Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

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