1) Approximately 1/3 of all food produced globally is lost or wasted, amounting to around 1 billion metric tons annually. 2) Losses vary by food type, from 20-45% for fruits and vegetables to 30-45% for meat, cereals, and roots/tubers. 3) A new CGIAR program is testing ways to reduce post-harvest losses and food waste through 2016-2022, including public-private partnerships and comparing the climate impacts of different loss reduction measures.

1. Reduction of Post-harvest Losses and Waste
CCAFS programme – opportunties to integrate and scale up climate action
Toine Timmermans, 10 November 2017

2. 2
1/3 OF ALL PRODUCED FOOD IS NEVER CONSUMED
1 BILLION
METRIC TONS
25.650.000 TEU
1400 x
WORLD’S LARGEST CARRIER
20%
FOOD LOSSES
MEAT
30%
FOOD LOSSES
CEREAL
45%
FOOD LOSSES
FRUIT &
VEGETABLES
20%
FOOD LOSSES
OILSEEDS
& PULSES
45%
FOOD LOSSES
ROOTS &
TUBERS
20%
FOOD LOSSES
DAIRY
30%
FOOD LOSSES
FISH &
SEAFOOD
‘CSCL Globe’, Largest seagoing vessel in the world: 18 270 TEU
1 000 000 000 METRIC TONS = ± 1404 x 'CSCL Globe’

3. CGIAR – CCAFS Program Reducing FLW
 New program in the context of Climate Change
Agriculture and Food Security (2016 – 2022)
 2017 Develop new Public-private Partnerships

4. Modelling climate impacts of measures for food
loss reduction
Comparing carbon impacts:
increase of food supply
vs.
added costs of loss-reducing measures
increasing cumulative carbon impact per kg product along the chain
related to energy, fuel, packaging, etc.

5. Comparing climate impacts of alternative loss
reduction scenarios
MODELLING CO2 IMPACTS OF FOOD PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN
Jan Broeze, version 6 November 2017
CASE ....
Impacts are based on GER data, largely aligned with EcoInvent database
Geographical region (production)
North Africa, West and Central Asia
Geographical region (consumption)
Europe
Crop
Grapes
GLOBAL RESULT
TOTAL GHG IMPACT PER KG CROP
9.75
1.061 EXERGY ANALYSIS
CHAIN PRODUCT EFFICIENCY (KG SOLD/KG CROP)
0.59TOTAL GHG IMPACTPER KG SOLDIN RETAIL
16.46
1.790
Exergetic efficiency
Energy use (MJ)
CO2-equiv. Exergy inputs
(primary equivalent) emissions (kg)
(eMJ)
Agricultural production
Initial unit
1.00 kg crop
3.25
CO2 impact
0.55 kg CO2eq per kg harvested crop
0.550
Energy use
0 MJ per kg crop (primary energy equivalent)
0.00
Losses
11%
Postharvest handling and storage
product in
0.89 kg
Average numberof hours at ambient conditions
0 hours
Ambient temperature
20 C
Average numberof days in refrig. storage
1 days
0.01
0.001
0.01
Other energy use
0 MJ per kg product (primary energy eq.)
0.00
0.000
0.00
Losses
11%
Collection transport
Transport distance
30 km
Transport modality
Truck, small
0.22
0.014
0.22
Refrigeration in transport?
0
0.00
0.000
0.00
Primary processing and packaging
product in
0.79 kg
Losses
20%
Packaging steel
0 kg steel packaging per kg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Packaging aluminium
0 kg aluminium per kg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Packaging paper and board
0.057 kg paper and board per kg product
0.90
0.036
0.60
Packaging plastics
0.04 kg plastics per kg product
2.01
0.076
1.17
Packaging glass
0 kg glass per kg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Transportation means (pellets, crates, etc.)
0.036 kg tarra per kg product
Processing and packaging energy use
0.07 MJ per kg product (primary energy eq.)
0.04
0.002
0.04
Average number of hours at ambient conditions
hours
Ambient temperature
20 C
Average number of days in refrig. storage
1 days
0.01
0.000
(Possibly international) transport
product in
0.63 kg
Transport 1distance
0 km
Transport 1 modality
Truck, very larg
0.00
0.000
0.00
Ambient (0), chilled (1) or frozen (2)?
1
0.00
0.000
0.00
Transport 2distance
5000 km
Transport 2 modality
Truck, very larg
5.19
0.302
5.19
Ambient (0), chilled (1) or frozen (2)?
1
1.04
0.060
1.04
Transport 3 distance
0 km
Transport 3 modality
Truck, very larg
0.00
0.000
0.00
Ambient (0), chilled (1) or frozen (2)?
1
0.00
0.000
0.00
Distribution/processing/repackaging centerproduct in
0.63 kg
Losses
1%
Packaging steel
0 kg steel packaging perkg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Packaging aluminium
0 kg aluminium per kg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Packaging paper and board
0 kg paper and board per kg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Packaging plastics
0 kg plastics per kg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Packaging glass
0 kg glass per kg product
0.00
0.000
0.00
Adding water to processed product
0 kg water per kg product
Transportation means (pellets, crates, etc.)
0.036 kg tarra per kg product
Processing and packaging energy use
0 MJ per kg product (primary energy eq.)
0.00
0.000
0.00
Average number of hours at ambient conditions
hours
Ambient temperature
C
Average numberof days in refrig. storage
1 days
0.01
0.000
0.01
Other energy use
0.1 MJ per kg product (primary energy eq.)
0.06
0.003
0.06
Distribution transport
product in
0.62 kg
Transport distance
100 km
Transport modality
Truck, large
0.20
0.012
0.20
Refrigeration in transport?
confirmregions
Reset
Reset
Reset
Reset
Reset
Potential measures
 Shelf-life extending measures including
indirect effects, e.g.
● Refrigeration
● Packaging
● Mild processing
 Alternative valorisation of “losses”
● Also take into consideration the
value of the products
(replacement product)
 Include GHG impacts of waste
management practices (dumping, land
filling, composting, ...) in the analyses

6. Integrated approach
KnowledgeTransfer:PhaseA-E

7. Post-harvest loss reduction in Nigeria
Results and observations of the effects and benefits
from alternative product packaging in the tomato
value chains

8. Measurements
 In general very good data gathering by the
enumerators
8

9. Results
 More Grade A remains
when using crates
Baskets: 65%
Crates: 85%
 Less total loss in weight
from farmer to retailer
Baskets: 11% loss
Crates: 5% loss
 Good measurements are important!
9
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
VC1 -
R1
VC1 -
R2
VC2 -
R1
VC2 -
R2
VC3 -
R1
VC3 -
R2
VC4 -
R1
VC4 -
R2
VC5 -
R1
VC5 -
R2
∆ qual A (%)
Baskets Crates
-10,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
VC1 -
R1
VC1 -
R2
VC2 -
R1
VC2 -
R2
VC3 -
R1
VC3 -
R2
VC4 -
R1
VC4 -
R2
VC5 -
R1
VC5 -
R2
Loss (%)
Baskets Crates

10. Observations - Popularity
 “Popularity grows, even just being introduced”
 “Importance in term of reduction of wastage was noticeable and
the innovation was fully lauded”
 “The drivers find it easier to load using the crates”
 “The amount of grade C was more reduced using the crates”
 “products from the crates especially grade B deteriorates slower”
10

11. Conclusions
 When using crates:
● Less loss
● More Grade A to sell, higher sales
● Easier to handle
● Awareness of volume of crates and baskets can
be improved (introduction of kilogram system?)
● Measurements in high season improve validation
11

12. Discussion on data collection
 Improvements:
● Measure in high season
● The same person should grade at farm and retail level
the same way
● Results can only be compared well when measurements
take place from farm to market

13. Observations – Education and trust -
 “The retailers need more education about the amount of tomatoes in a
crate, some do not believe 3 small baskets fit in one crate”
 “Retailers are concerned around the ready availability and the cost per unit
of a crate”
 “The farmer shows concern about the extra cost moving the crate back to
him”
 “The driver believes he cannot load more using crates meaning increase
transportation cost”
13

14. Food technology & value creation

15. Leapfrogging – new business models

16. Strenghten PHT innovation & knowledge base
Built & strengthen local PH-capacities
in regional centres
 Do PH-research & pilots with local
products
 Improve skills:
education/training/extension
 Showroom for novel technologies
 Services: packing, processing,
Quality-inspection

17. Cool research on
the move

18. Thanks for your
attention
toine.timmermans@wur.nl