Improving energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing

Several measures – including both technological innovation and behaviour change – can reduce emissions associated with food supply chains. Measures to reduce emissions along supply chains include:

• Improved storage on the farm:
  • Promote use of natural insecticides: Plant species and extracts with natural pesticide ability have been found and are already commonly used, as part of traditional practices, to protect grains from insects in several African and Asian countries. Plant-based chemicals and products are biodegradable, environment-friendly and relatively safe for human health.
  • Invest in Hermetic storage (HS), also known as “sealed storage” or “airtight storage” (e.g. metal drums and silos, and hermetic bags). HS is an effective storage method for cereal, pulses, coffee and cocoa beans, as it reduces the use of chemicals and pesticides. 
• Cold storage measures:
  • Promote lower-cost, off-grid cooling technologies (e.g. biogas- or solar-powered technologies) that offer a low-emission alternative to cold storage facilities. For example, Coolbots serve to convert window air conditioners to walk-in refrigerator cooling units and can be powered by an off-grid system using solar power. They are estimated to be about 25% more efficient than conventional cooling systems.
  • Invest in cold storage facilities with greater energy efficiency. About 15% of electricity consumed worldwide is used for refrigeration and about 1% of global GHG emissions are produced by cold chains. Energy-efficient cold storage technologies include phase change material, thermal energy storage and phase change thermal storage units.
  • Encourage behavioural and design changes that reduce energy usage in existing cold storage facilities. This includes ensuring rapid transfer of temperature-controlled food from one unit to another; taking advantage of “free” cooling (i.e. naturally lower evening temperatures); designing systems for efficiency at typical temperatures; and improving systems to minimize refrigerant leakage (improved room insulation in cold storage facilities alone could generate energy savings of 25%).
  • Phase out use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a type of highly potent GHG often used in refrigeration. For instance, the United States is phasing out HFCs under the AIM Act. There are several known low-emissions alternatives to HFCs in refrigeration, such as natural refrigerants (e.g. ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, water and air).
  • Incentivize households to buy more energy-efficient refrigerators through subsidies and/or labelling schemes such as the labels provided by the European Union’s Ecodesign Directive.
• Processing measures, for example:
  • Promote and support farmers to acquire drying equipment—from simple tarpaulins to shelters that protect from the rain. Most grain losses occur during storage due to improper drying, leading to mould damage.
  • Support smallholder farmers to acquire appropriate machinery (e.g. maize shellers and rice mechanical threshers) for threshing and shelling of grain crops.
  • Promote low emissions drying technologies such as solar dryers.
  • Promote use of low-emissions processing technologies (e.g. canning, irradiation and dehydrating) that extend shelf life and eliminate or reduce the need for cold storage. For more information on technologies that can help to reduce emissions associated with food supply chains, see Reducing post-harvest food loss in agricultural supply chains.
• Transportation measures:
  • Increase responsible investment in transport infrastructure (e.g. improved road and rail networks from high-production areas, and in more GHG-efficient modes of transport) by adopting territorial approaches to improve market connectivity and trade access, particularly in areas with high multidimensional poverty. For example, rail and barges are more energy-efficient per ton of cargo than air freight. Similarly, larger trucks are more emissions-efficient than smaller vehicles.
  • Use information and communications technology to design the least emissions-intensive transportation routes and storage strategies. For example, in a study of Californian farmers’ markets, the introduction of consolidation centres where farmers could transport their goods before they were brought to the market was estimated to decrease total distance travelled by 30% and reduce transportation emissions by 19% or more.
• Cross-cutting measures:
  • Establish energy-use requirements for refrigerators and other food storage, processing and transportation technologies. For example, the European Union’s Ecodesign Directive provides design requirements for many types of technologies, including refrigeration technologies.
  • Implement technologies and practices to reduce food loss and waste. Food loss and waste is a major contributor to emissions stemming from food systems and supply chains. For detailed information on measures that can help to reduce food losses (and associated emissions) along food supply chains, see Reducing post-harvest food loss in agricultural supply chains. 
  • Invest in trigeneration systems, a technology which offers significant reductions in GHG emissions associated with supply chain processes. Trigeneration (sometimes referred to as CCHP, CHRP or polygeneration, depending on the system) involves the integration of local combined heat and power generation (CHP) with refrigeration technologies to provide simultaneous electrical power, heating and cooling/refrigeration. This can produce significant energy and GHG reductions compared to separate production systems for electricity, heat and refrigeration. Compared to conventional HFC-based cooling systems, integrated trigeneration and CO2 systems can be at least 15% more energy-efficient and reduce carbon emissions by 44%.
  • Increase responsible investment in infrastructure, technologies, logistics, services, and supply chains, by adopting territorial approaches to improve market connectivity and trade access, particularly in areas with high multidimensional poverty.

Many of the measures to reduce emissions associated with food storage, cold chains, transport and processing might only be possible given broader governance and policy reforms. The following governance measures can serve to facilitate the measures listed above: 

• Support smallholder farmers and small and medium businesses with upfront investment costs of infrastructure and technologies to reduce post-harvest food loss, with particular emphasis on supporting low-income areas and marginalized groups.
• Reform food and manufacturing policies (e.g. introduce market-based measures and subsidies) to enable the design and implementation of more energy-efficient technologies for food storage, processing, and transportation, by providing incentives for investment in crucial technological research and development for more energy-efficient and effective cold chains. Manufacturers could be incentivized to invest in these technologies through programs such as the UK’s Enhanced Capital Allowances Schemes or the UK’s Climate Change Levy.
• Improve public services infrastructure (e.g. reliable internet and electricity supply) to enhance efficiency of supply chain processes and reduce overall emissions.
• Along with making technologies available, the government agencies and organizations must ensure the equitable development of facilities to provide accessible and clear information and training about the use and maintenance of these technologies in the local language, for successful adaptation and effective use of these technologies.
• Invest in renewable energy production and distribution to facilitate replacement of fossil fuel-powered equipment and machinery along the food supply chain. See Shifting to clean energy at the farm level.
• Conduct research that quantifies emissions embedded in food supply chains to identify where in food supply chains emissions are arising and thereby develop targeted interventions.
• Encourage supermarkets and other food retailers to alter their choice architecture to steer consumers away from emissions-intensive products. For more information on measures that can influence consumers to opt for more sustainable options, see Regulating advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable food.

Tools and guides that can support the reduction of emissions from energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing include:

Guides

Reducing emissions from energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing can also help advance the targets of the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), as well as those of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Climate change mitigation benefits

The contributions of each post-production phase to the overall carbon footprint of supply chains is approximately 17% of emissions in postharvest handling and storage, 14% in processing and 15% in distribution. Consumption contributes approximately 35% of the overall carbon footprint. 

Implementation of new storage, cooling and drying technologies that are more energy efficient or operate using renewable energy rather than fossil fuels results in the net reduction of GHG emissions in food systems:

• Studies indicate that improved cold storage technologies, i.e. with more refrigeration equipment, and with better energy and environmental performance, could cut CO2 emissions associated with cold chains (from the post-harvest to the final consumption stage) by up to 50%.
• Energy efficiency interventions in the food processing chain can save up to 20% of energy consumption.

Climate change adaptation benefits

Reducing emissions from energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing could directly contribute to the following targets under the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience:

• Target 9a and d (Water & Sanitation and Ecosystems): Introducing low-emission technologies and infrastructure can improve cold chains, transport, and processing systems. This can reduce food loss, for instance by reducing spoilage and extending the shelf life of perishable goods. This can in turn reduce demand for food production, conserving vital land and water resources while minimizing pollution to help combat climate-induced water scarcity, promote access to safe potable water, and increase the climate resilience of ecosystems.
• Target 9b (Food & Agriculture): Energy-efficient improvements may boost producer revenue, reduce costs, shorten payback periods, and make agricultural products more affordable for consumers. Overall, energy security due to lower fossil fuel use, resource efficiency and lower costs and prices can enhance food security and food-system resilience to climate shocks.
• Target 9c (Health): Preserving the safety and nutritional quality of food through sustainable cold chains and transport reduces the risk of foodborne illnesses. The use of cleaner energy and refrigerants reduces environmental pollution and its health impacts. Sustainable food processing such as through hermetic storage or the use of natural insecticides can lower consumer exposure to highly processed foods, helping reduce the risk of diet-related noncommunicable diseases. These can increase resilience to climate-related health impacts.
• Target 9f (Livelihoods): The introduction of new, lower-emissions technologies can create jobs in logistics, maintenance, and manufacturing, and boost the incomes of small-scale farmers and food producers by minimizing post-harvest losses. This can contribute to more resilient and economically stable rural communities.

Biodiversity benefits

Action under this policy option can help to deliver on multiple KM-GBF targets, in particular:

• Target 8 (Minimize the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Build Resilience): Energy savings from energy efficiency interventions in the food processing chain could reduce the demand for energy production, which often involves habitat destruction for power plants or resource extraction.
• Target 20 (Strengthen Capacity-Building, Technology Transfer, and Scientific and Technical Cooperation for Biodiversity): Scientific cooperation can lead to the development of new technologies that improve the efficiency of cold chains and processing methods, thus reducing energy consumption and its impacts on biodiversity. Collaborative research initiatives can also focus on sustainable agricultural practices that support biodiversity while decreasing reliance on fossil fuels.

Other sustainable development benefits

Reducing emissions from energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing can also help contribute to the progress of the following SDGs:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Reducing emissions from food energy use can lower operational costs, potentially making food more affordable and supporting livelihoods.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Improved energy efficiency in food chains reduces losses and enhances food availability.
• SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): It drives the adoption of cleaner, more efficient energy solutions across food supply chains.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): It fosters innovation in cold chain technology and sustainable infrastructure development.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): It may reduce inequalities, if interventions account for equity issues such as the impact of disproportionate costs and access to technologies for marginalized groups.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): It promotes efficient resource use and minimizes environmental impacts in food systems.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): It directly cuts greenhouse gas emissions from food system energy use, mitigating climate change.

Cutting emissions from energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport, and processing hinges on carefully crafted and well-executed strategies. Yet, these initiatives frequently encounter both technical and non-technical obstacles, as well as unintended consequences and trade-offs that can compromise their effectiveness, such as:

• It can be expensive to design, implement and operate new supply chain technologies and infrastructure. This can be an especially significant obstacle in developing countries.
• Biogas-powered cooling technology relies on digesters to produce the biogas, a process which requires large amounts of water (50-100 liters per day to mix the manure, equivalent to around 25,000 liters of water per year).
• Energy efficiency gains (and corresponding emission reductions) in refrigeration could be offset by the increased use of refrigeration technology due to the growth of societal dependence on refrigeration. This is an example of the so-called “rebound effect.”

Integrating the following measures into a comprehensive and cohesive framework can help address implementation challenges and minimize potential trade-offs:

• Costs from the development, purchase and/or use of improved technologies could be offset through subsidies or support (e.g. financial and/or technical) from wealthier governments or institutions.
• Solar-powered coolers use less water as compared to biogas-powered coolers. They were found to have the capacity to save around 1 million liters of water per year in Tanzania and around 3 million liters per year in Tunisia. However, this impact was not seen in Kenya.
• The potential increase in overall energy usage and emissions despite efficiency gains in refrigeration and other food supply chain technologies can be avoided by encouraging consumers and/or supply chain actors to consume less overall. Further, any cost savings from efficiency gains could be taxed to keep costs the same.

Effective tracking of the reduction of emissions from energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport, and processing relies on strong monitoring tools, clear indicators, and structured frameworks that capture both implementation progress and related biodiversity and climate outcomes.

Indicators to monitor biodiversity outcomes

The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a comprehensive set of headline, component, and complementary indicators for tracking progress toward the targets of the KM-GBF. Some of these indicators could also be functional for monitoring the implementation of this policy option. These indicators are:

Tools to monitor biodiversity outcomes

Not identified

Tools to monitor climate outcomes

The cost of cutting emissions from energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport, and processing varies significantly based on a country’s unique socio-economic conditions, institutional capacities, and risk profile, but the following estimates have been provided as examples:

• An analysis of domestic biogas-powered milk chillers found that in Kenya and Tanzania, adoption of the chillers requires an upfront investment of USD 1,600 per household.
  • In the same analysis, solar-powered coolers required an upfront investment of USD 40,000.
• Initial investment costs for trigeneration systems can be relatively high but payback periods of 3-5 years can be achieved given certain conditions.

Some notable on-the-ground examples include:

• An FAO and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development study in Morocco assessed the potential for more energy- and emissions-efficient climate control techniques in food supply chains. The results show that improving the efficiency of the cold chain in Morocco is a “low-hanging fruit” with high impact (i.e. it has considerable emissions mitigation potential without significant trade-offs or barriers to implementation).
• Zero Emission Cold-Chain (ZECC) is a UK-based initiative that aims to develop a roadmap for achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 in the cold food chain. It focuses on integrating engineering, energy resources, and food safety to optimize cooling systems while reducing emissions. The project involves collaboration among universities, industry experts, and stakeholders to identify sustainable technologies and practices in the cold-chain sector.

1. 10 ways to reduce food loss: lessons from the field. (n.d.). IFAD. Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.ifad.org/en/w/explainers/10-ways-to-reduce-food-loss-lessons-from-the-field
2. Alkaabneh, F. M., Lee, J., Gómez, M. I., & Gao, H. O. (2021). A systems approach to carbon policy for fruit supply chains: Carbon tax, technology innovation, or land sparing? Science of The Total Environment, 767, 144211.
3. Bani Hani, E. H., Alhuyi Nazari, M., Assad, M. E. H., Forootan Fard, H., & Maleki, A. (2022). Solar dryers as a promising drying technology: a comprehensive review. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 147(22), 12285–12300
4. Chilling Prospects 2022: Promoting sustainable agricultural food chains through the Energy Smart Food programme. (2022, June 3). Sustainable Energy for All | SEforALL. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from https://www.seforall.org/data-stories/promoting-sustainable-agricultural-food-chains
5. Cholette, S. (2012). Addressing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food distribution: a case study of Californian farmers’ markets. ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE, (3), 145–169.
6. Climate Change Levy rates. (2022, November 17). GOV.UK. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-levy-rates.
7. Corigliano, O., Morrone, P., & Algieri, A. (2025). Navigating the Challenges of Sustainability in the Food Processing Chain: Insights into Energy Interventions to Reduce Footprint. Energies, 18(2), 296.
8. ECBPI. (2021). Nature food systems: GHG emissions – March 2021. Retrieved from https://ecbpi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Nature-food-systems-GHG-emissions-march-2021.pdf
9. European Commission. (n.d.). Climate-friendly alternatives to HFCs. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases/climate-friendly-alternatives-hfcs_en
10. Energy label and ecodesign. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign_en
11. Fanzo, J. et al. (2022) Sustainable Food Systems and nutrition in the 21st Century: A report from the 22nd annual Harvard Nutrition Obesity Symposium, The American journal of clinical nutrition. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8755053/ (Accessed: 23 May 2025). 
12. FAO. (n.d.). Food wastage footprint & Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/a-bb144e.pdf
13. FAO. (2016). Morocco: Adoption of climate technologies in the agrifood sector. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i6242e/i6242e.pdf
14. FAO. (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf
15. Food systems account for at least 15% of all fossil fuels. (n.d.). Global Alliance for the Future of Food. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from https://story.futureoffood.org/power-shift/
16. Freschi, F., Giaccone, L., Lazzeroni, P., & Repetto, M. (2013). Economic and environmental analysis of a trigeneration system for food-industry: A case study. Applied Energy, 107, 157–172
17. Garnett, T. (2007). Food Refrigeration: What is the Contribution To Greenhouse Gas Emissions and How Might Emissions Be Reduced? Retrieved from https://tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/FCRN%20refrigeration%20paper%20final.pdf
18. Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? The Challenge of Global Food Sustainability, 36, S23–S32
19. GIZ. (2022). Sustainable Cooling Solutions in agricultural value chains in sub-Saharan Africa. Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2024-en-WE4F-infosheet-cold-rooms.pdf
20. HM Revenue & Customs. (n.d.). Enhanced capital allowances schemes for energy-saving and environmentally beneficial (water efficient) technologies. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b897940f0b62826a04378/TIIN_9008_enhanced_capital_allowances_schemes.pdf
21. HLPE (2023). Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition. Rome, CFS HLPE-FSN. Available from https://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/insights/news-insights/news-detail/reducing-inequalities-for-food-security-and-nutrition/en.
22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2019). Climate Change and Land An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf
23. Kumar, D., Kalita, P., Kumar, D., & Kalita, P. (2017). Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries. Foods, 6(1). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/6/1/8
24. Liu, M., Saman, W., & Bruno, F. (2012). Development of a novel refrigeration system for refrigerated trucks incorporating phase change material. Applied Energy, 92, 336–342
25. Liyanapathirana, N. N., Grech, A., Li, M., Malik, A., Ribeiro, R., Burykin, T., et al. (n.d.). Nutritional, environmental and economic impacts of ultra-processed food consumption in Australia. Public Health Nutrition, 26(12), 3359–3369.
26. Manini, P., Rizzi, E., Pastore, G., & Gregorio, P. (2003). Advances in VIP Design for Super Insulation of Domestic Appliances. Appliance, 60, 59–61
27. Panzone, L. A., Ulph, A., Hilton, D., Gortemaker, I., & Tajudeen, I. A. (2021). Sustainable by Design: Choice Architecture and the Carbon Footprint of Grocery Shopping. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07439156211008898
28. Özsoy, T. (2024). The “energy rebound effect” within the framework of environmental sustainability. WIREs Energy and Environment, 13(2), e517.
29. Qian, J., Yu, Q., Jiang, L., Yang, H., & Wu, W. (2022). Food cold chain management improvement: A conjoint analysis on COVID-19 and food cold chain systems. Food Control, 137, 108940.
30. Renewable Energy and Agri-food Systems: Advancing Energy and Food Security towards Sustainable Development Goals | Knowledge for policy. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/renewable-energy-agri-food-systems-advancing-energy-food-security-towards-sustainable_en
31. Sarr, J., Dupont, J., & Guilpart, J. (n.d.). The carbon footprint of the cold chain, 7th Informatory Note on Refrigeration and Food. Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://iifiir.org/datacite_notices/143457
32. Sousa, R. D., Bragança, L., Da Silva, M. V., & Oliveira, R. S. (2024). Challenges and Solutions for Sustainable Food Systems: The Potential of Home Hydroponics. Sustainability, 16(2), 817.
33. Tassou, S., & Suamir, I. N. (2010). Trigeneration – a way to improve food industry sustainability
34. Tubiello, F. N., Rosenzweig, C., Conchedda, G., Karl, K., Gütschow, J., Xueyao, P., et al. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: building the evidence base. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6), 065007.
35. UNEP and FAO. (2022). Technical Brief: Sustainable Food Cold Chains: The Missing Link for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/technical_brief_unep_cool_coalition_fao_irena_synergies_conference.pdf
36. US EPA, O. (2021, December 28). Frequent Questions on the Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons [Guidance (OMB)]. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/frequent-questions phasedown-hydrofluorocarbons
37. Wakeland, W., Cholette, S., & Venkat, K. (2012). Food transportation issues and reducing carbon footprint. In Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing (pp. 211–236). Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-1587-9_9
38. Wang, L. (2014). Energy efficiency technologies for sustainable food processing. Energy Efficiency, 7(5), 791–810
39. Yilmaz, I. C., & Yilmaz, D. (2020). Optimal capacity for sustainable refrigerated storage buildings. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 22, 100751.