Análisis teológico

ƒ Reducing post-harvest losses in the food supply chain are projected to result in lower food prices, leading to increased consumption, especially in developing countries, and particularly of livestock products.

ƒ The rebound effects of lower prices lead to only a modest reduction in land use for agriculture and livestock. Investments to enhance productivity are also dampened. As a consequence, biodiversity gains would also be modest. Losses in supply chains are large for manifold reasons

Post-harvest losses are caused by numerous factors, such as harvest inefficiencies (e.g., poor timing), poor harvest conditions (e.g., too wet), losses during

transport, or deterioration during storage on-farm, on-market, or after purchase by consumers. Data on these losses are limited with relatively few studies

published, and estimates range between 2 and 23% from production to retail sites for developed countries, and up to 50% for developing countries (Lundqvist, 2009). Losses in developing countries are presumed to be highest during harvest and storage, but tend to occur further down the supply chain in high-income countries (Kader, 2005; Lundqvist, 2009). A Swedish inquiry into losses in food service institutions reported that over one fifth of food is lost between preparation and consumption (Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004). In the USA, losses by consumers were estimated at 25% of edible food by (Kantor et al., 1997). Nelleman et al., (2009) cite even higher figures, for example, some 40% of global fish landings are lost through discards, post-harvest loss and spoilage; waste of 30% of all food in the USA; and 32% of all food purchased at household level in the United Kingdom , of which 61% could be avoided.

Option: Cutting post-harvest losses by half in the food supply chain

This option assumes a gradual reduction in post-harvest losses in food supply chains worldwide by 15% of total food supplies, which would roughly correspond to halving the estimated present losses. In the model suite used, this is mimicked by gradually adjusting the price and income elasticity curves. No distinction is made between different types of losses (e.g., during harvest inefficiency, pre-marketing or post-marketing storage) or type of foodstuff. Additional costs to implement the assumed measures are not taken into account. The option is based on a current joint study on sustainable food supply by PBL, LEI and IFPRI.

Results

The direct effect would be that less additional production is needed to meet increasing food demand, resulting in a reduced expansion of agricultural land use (Figure 4.14). The effect on land use, however, is much less than the expected 15% Fruit and vegetables disposed of by supermarkets may be still edible.

reduction. The models used account for the following rebound effects: i) decrease in food and land price; ii) increased food consumption due to lower prices; iii) lower yields due to a lack of price incentives.

These rebound effects would partly negate the net effects on land use: land expansion would be reduced modestly by almost 0.5 million km2 _{of cropland and}

0.7 million km2 _{of pasture. This is less than one sixth of the reduction that could be}

achieved if reduction in post-harvest losses were to translate fully to reduction in agricultural area. Consequently the option gains are modest (almost 5% prevented MSA loss; Figure 4.15). The total net gain in wilderness areas would be 0.4 million km2_{, mainly in the temperate and tropical grasslands of OECD countries, Central and}

South America and Sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 4.16). Discussion

Losses in the food chain cannot be eliminated completely, nor are all losses comparable. Food safety regulations limit the scope for reducing waste, especially for perishable products. Crop residues and waste are also often used as feed (e.g., for pigs) or as primary energy input.

The size of reported losses indicates that demand-side measures in the food chain could make the food chain more resource-efficient. A potential reduction of 10 to 15% of production assumed in this report does not seem excessive nor technically unattainable. The reduction potential differs between food types of food. Also, only a few estimates of losses are available, mostly referring to studies based on limited

The prevented MSA loss from reducing post-harvest losses is modest and results mostly from reduced land-use for crops and pasture.

Figure 4.15 Prevented loss Increased loss Net prevented loss -10 0 10 20

% of baseline MSA loss

Pressures Crops Pasture Forestry Other

Net prevented loss

Reducing post-harvest losses

Prevented global MSA loss compared to baseline scenario, 2000 – 2050

When post-harvest losses are reduced, less land is required for crops and pasture by 2050. This also results in less agricultural expansion into forested areas, a process from which wood is usually obtained. This would lead to more regular forestry (see Box 5.1).

Figure 4.14 Crops Pasture Forestry -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 million km2 Reducing post-harvest losses

observations. More and standardised research is required on losses in the various parts of the food chain.

Feasibility

In developing countries, most supply chain losses occur during and after harvest on the farm, at local storage facilities, and during transportation to the nearest market. This presents scope for synergy in measures to improve yields. These include: ƒ Improvement of communal storage facilities in rural areas;

ƒ Early warning systems for example, weather forecasts indicating poor harvesting conditions;

ƒ Improvement of infrastructure and marketing facilities;

ƒ Enhanced logistics to prevent unnecessary delays in getting produce to the market;

ƒ Training and capacity-building on planning and management practices. In developed countries, the balance of losses tips to the commercialisation and consumption phase. Food safety regulations are tight and producers maintain high certainty margins on dates up until when taste and quality of food products are guaranteed. While fixed expiration dates are necessary to guarantee the food safety of perishable products, consumers often perceive best-before dates as maximum dates. There is little research on the potential gains of better scrutiny of best-before dates and of changing consumer behaviour in developed countries towards less food spoiling. Other potential measures include improved technologies to lengthen the consumption period of products (such as pasteurisation or improved storage at store and household levels).

The prevented MSA loss from reducing post-harvest losses is modest and results mostly from reduced land-use for crops and pasture.

Figure 4.15 Prevented loss Increased loss Net prevented loss -10 0 10 20

% of baseline MSA loss

Pressures Crops Pasture Forestry Other

Net prevented loss

Reducing post-harvest losses

Prevented global MSA loss compared to baseline scenario, 2000 – 2050

When post-harvest losses are reduced, less land is required for crops and pasture by 2050. This also results in less agricultural expansion into forested areas, a process from which wood is usually obtained. This would lead to more regular forestry (see Box 5.1).

Figure 4.14 Crops Pasture Forestry -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 million km2 Reducing post-harvest losses

Despite past and present efforts to reduce food waste by private sector and government, there is still scope for significant reductions. For instance, the benefits of reductions may be deemed small (in financial, social or environmental costs prevented) or the instrumentation may be too complex with many actors, scales, conflicting interests, and the variety of issues to address.

Investments needed to attain loss reduction also add to production, storage and transaction costs, which may not be economically justified in an environment of declining prices. Therefore, the feasibility and effectiveness of this option partly depends on other options, such as protection options, that make available land scarce and stimulate resource efficiency.