Revealing hidden food loss and waste data can fast-track emission reduction

When food is wasted, the emissions used to produce it are wasted too. And while the food loss and waste (FLW) component of the global food system's carbon footprint may be overlooked as small, they do have a big impact. In a world where hunger persists alongside abundance, addressing FLW can help tackle carbon emissions and food security issues.

Globally, between 8 and 10% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from foods that never even reach a consumer's plate. As we push to make our food systems more sustainable, addressing FLW could be a game-changer. Yet, as with any large-scale intervention, the unintended consequences deserve careful consideration.

Reducing FLW could lessen the pressure on global food production, reducing the land, water, and energy needed to grow, store, and transport food. Tackling this issue could lower food demand and the environmental costs of farming, harvesting, and shipping.

Exploring hidden data

Christopher Martius is Team Leader for Climate Change, Energy and Low-Carbon Development at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF), and part of the Mitigate+: Low-Emission Food Systems Initiative. The three-year global CGIAR initiative aims to provide robust, science, data and evidence and test new technology to equip government, civil society, private sector and organizations with improved decision-making tools.

"One of the biggest challenges in reducing FLW is the lack of comprehensive data, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where detailed FLW statistics are scarce. Part of the issue is the diversity in the food value chain, which varies from product to product and country to country," says Martius.

For example, there is no model that describes food loss for milk and at the same time for bananas, since the responsible causes, variables and inputs will be totally different for each. Models may also differ from country to country, because climate, soil and policy considerations are all different across food value-chains.

Data from Mitigate+ reveals that different countries face diverse challenges in tackling emissions in food and waste loss. The path to lower emissions in this sector is not obvious and can be riddled with trade-offs. In China, for example, high emissions occur at the food processing and packagingstage of production. In Kenya, emissions from food loss and waste are more likely to occur due to post-harvest loss and lack of storage.

"The important thing to note is that while some Interventions to reduce FLW tend to require additional resources, like energy-intensive refrigeration, packaging materials, and fuel for transport, these can lead to long-term environmental benefits in the end," says Martius. "This can reduce the overall carbon footprint of the food that reaches consumers."

©2017CIAT/GeorginaSmith

Making informed decisions

In order to find these trade-offs, adequate representation of cumulative GHG emissionsalong the production and supply chain, including 'hidden parts' of the chain, is required. The absence of reliable data that is comparable can lead to ineffective or even counterproductive policies. To navigate such complexities, the Agro-Chain greenhouse gas Emission (ACE) calculator developed by Mitigate+ partners at Wageningen University and Researchis one tool that allows policymakers and researchers to model the impact of FLW-reducing interventions across the food supply chain, accounting for both pre- and post-intervention scenarios.

By capturing cumulative emissions at each stage, the calculator provides a clearer picture of whether a given intervention will lead to a net reduction in emissions or not. This tool can help close the data gap, and support countries to develop targeted strategies that minimize environmental trade-offs and progress toward sustainability. The calculator represents the structure of a the fresh food supply chainand offers data on crop GHG emission factors and FLW in different production and distribution stages, for example.

Martius notes: "The calculator can compare the net effects of an intervention on GHG emissions and FLW per unit of food sold to the consumer through scenarios in different value chains. Results show that yes - post-harvest activities do contribute substantially to the carbon footprint of most supplied food products. But case studies show that FLW-reducing interventions can lower total GHGs associated with it."

In Kenya, for example, while improved storagemay initially increase emissions due to the energy required to power cold storage, over time, these interventions are expected to result in a net reduction in GHG emissions by preventing food spoilage. In China, processing and packaging food may cause higher emissions-but these interventions also extend shelf life and reduce FLW, ultimately balancing environmental trade-offs.

Taking a holistic view

FLW is a complex sector, and understanding it requires a nuanced, data-driven approach. This is why interventions and tools such as the ACE calculator can be used to assess the entire lifecycle of a product, recognizing that the initial emissions from materials and energy use can be offset by longer-term reductions in waste.

"Achieving food security of course remains the main goal of any food system. Thus, emission reduction needs to be viewed within a holistic context: not only to cut emissions but as part of a broader strategy to create a sustainable and resilient food system," explains Martius.

"With the climate crisis accelerating, we cannot afford to make decisions based on incomplete information. Closing the data gap and by using better tools, we can ensure that emission reductions in this small but important sector are aligned with bigger environmental goals and contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future."

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.