AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE www.arccjournals.com *Corresponding author’s e-mail: pkibwika@caes.mak.ac.ug Contextual mismatch of interventions for reduction of postharvest losses in rice: Farmer perceptions, practices and innovations in Eastern Uganda Godfrey L Ssebaggala, Paul Kibwika* and Florence B Kyazze Department of Extension and Innovation Studies, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. Received:01-12-2016 Accepted:20-02-2017 DOI:10.18805/asd.v37i2.7988 ABSTRACT Over 70% of the postharvest losses occur at the farm level. Efforts to curb postharvest losses (PHLs) have to target farmers’ practices and innovations. A survey of 150 farmers complemented by focus group discussions was conducted in Eastern Uganda to establish why farmers engage in practices that sustain high PHLs in rice. Farmers are aware of the extent and nature of PHLs but most cannot use the practices and technologies recommended due to high costs involved, lack of knowledge and skills required, or inappropriateness to farmers’ context. Rather than promoting such technologies, a starting point is to engage with farmers to change mindsets and adapt their practices to innovate. Market incentives like significant price differentiation for quality are critical to accelerate the change in practices and innovations for reduction PHLs. Key words: Innovations, Postharvest losses, Practices, Rice, Technologies, Uganda. INTRODUCTION To meet the world food demands by 2050, agricultural production will have to be increased by at least 60% (AGRA, 2014; Kiaya, 2014; Martins et al., 2014) and yet Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is experiencing declining yields (FARA, 2006; Kumaraswamy and Shetty, 2016). The risk of food insecurity in SSA is exacerbated by high Post Harvest Losses (PHLs). About 14 % of cereals produced in SSA is lost during postharvest handling and distribution (FAO, 2011). Current efforts to address food security through increasing agricultural production and productivity (Affognon et al., 2015; Njibroek and Andleman, 2016) have to be matched with efforts to reduce post-harvest losses especially in cereals (Hodges et al., 2011; Singh and Gupta, 2016). Rice is an important cereal in Uganda’s food system but experiencing up to 13% PHLs (Candia and Masette, 2012; Nakazi and Sserunkuuma, 2013; APHLIS, 2012). About 75% of the PHLs occur at the farm (Basavaraja et al., 2007; Adebayo et al., 2014). Farmers are aware of the PHLs and how they occur and yet they continue with practices that sustain losses despite availability of alternative technologies and practices that would greatly reduce PHLs (Odogola, 2006; MAAIF, 2012). This is attributed to weak agricultural extension systems (Affognon et al., 2015; Mabe et al., 2014). Smallholder farmers are rational in decision- making (Chindime et al., 2016) including reduction of PHLs. In evaluating new technological options, farmers do not only consider technical and economic performance but also opportunity cost and tradeoffs including social pay offs (Clover, 2011). This paper explains why rice farmers in Uganda do not take up some of the recommended practices and technologies for reduction of PHLs. MATERIALS AND METHODS A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Iganga and Namutumba districts in Eastern Uganda, the leading producers of rice (MAAIF, 2012) and account for 63% of the grain loss (APHLIS, 2012). Two major rice-producing sub-counties in each study district were purposively selected (Buyanga and Namalemba in Iganga district; and Nsinze and Kibale in Namutumba district). From each sub-county, four leading rice-growing villages were identified. Local leaders compiled a list of farmers in each village as sampling frame. A total of 150 farmers (91 males and 59 females) were selected using proportionate random sampling of 5% of farmers in the village for interviews. A survey questionnaire, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews were used to collect data. The FGDs involving 83 farmers (43 males and 40 females) were used and framed into specific statements for assessing farmer perceptions about options for reduction of PHLs. A five-point likert scale was used to score the perceptions; where 1 = strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree. A panel of four scholars checked the statements for content validity before pre-testing with 15 farmers for reliability. Six key informants identified during FGD were followed up for in-depth interviews on farmers’ innovations for reducing PHLs. Survey data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16. Agric. Sci. Digest., 37(2) 2017: 132-136 Print ISSN:0253-150X / Online ISSN:0976-0547