Reducing Postharvest Losses
In the OIC Member Countries
128
landing, there is a glut in the market and the price for fish has decreased to US$ 3,000 for grade 1
and $2,000 for grade 2.
 The fishing vessel undertakes a one-week trip and catches 10 tonnes of fish.
 For various reasons only 9 tonnes are presented to market. One tonne is lost through
pilferage and spoilage.
 Of the 9 tonnes, 7 tonnes are first quality and achieve the grade 1 price.
 2 tonnes are of second quality and achieve the lower, grade 2 price.
The total income realised by the vessel, therefore is 7 x 3,000 = 21,000 plus 2 x 2,000 = 4,000 =
$25,000.
The total potential income is 10 x 4,000 = 40,000.
The total postharvest losses between capture and wholesale therefore are 1-(25/40)= 37.5%
Of this, 25%is attributable to market loss, 7.5% is attributable to physical loss and 5 % is
attributable to quality loss.
The figure quoted for postharvest losses in Indonesia in most literature is 30%. This figure is
not disaggregated.
However, this is an estimate and the reality is different to this. Recent research has shown that
it certainly is in specific value chains. For example, Wibowo et al reported losses ranging from
4% to 10% at a selection of fish landing areas and concluded that a blanket estimate of 30%
was possible over-cautious. They also identified an overall year-on year decrease, attributable
to targeted investment and training.26
Recent research, undertaken by the same team, jointly with FAO in four locations under the
‘Save Food Programme’ identified the following issues:
 Squid Fishery, Muara Angke: Physical losses are minimal. Quality losses were seen in
5% of landed product. Market losses are not significant. Reasons for losses are clearly
identified.
 Gill net fishery, Tegal: There is some physical/environmental loss (up to 4%) through
incidental by-catch and poor handling. Quality loss is more significant – 28% was
measured.
 Gillnet Fishery, Gunung Kidul: Significant physical loses were noted during peak season
due to lack of adequate handling equipment on board vessels. Up to 15% of the catch was
subject to quality loss. Market loss during high season could be up to 50%. Theft is a
major problem, resulting in physical loss. This was estimated at 12.5%.
 Mini Trawl, Brondong: There is a 3% physical loss due to theft. A further 5% loss
physical/quality s experienced due to handling methods. 22% of the catch is affected by
quality loss.
From this it is clear that losses in the capture fisheries value chain are variable from fishery to
fishery and in some cases, unique to a given fishery. It is therefore difficult to ascribe an
accurate cost of postharvest losses in the value chain as a whole. However, the research
undertaken under this programme has presented specific costs in a given fishery. For
example,
26 Evaluating and Monitoring of national Postharvest Fish Loss in Indonesia, Wibowo et al, Proceeding of the 3rd
International Seminar of Fisheries and Marine Science, 2014