The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) wanted to find out per capita food waste generated after the food reached retail stores, restaurants and canteens and homes. They scoured research studies and data to estimate the amount wasted.

[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]

Only 52 countries had data on the volume of food waste generated per capita, UNEP reported in the Food Waste Index, 2021.

In India, the researchers could find only three studies to rely on. All of them dealt with food waste generated at only the household level.

Using this limited data, they calculated the waste generated across the globe. According to the extrapolated data:

Every individual wastes some 121 kilograms of food each year. Out of this, 74 kg is at the household level while 32 kg and 15 kg are at food service and retail level respectively. Overall, 17 per cent of food is lost between retail and home.

Contrary to popular belief, the findings showed that low-income countries wasted more food than the rich ones. While high-income countries wasted 79 kg per capita per year of food at the household level, upper-middle income and lower-middle income countries wasted 76 and 91 kg  per capita per year of food respectively.

But there is a catch. The reason for this conflicting finding is the way food waste has been defined in the study: It included inedible parts such as bones, shells and vegetable peels along with the edible portions.

This definition overlooks the fact that in developed countries, processed food reaches homes while in lower-income countries, raw food is brought in and meals are prepared from scratch. This means that in poor countries, inedible parts are discarded at household levels.

In developed countries, similar waste would have been generated at the processing unit, but it is not in the purview of UNEP’s index.

The data on the breakdown between food and inedible parts wasted is available only in a few high-income countries. It showed that around 50 per cent of food wasted at home is inedible. The report acknowledged that the proportion of inedible parts may be higher in lower-income countries, but because the data unavailable, it could not factor the same in their results.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization created the Food Loss Index in 2018, which measures losses across the supply chain, up to but not including retail. This index, however, does not provide data comparable with the Food Waste Index and looks only at limited commodities.

Nearly 14 per cent of food across the globe is wasted during agriculture and processing level, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s State of Food and Agriculture report published in 2019.

Central and southern Asia accounted for most food loss (20 per cent) between post harvest and distribution periods. But inedible food does not get recorded here either.

UNEP suggests that countries disaggregate the data on food waste. Other than separating the edible from the inedible, information on the destination of waste — sewers, home composting and animal feed — would help in policies and interventions to reduce waste.

Developing as well as poor countries need to quickly get their acts together and collate data on food waste in local conditions. For India, which fails even to segregate wet and dry waste, this may remain a pipe dream for a long time.

Segregation would also help use traditional methods of dealing with waste. In rural areas, a large part of the vegetable waste is used to feed livestock.

Reducing food waste is crucial for many reasons. One, the food wasted could have been fed to someone. About 25 per cent of available calories and protein are lost globally. This includes 10-15 per cent fats and 18-41 per cent vitamins and minerals, including 23-33 per cent of vitamin A, folate, calcium, iron and zinc.

At the same time, resources such as water, land, energy, fertilisers used to grow food are also wasted. 

Food systems have been identified as one of the major contributors to climate change. The United Nations-mandated Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 underlines that countries halve their per capita food waste.

A 50 per cent reduction in food waste alone could meet the 2 degrees Celsius limit set under the Paris Agreement.  

India produces 50 kg / capita / year of food waste at the household level, according to the baseline created by UNEP. If half of this is inedible waste, the remaining 25 kg / capita / year can be easily managed.


Food Waste and Climate Change

A landmark United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2018 on global warming made clear the disastrous effects of allowing the global average temperature to increase by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) (measured between 1750 and 2100).The report indicated a pathway to avoid catastrophe

The Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sector accounted for around 13 per cent of CO2, 44 per cent of methane and 81 per cent of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from human activities between 2007 and 2016.

That is around 13 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent or 23 per cent of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). For a two-in-three chance of staying within 1.5°C of warming, methane emissions from agriculture need to reduce by 24 to 47 per cent by 2050 (relative to a 2010 baseline)

N2O emissions from the same sector need to reduce as much as 26 per cent. The report also highlighted the need for carbon sequestration — trapping carbon through technological or natural solutions — including enhancing soil carbon through sustainable land management.

The ‘food’ sector is broader than agriculture. It includes harvesting, transportation, storage and retail of food crops and products. Taken as its own sector, it accounts for between 21 and 37 per cent of the total human-caused GHG emissions.

Around 30 per cent of food produced is wasted, accounting for around 4.5 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent or 8 to 10 per cent of global GHG emissions.

Food waste, which represents irresponsible consumption, should be an immediate target of emission reduction efforts in this sector. As with most efforts to address the climate crisis, the focus needs to be on the developed world. The median amount of food waste per capita in large developed economies is significantly higher than in large developing economies, according to data available on the Food and Agricultural Organization.

The developing country median is significantly propped up by Brazil, which has the highest figure for per capita food waste (477 kg per 1,000 people) for any country, by quite a margin.

That is largely explained by Brazil’s domestic bio-fuels sector that generates a huge amount of sugarcane demand (and waste).

Without Brazil and its massive biofuel footprint, the median per capita food waste for large developing economies is around 57 kg, significantly lower than the developed countries’ median.

The IPCC recognises the value of replacing fuels like oil and natural gas with biofuels, but also cautions that they place huge demands on land, leading to desertification, land degradation and food insecurity. Precisely estimating the climate impact of this waste is a challenge. The emissions intensity of food production and distribution systems varies across economies.

Per capita food wastage footprint on climate in high-income countries is more than double that of low-income countries due to wasteful food distribution and consumption patterns in high-income countries, according to a 2011 FAO estimate.

The data clearly explains why food waste has to be contained in order to fight climate change. And in doing so, it also highlights the need for food waste management and reduction.


 

Share is Caring, Choose Your Platform!

Receive Daily Updates

Stay updated with current events, tests, material and UPSC related news

Recent Posts

  • Context:-

    At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.

    [wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]

    What is LEAF Coalition?

    • Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
    • LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.

    Why LEAF Coalition?

    • The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
    • Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
    • Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
    • The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
    • REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
    • It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment. 
    • The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
    • Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
    • Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.

    Brazil & India 

    • Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
    • Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
    • It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
    • It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
    • The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.

    According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.

    Tribes, Forests and Government

    Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.

    Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.

    For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.  

    To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.

    Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.

    There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;

    Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.

    Way Forward

    • Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
    • With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
    • Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.

    Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:

    “The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”

    Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.