Food loss and waste accounting: the case of the Philippine food supply chain
From Firenze University Press Journal: Bio-based and Applied Economics (BAE)
Anieluz Pastolero, University of Pavia
Maria Sassi, University of Pavia
The widespread attention placed on losses is not of recent concern. It has been first expressed as one of FAO’s organizational mandates during its establishment in 1945 (Parfitt et al., 2010). The matter was highlighted again during the Seventh Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1975 when they aimed to halve postharvest losses by 1985 (Fabi & Eng-lish, 2019). Long after, the food crisis in 2007–2008 paved the renewed inter-est in addressing the problem (Fabi et al., 2021). By 2011, the issue was better realized by releasing the first global estimate of FLW, where about one-third of the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Subsequently, the international community recognized the concerning levels of food loss and waste (FLW) in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and stated its reduction goal in Target 12.3.
The broad interest in FLW is due to its implications transcending the issue of unrealized physical food quantities. For example, the FAO (2017) reports that recovering or minimizing food outflow from the chain can increase productivity, promote food and nutrition security, and minimize negative environmental impacts. Further, there are also moral overtones surrounding the problem (Gjerris, 2020), given that 155 million peo-ple globally are acutely food insecure (FSIN & GNAFC, 2021). However, to design an effective policy interven-tion, there is a need to establish empirical information on the magnitude and causes of FLW generation. More-over, at the country level, there is a need to strengthen efforts to understand the problem at a disaggregate scale, particularly on the different commodity food supply chains (FSCs). Currently, limitations to an evidence-based policy-making process in this field exist, which also constraints the synchronized global effort to reduce FLW.
For example, Xue et al. (2017) identified three significant biases in the literature: first, the analyses are more concentrated in industrialized countries; second, over half of the publications relied on secondary data, with some authors using outdated data; and third, studies are abundant at the retail and consumption stages.These biases imply that information on the issue is limited in developing countries such as the Philippines. In this country, the potential benefits of FLW reduction on food security and poverty reduction are vital if we consider that 64% of the Filipino population is chroni-cally food insecure (IPC, n.d.). Further, two of the most important FSC actors, farmers and fishermen, are con-sistently classified as the country’s poorest groups. Moreover, in the Philippines, commodity losses from harvesting to distribution are reported to reach as high as 50% (Mopera, 2016). The FAO (2019) notes that this is a manifestation of the significant constraints actors face in performing their activities. Collectively, these imply that the recovery or prevention of food outflow from the chain has great potential in feeding and improving the livelihoods of people in the country.Despite the potential positive impacts of FLW reduc-tion on the Philippines’ sustainable development, stud-ies on the matter lack. Following Gustavsson et al. (2011), we considered FLW at the main stages of the FSC, namely the agricultural production, postharvest han-dling and storage, processing and packaging, distribu-tion, and consumption. Further, we used the concept of FLW of Gustavsson et al. (2011) to understand loss/waste in the all stages of the rice, corn, and banana FSCs. The selected commodities are three of the most important crops in the Philippines, creating significant implications on the country’s agricultural sector.
Moreover, owing to the methodological elements we used in this paper, our estimations can be considered as the first national accounting of edible food reductions initially allocated for human consumption across all stages of the FSC in selected Philippine commodities. We also included the consumption stage in our FSC analysis, a level of investi-gation where knowledge on the problem is lacking. Final-ly, through an extensive review of relevant literature, we attempt to explain the causes of FLW generation to rec-ognize the actions or decisions that lead to the problem. As previously mentioned, we used the definition offered by Gustavsson et al. (2011), where food loss refers to the reduction in food quantities from the activities of agricultural production until the point prior to retail, while that of food waste is found at the retail and con-sumption stages. The terms are further characterized such that only edible portions and food shares for human con-sumption are considered FLW (Gustavsson et al., 2 011). We followed the interpretation offered by Gustavsson et al. (2011) because we adopted their methodology in esti-mating the magnitudes of FLW. This choice was impor-tant prior to our assessment because it was crucial to operationalize the elements characterizing the concepts. The literature on the subject, however, articulates that there is no fixed definition and that various entities pro-vide different interpretations depending on their objective of assessing the issue (Chaboud & Daviron, 2017; FAO, 2014). As such, publications on the matter have varying illustrations and usage of the terms (FAO, 2014; Parfitt et al., 2010; Ishangulyyev et al., 2019; Chaboud & Daviron, 2017; Garrone et al., 2014; Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; Galli et al., 2019; von Massow et al., 2019).To apply the approach of Gustavsson et al. (2013), we conducted an extensive literature review to gather the potential variables and organized them into a matrix to facilitate the data selection and estimation of FLW. This effort was due to a lack of systematized information from official sources. It also reinforces the need for more research and information on the issue.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-11501
Read Full Text: https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/bae/article/view/11501
