SOCIETAL COSTS -'ç

1 R-' SOCIETAL COSTS AND BENEFITSThe designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country,territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies orproducts of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAOin preference to others of a similar nature that are not views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of 978-92-5-108510-3 (print)E-ISBN 978-92-5-108511-0 (PDF) FAO 2014 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product.

2 Except where otherwise indicated, materialmay be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services,provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO s endorsement of users views,products or services is not implied in any requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via or addressed to information products are available on the FAO website ( ) and can be purchased through this documentFood Wastage Footprint (FWF) is a project led by Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, Climate, Energy and Tenure Division.

3 Phase I of the FWF project mod-eled the impacts of food loss and waste on climate, land, water and biodiversity. Phase II of the project, commissioned to the Research Institutefor Organic Farming (FiBL), Switzerland, expanded the project to include modules on full- cost accounting of SOCIETAL externalities of food report is linked to three other publications: (i) Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources (FAO 2013); (ii) Toolkit: Reducing theFood Wastage Footprint (FAO 2013); and Food Wastage Footprint: Full- cost Accoounting (FAO 2014).

4 This publication is aimed both towardconsumers and their purchasing and consumption habits and to policy-makers who have the potential to set regulations and make investmentsthat will lesson the burden of food wastage on society and our planet s natural resources. AcknowledgementsFAO wishes to thank FIBL staff Adrian Muller, Christian Schader, Uta Schmidt and Patricia Schwegler, FiBL. Thanks also go to Anthony Bennett,Alessia Cecchini, Zhijun Chen, Martin Gummert, Mathilde Iweins, Laura Marchelli, Soren Moller, Ludovica Principato and Andrea Segr for theircontributions to the case studies.

5 Francesca Lucci is thanked for the design of all products of the FWF project, including videos FWF project was undertaken with the generous financial support of the Federal Republic of FWF project products are available at: Summary5 Introduction61. Methods82. Case studies of mitigation Overview of mitigation strategies9 Case study 1: Milk cooler (Kenya)11 Case study 2: Household food waste prevention (UK)16 Case study 3: Rice Super Bags (Philippines)21 Case study 4: Improved carrot sorting (Switzerland)26 Case study 5: Food banks (Germany)30 Case study 6: Canteen surplus to food banks (Italy)36 Case study 7: Food wastage as pig feed (Australia) Synthesis of case studies453.

6 Lessons learned from the case studies464. Conclusions and recommendations50 References52 ANNEX:INDICATORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF FOOD WASTAGE MITIGATION MEASURES (inserted into the back cover)Table of ContentsFigure 1:Case studies of food wastage mitigation along the pyramid9 Figure 2:Key indicators of food wastage measures along the food wastage pyramid45 List of Tables Table 1:Main global environmental impacts of food wastage 6 Table 2: COSTS of SOCIETAL impacts of food wastage 7 Table 3:Monetization of milk wastage in Kenya12 Table 4.

7 Economic and socio-environmental benefit analysis of milk coolers in Kenya14 Table 5:Monetization of household food and drink waste in the UK17 Table 6:Economic and socio-environmental benefit analysis of the Household Food Waste Prevention Programme in the UK20 Table 7:Monetization of rice wastage in the Philippines22 Table 8: Economic and socio-environmental benefit analysis of Rice Super Bags in the Philippines24 Table 9:Rice Super Bag analysis scaled to national level in the Philippines25 Table 10: Monetization of carrot wastage in Switzerland27 Table 11: Economic and socio-environmental benefit analysis of carrot-sorting machines in Switzerland29 Table 12: Monetization of food and drink waste in Germany31 Table 13: Economic and environmental benefit analysis of the German Tafel in Berlin34 Table 14: Monetization of food wastage in Italy (consumption level only)37 Table 15: Economic and socio-environmental benefit analysis of the Barilla food redistribution project in Italy 39 Table 16.

8 Monetization of household food and drink waste in Australia 41 Table 17: Economic and socio-environmental benefit analysis of feeding food waste to pigs in Australia43 List of Figures5 Executive SummaryIn recent years, progress has been made globally in establishing sustainable food production systemsaimed at improving food and nutrition security and the judicial use of natural resources. Yet, all of thoseefforts are in vain when the food produced in those systems is lost or wasted and never consumed. As food wastage increases in parallel with production increases, it becomes even more important torecognize that reducing food wastage must be part of any effort aimed at sustainable productionand food security.

9 In addition to this, there also are environmental repercussions, including all of thenatural resources used and greenhouse gases emitted during the production or disposal of food thatis not consumed. Analysis of food wastage causalities suggests that it is economically rational to loose food as part ofthe COSTS are externalized, and incentives to producers and consumers along the supply chain furtherencourages not taking into account negative externalities such as environmental COSTS . However,food wastage has huge environmental impacts and corresponding SOCIETAL COSTS that need to bedealt with.

10 Mitigation of this wastage must become a priority for each actor along the food chain. This paper presents a portfolio of potential food wastage mitigation measures, illustrating the grossand net economic, environmental and SOCIETAL benefits of each. Adopting appropriate food wastagemitigation measures can offer corresponding huge environmental benefits, leading to associatednet gains for societies in terms of reduced economic losses and external COSTS . The performance ofmeasures aiming at avoiding food wastage tends to be higher than for reusing, recycling of foodproducts and certainly higher than landfilling.