Post-harvest losses

The next indicator for market efficiency is post-harvest losses. Post-harvest losses are one of the major problems of the Indian vegetable supply chain.

Especially for tomatoes, this turned out to be a huge challenge because tomatoes decompose fairly fast. Reardon (2005) and other authors claim that modern retailers experience less post-harvest losses because of the

aforementioned investment into infrastructure such as cold storage and transport systems (Rao et al., 2008, p. 61). Earlier studies showed that up to 30 per cent of tomatoes were wasted during the marketing process (Rao et al., 2008, p. 61)).

Evaluating research findings with regard to investment in infrastructure in order to reduce post-harvest losses, there was not much difference between the modern and the traditional value chains. Although experts such as those from the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and from the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) looked at neighbouring countries and believed that international chains would bring investment into infrastructure, this was not observed for tomatoes in India. What the research found is more what the National Secretary General of CAIT claimed, namely that neither domestic nor international chains had built up any kind of infrastructure in transport, communication or cold-storage systems. As mentioned in Section 5 on governance, the assumption made regarding cold storage can be completely rejected in the case of tomatoes.

Only 1 single supermarket chain among all the 14 that were interviewed stored its tomatoes in cold storage. Some of the other supermarkets did have cold storage but did not use it for tomatoes but rather for high-value produce such as apples and other imported products. “Tomatoes are too cheap to store them in cold storage” was the explanation of the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Sanjeev Chopra (interview, 2014).

Likewise, there were very little differences between traditional and modern chains in terms of the transportation of tomatoes. Modern chains used the same vehicles (such as auto-rickshaws or trucks) and the same roads as traditional retailers. Farmers brought the produce to the collection centres in the same vehicle they use for bringing it to the mandi. Packing and transport methods were essentially the same: tomatoes were stored in crates of 25 kg each and transported in small trucks. The roads to some collection centres were not paved while the roads from the farms to the mandi were similarly unpaved.

Nevertheless, having asked all interviewees about unsold produce and about how much tended to be thrown away, modern retailers seemed to experience lower post-harvest losses than traditional retailers.²² Where modern retailers

22 The timing for viable results with regard to this question was perfect: the prices were very low at the time of the interviews and we arrived in the middle of the harvest period. This is most probably a period in which post-harvest losses rise to a comparatively high share.

were concerned, supermarkets reportedly threw away up to 7 per cent of the produce at the end of the day. The numbers were very similar among all 8 domestic chains that were interviewed. Five domestic retailers incurred post-harvest losses of between 6 and 8 per cent. Retail chains with international shares had a wastage of 6 to 10 per cent. The international wholesalers only experienced 2 per cent of post-harvest losses based on the fact that they sold different grades of tomatoes to different customers and could therefore sell all the low-quality produce to hotels and restaurants.

The picture for traditional value chains is much more diverse. While traditional retailers with all their different formats sold between 1 and 166 kg of tomatoes a day, their wastage also ranged between 2 and 50 kg a day.

Calculating this in percentages, traditional retails threw away between 4 per cent and 30 per cent of their purchased tomatoes. On average, the 12 traditional retailers interviewed had 13.5 per cent post-harvest losses. To sum up, the traditional retailers experienced around 6 per cent more post-harvest losses than the modern ones.

The next actor group, the traders, experienced comparatively less wastage.

According to them, they were able to sell everything to different types of customers based on different types of quality. Since domestic and international chains required only A-grade tomatoes from traders, traders could sell the rest of the produce to other customers. Out of the pre-selected produce they brought to the supermarkets, around 10 to 15 per cent was rejected because it did not belong to the standards of size and colour the supermarkets required. This was then sold through the traditional value chain or went to hotels, restaurants and canteens. The actual waste which took place in the middle of the supply chain was mostly damage caused by loading, unloading and transport. This amount ranged from 1 to 5 per cent in the value chain for domestic and international retailers.

Looking at the traditional value chain we asked the commission agents how much of the produce they could not sell and had to throw away. According to their answers, their marketing strategy was highly efficient since they also sold different qualities to different customers. They could even sell the worst quality tomatoes to buyers who intended to process them for non-human consumption, such as animal fodder. Thus, in the same way as traders, their wastage also ranged again between 1 and 5 per cent.

All in all, we found that, while investment in infrastructure did not differ among the various chains, the outcome of post-harvest losses indicated a

huge difference. This incoherence most probably occurred because we are unable to see the accumulated post-harvest losses within one chain. It is known that supermarkets select only A-grade tomatoes and leave at least 20–30 per cent of the tomato produce of a farmer behind whereas traditional chains accept all kinds of grades. The B-grades and C-grades, which supermarkets do not accept, are more likely to be post-harvest losses but these grades were not included in the analysis and therefore not accounted for in the calculations. Also, several other links exist in the value chain (for example, processing; or produce for non-human consumption) that were also not included in the analysis. Hence, although we found evidence for modern retailers producing less post-harvest losses, we cannot confirm – without doubt – that there are less post-harvest losses in the modern value chain.

Another important finding on the issue of post-harvest losses is the refutation of the persistent belief that post-harvest losses in Indian fresh produce marketing amount to 30 per cent. The data showed that actual post-harvest losses ranged between 1 and 10 per cent in both modern and traditional chains. Experts confirmed that the 30 per cent wastage often mentioned in the literature is based on only one oft-cited McKinsey study²³ and that the actual wastage is much lower than this figure. An expert from the think tank Agro Fresh argued that post-harvest losses in the traditional value chain actually come closer to zero, because everything, even the worst quality produce, can be sold for extremely low prices or for animal consumption:

“Every [sic.] produce which is not rotten finds its place in these huge markets”.

Empirical research has shown that what literature cites as the key drivers for more efficiency – investments in infrastructure, better roads and cold storage – are not fully in place in India and that, so far, the entry of modern retailers has not affected the current situation.²⁴

23 The McKinsey Global Institute (2011): “Resource evolution: meeting the world’s energy, materials, food and water needs” study refers to 30 per cent post-harvest losses on oilseeds and pulses in South and Southeast Asia.

24 GIZ expert interviews.

Box 1: The efficiency of traditional retailing

Many of the experts we interviewed argued that the traditional value chain was actually very efficient. The reason was that many street vendors brought the produce to their customer’s doorstep. No further transaction costs were incurred and no further unloading onto the store shelves necessary. Shilpa Gupta from the FICCI agrees with this and says that “Indians like the traditional retailing system with their personal vendors. That’s why 94 per cent of the retailing market still takes place in traditional value chains”. Even Arpita Mukherjee from ICRIER agrees that traditional value chains are efficient and very sophisticated, since traditional retailers provide tomatoes fresh and, selling at the doorstep, provide a better service than modern retailers. According to her, the system of placing product orders by telephone and bringing delivery services to the homes is well-developed in India. “Traditional retailing is easier and does not require waiting and bar-coding and, finally, it also allows bargaining and therefore ends up with the most efficient price.”

Source: Personal interviews, 2014