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.
- 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.
Abdul Razak Ayazi