by one of the FOs, to

promote the construction of maize drying cribs.

In Ethiopia, a 3 week ToT PHHS course was delivered in August 2010 by Sasakawa Africa Association

(SAA) who also used WFP and University staff to help deliver different aspects of the course. The 19

participants (2 female) were mainly zonal and woreda level Ministry of Agriculture officers.

Following this these participants were grouped into pairs or threes and each small team then ran

one training course on PHHS for 2 or 3 days duration to ~15-20 (~2-4 female) participants who were

chairpersons of the Primary Cooperatives (PC) which supply the Cooperative Unions (CU) from which

P4P procures. A total of 8 of these courses were run giving a total of 191 trained participants (13%

female). No formal arrangements were made for these PC chairpersons to then deliver training to

some of their farmer members, although some had shared the notes they had taken with other

leaders of their PC. A separate course on warehouse PHHS and marketing had also been run for the

store keepers of the 16 CUs from which P4P procures, delivered by the staff of WFP Procurement

and the Ethiopian Commodity Reserve.

Responses from FOs on training course received

Selected FOs were asked to name the courses they had received and indicate whether these were

for ‘training of trainers’ (ToT) or ‘end user training’ and how many members had participated.

Courses received: As expected the responses of the FOs generally matched the list of courses

compiled by WFP staff, although some were missing and quite often the names used did not

correspond exactly. In several cases, essentially the same course is listed as (ToT) and not ToT

and/or delivered by different organisations (Table 3.3.1). Additional trainings, not listed by WFP

staff, were those on grain storage delivered by GrainPro (manufacturers of hermetic, plastic grain

stores) in Guatemala and in Kenya (Table 3.3.1).

Extent to which FO members have been trained: Overall the numbers of FO members who have

been trained appears quite small compared to the total numbers of members of FOs (Table 3.3.2).

This is not surprising since it would appear that in most countries, PHHS training has only been

implemented in 2010/2011. This suggests that there is still a considerable way to go before a high

proportion of FO members have received direct training. At the current rate most members would

be trained within 16 years, but this does not take account of any farmer to farmer training that may

happen as a result of the incentive of the better grain market offered by P4P. In Ethiopia, El Salvador

and Guatemala the percentage of female trainees reported by these FOs was 16% or less. If women

are to benefit from improved incomes as a result of sales of better quality cereals and pulses then

their capacity in PHHS needs to be built.


In Ethiopia 21 ToT participants were trained in a 15 day intensive PHHS course in November 2010,

and were then grouped into pairs or threes in order to run one 2-3 day training course for leaders of

some CUs and PCs. In total 191 participants (26 female) were trained in PHHS by the ToT participants

in Ethiopia. None of the ToT participants had organised or were planning to organise any other PHHS

training courses within their organisation’s normal training programme. Clearly the increased use of

those whom have been trained as P4P PHHS ToTs needs to be focused on; otherwise the training

investment will not reach farmers nor improve the quality of the products being sold to P4P. The

Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA) trainers felt that more attention needed to be paid to who

attends the ToT PHHS course, as many participants were Zonal or Woreda level Ministry of

Agriculture staff, while it is the Kabele (village) level staff that more frequently interact with the

farmers.

Educational background of FO members who participated in the training courses: In all but one

country (Ghana), the vast majority of FO members who had participated in the PHHS training

courses were considered to be literate and in the case of Kenya the majority had attended

secondary school (Table 3.3.3). In Ethiopia, a maximum of 1 or 2 members per FO had attended the

PHHS training, and it was usually the chairperson of the FO who was selected to attend, who was

typically literate and male.

Table 3.3.1: P4P postharvest training courses reported by selected FOs and whether or not used

for training of trainers (ToT)

Country Name of course Training organisation Times

reported

ToT

(Yes/No)

Ethiopia Post harvest ToT course Hosana Agric Bureau & Dalugha

Agric Bureau

1 N

Post harvest handling Regional Agric, WFP Commodity

Mgmt staff, JICA

1 N

Post harvest management Lume & Butahare Districts Min of

Agric.

1 N

Kenya Grain storage WFP 1 Y

Grain storage WFP 1 N

Grain storage: the hermetic

technology

GrainPro 1 N

Post harvesting - storage WFP/ Ampath 1 Y

Maize production and post-

harvest handling

Israel Agency for Int. Dev. and Co-

operation, WFP

1 Y

Post harvest handling and

stores management

Cereal Growers Association (CGA) 2 N


stores management

CGA 3 Y


stores management and

record keeping

CGA 2 N


quality standards

CGA/ KMDP II 1 N

Uganda Postharvest handling WFP 3 Y

Grain postharvest handling

and storage

ORDS 2 Y

Postharvest and quality

improvement

Sasakawa Global 2000 Y


Mozambique Postharvest training Fair Trade 1 Y

Postharvest training World Vision/FAO 1 Y

Postharvest training FAO 3 N

Training in mud silo

construction

World Vision/FAO 1 N

Warehouse management WFP 3 N

Tanzania Postharvest management,

warehouse management

Rural Urban Development

Initiatives (RUDI)

4 Y

Ghana Post harvest handling AMSIG Resources (for Millenium

Development Authority)

2 N

El Salvador Storage and quality control

of basic grains in warehouses

CENPOSCO 3

1

N

Y

Guatemala Post harvest management of

staple crops

GrainPro Company 1 Y

Use of Blue Box and Quality WFP N

Table 3.3.2: Membership of, and details of training of, selected FOs

Country Total members

of FOs

No. of

courses

attended

No. people trained Period of

training

Direct/indirect*

training

Men Women Men Women %W

Ethiopia 2012 158 3 86 3 3 2010/2011 80% direct

Kenya 660 1382 12 170 239 58 2010/2011 3 courses direct,

9 direct/indirect

Uganda 1529 1996 6 370 215 37 2010/2011 Mostly direct

Mozambique 11486 6394 12 156 130 46 2008/2010 All direct

Tanzania 1820 1292 4 112 99 47 2010 -

Ghana 71 56 2 71 56 44 2009 All direct

El Salvador 449 275 4 21 4 16 2010/2011 All direct

Guatemala 135 43 2 92 18 16 2010/2011 68% direct

*Indirect training = relying on trained farmers to deliver training to other groups of farmers, direct and indirect training can be mixed where elements of the course (such as demonstrations) are completed by trained farmers

Table 3.3.3: % members of selected FOs in various educational categories

Not

educated

Primary

education

Secondary

education Illiterate

Ethiopia 0 78 22 0

Kenya 12 30 54 10

Uganda 18 73 2 23

Mozambique 1 86 10 4

Tanzania 3 75 22 0

Ghana 0 28 5 68

El Salvador 0 64 27 20

Guatemala 1 80 7 13


3.3.2 DELIVERY METHODS, PRACTICALS, ASSESSMENT AND DURATION OF P4P PHHS TRAINING

COURSES

Delivery methods: The delivery methods most frequently mentioned by the FO respondents as

having been used in their P4P PHHS training courses were lectures and group discussions (Fig. 3.3.1).

Handouts, PowerPoint and flip chart presentations were some of the commonly used supporting

tools used. While the practical activities used in the training course are discussed in more detail

below, they were also mentioned as having been key aspects of how the course had been delivered.

Some FO respondents just mentioned: practicals; others the use of motorised shelling and cleaning

machines; others the use of moisture meters, sacks, the Blue Box equipment; others practice in

working out the quality specifications; others had to bring their own maize samples to analyse.

Visits to farmers’ homesteads to see the PHHS issues, and visits to warehouses and silos were also

mentioned. A needs assessment of participants existing PHHS knowledge and problems was also

used to help shape the courses in Ethiopia and Uganda.

In Ethiopia, SAA trainers running the ToT highlighted the need to develop their own and the ToT

participants’ skills in participatory training methods in order to enhance farmer understanding.

Practicals: When the FO respondents were asked to give details of any practical ‘doing’ sessions, all

except two of the 47 FOs said they had done some kind of practical activity as part of the training

course. The most frequently mentioned practical exercises were those of: practising taking samples;

using a moisture meter for analysing the mc of a sample; learning how to use the scales; and in El

Salvador learning to do a UV analysis of fungus (aflatoxin screening); fumigation practices were done

by all the Tanzanian FOs interviewed but not mentioned from any of the other countries; in Tanzania

they also learnt how to differentiate authentic from fake packaging of common storage pesticides

and how to use the bottle and salt method for determining acceptable grain moisture content. In

Mozambique use of hand shellers and putting of grain into storage had been practiced by several of

the FOs responding but in this case the enthusiasm expressed for the equipment should be treated

critically (Box 1); in Kenya a few FOs (2/14) mentioned practising loading grain into special 90kg bags

and then hermetically sealing them for safe storage; use of and maintenance of motorised shelling

and cleaning machines had happened in the Ethiopian and Ugandan trainings; theatrical activities

had been used in Mozambique; two of the groups in Mozambique reported that one of their

members had been trained on mud silo construction (Box 2). In Uganda one of the FOs offered a

member of staff who could train other FOs in the construction of drying cribs and this was delivered

as an ‘add-on’ to PHHS training courses.

Box 1 – Hand sheller in Mozambique

The hand shellers provided to FOs were warmly

endorsed. However, when challenged to use

them on two occasions FO members were

unable to do so despite appearing very confident

that it was going to be easy. The shellers were

simply too big for the cobs. This incident

highlights the willingness of FOs to please and to

say that all is well.

Box 2 – Mud silos in Mozqambique

Training in the construction of improved mud

silos (gorongosa) has been offered since 2009 to

selected FO members. They were trained and

given materials for free so they could construct

their own at home and three others as

demonstrations. The constructors could then

start making a business by charging other

villagers for silo construction. Of the people

trained, 20% failed to proceed with construction.

Since 2010, some demonstration metal silos

have been delivered to FOs but as yet there is no

clear plan on how metal silos are to be locally

made.


Assessment: 43 of the 47 FOs responding said assessment had been used to check that learning was

taking place in the P4P PHHS training courses. In most cases (27/43) this was through the use of oral

question and answer sessions; in Mozambique, Uganda and Ghana refresher/ follow up visits at key

stages in the PH crop cycle (e.g. harvesting, drying, storing times) had been made by the trainer to

check participants had understood and were correctly implementing PH methods; in Tanzania

whether participants felt the objectives and their own expectations had been met was explored and

a participatory visual mood barometer tool was used to gauge participants feelings about how the

training was going; in Uganda follow-up checks on the quality of the grain being delivered by the FO

to the depot were done and refresher trainings had occurred with 2 of the 6 FOs responding;

practical demonstration by participants of some of the PHHS techniques were used in El Salvador

and Ethiopia; formal tests had been done in Mozambique and Ghana; in Kenya in one FO the

participants had given presentations on the subjects they had understood and in Tanzania

participants had to provide a recap of the previous session at the start of each new session to review

what had been learnt.

Duration: The P4P PHHS training courses for Farmers Organisations varied in length from a minimum

of 3 hours (Uganda, Kenya) to a maximum of 3 weeks although this was not one continuous time

period (Uganda) (see Fig. 3.3.2). In Mozambique those selected for further training in construction

of silos did this in addition to the main training course. Whilst the data is obviously not a record of

all the training that happened, it appeared that in Tanzania, Ghana and El-Salvador the duration of

the PHHS training course was standardised for all FOs, this was not the case in other countries where

significant variation was evident which may be due to different training approaches being used by

different service providers or the farmers reporting on different courses. There were several

complaints by FOs that the course duration was too short (even for 3 day courses). In Ethiopia the

trainers as well as the participants felt this was the case, particularly when novel motorised

shelling/threshing and cleaning machines were being introduced to farmers.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ethiopia (n=3) Kenya (n=14) Uganda (n=6) Mozambique (n=12) Tanzania (n=4) Ghana (n=2) El-Salvador (n=4) Guatemala (n=2)

Figure 3.3.1: Farmer Organisations descriptions of the delivery methods used in P4P PHHS training courses


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

3 h

rs t

ota

l

3 h

rs/

sess

ion

1 d

ay

2 d

ays

3 d

ays

4 d

ays

5 d

ays

6 d

ays

8 d

ays

11

da

ys

3 w

ee

ks

Guatemala (n=2)

El-Salvador (n=4)

Ghana (n=2)

Tanzania (n=4)

Mozambique (n=12)

Uganda (n=6)

Kenya (n=14)

Ethiopia (n=3)

Figure 3.3.2: Typical duration of P4P PHHS training courses

3.3.3 DETAILS OF PHHS TRAINING COURSE MATERIALS

Course materials: Participants on 20 of the courses received handouts (see Fig. 3.3.3), although

seven of the 47 FOs responding mentioned note taking by participants. In Ghana only one copy of

the handout was available for sharing between all the participants. In 17 of the courses, posters

were used as training materials, this was particularly the case in Mozambique and Uganda. In

Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique participants were given module booklets or manuals – and these

were much more detailed than other handouts such as posters in the case of Uganda and

Mozambique (Box 3). In Kenya, 7 of the 14 FOs reported having received brochures although details

were not given as to whether these were just text based or had diagrams in them. In Mozambique,

two posters in Portuguese were provided and all FOs endorsed their value although this response

may have been more sentimental than critical as the posters were difficult to follow, even if you

knew PHHS well. On discussion with FO members it appeared that all learning happened through

contact with CP staff and that the posters provided ‘talking points’ and didn’t appear to be

information sources on their own, nevertheless in other situations the posters may be required to

‘say’ more for themselves and should be an accurate guide for the trainer. In Uganda, the poster

(prepared by SG 2000) was used for farmer to farmer training. It was fairly comprehensive with

simple pictures and minimal text (see Annex 4) and might well be used as a model for a more generic

P4P training aid.

Box 3- Training booklets (set of five) used in Mozambique

FOs each received a single set of five booklets in Portuguese. They were endorsed by FOs

but there was no real evidence that they were actually being used by them, not least

because a high proportion of members could not read Portuguese and those that could

would find technical material very difficult to understand and assimilate. However,

occasional individuals with secondary education may have been in a position to read and

then inform others. It is very likely that the CP staff used the booklets for their own

learning. A nice feature of the booklets is that each had a section at the back devoted to

the steps the trainer should take in delivering the course, i.e. so the booklets were in any

case designed for the trainer.

Other course materials included the PowerPoints, flipcharts or oral presentations of the trainers.

Manual shellers and motorised shelling and threshing machines were described from Mozambique

and Uganda, and in Ethiopia participants had been given copies of the operating manuals of the


motorised shelling and cleaning machines.

Box, a data table for helping to calculate humidity and a field visit to a warehouse.

unusual in including models of postharvest

did not particularly like these saying they wanted the real equipment to practice with.

Figure 3.3.3: Course materials used during P4P PHHS FO training courses

02468

101214161820

Postharvest Handling and Storage Training

motorised shelling and cleaning machines. Other materials mentioned included: tarpaulins, the Blue

Box, a data table for helping to calculate humidity and a field visit to a warehouse.

of postharvest equipment as training aide (Annex



Other materials mentioned included: tarpaulins, the Blue

Box, a data table for helping to calculate humidity and a field visit to a warehouse. Uganda was

Annex 5) but respondents



Guatemala (n=2)

El-Salvador (n=4)

Ghana (n=2)

Tanzania (n=4)

Mozambique (n=12)

Uganda (n=6)

Kenya (n=14)

Ethiopia (n=3)


3.3.4 AIMS AND IMPACTS OF PHHS TRAINING COURSES AND MATERIALS

Details of the responses from FO members on the new skills that they would be expected to acquire

from participating in courses are detailed in Annex 6. In two cases the learning objectives of these

courses relate to warehouse operations, in eleven they concern on-farm operations with harvesting,

drying, shelling and storage. In some cases the farm level courses also seem to have included

collective storage. Ten of the 13 courses reported were suitable for both maize and beans, the other

three maize only.

The following observations on learning objectives are based on the combined responses from all the

courses, i.e. some are from one course some are from another. Together they cover most if not all

of what an ideal PHHS course would include, although in each case the respondents to the

questionnaire only mentioned 3 or 4 of the learning objectives of their particular course; it is

expected that there would have been more than that.

Where warehouse management is concerned the objectives included -

• How WFP warehouses are managed

• Learning to use laboratory test equipment – moisture meter, sieves

• Rules for delivering grain to avoid shipment rejection

• Grading to assess grain quality at purchase from farmers

Where farm level operations are concerned the objectives included -

Preharvest

• Land preparation, planting and spacing

• Seed selection

Postharvest

• When and how to harvest

• Drying grain to the correct moisture content

• Use of tarpaulins in harvesting and drying operations

• How to construct a drying crib

• Sorting good and bad cobs/grain

• Shelling by manual and motorised means to avoid breakage

• Using sieves to remove broken grain and foreign matter

• Using a motorised grain cleaner

• Separation of grain for HH consumption

• Putting grain in bags

• Cleaning the store before storing the new harvest

• Bag stacking system using pallets

• How to protect grain from insect and rodent attack

• Safe use of pesticides to prevent insect damage

• How to construct a mud silos

• Dosage rate when fumigating grain

• Advantages of bulk selling

• Keeping records

• To tell the difference between good and bad quality

• Grading the grain to meet standards

• Sell grain using scales

In Ethiopia it was evident that significant time during both the ToT and the farmer PHHS training

courses had been spent on demonstration and practice use of motorised shelling/threshing and

cleaning machines. At present, these machines have been given to the 16 CUs by P4P (as part of the

USD$376,000 worth of PHHS equipment given out by P4P during 2010 (the budget for 2011 is

USD$190,000 and includes WIIK Hall stores), some trialling and redesign of the machines was


happening in collaboration with the local fabricating company Selam. It would be interesting to track

the detailed use and maintenance of these machines to understand more about farmers perceptions

regards them, and what percentage of those supplying cereals and pulses to P4P are currently

benefitting and might in future benefit from them. The motorised shelling/ threshing and cleaning

machines currently cost about USD$1,800 each in Ethiopia. As with all agricultural machinery issues

of supply, affordability, seasonality, mobility, efficacy, maintenance and repair competencies,

associated gender issues, and sustainability would need to be carefully investigated. The impact of

P4P donating such large amounts of equipment on other projects which are more likely to operate

on a cost-sharing basis for sustainability, market assessment and donor conditionality reasons

should also be considered.

Details were also recorded of the positive outcomes achieved by adopting the approaches suggested

in the training courses. The beneficial changes listed included the following

• Waited for maize to mature before harvesting

• Established a community drying crib

• Using a plastic sheet for drying

• Changed from cob with sheath storage to grain storage in bags

• For shelling have changed from beating maize to motorised shelling

• Now retain some maize for household consumption

• Now store grain bags on pallets and away from walls

• In storage, old grain stocks separated from new

• Changed from spraying insecticide to fumigating grain

• Adopted mud or metal silos for grain storage

• Reduced pest infestation by adopting better hygiene/handling procedures

• Selling grain sooner so less damage

• Cobs sorted and graded before shelling

• Grain cleaned before pesticide application

• Using jute/sisal bags instead of polythene/plastic

WFP Staff were asked to provide their insights on how good the FOs had found the courses and what

evidence there was that an improvement in grain quality had resulted from the courses, their

responses are detailed in Annex 7.

Generally it was stated that FOs were satisfied with their training courses but specific complaints

were mentioned. In some cases warehouse training had not been of much value as the FO members

trained were not actively buying and selling grain; the information provided during the courses was

too difficult for some people to understand; in some cases manuals were delivered to FOs where the

content was technically inaccessible to them; some courses were not well balanced so that some

subjects were covered in too much detail (e.g. harvesting) and other too little detail (e.g. commodity

management); in some cases there was a lack of basic equipment that prevented practical learning;

and, in Kenya there was a strong plea for much more simplified training materials.

The good points emphasised were that the FOs - no longer needed long periods of work for

winnowing and sorting before bagging; can really see that they can improve quality and open access

to other markets; are interested in silo storage; have moved to collective storage and at the same

time can maintain quality; and, much appreciated a practical approach to learning with real

equipment.

The evidence of impacts were – ten of the fifteen responses on course impact from WFP offices

reported better quality from the FOs and in some cases this has been reflected in the

superintendants employed by WFP stating “...that poor quality is not a major issue”; there have

been improvements in warehouse management; some FOs are now using mechanisation for what

was previously manual work; and, a movement from home storage to storage in centralised grain

collection points.


In Ethiopia, it was evident that aggregation and storage at the PC level was for a short duration only,

e.g. 2 weeks to 2 months maximum and usually for as long as it took to aggregate a lorry load, then

the CU would send a lorry to collect the product and check and store it in the CU warehouse for up

to a few months until it was sold to P4P, traders or farmers in food insecure areas. This means that

the longer term storage is mainly happening at household level highlighting the importance of

ensuring that storage practices applicable to both small and larger scale storage are covered during

training.

3.3.5 SUGGESTED OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING FARMERS PHHS TRAINING EXPERIENCES

PHHS Training Course Improvements

Suggestions by WFP P4P staff for improving the PHHS training course delivery methods included:

• more illustrations to make the topic more interesting, and getting modules translated into

cartoon images on posters to popularise the issues

• posters that clearly depict the good and the bad PHHS practices

• increasing the duration of the training courses to enable farmers to understand the content

in depth

• making the training more practical and less theoretical in order to enhance farmer learning

• increased use of videos and group discussions as opposed to just lectures

• reinforcement of information with PHHS radio programmes (and perhaps even TV shows)

• developing specific training materials for each PHHS activity, and working more closely with

technical experts in the Ministry of Agriculture and FAO on the training courses and

materials

• making sure farmers can practice what they are being taught both in the course and at home

or in their FO facilities

• ensuring more female participants are included and that the course timing suits them (e.g.

afternoons)

• simultaneous adult literacy and numeracy training to help FO leaders better grasp the

trainings in sufficient depth [Sierra Leone]

• organising study tours to enable FOs to share experiences and improve their PHHS practices

• supporting trained ToT personnel and equipping them with training materials so they can

better disseminate the knowledge

• using a follow-up practice that links in to determining the refresher training FOs need

• having a second phase of PHHS training for medium and high development stage FOs which

would cover efficient warehouse management, machine operation and marketing

• preparing a 1 month PHHS course with certification for Ministry of Agriculture extension

staff and FO chairpersons [Ethiopia]

• ensuring that PHHS topics are included in College and University agricultural degree courses

so that graduates and therefore extensionists have more PH knowledge [Ethiopia]

In order to gather data on how a new training package could improve on the existing training

courses, FOs were asked about what they found most useful, least useful and missing by way of

content in the courses they had received (Annex 9) and missing by way of associated training

materials.

In total eleven different courses were reported on by the FOs. The most useful content would

appear to cover the full range of subjects in a conventional PHHS training course, although

‘identifying own problems in PHHS’ is less commonly implemented but clearly a very useful element

(Table 3.3.4).


Table 3.3.4: FOs views on the most useful training content in the courses

Subject of course No. of mentions by

respondents

Advice on plant production 1

Seed conservation 1

Identifying own problems in PHHS 1

Using a tarpaulin for harvesting 2

Hygiene in grain handling 1

Sorting cobs for quality 1

Effective grain drying 1

Shelling grain to limit damaged and contamination 1

Operation of motorised shellers and cleaners 3

Use of tarpaulins during threshing 1

Sorting grain to remove defects 1

Pest control in farm storage 1

Changing from cob storage to grain storage 1

Use of silos for farm storage 3

Knowing required grain quality specifications 2

Collective storage 1

Better transport of bagged grain 2

Measuring grain moisture 1

Warehouse management/pest control 2

Trade using scales 1

Grain fumigation 2

Generally respondents were reluctant to identify any particular subject as ‘least useful’, preferring to

suggest that all were useful (Table 3.3.5). Transportation was mentioned where for grain sale

transport is not needed by the farmer; moisture meters where the meter would, in any case, not be

accessible to the farmer; and, plastic silos where it was suggested that grain would go rotten in

them.

Table 3.3.5: FOs views on the least useful training content in the courses


respondents

Everything was useful (no least useful) 7

Lack of refresher training 1

Transportation 1

Use of plastic silos 1

Use of moisture meter 1

All but one course was suggested to have content missing (Table 3.3.6). With the exception of small

scale processing, all the items listed as missing would normally be included in PHHS courses; in the

case of use of insecticide the omission was noted during the field visits and does need to be

addressed (Box 4). By small-scale processing it is assumed they are referring to grain milling, not

grain drying/cleaning.


Table 3.3.6: FOs views on missing content from the courses


respondents

The course was complete, nothing to add 1

Enough time (course too short) 1

Bag stacking 1

Need more on store keeping 1

PH management of teff (Ethiopia) 1

Monitoring grain in silos 1

Field demonstrations of equipment 1

Use of moisture meter 1

Use of insecticides 2

Comprehensive training on fumigation 1

Small-scale processing 1

Details of grain cleaning 1

Specifications for grain cleaning sieves 2

Box 4 – Omission of insecticide admixture as a training topic

In some countries, an obvious gap in training was the role, and application, of insecticide admixture

to grain to prevent insect infestation during bag storage. This is potentially an important omission

since the training given in support of P4P encourages a change in storage practice, from storing

maize cobs to storing maize grain. This leaves the harvest more vulnerable to weevil infestation

when storage periods are longer than a few weeks. This issue needs to be addressed in the new

training materials and consideration given to introducing this into refresher training of those groups

who have already been trained.

One missing training item not mentioned in questionnaires but observed during the field survey was

that in some countries, FOs appear not to have been presented with illustrations or samples of

cereals or pulses showing the actual grain quality required by WFP. In this kind of situation it would

be normal for a standard grain sample in a ‘blister’ pack to be available as a guide to farmers on

what they need to achieve. One reason this was not done may be because in some countries, CPs

expect to take the grain from farmers and do their own conditioning to the required grade before

supply to market.

An item mentioned as missing was comprehensive training in fumigation. In most countries it is

illegal for anyone other than a registered fumigator to undertake grain fumigations and as a matter

of policy farmers and warehouse managers should not be trained to do fumigations, only to know

when fumigation is needed, to understand important safety issues, and to quality control fumigation

performance so that they know when a good job is being done.

Possible improvements to PHHS training materials

The most frequently suggested improvements to the PHHS training materials by WFP P4P staff were:

• need for more illustrations and cartoons and less text in order for them to be more

interesting and digestible,

• need for them to be printed on materials suited to the conditions in which they will be kept,

e.g. UV resistant and tough thicker paper, and

• need for them to be easily converted to local language versions to enable them to be more

widely understood and used

Other suggestions WFP staff gave for improving the training materials included ensuring that:

• the key PHHS problems faced by the FO members were covered in the materials,


• issues related to inspection and collection of the grain, and problems faced by

superintendents and logistics officers are also covered,

• the technical issues were made very clear,

• a wide range of options are described for addressing each of the problems,

• all the PHHS topics are covered in one manual (like the WFP warehouse management

manual), avoiding the need for lots of separate uncoordinated materials ,

• they consider, build on and use existing PHHS training materials,

• they can be updated,

• they focus on other crops like rice as well as maize and beans,

• they include example data and calculations that clearly show how to calculate the % of

damaged grains etc – as these calculations were found to be too complex for many farmers,

• the private sector are more involved in supplying agro-processing machines, and that

machines are competently installed so that farmers experience them working correctly,

• each FO is given a complete set of equipment so that the equipment used across FOs is

standardised and therefore processes are not complicated by differing operations of

different brands,

• the trained ToTs are given resources to enable them to provide the farmers they train with

training materials,

• an introductory session for country office WFP staff when the Blue Box is introduced.

FO requirements for additional/different training materials

Missing training handouts, in one form or another, was identified by six FO respondents (Table

3.3.7), including mention of pictorial guides in local language; handouts designed for farmer to

farmer training. A further item was equipment to facilitate demonstrations at the farm level.

Table 3.3.7: Responses from FOs on training materials they felt were missing (consolidated

responses from several interviewees in each country)

Country Are there training additional materials needed?

El Salvador No materials missing but a follow up to the training was requested.

Ethiopia Copies of PowerPoint slides not received. The focus was on maize and wheat - teff

not included. The handout received was OK but would be even better with colour

pictures of the insects etc. Would have liked to receive notes on how to use the

machine, handouts in the vernacular on protection, storage etc

Kenya Need handouts, brochures, simple pictorial materials both in local language and

Swahili. One respondent said she had received a brochure but would like to have

copies she could then give to other farmers.

Uganda Training guide for trainers; demonstration materials/ equipment (threshers,

cleaners etc.); handouts for F to F; clear instructions on best methods.

Demonstration materials/ PHHS equipment (threshers, cleaners etc.) to facilitate

exercises at the farm gate.

Mozambique Need sieves and need more silos

Tanzania Would wish to be provided with training materials on good production practices

and proper applications of fumigants and pesticides

Ghana Posters (the ones used for the training were collected back) and this should be

printed in the local language. Handouts insufficient – one/FO.

Guatemala Manuals, posters, white board with sketches


3.3.6 THE BLUE BOX

The Blue Box (although the boxes are now silver coloured) is a grain quality testing kit established by

WFP to enable anyone interested in assessing the quality of their grain to do so. The box contains

grain sampling equipment, grading equipment, an aflatoxin test kit and a power supply.

WFP have implemented training in the use of the Blue Box in only one of the countries (Guatemala)

that responded to the survey. Two countries (Burkina Faso and South Sudan) were in the process of

acquiring Blue Boxes at the time of the survey and one country (Burkina Faso) is in the process of

acquiring Blue Boxes and one (El Salvador) has commented although it does not use the Blue Box.

The country using the Blue Box (Guatemala) commends it as a means of creating awareness of

quality. The El Salvador programme, has in fact issued its own grain testing equipment to FOs (Table

3.3.8). It cautions that 1) for adoption, several staff in any FO need to be trained to use the

equipment, and 2) although testing works well it is only worth going to the trouble of supplying the

equipment to FOs that are regular grain traders. (Comment from WFP Rome - note that the HQ Blue

Box package follows a diverse implementation approach and has been promoted by WFP HQ only to

the African countries so far).

Table 3.3.8: Responses from WFP Staff on the use of the ‘blue box’

Country Is the box useful? If not useful then why

Burkina Faso 3 blue boxes on order

El Salvador 10 FOs have received grain quality testing equipment (not

Blue Box) to test grain quality at purchase from

producers; kept in rooms that act as laboratories. In two

FOs (Turin and Agrisal), the equipment has been used

continually because they buy and sell grain daily. The

equipment has been very useful, and both managers

(both female) have acquired a reputation among local

grain traders for selling cleaner grain. Medium FOs have

not used the equipment as much, because in 2009 and

2010 the weather resulted in very bad harvests of maize

and beans, and thus they have not made many grain

sales. Nascent FOs have not used the equipment at all,

because they have not done quality grain trading since

the course. The lesson learned is that to improve in grain

quality testing, there is need to train additional members

on how to use the equipment, so as not to rely solely on

the manager or president of the marketing committee for

testing. Another lesson is that the testing equipment

should be provided to FOs that already engage in dynamic

trading of grain, so they can test for its quality. FOs with

no regular trading do not need the equipment. A

refresher course will be needed for the FOs that have not

practiced testing, once they begin to sell grain.

Guatemala The Blue Box adds

credibility to the training.

By using the Blue Box, FOs

know how to evaluate their

products. It’s a first rate

tool to instil confidence to

the producer on the quality

of his/her production.

Not yet fully adopted or introduced at the time of the survey - Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya,

Mozambique, Tanzania, Sierre Leone, Uganda


3.3.7 LANGUAGE AND COMPREHENSION ISSUES OF P4P PHHS TRAINING COURSES AND MATERIALS

Training Course Language: National and local languages were

typically used for the delivery of the PHHS training course,

details by country are shown in table 3.3.9 below. Of the 47

FOs responding seven stated that a different language would

have been more appropriate for the delivery of the training

course (Fig. 3.3.4). All these seven were Kenyan FOs, to whom

the training course had been delivered mainly in English or

Kiswahili and English, however they would have preferred to

have received the training in Kalenjin (5/7), Kikuyu (1/7) and

Kiswahili (1/7).

Figure 3.3.4: Could a different language

have been more appropriate?

Table 3.3.9: Language in which P4P PHHS training courses were delivered

Country Language P4P PHHS training course was delivered in

Ethiopia (n=3) Amharic (2), Oromifa and Amarifa (1)

Kenya (n=14) Swahili & English (11), Swahili (1), Swahili, English & Kikuyu (1), English (1)

Uganda (n=6) Local (unspecified) (4), Local & English (2)

Mozambique (n=12) Portugese and local (Chona, Chibarue) (6), Portugese (6)

Tanzania (n=4) Swahili (4)

Ghana (n=2) Twi (2)

El-Salvador (n=4) Spanish (4)

Guatemala (n=2) Spanish (2)

The WFP P4P staff explained that while the training courses were typically conducted using national

or local languages to enhance participants comprehension, the training materials by contrast were

mainly in English (Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda), French (Burkina Faso), Portugese

(Mozambique) or Spanish (El Salvador and Guatemala). In Tanzania the training materials were in

Swahili, and in Ethiopia the trained TOTs translated their English materials into local languages (e.g.

Amharic, Oromifa) prior to delivering the training to the FO chairpersons, and in Burkina Faso the

manual was published in Moore and Dioula as well as French. It was suggested that greater use of

illustrations in the materials could help overcome language barrier issues.

WFP P4P staff in all the ten responding countries felt that PHHS training courses and training

materials should be delivered in local languages and should contain lots of pictures and graphics in

order to have the most impact. In Mozambique there were concerns regards problems translating

technical terms into the local languages. In Uganda they felt that a listening culture dominates, and

that listening materials e.g. radio programmes, facilitators presentations/ demonstrations/

practicals, should therefore be tested and investigated.

Clearly producing training materials in all the numerous local languages used in each of the 21 P4P

focal countries would be too complex if done centrally. However it should be possible to create

graphic cartoon style materials which can easily be copied and have whichever local language is

appropriate then inserted.

Training Materials Language: In most cases the language used in the training materials seems to

have been acceptable to the FO participants. In Ghana and in some cases in Kenya the training

materials were in English whilst the participants would have preferred them in a local language for

ease of comprehension. In Mozambique the training materials were in Portugese, and the

respondents commented that this was preferred as there are problems translating some PHHS

aspects/expressions into the local languages.

YesNo


Ease of understanding of the training course: All of the FO respondents said either everybody had

understood all of the PHHS training course (60%), or some people understood some of it (40%) (Fig.

3.3.5).

Figure 3.3.5: FOs perspective on the ease of understanding of the P4P PHHS training course

3.3.8 FARMER TO FARMER TRAINING ASPECTS

Fourteen of the 47 FOs interviewed responded that no arrangements had formally been put in place

to facilitate farmer to farmer training. Another 12 FOs said the question was not applicable as their

training course had been a direct farmer training as opposed to a ToT and therefore there were no

expectations for further farmer to farmer training to have occurred. Only 8 of the FOs said that

formal arrangements had been put in place to facilitate farmer to farmer training, and these FOs

were in Kenya and Uganda. In some cases the P4P implementing partner had organised this and in

others cases the FO appears to have been given funds to cover the cost of hiring a venue, copying

training materials, transport reimbursements and meals to facilitate the farmer to farmer training. In

two Mozambican FOs a PHHS training work plan had been created however they didn’t report on

whether it had then been implemented or not.

However despite the lack of formal arrangements to facilitate farmer to farmer training, some was

happening organically although the scale and quality of it cannot be judged from this survey. This

included:

• the sharing of notes taken during the training with other Board Members [Ethiopia]

• a trained farmer creating a storage and sack stacking demonstration in the mosque (while he

was renovating his store), which attracted a lot of questions and opportunities for

information sharing [Ethiopia]

• six of those trained saying that as leaders of their FO in return for being trained they had the

responsibility to then pass on what they had learnt to other farmers and so had done this

(numbers and details not provided) [Ethiopia, Tanzania]

• five others reported sharing the information with their neighbours and other farmers

[Tanzania, Kenya, Guatemala]

• another six reported having held actual meetings to train other farmers on the PHHS topics

[Kenya, Uganda]

• in Tanzania during maize aggregation those farmers who had been trained in PHHS were

responsible for checking the quality of the farmers who brought maize to sell, and if they

found any quality problems they do on the spot training of that farmer

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Nobody understood any of it Some people understood some of it

Everybody understood all of it


• in Uganda one FO said the depot manager trains key farmers from each FO who are then

expected to train their fellow members

• the model garden approach is also being used for farmer to farmer training in Uganda

In only four of the 47 FOs had any training materials been passed on to other farmers, in Kenya it

was the brochure that was passed on, while in Uganda they didn’t describe the training materials.

3.4 COMPARISONS WITH OTHER PHHS TRAINING COURSES AND MATERIALS

FOs were asked to list any PHHS training courses they had attended in addition to those provided by

P4P (Annex 9). Where responses were positive, the FOs were asked to describe how these courses

differed from the P4P ones, whether they were better or worse and the reason for the difference.

Seven countries listed a total of 10 other PPHS courses. Five of the other courses were rated not as

good at those supplied through P4P, in two cases respondents found no difference and in one case

the other course was better. The better course was given this status as it worked with the whole

group rather than selected trainees, nevertheless the P4P course in this case got credit for supplying

brochures which the other didn’t. In those cases where P4P was better, the preferred features were

– less theoretical; more practical with access to equipment; more detailed; provided brochures; gave

information on marketing; and, gave follow up.

3.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF P4PS PHHS TRAINING

Checks on training performance

The FOs were questioned to find out if there had been any checks made on training performance,

including those trained through the ToT cascade to a final end user, and their ideas on how training

could be monitored in the future. In view of potential future plans to have formal M&E of training,

FOs were also asked if they would have any objections to assessment of training by an external

agency (Annex 10).

In most countries (7 out of 10) there has not yet been any assessment of training impact, but the

majority of FOs responded that checks on training were made through observation of conformity to

food quality specifications. This is a reasonable response in the sense that this conformity to quality

standards is a proxy for the adoption of suitable PHHS practices promoted during training.

In a few cases there was an indication that successful adoption was being monitored. In

Mozambique, one respondent stated World Vision staff on routine visits talked about the adoption

of the recommended methods, and in Tanzania it was mentioned that AGRA (Alliance for the Green

Revolution in Africa) had undertaken cases studies of the training delivered to smallholders which

had concluded that the training period was too short to enable famers to understand what was

required. In Uganda, it was mentioned that WFP staff stationed at district level made checks and

reported on adoption of PH practices by both those who have been trained directly and those who

have received training through a ToT cascade.

Observations on ToT cascades: Three out of ten countries are not intending to use ToT to create a

training cascade. Some scepticism was expressed about the extent to which training cascades work.

Mozambique specifically avoids them, instead a ToT is used for the CPs but the CPs then train the

end user only. In the case of Uganda it was stated that the approach does not reach down many

levels and that it needs to be questioned whether direct training may be better. In Tanzania the

AGRA case studies suggested there was lack of support to enable a training cascade. In Burkina Faso,

the cascade is motivated by payment of travel costs on receipt of reports. No formal monitoring of

the performance of cascades has been undertaken.

During the Ethiopian field visit it became clear that significant resources had been invested in

training 21 Ministry of Agriculture staff in a 3 week ToT course. However very limited resources had


then been available for these people to then train farmers, (e.g. eight 2-3 day PHHS courses had

happened covering a total of 191 participants who were mainly leaders of the CUs or PCs). None of

the participants of the ToT had given any other PHHS training except the P4P funded workshops

above. Clearly for significant returns with regards to farmers PHHS skills, serious attention needs to

be given to facilitating those who have been trained to deliver ongoing PHHS training to farmers.

There is also a need to strategise with the trainers on how PHHS farmer training can be incorporated

into their Ministry jobs so that some scaling out and benefits from this investment reaches farmers.

Although some of the CUs that participate in P4P in Ethiopia have ~30,000 registered members, to

date they have not organised PHHS training for those members.

Suggestions for future M&E of training performance: The most commonly suggested approach was

to monitor the adoption of better PH practices, or to judge by the quality of the cereals or pulses

delivered. Other suggestions were to create a stakeholder platform that would assist in better follow

up on all activities and provide somewhere to exchange views and pinpoint gaps in training efforts,

approaches and materials used; create a feedback mechanism from trainees to ensure that the

training expectations and objectives have been met; and, to make unannounced visits to discuss

with FO members their understanding and knowledge gained.

When asked if the FOs would accept checking of the adoption of PHHS practices by an external body,

all said that they would accept this; in the case of Uganda assessors external to the FOs, P4P Uganda

staff, already do this job.

3.6 FO AND P4P STAFF VIEWS ON FURTHER PHHS TRAINING REQUIRED

Earlier questioning had already revealed that only one (in Ghana) of the 47 FOs had suggested that

all their staff were now trained (Table 3.6.1), so there is clearly a demand for further training,

possibly even from those FO members who have already received training. To address this, FOs

were asked whether their trained members need further training and if so should it be at the same

or a higher level. In the case of the need for higher level training, FOs were asked about the content.

Refresher training was a very popular option with all six countries mentioning this (Table 3.6.1); from

27 of the 47 FOs that responded. There was one call for this to be done more slowly than before “...

step by step, one topic each day”, for the same but with better focus on machines, moisture meters

and pest control, another that it should be the same but with more practical activities, and that

training should be a continuous process not just a one off activity.

Table 3.6.1: Responses from FOs on the training needs of those who have already received training

Country Do trained FO members need more training at the same or a higher level

Ethiopia Refresher training and wider training, starting from marketing with more detailed info on

stacking, fumigation, machine use; more training and for longer than one day; training with

better introduction to machines, moisture meter and pest control.

Kenya Course at a higher level; refresher courses; for a few members a higher level course - on

quality control and safety standards, aflatoxin detection and measurement, shelling, sorting,

bagging and bag stacking, and more on agronomic practices through to PHHS; machine

calibration is needed to get proper results; use of PH equipment e.g. moisture meter, scales.

Uganda Training should be a continuous process, need refresher; refresher and training at higher

level; visit other FOs to exchange views on PHHS practices; not needed.

Mozambique At higher level; same level refresher; more people trained in silo construction; a ToT course.

Ghana Refresher course

El Salvador The same level, but more practical; refresher training; repeat training but done step by step

one topic each day

Guatemala Higher level training on use of machinery to clean and dry grain; quality control; course on

beans; refresher course.


Only three countries explicitly demanded higher level training courses (Table 3.6.1) but all seven had

suggestions for higher level content, or approach (Table 3.6.2). It was suggested that the higher

level training should be effectively ‘refresher’ but that content should be determined after assessing

the impact of the initial training. It was also suggested that training follow up is essential and that

this can be provide by the Field Farmer Trainers (the trainers to which farmers have direct access).

Training messages (of increasingly higher content) can be provided on a timely and regular basis if

these are mobilised with the right information and incentive. Besides suggestions for higher level

training on a number of technical issues (fumigation, store construction, use of Blue Box, etc.), an

interesting suggestion was made from El Salvador that the FOs should embark on a process of

certification in a recognized system for grain handling, this implies higher level training and

compliance monitoring of FOs.

Table 3.6.2. Responses from FOs on the content they would like in higher level training courses

Country Suggested content for higher level training

Kenya Fumigation techniques and store construction.

Uganda

Training efforts should focus on:

1. Review training effort and deal with their recurrent issues, especially amount and

type of information available to them. Thereafter there should be a drive to recruited

more farmers (relevant for all training efforts, not only PHHS).

2. A critical mass of all P4P practices should be compiled (economics, PHHS, business

etc.).

3. Equal involvement of all stakeholders. All should follow the same pattern of

training.

4. Provide refresher training at a higher level (after assessing the impact of the 1st

training). The higher level training characteristics:

- A different introduction: Do not repeat well understood basic notions

- Provide more detailed technical content

5. Follow- up:

Field Farmer Trainers (FFTs) is the level of trainers (in a training cascade) to which

farmers have direct access. This level can and should be mobilised to facilitate training

follow-up. The FFTs group represents less than 15% of all the farmers trained so far.

Need incentives to promote follow up.

Mozambique More silo construction. World Vision has identified more training opportunities but

currently funds are not available to implement them.

Ghana Farmer Field School and visits to other P4P countries where sufficient successes have

been achieved.

Burkina Faso Use of the Blue Box.

El Salvador

Managing efficiently a warehouse, machinery, equipment and the products for sale,

for medium and high FOs that have facilities and equipment. For Higher FOs that have

received both trainings, they need to embark on a process of certification in an

internationally recognized system for grain handling, that is compatible with those of

industrial grain processing buyers. At the FO level, in 2011 P4P has planned a second

stage course on warehouse grain quality control to improve skills in grain handling in a

warehouse setting.

Guatemala Silo and warehouse management, use of dryers, sorters, cleaners, polishers,

packaging equipment. Provide training for adding value to production.


4. CONCLUSIONS

4.1 SUMMARY OF THE NATURE OF P4P PHHS TRAINING

The prime purpose of any of P4P PHHS training is to enable farmers to deliver food that is already at

a quality that it can be received at the collection point without further work to make the quality

acceptable, or that it can be made acceptable with minimum postharvest handling (given that there

is only relatively modest means to achieve this). Training is therefore needed to give the farmer a

clear understanding of the quality that is required, how the household could handle cereals or pulses

so that it would at least approximate to this quality and what the incentives are for achieving this.

Training is also needed to enable this grain to be assembled at the collection point, checked at

receipt and if necessary its quality adjusted to meet the buying standard. Finally grain quality must

be maintained at the collection point until it is delivered to a buyer, so training in small warehouse

management is important.

Following the questionnaire survey and field visits, an image of P4P training emerges that is diverse

in nature and generally appreciated by both trainees and trainers. The diversity is a result of the

negotiation and the implementation in each P4P country of a variety of training packages designed

to enable farmers and FOs to deliver grain at a quality acceptable for WFP procurement. The

negotiation on training is with CPs who already have their own background and understanding of

PHHS issues, often their own training materials, and their own approaches to training. The P4P

training materials and approaches that emerge are thus a mixture of what is available and what has

been generated to fill perceived gaps and reflects, to a greater or less extent, the strengths and the

weaknesses of the CPs.

The common pattern for the delivery of grain is for the household to harvest and handle grain to the

point that it is available in sacks. It may be stored in the household for variable lengths of time

before being moved to a collection point, typically a small bag store. WFP may pick up the grain

from this or subsequent collection points, such as from a licensed warehouse of a Warehouse

Receipts System (used in Uganda), and in some cases the FOs deliver to WFP.

4.2 WHO NEEDS TO BE TRAINED

The training targets that emerge from the survey are the end users of the technologies and those

who will be involved as their trainers. There is in effect a training pyramid (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: The training pyramid used to deliver P4P training

At the top are the primary trainers who initiate the process. It is expected that they already have a

good background in PHHS and that they may acquire any missing skills needed for P4P by interaction


with colleagues and interaction with the training package. Commonly, the process of training is

initiated by a ToT course at a high level, delivered by these primary trainers to CP staff (Fig. 4.1).

This training is supported by visual aids such as PowerPoint presentations, relatively detailed text

based training materials such as the five booklet manual in Mozambique or the detailed manual in

use in Uganda, and by practical training activities such as shelling, drying and cleaning and grading

grain. After the course, the CP staff, now secondary trainers, develop or use their own training

courses at a lower level and use them to train a mixture of end users and Field Farmer Trainers

(tertiary trainers); a group that will pass on their training to yet other end users. In this case the

training materials tend to be fairly simple, mostly brochures and/or posters at least in part in local

language and backed up with a higher proportion of practical training. In this scenario the primary

and secondary trainers share the same training materials to arrive at their own understanding of

PHHS. There is then a step down to more simplified materials when there is training at the

secondary level. As the tertiary trainers and end users are similar e.g. leaders of farmer

organizations versus members of farmer organizations, there is no reason that any training materials

should be different between the two, but they must be available for distribution by tertiary trainers,

which during the survey did not seem to be the case. If cascade training of this sort is to be

successful then resources must be devoted to it and its success monitored.

In some countries a very low percentage of women are receiving P4P PHHS training compared to

men. As one of the P4P programmes explicit goals is the transformation of unequal gender

relations, this is unlikely to happen in these countries if further attention to opportunities such as

womens’ access to PHHS training are not carefully managed. This access will help create an enabling

environment for promoting women’s empowerment, gender equality, market access and the

strengthening of household and national food and nutritional security.

4.3 APPROACH TO TRAINING AND NATURE OF TRAINING MATERIALS

It might be thought that the developmental stage of the FO would have some influence on their

training needs but in the case of PHHS the technologies are more or less universal, so farmers of

highly developed FOs are not necessarily doing anything different from those in nascent FOs5,

although high maturity FO management and infrastructure may be superior. There can be nascent

FOs whose farmers have better access to equipment such as motorised maize shellers than those in

more developed organisations. The important issue is that FOs should only be trained in subjects

that relate to their current or medium term needs. These needs should be established at the outset

of training. So for example if a group does not have access to a small warehouse, would not use

drying cribs or have no access to maize shellers then training on these should only be provided when

specifically requested. During the survey, farmers frequently complained they had been taught to

do things for which they do not have the equipment. The message here is that the approach to

training content for all PHHS options is to be available but the trainer must be able to pick out those

options that are appropriate and leave others for a future occasion when they are more relevant.

During the survey, primary and secondary trainers emerged as universally literate people with at

least some background in agriculture, so learning from text based materials would be expected to be

relatively easy when combined with a training course and practical exercises. Their training text can

therefore be a mixture of direct instruction on PHHS (do this, do that) and background material that

gives some understanding of the theory behind the recommended approach to PHHS. During the

survey when secondary trainers were shown cartoon approaches to practical PHHS activities, they

were extremely enthusiastic, suggesting use in their own learning as well as that of end users. This

indicates that the training manual used for the primary and secondary trainers needs a thread of

direct instructions on how to do PHHS that is illustrated by cartoons and light text, with aside text

boxes that explain technical issues to those who have the capacity to benefit from this. While

5 Although individual households socio-economic status will determine which PHHS aspects they can and do adopt


simplified visual material (mostly cartoons with very limited text) could be used with the tertiary

trainers and end users, taking more of a poster format. This is substantially the current approach in

Uganda and Mozambique, but not Ethiopia.

During the survey and from the adult education and farmer learning literature, there is a fairly strong

message that end users typically learn by doing, so it comes as no surprise that the practical

elements of courses were the most appreciated. Indeed careful inspection of existing posters would

suggest that probably the end users cannot easily decipher the training messages from them.

Nevertheless, as an aide-memoire of practical training it seems they are much appreciated. It is

therefore essential that any end user training is practical in nature and supported by whatever

equipment the end users are likely to be able to access themselves, be it sheets, sieves, shellers, sacks,

grain protectants, pallets etc. The aide-memoire can be used as a stepwise guide during this

practical training and reasonable numbers left with households or on village noticeboards after the

training (minimum say 1 per 5 households). Courses for tertiary trainers and end users must take

account of the time of day and duration of training in order to encourage maximum participation;

especially of women. The season must be chosen carefully to match the postharvest activities and

crop under consideration, and the opportunity to provide materials in the local languages should be

taken. One possible way to do this would be to prepare some of the cartoon material with the

caption areas blank (Annex 11). The appropriate captions in local language can then be copied in

prior to photocopying these materials for distribution.

4.4 M&E OF TRAINING

Almost universally, there seems to have been no formal monitoring or evaluation of training

performance, so although staff at field level do interact with their trainees and establish their degree

of training success, this is not done in a way that allows critical appraisal. This limits the possibility of

upgrading training and assessing value for money. If quality control of training is to be established,

so that WFP can be reasonably sure that the training materials address the necessary issues and that

the approaches used are appropriate, then the starting point is to adopt similar training programmes

across countries and then develop appropriate means of monitoring and evaluation. When this is

achieved training can be optimised according to the needs of each country.

To achieve a good understanding of the success of training activities, it is essential that the learning

outcomes expected from the training courses for each FO are established at the start of any training.

This can be achieved by negotiations with each FO on training needs. These training outcomes

should be expressed as the changes in practices (adoption of new approaches) that will lead to the

supply of more grain of better quality to the FO. There can be no monitoring and evaluation of the

success of training without these learning outcomes being clearly defined, and to do that

meaningfully they should be developed with the focal farmers to encourage ownership, relevance

and commitment. The success of training can then be tested by observations on the extent to which

trainees have succeeded in the adoption of new practices or changes in behaviour. It could be

argued that the only thing needed is for an assessment of the quality of grain at delivery. Good

quality grain equals successful training. This approach can be adopted to an extent, for example the

grain delivered to FOs by individual farmers can be sampled and assessed for quality so that some

data are gathered on individual performance but this has to be matched to what training the

individual has received.

4.5 KEEPING THE TRAINEES TRAINED

A clear demand was expressed for ‘refresher’ training as a means of motivating farmer’s to

implement new practices. A practical approach to this is ‘training follow up’ by the tertiary trainers

(Field Farmer Trainers) who have direct access to farmers. Such refresher training needs to be

implemented at the right time of year, prior to the start of PHHS.


Training to a higher level in various aspects of PHHS was suggested but this should be based on

actual needs. Evaluation of training and assessment of training needs should help in this respect.

An interesting suggestion came from El Salvador that the FOs should embark on a process of

certification in a recognized system for grain handling, this implies higher level training and

compliance monitoring of FOs. WFP could explore this kind of certification in association with

regional organisations, e.g. East African Grains Council.

A further way of sensitisation on topical issues is to communicate using the radio. The radio is

frequently listed by smallholder farmers as an important information source, so P4P could gain from

radio broadcasts of appropriate PHHS messages.

The following section gives suggestions for the way forward for the development of P4P training

courses supported by a manual that will be used across all P4P countries but that is customised to

take into account the specific requirements of individual countries and individual FOs.

5. THE WAY FORWARD - DEVELOPMENT OF THE P4P PHHS TRAINING

PACKAGE

The current diversity of P4P PHHS training materials and training approaches, make it difficult to

summarise the PHHS training, without considerable time and effort. It is also difficult to ensure that

any given training course has all the essential elements and that these elements are being explained

in detail in a meaningful context, that farmers are able to practice them and can ask questions about

them so that there is real learning. This situation is a justification for the development of a

standardized package of P4P PHHS courses, although clearly such a package would need to be

flexible to take account of local circumstances.

5.1 DESIGN OF THE MANUAL

The various training sessions required by P4P will be presented in a single manual. This will be a

loose leaf ring binder. The logic of having a ring binder format is that the manual can be an integral

part of the training programme rather than just a reference text. It will allow customization by

language and technical content which is an enormous advantage when dealing with situations where

the basic English, French or Portuguese versions need to be supplemented with local languages,

where local quality specifications need to be included, and where local variations in postharvest

technique need special emphasis. Furthermore training review will result in the need for changes to

training materials, and the ring binder makes updating easy. The paper used in the binder will be of

a quality that makes it durable in field conditions, with reasonable water and sunlight resistance.

The nature of training materials will be consistent with suggestions in section 4.3. There will be

simple A3 foldouts with cartoons and minimal text (equivalent to posters), A4 pages of cartoons with

rather more text and also separate blocks of text for explaining the theory behind important PHHS

issues. This approach will cater for the needs of each type of learner and each type of trainer (Table

4.1). Some of the training materials are required in local languages in order to be most useful. Clear

graphic materials will be provided that can then have words (in whichever local language) added into

them by the trainer.

To complement the manual, PowerPoint presentations will be developed that will be suitable for the

instruction of secondary trainers; if these PowerPoints are to be used for training end users/tertiary

trainers then they would need to be adapted and rescripted in local language by the secondary

trainers.


5.2 TECHNICAL CONTENT OF THE MANUAL

The manual will be divided into a number of sections each separated by coloured dividers. The first

section will deal with the recommended approaches to training. Subsequent sections will then deal

with the PHHS technical issues. The frontispiece of the manual will be an illustration to show good

quality grain and a happy farmer getting paid. There will be a few words to go with the illustration

explaining why good quality grain is needed.

The technical content will be as follows:

Section 1 – How to deliver training

Text blocks with some illustrations/cartoons

1 Negotiating training outcomes

2 Planning the training (venue, timing, duration, participants, trainer, transport)

3 Developing learning objectives

4 Training approaches (including mention of radio, drama, videos, talking posters etc,)

5 Training materials (including blister packs to show grain quality)

6 Training evaluation (outcomes, process, impact, record keeping)

7 Scaling out the learning

8 Follow up

Section 2 -How we get good quality grain on the farm

Fold out pages to cover the range of subjects below with cartoons and very little text. This will be

followed by a cartoon sequence with more words plus text blocks to explain principles.

1 Preparations for harvest and PHHS (planning, assembling materials, choosing locations, choice of

store type, store capacity, hygiene in store)

2 Advice on timely harvesting

3 Drying in field

4 Transport from field to farmstead

5 Drying on-farm

6 How to know when grain is dry enough for storage (link to text block on mycotoxins)

7 Shelling grain

8 Cleaning/sorting grain on-farm

9 Adding a grain protectant

10 Storage on farm

11 Transporting grain from farm to the first aggregation point

Section 3 - How to maintain good quality grain at first aggregation

Fold out pages to cover the range of subjects below with cartoons and few words. This will be

followed by a cartoon sequence with more words and text blocks to explain principles. There may

also be reference to Section 4.

1 Main features of a communal bag store

2 Preparation for receiving grain in store

3 Inspecting grain for quality at entry into store

4 Inspecting for weight

5 Making sure that grain is dry enough

6 Cleaning and sorting grain that is below quality


7 Bagging grain (weighing, filling, stitching)

8 How to place grain in the bag store (pallets, stack building)

9 Checking grain quality on a routine

10 What to do if a fumigation is needed

11 Transporting grain to a warehouse (loading, unloading, cleanliness of vehicles)

Section 4- How to keep grain quality good in a warehouse

Blocks of text with some illustrations

1 Keeping the area around the store clean

2 Maintaining the store exterior

3 Maintaining the store interior

4 How and where to build bag stacks

5 Ensuring good store hygiene

6 Inspecting the store

7 Recording your inspection

8 Using stock cards

9 Receiving grain

10 Keeping a tally

11 Inspection of quality

12 Sampling

13 Quality assessment

14 Moisture content measurement

15 Weighing

16 Discharging grain

17 Keeping a tally

18 Weighing

Section 5 -General principle of grain quality

Blocks of text with some illustrations

1 The meaning of grain quality standards and why we have them

2 What inspectors are looking for when they check your grain

3 How grain is sampled to determine quality (including sample division)

4 Grain quality required for successful storage

5 What causes grain quality to decline in storage

6 Grain moisture content – its importance and how to measure it

7 Weighing grain in and out of stores

8 Keeping stock cards

9 How and when to do pest control in a store

10 Basic procedures for using insecticides

11 Basic procedure for fumigation

12 The role of the ‘Blue Box’ for grain quality management (text contributed by WFP)

Where possible the training materials will indicate where linkages should be made with training on

group marketing and business development, as these subject are outside the scope of the current

work.


5.3 RECOMMENDED APPROACH AND TIMETABLE FOR THE WAY FORWARD BASED ON THE

ROME STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP 2ND

DECEMBER 2011

Careful consideration of how the further development of the training package should proceed

resulted in the following agreed approach.

1. This report should be circulated by WFP to key stakeholders for information by 9th

December. They should also be asked to comment on the approach suggested and submit

any further suitable PHHS training materials that they believe might not already have been

drawn to the attention of P4P. Comments and submissions should be sent to NRI

([email protected] and [email protected]); the deadline for this is 8th January 2012.

2. After consideration of the nature of cartoon style materials for P4P countries, it was

concluded that they would need to be drawn in a region-specific manner. To achieve this it

is proposed that the training package should be developed in phases. The first phase will be

for Sub-Saharan Africa. There would be subsequent phases for Central America and Asia if

budgets allow.

3. The first draft of the PHHS training package should be prepared and available for comment

by the end of February 2012.

4. The draft package will be circulated first to Country Offices (COs) and stakeholders to obtain

buy in/validation. After this, a second draft would be prepared. The second draft would be

circulated to non-English speaking COs to obtain French/Portuguese translations of the text.

Following this, non-anglophone stakeholders could be consulted.

5. The training package would be ready for printing in April/May 2012.


ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: TRAINING MATERIALS USED IN FIELD VISITS TO ASSESS TRAINERS AND TRAINEES RESPONSES TO SIMPLIFIED

MESSAGES

Extract from: El Salvador P4P programme leaflet: ‘No hay mal que por bien no venga! Ojo con el gorgojo! (Every cloud has a

silver lining! Beware the beetle)


Extract from the Tanzania/GTZ IPM projects ‘Hifadhi Bora Ya Mahindi Ngazi Ya Kaya’ booklet (Improved

household level maize storage)

Extract from Ghana MoFA/ NRI ‘Solarisation: Reducing damage from cowpea beetles during storage’ leaflet


Extract from the Central and West Africa Grain Quality Improvement Projects ‘Mycotoxin Management Guide’


ANNEX 2: DETAILS OF THE FARMER ORGANISATIONS WHICH RESPONDED

FO Code Country FO Name FO Age (years)

Total No. Members

% female members

Province District

ETH-FO-001 Ethiopia Ebot Primary Cooperative 6 1500 3.3 Siltie Dalucha Ward ETH-FO-002 Ethiopia Dekeya Primary Coop 12 240 15.0 Wolyita Sodo Ofa Worada ETH-FO-003 Ethiopia Koka Primary Coop 35 520 13.8 East Showa Lume KE-FO-001 Kenya Schemers Community Based Org 6 65 43.1 Rift Valley Eldoret West KE-FO-002 Kenya Marukusi Mali Shambani 3 53 26.4 Western Lugare KE-FO-003 Kenya Lemook Kamasia SHG 3 91 72.5 Rift Valley Nandi Worth/Ulushu KE-FO-004 Kenya Kaptebee Sachangwan Self Help Gp 5 39 38.5 Rift Valley Eldoret West KE-FO-005 Kenya Wema Widows 6 30 80.0 Western/ Rift Valley Lugari/ Tranz Nzoia KE-FO-006 Kenya Angata Farmers Self Help Stores 3 39 46.2 Rift Valley Trans Mara West KE-FO-007 Kenya Ketoro Area B Farmers Association 3 36 0.0 Rift Valley Trans Mara West KE-FO-008 Kenya Romosha Farmers Association 5 30 46.7 Rift Valley Trans Mara KE-FO-009 Kenya Rotet Women Group 1 22 77.3 Rift Valley Trans Mara West KE-FO-010 Kenya Abasani Women Group 4 40 100.0 Rift Valley Trans Nzoia KE-FO-011 Kenya Jipe Moyo Self Help Group 4 60 53.3 Rift Valley Tranz Nzoia East KE-FO-012 Kenya Kipchamo Poverty Eradication Prog. 3 815 84.0 Rift Valley Vasingildho KE-FO-013 Kenya St Vincent Kapteldon Women Group 4 684 60.4 Rift Valley Uasin Gisho KE-FO-014 Kenya Suwerwa Huruma 38 42.1 Rift Valley Tranz Nzoia East UG-FO-001 Uganda Bugiri Agri Business 7 750 53.3 Eastern Bugiri UG-FO-002 Uganda Nakishene Adult Literacy Group 14 650 49.2 Eastern Nakigo UG-FO-003 Uganda Bukanga area co-operative enterprise 1.6 1255 67.8 Eastern Luuka UG-FO-004 Uganda Wandegeya Farmers 1.5 60 41.7 Eastern Kityerera UG-FO-005 Uganda Nakakulwe Farmers Org. 2 60 41.7 Eastern Jinja UG-FO-006 Uganda KAIDA farmers 13 750 50.0 Eastern Kamuli MOZ-FO-001 Mozambique Siwama 4 1041 36.0 Manica Chimoio MOZ-FO-002 Mozambique Culima Cuacanaca 4 203 9.9 Manica Barue MOZ-FO-003 Mozambique Batani Phaza 2 540 11.9 Manica Barue MOZ-FO-004 Mozambique Samora Machel 4 288 21.9 Manica Barue MOZ-FO-005 Mozambique IKURU 8 7000 35.7 Nampula Nampula MOZ-FO-006 Mozambique FEPROG 5 5709 40.8 Zambezia Gurue MOZ-FO-007 Mozambique FEDAMOSA 6 1228 40.8 Zambezia Alto Molocue MOZ-FO-008 Mozambique Chiguirizano 4 1770 27.1 Tete Angonia MOZ-FO-009 Mozambique Muchiua 13 26 42.3 Zambezia Alto Molocue MOZ-FO-010 Mozambique Assapana 8 20 60.0 Zambezia Alto Molocue MOZ-FO-011 Mozambique Yacote 3 30 70.0 Zambezia Gurue MOZ-FO-012 Mozambique Noimissacua 10 25 68.0 Zambezia Gurue TZ-FL-003 Tanzania Mkombozi Soko Kuu 8 1557 45.1 Biche Kondoa TZ-FO-001 Tanzania Gallapo 5 760 43.3 Gallapo Babati TZ-FO-002 Tanzania Mbulumbulu Umoja SACCOS 2 439 36.2 Slahamo Karatu TZ-FO-004 Tanzania Usomamam 5 356 28.7 Masakta Hanang GH-FO-001 Ghana Dromankuman Nkosuo Kuo Farmers 5 75 50.7 Ashanti region Ejura-Sekyedumasi GH-FO-002 Ghana Nokwaredie Farmers Association 3 52 34.6 Ashanti region Ejura-Sekyedumasi GUA-FO-001 Guatemala As. de Agric. de Nueva Concepción 4 38 7.9 Escuintla Nueva Concepción GUA-FO-002 Guatemala ADEGO - Asociación de Desarrollo

Comunitario Granero de Oriente 11 140 28.6 Ipala, Chiquimula

ELS-FO-001 El Salvador As. Coop. de Aprovisionamiento Agropecuario La Esperanza de R.L

35 402 46.8 Munic. of San Esteban Catarina

Dept of San Vicente

ELS-FO-002 El Salvador As. de Desarrollo Comunal de Agricultores de San Lorenzo

6 75 40.0 Municipality of San Lorenzo

Dept of Ahuachapán

ELS-FO-003 El Salvador As. de Productores Agropecuarios, Los Tabudos de R.L

3 219 23.7 Municipality of Santa Elena.

Dept of Usulután

ELS-FO-004 El Salvador As. Agropecuaria de Turín de R.L 6 28 17.9 Munic. of Turin Dept of Ahuachapán


ANNEX 3: P4P TRAINING COURSE AND TRAINING MATERIALS REPORTED BY WFP STAFF

Country Training course/ training materials Training

organisation

Content/appropriateness for FOs at different stages of

development

Ethiopia

1. Post Harvest ToT course

15 day course, supported by a training manual

Sasakawa Africa

Association (SAA)

and WFP staff

It was one course given for the Ministry of Agriculture staff at

ward level, with the idea that they then deliver the training to

Primary Co-operative (PC) farmers

2. Post Harvest Handling

For ToT training of Primary Cooperative (PC) leaders, 8 such

courses delivered to date. The ToT participants in the SAA ToT

course , held in Addis, came together in small groups and

developed this course based on what they had learnt in Addis.

Trainees of the Post

Harvest ToT course

held in Addis

It targeted the PCs which vary from area to area. They tried to

make sure a grade 6 or 8 level primary education had been

obtained by participants. Only a few did not understand the

language

3. Post Harvest Handling Marketing

Delivered to store keepers of the CU in Addis and Awassa

Different people e.g.

Commodity reserve

staff and WFP staff

For all

Kenya

1. Food Quality assurance P4P, Intertek Nascent, medium and high ranking FOs

2. Commodity specifications P4P, Intertek Nascent, medium and high ranking FOs

3. P4P Kenya brochure P4P Nascent, medium and high ranking FOs

4. Post-harvest handling and storage manual WFP-P4P, AMPATH

and CGA

Nascent, medium and high ranking FOs

Uganda

1. Post harvest handling of maize and beans

A residential ToT course supported by a manual and practical

training materials. Directed at P4P focal points, Implementing

partners (IP), FAO Farmer Field Schools, FOs (direct training or

ToT) when an IP not present. Training materials/approach:

PowerPoint presentations for teaching subject matter

specialists, Q&A, discussions and slides used as discussion

points, equipment and models, guidelines e.g. on fumigation,

grain quality

WFP staff Suitable for ToT who will then work with FOs in any stage of

development.

2. Post harvest handling of maize and beans

Supported by materials developed by CPs from the TOT manual

and their own posters

CPs - SG 2000,

Organisation for

Relief and

Development

Services (ORDS)

Suitable for direct farmers training at FO in any stage of

development.


Mozambique

1. Postharvest handling and storage

A ToT course for CPs. Supported by a set of 5 booklets, each

one a separate training course module. Back pages describe

what should be included in the training course sessions. Two

simple posters showing on-farm operations and grain storage

WFP (FAO) Course suitable to those who already have some knowledge of

PHHS and a secondary school background or better.

2. Postharvest handling and storage

Direct training of FOs by the CP, using material derived from

the ToT course, especially the two simple posters showing on-

farm operations and grain storage. Single copies of the set of 5

booklets deposited with each FO. Also wooden hand shellers

supplied to farmers.

World Vision, UN

Volunteers,

Government Ext.

Agents

A very hands on practical training, suitable for FOs at any stage

of development.

3. Training in mud silo construction and use

Hands on course for selected members of FOs. Intended that

the trainees construct 4 mud silos on their return to the village.

FAO Appropriate to all FOs

Tanzania

1. Warehouse Management Rural Urban

Development

Initiative (RUDI)

Nascent and Medium

2. Postharvest Management RUDI Nascent, Medium and Maturity

Ghana

1. Post harvest handling ACDI VOCA

(ADVANCE), A&G

Agro Industries,

MiDA Ghana

Medium

Sierre Leone

1. Post-harvest management: value addition, processing and

storage

Supported by 1) Warehouse Management: Handbook for Store

Keepers of WFP 2) Simple handouts

WFP, Min. of Agric,

Seed Multiplication

Unit, Wold Vision,

Page Project

2. Quality control in production and post-harvest

management

Supported by PowerPoint slides

Njal University, WFP

Food Technologist

Burkina Faso

1. Methods of storage/ conservation and management

From the negotiation to the sale process, procedures for

responding to WFP tenders/ Logistics and transport

Inter-Professional

Committee for

Cereals (CIC-B), and

also by WFP staff

and national

consultants

Good harvesting practices avoid post-harvest losses, due to

impurities and waste in cereals and pulses


2. Practical training on how to handle and use logistics and

warehouse equipment

SP/PAM (Ministry of

Agriculture) and -

WFP staff

- Good drying practice for grains and legumes to prevent mould

and infestations.

- Good food storage to prevent rodents, insect infestations and

mould.

- Good hygiene practice and preservation of food

El Salvador

1. Staple grains storage at the farm level

Farmer workshop with oral presentation based on pictures in a

flipchart. Comic book style leaflets and cloth portable flipcharts

were produced with the procedure for disinfesting grain in

silos located in farmer homes. The leaflets were given to FOs

to distribute to their members. The flipcharts were given one

to each participating CENTA agency so their extension staff

could use them for replication workshops.

CENTA extension

officers.

Very basic course suitable for the membership in all stages of FO

development, especially nascent FOs.

It promotes decreasing post harvest losses at the farm level by

doing better pest control, stressing the use of appropriate

pesticide treatments when storing in silos or other devices.

2. Storage and quality control of basic grains in warehouses

PowerPoint presentations and discussions were used to impart

knowledge, and a practical session to put the theory to

practice. Folder manuals with plasticized leaves containing

best practice procedures were produced and given to each FO.

CENPOSCO Suitable for Medium and High FOs. This course teaches good

practices in grain handling, sampling, fumigation, dispatching,

and warehouse treatment and inspection. It is suitable for FOs

that have facilities for storage with or without equipment for

grain cleaning.

The workshops were given to 25 CENTA Staff and in 4 regions to

14 FO with 76 representatives. The course provided theory and

practice.

3. Farming Best Practices and Post Harvest training of trainers

PowerPoint presentation to show best practices from planting

to storing. It is the first of various regional training-of-trainer

workshops for FOs. No replications done yet by those trained.

POST COSECHA to FO

trainers

Suitable for replication to the membership of all types of FO. It

expands the scope for improving practices from the moment of

planting to the moment of selling.

Guatemala

1. Quality of maize and beans

Audiovisual, live demonstrations of quality. Hand cleaning of

grain. Discussion of how to prepare grain for sale, with

emphasis on cleaning. Quality specifications from different

buyers.

WFP, CUNORI, ICTA

in Zacapa

ICTA: Institute for

Agriculture Science

and Technology

2. Post-harvest Management of staple crops

Audiovisual: multimedia presentation developed by ICTA

Hugo Rodriguez

3. Blue box

WFP Quality specifications for purchase of grain

WFP The combination of theory and practical training sets the

training sessions at a level accessible to all of the organizations.


ANNEX 4: POSTER USED FOR FARMER TO FARMER TRAINING IN UGANDA

(PREPARED BY SG 2000)


ANNEX 5: PHOTOS OF POSTHARVEST MODELS PREPARED BY WFP UGANDA AND USED IN TRAINING

Hot air dryer Drying crib

Drying rack Threshing platform

Two-person sieve Mud silo


ANNEX 6: THE AIMS AND IMPACTS OF PHHS TRAINING COURSES ACCORDING TO SELECTED FOS

(where training courses have been reported more than once, responses have been combined)

Country Name of course What were your members expected to be able to do

after the course

A maize and

bean course?

What changes happened after the course

Ethiopia

1. Post Harvest ToT

course

Expected to learn the skills and take them to the local

area, e.g. skills such as collection/ harvesting, threshing,

storage, cleaning the store, stacking system, use of

chemicals. Separation of grain for HH consumption. By

improving grain quality they can get a better price.

Advantages and disadvantages of keeping the quality.

Use of mortised sheller and cleaner

Yes The course was in Nov after harvest so they haven't yet used it

very much. Improvements have been – when bag stacking

have left a space between the wall and the stack; rat control;

have used the stacking system to store fertiliser away from the

wall; changed from applying pesticide spray to fumigation

using phostoxin tablets. The trainee and 16 Board members

will act as PHHS demonstration farmers.

2. Post Harvest

Handling

To be able to use the shelling and cleaning machines

and to train others on how to use them; to collect

quality grain and prevent loss after collection; to

protect stored grain from insect and rodent attack; to

maintain grain quality and so improve their incomes; to

learn how to keep bagged grain at home by not storing

on the ground and putting some space around; the

dosage rate when fumigating grain.

Yes Interviewee will use the plastic sheet this year, and his 3 sons

have copied this. Other farmers are also looking at this and are

interested in mechanisation.

3. Post Harvest

Handling and

Marketing

Expected to - assess the quality of the grain purchased

from farmers, ensuring it is free from foreign matter be

able to grade grain as 1st or 2nd grade, and to separate

the two grades in the warehouse; measure the mc of

grain; pay farmers according to the quality of the grain.

Course was focused on wheat, haricot beans, maize.

They used the Ethiopian grain standards

Yes Will train those farmers who bring produce to the warehouse

on how to store their own grain. During purchasing check the

grain quality and moisture of the grain. Farmers access the

market by aggregating good quality produce and then selling it

to the CU. The CU will try to buy only Grade 1 grain and no wet

commodity. They will do their best to help the community to

aggregate and store good quality grain

Kenya

1. Grain Storage To sort grains; dry well; use chemicals and fumigation;

good packing; arrange bags on pallets; during harvest

maize not to put directly on the ground/soil as it could

be affected by aflatoxin; proper drying; separation of

rotten maize cobs from good ones; use proper methods

of shelling and avoid grain breakage

Yes Farmers now take cereals that are clean to the store. Proper

drying methods are practiced to get the moisture content to

13.5%. Storage on pallets or locally made ones is practiced.

Reduction of pest infestation due to proper methods used.


2. Post Harvest

Handling and Stores

Management

Timely land preparation and planting; proper seed

selection, spacing and use proper agricultural practices;

to dry grain to required moisture content; to sort grain;

to manage grain in store; to use safe pesticides to

minimise post harvest losses; to keep records; to grade

grains to meet required standards.

Yes Planting and harvesting time are adhered to for better

production. Good drying practice has ensured that their

produce can be stored for longer without deterioration and

lasts throughout the year. Farmers have graded their grain

into 3 grades to achieve the required standards; farmers now

shell cobs sooner hence less losses; cobs sorted and graded

before shelling; grain cleaned before pesticide application;

using jute and sisal bags instead of polythene/ plastic bags for

storage. Before the PHHS training members would sell in haste

because the maize or beans could spoil if stored for long but

after adoption of better methods it has been easy to find

better markets with quality grain.

Uganda

2. Postharvest

handling of maize

and beans

Harvesting; store hygiene; use of tarps, cribs and floors

for drying; shelling by mechanical and manual means;

sieving; assemble of a crib for drying maize; use

tarpaulins when threshing to avoid grains dispersing

when beating with sticks; know how to use hand sheller

(as motorised are not economically affordable by the

FO. Farmers found the hand sheller less efficient and

time consuming)

Yes Wait for maize to mature before harvesting; have changed

from beating to the mechanical sheller; started using

tarpaulins (but not necessarily for drying); establish a

community crib dryer; changed from cob to grain storage in

sacks; retaining some maize for HH consumption, previously

sold all at harvest; now store bags on pallets; quantity of

incoming grain increased and quality improved; improved

home hygiene (note: home storage is commonly practiced by

the FO members)

Mozambique

2. Postharvest

training

When and how to harvest; to ensure field drying; to tell

differences between good and bad quality grain; to

selected cobs by quality; a better shelling technique; to

use sieves to grade; how to construct a mud silo.

Yes Now have selection of better quality cobs; better drying

technique, use of pallets and fumigation; now can sell to WFP;

maize no longer stored on cob with sheath but as grain that

has come from selected cobs.

3. Training in mud

silo construction

Some members of FO trained to be able to build mud

silos.

Yes Some members have now constructed and use mud silos

(gorongosa);


Tanzania

1. Postharvest

management

Harvesting once commodities reached maturity; drying

maize on sheet not on ground; use hand and/or

machine to shell grain from cob instead of beating;

cleaning maize to remove foreign matter; cleaning store

before storing new commodities; use proper pesticides;

sell commodities using weighing scale (by kilo);

marketing maize and beans that are well cleaned; share

the knowledge with others through formal and informal

meetings

Yes Farmers harvest their crops at a right maturity time; they are

drying maize to meet specified moisture content; they clean

and treat their commodities before packing into bags, applying

proper pesticides; before collective storage they ensure the

store is well inspected, cleaned and if needs be treated to kill

insects that would damage their commodities; old stocks are

separated from new.

Ghana

1. Post Harvest

Handling

To understand the importance /benefits of good post

harvest practices; to drying grain to the required

moisture content; importance of sorting /cleaning of

maize; the advantage of bulk selling.

No Increase in prices of the sorted grains; good quality grains

produced.

El Salvador

2. Storage and

quality control of

basic grains in

warehouses

Use of lab equipment to test grain humidity, impurities,

fungus; how to fumigate bagged grain; how to manage

a warehouse to avoid grain contamination; how WFP

warehouses are managed; rules for delivering grain to

avoid shipment rejection.

No The co-operative has not used the testing equipment since

they had the course but there is now awareness of what

quality implies. We know that levels of humidity are

important, before we did not know what toxins were or why

the impurities were important. We now understand that these

things affect the grain price.

Guatemala

2. Post-harvest

management of

staple crops

To store maize for long periods of time (about one

year); guarantee access to food for at least a year; store

better quality maize for sale and for family

consumption.

No 15 persons now adopted the silos to store grain in a better

way

3. Use of the Blue

box and Quality

To have greater added value, with better quality, less

rejection and sale at a higher price.

Yes We cleaned the grain which we were going to sell.


ANNEX 7: OBSERVATION OF WFP STAFF OF THE DEGREE OF SATISFACTION EXPRESSED BY FOS ON THE TRAINING THEY HAVE RECEIVED AND ON THE IMPACT THIS TRAINING HAS HAD

ON THE FOS.

Country Training Materials FO satisfaction Impact on FO

Burkina Faso 1. Methods of storage/

conservation and

management

The courses have had a significant impact on food

management of the FO, in understanding that the quality of

the food is affected from the harvest. The FO no longer needs

long periods of work for winnowing and sorting before

bagging. So the time needed for ensuring the quality of

product has been reduced.

The reports of pre-inspection visits show that the products

collected since the start are now of a more satisfactory quality

and thus the FOs are more likely to deliver the products within

the deadlines. Winnowing and sorting of food are no longer on

the floor but on tarps or similar equipment. The FO has a good

knowledge of standards and specifications of food purchased

by WFP and some professional buyers. Good knowledge of the

use of logistic equipments, sewing machine etc helps to access

other buyers besides WFP.

Ethiopia

1. Post Harvest ToT course ToT participants said it was useful but some areas were too

short e.g. commodity mgmt, while harvesting was very

detailed - perhaps too detailed e.g. university lectures

In two CUs they have improved warehouse mgmt and have

utilised the machines.

2. Post Harvest Handling Training was given to 3 CU and some of the info was difficult

for some people to understand. (He only learnt this during this

visit as he hadn't attended the PC PH trainings)

In Awassa they said they had better quality grain this year, as it

was cleaner. During aggregation the PC rejected some of the

bad quality commodity and they didn't face any challenges

from farmers. But impact is really very limited as only very few

people have been trained. The market and store keepers of

each PC should be trained.


and Marketing

Store keepers said the training was v. relevant for their job so

they wanted a refresher course or more time than the 5 days.

Impact on the warehouse and commodity management at

store level - yes. But it didn't then spread to farmers.

Kenya

1. Food Quality assurance Not satisfied – proper materials need to be developed Overall quality has improved

2. Commodity

specifications

Satisfied but further simplification needed Overall quality has improved

3. P4P Kenya brochure Satisfied but further simplification needed Overall quality has improved

4. Post-harvest handling

and storage manual

FOs have expressed satisfaction but expressed need for

further simplified materials

Grain quality has improved significantly


Uganda

1. Post harvest handling of

maize and beans

The participants tend to appreciate practical with the real

equipment rather than simulated by use of models. It was

more stimulating for the farmers when they perform a

fumigation exercise rather sit and hear about it or do a test to

check efficiency of fumigation. At the end of each training

course evaluation forms were completed by the participants

however, these have not yet been analysed.

Evidence of post-training quality improvement is 1) movement

of grain from home to the Centralised Grain Collection Points,

2) Farmers were more willing to pay for the services to do the

drying and the PHHS but they do not do the PHHS themselves,

possibly due to the lack of materials or capacity, and 3) small

scale farmers introduced tarpaulins to their sun drying

practices. However, sun drying was able to achieve a minimum

14-15% m.c. Sun drying often not efficient nor adequate,

mechanical drying is costly. When a community drying machine

breaks down, a large amount of wet grain get stuck at the

warehouse.

Mozambique


and Storage

Very happy to receive the set of 5 booklets, two posters and

wooden hand shellers

It is questionable that the manual is suitable for FO members

as most would not be able to read them. Probably more use to

the Trainers. In the case of the posters, not clear, probably

most effective as a structure for the trainer to talk through the

issues. Little or no evidence of any impact from the hand

shellers.

2. Training in mud silo

construction and use

FOs generally expressed interest in storing in mud silos but

regard them less favourably that metal silos. It is not clear

whether any mud silos have been constructed beyond those

built for demonstration purposes.

80% of the selected FO representatives who received this

training have been able to construct satisfactory

demonstration mud silos in their own villages. This shows the

success of the training.

Tanzania

1. Warehouse

Management

Initially famers were not practising collective storage instead

used to store their grains individually at household level.

Currently majority of P4P supported FOs are practicing

collective storage. The knowledge disseminated from this

course enabled FOs to store their grain in proper way to

maintain its quality and quantity. Among practices in place are

inspection of crops from farmers before storage, good store

layout, regular cleaning, routine inspections, pest and rodent

management.

Mostly, when FO awarded a contract to supply maize or beans

to WFP, they deploy knowledge attained during training on

warehouse management to stored commodities. It had helped

them to maintain commodity quality and quantity all along

during storage up to point delivery stage. Generally feedback

from WFP superintendents, who inspect quality and quantity of

FO commodities, is that poor quality is not a major issue


2. Postharvest

Management

The current situation of postharvest losses is over 30%.

Feedback from FO reported to be aware of causes of

postharvest losses. FOs are able to handle crops to minimize

postharvest losses from harvesting, household and up to

market level. Among techniques in practice are harvesting

crops as soon as they are mature, drying crops well before

storage, winnow/cleaning crops before storage, using proper

insecticide, proper inspection of trucks before loading and

transporting.

Before training farmers had difficulties meeting WFP quality

specifications when awarded contracts to supply maize or

beans, the main quality problems were high moisture content,

infestations and dusty although WFP had provided room for FO

to do cleaning, drying and sorting. After training farmers

become aware of quality aspects of maize and beans. Also

learnt how to process commodities to meet WFP quality

specification. Subsequently, local purchase from FO to WFP

the issues of meeting quality specification has not been a major

problem.

Ghana 1. Post Harvest Handling - Course content was beneficial (positive)

- Lack of basic postharvest equipment (negative)

Good quality grain delivered (no rejection from WFP)

El Salvador

1. Staple grains storage at

the farm level

The replication by CENTA was not done uniformly nor

completed, because of other pressing responsibilities. Among

farmers that received the flyer, those that could read found it

useful. Among those that could not read, they could follow

the pictures to help themselves, but did not understand

everything if they had not attended the workshop first.

In two FOs (Turin and El Garucho), farmers said that thanks to

the course given by CENTA they had improved the quality of

the grain at home.

2. Development of skills in

grain management in FO

warehouses

Extension officers from CENTA and representatives of

marketing committees of the FOs expressed great satisfaction

with the workshops and the learning they achieved, at the end

of the training. Once back at the FO, however, only two with

female managers (Turin and Agrisal) actually put into practice

all they learned, because they were buying, storing,

processing and selling grain in significant volumes, as they had

a clientele apart from WFP. Medium FOs are using the grain

testing skills on what they buy but have no opportunity to

practice the warehouse management. This was not the case in

the nascent FOs, who did not put into practice any of what

they learned, and have expressed the need for a refresher

course once they start buying from farmers.

Two associations have made sales to WFP since this course was

given. Both have improved the quality of the grain provided. In

one case there was a rejection of one load of pest infested

beans. In the other there was a progressive improvement

based on the initial learning-by-doing through teaching by

WFP-P4P staff and then from CENPOSCO inspectors, and finally

with the formal course. In 2009 and 2010 had rejection rates of

30% and 20.3% respectively. In 2011, after the CENPOSCO

course (not this one), grain delivered on time with no

rejections.

3. Farming Best Practices

and Post Harvest ToT

The trainers trained liked the course very much because it

included good practices in farming, pest control, food safety

and post harvest and storage at the farm levels.

Success will depend on the replication by members of the FOs,

which is a system that is only recently being introduced in the

FOs. This option is an alternative to using CENTA extension

staff that are overburdened.


Guatemala

2. Blue box They see that they really can improve the quality and open

access to other markets. They see that quality can be

improved without extra investment. The improved use of

available resources is stressed, not more resources. It gives

them the opportunity to sell to WFP and private companies.

There is better quality where we are present in the field.


ANNEX 8: RESPONSES FROM FOS ON WHAT THEY FOUND MOST USEFUL, LEAST USEFUL AND MISSING FROM TRAINING COURSES

(where training courses have been reported more than once, responses have been combined)

Country Course Most useful parts Least useful parts What’s missing

Ethiopia

1. Post Harvest ToT

course

Minimising PH losses during harvesting

and threshing; identifying our problems

(1st was grain mc); from collecting in the

field, threshing (and how much is usually

left), storing including machine

operation were the most interesting

parts. Wait till the grain matures, then

dry it and thresh properly. The machines

are mobile so can thresh in the field. For

wheat threshing can be costly, if using

livestock then dung gets on the grain, so

the cost could be reduced by using the

machine.

Looking at the CU warehouse, although

it was very big, was useful.

Everything was agriculturally

related and so was relevant.

It was a bit rushed and therefore too

short, it needed more time to go into

details and then practice what was

learnt. Want more people from each

PC to be trained. Didn't learn how to

stack sacks and need more knowledge

on store keeping. Funding for CUs to

buy the machines that they were

trained to use.

2. Post Harvest

Handling

Machine threshing of maize was very

interesting but the interviewee doesn't

yet have a machine to use, so not yet

able to put it into practice. Use of plastic

sheet during threshing. Suggestions on

transport useful, now they come

together to hire a donkey cart to

prevent spillage and loss. Also not

leaving the crop in the field too long as

this leads to losses.

All was useful No focus on postharvest management

of Teff. Needed access to the

machinery and improved seed after

the course. Training should be for

more participants and it should be

repeated during the year so that more

farmers can benefit.


Kenya 2. Post Harvest

Handling and

stores

management

Timely land preparation, soil

management, nutrition, use of certified

seed and maize post harvest

management ensures good production.

How to harvest by putting grain on a

tarpaulin as it helps farmers avoid

aflatoxin. Observe hygiene in handling

grain when drying. Sorting before

shelling and how to shell grain to limit

the percentage of broken grains. The

importance of drying the produce well

being the basis of good quality grains.

Pest treatment, since most farmers used

to lose grains by being infested by pests

and can now control well. Knowing grain

specifications as this helps remove

rotten grains and leave it for long

without contamination. Storage

management, pest/insect control

All of it was useful but time

was short for practical work.

No practical demonstration of

sampling, use of PH chemicals, and

moisture meter. Need the involvement

of agricultural officers from the

government to ensure best agricultural

practices.

Uganda

2. Postharvest

handling of maize

and beans

Harvest using tarpaulin instead of

spreading cobs around the field. Drying

practicals; how to use a mechanical

maize sheller; change from cob to grain

storage; collective storage - more

storage space at satellite point and

easier market approach, avoids selling to

middle man with dodgy scales; early

cash advance through WRS.

Use of moisture meter.

Reason: unaffordable,

unlikely that the farmers will

apply. Moisture content can

be estimated in other ways

(e.g. by biting)

How to use insecticides; specifications

for the cleaning sieves; demonstration

materials/ PHHS equipment (threshers,

cleaners etc.) to facilitate exercises at

the farm gate level.


Mozambique

2. Postharvest

training

Conservation of product; seed

conservation techniques; quality issues;

drying; storage and fumigation,

transport and quality control;

warehouse construction; learning about

better stores and getting a

demonstration about silos.

All was useful, production, More practical sessions, grain selection

was weak, and no information on use

of pesticide to treat grain. Need help

with finding sieves, small scale

processing and details of grain

cleaning.

3. Training in mud

silo construction

The storage facilities, 3 mud silos and 1

metal silo give for demonstration in each

FO. Can't maintain grain quality grain

unless in silo. Shelled grain rapidly

damaged by insects if not in silo.

All was useful Sieves, instruction on pesticide

treatment of grain.

Tanzania 1. Postharvest

management/

warehouse

management

All of the training was very useful, but

the following topics were most useful as

they touched directly on issues related

to quality and management of

commodities aggregated collectively

1. Post Harvest Management

2. Warehouse Management

All of the training was very useful and

helped us to supply quality grain to WFP.

None of our grains have been rejected

due to quality

All was useful Comprehensive training on fumigation

practices to enable FO to manage

fumigation work without depending

other outsiders. Good Production

practices technique. One module

namely record keeping found to be

difficult to be understood by all

participants.

Ghana

1. Post Harvest

Handling

Sorting of grains to enhance grain

quality and appeal to the eye and get

higher prices. Also how to harvest at the

right time to avoid insect pest

infestation and to improve grain quality

and quantity

All aspects of the PH course

were useful but the

transportation was the least

important because, if there is

ready market in the

community then there is no

need for transport since most

of the farms are located a

walking distance in the

community.

No, everything was covered.


El Salvador 2. Storage and

quality control of

basic grains in

warehouses

It was a useful course, especially how to

store, fumigate, control impurities and

measure humidity, giving better quality

grain. Even so, since the course there

has been no opportunity to use was

learnt. The equipment is still stored,

unused, because there have been no

sales since the course. The course would

be better with more detail and should

be provided to each organization so it

can be more effective.

Everything taught was useful,

but it needs to be reinforced

again, since the harvest time

is coming again and there will

be need to store. Due to the

rush in a one-day course the

older people had more

trouble learning.

The course was complete, but the

delivery time was too short.

Guatemala

2. Post-harvest

management of

staple crops

The most important part of this training

was to learn that use of the GrainPro

Silos does not require chemicals

(pesticides) for pest control; therefore

the grain is less contaminated.

The least important was the

use of the plastic silos, since

the maize became rotten.

Monthly monitoring of the maize in

the silos.

3. Use of the Blue

box and Quality

The demonstration helped us to really

understand the grain defects.

Everything was important.

The instructor explained the

importance of quality. The

course was held before the

sale of maize.

I would like to have it repeated during

the bean season.


ANNEX 9: FO COMPARISONS OF P4P TRAINING COURSE WITH OTHERS THEY HAVE RECEIVED

(CONSOLIDATED RESPONSES FROM SEVERAL INTERVIEWEES IN EACH COUNTRY)

Country What other courses How was the course different from P4P Was the other course better or worse

Delivery method Training materials

Ethiopia

Theoretical training

from MoA (~5-6 yrs

ago).

The current P4P course was

practical. There was a

demonstration of stacking

fumigation, and of equipment such

as moisture testers. They saw the

threshing and cleaning physically.

The pros and cons of stacking were

very well demonstrated.

The trainers wrote with chalk on

the blackboard but there were no

practical activities.

Worse as it was only theory based and

had no practical aspects to it.

Kenya

Post harvest

management,

delivered by Ministry

of Agriculture

Used flip charts while WFP used

projector (PowerPoint) and the

whole group trained while WFP

trained officials using ToT

approach.

Better because MoA delivered the

information to the whole group. But

worse as no brochures issued

Uganda

Postharvest handling

by NAADS.

Postharvest practices

for groundnuts by

VECO East Africa

Very similar approach P4P course better as more detailed

Farming as a business

and production,

delivered by SG2000

Similar methods WFP/P4P was better because it -

provided additional info on marketing,

had a more practical approach and

gave access to equipment through the

practical exercises

Uganda Co-operative

alliance in 2006

Single person received ToT in

Tororo. Similar delivery but no

materials

Worse, no follow up


Coffee production,

delivered by KULIKA

(NGO).

KULIKA: theoretical/ classroom

style training, while P4P was

practical/ hands-on training

KULIKA provided with materials to

all participant levels of the cascade

P4P training method was preferred.

Tanzania Marketing course by

Farm Africa

The approach used was more of

lectures and taking notes. Also it

was of more theoretical lessons

with less group discussions that

were organized by WFP/RUDI. WFP

during training provided meals/

snacks to farmers.

No handout was provided to

participants like it was for WFP

/RUDI training. WFP provides

storage equipment e.g. pallets,

packing bags, and stitching

(closing) machines

Ghana From P4P (Post

Harvest Handling of

Maize and Beans)

From MOFA

(Harvesting and

Postharvest issues)

The training from MiDA and WFP

involved classroom with group

discussion & participatory but

training from MOFA was more on

production and harvesting and

involves demonstration.

No difference No difference

El Salvador Post Harvest

Management of stored

grain at the family

level, delivered by Post

Harvest Unit of the

Ministry of

Agriculture.

Liked the WFP/CENPOSCO course

because of the practical session

using the equipment.

The CENTA course was good

because the flipchart they used

had clear pictures with what

should be done at home. The

interviewee cannot read nor write

but still the message was well

understood.

The purpose of the two courses was

very different, so can't be compared.

CENPOSCO course was aimed at co-

ops - lab testing and warehouses,

while CENTA course was aimed at farm

level use of the silo.

Guatemala Harvest and post-

harvest of maize and

beans.

The course was held before silos

were distributed to the farmers

They used posters and PowerPoint

presentations and a demonstration

silo. You can see the steps for

storage, what is the process for

storage in silos

Both courses were very useful.


ANNEX 10: RESPONSES FROM WFP STAFF IN CONNECTION WITH MONITORING TRAINING PERFORMANCE, WHAT IS DONE, WHAT COULD BE DONE

Country Has P4P made any assessment of impact Has the ToT cascade been effective What can be done to monitor P4P training

Ethiopia The P4P M&E people are planning to do

one with SAA.There was some feedback

during the Lesson learning workshop in

Oct 2010 but nothing was written, the

next lesson learning workshop will be in

Oct 2011.The PC chairman and General

Mgr of the CU, NGO partners and Dept of

Agric staff will be invited

The messages are passed on in local

language, due to shortage of time. But

too few farmers have been trained by the

ToT participants, so the ToT participants

have been trained but have not then

been utilised. No plans for follow up

activities or M&E were there.

Could link with available local structures e.g.

Cooperative Promotion office, Bureau of

Agriculture, training the Das (Development Agents

as Kabele/ village level), and in some areas if there

is no WFP field office it can be coordinated with

other areas so the field staff could monitor it. May

need to strengthen the capacity of the CU in

monitoring and record keeping so they can

monitor change. Establish a regular reporting

system by the trainees themselves Coordination

meeting between Coop Promotion Office, Bureau

of Agric, P4P, CU. Lesson learning can play a great

role. Doing an impact assessment. Lack of budget

meant pairs of ToT participants doing the training

together, but even then they were only allowed to

give a very short course. They didn't monitor or

plan how the ToT course could then be used to

train PC members. It is important to select the ToT

participants very carefully so they are people who

are very regularly in contact with farmers. The ToT

trainers also need to be carefully selected, e.g. not

University style lecturing, get some more practical

people to deliver the ToT training.

Kenya Not yet Partners have been offering ToT training

but there is no documentation of the

success so far. WFP in conjunction with

partners is training the partner staff a ToT

in post-harvest handling. Success will be

measured at a later date

An assessment of the adoption of good practices

can determine the success of the training


Uganda P4P staff at district level visit IP partners

and farmers to assess training

performance and the adoption of better

PHHS practices. Reports have been

prepared.

No actual assessment has been made.

Discussions on the training efficiency

were held.

- The FFT (Field Farmer Trainers) is

considered a good approach which finds

support by external stakeholders.

- The cascade approach, although used by

the P4P Uganda team, DOES NOT reach

many levels down and so it must be

asked, is a cascade desired or is direct

training better?

Consistent training assessment method:

- On P4P indicators

- Create a stakeholder platform, including also

external actors (not only WFP). This would assist in

better follow up on all activities held i.e. by WFP,

government, NGOs etc. It shall provide a good

working space to exchange views and pinpoint

gaps in terms of training efforts, approaches and

materials used.

- Evaluate post training change

Mozambique IP staff visit their FO and ask about

adoption of PHHS practices but no formal

evaluations..

This approach was rejected, in favour of

direct training of all Association

members.

Tanzania Done by AGRA (Alliance for Green

Revolution in Africa), on training

delivered to smallholders farmers, REPOA

(Research on Poverty Alleviation) through

case studies. General feedback was that

the training was useful and helped

farmers become aware on postharvest

related issues. However, a general

observation is that time was too short to

make farmers understand the whole

concept, some of training materials

particularly those for record keeping

were complicated so need to be

simplified, and for sustainability further

efforts required to link farmers into other

markets.

AGRA assessment on training delivered to

smallholder farmers showed lack of

follow-up mechanism in place to monitor

and support ToT to share the knowledge.

Put in place feedback mechanism from trainees to

ensure that the training expectations and

objectives have been met. Proper selections of

trainees who would be able to transfer the

knowledge to other farmers. Conducting training

need assessment is vital before designing training

manual and rolling out the same. ToT be assisted

with training aids and materials to be able to

transfer knowledge to farmers effectively


Ghana P4P Ghana just started training of FOs in

third quarter of 2011 and yet to carry out

impact assessment of the trainings.This

will be done using structured

questionnaires

N/A By conducting studies on adoption rates of new

technology passed on to farmers. Also, regular field

visit to FOs communities.

Sierra Leone Not really. The impact of training

ultimately is translated into contract

performance by the suppliers as well as

their increased sales of quality produce in

commercial markets.

Our workshops always become ToT as we

do not invite all farmers. We always invite

both the farmers and supply-side partner

staff so that the partners can replicate

training at micro-level or ensure that the

farmers themselves are doing so.

Given the fact that we have not had major quality

issue, we like to think that how we have conducted

training has been rather appropriate and useful in

the local context. Of course, there is more room for

improvement. We would like to mobilize the

technical expertise we have not been able to do so

in the past two years. Each NGO for instance has a

slightly different approach to capacity building and

development. It would be good to test and learn

from various models. One of the problems we

encounter often is that the farmers forget or fail to

follow good practices taught by WFP and the

partners. For instance, we teach the farmers how

to stack bags properly and keep stack cards. When

we go to the farmers’ stores, the stacks look

awkward without any record. It is about

persistence; the WFP P4P and Logistics staff do

visit the farmers’ sites at least monthly to do

physical checks. In addition, the WFP staff are

“always” in touch with the field staff of supply-side

partners. We will continue with this approach.

Sometimes it is not about doing more workshops

or doing better training, but it is about mentoring;

teaching farmers to adopt a culture of

maintenance and professionalism towards

commercial production and marketing.


Burkina Faso The impact is apparent at various levels:

The evaluation sheets of participants

after the trainings show their satisfaction.

The information collected during surveys

for monitoring and evaluation. Delivery

failures due to quality issues.

Training failures can become self

correcting. For example, after training on

the use of sewing machines and scales,

problems of poor sewing of bags were

not detected. Poor stitching led to bags

bursting or leaking during product

transport from the FOs store.

Transporters were penalized due to half-

empty bags at unloading. Store managers

were forced to make improvements to

ensure the stability of the stock in the

store.

-During training, a training schedule is

proposed by the FO with the names of

agents who will provide training and the

number of members to be trained. There

is currently a very large sharing of

trainers knowledge with an even larger

number of FO members. This is usually

motivated by the payment of flat rates of

transport for the trainers after the

refunds on the basis of properly

documented and submitted reports

which are audited by the P4P.

It is suggest that the cascade has been

effective because ground level members

are more familiar with the standards and

specifications of grain collected at their

level to be marketed.

Make unannounced visits to discuss with FO

members their understanding and knowledge

gained, and then making adjustments as necessary.

Visit the FO during the first collection to see any

flaws in the system and propose solutions.

El Salvador Not at present but at the farmer level,

monitoring is to be done through surveys

for means of livelihood and case studies;

planned 3 times in the period 2010-2013

ToT has only been used in the first Post

Harvest course replicated by CENTA

extension staff. Farmers have reinforced

their knowledge in the use of fumigation

to preserve grain in silos and corrected

some misconceptions, according to a few

testimonials from farmers. However,

CENTA extension officers are engaged in

a new priority Government Program

(Family Agriculture Plan) and were not

able to cover the volume of the farmers

planned. No widespread assessment was

made of this replication.

At the FO level, monitoring could be done on the

product delivered (quality, fulfilment of contracted

delivery time) and there would be need to also

monitor quality of grain sold to others that are not

WFP.

Guatemala No ToT not used. Visit a sample of farmers.


ANNEX 11: EXAMPLE OF TRAINING MATERIALS FOR USE IN ADDING WHICHEVER VERNACULAR LANGUAGE IS REQUIRED

Examples of how training materials can be prepared, which can be utilised at farmer trainer level across many different countries and local vernaculars to make them

relevant and comprehensible

Text on Master Copy

to be in English/

French/ Spanish

highlighting good

PHHS principles.

Then a set of the

diagrams are included

in the handbook in

B&W with the text

space empty, so that

the local trainer can

insert the words in

her/his local language

and then easily p/copy

the sets for use with

farmers

Empty your granary and clean it well before

loading your new crop

Fagia ghala lako vizuri kabla ya kuweka mahindi

[We can create a set of training materials with

text boxes/ speech bubbles left blank, so that

the trainer can insert the local language text]

[Example of what it might look like after the

local trainer has entered the text in Swahili]


Second example

[Create a set of training materials with text boxes/

speech bubbles left blank, so the trainer can insert

the local language text]

ANALYSIS OF P4P’ POSTHARVEST H S T FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF P F O S WFP...

Documents

Transcript of ANALYSIS OF P4P’ POSTHARVEST H S T FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF P F O S WFP...