Agriculture in the Global South remains under pressure to produce more food while responding to climate change and resource constraints. Policy responses have focused on increasing production. But what about post-harvest losses? Globally, about one-third of food produced for human consumption is estimated to be lost or wasted. The problem was examined in a recent paper by agriculture, indigenous knowledge and food security researchers.
What are the main drivers of these losses?
Our research was based on examining 324 studies on the scale, causes and drivers of post-harvest losses across food commodities and regions of the Global South.
We found that the evidence is fragmented and uneven. In addition, estimating the true scale is difficult because studies measure losses differently. They examine different commodities and stages of the value chain and use different indicators and methods. Research has also concentrated heavily on storage losses in major staples such as maize, rice and pulses. That has left evidence gaps for fruits, vegetables, roots and tubers, animal products and other foods.
But we were able to identify some patterns.
Firstly, post-harvest losses occur throughout the food supply chain, from harvesting and handling to transportation, storage, processing and marketing.
Secondly, there’s substantial variation among food groups. For example, without interventions, estimated losses were about 27.7% of cereals, 35.1% of vegetables, 25.8% of fruits and 42.9% of roots and tubers. With appropriate mitigation measures, such as improved harvesting and handling practices, hermetic storage technologies, cold-chain infrastructure, better packaging, and enhanced processing and transportation systems, these fell to about 8.2%, 7.3%, 6.2% and 11.5%, respectively.
These figures illustrate the scale of variation and the potential for reduction.
Related stories
- Why post-harvest tomato handling is key to profits
- How Tebogo beat post-harvest losses with smart agro-processing
- Cutting post-harvest losses key to combat food insecurity
- Post-harvest pests, poor storage cut smallholder yields
Thirdly, post-harvest losses are rarely caused by a single factor. Our study identified interconnected infrastructure, technological, environmental, financial and market constraints.
Poor roads, inadequate warehouses, limited cold storage and inefficient transport expose food to physical damage and spoilage. Inadequate drying, packaging and handling add to these losses. Climate variability increases the risk: high temperatures, excessive moisture, floods and droughts can accelerate deterioration.
What are the four biggest challenges – and opportunities?
First is measuring losses accurately.
Before governments can decide where to invest, they need reliable information about where losses occur and how large they are. Standardised, region- and commodity-specific methods for measuring post-harvest losses would make evidence more comparable and help governments target resources more effectively.
Researchers, national statistical agencies, governments, international organisations and commodity-sector stakeholders should work together to develop these methods. National statistical offices, agricultural research institutions, universities, extension services and value-chain organisations can then gather the evidence through:
- farm and household surveys
- field-based measurement
- storage and market assessments
- monitoring across different stages of the supply chain.
Second is infrastructure that keeps food moving and preserves its quality.
Storage facilities, rural roads, processing facilities and cold chains are not secondary agricultural infrastructure. They are part of the food-production system. The evidence shows that improved storage, drying, packaging and cold-chain systems substantially reduce losses, improve farmers’ incomes and increase access to higher-value markets.
Third is making appropriate technologies affordable and combining them with indigenous knowledge.
Not every solution needs to be high-tech. Hermetic storage (airtight sealing), solar drying, improved packaging and low-cost cooling can complement practices such as drying, smoking, salting and fermentation.
These approaches would be more accessible to smallholders when adapted to local conditions. They can be encouraged through practical demonstrations and locally adapted training. Training avenues include farmer extension services, demonstration farms, farmer organisations and cooperatives, local processors, NGOs, private-sector suppliers and digital platforms.
Fourth is finance, extension and inclusive innovation.
Many smallholder farmers lack the finance and technical support needed to invest in improved storage and processing technologies. Price fluctuations and harvest gluts leave farmers with more produce than markets can absorb, increasing the losses of perishable foods before they are sold. Credit constraints can prevent farmers from adopting post-harvest technologies.
Governments and financial institutions can lower barriers through targeted subsidies, affordable loans, grants and risk-sharing mechanisms. Extension services should also help farmers choose, use and maintain appropriate technologies.
Women play important roles in post-harvest handling. They need to be explicitly included in technology design, training and financing. This can be done through:
- agricultural and financial policies that require women’s representation in technology design and extension programmes
- improving their access to credit, subsidies and training
- mandated monitoring of how men and women adopt and benefit from technology.
How could priorities be funded?
The evidence suggests that funding shouldn’t only focus on buying technologies. Public investment could support rural infrastructure, research, extension and enabling policies. Development finance could provide grants, concessional loans and guarantees for post-harvest investments. Private-sector partnerships can help with storage, processing, logistics and cold-chain services where viable markets exist.
Funding should move beyond isolated technology projects such as one-off storage or processing equipment schemes. It should support integrated programmes combining technology, farmer training, finance, market access and maintenance services. Investments should support entire value chains, linking farmers to storage, processing, transport and reliable markets. This would make post-harvest loss reduction part of broader food security, climate resilience and rural development strategies.
The central message from our research is simple: feeding a growing population is not only about producing more food. It’s also about losing less of what farmers already produce.
- This article was first published by The Conversation. It was written by Abeeb Babatunde Omotoso, senior lecturer at Oyo State College of Agriculture and Technology, Igboora, Nigeria and extraordinary senior lecturer at the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Centre, North-West University (NWU); Abiodun Olusola Omotayo, ass. professor, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, and NWU; Adeyemi Oladapo Aremu, Professor, NWU; and Olaniyi Fawole, Professor, SARChI research chair and director of Postharvest and Agroprocessing Research Centre, University of Johannesburg.
READ NEXT: Land Bank must step up support for farmers, says Aucamp
