Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Dear HLPE

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the zero draft of the HLPE report Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems. Please find comments from Australia attached.

Australia thanks the HLPE for developing a zero draft of the report and is happy to engage with the HLPE to provide comment on future drafts.

Kind regards

Madeleine

Madeleine D'Arcy

Dear HLPE,

We have attached our comments on the V0 draft of your report.

Regards,

---

Ximing Cai & Majid Shafiee-Jood

Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory,

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Dear HLPE:

I hope all goes well. I write to submit comments from the government of the United States of America on the HLPE V0 Draft of the Report on Food Losses and Waste.

Please confirm receipt and please do not hesitate to contact me directly or the U.S. Embassy in Rome with any questions or concerns.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Cheers,

David

---

David P. Bargueño | Secretary's Office of Global Food Security (S/GFS)

U.S. Department of State

Pour l'approche voir une étude et enquête faite par le HCP -www.hcp.ma.  

The World Food Program has commenced a significant initiative in sub-Saharan Africa to address the post-harvest food losses in this region. With a major focus on preserving existing food production (moreso than increasing agricultural production), WFP is providing three important stages of farmer support; Capacity Development (Farmer Education); Action Research; and Project Implementation (Up-scaling). Working closely with fellow UN Agencies (WFP, FAO and IFAD recently signed an inter-agency project to mainstream food loss reduction initiatives), Governments and Country Offices in Uganda and Burkina Faso, the project aims to increase the food security, nutrition and financial income of smallholder families in these two countries. We are gathering a significant amount of information relevant to your HLPE which we are happy to share, however we will need to liaise regarding the most appropriate way of disseminating this information. Please advise.

Best regards,

Simon

Congratulations for this quite comprehensive report,  a lot of useful comments have already been made.

I would like to highlight some additional points and add the following comments:

• P.9, point  1.1.2 and 1.1.3 The methodological part of FLW quantification is little developed. Since quantification methods producing reliable, comparable and little cost-intensive data are very important for future actions, a recommendation is to briefly describe the different quantification methods used in literature and to discuss the question of which indicator to use. It could be mentioned that one of FUSIONS goals is to elaborate a standard quantification approach for FLW for EU-27.
• P.11, point 1.2.1 I would add that in sustainable food systems, food needs to be culturally accepted by consumers. Consumer acceptance is a key issue when it comes to innovate in food processing to create food or food ingredients from components that are currently not/little eaten by consumers (offal, vegetable peels, etc.). To increase the share of edible, culturally accepted material from plant and animal production could be one contribution to nourishing future world population in a more sustainable way.
• P. 14, point 1.2.4 A distinction between “local” and “industrialized” food systems is probably not black and white. We should also consider that farms in “local” systems tend to have different farming practices (more simplified, more ecological with less pesticides etc.), which are key to be taken into account since the agricultural stage is often the main important stage in environmental impact assessment. Transport is definitely not the sole aspect to be considered here.
• P.18, point 1.3.2 We should consider that FLW might also generate “positive” impacts, at least for some actors along the supply chain. Food that is lost or wasted at some stage has made some stakeholders earn money with at a prior stage (value creation along the supply chain). Interestingly, Dutch scientists Waarts/Rutten showed by modelling that food waste reduction generates winners and losers. Some actors are better off, some are not when FLW is reduced. This also means that using the term of “inefficiency” in food systems (p.19, line 13 for example) might be simplified. These “inefficiencies” probably do benefit at least to some actors.
• P.27 point 2.1.1 The focus is on developing countries here. Do you consider losses at production stage not to be a problem in developing countries?
• P. 29 point 2.1.3 Do you consider losses to be negligible in modern storage facilities? Some references indicate non negligible losses of apples stores in cold chambers over a couple of months (for example Mila I Canals 2009)

Further comments have already been extensively made by other contributors.

Sincerely yours

Barbara Redlingshöfer

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen.

I attached my comments regarding to the V0 Draft on food losses and waste.

Kind regards;

Roberto Azofeifa

Sustainable Production Department

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

Costa Rica

I participated in the last SAVE FOOD Partnership event from FAO. I come from the Academic area in Costa Rica (Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica). Due to that meeting I have established contact a fellow-proffesional from our Ministry of Agriculture, and a few hours ago, he shared this link with me. I usderstand today is the due date to send comments on the document.

Therefore, I haven´t been able to go through it deeply; however, regarding the questions, I believe all of the approaches are necessary in terms of measuring the loss, since some will have a direct impact in the economy (volume, monetary cost of the wastage), and others in a more social and environmental aspects (nutricional value, volume).

Regarding examples of reduction in food loss, I am currently working with other colleagues in developing processed products for tomato overproduction in some Regions. We are still at a training and research stage so we do not have an asessment of the impact at this point, but we believe that once you mix techincal approaches (product development, packaging, variety selection) with managament tools (cost-benefit analysis, market research) a positive response can be achieved both for the producer and the consumer.

I just typed this quick comments, however my main interest is to create a link with the Committee, and hope to support in other moments the work you develop.

The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) would like to thank the HLPE for the opportunity of contributing to this consultation.

Below follows our contribution:

Page 12 – reference to livestock and grain based intensification:

Livestock play a central role in food security by providing food, employment and income. But livestock production can also negatively affect food security, by consuming a growing proportion of the world’s crops that could otherwise be used for direct human nutrition.[1] Land for livestock is already the largest human use of land and is growing while forests and other land areas are shrinking. With the growth in incomes and urbanization and without adequate policy response, demand for livestock products will increase rapidly. This places additional pressure on land resources through increasing demand for pastures and arable land to grow more crops for animal feed.

Grain-based intensification of livestock farming has allowed vast increases in production and consumption in recent decades.  However, it has also resulted in negative impacts on smallholders, food security and animal welfare. Further intensification of livestock production based on cereal and oil crops has the potential to create more competition between cropland for human food and cropland for animal feed. It could also make food security more challenging in areas which are already food insecure, including parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Additionally, international trade in animal feedstuffs can increase the vulnerability of these regions to world market-price shocks.

Page 32 - Transportation of food producing animals

Substantial quantities of food are lost or wasted at all stages of the supply chain, from agricultural production to final household consumption. In medium and high-income countries large quantities of food still fit for human consumption are routinely discarded by retailers and consumers. In low-income countries food is lost mostly during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain with much less wasted by end consumers[2].

There are many causes of food losses and waste in low-income countries. These include financial and managerial inexperience, technical limitations in harvesting techniques, poor storage and cooling facilities in difficult climatic conditions, a lack of infrastructure, and inadequate packaging and marketing systems. Given that many smallholder farmers in developing countries live on the margins of food insecurity, a reduction in food losses could have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods[3].

The FAO notes that loss and wastage occurs at multiple stages of livestock production, including during breeding, transportation and slaughter. Improving animal welfare not only on the farm, but also during transport and slaughter provides an effective solution that makes good economic sense and has demonstrable benefits for animals, productivity and worker health and safety. Moreover, often food and economic losses can be avoided by transporting meat instead of live animals.

Research in Uruguay, for example, estimated that 48 per cent of all beef carcasses ended up with at least one lesion and the loss of two kilograms of meat as a result of poor handling during transport and slaughter. Country wide this was equivalent to the loss of US$100million or 3000 tonnes of meat annually – enough to feed beef to one million people for a whole year[4]. A number of projects are now being implemented by producers, academics and the Uruguayan government to reduce these losses[5]. Making transporters financially accountable for bruising, poor meat quality and loss of animals can improve handling and transport. In one example in Brazil, bruising in cattle was reduced from 20 per cent to just one per cent through this measure alone.

Introduction

The following comments were jointly made by the following WWF National offices: WWF UK, WWF Germany, WWF Italy, and WWF Netherlands.

We welcome the fact that CFS has asked the HLPE to work on the topic of food losses and waste (FLW). As the world’s largest environmental organisation we are very much aware of the negative effects of wasted food as this has implication on the use of natural resources (water, soils, energy and biodiversity), climate change, habitats and finally the capability to feed the world’s growing population. There are plenty initiatives within the WWF Network related to food waste and sustainable food systems.

As this report will be the basis of very important discussions of the Committee for Food Security (CFS) we would like to make the following comments:

1.Relation food waste and production systems – production projections

• The report describes very broadly all aspects of FLW. However the relation between possible “savings” of food by the reduction of FLW and the projection of production increase it is not clear yet. The zero draft remains weak here despite the fact that this aspect is very important in order to implement the right strategies and policies for agriculture in the respective regions and countries.

There are already studies which tried to show this important aspect (WWF 2012 “How to feed the growing billions p. 32- 40). However more information would be important.

http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/WWF_BOELL_How_to_feed.pdf

2. Extent and impacts (Chapter 1.3)

• So far the presentation of different levels or fields of impacts of FLW are not coherent. There are impacts which can be found on macro, meso and micro level on the same time. Especially when we look on the environmental impacts one can say that the same problems can occur on all three levels. Our advice is to revise chapter 1.3.2.

3.FLW in different distribution systems

• When it comes to the losses deriving from distribution systems, public distributions systems are not analysed in a proper way. More in-depth discussion and analyse is needed. These systems may be as well subject of substantial losses and at the same time these systems are a possible field of change where public administration and politics can have direct influence.

4.Environmental impacts of FLW (Chapter 1.3.4):

• We consider the analysis of environmental impacts of FLW as crucial as overexploited natural resources may cause severe problems in certain areas for the future capability to produce food in the future.

The HLPE is right in saying that most of the available studies refer to the global level when it comes to the impacts if FLW on waste of resources. Depending on natural differences (climate, water availability, soils etc.) waste of resources differs a lot between the regions. Nevertheless the 2013 FAO Report “Food Wastage Footprint” already gives plenty of information about regional footprint of food waste.

• Additionally the report in chapter 1.3.4 on the environmental impacts needs some more additional data, based on a more holistic approach. For example the nitrogen footprint needs an in-depth consideration. It´s needed, as the nitrogen footprint is very much linked to biogeochemical cycles, which have direct impacts on human development. The “Nine-Planetary Boundaries”-Approach (see Rockström et al. 2009) has made clear that if you cross one of the nine planetary boundaries might generate abrupt or irreversible environmental changes.
• Current food production or farming systems are made responsible to the release of antibiotics (deriving from livestock or aquaculture) or substances which have endocrine disruptive properties. Both types of substances may have negative effects on people and wildlife. Reduced FLW may lead to reduced emissions of these toxic substances.
• We suggest using mainly publications which use a peer-review process. To cite publication of cooperates (e.g. Barilla) only might cause the impression that respective statements are biased. (See water footprint and virtual water).
• The scope of Chapter 3.6 should be broadened. It is absolutely true that in many regions with their respective societies, women play the crucial role in reducing FLW. However, the chapter should take into consideration as well on the responsibility of the entire family in the reduction of FLW. As we are facing the situation that in many regions the work in households gets more and more balanced gender wise.

5.Systemic causes of FLW:

• Politics should be part of the discussion about systemic causes of FLW. Hence we would welcome as special subchapter about the politics which are fostering FLW.
• So far an analysis of the international funding lines dedicated to the reduction of post-harvest losses is missing. This is crucial to understand if the funding allocation is appropriate to fight food losses between the fields and the markets. Are there enough founding lines from e.g. The Worldbank or national funds to invest into infrastructures to prevent this kind of losses?

6.Conclusions:

• Conclusions and recommendations remain quite superficial. We would suggest describing the possible roles of scientific bodies like the CIGAR-Network within the prevention of post-harvest losses. The worldwide acting network of agriculture institutes should play a major role not only in advising governments and farmers to increase productivity and sustainability but as well in the reduction of post-harvest losses.
• As there is no analysis of the international funding lines, which are related to agriculture no recommendations for changes are made. We believe that a shift or broadening towards investments into the prevention of post-harvest losses is crucial.

20.1.2014