Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.4.5.2 Reduce Food Loss and Waste ====

<div id="h3-34-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

'''Activities, co-benefits, risks and implementation opportunities and barriers.''' Food loss and waste (FLW) refer to the edible parts of plants and animals produced for human consumption that are not ultimately consumed ( [[#UNEP--2021b|UNEP 2021b]] ). Food loss occurs through spoilage, spilling or other unintended consequences due to limitations in agricultural infrastructure, storage and packaging ( [[#Parfitt--2010|Parfitt et al. 2010]] ). Food waste typically takes place at the distribution (retail and food service) and consumption stages in the food supply chain and refers to food appropriate for human consumption that is discarded or left to spoil ( [[#HLPE--2014|HLPE 2014]] ). Options that could reduce FLW include: investing in harvesting and post-harvesting technologies in developing countries, taxing and other incentives to reduce business and consumer-level waste in developed countries, mandatory FLW reporting and reduction targets for large food businesses, regulation of unfair trading practices, and active marketing of cosmetically imperfect products ( [[#van%20Giesen--2019|van Giesen and de Hooge 2019]] ; Sinclair [[#Taylor--2019|Taylor et al. 2019]] ). Other studies suggested providing options of longer-lasting products and behavioural changes (e.g., through information provision) that cause dietary and consumption changes and motivate consumers to actively make decisions that reduce FLW. Reductions of FLW along the food chain bring a range of benefits beyond GHG mitigation, including reducing environmental stress (e.g., water and land competition, land degradation, desertification), safeguarding food security, and reducing poverty ( [[#Galford--2020|Galford et al. 2020]] ; [[#Venkatramanan--2020|Venkatramanan et al. 2020]] ). Additionally, FLW reduction is crucial for achieving SDG 12 which calls for ensuring ‘sustainable consumption and production patterns’ through lowering per capita global food waste by 50% at the retail and consumer level and reducing food losses along food supply chains by 2030. In line with these SDG targets, it is estimated that reducing FLW can free up several million km 2 of land ( ''high confidence'' ). The interlinkages between reducing FLW and food system sustainability are discussed in Chapter 12. Recent literature identifies a range of barriers to climate change mitigation through FLW reduction, which are linked to technological, biophysical, socio-economic, financial and cultural contexts at regional and local levels ( [[#Vogel--2018|Vogel and Meyer 2018]] ; [[#Gromko--2019|Gromko and Abdurasalova 2019]] ; [[#Rogissart--2019|Rogissart et al. 2019]] ; [[#Blok--2020|Blok et al. 2020]] ). Examples of these barriers include infrastructural and capacity limitations, institutional regulations, financial resources, constraining resources (e.g., energy), information gaps (e.g., with retailers), and consumers’ behaviour ( [[#Gromko--2019|Gromko and Abdurasalova 2019]] ; [[#Blok--2020|Blok et al. 2020]] ).

'''Conclusions from AR5 and IPCC Special Reports (SR1.5, SROCC and SRCCL); mitigation potential, costs, and pathways.''' In AR5, reduced FLW was considered as a mitigation measure that could substantially lower emissions, with estimated mitigation potential of 0.6–6.0 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 in the food supply chain (Smith et al. 2014). In the SRCCL, the technical mitigation potential of reducing food and agricultural waste was estimated at 0.76–4.5 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ( [[#Bajželj--2014|Bajželj et al. 2014]] ; [[#Dickie--2014b|Dickie et al. 2014b]] ; [[#Hawken--2017|Hawken 2017]] ) (SRCCL, [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2|Chapter 2]] and 6).

'''Developments since AR5 and IPCC Special Reports (SR1.5, SROCC and SRCCL).''' Since the SRCCL, there have been very few quantitative estimates of the mitigation potential of FLW reductions. Evidence suggests that reducing FLW together with overall food intake could have substantial mitigation potential, equating to an average of 0.3 tCO 2 -eq capita –1 ( [[#Ivanova--2020|Ivanova et al. 2020]] ). Some regional sectoral studies indicate that reducing FLW in the EU can reduce emissions by 186 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 , the equivalent of around 15% of the environmental impacts (climate, acidification, and eutrophication) of the entire food value chain ( [[#Scherhaufer--2018|Scherhaufer et al. 2018]] ). In the UK, disruptive low-carbon innovations relating to FLW reduction were found to be associated with potential emissions reductions ranging between 2.6 and 3.6 MtCO 2 -eq ( [[#Wilson--2019|Wilson et al. 2019]] ). Other studies investigated the effect of tax mechanisms, such as ‘pay as you throw’ for household waste, on the mitigation potential of reducing FLW. Generally, these mechanisms are recognised as particularly effective in reducing the amount of waste and increasing the recycling rate of households ( [[#Carattini--2018|Carattini et al. 2018]] ; [[#Rogissart--2019|Rogissart et al. 2019]] ). Technological FWL mitigation opportunities exist throughout the food supply chain; post-harvest opportunities for FLW reductions are discussed in Chapter 12. Based on IPCC AR4 GWP100 values for CH 4 and N 2 O, greatest economic mitigation potential (up to USD100 tCO 2 –1 ) for the period 2020–2050 from FLW reduction is estimated to be in Asia and Pacific (192.3 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ) followed by Developed Countries (101.6 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ) ( [[#Roe--2021|Roe et al. 2021]] ). These estimates reflect diverted agricultural production and do not capture potential from avoided land-use changes.

'''Critical assessment and conclusion.''' There is ''medium confidence'' that reduced FLW has large global technical mitigation potential of 2.1 (0.1–5.8) GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 including savings in the full value chain and using GWP100 and a range of IPCC values for CH 4 and N 2 O. Potentials at 3.7 (2.2–5.1) GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 are considered plausible. When accounting for diverted agricultural production only, the feasible potential is 0.5 (0.0–0.9) GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 . See the section above for the joint land-use effects of food related demand-side measures which increases three-fold when accounting for the land-use effects as well. But this would overlap with other measures and is therefore not additive. Regionally, FLW reduction is feasible anywhere but its potential needs to be understood in a wider and changing socio-cultural context that determines nutrition ( ''hig'' ''h confidence'' ).

<div id="7.4.5.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="improved-and-enhanced-use-of-wood-products"></span>