المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

General Remarks

Germany highly welcomes the opportunity to comment on the HLPE V0-Draft reviewing policies for reduction of food losses and waste and the challenges and opportunities that they may represent for food security worldwide. Coming from a human rights approach and taking into account obligations embedded within the human right to adequate food, Germany supports the development of joined strategies towards sustainable food systems.

The paper gives a rather good overview over the discussion on food loss and waste (FLW) reduction. It mentions and elaborates on several important problems like different definitions of FLW, data availability and the scope of the discussion.

The overall structure of the report is appropriate. In our opinion the combination of FLW definitions, causes and drivers of FLW as well as solutions to reduce FLW is reasonable, even though there is a quite significant overlapping of contents in several parts of the report. To quote only one example:

• Chapter 2, Page 29, line 11: “Most growers in developing countries lack on-farm cold storage facilities”;
• Chapter 2, Page 29, line 54: “Cold storage facilities are non-existent or inaccessible to the majority of small holder farmers”;
• Chapter 2, Page 30, line 9: “cold storage facilities are rare”;
• Chapter 3, Page 44, line 45: “The majority of the small holder farmers cannot afford on-farm cold storage facilities”;
• Chapter 3, Page 45, line 4: “For small holder farmers, lack of on-farm cold storage means…”

Besides these we found further repetitions throughout the chapters, which unnecessarily prolong the report reading. Above all it is essential to harmonize the three chapters of the document as constitutive elements by shortening related chapters and thus avoid replications.

Another positive aspect of the report is the well-founded literature base. Almost every section is confirmed by a large amount of up-to-date references and/or data records. Due to this the report delivers an authentic, evidence-based analysis of the topic. From our point of view several chapters provide potential to reduce excessive parts (e.g. 1.2.5 “What are the trends / evolutions of food systems, and related drivers?” or 2.4.1 “Losses in retail outlets”) which also includes the literature information (e.g. 3.5.2, line 24-32).

We found another need for enlargement in chapter 2.3.2 “Lack of credit market/institutions” which consists only of two sentences. There is much more potential for improving this section (e.g. influence of micro-credit in developing countries on the infrastructure and to reduce FLW).

Section 3.7 on “Socio-economic aspects of food losses and waste reduction” is based on too simplistic assumptions. It only considers that food loss reduction leads to higher food supply and to lower prices for consumers. It completely neglects (i) the reaction of producers facing lower prices which could lead to lower production and increasing prices and (ii) the reaction of actors along the food chain processing and trading lower quantities. The latter has to cover the same fixed cost with lower turnover, thus an increase in prices is very likely. Whether there will be a noticeable decrease in food prices or not is not easy to proof – at least it is more complex than section 3.7 suggests.

1. How to measure Food Losses and Waste (FLW)? FLW can be measured from different perspectives (weight, caloric and nutrition value, monetary value…) with different approaches presenting pros and cons, and methodological issues. Do you think that the V0 draft covers properly the aspects of FLW measurements, including nutrient losses? Is there additional evidence about estimates of past and current food losses and waste, which would deserve to be mentioned?

• FWL including the definitions of loss and waste is well described and illustrated in a holistic approach. The term “food wastage” as used by FAO covers food losses and food waste along the entire value chain. However, there is a need of clarification in the definition (page 9, line 21+): there is a difference whether a product loss occurs when a product is ready to be harvested or already harvested. Products which are not harvested because they do not meet certain product standards should be either included or not. The definition should be clear in this regard.

In fact, environmental effects and costs are a very crucial issue (which is already mentioned in 1.3.4) and should be extended and further elaborated. This is why in addition to measurement criteria for food losses such as weight, quality and economic value, we propose to also look at environmental effects of losses i.e. the ecological footprint summed up over the complete value chain. This valuable approach was applied by the recent study “(“Food Wastage Footprint, Impact on natural resources”” from the FAO in june 2013: the study illustrates the impact of food losses and waste on the climate (GHG-Emissions), water, land, biodiversity and economy chances.  Example: Post harvest cassava and maize losses in Nigeria correspond to 1.7 million ha of cultivated land i.e. losses ac-count for 21% of the area cultivated with cassava and maize. (See study and further documentation in the endnote “[i]” of the document).

The environmental impact of FLW is globally important and already covered in a large amount of literature (e.g. Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow CC (2009) The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact). In our opinion the report could give more attention especially to environmental considerations and references concerning the waste management of FLW and in this context questions related to the risks for human health.

We also recommend that a special focus on post-harvest management in changing climates should be addressed by the consultation paper.

• Suggestion to add GIZ as well to the list on page 8, line 46: This is why there is now a strong movement for a harmonization of definitions and measurement (FAO, OECD, EC, FUSIONS, 45 WRI, UNEP, GIZ).
• On page 27, line 26, a better way of expressing might be “Although the focus of the report is on the losses happening from harvesting to consumption…”. Indeed, postharvest scientists (at least those concerned with cereals) include the process of harvesting in their remit.  Basically, they lay claim to the crop as soon as it is physiologically mature.  So when estimating postharvest losses they included those losses incurred during the process of harvesting.

1. What are the key policy aspects to reduce food losses and waste in order to improve the sustainability of food systems, in different countries and contexts? Is there evidence about the potential of economic incentives, and which ones (taxes, etc.)? What margins for policies in the context of food safety laws and regulations, such as expiration dates?

• The German National Programme of 2013 (“Abfallvermeidungsprogramm des Bundes unter Beteiligung der Länder”) to reduce waste mentions 34 measures of which 32 are recommended. The measures are initiated by many stakeholders: local authorities, state governments, the federal government, public authorities and private firms. The catalogue of measures includes research in the field of loss reducing processes, development of benchmark indicators, awareness campaigns and dissemination of information, advisory services for enterprises, cooperation among enterprises to reduce loss and waste, voluntary agreements between stakeholders, concerted actions between food industry and retailers.

Measures which are listed but not recommended are (i) the taxation of waste intense products and (ii) the abolishment or reduction of subsidies. Besides the expected positive impacts on FLW reduction these measures have negative side-effects concerning economic and social issues.

• Alongside these 32 positive measures, it must be taken into consideration that there is a fundamental difference between developed and developing countries.

In developed countries awareness raising and regulations (e.g. on expiration dates) can help to reduce food waste (which is the main problem in developed countries).

In developing countries food losses are much more important than food waste. The main driver for the reduction of food losses in developing countries should therefore be the economic incentive. Reducing food losses in the food supply chain means more income for farmers, haulers, processors or retailers. Government authorities can help in improving infrastructure (e.g. roads), or they can provide information on best practices.

In transition countries necessary measures can cover aspects from both, developed and developing countries.

• There is an urgent need for case and/or experimental studies analyzing the waste reduction potential of certain measures, i.e. estimating food losses and waste before and after a measure has taken place. Ideally, the analysis includes the cost of the measure.

Therefore, we propose the following paragraph to be added to chapter 4 “Recommendations”:

“The studies on food losses and waste have already created a consistent perception concerning the magnitude of food losses and waste, even if the indicators may be biased because of different definitions and data problems. Thus, an effective strategy for the reduction of food losses and waste does not need further studies measuring food losses and waste at one point in time. There is an urgent need for case and/or experimental studies analyzing the waste reduction potential of certain measures, i.e. estimating food losses and waste before and after a measure has taken place. Ideally, the analysis includes the cost of the measure.”

• The EU has asked its Member States to prepare National Strategies to reduce FLW. It would be helpful to review and summarize the proposed measures concerning food. The National Strategies of all EU Member States should be available at the EU Commission since the deadline for submission was December 2013.

• The paragraph on page 30, lines 45 to 55, could define more specifically which damages (quantity losses, weight loss, or something else?) are concerned. Without those explanations is this paragraph unhelpful. From the late 1970s onwards there were several studies and these not only measured the losses but also corrected for farmer consumption patterns (examples De Lima 1979, Golob 1981).  Typically, farm storage weight losses were in the range of 2% to 5%.  As a result of the arrival of the larger grain borer in Sub-Saharan Africa in the late 1970s storage weight losses rose to an average of about 10% for those farmers who were affected (Hodges et al. 1983; Dick 1988).  However, this is just weight loss and quality losses are potentially important in preventing higher sales.  The effect of quality losses were studied by Adams and Harman (1977) in Zambia and later by Compton et al. (1998) in Ghana.  In general it could be concluded that quality losses can exceed the financial value of weight losses by a factor of two.  A consideration of quality losses is given on the APHLIS website. See documentation on the subject in the endnote “[ii]”.

1. Can respondents submit concrete initiatives or successful interventions having reduced food losses and waste, currently taking place, conducted by governments, stakeholders, private sector, and civil society?

• The German Ministry of Food and Agriculture has launched a national consumer awareness campaign named “Zu gut für die Tonne” (Too good for the bin). It comprises e.g. a website (http://www.bmelv.de/DE/Ernaehrung/Wert-Lebensmittel/ZuGutFuerDieTonne/no...), a recipe app, studies on food waste and losses in Germany, special information on the expiration date of food and hints for consumers to buy and to store food.
• It is unknown, though, to what extent the campaign reaches households or changes behaviour regarding food waste.

• The study by FAO from June 2013 (“Food Wastage Footprint, Impact on natural resources”) gave many concrete and successful initiatives to reduce food losses and waste all along the value chain. It would be useful and meaningful to take them into consideration.

Other examples of successful programs having been implemented in the past are:

Training was conducted on biological control of the Larger Grain Borer (Prostephanus truncatus). The multiplication and distribution of clean and healthy grain reduced the infestation of cassava chips with P. truncatus by 20%. This in turn limited the geographical dissemination of the pest (Malawi, 1992).

The release of the parasitoid Teretriosoma nigrescens seemed to be efficient for the biological control of Prostephanus truncatus population. A reduction of 80% was obtained eight months after the release (it is not clear whether this has been a long lasting effect over years). In addition, appropriate counseling packages were developed for storage and harvesting technology and introduced (early nineties of the past century in Togo).

Fresh cassava roots were left in the ground after harvest. In this way, the root stock was conserved for several months without major losses (Ghana, Knoth, 1993).

To overcome difficulties in storing fresh cassava roots with their high water content, dried chips were produced. The storage of the cassava chips was improved by reducing chip size and by using wind and solar energy for drying. The chips were then stored in baskets, wooden containers, sacks or bulk and in various traditional storage systems used for cereals (Ghana, Anamoh and Bacho, 1994; Henckes, 1994).

1. What is the cost-benefit potential (and barrier to adoption) of different options, including technologies, to reduce and prevent food losses and waste at different stage of the food chain?

• There is a lack of studies analyzing the cost-benefit potential of different options and measures. As already mentioned in our answer to the question 2, the support of case studies to close this gap should be of high priority on the international and national working agenda.

• Experience helps to identify more broadly that profitable solutions to reduce food losses in developing countries strongly depend on the local conditions i.e. access to technologies and energy, quality requirements of markets, quantity of produce to be treated, transport and market prices. In rural settings with unreliable energy-availability mainly simple, low-cost technologies are cost-efficient and accepted i.e. simple storage containers, local storage rooms, simple solar and airflow dryers.

In urban environments a range of different more sophisticated solutions may prove profitable again depending most strongly on the local conditions.

1. Cold chains and cold storage (including adaptable low-cost technologies for cold storage such as evaporative cooling, charcoal coolers, zeer pots, etc): what could be cost-effective and adapted solutions to reduce food losses and waste and to improve the sustainability of food systems, given the diversity of national contexts?

• The issue of cold chains and cold storage has been well elaborated throughout the document. Challenges remain at all levels of the cold chain and its interfaces with processing and transport.

• At industrial scale (at all levels) cooling technologies are well applied, but often counter environmental protection policies, above all ozone and climate protection. Approaches need to keep the overall concept of sustainable development, not e.g. trading improvements in food security with negative impacts on the climate. Excellent technology examples exist in fishery (for example vessels with efficient freezing aggregates based on ammonia).

The smaller the operation (small-holder farmers) the more challenging is the provision of suitable, affordable technologies. On page 44, the increases in cold chain infrastructure for India, Brazil and China are contrasted with the lacking development in Africa. The subsequent explanation focuses on the lack of on-farm cold stores in Africa and that this is a crucial health concern in the cold chain. While this may be true, Jemlic and Ilic (2012) do not mention whether the improved Indian, Brazilian and Chinese cold chain infrastructure was due to cooling devices for small-scale farmers. The Indian intervention presented in Box 4 clearly focused on large-scale and electric cooling devices. The significance of solutions for small-scale farmers is thus not underpinned by this example.

Given that most examples of small-scale cooling devices rely on water evaporation, they share common disadvantages, e.g. reduced cooling effects in humid areas and food safety concerns when not skilfully maintained. This limits their adaptability. Evaporative cooling has also its limitations in capacity (usually only applicable for relatively small volumes). Furthermore, when large pack sizes are mentioned (page 38), it could also be indicated that larger product sizes require more time to be cooled down, as the surface-area-to-volume ratio decreases. This could be important in keeping the product sufficiently cold along the value chain, and may therefore be another factor to cost-effectively reduce FLW. Use of renewable energies (mainly solar power) or waste heat seems promising for the future also for small scale applications.

In the domain of cooling storage, many options for a programs implementation are conceivable. Economies of scale still need to be achieved for reducing equipment prices. For rural retail activities (traditional markets) concepts for solar, centralized cooling systems seem suitable. Refrigerated trucks would mainly concentrate on energy losses due to bad insulation, secondly on energy-efficient cooling systems (on-board or pre-charged). Supermarkets would concentrate on climate-friendly, energy-efficient combined systems for refrigeration and air-conditioning. Apart from suitable (feasible, viable, affordable) technologies, main challenges persist on logistics, management practices, standards (e. g. HACCP), and behavioural aspects. In synergy with a focus on technical solutions at farm-level, a deeper discussion on logistic solutions on later stages of the value chains might be worthwhile. Farm cooperatives and/or private processing firms could provide the expertise and capital to build cost-effective cold storage facilities and implement high-quality food safety controls (e.g. milk collection centres of Nestlé in China and India).

• Technical solutions need to be economically viable, available, technically proven and safe, but should additionally not affect the ozone layer or the global climate. Therefore ozone- and climate-friendly technologies, mainly based on natural refrigerants (hydrocarbons, ammonia, carbon dioxide, water, air) should be promoted.

1. Systemic approaches and solutions to reduce food losses and waste: Reducing food losses and waste is a matter which concerns the coordinated joint action (and change) by many actors, producers, retailers, consumers, private sector, governments. Which systemic solutions/approaches would be the most effective to reduce FLW, towards more sustainable food systems? At that systemic level, which drivers would create leverage for radical change? 

• We recommend 3 guiding principles for situation analysis and improvements:

1) value chain approach (regarding inputs, production, post-harvest, processing, marketing);

Among other stakeholders, enterprises are called upon to take food waste into account in their environmental management systems and to identify it in their environmental statements. It should be examined whether food waste ought to be considered, in future, as a sub-criterion in various environmental certification schemes or when awarding environmental standards.

2) Multi-stakeholder dialogue, participatory approach and empowerment, and consideration of the specific role of men and women in post-harvest systems;

Stakeholders could engage in intensive networking throughout the food chain and transcend the limits of individual stages of the value-added chain. It is strongly recommended that round table talks will be held involving all relevant stakeholders in the value-added chain, e.g. farmers, producers, distributors, large-scale consumers (mass and institutional caterers, catering firms, hotel and restaurant industry), final customers, churches and environmental, educational and social welfare organizations.

The farming sector, food industry, retail trade, hotel and restaurant industry, scientific community, and policy-makers can be brought together by initiating an Internet-based network for reducing food waste. A database of best practice measures from the food chain, in the form of an open source, will enable the stakeholders to benefit from the experience gained from successfully implemented measures. The SAFA initiative from the FAO (“Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems guidelines”) is an example of a concrete tool to engage small-farmers as well as biggest firms to a self-assessment, attempt of finding his own problems and solutions or simple monitoring of initiative. The SAFA Guideline “has been prepared so that enterprises, whether companies or small-scale producers, involved with the production, processing, distribution and marketing of goods have a clear understanding of the constituent components of sustainability and how strength, weakness and progress could be tackled.” Platforms on more sustainability in the food chain are the key to coping with future challenges arising in the provision of food supplies. In addition, such a portal can be used as an advertising tool for the enterprises’ own projects and thus boost the image of the enterprise itself, keeping in mind that it is also possible to promote voluntary improvement or to initiate the need for enterprises to upgrade their processes to a more climate-friendly production.

3) Integrated post-harvest management.

In former projects of development assistance, improvements in storage and post-harvest protection were not only achieved by introducing technical infrastructure or innovative storage protection measures but also by awareness creation for problems and training in post-harvest management combined with solutions/options in specific situations. Example of Ivory Coast: When warehouses were constructed, this was taken an opportunity to discuss all the details in managing and marketing of food, and to en-courage the associations to look themselves for creative and suitable solutions. The subject matter should be integrated in training schemes in the fields of production, processing, trade, and catering trade. Incentives should be provided for holding of and staff participation in training schemes, advanced vocational trainin