Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-5 (section)

==== 5.5.2.6 Shortening supply chains ====

<div id="section-5-5-2-6-shortening-supply-chains-block-1"></div>

Encouraging consumption of locally produced food and enhancing efficiency of food processing and transportation can, in some cases, minimise food loss, contribute to food security, and reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption and food loss. For example, Michalský and Hooda (2015) <sup>[[#fn:r938|938]]</sup> , through a quantitative assessment of GHG emissions of selected fruits and vegetables in the UK, reported that increased local production offers considerable emissions savings. They also highlighted that when imports are necessary, importing from Europe instead of the Global South can contribute to considerable GHG emissions savings. Similar results were found by Audsley et al. (2010) <sup>[[#fn:r939|939]]</sup> , with exceptions for some foods, such as tomatoes, peppers or sheep and goat meat. Similarly, a study in India shows that long and fragmented supply chains, which lead to disrupted price signals, unequal power relations perverse incentives and long transport time, could be a key barrier to reducing post-harvest losses (CIPHET 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r940|940]]</sup> ).

In other cases, environmental benefits associated with local food can be offset by inefficient production systems with high emission intensity and resource needs, such as water, due to local conditions. For example, vegetables produced in open fields can have much lower GHG emissions than locally produced vegetables from heated greenhouses (Theurl et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r941|941]]</sup> ). Whether locally grown food has a lower carbon footprint depends on the on-farm emissions intensity as well as the transport emissions. In some cases, imported food may have a lower carbon footprint than locally grown food because some distant countries can produce food at much lower emissions intensity. For example, Avetisyan et al. (2014) <sup>[[#fn:r942|942]]</sup> reported that regional variation of emission intensities associated with production of ruminant products have large implications for emissions associated with local food. They showed that consumption of local livestock products can reduce emissions due to short supply chains in countries with low emission intensities; however, this might not be the case in countries with high emission intensities.

In addition to improving emission intensity, efficient distribution systems for local food are needed for lowering carbon footprints (Newman et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r943|943]]</sup> ). Emissions associated with food transport depend on the mode of transport, for example, emissions are lower for rail rather than truck (Brodt et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r944|944]]</sup> ). Tobarra et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r945|945]]</sup> reported that emissions saving from local food may vary across seasons and regions of import. They highlighted that, in Spain, local production of fruits and vegetables can reduce emissions associated with imports from Africa but imports from France and Portugal can save emissions in comparison to production in Spain. Additionally, local production of seasonal products in Spain reduces emissions, while imports of out-of-season products can save emissions rather than producing them locally.

In summary, consuming locally grown foods can reduce GHG emissions, if they are grown efficiently ( ''high confidence'' ). The emissions reduction potential varies by region and season. Whether food with shorter supply chains has a lower carbon footprint depends on both the on-farm emissions intensity as well as the transport emissions. In some cases, imported food may have a lower carbon footprint because some distant agricultural regions can produce food at lower emissions intensities.

<span id="mitigation-adaptation-food-security-and-land-use-synergies-trade-offs-and-co-benefits"></span>