Milan Urban Food Policy Pact Monitoring Framework
Draft version, July 2018

Indicator 41: Total annual volume of food losses & waste

The views expressed in this product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

MUFPP framework of actions’ category: Food waste
The indicator measures (decrease in) total annual volume of food losses & waste.

Overview table
MUFFP Work stream
MUFFP action

What the indicatormeasures
Unit of measurement(i.e. Percentages,averages, number ofpeople, etc.)
Unit(s) of Analysis(i.e people under 5 years
old, etc.)
Which variables need tobe measured / what
data are needed

Possible sources of
information of suchdata

Food Waste
Convene food system actors to assess and monitor food loss and waste
reduction at all stages of the city region food supply chain, (including
production, processing, packaging, safe food preparation, presentation andhandling, re-use and recycling) and ensure holistic planning and design,transparency, accountability and policy integration.
Total annual volume of food losses & waste
Tonnes or Kilograms of food waste

Weight of food entering municipal waste stream-Food waste generated at system stages:
 Production
 Handling and storage
 Processing and packaging
 Distribution and point of purchase Household/ consumption-Types of food wasted-Edible vs inedible food
-Destinations of food waste (landfill, composting, redistribution, etc.)-Municipal waste management department-Private haulage companies

1Possible methods/tools
for data-collection
Expertise required
Resources required/estimated costs

Specific observations
Examples of application

Sampling and weighing
No specific expertise is required to operate a weighing device and record theresults.
Weighing can be costly if an entity is weighing food loss and waste from morethan one location. In addition to the initial purchase or rental of a weighing
device, transport of the device and personnel can be cost-prohibitive,
particularly in areas with poor vehicular access. The main constraints on
weighing, however, are logistics and feasibility rather than cost1.
The Natural Resources Defense Council describes the results of a food waste
baseline assessment study in three U.S. cities—Denver, Nashville, and New York
City—for residential and non-residential sectors, including the industrial,commercial and institutional sectors. The intent of the study was to characterise
the amount of food that is wasted in these cities, identify some of the reasons
why the food is going to waste, and then use that data to help inform and inspire
initiatives to prevent wasting food, to rescue surplus food to benefit people inneed, and to recycle food scraps. Outputs from the study not only include theresults of the research, but also templates and descriptions of themethodologies in hopes that this study will contribute to a working model forother cities to perform similar assessments2.

Rationale/evidence
A significant share of food grown for human consumption is never eaten. It is estimated that one third,
by weight, of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This equates to US$940 billion
per year in economic losses and is linked to approximately one quarter of all water used by agriculture3.
Food is lost or wasted throughout the supply chain, from production to household consumption. Foodwaste that rots in landfills emits harmful greenhouse gases. Target 12.3 of the United NationsSustainable Development Goals calls for the halving of per capita global food waste by 2030.
Cities are key players because they are responsible for solid waste services and have economic, socialand sustainability goals that food waste solutions can support. Many cities have analysed the types ofmaterials that end up in the waste stream, few have done comprehensive food waste assessments,
especially at the household level. Local governments need further data on the types of food that ends
up in the waste stream, what proportion is edible versus inedible and why the food is wasted. This lackof information and the variations in methodologies are barriers to developing strategies to reduce foodloss and waste. The World Resources Institute has developed a comprehensive “Food Loss and Waste
Accounting and Reporting Standard” to facilitate the quantification of food loss and waste (FLW) andencourage consistency and transparency of the analyses4.

Glossary/concepts/definitions used
Food Loss and Waste: All edible and inedible parts that are discarded or wasted.

1World Resources Institute (2017). Guidance on FLW Quantification Methods: Supplement to the Food Lossand Waste (FLW) Accounting and Reporting Standard, Version 1.0. Available from http://flwprotocol.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/FLW-Protocol_Guidance-on-FLW-Quantification-Methods.pdf.
2
Natural Resources Defense Council (2017). Estimating Quantities and Types of Food Waste at the City Level.
Available from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/food-waste-city-level-report.pdf.
3
FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf
4World Resources Institute (2017). Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard. Available fromhttps://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/REP_FLW_Standard.pdf.

2

Food: Any substance that is intended for human consumption. This includes beverages and any
substance that has been used in the manufacture, preparation, or treatment of food. “Food” also
includes material that has spoiled and is therefore no longer fit for human consumption.
Inedible Parts: Components associated with food that, in a particular food supply chain, are notintended to be consumed by humans. Examples of inedible parts associated with food could include
bones, rinds, and pits/stones. “Inedible parts” do not include packaging. What is considered inedible
varies among users (e.g., chicken feet are consumed in some food supply chains but not others),changes over time, and is influenced by a range of variables including culture, socio-economic factors,
availability, price, technological advances, international trade, and geography.
Destination: Where material removed from the food supply chain is directed, such as landfill, animal
feed, composting, etc.

Preparations
A meeting should be organised with all staff who will be involved in this activity to: Familiarise them with food loss and waste assessments
 Agree on the objectives and scope of the analysis and data collection requirements
 Define the methodology to be applied for data collection and analysis, and How to coordinate the activities.

Sampling:
In many instances it will be impractical to weigh all the Food Loss and Waste (FLW), in which case asample of FLW should be taken and weighed. Sampling is the process of choosing to measure orapproximate, over a given period of time, the amount of FLW from a subset of FLW-producing units
within a population, or from a fraction of the physical FLW produced. An entity may undertake boththese types of sampling, which involve the following.
Selecting a representative sample impacts the accuracy of the data. It is important that the sample of
FLW is as representative as possible of all units and all FLW in the population. There are two main
approaches to sampling FLW-producing units, which differ in how well the data produced represents
all units. The approaches are “probability” and “non-probability” sampling. In probability sampling, allFLW-producing units in the population stand a known and equal chance of being selected, thus
produce a random sample that can statistically represent the characteristics of the whole population
being studied. In non-probability sampling, the likelihood of any one FLW-producing unit being
selected is often not known (e.g., sometimes because the exact size and nature of the population fromwhich the sample will be drawn are not fully understood). Non-probability samples are less reliableindicators of the characteristics of the whole population. For further guidance, see Appendix A“Approaches to Sampling and Scaling Up Data” in the Loss and Waste Accounting and ReportingStandard (World Resources Institute, 2017).

Data Collection and Analysis
WRI’s Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard5 provides detailed steps for datacollection methods and data analyses. Please refer to the following resources for further clarification:
 Chapter 8: Collecting, Calculating, and Analysing Data
 Chapter 11: Recording Causes of Food Loss and Waste

5World Resources Institute (2017). Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard.

3

For a clear language step by step guide to residential household waste assessment, see Chapter 3 of
NRDC’s Estimating Quantities and Types of Food Waste at the City Level. Chapter 4 provides anoverview of industrial, commercial and institutional waste assessments.

References and links to reports/tools
Eurostat (2012). Guidance on municipal waste data collection.
World Resources Institute (2017). Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard.
Available from https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/REP_FLW_Standard.pdf.
World Resources Institute (2017). Guidance on FLW Quantification Methods: Supplement to theFood Loss and Waste (FLW) Accounting and Reporting Standard, Version 1.0. Available fromhttp://flwprotocol.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FLW-Protocol_Guidance-on-FLWQuantification-Methods.pdf.
WRAP Cymru (2016). National municipal waste compositional analysis in Wales.

4