global initiative on food loss and waste reduction robert van otterdijk

Global Initiative onFood Loss and Waste Reduction

Robert van Otterdijk

Introduction

Global Food Loss and Food Waste

1 / 3

1.3 billion ton( 1 300 000 000 000 kg )

Global Initiative on Food Losses andWaste Reduction – SAVE FOOD

1 Increased awareness on the impact of, and solutions for food loss and waste.

2 Collaboration and coordination of world-wide initiatives on food loss and waste reduction.

3 Research for Policy, strategy and programme development for food loss and waste reduction.

4 Support to investment programmes and projects, implemented by private and public sectors.

Multi-Stakeholder Project – USD 52 million – 5 years

A new strategy for food loss reduction

Strategies for reducing food losses are being adjusted.

Reasons:

- growing influence of private sector led enterprises

- global market integration

- urbanization

- growing south-south food trade

- ‘lengthening’ of food chains.

A new strategy for food loss reduction

Supply chain approach - Viable business case

Sustainability of food supply chains

Feasibility / effectiveness of interventions:- technically

- economically- nutritionally, food security-wise

- environmentally- socially and culturally

Global Initiative on Food Losses andWaste Reduction – SAVE FOOD

THE KNOWLEDGE GAP

Magnitude of food losses in food supply chains

Impact and feasibility of solutions

Beneficial effect of food loss reduction

Importance of different causes

Causes of food losses in food supply chains

SAVE FOOD – Case StudiesFood Loss Assessments: Causes and Solutions

1 - Selection of countries and subsectors

- Existing and on-going programmes- Collaboration with partners

Methodology for the Case Studies in the Field

Selected so far in Africa:

• Kenya: maize, banana, dairy, fish• Uganda: maize, oilseeds, beans• Cameroon: tomato, cassava, potato• Rwanda: maize, tomato, potato, milk

Selected so far in Asia:

• India: rice, beans, milk, fish• Indonesia: tbd



2 Identification of Consultants

- Subsector Specialist, actor in the food supply chain- Agricultural Economist

3 Selection of Food Supply Chains

- Based on smallholder producers- Significant scale of food production- Preferably including agro-processing and urban market


4 Uniform Methodology

- Preliminary Screening of Food Losses (‘Screening’).

- Survey Food Loss Assessment (‘Survey’).- Load Tracking and Sampling Assessment (‘Sampling’).- Monitoring and Solution Finding (‘Synthesis’).

- Multi-stakeholder validation workshop- Food Loss Reduction Strategy- Investment program to reduce food losses


B A N A N A

Murang'a, Kirinyaga, Meru, Kisii CountiesAugust – October 2012

Josephine Natecho SimiyuJames Paul Kamau NjuguHorticultural Crops Development Authority


B A N A N A

The banana subsector

NATIONALfrom small scale producers

390,000

Volume ton/yr Value $/year

Plantain (Cooking Banana) 781,000 154 million

Dessert (Ripening Banana) 520,000 117 million


B A N A N AThe dessert banana supply chain

Retail (Kiosk, hawkers, supermarkets, institutions)

Harvesting

Bulking by Wholesaler

De-handing

Grading

Packaging

Ripening

De-handing

Ripening

Storage

Cleaning

Transport with pick up or closed truck


B A N A N AThe plantain banana supply chain

Harvesting

Bulking by Wholesaler

De-handing

PackagingStorage

De-handing

Consumer

Retailer (Kiosk, institutions) and processors Retailer (Supermarkets)

Sorting and grading


B A N A N A

Point in the FSCQuality

reduction (%)

Quantitative loss (%) causes

% handled

% losses

% of weighed

losses

Transportation 10 Handling, overloading

Ripening 20 Temperature, oxygen

Storage 10

wholesalers 5 100 3 3 Rough handling, temperature

hawkers 40 7.5 3 temperature

streetside vendors 30 10 3 temperature

kiosks 20 8 1.6 temperature

supermarkets 10 10 6 0.6 Rough handling

Total 11.2

Quantitative and qualitative losses occurring in the dessert banana supply chain


B A N A N AQuantitative and qualitative losses occurring in the plantain banana supply chain

Point in the FSCQuality

reduction (%)

Quantitative loss (%) causes

% handled

% losses

% of weighed losses

Transportation 30 Handling, overloading

wholesalers 10 100 0.2 0.2 Rough handling, temperature

streetside vendors 20 45 4 1.8 temperature

kiosks 20 50 5 2.5 temperature

supermarkets 10 5 2 0.1 Rough handling

Total 4.6


B A N A N ASolutions to food lossesCritical Loss Point Economic loss

(USD)Intervention to reduce

lossesLoss

reduction % / USDCost of

intervention (USD)

Transportation 13,000,000 Training of Trainers 40%5,200,000 158,000

Retail of dessert banana at street sides and kiosks

460

Cooler boxes mounted with umbrella shades

50%230 120

4,600,000 50%

2,300,000 1,200,000

Bulking at road side 2,600,000 Collection sheds 1,300,000 610,000

Handling of dessert banana at wholesale market

3,100,000Construction of pre-cooling facilities at the main wholesale markets.

50%1,500,000 6,000,000

Ripening of dessert banana 20,500,000 Construction of ripening

chambers.50%

10,300,000 11,200,000


B A N A N AFood loss reduction strategy

1. Training / capacity building, to add on social capital, especially for traders, processors, wholesalers, retailers. Strengthen the supply chains downstream (post-farm)

2. Shorter supply chains. Minimise handling of produce in storage and distribution systems,, Mobilisation of farmers to form marketing organisations through which traders can directly access their produce.

3. Value-added processing by specialized processing enterprises, and market development, for diversified and value-added banana products

4. Postharvest pest/ disease management plan

5. Technology, structures and equipment, at trader and wholesale level

6. National banana policy

7. Monitoring mechanism to estimate food losses


M A I Z E

Trans-Nzoia-West and Lugari DistrictsNovember 2012 - January 2013

Zachariah Mairura KiyondiEmily OsenaAbraham BarnoMinistry of Agriculture


M A I Z E The maize subsector

Volumeton/year

ValueUSD/year

Raw material dry maize 3.4 million 1 billion

Maize grain 628,000 247 million

Green maize on cob 419,600 84 million

Whole meal - formal 374,000 119 million

Whole meal - posho 1.1 million 582 million

Sifted maize meal 300,000 177 million

Imports 360,000 132 million

Export 12,000 5 million

5 million small scale producers

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=UQXRM713PWkBKM&tbnid=YDfL3usdxCGF1M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://depositphotos.com/3131267/stock-photo-Maize-grains.html&ei=yG7IUbH7EsniOoXbgOgH&bvm=bv.48293060,d.bGE&psig=AFQjCNEf_55KGljyaGzMz86VqxPPhqCMlg&ust=1372176411800528


M A I Z E The maize supply chainFarming

Harvestingcutting, stooking, dehusking

Shelling

Drying

Storage

Salesto village traders/

consolidators

Salesto urban traders

Salesto rural households

Fumigation, Storageat NCPB

Retailkiosk/ dukas/ market

Millingmedium/ large millers

MillingPosho millers

Retailsupermarkets


M A I Z E

Critical Loss Point Product % lossLugari

% lossTrans Nzoia

Causes Solutions

Harvesting Maize on cobs 3.3 1.0 Left-overs,

shatteringTraining,

changing attitude

Shelling Grain 1.6 - 3.2 0.4 - 2.0 Spillage, left on cob

Training, changing attitude

Drying on farm Grain 3.0 Insufficient drying Mechanical drying,Mobile grain dryers

Storage: weevil damage Grain 8.0 10.7 Packaging, protection

Insecticides, Small metal silos

Storage: discolorationQualitative loss Grain 8.8 8.5 Temperature

humidity Conditioned storage

Posho milling Whole meal flour 3.5 Spillage,

contaminationGood Manufacturing

Practices

Critical loss points in the maize supply chain


M A I Z E Critical loss points in the maize supply chain


M A I Z E Low loss points in the maize supply chain

Low Loss Point Product % lossLugari

% lossTrans Nzoia Good Practice

Formal milling Sifted flour - 1.0 Profit driven systems

Transportation and marketing Grain 0.03 - Appropriate transport, profit

driven actions

Trader (rotten grains) Grain 0.4 - Commercial orientation

Trader (spillage) Grain 0.1 - Commercial orientation


M A I Z E Food loss reduction strategy

1. Awareness raising combined with training and organization of smallholders

2. Value chain development and organization

3. Centralisation and contract services.


M I L K

Embu - Meru - Nyeri - Nakuru - Uasin Gishu - Kisumu - Kericho CountiesNovember – December 2012

Hezekiah G. MuriukiJoyce M. Kiio-Mutua


M I L K

National production Volumeton/year

ValueUSD/year

Raw milk - all animals 5.2 million 1530 million

Raw milk – dairy cattle (3.4 million) 2.5 million

Raw milk – zebu (14 million) 640,000

Domestic milk products in 2011marketed through formal channels

Volumeton/year

ValueUSD/year

Fresh pasteurized milk 373,000 307 million

UHT white milk 84,000 178 million

Cultured milk 38,400 59 million

Yoghurt 36,800 113 million

UHT Flavoured milk 14,800 31 million

Powder milk 1,200 6 million

Cheese 54 508,000

The milk subsector

95% by 1.8 million small scale dairy farmers


M I L KThe milk supply chainMilkingevening milk

Storage

Transportationto collection point

Mixing

Milkingmorning milk

Grading

Grading

Transportationto milk bar / shop / hotel

Cooling / Storage Retail sales

Transportationto Collection Centre

Salesto trader


M I L K

Supply chain actors


M I L KQuantitative losses in the dairy cattle milk supply chainStage in the supply chain % loss % handled Weighed losses %

Causes

Milking and storageon-farm 6.0 95 5.7 Mainly spoilage of evening milk

Family consumption - 35 0

Community supply - 17 0 Negligible spillage due to very short supply chain

Trader collection centres 1.5 40 0.6 No cooling facility

Co-op/ SHG 0.6 30 0.2 Aluminium milk containers and cooling facility

Traders/ Hawkers 0.9 10 0.1 Transport 50 – 300 ltr of milk per day on motorbikes

At milk bars and others 2.0 28 0.6 With milk cooling system, but expensive and unreliable power

Processors’ collection centres 0.4 20 0.1 Milk rejected by the processor

Total loss along the supply chain 7.3


M I L KFood loss reduction strategy

Capacity building along the milk supply chain, promoting collective milk marketing and raising awareness on ethical practices:

1. Quality-based milk payment system.2. Training of farmers on farm management practices.3. Training dairy industry players on hygienic milk handling and quality testing4. Industry regulation to carry out quality surveillance of milk5. Promotion of cold chain throughout.6. Commercialization of traditional and value-added dairy products.7. Increased investments in rural infrastructure: all-weather roads and electricity8. National Dairy Development Policy as internalized by the 2010 Dairy Master Plan.


F I S H

Migori, Homabay, Siaya CountiesSeptember – December 2012

Simon K. MungutiQuality Control Officer, Ministry of Fisheries Development

Joy M. KiiruAgricultural Economist, University of Nairobi


F I S H

Year 2011 production VolumeTon/year

ValueUSD/year

Total fish landed 167,800 229 million

Aquaculture 20,000

Omena 72,300 37.9 million

Tilapia 23,100 52.1 million

Nile perch 47,100 108 million

The fish subsector

Omena (silver cyprinid - Rastrineobola argentea)

Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)


F I S H

Harvesting/ fishing

Transportation from fishing ground

Sun drying

Packing into gunny bagsTemporary storage by

some wholesalers Transportation

Landing/ fish distribution to traders

Retailer

Harvesting/ fishing

Transportation to landing site

Weighing

Size grading

Packing

Transporting

Retail selling

Omena Tilapia The supply chains


F I S H

Critical Loss Point Cause

FishingQuality loss 4.5% of value USD 1,100 per

boat/year Fish stay in nets for long hours at harvesting ground.

Packing / storingQuality loss 5.5% of value USD 2,500 per

trader/yearFish not kept cold awaiting and during transport to market.

Tilapia

Critical Loss Point Volume or %age lost Cause of lossDryingQuantitative loss

6%or 850 kg per trader / year. Drying surface run off during the rain storms.

DryingQuantitative loss 1-2% Spilling during drying

Omena

Food Losses


F I S HFood losses reduction measuresOmena.

1. Fence off fish landing beaches

2. Drying racks

Tilapia.

3. Fish landing facilities

4. Use recommended fishing gear

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=K-84oO9emLplqM&tbnid=P93xy8kN4XXnbM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://queenslandcatch.com.au/something-fishy/fresh-versus-frozen/&ei=Fm7IUZi8Fc2BPa21gZgI&bvm=bv.48293060,d.bGE&psig=AFQjCNHjM6m-WqF5S_YAhvTXJWSM18PshA&ust=1372176261989919


F I S HFood losses reduction strategy

1. Address flouting fishing regulations.

2. Livelihood diversification for fishing communities.

3. Adopt demand-driven approach for capital investment in infrastructure.

4. Involve local communities in management of landing sites.

Establish a stakeholders task-force including the county governments, to develop an intervention programme, and to mobilize resources

global initiative on food loss and waste reduction robert van otterdijk

Documents

food waste

food chains

food loss reduction

food supply chains slide

introduction global

south food trade

food securitywise

food supply chains impact