Postharvest food loss reduction and agriculture policy framework in Tanzania: status and way forward
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2014, Tanzania became a signatory of the African Union Postharvest Loss Management Strategy (AU-PHLMS) under the Malabo Declaration, a policy framework of the African Union aimed at reducing the continent's postharvest food losses by 50 percent by 2025. Though Tanzania has several agriculture development policies, very little research exists on to what extent the postharvest food loss agenda is reflected and integrated into Tanzania's agriculture policy framework, making it difficult to assess Tanzania's commitment and progress made to realize these ambitious targets in 2025. Using a scoping review method, this study reviews agriculture-food security policies and programs enacted by the government of Tanzania from the 1990s to 2022. Findings reveal that despite high postharvest food losses, policies, and agriculture development programs in favor of increasing food production remain the central focus of the government, while interventions to eliminate food loss and waste have not been prioritized. Results also show that with nearly half of the food produced not reaching consumers, Tanzania's ambitions to be food secure may only be realized if policy measures to increase crop productivity go hand in hand with preventing postharvest food losses. The study calls for full policy integration of postharvest management programs and more investment in farmer-focused interventions to reduce food loss and waste in Tanzania.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it