Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

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, ...

Dear colleagues of the HLPE Secretariat,

I first wanted to thank you for providing this opportunity to comment the Zero Draft Consultation Paper on “Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems”. It is a well-structured paper, very useful to understand the FLW issue and its interlinkages with the environmental and socio-economic components of agriculture.

I would just have the following comments/suggestions:

• Page 10: It is a bit unclear why “some inefficiencies or fraction” are not considered as Food Loss and Waste. A short explanation on why each of these items are being excluded would be helpful. In particular, the exclusion of feed from the definition of FLW could be somehow controversial, as meat waste (which is food waste) also represents a waste in terms of feed, and in the end, in terms of land/water/energy use, etc
• Page 10-11: need for harmonized methodology: you could highlight here the Food Loss & Waste Protocol, a project initiated by WRI
• In Section 3 “ Reducing Food Losses and Waste for Sustainable Food System and Food Security”: you may want to add a section on the environmental impacts of food loss and waste reduction
• You could also add a specific section on fish loss and waste, as this is an issue that is quite different from the other food waste: a lot of the waste happens through side catches that are then put back to the sea. The solutions are very specific and could be introduced separately.
• In 4.1 Possible Areas of Recommendations:
  • Recommendation 2. The cost-benefit analysis tool should also include what are the environmental costs & benefits of the potential solutions
  • The lack of R&D was mentioned page 43 (“Less than 5 per cent of the funding for agricultural research is allocated to post-harvest systems …”), so increased R&D in this field should be part of the solution.

I also wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that the WBCSD is currently mobilizing its member companies on the topic of food loss and waste reduction. We are participating in the development of the Food Loss and Waste Protocol and are aiming to develop a platform for business action on the topic, gathering companies from different part of the agricultural value chain in order to build more synergies between existing reduction initiatives. I would thus be interested in being kept informed of any FAO-related initiative in this space.

With many thanks and kind regards,

Violaine

Violaine Berger

Natural Capital - Food & Biomaterial Solutions

General comments

The increase in FLW can partly be seen as the outcome of dysfunctional food systems, related to the change in (and distortion of) food systems and diets, and increasing disconnect between agriculture and food consumption/intake. The document should therefore be reframed in a sustainable food systems perspective (as indicated by the title and in the wake of WFD 2013) and emphasize the need to rationalize such systems. Before discussing what food is being wasted or lost, the question should therefore be what food is being produced for what use.

The V0 draft essentially adopts a supply-driven food chain approach and reflects overall the prevailing economic approach, giving insufficient attention to environment and social equity. Consumers (demand) have a key role in limiting FLW and the promotion of sustainable diets (see 3.5.2.) would bring a major contribution. More attention should be given to the determinants of consumer behaviour. Reduction of FLW should not be limited to lowering food prices (see 3.7), but also seen as a means to improve health, quality of life and management of natural resources.

Overall the document does not do justice to the evolution of food systems. FLW is not a major problem in indigenous food systems and all parts of foods (animals and often plants) are/were eaten or re-used. The reference to local food systems (2nd para. p. 14) is well taken, but the issue is why did we depart from/distort local food systems? Shorter food chains (in particular for perishable products) and promotion of relevant indigenous foods, processing and storage practices – including self-consumption and barter - can provide affordable and sustainable solutions. Silos and cold chains are important but should not be seen as the only solution to prevention of FLW.

It is important to avoid over-simplifications and oppose developed and developing countries. FLW drivers are closely linked to socio-economic and rural-urban disparities, as well as culture and geographical context, and vary widely within any given country and/or region (cross-border trade is often discouraged as smuggling, which further contributes to FLW).

The institutional dimensions of FLW and related regulations and procedures should be given more attention. We can indeed improve institutional arrangements (see 3.2. p. 45) but we should also acknowledge that existing arrangements are partly responsible of the problem and should therefore be systematically reviewed. The role and responsibilities of both the private sector and civil society should be given more attention.

The prevention of FWL urgently requires and is a major opportunity to promote a much needed partnership between the environment and food security constituencies

I assume the works of Bruce Traill and Tim Lang have been taken into account by the authors?  

Specific comments

• 1.2.1.
  • line 4, in environmental issues, please add erosion of biodiversity and degradation of natural resources
  • lines 24-28, the concept of sustainable diets can provide the appropriate framework for functional food systems
  • lines 32 to 45,  I was surprised by the reference to WHO? Wording and definitions need to be checked.
  • Box 2, p. 12, and alternative example could be the consumption of mutton-flap in the South Pacific, which contributes to obesity?
• 1.2.5.
  • lines 38 to 48: the wording “high-quality diet” should be avoided when related to diets which generate nutritional problems. Such diets should not provide the basis for food and agricultural planning. 
  • Nutrition is not considered? You may want to refer to the 2011 Chicago Council Report http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/Bringing_Agriculture_To_The_Table.pdf ?
  • On urban-related matters, see Food, Agriculture and Cities - Challenges of food and nutrition security, agriculture and ecosystem management in an urbanizing world http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/FCIT/PDF/FoodAgriCities_Oct2011.pdf
• 1.3.3. the importance of international trade, which is only a minor part of the food consumed worldwide, should be put back in perspective.
• 2.1.1., 2nd para. p. 28, the poor choice of crop varieties is itself often driven by the standardization of raw product and supply of agricultural inputs.
• 2.1.2. lines 25-26, the determination of quality standards is one of the major drivers of FWL and leads to discarding healthy foods.  Do we really need a universal set of standards – which often end up excluding small-scale producers - or locally appropriate regulations?
• 3.4.1 you may want to include Unmentionable Cuisine – Calvin Schwabe, 19 79 University Press of Virginia, in the bibliography?
• 3.7.3.
  • p. 55, consumers should  indeed not order too much food, but restaurants should limit portion size and supermarkets be discouraged from promoting “big size” bargains.  
  • re. box 12, you may want to consider explicit reference to the Right to Food?
  • line 28 p. 56, environmental costs should be mentioned (which is often presented as a brownie point for Food Banks)

At OVAM (the Public Waste Agency of Flanders) we read with great interest studies on (the prevention of) food waste. Please find below and in attachment some comments to the study, that might help to further develop the study.

General comments:

it is not always clear what the purpose of the study is, especially regarding the mentioning of best practices (list is not exhaustive, but it is also not clear on what basis best practices have been selected)

until now, the recommendations are rather vague and mainly point issues we are already aware of. Now that the awareness about food waste is high, policymakers need more concrete recommendations (e.g. how to make possible more coherence between different policy domains that address food issues) so that they can evaluate whether the measures they are taking or planning to take could be successful. Policies regarding the prevention of food waste are already in place in many countries, and there are frameworks that enable policy evaluations, so evaluating existing policies might help to come up with more concrete recommendations.

regarding the question on different sorts of quantifying food losses: it all depends on what the purpose is (what do we want to measure? why do we want to measure it?)

question regarding which actors can make real radical change: in case we really want radical change, it will not come from one specific actor, but from a system change. It is striking how the global food system and how society works is rarely questioned. Wouldn't it be more useful to think about production - distribution - consumption and how the food system can be changed? If we do not such a rethink, we will probably move no further than small changes, and then radical change will never happen.

Best regards,

Sofie Bouteligier

European and international policy team

Policy Innovation Service

Waste and Materials Management Department

Our comment is related to fisheries. In some types of fisheries there are problems with discards.This is a type of food waste that should be avoided.

FAO has developed guidelines on this issue: International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards (adopted by the Committee on Fisheries at its 29th session in 2011)

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/ba0022t/ba0022t00.pdf

This issue ought to be included in the final report.

1. Pathological Lesions Survey and Economic Loss for Male Cattle Slaughtered at Ismailia Abattoir

Abstract:

The study was a retrospective abattoir survey, undertaken for a period of one full year at the main traditional abattoir of Ismailia city, Egypt. During the survey, 9880 male cattle were slaughtered and inspected. As a result of postmortem inspections, 8 (0.10%) carcasses were totally condemned and 1456 (14.7%) organs had pathological lesions. Of the 1456 edible organs had pathological lesions; the sum of 1216 Kg was either totally or partially condemned. Based on weight of annual condemned organs, the estimated annual loss was 36480 Egyptian Pound. The gross pathological lesions detected in edible organs were in 117 of heart (8%), in 310 kidneys (21.3%), in 649 lunges (44.6%), in 260 livers (17.9%), and in 120 spleens (8.2%). The present study provides baseline data for the future monitoring of clean meat production in Ismailia abattoir. The condemnation of edible organs represents a significant economic loss to traders and livestock industry.

2. Prevalence, Intensity and Viability of Tissue Parasites Infected Bovine Carcasses at Ismailia -Egypt with Special Reference to their Zoonotic implications

Abstract:

The slaughterhouse represents a key control point of livestock production chain. It could be used to give a full picture about the zoonotic parasitic diseases. Therefore, this article aimed to determine the prevalence, intensity and viability of tissue parasites of bovines slaughtered at the main abattoir of Ismailia city, Egypt. From March 21st 2009 to March 20th, 2010, a total of 10055 cattle, 3811 buffalo carcasses were inspected, followed by parasitological and histopathological examinations. Stool specimens of 1200 farmers were examined for parasite eggs. Results revealed that the total prevalence of Cysticercus bovis was 0.47%, which was higher in cattle (0.57 %) than in buffalo (0.18%). 320 cysticerci were detected in 76 bovine carcasses, of which 103 (32.18%) were alive. The anatomical distribution of cysticerci was 55 (72.37%) heart, 13 (17.10 %) tongue, 7 (9.21 %) masseter, and 1 (1.31%) diaphragm. Hydatid cysts were detected in 106 (0.76%) carcasses. It was higher in buffalo 57 (1.49%) than cattle 49 (0.49%). A total 405 hydatid cysts were detected in 120 carcasses, of which 133 (32.83%) were viable. The predilection sites distribution of hydatid cysts were in the lung 84

(70%), 35 (29.17%) liver, 1 (0.83%) spleen. Sarcocystis macrocyst was detected grossly in buffalo carcasses only in 775 (20.33%). Macrocysts were identified to Sarcocystis fusiformis, and anatomically distributed as 403 (49.09%) in

esophagus, 333 (40.56%) in tongue, 85 (10.35%) in skeletal muscles. The total prevalence of liver flukes was 1.94%, which was higher in buffalo (3.23%) than in cattle (1.46%). Fasciola hepatica and Fasciola gigantica were identified. Generally, females showed significantly higher infection rates because of elder ages. In human, taniid eggs were detected in 2 (0.16%), Fasciola eggs 4 (0.41%) in stool specimens. In conclusion, the occurrence of such affections throughout the edible organs reflects their economical and public health impacts in Ismailia province that might be prevalent in Egypt in

large. These epidemiologic data could be a base of planning prevention and control programs.

 

Greetings and Happy new Year... Input for the draft report:

A few years ago I led a postharvest food losses study for the Gates Foundation, and we took a look back at 12 "agricultural development projects" funded by the World Bank, USAID , USDA, JICA, etc. to see what had worked or did not work in terms of helping smallholders in developing countries to reduce food losses. More than 45 scientists from a dozen countries participated in 2 years of field research including face to face interviews of past project beneficiaries and managers in 6 countries (Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, Indonesia, India and Rwanda). 

 

The report summary can  be found online here: 

BMGF Appropriate Postharvest Technologies project (WFLO 2009-10)

http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-1848.pdf (slide deck)

http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-1847.pdf (full report)

 

The key recommendations are as follow:

Building on Lessons Learned

Future projects should incorporate the major lessons learned from the 12 projects that were revisited by our WFLO/UC Davis postharvest teams, and the results of our 30 commodity systems assessments and 24 postharvest losses and quality assessments.

1) Focus on the Beneficiaries

Many of our assessments pointed to the need to advocate agri-business skills, attitudes and aspirations.

• Treat farmers as agri-business people rather than just as farmers.  Rural youth are especially interested in developing business and entrepreneurial skills.

• Ask smallholder farmers to consider issues beyond their farm plots – address the entire value chain, take more responsibilities in return for additional opportunities for profit making
• Deliver targeted training or agricultural extension services that help improve the quality of produce, postharvest handling and marketing linkages.
• Provide training in local languages, incorporate audio-visual training aids
• Aim to be not only more productive but more profitable. 

Many of the most successful past projects assisted farmers to become active marketers, rather than passively waiting for a trader to arrive at their farm gate and offer a price. When farmers were willing to take on more responsibility for their crops and become direct marketers, by learning how to grade, pack, handle and sell their produce directly to the retailer, they also gained more of the financial rewards.

2) Work through Groups

Whether via informal groups, co-operatives or formal associations, it is vital to work with groups to impact policy and reach large numbers of people.

Groups are the key to:

• Assessing local needs, facilitating targeted training, introducing new crops and technologies
• Improving communication in order to strengthen marketing capacity and market linkages
• Managing contracts and sales beyond capacity of individuals. 
• Gathering and incorporating farmer feedback to assist in measuring the effectiveness of interventions
• Building privatization efforts (moving from project provided services to community provided services)
• Development of financing opportunities (micro-credit, creative schemes)
• Designing appropriate, cost effective innovation delivery systems (providing people with the information and skills they need, when and where and in a way they can best understand and use it).

The CSA process we used to gather information on commodity systems during this planning project can be inexpensively and effectively applied to reassess the progress of farmer groups as they try out and adopt or reject new postharvest technologies.

Recent grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for micro-finance ($38m) will allow 18 institutions to expand their portfolios, and reach more smallholder farmers.

3) Women's issues remain important

Access of women to credit, training and extension services remain lower than that of men. Ideas for improvements include:

• Increasing the number and percentage of women hired and trained as extension workers
• Holding training programs and extension meetings close to the homes of women so they can attend more easily
• Holding meetings/trainings in the afternoon since women have a lot of household and farm work to take care of in the mornings
• Offering trainings via video, posters, discussions, role playing, etc (to increase accessibility and relevance for those who are non-literate).

Many of these issues were recently highlighted by a report from the World Food Programme (2009).

4) Postharvest best practices should be incorporated early on in projects.

Identifying appropriate interventions is the first step key, since barriers affecting adoption of postharvest interventions include complexity, availability and perceived costs versus benefits. Having a year round supply of vegetables could improve the nutritional status of rural families, and especially for young children and their mothers.

The World Bank estimates that 20–25% of the global disease burden for children is due to under-nutrition (World Bank, 1993). Postharvest technology is an important part of achieving food security. According to the UN, Food security is typically subdivided into three components: (i) availability, or the existence of an adequate and stable supply of food; (ii) access, or the ability to obtain (physically or economically) appropriate and nutritious food; and (iii) utilization, or the ability to consume and benefit from nutritious foods (UN, 1996).

Postharvest best practices include:

• Clean and efficient sorting, grading, packing, cooling, storage
• These topics should be addressed via agricultural extension and related to infrastructure development and technology improvements
• Past project assessments revealed that most of the postharvest activities implemented in the assessed projects were too few and too late. 

Work is on-going by our economic team members to develop an "expert system" for decision making regarding when to use which postharvest technology for what crops. Key decision making inputs include how the technology can affect postharvest losses, shelf life and market value for a specific crop, and what the technology will cost in a specific location.

5) Invest wisely in postharvest infrastructure

• Make investments early in the project (on the farms, at packinghouses, for transport or storage, as well as in the markets). 
• Develop the infrastructure to enhance their agri-business (consider location, access, costs, etc).
• Match the facilities (cost, size, scope) to local needs and management capabilities.
• Develop and enhance horticultural value chains by improving communication
• Deliver training to ensure that infrastructure is utilized and maintained properly. 
• Build in sustainability by using rational business models for providing businesses services (fee for service)

Training in postharvest horticulture increases readiness and willingness to make changes, but if postharvest infrastructure and marketing support is not there for participants, the results of training can be frustration. Similarly, providing infrastructure without training can be a disaster waiting to happen— successful postharvest management requires complex knowledge and skills.

Improving communication regarding pertinent information (i.e. expected weather changes, availability and prices of postharvest supplies, consumer demands, changes in the needs of traders and market prices) will require outreach efforts via accessible methods such as local radio, inexpensive mobile phones, internet kiosks or via visual means (for example daily updated whiteboards posting market prices).

6) Build local capacity (strengthen institutions, human resources, community services)

Training should leave behind a cadre of local trainers and support service businesses to continue the work that is started by a development project. Capacity building includes:

• Postharvest technical and educational program development, especially targeting women and rural youths
• combining lab research with adaptive on-farm or market based fieldwork
• training of master trainers
• network creation (helping members of the value chain meet and get to know each other)
• resource identification and strengthening of support services (local postharvest suppliers, repair services, engineers, credit)
• Building functional local capacity seems to have a strong relationship to sustainability
• Designing appropriate innovation delivery systems depends upon first developing this local capacity.

We recommend that future projects include Commodity Systems Assessment (CSA) as a methodology for training extension workers— the CSA process requires them to work as a team, learn by doing, study all the details on the local commodity system, meet key players, decision makers, producers, postharvest handlers, processors, marketers, and understand the value chain from field to fork. The original CSAM manual is available online from the UN FAO inPHo website (LaGra, 1990).

Several of our consultants recommended that future projects include the methodology for mapping and influencing dynamic agrifood markets (includes Value Chain Mapping) as one of the first steps of any new development project. The manual is available online from www.regoverningmarkets.org (Vermeulen et al, 2008).

Hall and Devereau (2000), when studying low cost storage for sweet potatoes in Uganda, found that a combination of lab research centered at modern institutions and a adaptive research fieldwork based approach could be used to improve results and speed the technology validation process.

7) Projects should have a longer term focus

• A longer project cycle (7 to 10 years) would increase the likelihood of sustainable results.
• Projects that follow up on evaluation based recommendations (such as those provided in this report) can achieve good results. 
• Horticultural development project plans should be flexible enough to allow for adjustments during implementation

8) Promote an Integrated Postharvest Management System

Our final recommendation is to promote an integrated postharvest management system beginning with "training of master postharvest trainers".

One of the unplanned side effects of this planning project has been to raise the expectation of potential target groups, since once they learned a little nit about how postharvest technology can help improve their livelihoods they actively have been seeking more information and requesting future training. Direct requests have already been made for:

• Training in the establishment of cool chain management for horticultural crops (Rwanda, India).
• Installation of cool chambers and training of farmers (Rwanda, Ghana).
• Training on simple village level food processing methods (India, Nepal, Benin)
• Training of postharvest trainers (Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon, Kenya, Zimbabwe, India, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh)

The following steps would be required:

• Training of master trainers in each target country – includes training in technical knowledge in horticulture, appropriate postharvest technology, business development skills, cost/benefit analyses, improved teaching/training practices. Master trainers serve to leverage any future training efforts by having a multiplier effect.
• Smallholder farmers could then be locally trained to begin with improving quality on the farm (using maturity indices, gentle handling, pre-sorting, protective packages, and shade)
• Farmers could be encouraged to learn about direct marketing and the many new responsibilities it entails
• Postharvest tools and supplies should be made available for sale at rural postharvest shops (make it easier for farmers to try any new technology)
• Smallholder farmers could be trained to develop decision making skills for utilizing when appropriate, some form of cooling, storage or processing in order to further enhance the market value of their horticultural crops.
• Micro-credit or rent-to own models should be integrated into any outreach efforts.

Initially, the focus of any new development project should be to provide basic information and demonstrations of these simple practices that can reduce postharvest losses. The longer term goal should be to promote the use of cooling and cool or cold storage and transport practices that can protect the investment of the farmers and can further reduce losses. Globally, investments in the cold chain often have been shown to repay themselves in a short period of time (Kitinoja, 2008)—hence the existence of an enormous number of companies around the world that offer services in cooling, cold storage and transport for a fee that is willingly paid by the owner of the produce— and this reduction in waste theoretically allows for three positive outcomes. The grower can receive more for their crops, while the middlemen or marketers lose less during handling and transport, and the consumer gets a better quality product at the same or lower price.  By making an investment in appropriate scale postharvest technologies we can therefore achieve a win/win/win situation, where everyone involved in the value chain will benefit. The cool chain simply protects the food supply as it moves along the value chain—so we can end up with more food, of better quality, safer and more nutritious to eat, and at a lower price because we have reduced the level of waste.

Dr. Lisa Kitinoja

The Postharvest Education Foundation

PO Box 38, La Pine, Oregon 97739 USA

Website homepage: www.postharvest.org

Mobile phone: (916) 708-7218 

Follow us on Twitter: @PostharvestOrg

The early submission of the Zero draft, albeit with its imperfections, is appreciated because it gives the Team responsible for the study sufficient time to reflect on the comments received through e-Consultation and be able to produce a good First Draft .

I read the Zero Draft with interest. Probably the Team is unaware that reducing food losses and waste in the Near East and North Africa is on the agenda of the Near East Regional Conference which meets from 24-28 February, 2014, in Rome, However, the background document on the subject has not yet been released. So I do not know what its contents would be.

The two  major shortcomings of the Zero Draft are: (a) inadequacy of the section on  Conclusion; and (b)  the absence of concrete Recommendations which we are informed is still   work in progress . We shall deal with these two shortcomings later.

Our overall response to the Zero Draft submitted by the Team is cautiously positive.

   In our opinion the following are the satisfactory features of the Zero Draft:

• It is adequately researched, both from the technical angle and one can also say from the policy dimension;
• Judging from the huge numbers of references mentioned, it is undoubtedly evidence-based and some of  the explanatory boxes are useful;
• The structure of the Zero Draft can be considered as satisfactory;
• The conclusion, which still needs to be beefed up and polished, is to a large extent in line with the  issues discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Zero Draft.

In our opinion, the less satisfactory features of the Zero Draft are:

• It does not read well because it attempts to serve as a compendium of available literature on the subject. Our hope was that the study will be a critical assessment of the existing knowledge and the gaps which still needs to be addressed. The compendium aspect can be justified but not when it turns excessive. When it becomes excessive, the focus of the study is compromised;
• The close reading of each sub-section does not give the impression of an indepth  assessment. It conveys the impression of amassing information;
• The text of the Zero Draft  is definitely repetitive and gives the temptation to stop reading it. The repetition is particularly noticeable between Chapters 1 and 2;
• Often style is also a point for concern. Sometimes too many reference documents are listed to substantiate a point. For example, in paragraph 2 of sub-section 3.5.2 (page 50) out of 12 lines 9 relate to reference material;
• Paragraphs are not numbered for ease of reference.

Structure of the Zero Draft

          By and large we can live with the structure of the Zero Draft. However, we wish to see the beefing of the chapter on Conclusion and Areas of Recommendation. We also think there is room for reducing the 19 pages of Chapter 1 (Food losses and waste and sustainable food system: definition, extent and impact) and the 15 pages of Chapter 2 (Causes and drivers of food losses /food waste). On the other hand, we feel comfortable with the 22 pages of Chapter 3 (Reducing food losses and waste for sustainable food systems and food security).

            There are 17 boxes included in the Zero Draft, some lengthy and some very short and a few somewhat unique (like Box 7 on tray vs a tray-less system). Of this number, only 8 are country case studies of which 6 relate to developing countries. Within the 6 case studies of developing countries, 4 refer to the experience of India. We suggest that boxes should be confined only to country case studies and there should be an equitable distribution of case studies among the developing regions. For example,  FAO’s publication on “Household metal silos: key allies in FAO’s fight against hunger” gives some good examples of affordable silos at household level in several developing countries. There is a fairly good case study on Afghanistan published by United States Agency for International Development entitled “ Case study of poultry and grape/raisin subsector in Afghanistan” dated March 2008 and available on the web.  AGS, AGA and FII should be consulted for good country case studies.

Introduction

The Introduction is acceptable, though we suggest inserting the statistics in lines 41-48 on page 6 and in lines 1-2 on page 7,  after line 9 on page 6.

1. Food Loss and Waste and Sustainable Food Systems: Definition, Extent and Impacts

In sub-section 1.1.1, the discussion on existing conceptual approaches to food loss and waste as shown in lines 16-37 needs to be presented in a more simple language for the average reader and then it should spell the rationale of why the  harmonization of definition, methodologies and measurement is so important.

Definitions are always contentious and so is the one listed in lines 17-20 on page 9.  What troubles us is the two words “originally intended” on line 18 of page 9. To us this implies that grains intended for human consumption but used to feed animals is not considered as a loss because it eventually is converted into meat and milk to meet human needs. But, such feeding is actually transforming (x) quantity of nutrients from grains to less than (x) quantity of nutrients from animals for human consumption. Also grains and oilseeds  intentionally produced for conversion into ethanol or diesel will not be considered as food loss.

We are hesitant to agree with the term “originally intended” and consider both propositions (grains intended for humans being fed to animals; and using grains as fuel feedstock) as losses from the point of view of food security, especially when close to one billion people in the world go  hungry. It is like taking it away from the poor and giving it to the rich which eventually leads to social disorder.

For the definition of food waste, we would feel comfortable to see the text after “discarded” eliminated (lines 19-20, page 9).

On the question of measurement of losses and waste, we consider all figures in the Zero Draft as rough estimates with wide margin of error and therefore fully agree with the proposals put forward for harmonization of methodologies under sub-section 1.1.3.

In Sub-section 1.2.1 (sustainable food systems), it is acceptable to reflect on different perceptions of food systems but it is equally important for the study to make a definite choice among different definitions of sustainable food systems, perhaps by the rephrasing of the text on lines 24 to 31 on page 11.  Moreover, we find the language of the sub-section to be a bit obfuscated. Incidentally, it is very strange that the GSF document (second version) does not provide any definition for sustainable food system.

We are comfortable with the contents of sub-sections 1.2.2  to 1.2.5 because it is basically the review of available literature, though at times  it is a bit of philosophizing, e.g. line 19 to 30 on page 14. By the way, why is table 2 on page 15 restricted to countries with population of more than one hundred million?

We consider the information and analysis of sub-sections 1.3.1 to 1.3.4 as useful and appreciate the contents of 1.3.2 , especially table 2 (Impact of losses and waste), as well as of 1.3.3 which includes useful information on the impact of food losses and waste from the well recognized four dimensions of food safety and nutrition.  We appreciate the contents of 1.3.4 (Environmental impacts) but wish to point out that there are no references to the work of IPCC, especially the impact of food losses on biodiversity as well as waste management. One  or two short paragraphs on IPCC findings will enrich the section.

2. Causes and Drivers of Food Losses/ Food waste

We are fairly satisfied with Chapter 2.  All stages of the supply chain are sufficiently covered. However, the examples of losses in pre-harvest and harvesting  stages are overwhelmingly from developed countries and not developing countries where the problem is most severe; and that is a drawback to be amended.

In sub-section 2.1.3 (storage stage, pages 29-31),  it is disappointing that no examples are mentioned of some successful experiences of on-farm storage in developing countries (please contact AGS for getting some examples).

Sub-section 2.1.4 (processing, page 31) is somewhat disappointing.  Food processing  is a promising area for development in most developing countries, including opportunities for exports. We would like to see this sub-section strengthened considerably with both successful and not successful examples from developing countries. AGS may be able to provide the experience gained from developing countries. The work conducted by the Asian Institute of Technology on post-harvest losses and consumer food waste should also be visited for successful examples in Asia and the Pacific region.

We consider sub-section 2.1.5 (Distribution stage), sub-section 2.2 (Causes of nutritional losses) and sub-section 2.3 (Systemic causes of food losses: economic development/regional) to be adequate, though 2.3.2 (lack of credit market/institutions) is far too short, given its critical importance in building infrastructure for reducing food losses.

As highlighted in sub-section 2.4, it is true that food waste is the luxury of the rich and this is well demonstrated in pages 36-41. Since there is also food waste in low and middle income countries, the Team should make an effort to provide some information on food waste in selected developing countries.

3. Reducing Food and waste for Sustainable Food Systems and Food Security

We subscribe to the general recipe mentioned by the Team for developing and developed countries (lines 23-31 on page 42) and also lend our support to the idea of culture-specific innovations and technologies across the food supply chain to reduce food losses (line 1-2 of page 44). We most welcome the emphasis by the Team on the cold chain management of perishable food as stated in lines 25-26 of the same page.

On cold storage (sub-section 3.3), there has been progress in some developing countries, especially China and India, but not in many other developing countries. So there is room for opportunities to be exploited, especially by establishing Group Owned Cold- Storage Facility at the village or district level.

Building capacity at national and local level for food loss prevention is of course critical and the Centre of Excellence for Post-harvest Food Losses (CoE) in the Netherlands is a welcome initiative (Box 5, page 47), though not yet put in place. So is the campesino a campesino initiative in Latin America. One can also consider South-South Cooperation as another venue of knowledge sharing among developing countries in food losses and waste. At the national level, we also attach importance to the synergy between advocacy, education and legislation in reducing food losses and food waste.

We are not impressed by the content of sub-section 3.7.1 (Economic aspects). It is somewhat pedestrian and even inconsistent. On  one hand, it says that cost-benefit analysis be vigorously conducted (line 16-23 of page 54). On the other hand, the text on page 54 leaves the reader with the impression that due to lack of data, cost-benefit analysis may not be feasible. That is why empirical studies are required (lines 9-15, page 54).

We highly appreciate the narrative on Food Banks given in pages 56-58. Please recheck the statement in line 58 of page 57 to the effect that WFP no longer accepts donation of food surpluses. To my knowledge, this is not the case, though WFP prefers cash donation over commodity donation.

We fully support the notion that campaign against food waste (pages 51-52) should include all the four areas: awareness, innovative technology, cooperation among stakeholders and social innovation.

We welcome the crucial role of women in reducing food losses and waste (pages 52-53) and suggest the further expansion of sub-section 3.6 with particular emphasis on the role of women in pre-harvest, harvest and post-harvest phases. The experience gained by FAO and IFAD can be used to strengthen this section.

4. Conclusion and Potential Areas for Recommendations

The one and half page Conclusion needs to be revised drastically with a view to extracting the major findings (challenges, constraints, potential) as mentioned in Chapters 1, 2 and 3. In our view, the current text on Conclusion falls short of expectation. It is also advisable that for each element covered in the Conclusion reference be made to the paragraph number in the body of the report. Incidentally, the last paragraph of the Conclusion will fit well in the Introduction of the Zero Draft as a challenge. It does not fit in the section on Conclusion.

We can understand that sub-section 4.1 (Areas of Recommendation) is still work in progress. At present, there are 7 paragraphs in this sub-section and we assume that each paragraph will be crystallized into a recommendation. We would feel comfortable if the recommendations are kept limited in number; making sure that they are pertinent and that their implementation can be cost-effective. Recommendation should address food losses and waste in all the key stages of the food chain.

We would most welcome specific recommendations by the Team on: improvement of methodology and quality of data; capacity development at national and local level; technology transfer to the primary producer/ operator; strengthening extension services to combat food losses; tailored training programmes for women to prevent food waste; and the strengthening of food banks.

Je pense que les pertes post-récoltes sont causés dès la phase de production d'une culture. la qualité de la sememence, la manutention à la récolte, la manutention après récolte sont autant de facteurs à prendre en considération. en 2008, j'ai mené une études sur les pertes post-récoltes de la filière tomate à l'ouest du pays et il a été constaté que les pertes sont d'environ 30% lors de la mise en cageot à cause de la mauvaise manutention. les pertes liées au transport étaient d'environ 10% et plus de 35% étaient perdus sur les marchés de détails à cause des mauvaise conditions de conservation et des méventes.

Une des stratégie de réduction des pertes post-récoltes dans les filières céréales et racines et tubercules est de renforcer les capacités des producteurs aux techniques de conservation et surtout de transformation. Dans la région du centre Cameroun, la transformation du manioc en plus de 20 produits dérivés a permis de réduire considérablement les pertes post récoltes dans cette filière. de nos jours moins de 10% sont perdus.

Food Technologist can play vital role in minimizing food loss and waste. Post harvest technology , Product diversification, by product utilization and different methods of food preservation technology can best address the food loss and waste.

for eg. if there is 30% post harvest loss in wheat grain, we can reduce it to below 10% by applying appropriate post harvest technology. we can make further process wheat flour to make noodles, and utilize by product like broken noodles for making another variety of snacks.

similarly, different food preservation technology like, pickeling, salting, brining, fermenting, syruping, freezing, freeze drying, powdering etc. can help reduce the the food loss and waste.

My, concern is to focus in above technology with awareness about importance of reducing food loss and waste in alongways.