There is evidence of impacts of climate change on FLW, such as links to the outbreak of disease, impacts on food safety and the impact of changing weather on fish processing. For example, aquaculture can be affected by warming waters that lead to toxic algal blooms.  

Changes in weather patterns have implications for fish landing times as well as traditional drying practices. Climate change as it affects water temperature can also lead to ecosystem changes and changes in species and hence catch composition. This in turn can necessitate changes in post-harvest technology and markets. It also has implications for food safety with the spread of ciguatera poisoning. 

Investment in reducing fish loss and waste represents an important climate change mitigation strategy. Decision makers should be aware of how FLW solutions may impact positively or negatively on GHG emissions and hence climate change. Knowing whether the benefits outweigh the environmental costs is important.  

Fishing, processing, cold chain infrastructure and distribution usually require energy and hence will generate GHG emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from on-board diesel combustion, is directly related to the amount of fuel used.  

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) represent the largest remaining use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). HCFCs are mainly used in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.   

The production of fish farm inputs (particularly feed) often dominates the climate impact of aquaculture products. In industrialized production systems, fishmeal and fish oil are used in feeds which increase GHG emissions. 

The reduction of FLW is an adaptation measure to addressing climate change in a context of reduction of fisheries and aquaculture resources, adding value to fish products and minimizing losses.