Page 53 - FAO-IPCC Expert meeting on climate change

Policies for land use, sustainable food production and consumption and climate action
31
There is a growing argument for reliable carbon footprint data along the food supply chain to support new food policies or private-led initiatives that aim to shift food demand for nutrition and climate change (i.e. understood as GHG emissions). In the scientific literature, a growing number of studies have been published that report engineering calculations of GHG savings if certain diets are adopted (e.g. Mediterranean, Western, vegetarian, more fish-based). One of the limitations of these studies is that they tend to be somewhat removed from plausible alternative scenarios while lacking a sociocultural or economic basis. Moreover, we have limited knowledge on how much change in diets we can expect from a given policy intervention (e.g. actual consumption changes arising from a carbon tax on food). Such comparative diet assessments tend to be reductionist and lack comprehensive nutritional analysis. For example, meat or dairy consumption, though a higher GHG footprint, comes with valuable micronutrients, whose deficit results in hidden hunger. More meta-analyses should be carried out to generate robust evidence before drawing firm conclusions. While there is the great benefit in encouraging people to consume products such as pulses, the literature on diets and its links to climate and food security needs further expansion.
While the carbon footprint is valuable and can inform policy and alternative consumption pathways, these life cycle assessments need to go beyond engineering calculations. It is essential to include the economic dimension; that is,
to take into account the economic capacity of the poor to make a shift to alternative food systems if incentives are changed. Moreover, the carbon footprint should not be the sole barometer to measure food systems; it should be extended to other vital ecosystems affected by food production and consumption (e.g. nutrient footprint, biodiversity footprint). Recognizing the complexity of the task, this is certainly a field for further investigation of the existing literature as well as for future research.
5.2.2 Food waste and loss: improved framing of the problem
A recent study on food waste found that, globally, 20 percent more food is available in the market than is consumed.49 There is also overconsumption and food overavailability in high income countries. Hence, it is essential to address
food demand management as part of any strategy for climate-smart and sustainable use of resources. Research on food waste and loss is scant and there is a dearth of reliable data. More important, however, is that the real problem of food waste is one of framing. There is certainly an ensemble of factors that contribute to the chronic situation of significant amounts of food being produced and not consumed, ultimately translating into “wasted” water, nutrients, soil, trees and other vital ecosystem resources. Food waste is a regrettable side effect of efficiency, food subsidies, the value of convenience and the “cheap” food scenario. The problem, therefore, is above all economic, then social and, finally, technical. There is an absence of rigorous economic evaluation of food to determine its true cost, which should lead to proper pricing while taking into account the ecological footprint and the full cost. This should open the way for alternative economic scenarios where the pricing structure of food is redesigned in such a way as to correctly price food, water, nutrients and other ecosystems. As an outcome, one would expect a shift in consumer behaviour, less waste and perhaps even more nutritious food intake. To reiterate, the economic literature on this is apparently absent, making it a worthwhile area for scientific and economic research.
Meanwhile − and without much empirical evidence − there is an awareness that food waste is often linked to the threats of climate and sustainability on the food supply base. This recognition has unleashed initiatives that prompt and educate the public to waste. Such “campaigns”, however, remain ad hoc and one-off and show that changing consumer behaviour through awareness campaigns, notably in Europe, does not have much staying power. Such behavioural change is unlikely to succeed in isolation. Food waste and loss reduction initiatives would work more effectively if integrated within larger policies and initiatives that also influence the decisions of farmers and elicit a behavioural change throughout the supply chain to the retailer. Another option is to internalize the cost of food waste reduction into the product price, which would also act as a more effective incentive to prevent food waste. These initiatives can only succeed if they are the outcome of a holistic economic-socio-technical framework.
Framing the challenge in economic and social terms can also be effective in encouraging change by the consumer. In Japan, the Ministry of Agriculture has promoted various measures to reduce food loss and waste under a combination of different tools, including education, knowledge, science and regulation and incentive measures, among others. It
is difficult to create behavioural change in consumers and civil society, although an appropriate framing in the social- cultural context is potentially effective. In Japan, people view food loss and food waste not simply as losing the food; rather, it is viewed as the killing of animals and loss of plants for no reason, corresponding to Japan’s strong negative
Hiç et al. (2016).
49
FAO-IPCC Expert meeting on climate change, land use and food security