Tackling Food Waste

Faced with the challenges of demographic developments, climate change and the need to use resources efficiently, combating food losses and food waste will go a long way in tackling food security.
Global agricultural production is expected to grow 1.5% a year on average over the coming decade, compared with annual growth of 2.1% between 2003 and 2012, according to a new report published by the OECD and FAO.
Limited expansion of agricultural land, rising production costs, growing resource constraints and increasing environmental pressures are the main factors behind the trend. But the report argues that farm commodity supply should keep pace with global demand.
The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2013-2022 expects prices to remain above historical averages over the medium term for both crop and livestock products due to a combination of slower production growth and stronger demand, including for biofuels.
The report says agriculture has been turned into an increasingly market-driven sector, as opposed to policy-driven as it was in the past, thus offering developing countries important investment opportunities and economic benefits, given their growing food demand, potential for production expansion and comparative advantages in many global markets.
However, production shortfalls, price volatility and trade disruption remain a threat to global food security. The OECD/FAO Outlook warns: “As long as food stocks in major producing and consuming countries remain low, the risk of price volatility is amplified. A wide-spread drought such as the one experienced in 2012, on top of low food stocks, could raise world prices by 15-40 percent.”
China, with one-fifth of the world’s population, high income growth and a rapidly expanding agri-food sector, will have a major influence on world markets, and is the special focus of the report. China is projected to remain self-sufficient in the main food crops, although output is anticipated to slow in the next decade due to land, water and rural labor constraints.
Driven by growing populations, higher incomes, urbanization and changing diets, consumption of the main agricultural commodities will increase most rapidly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, followed by Latin America and other Asian economies.
The share of global production from developing countries will continue to increase as investment in their agricultural sectors narrows the productivity gap with advanced economies. Developing countries, for example, are expected to account for 80 percent of the growth in global meat production and capture much of the trade growth over the next 10 years. They will account for the majority of world exports of coarse grains, rice, oilseeds, vegetable oil, sugar, beef, poultry and fish by 2022. To capture a share of these economic benefits, governments will need to invest in their agricultural sectors to encourage innovation, increase productivity and improve integration in global value chains, FAO and OECD stressed.
Agricultural policies need to address the inherent volatility of commodity markets with improved tools for risk management while ensuring the sustainable use of land and water resources and reducing food loss and waste.
Food Waste Estimates
Food losses and food waste occur in every part of the world. However, according to the FAO, in developing countries over 40% of these losses take place in the post-harvest and processing stages, whereas in industrialized countries they occur chiefly in the distribution and consumption stages.
In developing and low-income countries, the bulk of losses occur in the production and post harvest stage owing to financial resources insufficient to improve existing infrastructure.
In industrialized countries, however, the problem is more behavioral in nature. In recent decades in the EU, rising agricultural productivity has made it possible to guarantee a reasonably priced food supply for the public. This development, coupled with a rise in disposable income, has had the effect of slashing the proportion of people's budget that is spent on food. This trend can partly explain the increase in consumer waste. Sociological reasons such as changes in family structure or lifestyle are also contributing factors in food waste.
According to estimates by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the impact of food waste is not just financial. Environmentally, food waste leads to wasteful use of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides; more fuel used for transportation; and more rotting food, creating more methane – one of the most harmful greenhouse gases that contributes to climate change. Methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The vast amount of food going to landfills makes a significant contribution to global warming.
Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tons — gets lost or wasted.
Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tons) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tons).
The amount of food lost or wasted every year is equivalent to more than half of the world's annual cereals crop (2.3 billion tons in 2009/2010).
Food loss and waste also amount to a major squandering of resources, including water, land, energy, labor and capital and needlessly produce greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming and climate change.
In developing countries food waste and losses occur mainly at early stages of the food value chain and can be traced back to financial, managerial and technical constraints in harvesting techniques as well as storage –and cooling facilities. Thus, a strengthening of the supply chain through the support farmers and investments in infrastructure, transportation, as well as in an expansion of the food –and packaging industry could help to reduce the amount of food loss and waste.
In medium- and high-income countries food is wasted and lost mainly at later stages in the supply chain. Differing from the situation in developing countries, the behavior of consumers plays a huge part in industrialized countries. Moreover, the study identified a lacking coordination between actors in the supply chain as a contributing factor. Farmer-buyer agreements can be helpful to increase the level of coordination. Additionally, raising awareness among industries, retailers and consumers as well as finding beneficial use for save food that is presently thrown away are useful measures to decrease the amount of losses and waste.
In the United States 30% of all food, worth $48.3 billion, is thrown away each year. It is estimated that about half of the water used to produce this food also goes to waste, since agriculture is the largest human use of water.
United Kingdom households waste an estimated 6.7 million tons of food every year, around one third of the 21.7 million tons purchased. This means that approximately 32% of all food purchased per year is not eaten. Most of this (5.9 million tons or 88%) is currently collected by local authorities. Most of the food waste (4.1 million tons or 61%) is avoidable and could have been eaten had it been better managed.
In the USA, organic waste is the second highest component of landfills, which are the largest source of methane emissions.
Up to 50% of food gets wasted in EU households, supermarkets, restaurants and along the food supply chain each year, while 79 million EU citizens live beneath the poverty line and 16 million depend on food aid from charitable institutions.
Currently food wastage amounts in the EU to 89 million tons per annum (i.e. 179 kg per capita) and the projection for 2020 – if no action is taken – is 126 million tons (i.e. a 40% increase).
Asia-Pacific Campaign
While hunger is the world’s number one health risk, about one third of food for human consumption is lost or wasted globally each year. In addition, when food is wasted, all of the resources that were put into its production are lost. Not only are these increasingly scarce resources, such as water and fuel, lost, but greenhouse gas emissions are also associated with the disposal of food.
Therefore, food wastage represents a missed opportunity to feed the growing world population, a major waste of resources and a needless source of greenhouse gas emissions that impacts climate change. It also has negative economic consequences for everyone along the food chain when food goes to waste.
Denouncing the huge amount of food that goes to waste, FAO Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific, Hiroyuki Konuma, recently announced a new initiative aimed at stopping post-harvest food losses and market-to-consumer food waste.
"The Save Food Asia-Pacific Campaign seeks to raise awareness about the high levels of food losses - particularly post-harvest losses - and the growing problem of food waste in the region," Konuma said.
"FAO estimates that if the food wasted or lost globally could be reduced by just one quarter, this would be sufficient to feed the 870 million people suffering from chronic hunger in the world," said Konuma.
The announcement came as Konuma opened the two-day High-Level Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on Food Losses and Food Waste in Asia and the Pacific Region in collaboration with the Asian Institute of Technology and other partners.
More than 130 participants from 20 countries attended the Consultation, including four Agriculture Ministers. The Consultation will study ways to reduce food loss and waste and is expected to issue a communiqué outlining actions that can save food from farm to table.
According to Konuma, "The world produces more or less sufficient food to meet the demand of its current population of 7 billion. However, 12.5 percent of the global population, or 868 million people, equivalent to one in eight people, go hungry every day. In 2012, the Asia-Pacific region was home to 536 million hungry people, or 62 percent of the world's undernourished."
The Asia-Pacific region benefitted from rapid economic growth in the first decade of the 21st century. But, successful economic growth did not alleviate hunger and poverty, because the benefits of economic growth were unevenly distributed, resulting in a widening income gap in many countries in the region.
According to statistics from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, an estimated 653 million people across the region, lived below the national poverty line in 2010.
There is no doubt that win the context of Asia and the Pacific Region, more effort is needed to raise global awareness of the critical issue of food losses and particularly post-harvest losses as well as food waste, which is a is increasing nowadays.
American Initiative
In June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the U.S. Food Waste Challenge, calling on others across the food chain—including producer groups, processors, manufacturers, retailers, communities, and other government agencies − to join the effort to reduce, recover, and recycle food waste.
Secretary Tom Vilsack and EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe were joined at the event by representatives from private-sector partners and supporters including Rio Farms, Unilever, General Mills, the Food Waste Reduction Alliance, Feeding America, and Rock and Wrap It Up!.
Food waste in the United States is estimated at roughly between 30 to 40 percent of the food supply. In 2010, an estimated 133 billion pounds of food from U.S. retail food stores, restaurants, and homes never made it into people's stomachs. The amount of uneaten food in homes and restaurants was valued at almost $390 per U.S. consumer in 2008, more than an average month's worth of food expenditures.
"The United States enjoys the most productive and abundant food supply on earth, but too much of this food goes to waste," said Secretary Vilsack. "Not only could this food be going to folks who need it – we also have an opportunity to reduce the amount of food that ends up in America's landfills. By joining together with EPA and businesses from around the country, we have an opportunity to better educate folks about the problem of food waste and begin to address this problem across the nation."
"Food waste the single largest type of waste entering our landfills -- Americans throw away up to 40 percent of their food. Addressing this issue not only helps with combating hunger and saving money, but also with combating climate change: food in landfills decomposes to create potent greenhouse gases," said EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe. "I'm proud that EPA is joining with USDA today to announce the U.S. Food Waste Challenge. With the help of partners across the country, we can ensure that our nation's food goes to our families and those in need – not the landfill."
The goal of the U.S. Food Waste Challenge is to lead a fundamental shift in how we think about and manage food and food waste in this country. The Challenge includes a goal to have 400 partner organizations by 2015 and 1,000 by 2020.
As part of its contribution to the U.S. Food Waste Challenge, USDA is initiating a wide range of activities including activities to reduce waste in the school meals program, educate consumers about food waste and food storage, and develop new technologies to reduce food waste. USDA will also work with industry to increase donations from imported produce that does not meet quality standards, streamline procedures for donating wholesome misbranded meat and poultry products, update U.S. food loss estimates at the retail level, and pilot-test a meat-composting program to reduce the amount of meat being sent to landfills from food safety inspection labs.
Through its Food Recovery Challenge, EPA will provide U.S. Food Waste Challenge participants with the opportunity to access data management software and technical assistance ( www.epa.gov/smm/foodrecovery/) to help them quantify and improve their sustainable food management practices.
European Initiative
In July, representatives from across Europe’s food supply chain announced the launch of a joint effort to tackle the major societal problem of food wastage via the publication of their Joint Declaration entitled, ‘Every Crumb Counts’.
Launched at an event in Brussels in the presence of distinguished speakers from the European Parliament, the European Commission, a number of NGOs and industry representatives, co-signatories of the Declaration aim not only to work towards preventing edible food waste but also to promote a life-cycle approach to reducing wastage and to proactively input into European, national and global solutions and initiatives in this area.
With the long-term sustainability of the food chain foremost in mind, and conscious of the global environmental impact of food disposal such as an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, co-signatories commit to contribute to the objective of reducing food wastage throughout the entire food supply chain, in line with the European Commission’s goal of halving edible food waste by 2020, set out in the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative ‘A resource-efficient Europe’.  Furthermore, the Joint Declaration explores how new markets and better food recovery can contribute to economic growth.
Lending his support to the initiative, Matthias Groote MEP, Chair of the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, said: "Food wastage does not only have a big impact on the global food situation, but also significant economic and ecologic consequences. I welcome the launch of the Joint Stakeholder Declaration […] which seeks to raise awareness of food waste and of solutions to tackle this issue, and of the presentation of the new online toolkit for manufacturers.  Policymakers, companies and consumers all have to be part of the solution".
Speaking on the occasion of the launch, representatives of the several co-signatory organizations emphasized the importance of the initiative:
FoodDrinkEurope President, Jesús Serafín Pérez said: “We are encouraged by the degree of support that the Joint Food Wastage Declaration, ‘Every Crumb Counts’ has received so far; it is our hope that this will be rolled out effectively not only among actors along the food supply chain, but also by other groups, thereby contributing significantly to the flagship EU 2020 Goal for a resource-efficient Europe. FoodDrinkEurope is pleased also to announce the launch of its new Food Waste Industry Toolkit , ‘Maximizing food resources: A Toolkit for food manufacturers on avoiding food wastage’, developed to help food manufacturers reduce and prevent food waste by sharing best practice and guidance throughout the industry”.
Virginia Janssens, Managing Director of EUROPEN added: “As part of the food supply chain, EUROPEN (packaging supply chain) members are committed to further contribute to food waste prevention. Packaging is part of the solution as it prevents food spoilage for longer and ensures food quality and safety along the supply chain and at home, also informing consumers on best use and storage of packaged food products. Further investments in packaging innovation and technologies, such as in the areas of active and intelligent packaging, increasing shelf-life and portion sizes, play a key role.”
Isabel Jonet, President of the European Federation of Foodbanks (FEBA) commented: “Recovering edible food before it is destroyed and redistributing it to beneficiary charities which take care of deprived people is the ‘raison d’être’ of our network of 253 food banks in 21 European countries. FEBA thoroughly supports this Joint Declaration on Food Wastage as we are convinced that building stronger cooperation between food banks and FoodDrinkEurope members is a very efficient and proven way to reduce food waste and hunger simultaneously”.
Mark Linehan, Managing Director of the Sustainable Restaurant Association (SRA) said: “The SRA welcomes and supports this Declaration as it addresses one of the most important global issues of our time. Food wastage has an enormous social, environmental and economic impact, so reducing it should be a no-brainer for restaurants, especially as we know from research that it is something diners care about deeply. Many restaurants are already taking significant steps, and we would urge those that are not, to take action now, for the benefit of the planet, food security and their bottom line.”
Rocco Renaldi, Secretary General of FoodServiceEurope commented: “Reducing food waste is a real challenge, especially in the just-in-time environment of the contract catering sector. But it is an environmental, economic and ethical imperative that we play our part. FoodServiceEurope is proud to join food manufacturers and others in what we hope will become a food chain approach to food waste reduction.”
Frédéric Rosseneu, Secretary General of Europatat said: “We recognize the importance of the current societal and political debate regarding food wastage. Whilst potatoes which cannot be sold fresh are generally used for processing or animal feed, our involvement in the Joint Declaration aims to raise further awareness about the issue and to exchange best practices in the supply chain but and towards the consumer."
Philippe Binard, General Delegate of Freshfel Europe noted: “Food wastage is a highly complex issue which requires the involvement of all partners in the supply chain in order to tackle it effectively and not just shift it further up or down in the chain. This has been the key driver for Freshfel’s participation in the Joint Declaration. There’s no silver bullet solution, but we hope the increased awareness and exchange of best practices within the fruit and vegetable category will help to reduce the level of wastage across the chain.”
Ingrid Verschueren, Packaging Division Manager of EuPC said: “Roughly one third of the edible portions of food produced for human consumption are never eaten and that is unacceptable. Plastic packaging can play a significant role in reducing this number and that is why EuPC is welcoming and supporting the ‘Every Crumb Counts’ Declaration”.
Today, companies are beginning to understand the social, environmental, and economic costs of food waste and starting to recognize the benefits of reducing waste or diverting it to better uses. These opportunities can be pursued through innovation, collaboration, and leadership.

Read more »

Scattered Fates - a novel on the second partition of India

Interested in Indian fiction? Alternate history?
FREE download of my novel Scattered Fates.
________
It is an alternate history novel, which unwraps in the backdrop of violent anti-Hindi agitations that rocked the State of Tamil Nadu (India) 50 years ago, narrated over two time frames – 1965 and 2005. It is the story of a son's search for the truth about his father's disappearance and the political intrigue that led to India's second partition into South & North, intertwined with the history of Korea

Extended Description

SCATTERED FATES is an alternate history novel, which unwraps in the backdrop of violent anti-Hindi agitations that rocked the State of Tamil Nadu and is narrated over two time frames – 1965 and 2005.
It is the story, in lucid conversational style, of Subbaiah, a university professor who gets drawn to the ideology of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a political party that opposed the imposition of Hindi as the sole national language on 60 percent of the country’s population. He is entrusted with the task of rallying students to protest against the government’s decision to remove English as an official Indian language. The violence that follows spreads across South India, and the military is called in to restore order.
He shelters Moon, a young injured foreign exchange student from Corea. While recuperating in his house, Moon gets acquainted with the culture and traditions of his host, including the intricacies of the caste system, thanks to his inquisitive nature and friendly banter with Subbaiah’s neighbor and best friend Ganapathy, a Brahmin, who is initially against this movement led by the backward castes, but slowly changes his mind.
Moon is put on the first flight home as the civil war spirals out of control.
Starting as a minor party functionary, Subbaiah ends up playing a crucial role in the freedom movement that ultimately leads to the second partition of India into Dravida (South India) and Hindustan (North India). He is even tipped to be the first Finance Minister of his newly independent country, but loses out to his political rival.
A decade after independence, Subbaiah suddenly disappears without a trace. While everyone assumes that Hindustan spies abducted him, there are also doubts that he may have willingly defected to enemy territory.
Thirty years later, Subbaiah’s son Naga, a journalist in Dravida, Asia’s most prosperous capitalist economy, plays host to Maya, a beautiful online friend from Corea who comes visiting for her research. She has strong sympathies for the socialist ideology and is pursuing her PhD on countries divided by civil wars. While helping her get acquainted with his country’s cultural traditions, they encounter a retired university professor, Ganapathy, who denies knowing Subbaiah, reacting in a suspicious and evasive manner. They are convinced that he is hiding something, suspect his role in Subbaiah’s disappearance, and are determined to unravel the truth.
The duo finally manages to get the truth out. It was not something they were prepared to hear.

Read more »

Government Curbs Stifle South Korean Lottery Industry Growth

First published in Asia Gambling Brief
Gaming regulators in South Korea, backed by a powerful anti-gambling lobby and the media, have declared that the domestic lottery market is overheating - although even a cursory glance at the figures reveals little evidence of the claim

The headline numbers show that lottery sales, which hit an eight-year high last year, continued the momentum in the first half of 2013, with the official sales target for 2013 set at 3.29 trillion won ($3 billion), a 3.2 percent annual increase.

But the latest statistics released by the Korea Lottery Commission, the regulatory authority under the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, reveal sales in the first half of this year rose by a modest 0.45 percent, or 7.5 billion won from 1.6 trillion won in the previous year.

Far from overheating the market is actually being artificially constrained, according to industry executives. It not only puts a severe strain on the lottery industry, but also helps sustain the growth of illegal gambling.

The effect of the curbs becomes obvious when you contrast the performance of South Korean lottery sales with average performances in Asia Pacific. Estimates released by the World Lottery Association, show that Asia Pacific lotteries witnessed an increase in sales of 11.1 percent for the first half of 2013.

The fastest growing market remains China where total lottery sales rose 16 percent year on year. In comparison, the increase in South Korean lottery sales seems miniscule.

According to Chris Moumouris, principal consultant and vice president of business development at QLot Consulting, the market growth in South Korea is insignificant given its potential. And he should know. Before joining QLot, a Swedish lottery consultancy with offices in Europe and in North America, he worked for many years at Intralot, part of the Nanum Lotto Consortium that has been given the mandate to run the online lottery business in South Korea until 2017.

As board director at Intralot Asia Pacific and Intralot Korea, he was chiefly responsible for bagging the South Korean deal in 2007 and oversaw the project until 2011.

“In Greece, for example, a country with a population of just under 11 million and income levels historically similar to South Korea, the lottery market is almost four times higher. South Korea, although a first-world nation and a global technology leader, is way under developed,” he told AGB.

In the past, it might have been argued that the industry’s growth potential was bound to be limited because of the social stigma attached to lotteries in a Confucian society but that restraint has slowly faded over the years thanks to government promotions and the knowledge that most of the proceeds go towards welfare programs.

According to a recent poll by the Ministry of Finance, nearly six in every 10 South Koreans purchased lottery tickets at least once last year. In the survey of 1,002 people, 55.2 percent said that they had bought lottery tickets.

So, what is holding back the market?

Moumouris maintains that if it is to expand, the legal and regulatory framework needs drastic changes.

“Europe is the world’s most pioneering region as far as lotteries and gambling is concerned and the South Korea legislative and regulatory framework has a lot to learn from that. The lottery operators should be allowed a wide portfolio of games, which they should be able to offer across all channels (retail, internet, mobile).”

The Korea Lottery Commission is responsible for formulating and implementing lottery-related policies, and has exclusive authority to issue, sell, and manage lottery products, but it entrusts private lottery companies with the operations. Nanum Lotto Co. Ltd. conducts the only allowed online lottery (Lotto 6/45) operations, while Korea Union Lottery Co. Ltd. handles printed and Internet lotteries that include one draw game (Pension Lottery 520), three instant games (scratch cards) and seven Internet lottery games (four draw games, three instant games).

The sales data reveals that the market is lop-sided and depends too much on Lotto sales. The share of Lotto in total lottery sales increased from 2 percent in 2002 to 96.2 percent in 2010. In 2011, when a new product (Pension Lottery 520, which offers winners 5 million won of annuities every month for 20 years instead of a lump sum) was introduced, the Lotto share of the market declined to 89 percent, but it has been rising steadily since then. It was 90 percent in 2012 and 92 percent in the first half of this year..

Moumouris believes that people want to try out new lottery products but the lack of options and lack of enthusiasm for other products that offer lesser payouts made them switch back to Lotto.

Lotto continues to offer the highest prize money among all available lotteries but it is just a fraction of that in other developed markets. While jackpots often run into hundreds of millions of dollars in Europe and the US, in South Korea, the most a single jackpot winner can expect is around $10 million.

In 2003, Lotto fever peaked when the prize money hit 40.7 billion won after there was no winner for the seventh, eighth and ninth weeks of the year. Grumbles over the get-rich-quick attitude made the government limit prizes in 2004 and these restrictions have been in place since then.

Unlike other markets, the National Gaming Control Commission (NGCC), a gambling regulator under the Prime Minister’s Office, sets a regulatory limit on sales each year for the gaming industry as part of its efforts “to prevent and curb gambling addiction”.

The Finance Ministry asks the NGCC every year to eliminate the sales ceiling, arguing that the lottery is less addictive than other gambling industries and its share of GDP is half of the OECD average and a third of other Asian countries. To date, the NGCC has consistently refused the request, afraid of annoying the anti-gambling lobby.

This artificial sales cap imposed in the face of growing demand does not augur well for the lottery industry. Experts argue that instead of imposing penalties and curbing the growth of the market, the NGCC should do away with any limits and let the markets decide.

Moumouris, perhaps unsurprisingly, argues that the only solution is for the government to employ an international, independent lottery specialist firm to redefine its legal and regulatory framework for lotteries.

When non-lottery specialists like law firms were involved, the result was often a flawed framework, he said, while technology vendors and operators should also be avoided as a source of advice as they will be biased.

Read more »

Climate Change & Food Industry

Climate change may affect food systems in several ways ranging from direct effects on crop production, to changes in markets, food prices and supply chain infrastructure.

There has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the public’s awareness of global climate change, reflecting increasing stridency from the scientific community as new and stronger evidence of climate change is revealed.

The Earth’s climate is constantly changing as a result of natural processes. The atmosphere has an effect like a greenhouse on the Earth’s temperature. The energy from the sun reaching the earth is balanced by the energy the Earth emits to space. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap some of the energy the Earth releases to space. The GHGs in the atmosphere act as a thermostat controlling the Earth’s climate. Without this natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature on Earth would be -18˚C instead of the current +15˚C. Therefore, life as we know it would be impossible.

The majority of the world’s scientists studying this topic agree that the current rate of climate change is faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years because of human activity. Human activities affect GHG levels by introducing new sources of emissions or by removing natural sinks, such as forests. Sources are processes or activities that release GHGs; sinks are processes, activities or mechanisms that remove GHGs.

Since the industrial revolution, concentrations of GHGs have been increasing steadily as a result of industrialization (increasing sources of emissions) and deforestation (declining sinks). Between 1970 and 2004 several key GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphurhexafluoride (SF6), increased by 70 percent. The scientific evidence for this is very solid. In its fourth assessment report since 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that climate change is already happening and can be primarily attributed to human activity.

Global climate change will have substantial impacts on the environment including water resources, fisheries, forests, wildlife and ecosystems. Regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases, are already affecting different natural systems on all continents and in some oceans. Scientists also predict that climate change will increase climate variability.

Key Predictions

The impacts of global climate change on food systems are expected to be widespread, complex, geographically and temporally variable, and profoundly influenced by preexisting and emerging social and economic conditions.

Some of the key findings of a recent report by Universal Ecological Fund (Fundación Ecológica Universal FEU-US) make for interesting reading. FEU-US is a non-profit, non-governmental organization that seeks to increase awareness that encourages actions on sustainable development issues through researching, analyzing, producing and disseminating information.

Its report, “The Impacts of Climate Change on Food Production: A 2020 Perspective” notes the following:

1. The temperature of the planet would increase by, at least, 2.4ºC above pre-industrial times.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important man-made greenhouse gas. In 2008, CO2 levels reached 385.2 parts per million (ppm). With current increase rates of about 0.5 percent per year, CO2 levels could reach 410 ppm in the next decade. These levels correspond to greenhouse gases (GHGs) concentrations above 490 ppm CO2-equivalent (all greenhouse gases combined). This equals a 2.4ºC increase in global temperature above pre-industrial times.

2. Two of the three main elements of food production –water and climate— would be most affected by climate change.

Obtaining more land suitable for agricultural production is unlikely. It is therefore water availability (mainly in the form of rain, on which 80 percent of food production depends) and climate conditions, which would most significantly impact food production worldwide, with both positive and negative impacts.

3. The most significant impacts of climate change on food production would be on:

• The tropical region –the region between 30º N and S of the Equator—due to reduced water availability and increased temperatures.

• The temperate region –between 30º and 60º N and S—due to changes in precipitation.

4. Positive and negative impacts of climate change by region include:

• Africa: The region with the most severe expected impacts. About two-thirds of arable land in Africa is expected to be lost by 2025. Decreased rainfall would also impact yields from rain-fed agriculture, with estimations of up to 50 percent in some countries. A combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes would lengthen the growing season benefiting, for example, the production of Ethiopian coffee.

• Asia: The most serious potential threat arising from climate change in Asia is water scarcity. Central and South Asia would experience negative impacts, while the impacts on East and South-East Asia would be beneficial. The two most populated countries in the world would experience different impacts –India with negative impacts, and China with positive impacts.

• Europe: Climate-related increases in crop yields, of about 5 percent in wheat, are expected mainly in northern Europe; while the largest reductions of all crops, of up to 10 percent, are expected in the Mediterranean region.

• Latin America and the Caribbean: Overall yield production of wheat, rice, maize, and soybean is estimated to decrease by 2.5 to 5 percent. The impact of climate change in Latin America’s productive sectors is estimated to be a 1.3 percent reduction in the region’s GDP for an increase of 2°C in global temperature

• Northern America: Overall, decreased precipitation will create important problems for the United States, restricting the availability of water for irrigation and at the same time increasing water demand for irrigated agriculture. This would affect in particular the western region of the United States; some yield increases are expected in the Great Plains.

• Oceania: As a result of reduced precipitation, water security problems are very likely to intensify, and change land use away from drier areas. This would negatively affect Australia in particular, the major food producing country in the region.

5. The amount of food estimated to be produced in the next decade would not be enough to meet the food requirements of an additional 890 million people estimated to inhabit the world in the next decade.

• Global wheat production vs. demand: 14 percent deficit

Countries with expected increase in production: China, United States, Canada and

Argentina. Countries with expected decrease in production: India, Egypt, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Italy, Pakistan, France, Germany, Iran, Romania, Australia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Kazakhstan, Poland and Spain.

• Global rice production vs. demand: 11 percent deficit

Countries with expected increase in production: China, United States, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Republic of Korea, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic.

Countries with expected decrease in production: India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Madagascar.

• Global maize production vs. demand: 9 percent deficit

Countries with expected increase in production: China, United States, Indonesia, Canada and Philippines.

Countries with expected decrease in production: India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Italy, Argentina, France, Germany, Romania, South Africa, Mexico, Hungary and Serbia.

• Global soybean production vs. demand: 5 percent surplus

Countries with expected increase in production: China, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Vietnam, Japan, Serbia, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay and Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Countries with expected decrease in production: India, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Italy, Iran and South Africa.

6. As a result of decreased availability of food, prices could increase up to 20 percent. The inevitable consequence would be the increase in the share of hunger, which could reach one in every five people.

The current level of undernourishment in the world is 1 billion people –one in every seven is hungry today. Currently, about 6.5 million children under five die every year of malnutrition and hunger-related diseases –about 18,000 deaths a day.

Within the next decade, these figures could almost double, reaching one in every five people being hungry. At least every other newborn in Africa; one in every four newborns in Asia; and one in every seven newborns in Latin America and the Caribbean would be sentenced to undernourishment and malnutrition.

Impacts on the Agricultural Sector

Agriculture and fisheries are highly dependent on specific climate conditions. Trying to understand the overall effect of climate change on our food supply can be difficult. Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can be beneficial for some crops in some places. But to realize these benefits, nutrient levels, soil moisture, water availability, and other conditions must also be met. Changes in the frequency and severity of droughts and floods could pose challenges for farmers and ranchers. Meanwhile, warmer water temperatures are likely to cause the habitat ranges of many fish and shellfish species to shift, which could disrupt ecosystems. Overall, climate change could make it more difficult to grow crops, raise animals, and catch fish in the same ways and same places as we have done in the past. The effects of climate change also need to be considered along with other evolving factors that affect agricultural production, such as changes in farming practices and technology.

As noted by Dr. Kim Chang-gil of the Korea Rural Economic Institute in a recent research paper, agricultural production is carried out through the selection of crops suitable for the climate of a specific region and application of proper farming methods. Therefore, agriculture is a climate dependent bio-industry with notable regional characteristics.

The publication “The Impact of Climate Change on the Agricultural Sector: Implications of the Agro‐Industry for Low Carbon, Green Growth Strategy and Roadmap for the East Asian Region,” was prepared as a background policy paper for the East Asia Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap project with funding from the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), under the East Asia Climate Partnership.

“Climate change disturbs the agricultural ecosystem, resulting in the change in agricultural climatic elements such as temperature, precipitation, and sunlight, while further influencing the arable, livestock, and hydrology sectors.”

First of all, the impacts of climate change on the arable and livestock sector are made known by biological changes including the change of flowering and harvesting seasons, quality change, and shift of areas suitable for cultivation. Climate change affects the agricultural ecosystem, giving rise to blights and pests and causing population movement and change in biodiversity. In the livestock sector, climate change brings about biological changes in areas such as fertilization and breeding and also affects the growing pattern of pastures.

Climate change affects the hydrology including underground water level, water temperature, river flow, and water quality of lakes and marshes, by impacting precipitation, evaporation, and soil moisture content. In particular, the increase of precipitation by climate change leads to an increase of outflow while the temperature rise increases evaporation, resulting in the reduction of outflow, Dr. Kim notes.

Negative impacts of global warming include reduced crop quantity and quality due to the reduced growth period following high levels of temperature rise; reduced sugar content, bad coloration, and reduced storage stability in fruits; increase of weeds, blights, and harmful insects in agricultural crops; reduced land fertility due to the accelerated decomposition of organic substances; and increased soil erosion due the increased rainfall.

In addition, each crop requires different climate and environmental conditions to grow. So, if climate change like temperature rise occurs, the boundary and suitable areas for cultivation move north and thus the main areas of production also change. The change in the main areas of production might be as a crisis for certain areas but might be an opportunity for other areas, so it cannot be classified either as a positive or as a negative impact.

“In sum, the impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector have ambivalent characteristics of positive impacts creating opportunities and of negative impacts with costs. Therefore, it is very important to formulate adaptation strategies that can maximize the opportunities and minimize the costs that will lead to sustainable agriculture development.”

Food Industry

Beyond the physical impacts of climate change lie a range of market risks and opportunities that are being driven by changing consumer preferences, supply chain demands and government policies – all in response to the challenge of climate change.

Consumers are becoming increasingly interested in the environmental credentials, amongst other things, of the food and beverage products they buy. This is consistent with a broad and global trend in which consumers are demanding higher standards of quality, transparency and accountability in food and beverage products. This trend can only continue.

As a consequence food-processing companies have to take the effects of emissions from their operations on climate into account.

This may be achieved by energy conservation and substitution of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources in the day-to-day running of their operations. In this context the ideas and concepts proffered here apply mainly to small and medium sized enterprises.

It is worth noting as well that investment in applications to achieve significant energy reduction requires speedy pay back as most companies now have to contend with cutthroat competition due to the financial crisis worldwide and indeed the continuing recession.

Climate change as a result of human activity further exacerbates the problem and now directly affects the development of existing and new food processing facilities. The renewal of existing facilities in energy conservation terms by ‘retro-fitting’ largely depends on what has gone before whereas the planning of new facilities in terms of location, construction design, utility requirements such as energy, water utilization / waste management and packaging recycling can be more strategically planned.

In dealing with the emerging issue of climate change and its potential negative consequences manufacturers have now to be much more proactive. Previously manufacturers that were proactive in the area of utility savings over the past 30 years did so primarily for economic or bottom line reasons.

What can be done?

As noted by Dr. Kim in his paper, in order to accomplish green growth in the agricultural sector, we should create an innovative way to turn inconvenience into a growth engine by leaving existing convenience and inertia behind, and by achieving a shift in thinking among relevant parties, to ensure that inconvenience and hazard can be properly managed.

“For this to happen, an amicable atmosphere should be created with a bold paradigm shift, where the suggestion of various ideas and active discussion can take place.”

 First of all, he notes, it is urgent that we come up with an implementation strategy that allows us to maintain the unique characteristics of agriculture as a green industry, and thereby eventually achieve green growth by actively developing public functions, such as atmospheric purification and environmental protection through agricultural production innovation and clean technology.

“It is particularly necessary to establish green governance where all farmers, relevant organizations and policy makers concerned can work together, where a strong will to implement green growth and an effective execution system are required to accomplish green growth. However, the policy to promote environmentally friendly agriculture itself is not enough to ensure an assured transition toward a low-carbon agricultural system, but reorganization of the overall agricultural system is needed.”

 Above all, agricultural policy and low-carbon environmental policy should be properly integrated so that the concept of green growth in the overall agricultural sector takes root. In order to maximize the policy effectiveness through a proper combination of policy instruments in various relevant sectors, a green innovation system should be established where policymakers, researchers, relevant organizations, farmers and other relevant bodies can have proper understanding of green growth and share their roles.

In addition to that, Dr. Kim observes that a systematic stage-by-stage strategy to develop technology should be devised and implemented on a steady basis so that green technology reduction or absorbing of greenhouse gases in the agricultural sector can be utilized as a growth engine.

“When green growth in the agricultural sector is successfully implemented, agriculture will solidify its position not only as a green industry that manages national land in an environmentally sustainable manner but also as a life industry that supplies safe agricultural products and manages national greenhouse gas emissions.”

As for the food industry, the key is to be prepared. The findings of a report: “Impact of Climate Change on Tasmania’s Food and Beverage Industry” prepared by Pitt & Sherry could equally hold for the food industry across the world.

It notes that the industry needs to be first aware of the likely consequences, physical and financial, of climate change.

“At a minimum, or as part of a risk assessment process, businesses should document their ‘carbon footprint’ and understand the extent to which that footprint creates risks and/or opportunities for their products. Assessing these risks and opportunities requires a market-by-market approach, particularly for exported produce.”

For those businesses with a low carbon footprint, or the ability to achieve this cost effectively, there may be market advantage in disclosing this information to consumers or supply chain partners. The attractiveness of this will depend in part on product positioning and the prospects for gaining market premiums.

“For all businesses, there is almost certainly advantage to be gained by reducing their greenhouse emissions to the greatest extent possible: the business case should consider not only direct exposures, such as energy and transport costs, but also supply chain linkages, future policy settings, market risks and corporate/brand positioning.

Where a high standard of proof is required – whether to meet market, legal or corporate expectations – full life cycle assessment of a product’s environmental characteristics may be justified. Despite the availability of software tools to assist with this process, it can involve significant costs. A risk-managed approach might therefore see such assessment reserved for products believed to possess above-average exposure or, conversely, potential to attract premiums. Assessments could be undertaken on behalf of a whole industry or product class by the relevant industry association.

As the information that such assessments will bring to light will also be valuable to governments, to help identify needs and opportunities for targeted assistance and/or investment promotion, there is a prima facie case for government support for this work. At the same time, businesses must remain accountable for determining their own response to climate change and accept the consequences should they choose not to engage actively in managing the issue, the report notes. 

Read more »