Reducing Postharvest Losses
In the OIC Member Countries
130
4.7.5. Lessons Learned from the Case Study
The Government of Indonesia clearly recognises the importance of managing postharvest
losses in the sector. It does this through a process of researching and identifying the causes,
enumerating the impact and putting in place mechanisms to address these causes.
Research undertaken by Wibowo et al presented that the national average postharvest losses
had decreased by 1.26% over the two years between 2010 and 2012. Based on 2014 figures,
every percentage point adds approximately IDR 2.1 trillion million to the value chain. This is
approximately equivalent to US$ 160 million.
1. The Government of Indonesia recognises the cost of postharvest losses and allocates
resources to address and rectify this. There are clear indications, reported in peer reviewed
articles that the strategy is having an impact. It is noted that this is seen as an ongoing process.
Indonesia’s approach to managing postharvest losses in the fisheries and aquaculture
value chain should be shared with other participating countries.
2. Comprehensive National fisheries statistics are produced annually. These look at a number
of factors surrounding production, trade and contribution to the National economy. Likewise,
comprehensive global statistics are produced by the FAO. It is noted that none of these
statistics report on postharvest losses. The annual FAO report, ‘The State of World Fisheries
and Aquaculture, 2014’, did include six-page section on postharvest losses in small scale
fisheries. However, few numbers were presented. Working on the basis of ‘if you can’t
measure it, you can’t manage it’, it is recommended that postharvest losses in fisheries
value chains be reported as a matter of course, much in the same way as production,
marketing and economic parameters are currently report.
3. Where postharvest loss data is reported, it is often done in the form of a simple percentage
figure. This overall % is made up of both physical and financial losses. If the reporting of
losses is to be used to guide future management action, it is strongly recommended that loss
reporting be disaggregated. After all, what one does to address physical loss is very different
to that one does to address quality losses. Also it must be recognised that the non-practitioner
generally equates postharvest losses with physical losses only. Conspicuous disaggregation
would make it cleared for the non-specialist.
4. If PHLs are to be included in annual statistical reports, then it may also be worth reporting
values as well as percentages. This would allow planners to allocate resources that are
concomitant with the problem.
5. The research team in Indonesia identified the development of a warehouse receipt system
for fish as a mitigating action. It is understood that this has yet to be piloted. It is
recommended that this be piloted and results shared.