Research Article

# Rethinking jurisdiction: Mapping federal, provincial, territorial and local government actions related to food loss and waste in Canada

Chloe Alexander*

University of Guelph; ORCID: 0000-0002-7118-2644

## Abstract

This manuscript utilizes data from policy stakeholder interviews and a systematic search of government websites to identify how the federal, provincial, territorial, and local governments in Canada address food loss and waste (FLW) and how stakeholders interpret jurisdiction over this issue. The findings show that government policies related to this issue represent a patchwork of disparate and overlapping actions that have been enacted by governments at different levels and across a variety of departments and agencies (e.g., environmental, agricultural, economic). Of these policies, only a few were identified as having the explicit objective to reduce the generation of this waste and/or divert it from landfill. Most policies, in fact, had non-FLW related objectives (e.g., to improve the profitability of the agricultural sector), but still had a potential or

actual impact on the generation and/or management of this type of waste. Despite it being unclear who has jurisdiction over FLW in the country, an examination of interview transcripts reveals that policy stakeholders have limited views of which government entities have the authority to address FLW. This manuscript argues that the lack of jurisdictional clarity presents a barrier to a more comprehensive governance of FLW. While it may be possible to clarify who has jurisdiction over this issue, this manuscript contends that policy stakeholders need to rethink their understanding of jurisdiction itself. This manuscript operationalizes Valverde’s “work of jurisdiction” to present an alternative way to interpret jurisdiction that opens new possibilities for the governance of FLW.
**Keywords:** Agri-food policy; agri-food value chains; food system governance; food waste; sustainable food systems

Résumé

Cet article utilise des données issues d'entretiens avec des acteurs politiques et d'une recherche systématique sur les sites Web gouvernementaux afin de déterminer comment les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux, territoriaux et locaux du Canada traitent les pertes et le gaspillage alimentaires et comment les parties prenantes interprètent la délimitation des compétences en la matière. Les résultats montrent que les politiques gouvernementales concernant cet enjeu constituent un patchwork de mesures disparates et redondantes adoptées par les gouvernements de différents paliers et par divers ministères et organisations (ex. : environnement, agriculture, économie). Seules quelques-unes de ces politiques ont été identifiées comme ayant l'objectif explicite de réduire ce gaspillage ou de détourner les pertes des décharges. En fait, la plupart des politiques n'avaient pas d'objectifs liés aux pertes et au gaspillage alimentaires (ex. : améliorer la rentabilité du secteur agricole), mais avaient tout de

même un effet réel ou potentiel sur la création ou la gestion de ce type de gaspillage. L'attribution du pouvoir en matière de pertes et de gaspillage alimentaires au Canada reste floue, certes, mais l'examen des transcriptions des entretiens révèle que les acteurs politiques concernés ont une vision limitée lorsqu'il s'agit de savoir quelles entités gouvernementales sont responsables d'un tel dossier. Nous soutenons que le manque de clarté dans la répartition des compétences empêche une gouvernance plus complète en matière de pertes et de gaspillage alimentaires. S'il est possible de clarifier qui a la responsabilité de cet enjeu, les acteurs politiques doivent aussi repenser leur compréhension même des compétences. Nous mobilisons le concept de « travail des compétences » de Valverde pour présenter une autre façon d'interpréter cette notion qui ouvre de nouvelles possibilités pour la gouvernance en matière de pertes et de gaspillage alimentaires.

Introduction

Food loss and waste (FLW) is a significant issue. In Canada, almost sixty percent of food meant for human consumption is lost or wasted annually (Gooch et al., 2019, p.23). This uneaten food causes substantial environmental and economic harm. It squanders valuable resources (Gustavsson et al., 2011), generates 56.5 million tonnes of methane gas when disposed of in landfills, and costs the economy $49.5 billion each year (Gooch et al., 2019, pp.5-6).

Despite this harm, it is not currently clear which societal groups in Canada (e.g., government, nonprofit

organizations, businesses) are involved in the governance of this harmful issue nor what they are doing to tackle it. The roles and actions of government are particularly unclear. Some FLW scholars have analyzed specific policy actions at the federal (Soma, 2018), provincial (DeLorenzo et al., 2018; Kinach et al., 2020), and local levels (Millar et al., 2020), but there has not yet been a systematic mapping of how this issue has been addressed across government departments and agencies at different
levels.<fnref n="1" /> This mapping could contribute important insights into efforts to reduce and/or divert FLW from the landfill, Canada's progress relative to other countries, and gaps remaining to be addressed. While provincial governments traditionally oversee waste issues (Bendickson, 2020), mapping out actions throughout the country may allow for policy stakeholders to broaden their assumptions about who else can and should take FLW policy action and expand available options.

This manuscript utilizes data from a systematic search of government websites and policy stakeholder interviews to answer the following questions: how do federal, provincial, territorial, and local governments in Canada address FLW? What does this reveal about jurisdiction over this waste? This manuscript argues that the lack of jurisdictional clarity presents a barrier to more comprehensive FLW governance. While clarifying jurisdiction is possible, policy stakeholders need to rethink their understandings of jurisdiction itself. This manuscript operationalizes Valverde's (2008, 2009, 2014, 2021) "work of jurisdiction" to present an alternative understanding of this concept that opens new possibilities for FLW governance.

## The multi-scalar governance of FLW

Within the past two decades, FLW has received significant global attention (Smith, 2020). This has prompted an increase in both government policy action to address this issue (Reynolds, 2023) and academic studies to examine these actions. Busetti and Pace (2023) refer to the contemporary period as the "era of food loss and waste policy" (p.3).

FLW is a complex governance issue that lacks a uniform definition (Roodhuyzen et al., 2017) or a

harmonized measurement system (Xue et al., 2017). This has complicated policy stakeholders' ability to understand what FLW is, to quantify and track its distribution throughout the agri-food system, and to prioritize their attention. These challenges are also compounded by the fact that FLW lacks a clear problem definition (e.g., has several causes, occurs in multiple locations, and involves a lot of actors) (Närvänen et al., 2019). They are also exacerbated by FLW crossing several policy areas (e.g., waste management, climate change, food insecurity) and the fact that its impacts are not limited to national or sub-national borders (Righettini & Lizzi, 2019). The interjurisdictional nature of this issue requires multiple solutions, operating at a variety of scales, and implemented by various actors (Soma et al., 2020). This complexity has made it challenging to determine appropriate actors and strategies for FLW governance.

The types of policy stakeholders involved in FLW governance and the roles they have taken vary across countries (Castells-Somoza, 2023). For example, Szulecka et al. (2019) point out that, while Sweden's national government has led the charge on addressing FLW, Norway has relied on the business sector, and Denmark on citizen action. Governments sometimes build off the momentum of other societal groups, as in the case of China where the national government revamped a citizen-led campaign (Feng et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2023). Governments also sometimes decline to implement FLW legislation and regulations if a nonprofit organization has made strides in addressing the issue, like in the UK (Blakeney, 2019). Occasionally, government policy action at one level influences actions at other levels, as in the case of the European Union whose lack of FLW legislation and regulations

<footnote n="1">¹ From a geographical perspective, the preferred term here would be "scale" to problematize the top-down, hierarchical understanding of federal, provincial, territorial, and local governance and to acknowledge the political nature of how space is divided in the country (Rodgers et al., 2013). This manuscript utilizes the term "level" as this is a common policy term.</footnote>
complicated governance efforts in specific European countries (Arroyo Aparico, 2015; Porter, 2020). This can also be seen in the case of Catalonia, Spain, whose implementation of FLW legislation has motivated its national government to follow suit (Castells-Somoza, 2023).

Governments throughout the world vary significantly in terms of the policy actions they have implemented to address FLW. Some have introduced national FLW reduction strategies (Ananno et al., 2021; Bird et al., 2022). Other governments at various levels have implemented legislation and/or regulations that ban organic waste from landfills (Millar et al., 2020; Ryen & Babbit, 2022), protect businesses from liability for donating surplus food (Broad Leib & Ardura, 2022), prohibit public officials from wasting food (Shen et al., 2023), require specific sectors to recycle their waste (Okayama & Watanabe, 2024), or mandate that retailers donate their surplus food (Mourad, 2022; Sokołowski, 2019). Others have also encouraged FLW reduction and diversion through non-regulatory means, such as tax incentives for food donation (Kinach et al., 2020; Ryen & Babbit, 2022), funding for nonprofit organizations (Bird et al., 2022; Blakeney, 2019), educational awareness campaigns (Shen et al., 2020), and collaboration with non-governmental policy stakeholders (Biggi et al., 2024; Porter, 2020). Governments also address FLW indirectly via policy action related to solid waste management (Sahakian et al., 2020), renewable energy, compost production, and animal feed (Richa & Ryen, 2018; Shurson et al., 2023; Tsai, 2020), and sustainable agrifood systems (Olejniczek & Lyubashenko, 2024; Soma, 2018).

While scholars have critiqued governments for not doing enough to address FLW, little research investigates jurisdictional questions such as which government

entities have (or do not have) the authority to address this issue and the reasons for this. Similarly, differences in FLW governance and its impacts between government entities have also been under-researched. This manuscript builds on the existing FLW policy literature by adding empirical evidence of what governments are doing in Canada to address FLW and by asking these deeper jurisdictional questions. The next section provides contextual information on how jurisdiction works in Canada.

## Jurisdiction in Canada

Canadian jurisdiction is complex. Canada is the second largest country in the world by area (Statistics Canada, 2011, p.208). It is divided into ten provinces and three territories, which are further subdivided into over 3500 municipalities (Muniscope, n.d.). Some provinces also have an additional tier of regional governments (i.e., collections of municipal governments). Sections ninety-one to ninety-five of *The Constitution Acts of Canada, 1867 to 1982* are the main reference points for determining what authority each level of government possesses to govern different aspects of society (Bendickson, 2020). This legislation gives the federal government legislative authority (i.e., the power to implement laws) over trade and commerce, navigation and shipping, interprovincial and international matters, fisheries, criminal law, and Indigenous peoples and lands, among other things (Brideau et al., 2019). Provincial governments<fnref n="2" /> can implement laws related to the development of natural resources, property and civil matters, local matters, and municipalities (Brideau et al., 2019). Municipal governments are “creatures of the province” in the sense that they are not assigned power

<footnote n="2">² Territorial governments do not have authority under the *Constitution* but have been given some of these powers and responsibilities from the federal government (Brideau et al., 2019).</footnote>
under this act but can be given responsibilities by the
provinces (Bendickson, 2020).

While the division of powers may appear distinct and
definite on paper, it is not so in practice. Case law shows
a long history of court cases in which jurisdiction has
been contested (Environmental Law Centre of Alberta,
2003). Jurisdictional conflict occurs partly because the
*Constitution* allocates legislative powers based on broad
societal areas rather than specific issues, leading to
overlap across levels of government (Bendickson, 2020).
For example, the federal government typically governs
toxic substances, hazardous waste, and waste on federal
and Indigenous lands (Becklumb, 2019). Provinces, on
the other hand, govern waste management within their
geographic spaces (Yunis & Aliakbari, 2021) and can give
municipalities the power to implement bylaws related to
waste management (Environmental Law Centre of
Alberta, 2003). Potential overlapping powers at
different levels complicate governance, especially for
FLW which spans multiple policy areas beyond waste
management (Righettini & Lizzi, 2019).

The work of jurisdiction

Valverde's (2008, 2009, 2014, 2021) research on the
"work of jurisdiction" challenges traditional
understandings of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is typically
understood in terms of who governs (e.g., level of
government, department, and/or agency), what is
governed (e.g., people, things), and where this
governance occurs (e.g., geographic space, area of
society). It is also seen as something that can be assigned
or possessed. While jurisdiction does not equate to
sovereignty, the lines between jurisdictions are seen by
policy stakeholders as relatively clear with minimal
conflict. Valverde (2009) argues that these assumptions
are "the work of jurisdiction." This "work" obscures
how jurisdiction operates by making choices about

governance appear technical, rather than political.
Valverde (2008) points out that, when one aspect of
jurisdiction is determined (e.g., who has authority), all
other aspects (e.g., what/where/when/how they govern)
automatically fall into place. The problem with this is
that each government entity has unique rationalities,
logistics, and access to resources and policy mechanisms
that shape the specifics of how they govern. The
uniqueness of each government entity's approach results
in fundamentally divergent impacts on the people,
spaces, and things that are being governed. Valverde
(2008) prompts readers to think about "what would
happen to the public infrastructure deficits of North
American cities, if garbage disposal, homelessness and
public transit were regarded as questions of national
biopolitical security" (pp.6-7). The purpose of this
question is to make the reader think about how
something like public infrastructure would change if its
governance was shifted to a different level.

The "work of jurisdiction" obscures that jurisdiction
is something that is unsettled and that must be enacted
continuously. Valverde (2021) discusses how, even
though the *Constitution* divides legal authority among
levels of government, in practice a government can claim
jurisdiction over an issue by implementing a policy
action related to it. A federal government can, for
example, claim jurisdiction over a local space by
providing funding for a local program. Jurisdiction can
also be refused by not implementing policy actions, like
in the case of a government who wants to avoid backlash
from stakeholders (Valverde, 2021). The "work of
jurisdiction" also conceals that jurisdiction is inter-legal.
This means that multiple government entities can govern
the same issue, simultaneously, in ways that overlap and
conflict.

This alternative understanding of jurisdiction is a
valuable analytical tool that has been used to examine the
governance of a wide range of issues. Pasternak (2014,
2017), for example, has used it in the context of settler colonialism to challenge the Canadian government's claims of sovereignty and denial of Indigenous jurisdiction. Lepawsky (2012) has explored the inter-legal nature of e-waste governance in and beyond Canada and showed the role that jurisdiction plays in characterizing

which electronic devices count as e-waste and can therefore be recycled. This manuscript uses Valverde's concept of jurisdiction to question the unwritten rules for who can govern FLW and how governance and its impacts differ among government entities.

# Methods

## Data collection

The author conducted a systematic search of federal, provincial, and territorial government websites and interviews with policy stakeholders to identify government policy actions related to FLW. FLW was defined here in the broadest sense to include any edible and inedible parts of food items that have been lost or wasted anywhere throughout the agrifood system. This process involved an advanced Google search of each government's general website with search terms from the academic literature. These search terms included: "food waste," "food loss," "surplus food," "organic waste," "circular economy" + "food," "circular economy" + "organic," "solid waste" + "food," "solid waste" + "organic," "compost,*" "waste diversion" + "food," "waste diversion" + "organic," and "source separated organics." This process was repeated for department-specific websites if said department was found through the original search. All results for these searches were recorded in an Excel sheet with descriptive information. This search took place from mid-May until October 2021 and yielded over one thousand webpages and documents. The author then invited relevant stakeholders (e.g., government policy advisors at all levels, high-level employees of non-governmental organizations, consultants, and academics) to participate in online, semi-structured interviews. These interviewees were selected using a

hand-picked sampling strategy (O'Leary, 2004) with the criteria that they either worked for a government who has implemented policy actions related to FLW or an organization that has engaged a government on this topic. These interviews took place from May until December 2022 and yielded sixty-five interviews. The author also included nine interviews from a 2021 project on FLW measurement that met this criterion. Some interviewees chose to provide written responses.

## Data analysis

The author conducted a qualitative content analysis of the website results and interview transcripts. This involved two steps. The first was to identify FLW policy actions. Policy action was defined broadly to capture a wide breadth and depth of activities. It included any measure (e.g., legislation, regulation, strategy, educational effort, funding program) a government has taken that related to FLW or the broader categories of organic waste and solid waste (under which FLW falls), regardless of the actors or sectors targeted. It also included policy-relevant actions, such as research and report-based efforts, as these are part of the policy process and serve as indicators of government interest in the issue. Policy and policy-relevant actions were included if they either had the primary objective to prevent, reduce, and divert FLW
or had non-FLW objectives (e.g., regional economic
growth) with a potential or actual impact on the
generation and/or management of FLW. The second
step used deductive coding to capture descriptive and
evaluative information about each of these actions (e.g.,
who implemented them, which actors they targeted,
what type of policy mechanism they used). This
information was compiled in an Excel sheet. During the
coding process, any new and relevant webpages and
documents that came up were collected and coded as
FLW is a fast-growing policy area in Canada. This
coding process took place from May until the end of
August 2023. The author also conducted a qualitative
content analysis of stakeholder interviews using
NVIVO to inductively code for statements regarding
who has or does not have jurisdiction over FLW.

Limitations

This manuscript did not capture all FLW government
policy actions in Canada. The website search, for
example, failed to find some government actions that
the author knew existed beforehand (i.e., food donation
liability legislation in a few provinces). The website

search may have missed some policy actions because of
the search terms used, or due to a government either
not posting them on their website or posting about
them on a separate website that was not identified
through the author's search. In terms of interviews,
approximately sixty government entities found via the
website search declined an offer to participate in an
interview as most of them believed that FLW was not
part of their jurisdiction. For government
representatives who did participate in the interviews, it
is possible that they were unable to or forgot to share
some of their actions. Policy actions in Quebec were
under-represented since most webpages and documents
were only available in French and, therefore, did not
show up via the English-based search of the Quebec
government's website. Most of the data mentioned in
the findings section for this province came from
interviews. Local government actions were also
underrepresented. The author did not conduct a
systematic search of regional or municipal government
websites and only interviewed a few policy advisors
from the local level because formal jurisdiction over
waste resides at the other levels of government.

Findings and discussion

Federal government policy actions

Table 1 shows that there are approximately twenty
federal government departments and/or agencies who
have implemented policy actions related to FLW. This
table lists each government entity, their overarching
mandate, the FLW-related policy actions, and whether
these actions had the explicit objective to reduce and/or
divert FLW.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has implemented the most FLW-related policy actions at the federal level. This department approaches FLW as a potential harm to the natural environment and has focused exclusively on FLW's impact on climate change. This framing sees the diversion of this waste from landfill as an avenue to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions. Besides committing in 2015 to the *United Nation's 2030 Sustainable Development* target 12.3 to reduce the country's FLW (Environment
and Climate Change Canada, 2019, p.1), the department's actions that explicitly aim to reduce and/or divert FLW have mostly involved information gathering to assess how the issue can be addressed. This has included working with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a North American

governmental organization, starting in 2017 to produce reports on the issue (Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2017a-e) as well as educational toolkits for schools (CEC, 2019, 2024a) and measurement guides for businesses (CEC, 2021, 2024b).

<table><caption>**Table 1:** Federal Government Policy Actions Related to Food Loss and Waste</caption><thead><tr><th>Department/Agency</th><th>General Mandate</th><th>Policy Actions</th><th>Was the objective to address FLW?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Environment & Climate Change Canada</td><td rowspan="6">To protect the environment</td><td>Signed an international agreement on sustainable development</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Supported a governmental organization's work on FLW</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Produced reports measuring FLW and organic waste</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Developed a tool for organic waste management</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Addressed climate change via international agreements, legislation, regulations, strategies, reports, guides, and funding programs</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Implemented legislation and regulations, funded programs and released guides and reports related to environmental protection</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada</td><td rowspan="5">To support agricultural sector growth</td><td>Established a national food strategy</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Launched funding programs to tackle FLW and food insecurity</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Hosted a podcast about agricultural issues</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Donated surplus food from research centers</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Implemented a funding program with provinces/territories to improve their agricultural sectors</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Global Affairs Canada</td><td rowspan="2">To maintain international relations</td><td>Released a video on FLW</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Participated in international discussions on agricultural, social, and environmental issues</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>Statistics Canada</td><td>To produce national statistics</td><td>Produced national statistics on waste management and agriculture</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Fisheries & Oceans Canada</td><td rowspan="2">To oversee oceans and fisheries</td><td>Signed an agreement, released a report and a guide that touch on waste in oceans and fisheries</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Financed clean energy technology projects</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Health Canada</td><td>To protect residents' health</td><td>Released information on healthy eating</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Canadian Food Inspection Agency</td><td rowspan="3">To ensure food safety</td><td>Implemented legislation and regulations, provided information on food safety</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Issued standards related to food quality</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Enacted legislation and regulations, provided information on biosecurity</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td rowspan="2">Infrastructure Canada</td><td>To develop public infrastructure</td><td>Launched a funding program with the provinces/territories for public infrastructure</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Issued an economic strategy for rural communities</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Natural Resources Canada</td><td>To develop natural resources</td><td>Released reports on waste resources</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Published reports and guides on energy efficiency</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Financed clean energy projects</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Parks Canada</td><td>To oversee national parks and lands</td><td>Implemented legislation and regulations, issued guides on waste management in national parks</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Regional development agencies (multiple)<sup>3</sup></td><td>To advance regional economic development</td><td>Offered funding to support regional businesses</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Indigenous Services Canada</td><td>To support Indigenous peoples and lands</td><td>Provided funding for infrastructure, clean energy, and food security projects on Indigenous lands</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Canadian Revenue Agency</td><td>To manage taxes</td><td>Offered a tax incentive for the use of scientific information and technology by businesses</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Treasury Board of Canada</td><td>To offer advice on how to spend tax dollars</td><td>Developed a guide on property management for federally owned properties</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Public Service &amp; Procurement Canada</td><td>To assist the federal government in its purchases</td><td>Created a pest management guide for federally owned properties</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Employment &amp; Social Development Canada</td><td>To enhance residents' standard of living</td><td>Handed out awards for the volunteer sector</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>National Defense Canada</td><td>To support the Armed Forces</td><td>Hosted a challenge to improve the sustainability of portable camps</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Immigration, Refugees &amp; Citizenship Canada</td><td>To manage the immigration process</td><td>Released a video series on immigrant success stories</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Library &amp; Archives Canada</td><td>To preserve national documents</td><td>Renovated their building to be net zero</td><td>No</td></tr></table>

Within the last few years, ECCC has also created a few Canada-specific reports quantifying FLW and organic waste (AET Group Inc., 2021; ECCC, 2020a), evaluated the feasibility of a municipal organic waste measurement database (Interview #46), and developed a tool to help users assess the emission outputs of different organic waste management options (ECCC, 2022a-c). The rest of this department's policy actions have indirectly related to FLW. For example, this can be seen through the department's actions related to climate

change. ECCC's (2020b) national climate change plan, *A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy*, its legislation and regulations like the *Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act* (2024), *Clean Fuel Regulations* (2024), and *Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act* (2021), and its funding programs, like the 2017 Low Carbon Economy Fund, have set the stage for organic waste diversion (ECCC, 2021, 2024).

Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (AAFC) has the second highest number of policy actions on FLW at the

<footnote n="3">³ Relevant agencies include Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canadian Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Federal Economic Agency for Southern Ontario, Pacific Economic Development Canada, and Prairies Economic Development Canada.</footnote>
federal level. This department has primarily treated
FLW as an outcome of an inefficient food system and
an opportunity to improve sustainability and food
security. AAFC's FLW-specific actions have included
the development of the country's first national food
strategy in 2019, which prioritized FLW reduction
(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2019, 2023,
November). This department has also implemented
funding programs to reduce FLW and improve food
security. The federally funded Food Waste Reduction
Challenge, for example, was launched in 2020 and has
provided financial incentives for businesses and
nonprofit organizations to develop innovative
"solutions" to FLW (AAFC, 2020, November). The
Surplus Food Rescue Program was a temporary
COVID-19 pandemic funding program to finance,
package, transport, and redistribute surplus food from
farms and factories to communities experiencing food
insecurity (AAFC, 2020, August). This department has
also raised awareness about FLW on its agricultural
podcast (AAFC, 2021, January 6) and has donated
surplus food grown at its research centers to those in
need over the last few years (AAFC, 2022). While not
explicitly focused on FLW, the department's Canadian
Sustainable Agricultural Partnership,<fnref n="4" /> an ongoing
funding program launched in 2018 with provincial and
territorial governments to improve the competitiveness
of their agri-food systems (AAFC, 2023, June), has had
some impact on FLW management. For example, it has
funded projects like an on-farm biogas study (Hallbar
Consulting, 2020) and the production of insect-based
animal feed products made from FLW (AAFC, 2021,
January 18).

While Statistics Canada worked with stakeholders to
improve agricultural statistics for more accurate FLW
estimates (Interview #29) and Global Affairs Canada

has produced an FLW awareness video (Interview #48),
the rest of the government entities at this level have
addressed the issue indirectly. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, for example, has unintentionally
contributed to the generation of FLW through
legislation and regulations such as the *Food and Drugs
Act* (2024), *Safe Food for Canadians Act* (2023), and
*Safe Food for Canadians Regulations* (2024). These
actions have set standards for the quality, appearance,
packaging, and labelling of food items, and, in turn, led
to discarding edible food. This agency has also amended
other pieces of legislation in ways that have limited
FLW management options through their efforts to
prevent global biosecurity-related outbreaks. For
example, the *Health of Animals Act* (2019) banned
food waste containing meat as a source of pig feed and
the *Fertilizers Act* (2020) prevented the use of specified
risk materials from ruminants like cows as fertilizer on
food crops. Other departments, like Health Canada
through its healthy eating guide (Health Canada, 2019)
and Employment and Social Development Canada
(2017) via a volunteer award to La Tablée des Chefs, a
food redistribution organization, have indirectly
encouraged FLW reduction and diversion.

This subsection shows that the federal government
has not taken the lead on addressing FLW. Despite a
failed attempt to pass FLW legislation (i.e., *An Act to
Establish National Food Waste Awareness Day*, 2020),
Canada currently lacks a national strategy to tackle
FLW and legislation or regulations to encourage its
reduction, monitoring, and measurement. There has
similarly been no guidance from the federal government
on how policy stakeholders can tackle this issue. Most
explicit FLW management policy actions were only
introduced in the past five years. While some FLW and
food security funding programs have targeted specific

<footnote n="4">⁴ This was previously called the Canadian Agricultural Partnership but goes by this new name as of 2023.</footnote>
actors (e.g., businesses, food security, food producers and processors), many actions lacked specific targets, calling for all actors to play a role. Policy action at this level has relied on largely persuasive (i.e., provided information) and market-based policy mechanisms (i.e., offered economic incentives or disincentives) rather than stronger regulatory measures to encourage others to reduce and divert their FLW (Giordano et al., 2021). These actions have also aimed to reuse surplus food and divert waste from landfills, rather than to prevent its generation. According to Mourad (2016), this would constitute weak sustainability as these actions reinforce, rather than challenge, the systemic causes of FLW.

## Provincial & territorial policy actions

Table 2 breaks down government policy actions at the provincial or territorial level by department type (e.g., environmental, agricultural). Each provincial or territorial government differs in how they name their departments and agencies as well as how they distribute responsibilities among these entities. This is partly due to the unique geographic, demographic, political, social, and economic characteristics that shape their governance structures. Despite these differences, government departments and agencies can be grouped into department types based on the similarity of their general mandates. These department groupings include environment; agriculture, aquaculture, and fisheries; natural resources and energy; infrastructure and municipal affairs; community and social services; health; economic development; education; and other. Table 2 lists the department types, their mandates, FLW-related policy actions, governments who have implemented these actions, and whether said actions had the explicit objective to reduce and/or divert FLW.

Environmental departments have implemented the most policy actions on FLW at this level. These actions

have primarily focused on FLW's environmental harms (e.g., soil and water contamination, climate change, human-animal conflict). Actions have also varied significantly, with only a few provinces addressing FLW management directly. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, for example, banned organic waste in landfills in 1997 and 2002 via *Solid Waste-Resource Management Regulations* (2023) and amendments to the *Resource Management Regulations* (2019). Ontario and Quebec introduced strategies to reduce FLW and organic waste in 2018 and 2020 (Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Parks, 2018a, b; Interview #34; see Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, 2020). Quebec also released a province-wide FLW measurement report (Recyc-Québec, 2022). Manitoba, on the other hand, implemented the Compost Support Payment program in 2014 to finance compost facilities based on tonnage of organic waste that they divert (Government of Manitoba, 2024). British Columbia has also created a substantial collection of resources to encourage various sectors to measure, reduce, and/or divert their food waste, which are accessible on their website (Government of British Columbia, 2022). These actions also include recent funding for organic waste diversion infrastructure (Government of BC, 2023, 2024 August), toolkits for food waste prevention (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, n.d., a, b; Tetra Tech, 2015), and case studies on organic waste (Government of BC, n.d.). Besides this, environmental departments at this level have addressed FLW indirectly through their policy actions on waste management, climate change, and general environmental protection.

FLW has not been addressed consistently among agricultural, fisheries, and aquaculture departments at this level. PEI plans to develop a FLW reduction strategy (Interview #15, see Honourable A. Perry, 2021,
p.16) and Quebec introduced a biofood strategy in 2021 that contains measures to prevent FLW upstream (Interview #34; see Government of Quebec, 2021). Besides this, most of these departments address FLW indirectly through their efforts to improve the profitability of these sectors. Some provincial governments, like Alberta (Government of Alberta, 2024) and Nova Scotia (Interview #28), have offered consultation services and conducted organic waste inventory reports (Alberta Agriculture & Forestry, 2015). These departments also financed businesses to encourage the use of surplus food and organic waste for value-add products, such as flax shives turned into fire logs (Interview #51) and non-filet pieces of salmon

made into jerky (Interview #50). They have additionally addressed agricultural waste through regulations on managing dead animals (Department of Municipal Affairs & Environment, 2017; *Ontario Regulation 105/09: Disposal of Deadstock*, 2009) and information on crop loss prevention (Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries, 2021; Ministry of Fisheries, Food & Agriculture, n.d.). Efforts by these departments have also recently included the promotion of surplus food donation and purchase (Interview #39, 50, 63) and the use of organic waste as a compost product (Government of Yukon, 2016) to bolster self sufficiency in local food systems.

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Provincial and Territorial Government Policy Actions Related to Food Loss and Waste</caption><thead><tr><th>Department/ Agency Type</th><th>Mandate</th><th>Policy Actions</th><th>Province/Territory<sup>5</sup></th><th>Was the objective to address FLW?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="8">Environment</td><td rowspan="8">To protect the environment</td><td>Implemented an FLW and/or organic waste reduction strategy</td><td>ON, QC</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Enacted regulations that ban organic waste from landfills</td><td>NS, PEI</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Funded programs to reduce and/or divert FLW and/or organic waste</td><td>BC, MN, NL*, ON, QC*</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Conducted research on FLW and/or organic waste</td><td>BC, MN, NL, NT, ON, PEI*, QC*, SK</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Provided information on improving FLW and/or organic waste management</td><td>BC, NB, NL, NS, PEI*, QC, SK</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Managed solid waste via legislation, regulations, guidelines, reports, and/or funding programs</td><td>All</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Addressed climate change via international agreements, legislation, regulations, strategies, reports, guides, and funding programs</td><td>All except NU</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Protected the environment broadly via legislation, regulations, guides, reports, and funding programs</td><td>All</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="5">⁵ An Asterix (*) is used to indicate that a policy action was taken by an agency (e.g., waste, food, economic), rather than a department. Province/Territory abbreviations: Alberta (AB), British Columbia (BC), Manitoba (MN), New Brunswick (NB), Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Northwest Territories (NT), Nova Scotia (NS), Nunavut (NU), Ontario (ON), Prince Edward Island (PEI), Québec (QC), Saskatchewan (SK), Yukon (YK).</footnote>
<table><tr><td rowspan="4">Agriculture, aquaculture, and fisheries</td><td rowspan="4">To support sector</td><td>Offered services for and/or conducted studies on transforming FLW and organic waste into value-add products</td><td>AB, MN, NB, NS*, ON, PEI</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Provided information on agriculture waste management</td><td>All</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Established funding programs with the federal government to support the growth of these sectors</td><td>All</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Developed strategies and/or provided information to increase the profitability of these sectors</td><td>All</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Provided services and/or created funding programs to address food insecurity</td><td>PEI</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Energy and natural resources</td><td rowspan="2">To develop natural resources</td><td>Implemented a renewable energy strategy and/or featured it within their broader energy policy</td><td>AB, BC, NB, QC, NL, NT, NS, ON, PEI, QC</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Provided financial incentive system to develop renewable energy projects</td><td>BC, NS, ON, QC</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Infrastructure and municipal affairs</td><td rowspan="3">To manage government infrastructure and support municipalities</td><td>Developed funding programs with the federal government to build municipal infrastructure</td><td>All</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Created environmental guides for government-owned infrastructure</td><td>AB, BC, NB</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Provided funding, awards, guides, and reports to help municipalities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions</td><td>BC</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Social and community services</td><td rowspan="2">To support residents' wellbeing</td><td>Offered funding for projects that improve resident well-being</td><td>AB, BC, MN, NL</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Developed a poverty reduction plan and/or held workshops on it</td><td>BC, NB*, NU, ON, QC, SK</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Health</td><td rowspan="4">To protect residents' health</td><td>Issued FW reduction tips for residents</td><td>AB</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Provided information on food safety related to food donation</td><td>BC, NB</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Implemented food safety regulations and developed guides</td><td>All</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Created nutrition guides</td><td>MB, NB, NL, NS</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Economic development</td><td>To strengthen the economy</td><td>Provided funding to support businesses and/or rural areas</td><td>BC, NB*, NU</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Education</td><td rowspan="2">To support children's education</td><td>Developed nutrition and/or sustainability support for schools</td><td>AB, BC, MN, NS, SK, YK</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Provided guidance for curricula</td><td>NB, NS, NL, ON, PEI, SK</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Other</td><td rowspan="4">N/A</td><td>Offered tax incentives for farmers to donate their surplus food</td><td>ON, NS, QC</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Enacted legislation to protect food donors from liability</td><td>BC, ON, NB, NS, NT, NU, MN, PEI, QC, YK</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Provided information and/or financial support for recovering from a natural disaster</td><td>BC, NB, NL</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Introduced a contest related to the sharing economy</td><td>ON</td><td>Yes</td></tr></table>
Most other government entities at this level have addressed FLW indirectly. Select health departments have provided guidance on safe surplus food donation in British Columbia (British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, 2019a, b) and household food waste reduction tips in Alberta (Alberta Health Services, 2019). Besides this, energy and natural resource departments addressed FLW indirectly by treating it as potential feedstock for renewable energy. This can be seen via regulations like Prince Edward Island's *Renewable Energy Act* (2023) and Ontario's feed-in tariff programs for anaerobic digestion facilities (Interview #33; see Ministry of Energy & Electrification, 2022). Infrastructure and municipal affairs departments utilized money from the federal Investing in Canadian Infrastructure Fund program, which is an ongoing program started decades ago to co-fund organic waste diversion infrastructure (Housing, Infrastructure & Communities Canada, 2016). These departments also developed sustainability guides for public infrastructure (Alberta Infrastructure, 2018). Community and social service departments, on the other hand, supported surplus food redistribution to improve citizen wellbeing by financing organizations like the Leftovers Foundation (Government of Alberta, 2022). All governments at this level additionally implemented civil legislation to protect businesses from liability if they donate surplus food (e.g., Nunavut's *Donation of Food Act*, 2013; Saskatchewan's *Donation of Food Act*, 1995). These laws were variably introduced between 1988 and 2013 depending on the province or territory. Some governments, like Ontario in 2013, have introduced tax incentives to encourage farmers to donate surplus crops (Ministry of Finance, 2023).

Table 2 shows that most provinces and territories have not led efforts to address FLW. Many governments lack explicit strategies, regulations, or other policies to encourage FLW reduction and

diversion. FLW-specific policy actions at this level have mostly utilized persuasive and market-based mechanisms that rely on food wasters to be aware that food waste is a problem and to act out of goodwill or economic incentive (Giordano et al., 2020). These actions have largely targeted waste management facility operators and local governments, prioritizing the diversion and use of FLW over its prevention (Giordano et al., 2020). For the most part, these policy actions reflect weak sustainability (Mourad, 2016). Quebec's biofood strategy to transform their agri-food system is an exception as it is an example of strong sustainability.

## Local government policy actions

Local governments differ significantly in size, population, resources, and the power and responsibility delegated by their provinces and territories. This can influence their roles in waste management. For example, waste management at the local level can involve provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, regional governments, service boards, private companies, or a mix therein. Because of this diversity and the lack of systematic data collection conducted at this level for this manuscript, this section provides some examples of the ways that regional and municipal governments have addressed FLW.

Some regional and municipal governments have introduced food waste reduction strategies or included them in solid waste strategies, like Toronto (City of Toronto, n.d.). Many large cities now offer source-separated organics collection and processing services. Some have gone a step further in the last few years to implement bylaws that ban organic waste from landfills (Interview #53; see The Council of the Town of Banff, 2022). Quite a few regional and municipal governments also have ongoing educational campaigns and
information on their websites for residents related to
FLW reduction and diversion. This includes media
campaigns like Love Food Hate Waste (see Food Mesh,
n.d.) and programs, like York Region's Good Food
Program which set weekly FLW tasks for residents to
complete and Let's Cook which taught cooking skills
(Interview # 47; see The Regional Municipality of York,
2024a, b). Other municipalities have conducted
research, such as pilot projects to test source-separated
organics collection led by Ecology North in Whitehorse
in 2009 (Interview #53) and Circular Innovation
Council in Guelph-Wellington County in 2021
(Interview #10; see Alexander et al., 2023; Circular
Innovation Council, n.d.). Some local governments
have also tested solutions like at-home composter
machines (Interview #17; see Federal Economic
Development Agency for Southern Ontario, 2019),
collaborating with academics on an examination of
food redistribution practices in Saskatoon (Interview
#58), and measuring food and other wastes via waste
characterization audits and food diaries (ECCC, 2020a,
pp.27-29; see Tetra Tech, 2023).

Regional and municipal governments have also
indirectly impacted FLW management through
initiatives like Guelph Wellington's 2021 Circular
Opportunity Innovation Launchpad (2024) and
Creston-Valley Kootenay Lake's 2016 Fields Forward
(Government of British Columbia, 2024 December).
These programs have financed the development of
value-added products from surplus food. York Region
also included the purchase of surplus local food in its
recent local food strategy (Interview #47; see York
Region Agriculture & Agri-Food, n.d.). Lastly, some
governments at this level have engaged in ongoing,
cross-departmental collaboration to tackle FLW. This
involves waste and public health employees jointly
educating the public about FLW reduction and healthy

eating (Interviews #11, 17, 47; see Ontario Food
Collaborative, n.d.).

While these represent some of the approaches to
FLW that local governments have taken, they are not
the norm. Many governments at this level have not
prioritized FLW due to factors such as lack of
awareness, competing priorities, small workforces,
limited financial resources, insufficient authority as the
"creatures of the province," or inadequate access to
diversion infrastructure. Variability between local
governments at this level in the types of policy
mechanisms used and who they target in their FLW
initiatives makes it difficult to evaluate policy actions at
this level using Giordano et al. (2020) and Mourad's
(2016) frameworks.

Stakeholder perceptions of FLW jurisdiction

An examination of interview transcripts revealed that policy stakeholders have limited views in terms of which government entities have the authority (and responsibility) to address FLW. Most interviewees were adamant that FLW fell under provincial and territorial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. An executive director for a waste non-governmental organization remarked that, "I don't know if the federal government [has] anything to do with food waste. I don't even know if it is their mandate." An executive director for a different non-government organization echoed these sentiments saying:

Unfortunately, the federal government does not have a role. They should, but under our political system, they have no role, and they can try to bring together the provincial jurisdictions to do more. That's...one thing they can absolutely do. But...they do not have jurisdictional authority to really do anything.
This perception was not absolute, as some interviewees believed that the federal government did, in fact, have the power to regulate FLW-related matters.

Most stakeholders also identified environmental and, to a lesser degree, agricultural departments as having jurisdiction over FLW. This was evident through the refusal rate for government interviews. Sixty federal, provincial, and territorial government entities declined interview invites, with many of them expressing that FLW was not part of their jurisdiction and directing the interviewer to environmental and agricultural departments. Even some policy advisors from other departments who did accept interview invites said things like, “well food waste, as I said, isn’t really part of my ministry” (a provincial policy analyst) and:

> I don't know if you've spoken to the food policy people at [Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada] yet, but they clearly have a scope of work that is...food loss and waste. We do not have that type of guidance, so it is not a priority. (a federal policy analyst)

There are likely many reasons why these stakeholders view FLW as the purview of environmental departments as opposed to that of other departments. One reason is that the federal government has done a lot of work framing FLW as a climate issue (i.e., as a way to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions) (see ECCC, 2019). This framing allows the federal government to tackle this issue, to some extent, under its Constitutional powers over international and interprovincial matters (Bendickson, 2020). As a climate change issue, this then falls within the authority of environmental (as opposed to other) departments.

Stakeholder perceptions of FLW jurisdiction were based on traditional understandings of jurisdiction as something to be possessed and siloed (Valverde, 2008).

Despite the *Constitution* dividing jurisdiction into broad areas of society rather than specific issues like FLW, most stakeholders had the perception that FLW governance “belonged” to the provincial and territorial governments. Similarly, even though FLW crosses several policy areas (Righettini & Lizzi, 2019), stakeholders conceptualized FLW as a “waste” and/or “food” issue and identified environmental and agricultural departments as having the best fit in terms of mandate to address it.

## Rethinking jurisdiction

This manuscript argues that the lack of jurisdictional clarity hinders more comprehensive FLW governance in Canada. The findings show that FLW governance in Canada is in its infancy. There is no legislation, regulations, or a harmonized strategy to reduce FLW in the country. Instead, a patchwork of unharmonized policy actions has been enacted by governments at various levels and across a wide range of departments and agencies. This patchwork consists of sometimes disparate, sometimes interconnected elements, with many aspects of the issue remaining inadequately addressed and/or unaddressed. The purpose of most policy actions was not to reduce or divert FLW, but they instead had indirect impacts through non-FLW policy objectives like economic growth. The few actions that explicitly sought to improve FLW management have only been implemented within the last five years and have mostly involved non-regulatory efforts to encourage rather than mandate action. All levels of government have largely addressed FLW by reducing surplus food and diverting waste away from landfills. This echoes Giordano et al.’s (2020) research, which has shown that governments typically neglect the prevention stage of the waste management hierarchy. Government policy actions at all levels have also
constituted weak sustainability according to Mourad (2016), as these actions focus on the symptoms rather than the root causes of the problem. Fragmented governance in Canada has partly been the result of an unclear jurisdictional division of legislative authority under the *Constitution* and the fact that FLW fits within multiple policy areas (Righettini & Lizzi, 2019).

While it may be possible to clarify FLW jurisdiction, this manuscript contends that it is also necessary for policy stakeholders to rethink how they understand jurisdiction itself. Most stakeholders assumed that FLW jurisdiction was located at the provincial and territorial levels in environmental and agricultural departments. These assumptions were underscored by a traditional understanding of jurisdiction as something to be assigned and as something that is siloed (Valverde, 2008). These points have important implications for who stakeholders expect to address this issue and who they hold accountable for the lack of progress to address FLW in Canada.

Valverde's (2008) alternative concept of jurisdiction allows for a more nuanced story about authority over and responsibility for FLW. This story casts all government entities identified in this research as players who have a stake in FLW jurisdiction and who could be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof). The perception of some policy stakeholders that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over this issue also holds less weight. The federal government's efforts to sign the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (ECCC, 2019, p.1), to produce reports on FLW, and to encourage organic waste diversion under their climate change legislation could be seen as attempts to claim jurisdiction over FLW. It also recasts the lack of action by select provincial and territorial agricultural departments as a refusal to claim jurisdiction, and, therefore, as a political rather than a technical decision. Additionally, this reconceptualization highlights the

inter-legal nature of FLW governance to show overlaps and/or conflicts in jurisdiction. For example, multiple levels of government and department types (i.e., agricultural, environmental, community, and social services) overlap in their funding of civil society organizations to divert surplus foods. Similarly, government entities within a single level of government differ in how they manage FLW, with environmental and infrastructure departments prioritizing the diversion and landfilling of FLW, agricultural departments focusing on the reuse of surplus food and waste, and energy departments finding ways to turn it into energy. These differing approaches have the potential to conflict like in the case of the United Kingdom where Bradshaw's (2018) work has shown how subsidies for renewable energy contradicted and took momentum away from food redistribution efforts.

Valverde's (2008) alternative understanding of jurisdiction also highlights how different government entities diverge in their governance of FLW and subsequent impacts on the people, spaces, and things connected to FLW. Across levels of government, for example, it was evident that different levels of government varied in the types of policy mechanisms that they used. The federal government utilized persuasive and market-based policy mechanisms rather than regulatory ones to try to reduce and/or divert. Provincial, territorial, and local governments, on the other hand, relied on a combination of several policy mechanisms, including regulations. At a department level, different types of government entities can be seen to conceptualize and engage the FLW problem in different ways. Environmental departments, who have a mandate of protecting the environment and its inhabitants, conceptualized food waste as a real or potential environmental contaminant. They mostly focused on food after the point where it has become “wasted” instead of before this point. They also targeted
waste management facility operators and local governments through regulations to control this contamination. Bradshaw (2018) points out that this focus on the end of the pipe is a systematic issue with waste law in general. Economic departments and agencies, on the other hand, have a mandate of improving the economic growth of a given region or province/territory. Through their policy actions, like funding businesses who create value-add products, they conceptualized food waste as an economic opportunity. Their attention focused on food processors, compost facility operators, and energy companies rather than on the commercial, institutional, and residential sectors.

Zooming out to look at all departments together, this reconceptualization of jurisdiction is important for understanding overall how Canada is approaching FLW governance and what gaps remain. For example, on-farm food loss is one area that seems relatively

untouched. This reconceptualization can enable policy makers to find the departments best suited to address different aspects of FLW and to coordinate policy actions among jurisdictions to minimize conflicts. Most importantly, it can activate the jurisdiction of several departments to address this issue intentionally, contributing within the context of their mandates and, when possible, prioritizing reduction-based actions. This is not to say there should only be one level or department type that should lead the charge on this issue in Canada, but rather that every department can collaborate towards the same goal. This reconceptualization also allows citizens and other actors to hold a wider variety of government entities accountable for the nascent state of FLW governance, as it casts a wider net for which entities have the authority and responsibility to address FLW.

## Conclusion

This manuscript analyzes data from a systematic website search and policy stakeholder interviews to examine the role of government in FLW governance in Canada. The findings show that FLW governance is a patchwork of direct and indirect policy actions by all levels of government and dozens of departments. The findings also show that policy stakeholders had a limited idea of who had jurisdiction over FLW, backed by traditional understandings of jurisdiction. This manuscript argues that the lack of jurisdictional clarity over FLW presents a barrier to more comprehensive governance of FLW and that stakeholders need to rethink jurisdiction itself. This manuscript uses Valverde's (2008) work to provide an alternative understanding of FLW jurisdiction and its governance.

This manuscript makes several contributions. It provides empirical evidence of what government entities are doing to tackle FLW in Canada. Canada is an understudied country in the FLW policy literature, and the analysis is of value to policy stakeholders to inform future governance. The second contribution is a methodological one. While a lot of FLW policy literature centers on a handful of selected policy actions, this manuscript utilizes a systematic website search to identify all government actions that relate to FLW. This approach identified a wider range of government entities that partake in FLW governance and the policy actions that impact FLW. This deepens the understanding of FLW governance and offers another way to analyze government actions beyond Canada. The use of Valverde's (2014) "work of jurisdiction" also
provides an important analytical tool for researchers to question how FLW jurisdiction works (and with what effects). Lastly, this manuscript makes a theoretical contribution. While Valverde (2008) points out that jurisdiction is often discussed in terms of “who” and “what,” this manuscript raises the question of what happens when an issue is not established enough for the “who” and “what” to appear obvious to policy stakeholders. While other scholars have operationalized Valverde’s (2008) work to point to the negative effects of the “work of jurisdiction” (see Lepawsky, 2012; Pasternak, 2014, 2017), this manuscript provides information that can be used to help create new governance possibilities to address issues like FLW in meaningful and impactful ways.

This manuscript recommends that policy stakeholders in Canada work collaboratively to intentionally think through which government entities are best positioned to address the various aspects of the FLW issue based on how they govern and the potential impacts they could have on FLW generation and management. Future research in this vein could focus on the role of other societal groups (e.g., civil society, business sector) in Canada and provide a deeper examination of government entities who do not consider themselves to have jurisdiction over this issue. This manuscript also recommends that scholars examine the “how” of jurisdiction in other countries to denaturalize assumptions about who does what with respect to FLW.

**Acknowledgements:** The author would like to thank Dr. Kate Parizeau, Dr. Noella Gray, and Dr. Mike von Massow as well as her colleagues, Dr. Emilie Wiehe and Ece Ikiz for their support on this manuscript. This manuscript draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance, a collaboration between the Government of Ontario and the University of Guelph. It also draws on research funded by the Arrell Food Institute.

**Conflict of Interest Disclosure:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

**Chloe Alexander** is a white female and a settler who was born and raised in a small town in Ontario, Canada. She is a PhD candidate in the Geography, Environment, and Geomatics department at the University of Guelph. Her work on food waste is influenced by an academic background in criminology and geography, as well as her experience with a surplus food redistribution organization. Chloe's work examines the state of food waste reduction activity in Canada and identifies ways forward to meaningfully address this issue.
References

AET Group Inc. (2021). *Overview of organics diversion requirements and practices for the Canadian industrial, commercial and institutional sector: Final report*. AET File No. ENV_WC-C202. Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2019). *Food policy for Canada: Everyone at the table*. ISBN: 978-0-660-31301-6.
https://multimedia.agr.gc.ca/pack/pdf/fpc_20190614-en.pdf

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2020, August 13).
*Government of Canada investment brings nutritious surplus food to vulnerable Canadians*. AAFC.
https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2020/08/government-of-canada-investment-brings-nutritious-surplus-food-to-vulnerable-canadians.html

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2020, November 19).
*Government of Canada launched Food Waste Reduction Challenge*. AAFC. https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2020/11/government-of-canada-launches-food-waste-reduction-challenge.html

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2021, January 6). *The first sixteen podcast—EP 007*. Government of Canada.
https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agri-info/first-sixteen-podcast/first-sixteen-podcast-ep-007

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2021, January 18).
*Reducing food waste through sustainable insect production in Calgary*. Government of Canada.
https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2021/01/reducing-food-waste-through-sustainable-insect-production-in-calgary.html

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2022, March 10). *The Donation innovation: Leanne Wilson kick-starts a government effort to reinvent food donation*. AAFC.
https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agri-info/good-news-grows/donation-innovation-leanne-wilson-kick-starts-government-effort-reinvent-food-donation

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2023, June 19).
*Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership*. AAFC.
https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/department/initiatives/sustainable-canadian-agricultural-partnership

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2023, November 7).
*2021 United Nations food systems summit and dialogues:*

*How Canada is supporting the process*. AAFC.
https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/department/initiatives/canadas-national-pathways/food-systems-summit

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. (2015). *An organic waste inventory report for Alberta's agri-food sector*. ISBN 978-1-4601-5073-3. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/organic-waste-inventory-for-albertas-agrifood-sector

Alberta Health Services. (2019). *Reduce food waste*. 404218-NFS. Alberta Health Services.
https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/nutrition/inf-nfs-reduce-food-waste.pdf

Alberta Infrastructure. (2018). *Environmental operations of Alberta infrastructure facilities: “The green guide” (3rd Ed.)*. Government of Alberta.
https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/custom_downloaded images/tr-greenguide.pdf#search=Environmental%20Operations%20of%20Alberta%20Infrastructure%20Facilities

Alexander, C., Bain, M., Ikiz, E., Motta, K., St. Godard, J.-A., & Parizeau, K. (2023). Food and organic diversion in industrial, commercial, and institutional (IC&I) sectors: A Canadian pilot project. *Cleaner Waste Systems, 6*(100120).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2023.100120

*An Act to Establish a National Food Waste Awareness Day and to Provide for the Development of a National Strategy to Reduce Food Waste in Canada, C-283*. (2020). 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session.
https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/C-283

Ananno, A. A., Masud, M. H., Chowdhury, S. A., Dabnichki, P. Ahmed, N., & Arefin, A. M. E. (2021).
Sustainable food waste management model for Bangladesh.
*Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27*, 35-51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.022

Arroyo Aparicio, A. (2015). Edible but marketable food: Some legal problems to be solved on food waste prevention.
In L. Escajedo San-Epifanio, & M. De Renobales Scheifler (Eds.), *Envisioning a Future Without Food Waste and Food Poverty* (pp. 33-38). Wageningen Academic Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-820-9

Becklumb, P. (2019). *Federal and provincial jurisdiction to regulate environmental issues: Background report*. Publication No. 2013-86-E. Library of Parliament.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201386E

Bendickson, J. (2020). *Environmental Law, 5/e*. Irwin Law Inc.

Biggi, G., Principato, L., & Castellacci, F. (2024). Food waste reduction, corporate responsibility and national policies: Evidence from Europe. *British Food Journal, 126*(13), 470-485.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/bfj-11-2023-0982/full/html

Bird, S., Amarakoon, U., Liang, X., & Pearson, D. (2022). The vital role of law in fighting Australia's food waste. *Alternative Law Journal, 47*(3), 211-216.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X221098483

Blakeney, M. (2019). Regulatory options for food waste minimization. In G. Steier & A. Giulo Cianci (Eds.), *Environmental Resilience and Food Law* (pp.57-76). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429443350

Bradshaw, C.J. (2018). Waste law and the value of food. *Journal of Environmental Law, 30*(2), 311-331.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqy009

Brideau, I., Brosseau, L. & Lowenger, A. (2019). *The distribution of legislative powers: An overview*. Publication No. 2019-35-E. Library of Parliament.

https://bdp.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201935E#:~:text=In%20Canada%2C%20the%20distribution%20of,%20the%20Constitution%20Act%2C%201867

British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. (2019a). *Industry food donation guidelines*. BC Centre for Disease Control. http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-

gallery/Documents/Guidelines%20and%20Forms/Guideline s%20and%20Manuals/EH/FPS/Food/Food%20Donation%2 0Guidelines%20Complete.pdf

British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. (2019b). *Providing nutritious and safe food: Guidelines for food distribution organizations with grocery and meal programs*. BC Centre for Disease Control. http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-

gallery/Documents/Guidelines%20and%20Forms/Guideline s%20and%20Manuals/EH/FPS/Food/FDO%20Guidelines% 20with%20Grocery%20or%20Meal%20Program.pdf

Broad Leib, E. M., & Ardura, A. (2022). History and legacy of the U.S. good Samaritan food donation law. In S. Busetti

& N. Pace (Eds.), *Food Loss and Waste Policy: From Theory to Practice* (pp.191-205). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003226932

Busetti, S., & Pace, N. (2023). Is this the era of food waste policy? In S. Busetti & N. Pace (Eds.), *Food Loss and Waste: From Policy to Practice* (pp. 1-10). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003226932

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, S.C. 2021, c.22. (2023). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-

19.3/fulltext.html

Castells-Somoza, C. (2023). Fighting food waste: Current and upcoming policies and regulations in Spain. In O. Kühne, J. D. Fischer, T. Sedelmeier, V. Hochschild, B.

Staniscia, C. Manetti, L. Dumitrache, A.-M. Talos, A. Menéndez Rexach, & A. de Marcos Fernández (Eds.), *Foodscapes: Theory, History, and Current European Examples* (pp. 305-318). Springer.

Circular Innovation Council. (n.d.). *Commercial food waste diversion program*. Circular Innovation Council.

https://circularinnovation.ca/foodwastepilots/

Circular Opportunity Innovation Launchpad. (2024). *COIL: Advancing circularity in businesses and communities*. COIL.

https://coil.eco/the-circular-opportunity-innovation-launchpad/

City of Toronto. (n.d.). *Long term waste management strategy*. City of Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2017/10/8ed4-Toronto-Waste-Strategy-

Exec-Summary-FINAL-AODA.pdf

Commission of Environmental Cooperation. (2017a). *Characterization and management of organic waste in North America-- Foundational report*. ISBN: 978-2-89700-234-3.

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11771-characterization-and-management-organic-waste-in-north-america-foundational-en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2017b). *Characterization and management of organic waste in North America—White paper*. ISBN: 978-2-89700-231-2.

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11770-characterization-and-management-organic-waste-in-north-america-white-paper-en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2017c). *Characterization and management of food loss and waste in*
*North America—Foundational report*. ISBN: 978-2-89700-230-5.

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11774-characterization-and-management-food-waste-in-north-america-foundational-report-en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2017d).
*Characterization and management of food loss and waste in North America—White paper*. ISBN: 978-2-89700-227-5.

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11772-characterization-and-management-food-loss-and-waste-in-north-america-en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2017e). *Cases on food loss and waste in North America*.

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11782-case-studies-food-loss-and-waste-in-north-america-en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2019). *Food matters action kit*. ISBN: 978-2-89700-260-2.

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11817-food-matters-action-kit-inspiring-youth-across-north-america-prevent-food-waste-en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2021). *Why and how to measure food loss and waste: A practical guide-Version 2.0*. ISBN: 978-2-89700-286-2.

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11869-why-and-how-measure-food-loss-and-waste-practical-guide-version-20-en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2024a). *Food matters action kit*. CEC. http://www.cec.org/flwy/

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2024b). *Why and how to measure food loss and waste*. CEC.

http://www.cec.org/flwm/

DeLorenzo, A., Parizeau, K., & von Massow, M. (2018). Regulating Ontario's circular economy through food waste legislation. *Society and Business Review*, 14(2), 200-216.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBR-12-2017-0115

Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment. (2017).
*Guidance document: Disposal of dead animals*. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

https://www.gov.nl.ca/ecc/files/env-protection-waste-guidancedocs-gd-deadanimals.pdf

Donation of Food Act, 1995, D-32.01. (1995).

https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/#/products/480

Donation of Food Act, S. Nu. 2013, c.8. (2013).

https://www.nunavutlegislation.ca/en/media/1721

Employment and Social Development Canada. (2017, November 19). *Recipients of the 2015 Prime Minister's volunteer awards*. Government of Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/volunteer-awards/2015-recipients.html

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2019). *Taking stock: Reducing food loss and waste in Canada*. ISBN: 978-0-660-29446-9.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/food-loss-and-waste/Taking%20Stock%20Report%20EN%20Final.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2020a).
*National waste characterization report: The composition of Canadian residual municipal solid waste*. ISBN: 978-0-660-34156-9.

https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2020/eccc/en14/En14-405-2020-eng.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2020b). *A healthy environment and a healthy economy*.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-overview/healthy-environment-healthy-economy.html

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2021, March 1).
*The town of Petawawa is converting food waste into clean energy with support from the Government of Canada*.

Government of Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2021/03/the-town-of-petawawa-is-converting-food-waste-into-clean-energy-with-support-from-the-government-of-canada.html

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022a).
*Greenhouse gas calculator for organic waste management*. Government of Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-reducing-waste/municipal-solid/waste-greenhouse-gases-canada-actions/calculator.html

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022b).
*Greenhouse gas calculator for organic waste management: Methodology report*. ISBN: 978-0-660-44052-1.

https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/eccc/En14-493-1-2022-eng.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022c).
*Greenhouse gas calculator for organic waste management: User guide*. ISBN: 978-0-660-44054-5.
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/eccc/En14-493-2-2022-eng.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2024). *What is the low carbon economy fund?* Government of Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/low-carbon-economy-fund/what-is-lcef.html

Environmental Law Centre of Alberta. (2003). *The ABC's of environmental jurisdiction: An Alberta guide to federal, provincial and municipal responsibility*. Environmental Law Centre. ISBN 0-921503-75-X.

https://elc.ab.ca/media/6034/ABC-finalprintcopydoc.pdf

Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. (2019, January 22). *FedDev Ontario supports environmentally-responsible technology*. Government of Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/economic-development-southern-ontario/news/2019/01/feddev-ontario-supports-environmentally-responsible-technology.html

Feng, Y., Marek, C., & Tosun, J. (2022). Fighting food waste by law: Making sense of the Chinese approach. *Journal of Consumer Policy*, 45, 457-479.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-022-09519-2

*Fertilizers Act, R.S.C.*, 1985, c. F-10. (2020). https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-10/

*Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C.*, 1985, c. F-27. (2024).

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-27/#hist

Food Mesh. (n.d.). *Love Food Hate Waste*. Love Food Hate Waste. https://lovefoodhatewaste.ca/

Giordano, C., Falasconi, L., Cicatiello, C., & Pancino, B. (2020). The role of food waste hierarchy in addressing policy and research: A comparative analysis. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 252,

119617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119617

Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., Laplain, D., Dent, B., Whitehead, P., Felfel, A., & Glasbey, C. (2019). *The avoidable crisis of food waste: Technical report*. Value Chain Management International and Second Harvest. https://cdn.prod.webiste-files.com/6618114bae6895cc12d3dc1d/671976934cdd31323d1aee12_The-Avoidable-Crisis-of-Food-Waste-Technical-Report_compressed.pdf

Government of Alberta. (2022). *Civil society fund*. Government of Alberta.

https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/custom_downloaded_i mages/css-civil-society-fund-grant-recipients-round-1.pdf

Government of Alberta. (2024). *Bio-industrial opportunities section- Overview*. Government of Alberta.

https://www.alberta.ca/bio-industrial-opportunities-section-overview#jumplinks-1

Government of British Columbia. (2022, August 31). *Food and organic waste*. Government of BC.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/food-and-organic-waste

Government of British Columbia. (2023, August 24). *Organics Infrastructure Program*. Government of BC.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/food-and-organic-waste/organic-waste-diversion/organics-infrastructure-program

Government of British Columbia. (2024, August 21). *CleanBC Organics Infrastructure and Collection Program*. Government of BC.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/food-and-organic-waste/organic-waste-diversion/cleanbc-organic-infrastructure-and-collection-program

Government of British Columbia. (2024, December 12). *Regional partnership creates value-added food products and local jobs*. Government of Alberta.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/economic-development/bc-ideas-exchange/success-stories/community-economic-development-initiatives/creston-valley-mobile-press

Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). *Organics case study 5: Waste recycling—Single-family collection program, kitchen scraps only*. Government of BC.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/organic-waste/casestudies/cs_5_gf.pdf

Government of Manitoba. (2024). *Manitoba Composts Support Payment guidelines: Version 3.0*. Government of Manitoba.

https://www.gov mb.ca/sd/wastewise/pdf/mcsp-guideline.pdf

Government of Quebec. (2021). *Politique bioalimentaire plan d'action 2018-2023 (Édition 2021)*. https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/adm/min/agriculture-pecheries-alimentation/publications-adm/dossier/politique-bioalimentaire/PO_politiquebioalimentaire-planaction2021_MAPAQ.pdf

Government of Yukon. (2016). *Local food strategy for Yukon: Encouraging the production and consumption of Yukon-grown food 2016-2021*. ISBN: 978-1-55362-763-0.
https://yukon.ca/sites/default/files/emr/emr-local-food-strategy-for-yukon.pdf

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). *Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes, and prevention*. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 978-92-5-107205-9. https://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/library/details/en/c/266053/

Hallbar Consulting. (2020). *B.C. on-farm biogas benchmark study (Version 2)*. Prepared for British Columbia's Ministry of Agriculture. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/waste-management/manure-management/bc_biogas_benchmark_study.pdf

Health Canada. (2019). *Canada's dietary guidelines for health professionals and policy makers*. ISBN: 978-0-660-25310-7. https://food-guide.canada.ca/sites/default/files/artifact-pdf/CDG-EN-2018.pdf

Health of Animals Act, S.C., 1990, c.21. (2019). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-3.3/

Honourable Perry, A. (2021, February 25). *Prince Edward Island: Speech from the throne at the opening of the 2nd session of the 66th General Assembly of the Prince Edward Legislature*. https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/publications/2021_speech_from_the_throne.pdf

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2016, December 19). *The governments of Canada and Quebec mark the start of construction of biomethanation facilities of the Société d'économie mixte de l'est de la couronne sud (SEMECS)*. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/housing-infrastructure-communities/news/2016/12/governments-canada-quebec-mark-start-construction-biomethanation-facilities-societe-economie-mixte-est-couronne-sud-semecs.html

Kinach, L., Parizeau, K., & Fraser, E. D. G. (2020). Do food donation tax credits for farmers address food loss/waste and food insecurity? A case study from Ontario. *Agriculture and Human Values*, *37*, 383-396.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09995-2

Lepawsky, J. (2012). Legal geographies of e-waste legislation in Canada and the US: Jurisdiction, responsibility and the taboo of production. *Geoforum*, *43*(6), 1994-1206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.03.006

Millar, S., Parizeau, K., & Fraser, E. D. G. (2020). The limitations of using waste food to feed hungry people. *Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition*, *15*(4), 574-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2020.1730292

Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques. (2020). *Stratégie de valorisation de la matière organique*. Government of Quebec. ISBN 978-2-550-86269-7.
https://www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/matieres/organique/strategie-valorisation-matiere-organique.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries. (2021, March). *Eastern filbert blight of hazelnut*. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/animal-and-crops/plant-health/phu-easternfilbertblightss.pdf

Ministry of Energy & Electrification. (2022). *Archived- 4.0 feed-in tariff program*. Government of Ontario. https://www.ontario.ca/document/renewable-energy-development-ontario-guide-municipalities/40-feed-tariff-program

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (n.d, a). *Foodservice food waste prevention—Part 1: Toolkit report for restaurants, drinking places and speciality foodservice operators*. Government of BC.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/organic-waste/toolkits/part_1_toolkit_report-foodservice.pdf

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (n.d, b). *Retail food waste prevention—Part 2: Toolkit instruction manual for supermarket, convenience and speciality food store operators*. Government of BC.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/organic-waste/toolkits/part_2_toolkit_manual-retail.pdf

Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Parks. (2018a). *Ontario's food and organic waste strategy: Action plan*. https://files.ontario.ca/food_and_organic_waste_framework.pdf

Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Parks. (2018b). *Ontario's food and organic waste strategy: Policy statement*. https://files.ontario.ca/food_and_organic_waste_policy_statement.pdf

Ministry of Finance. (2023). *Community food program donation tax credit for farmers*. Ontario Government.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/community-food-program-donation-tax-credit-farmers

Ministry of Fisheries, Food & Agriculture. (n.d.). *Managing late blight*. Government of Newfoundland & Labrador.
https://www.gov.nl.ca/ffa/files/publications-pdf-late-blight.pdf

Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: Competing solutions for food system sustainability in the United States and France. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, *126*, 461-477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084

Mourad, M. (2022). Did France really ban food waste? Lessons from a pioneering national regulation. In S. Busetti & N. Pace (Eds.), *Food Loss and Waste Policy* (pp. 109-123).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003226932

Muniscope. (n.d.). *Provincial and municipal statistics*. Secretariat of the Table of Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Local Government.
https://www.muniscope.ca/research/municipal_facts/provincial_municipal_statistics

Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., Mattila, M., & Heikkinen, A. (2019). Introduction: A framework for managing food waste. In E. Närvänen, N. Mesiranta, M. Mattila, & A. Heikkinen (Eds.), *Food Waste Management: Solving the Wicked Problem* (pp. 1-24). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4

Okayama, T., & Watanabe, K. (2024). Performance of the food waste recycling law in Japan with reference to SDG 12.3. *Recycling*, *9*, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling9010018

O'Leary, Z. (2004) *The Essential Guide to Doing Research*. Sage.

Olejniczak, K., & Lyubashenko, I. (2024). The last mile of policy design: The case of urban food waste intervention. *Policy Design and Practice*, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2024.2344838

Ontario Food Collaborative. (n.d.). *Ontario Food Collaborative*. https://ontariofoodcollaborative.ca/ Ontario Regulation 105/09 of the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001. (2009).
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/090105/v1#act-verion

Pasternak, S. (2014). Jurisdiction and settler colonialism: Where do laws meet? *Canadian Journal of Law and Society*, *29*(2), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2014.5

Pasternak, S. (2017). *Grounded Authority: The Algonquins of Barriere Lake Against the State*. University of Minnesota Press.

Porter, S. (2020). Food waste in the UK and EU: A policy and practice perspective. In C. Reynolds, T. Soma, C. Spring, & J. Lazell (Eds.), *Routledge Handbook of Food Waste* (pp.159-171). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462795

Recyc-Quebec. (2022). *Final report: Quantification study of food loss and waste in Quebec: Analysis, reporting and benchmarking of whole of chain food loss and waste and related GHG emissions*. Recyc-Québec. https://www.recyc-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/etude-quantification-pertes-qc-en.pdf

*Renewable Energy Act, Chapter R-12.1*. (2023).
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/legislation/r-12-1-renewable_energy_act.pdf

*Resource Management Regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. E-9*. (2019).
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/legislation/e09-15-environmental_protection_act_waste_resource_management_regulations.pdf

Reynolds, C. (2023). Tackling food loss and waste: an overview of policy action. In S. Busetti & N. Pace (Eds.), *Food Loss and Waste: From Policy to Practice* (pp.43-60).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003226932

Richa, K., & Ryen, E. G. (2018). Policy landscape and recommendations to inform adoption of food waste-to-energy technologies. In T. A. Trabold & C.W. Babbit (Eds.), *Sustainable Food Waste-to-Energy Systems* (pp.231-258).
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811157-4.00012-7

Righettini, M. S., & Lizzi, R. (2019). Governance arrangements for transboundary issues: Lessons from the food waste programs of Italian regions. *Review of Policy Research*, *27*(1), 115-134.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12360

Rodgers, A., Castree, N., & Kitchin, R. (2013). Scale. In *A Dictionary of Human Geography*. Oxford University Press.
DOI 10.1093/acref/9780199599868.001.0001
Roodhuyzen, D. M. A., Luning, P. A., Fogliano, V., & Steenbekkers, L. P. A. (2017). Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: Towards an integral perspective. *Trends in Food Science and Technology, 68*, 37-50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.07.009

Ryen, E. G., & Babbitt, C. W. (2022). The role of the U.S. policy in advancing circular economy solutions for wasted food. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 369*(133200), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133200

*Safe Food for Canadians Act, S.C., 2012, c.24.* (2023).
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-1.1/index.html

*Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, SOR/2018-108.* (2024).
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2018-108/index.html

Sahakian, M., Shenoy, M., Soma, T., Watanabe, A., Yagasa, R., Permakumara, D. G. J., Liu, C., Favis, A. M., & Saloma, C. (2020). Apprehending food waste in Asia: Policies, practices and promising trends. In C. Reynolds, T. Soma, C. Spring, & J. Lazell (Eds.), *Routledge Handbook of Food Waste* (pp.187-206). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462795

Shen, G., Li, Z., Hong, T., Ru, X., Wang, K., Gu, Y., Han, J., & Guo, Y. (2023). The status of the global food waste mitigation policies: Experience and inspiration for China. *Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26*, 8329-8357.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03132-0

Shurson, G. C., Dierenfeld, E. S., & Dou, Z. (2023). Rules are meant to be broken- Rethinking the regulation on the use of food waste as animal feed. *Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 199*(107273), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107273

Smith, A.F. (2020). A perfect storm: A history of food waste. In C. Reynolds, T. Soma, C. Spring, & J. Lazell (Eds.), *Routledge Handbook on Food Waste* (pp.37-54). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462795

Sokołowski, Ł.M. (2019). The act on counteracting food waste- an attempt of its evaluation. *Przegląd Prawa Relnego, 2*(25), 167-181.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ppr.2019.25.2.11

*Solid Waste-Resource Management Regulations made under Section 102 of the Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c.1.* (2023).
https://novascotia.ca/just/regulations/REGS/envsolid.htm

Soma, T. (2018). Closing the loop on Canada's National Food Policy: A food waste agenda. *Canadian Food Studies, 5*(3), 273-278.
https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v5i3.314

Soma, T., Li, B., Lickers, A., Geobey, S., & Gutierrez, R. F. (2020). All my relations: Applying social innovation and Indigenous methodology to challenge the paradigm of food waste. In C. Reynolds, T. Soma, C. Spring, & J. Lazell (Eds.), *Routledge Handbook on Food Waste* (pp.311-325).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462795

Statistics Canada. (2011). *Canada Year Book 2011*. Catalogue no. 11-402-X. Statistics Canada.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-402-x/2012000/pdf/geography-geography-eng.pdf?st=0XcwRbSV

Szulecka, J., Strøm-Anderson, N., Scordato, L., & Skrivervik, E. (2019). Multi-level governance of food waste. In A. Klitkou, A. M. Fevolden, & M. Capasso (Eds.), *Waste from Value* (pp.253-271). Routledge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429460289-13

Tetra Tech. (2015). *Residential food waste prevention: Toolkit for local government and non-governmental organizations*. ENVSWM03477-01. Prepared for the BC Ministry of Environment.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/organic-waste/food_waste_reduction_toolkit.pdf

Tetra Tech. (2023). *Regional District of Nanaimo 2022 waste composition study*. FILE: 704-SWM.PLAN03251-01. Prepared for Regional District of Nanaimo.
https://www.rdn.bc.ca/sites/default/files/inline-files/Final%20%20%20RDN%202022%20Waste%20Composition%20Study%20%20for%20release.pdf

The Council of the Town of Banff. (2022). *Food scraps and recycling bylaw 464*. Town of Banff.
https://banff.ca/DocumentCenter/View/4353/-Non-Residential-Waste-Bylaw-377-1

The Regional Municipality of York. (2024a). *Good food*. The Regional Municipality of York.
https://www.york.ca/newsroom/campaigns-projects/good-food#W7ZNsGhKiUk

The Regional Municipality of York. (2024b). #LetsCook30 challenge. The Regional Municipality of York.
https://www.york.ca/newsroom/campaigns-projects/letscook30-challenge
Tsai, W. T. (2020). Turning food waste into value-added resources: Current status and regulatory promotion in Taiwan. *Resources, 9*(53), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9050053

Valverde, M. (2008). Analyzing the governance of security: Jurisdiction and scale. *Behemoth A Journal on Civilization, 1*, 3-15. DOI 10.1524/behe.2008.0002

Valverde, M. (2009). Jurisdiction and scale: ‘Technicalities’ as resources for theory. *Social & Legal Studies, 18*(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663909103622

Valverde, M. (2014). Studying the governance of crime and security: Space, time and jurisdiction. *Criminology & Criminal Justice, 14*(4).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895814541899

Valverde, M. (2021). Games of jurisdiction: How local governance realities challenge the “creatures of the province” doctrine. *Journal of Law and Social Policy, 34*, 21-38.
https://doi.org/10.60082/0829-3929.1406

Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmark, A., O'Connor, C., Östergren, K., & Cheng, S. (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food loss and waste data. *Environmental Science & Technology, 51*(12), 6618-6633.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00401

York Region Agriculture & Agri-Food. (n.d.). *York Region agriculture and agri-food sector strategy: 2024 to 2027*. York Region. https://www.yorklink.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2024-2027-yr-agriculture-agrifood-sector-strategy.pdf

Yunis, J. & Aliakbari, E. (2021). *Generation and management of municipal solid waste: How's Canada doing?* Fraser Institute.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/generation-and-mangement-of-municipal-solid-waste.pdf