Credit: ILO
Recently I was asked to write a short piece for my supervisor about the potential of reducing food loss and waste to increase resilience to climate change to submit to the working group charged with updating FAO’s CSA sourcebook. Please find an adapted version of the text below. This version includes a description of mitigation co-benefits and a description of financing investments for smallholders as I feel that it is important to discuss synergies and co-benefits and outline obstacles to the implementation of improved practices. Anyway, please read and feel free to drop me a comment/email to let me know what you think or to discuss ideas!
Agriculture has to address three interrelated challenges, namely:
- Making more food available, in terms of quantity, quality and diversity
- Adaptation to climate change
- Help mitigate climate change
Addressing the above challenges will require radical alterations to agriculture and food systems more generally (Meybeck, Holmgren & Gitz, 2012). Climate change is predicted to have profound impacts on agricultural productivity, post-harvest losses and value chains. These impacts vary spatially but the stresses that affect food systems will likely be enhanced by climate change (Global Panel, 2015). Ensuring increased production alone is insufficient as this would not guarantee a solution to any of the three challenges (FAO, 2012). Therefore the concept of Climate Smart Agriculture (hereafter CSA) was conceived. Enhancing resilience, improving nutrition and mitigating climate change are mutually reinforcing targets and synergies often exist (Global Panel, 2015). Agriculture is at the nexus of the challenges that need to be addressed to make sustainable development a reality. However action is needed throughout the value chain. A CSA oriented approach should focus on increasing resilience throughout the value chain. This paper will outline how reducing post-harvest losses in the context of climate smart food systems can increase the resilience of smallholders while simultaneously contributing towards mitigating climate change. Reducing post-harvest losses presents an opportunity to increase resilience by reducing poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition and by increasing livelihoods (FAO, 2012).
Mitigation Co-Benefits
Food loss and waste levels are extensive. Estimates vary and the data are imperfect, but the most robust study suggests that approximately one third of food is lost or wasted (Gustavsson et al., 2011). This quantity of food loss and waste has widespread impacts, ranging from social to environmental. In terms of climate change, if the emissions from producing food loss and waste were compared to the emissions from countries only China and the United States would have a higher level of emissions (FAO, 2013). It has been ascertained that food losses and waste caused 3.6 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions-an increase of 0.3 gigatonnes when compared to 2007 levels. Additionally, if land use change is included, the figure rises to 4.4 gigatonnes. This is equivalent to 8% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. To add perspective, this is equivalent to approximately 87% of global road transport greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2015). Indeed, a reduction in food losses would reduce the level of greenhouse gases emitted by the global food sector (Escaler & Teng, 2011). These emissions are significant yet they serve no purpose (FAO, 2012).Furthermore a reduction in loss and waste would also limit the necessity for more intense production and the associated expansion of farms which often results in deforestation which in turn leads to increased emissions.
In addition to the aforementioned benefits improving the efficiency of the value chain offers a unique opportunity to decouple post-harvest stages from reliance on fossil fuel use. Although trade-offs may be required between reducing losses and energy consumption. Recently, the emergence of technologies like solar dryers that function using renewable energy may help reduce the trade-offs required (Global Panel, 2015).
Improving Food Availability and Resilience
Simply increasing agricultural production in the coming decades will not be sufficient to meet demand, protect food supply or enhance diets. The food supply chain has to be made more efficient and losses have to be reduced (e.g. improved conservation, processing and packaging) in order for this to happen. This is particularly relevant for nutrient rich products (Global Panel, 2015). Managing climate risks while improving the efficiency of resource use along the value chain are essential to achieve food security objectives. As well as improving food security, reducing post-harvest losses can also improve resilience to climate change. In order to cultivate resilience to climate change it is imperative to implement measures that go beyond improving productivity. A focus is needed on reducing post-harvest losses, particularly high nutrient perishable goods (Global Panel, 2015). Resilience refers to the capacity of systems, communities, households or individuals to prevent, mitigate or cope with risk and recover from shocks (FAO, 2012). Food systems need to be made more resilient to prevent an erosion of nutrient quality along the supply chain. This in turn would promote and enable more diverse dietary choices, enhancing the resilience of the population as nutrient rich foods are generally in short supply in low income settings (Global Panel, 2015).
Techniques and technologies designed to reduce post-harvest losses increase resilience for smallholders. For instance, metal silos lessen vulnerability to price fluctuations on local markets (FAO, 2012). Silos enable smallholders to store grain while maintaining quality, therefore they are not in a position where they are forced to sell at bad prices. The structures enable farmers to safely store grain until the off-season when they cans sell the produce at a better price (FAO, 2008) Additionally, reducing food loss can stimulate local enterprise, generate employment opportunities and diversify the local economy (FAO, 2012). For example, the manufacture of metal silos creates employment for local metal fabricators in rural areas in countries like Afghanistan (FAO, 2008). Adequate storage also enables farmers to use their excess produce as collateral to access credit (FAO, 2012). A reduction in post-harvest losses would increase the incomes of smallholders as they would have more produce to sell (Hodges et al., 2010). Furthermore, measures that reduce food loss and waste increase resilience by reducing sensitivity and vulnerability of systems to shocks (FAO, 2012). For example, improved storage or refrigeration can reduce sensitivity of harvested produce to heat or pest infestation and additionally can ensure the preservation of key nutrients in high nutrient, perishable produce like fruit, vegetables and livestock products. Introducing improved processing techniques that are resource efficient not only helps reduce post-harvest loss but also provide the opportunity to improve quality, exploit new markets and increase incomes, improving the resilience of smallholder farmers (FAO, 2012).
It is vital that efficiency and resilience are pursued in tandem. Resilience without efficiency and improved productivity will pose problems for food security in the long term (Global Panel, 2015).
Financing Climate Resilient Food Systems
While the benefits of post-harvest loss reduction are apparent, actions are needed to reduce the costs and increase the economic viability of innovations in food storage, processing, marketing etc. (Global Panel, 2015). The need to invest in agriculture in developing countries is imperative when the need to address issues associated with climate change is taken into account. The wholesale changes require the creation of supporting institutions and enterprises to provide services and inputs to smallholders. These new inputs, techniques, technologies etc. present a challenge but they also present an opportunity for sustainable development (FAO, 2012). Fundamentally, a reduction of losses in the developing world requires market led large scale investment in agricultural infrastructure, skills, knowledge, storage, transport and distribution. In order for the reductions to be sustainable government support is required. Supportive policies and public investment are needed in conjunction with market led private investments (Parfitt et al, 2010, Escaler & Teng, 2011, Bond et al., 2013). A prime example of a supportive measure would be to increase access to credit for smallholders (Hodges et al., 2011, Bond et al., 2013). Many investments will be made by the farmers themselves (FAO, 2012). Therefore providing access to credit for farmers is paramount. Farmers often lack financial resources to make improvements (Lundqvist et al., 2008). Indeed, many need direct subsidy before they can adopt improved post harvest methods to reduce loss (Hodges et al., 2013).
Bibliography
Bond, M., Meacham, T., Bhunnoo, R., & Benton, T. G. (2013). Food waste within global food systems. Global Food Security Programme. A Global Food Security Report. Swindon, UK. Retrieved from http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/food-waste-report.pdf
Escaler, M., & Teng, P. (2011). “Mind the Gap”: Reducing Waste and Losses in the Food Supply Chain. NTS Insight, 2011(June), 10. Retrieved from http://www.rsis.edu.sg/nts/HTML-Newsletter/Insight/NTS-Insight-jun-1101.html
FAO. (2008). Household metal silos: key allies in FAO’s fight against hunger, 8. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/silos_E_light.pdf
FAO. (2012). Greening the economy with climate-smart agriculture. Background Paper for the Second Global Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap403e/ap403e.pdf
FAO. (2013). Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary Report. Food wastage footprint Impacts on natural resources. http://doi.org/ISBN 978-92-5-107752-8
Global Panel. (2015). Climate-Smart Food Systems For Enhanced Nutrition, (2).
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global Food Losses Amd Food Waste. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Hodges, R., Bennett, C., Marc, B., & Felix, R. (2013). Tackling post-harvest cereal losses in sub-Saharan Africa. Rural 21: The International Journal for Rural Development, 47(1), 16–18.
Hodges, R. J., Buzby, J. C., & Bennett, B. (2011). Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries: Opportunities to improve resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science, 149, 37–45. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000936
Lundqvist, J., Fraiture, C. De, & Molden, D. (2008). Saving Water: From Field to Fork Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain, (May), 5–29.
Meybeck, A., Holmgren, P., & Gitz, V. (2012). Climate Smart Agriculture. London, 2012.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–81. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126