Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

First of all, we would like to thanks the HLPE for this Draft zero on such an important topic. Linking Food Loss and Waste (FLW) to sustainable food systems is of utmost importance to us and we are grateful for the work achieved until now. We were equally glad to notice that the report acknowledge that “food wasted while people go hungry is first of all sign of a global food system which does not fulfil its function; whatever the reason. It is a sign and symbol of inefficiency and inequity”. Even though it does not appear clearly in the report, it’s possible to identify the key messages related to FLW. We are welcoming the fact that the report underlines that:

• Reducing food losses and waste would also reduce the pressure on natural resources
• Sustainable consumption is a driver of sustainable food systems
• Food losses and waste can be translated into direct and indirect environmental impacts
• The Role of women to reduce FLW is crucial
• Changes in legislation and business behavior towards more sustainable food production and consumption will be necessary to reduce waste from its current high levels

Nevertheless, we would like to raise some concerns about several points:

• Some major drivers of food loss and waste have been left aside:
  • The race to increase yields at any cost through selective breeding has been done, in certain cases, at the detrimental of the nutritional value of the crop.
  • Even if “conversion from plant based resources to meat production or animal products” does not account for FLW, overconsumption (of meat in particular) and changes of habits in food consumption can play an important role in terms of food availability at global level.
  • Even if the report says that “competing needs for food and energy are likely to define the key land-use tensions in the coming decades”, crop that are diverted from food production in order to produce energy are not treated adequately in this report.

These elements are also a symbol of inefficiency and inequity of our global food system, representing a substantial loss and waste of food, and should therefore be addressed by the report.

The energy dimension of food and the sustainability of localized food systems: The position regarding energy and localization defended in this report is quite ambiguous : on the one hand, it is argued that “the biggest contribution of local systems to sustainability is probably that they reestablish proximity and contact between food production and consumption thus often giving more value to food, both economic and symbolic, with numerous direct and indirect benefits: more value for producers, better recognition of sustainable practices, indirect incentives to protect farm land against urban spread, and also, especially for fresh products, less need for conservation and transport, thus less energy consumption, and, if well managed (including at consumption level) better nutritional quality”. On the other hand, energy is used as an argument to demonstrate that those arguing that local food systems are the most sustainable are wrong, by putting emphasis on the fact that “on average, only 11% of the emissions generated by food production, half of which being due to the consumers when they shop”. Then again, while acknowledging that “growing urbanization and further globalizations of food markets, with increasing distances travelled by food (including fragile perishables) will make these changes particularly challenging for the sustainability of food systems”, the report underlines that “one reason for losses in the food chain is the increasing distance between the places where food is produced and where it is consumed”. Moreover, this report misses strong arguments in favor of localized food systems as the fact that it is easier to “track energy use and food waste in localized food systems than in highly dispersed and complex food systems at the national and global levels: not only can local communities audit their waste streams with more precision and care than a state or federal entity, but municipalities and regional agencies are already heavily involved in the management of solid waste streams” [1]. If trade is of utmost importance for food security at global level – trade “compensate for local scarcities of resources and enable a country to spare its resources and manage them more sustainably” –, it shouldn’t prevent this report to make a statement in favor transition towards localized food systems as an adequate mean to tackle the FLW issue.

• Finally, this report assumes that the evolutions of food systems are irreversible. The same goes for the distribution system. That specific position influences the solutions that are proposed and limit the scope of the recommendations. The result is that instead of a report focusing on reshaping our food systems in order to increase its sustainability and reduce FWL, this report focuses on reducing FLW as a means to increase the sustainability of our food systems.
• The recommendations proposed should reflect the need to maximize efficiency, equity and sustainability of the food systems. Alternatives – other than technology, governance, awareness, FLW assessment, good practices … – should be showcased and the role of States should be emphasized – especially in terms of investments in infrastructure such as food hubs, storage facilities, connections between rural and urban area, rural Small and medium agro industries, public procurement for food banks, ...