Reducing post-harvest food loss in agricultural supply chains

Measures to tackle post-harvest food loss range from specific technological solutions in storage, transport and processing, to sectoral policy interventions. They can include:

• Storage measures, such as:
  • Investment in cold storage facilities. It is estimated that 526 million tons of perishable foods were spoiled in 2017 globally because of lack of refrigeration.
  • Promotion of storage technologies such as hermetic storage (i.e. sealed, waterproof, and airtight storage systems such as metal silos).
  • Investment in warehouse receipt systems, where food from farms is taken to modern and centralized storage areas.
  • Establishment of aggregation centres for storing and preserving food at multiple temperature levels.
  • Promotion of field storage clamps, a low-cost storage alternative for crops such as potatoes, turnips, sugar beets, and others. A clamp is a compact heap, mound, or pile of material formed by excavating a shallow rectangular depression in the field to create the base of the clump. Straw or old hay can be used to cover the top, protecting it from rain erosion.
• Distribution and transportation measures, including:
  • Promotion of improved packing practices and packaging technologies by:
    • Establishing national standards for food packaging and proper enforcement of standards.
    • Building awareness of the most effective packing techniques/technologies and promoting the development of skills necessary to implement these behaviours and technologies.
    • Providing financial resources (e.g. subsidies) to actors along the supply chain who could benefit from implementing these practices/technologies.
• Promotion of transportation materials that can safely transport crops to distant markets, such as natural and synthetic fibre sacks and moulded plastic boxes. This is especially relevant for high-perishability crops (e.g. crops with high moisture content).
• Processing and handling measures, for example:
  • Promotion of processing methods/technologies that can extend shelf life of products such as drying, smoking, salting, fermenting, pickling, canning and food irradiation.
  • Promotion of dry chain technologies, which dry products before storage and maintain seed dryness through hermetic packaging.
  • Promotion of proper handling practices along the supply chain that can reduce contamination of products.
• Cross-cutting measures, for example:
  • Use of phase change materials (PCMs) to maintain products within a desired temperature range and thus maintain the quality of the products as they move along the supply chain. PCMs range from more natural and/or organic materials such as gelatine to more synthetic materials such as polystyrene. PCMs can reduce emissions associated with cold chains by increasing the energy efficiency of storage (see Improving energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing) and distribution operations as well as by reducing food loss.
  • Promotion of food monitoring and tracing technologies to reduce supply chain inefficiencies and improve knowledge of where food losses are occurring along food supply chains. Measures to build more efficient and intelligent value chains include: vertical integration; expanded contracting from retailers and wholesalers; computer-based modelling and monitoring systems that optimize transportation scheduling and routes; and funding methods to lessen information constraints and bottlenecks.
  • Creating incentives for companies to measure food loss and waste and implement food loss and waste policies, for example through success cases demonstrating possible cost savings, company reporting and disclosure to investors, or third-party monitoring.
  • Boost responsible investments in inclusive value chains, including processing and distribution, at local, regional, national and international levels, to promote sustainable, resilient food value chains and reduce inequalities. Specific emphasis should be placed on areas with prevalent multidimensional poverty with the goal to respect, promote, and monitor labour rights and mitigate against abuse, sexual exploitation, and harassment.
• Broader policy measures, for example:
  • Adoption of legally-binding food loss/waste reduction targets.
  • Adoption of a national strategy for reducing food loss, including programs, policies, practices, incentives and/or related measures to influence actions of farmers, companies, consumers and political bodies.

Effective implementation of post-harvest food loss measures should be guided and incentivized through national governance and policy reforms. The following governance measures can serve to enable the deployment of food loss reduction measures:

• Address prices for agricultural produce that are too low, since low prices contribute to high food loss dynamics at or near the farm level. Food loss could be partially reduced through implementing Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) schemes.
• Assess whether quality standards increase food losses due to grading out. Quality standards should be appropriate to local production, and “imperfect foods” markets should be supported wherever possible.
• Reform agricultural policies (e.g. introduce market-based measures or subsidies) to enable the design and implementation of improved technologies for food storage, processing and transportation.
  • For example, policies that support R&D and innovative business models can unlock investments in more energy-efficient cold chains methods.
• Raise awareness and train supply chain actors on the best available technologies for reducing food loss, and how available subsidy programs can be deployed to reduce barriers to the uptake of these new technologies.
• Improve transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges and so on) to enable efficient transportation and distribution of products. In addition, improve responsible investment in logistics, technologies, services and supply chains by adopting territorial approaches and strengthening local, regional, national, and international market connectivity and trade.
• Provide incentives for the production, import and use of transport solutions that explicitly offer food waste reduction solutions, such as refrigeration.
• Bring global practitioners together to create knowledge sharing and best practice exchange on post-harvest food loss reduction strategies. This could be facilitated through global conferences co-organized by relevant global institutions (FAO, UNEP, IFAD, WFP, etc.) and supported by national governments. These could provide a key platform for building capacity to achieve global food loss goals (e.g. through the development of a facilitating mechanism for SDG 12.3 and other food loss-related SDGs).

Some key tools and guides to support successful action under this policy include:

Tools

Guides

Reducing post-harvest food loss at the storage, transport, and processing levels 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

Globally, 8 to 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are associated with food loss and waste. The use of improved food storage technologies to reduce food loss could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food in the ways outlined below:

• 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%.
• Avoidance of waste disposal emissions such as fuel use in transport, and methane emitted from landfills.
• Expected lower pressure on food production, thus indirectly decreasing associated emissions from production, transport and packaging, including fossil fuel and chemical use. Examples include avoiding conversion of carbon sinks to agricultural production and reduced fertilizer application, with its associated emissions such as through freshwater eutrophication and soil acidification.

For more information on measures to reduce supply chain emissions, see Improving energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing.

Climate change adaptation benefits

Among the seven key areas of adaptation put forward in the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, reducing post-harvest food loss at the storage, transport, and processing levels can contribute to:

• Target 9a and d (Water & Sanitation and Ecosystems): The amount of cropland used to grow lost and wasted food has been estimated to be 198 million hectares per year, equivalent to one-fifth of the cropland used globally for food crop production. Reducing food loss can 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): Minimizing post-harvest food loss ensures that a greater proportion of harvested crops reaches consumers. This directly improves food availability and security, making food systems more resilient to climate shocks and stresses. Utilizing resources (land, water, energy) to produce food more efficiently also reduces pressure on agricultural systems and supports sustainable food production.
• Target 9e (Infrastructure): Interventions to reduce food loss can also create more robust and climate-resilient infrastructure. Improved infrastructure helps maintain food quality and safety, reduces the risk of spoilage due to extreme weather, and supports efficient distribution, all of which are critical in adapting to climate change.
• Target 9f (Livelihoods): Post-harvest losses can significantly reduce the income of farmers and those involved in the food supply chain. By improving storage and reducing losses, producers can sell more of their crops and may increase their earnings. This can strengthen rural economies, support poverty reduction, and build resilience among vulnerable populations whose livelihoods depend on agriculture.

Biodiversity benefits

The global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss, with agricultural expansion being a principal cause of habitat loss. Action under this policy option can therefore help to deliver on multiple KM-GBF targets, in particular:

• Target 7 (Reduce Pollution to Levels That Are Not Harmful to Biodiversity): Reducing food loss lessens environmental pollution from decomposing organic waste, which contributes to harmful methane emissions and nutrient runoff (e.g. high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus). For example, reducing nutrient runoff can help decrease algal blooms in water bodies, thus benefiting aquatic ecosystems.
• Target 10 (Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Forestry): Reducing post-harvest losses can decrease pressure on agricultural land expansion, potentially preserving biodiversity-rich areas, especially if supported by biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning. Long-term land sparing through food loss prevention can also create opportunities for farmers to create hedgerows, stony habitats, and pollinator habitats, contributing to healthy soils, pollinators and other benefits for biodiversity.
• Target 16 (Enable Sustainable Consumption Choices to Reduce Waste and Overconsumption): The target includes an element that explicitly aims to half food waste by 2030. This policy option directly contributes to progress toward that commitment.

Other sustainable development benefits

Reducing post-harvest food loss in agricultural supply chains can support the delivery of multiple SDGs by:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): improving income from food production.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): improving food availability.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being): improving nutrition.
• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): reducing unnecessary water usage and water pollution.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): generating employment and income opportunities.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): reducing losses along production and supply chains and improving the quality of the final food products available, reducing food waste at the consumption stage.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): avoiding emissions from food loss.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): reducing demand for additional agricultural land and slowing down deforestation and diversion of ecosystems and habitats.

Reducing post-harvest food loss during storage hinges on well-planned and effectively executed interventions. However, these efforts often encounter technical and non-technical barriers, as well as unintended consequences and trade-offs that may compromise their effectiveness, including:

• Technologies such as improved packaging may require additional costs in labour and require capacity building to ensure proper use. Without the availability of tailored financial solutions, access to finance to deploy them may be a barrier.
• Relatively high up-front costs for producers and other supply chain actors of some of the post-harvest solutions could translate into higher food prices for consumers. However, this price pressure may be counterbalanced by improved food quality and higher supply.
• Some post-harvest loss interventions may not be currently financially viable in developing countries due to the high seasonality of produce, which means that solutions like cold-storage facilities are not used year-round.
• Cold storage facilities use considerable amounts of energy, so expanding their use will likely lead to increases in emissions unless powered by clean energy sources.
• Increased use of packaging to reduce food losses could lead to increased GHG emissions associated with production of packaging materials as well as increased plastic waste.
• Reduced food losses in post-farm stages of supply chains may result in farmers seeing reduced demand for their products and thus lower incomes. At the same time, this may be counterbalanced by higher prices attained for higher quality, fresh produce.

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

• Additional costs from purchasing and use of improved technologies could be offset through subsidies or support from wealthier governments or institutions.
• Investing in cold storage facilities and storage systems powered by renewable energy and/or with more efficient energy usage. For more information, see Improving energy use in food storage, cold chains, transport and processing.
• Increased food prices as a result of food loss interventions could be offset through subsidies and/or implementation of social programs targeted towards low-income consumers.
• In terms of reducing the impacts of increased use of packaging, LCAs can be implemented to assess the entire packaging-product system and evaluate the environmental impacts of packaging interventions. For example, in some cases it may be possible to replace single-use packaging/storage materials with reusable packaging/storage materials.

Effective tracking of the reduction of post-harvest food loss in agricultural supply chains 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

Tools to monitor climate outcomes

The cost of reducing post-harvest food loss during storage, transport, and processing varies widely depending on a country’s socio-economic conditions, institutional capacity, and risk profile. The following examples offer cost estimates while also highlighting barriers across varying contexts:

• Up-front investment and annual operating costs are generally high for cold storage facilities, making them less accessible for developing countries because of access to finance barriers. Local private sector actors could contribute considerable funds for investment, and they could be actively encouraged to invest in and support sustainable business models.
• Metal silos can have a high initial cost, which presents an obstacle for adoption by smallholders. Community-level silos could be an economic alternative, as the cost per unit of grains decreases with increases in the size of silos. The maintenance cost is very low for silos, which can compensate for the high initial cost to some extent.

Some notable examples of on-the-ground efforts towards reducing post-harvest food loss during storage, transport, and processing include:

• GIZ supported a wide range of food loss reduction technologies within their Green Innovation Centres. In Viet Nam, for example, the introduction of cold storage and hot water treatment (HWT) for mangos has led to an overall reduction in post-harvest losses of 84 percent, from 30 percent lost to less than 5 percent lost. Moreover, it is projected to increase mango shelf life from 7 to 21 days.
• Uganda developed a national strategy to reduce postharvest losses in grain supply chains as part of the larger Ugandan National Food Waste Strategy. The development of the strategy was informed by FAO’s food loss analysis methodology as well as multi-stakeholder consultations. Key strategic issues and feasible solutions for reducing postharvest losses of grains in Uganda can be applicable to other national contexts in Africa.
• The FAO’s Technical Cooperation Programme has introduced improved bulk packaging materials such as reusable crates as well as guidance for improved post-harvest management practices to reduce food losses in supply chains of fresh produce in various South Asian countries. The intervention significantly reduced food losses and led to economic benefits and overall improved welfare for farmers, retailers and consumers. It also led to environmental benefits through the replacement of single-use plastic bags for transport with reusable crates.
• The FAO pioneered a technique to smoke and dry fish, the FAO-Thiaroye Technique (FTT). This technique can be used regardless of climatic conditions and increases the range of species that can be processed, strengthening fish processors’ resilience to climate variability. It can result in a near-complete elimination of food losses in the processing stage while enhancing the quality and safety of the products. For example, in Côte d’Ivoire, it is estimated that the technique could save USD 1.7 million annually through reduced losses of smoked fish products.

1. Australian Food & Grocery Council. (2017). Australian Food Cold Chain Logistics Guidelines. Retrieved from https://afgc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Australian-Cold-Chain-Guidelines-2017.pdf
2. African Union Commission. (2018). Post-Harvest Loss Management Strategy. Retrieved from https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/au222439.pdf
3. 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
4. Ambuko, J., Karithi, E., Hutchinson, M., & Willis, O. (2018). Modified Atmosphere Packaging Enhances the Effectiveness of CoolbotTM Cold Storage to Preserve Postharvest Quality of Mango Fruits. Journal of Food Research, 7, 7
5. APHLIS – The African Postharvest Losses Information System. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.aphlis.net/en
6. Bai, B., Zhao, K., & Li, X. (2019). Application research of nano-storage materials in cold chain logistics of e-commerce fresh agricultural products. Results in Physics, 13, 102049
7. Bajželj, B., Quested, T. E., Röös, E., & Swannell, R. P. J. (2020). The role of reducing food waste for resilient food systems. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101140.
8. Bennett, B., Buzby J. C., & Hodges, R. J. (2011). Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries: opportunities to improve resource use. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 149(S1), 37–45
9. Bessou, C. (2017). How to Assess the Environmental Impacts of an Agri-Chain? In Sustainable Development and Tropical Agri-chains (pp. 237–255). Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-024-1016-7_19
10. Bryce, E. (2023, March 24). Comprehensive analysis of food waste serves up revelations. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2023/03/loss-and-waste-generates-half-of-all-food-related-emissions-worldwide/
11. Climate Change & Food Waste – Solutions to Reduce Methane & Other GHGs. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://refed.org/food-waste/climate-and-resources/
12. Dam M. (2024, April 17). A solution to extend mango shelf life to 35 days. Retrieved January 19, 2026, from https://van.nongnghiepmoitruong.vn/a-solution-to-extend-mango-shelf-life-to-35-days-d382913.html
13. Delgado, L., Schuster, M., & Torero, M. (n.d.). The Reality of Food Losses A New Measurement Methodology.
14. FAO (2014). Food wastage footprint: Full-cost accounting. Retrieved on June 25, 2024 from https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6a266c4f-8493-471c-ab49-30f2e51eec8c/content.
15. FAO. (2016). Food Loss Analysis: Causes and Solutions Case studies in the Small-scale Agriculture and Fisheries Subsectors. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/az568e/az568e.pdf
16. FAO. (2018). SDG 12.3.1: Global Food Loss Index. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/CA2640EN/ca2640en.pdf
17. 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
18. FAO. (n.d.). Food wastage footprint & Climate Change. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://www.fao.org/3/bb144e/bb144e.pdf
19. FAO. (n.d.). Technical Platform on the Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/resources/publications/en
20. FAO. (2015, November 18). The FTT-Thiaroye processing technique, an innovation for post-harvest loss reduction in fisheries and aquaculture, presented at the 1st PHL Congress in Rome. FoodLossWaste. Retrieved January 19, 2026, from https://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/resources/news/news-detail/The-FTT-Thiaroye-processing-technique-an-innovation-for-post-harvest-loss-reduction-in-fisheries-and-aquaculture-presented-at-the-1st-PHL-Congress-in-Rome-/en
21. Farmers and growers. (n.d.). WRAP. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://wrap.org.uk/taking-action/food-drink/sectors/farmers-growers
22. Feldstein, S. (2017). Wasting biodiversity: why food waste needs to be a conservation priority. Biodiversity, 18, 1–3.
23. FLW Value Calculator. (n.d.). Food Loss and Waste Protocol. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.flwprotocol.org/why-measure/food-loss-and-waste-value-calculator/
24. Food Irradiation. (2022, October 13). Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/food-irradiation.html
25. Food Loss & Waste Protocol. (2022, September 20). World Resources Institute. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.wri.org/initiatives/food-loss-waste-protocol
26. Food loss analysis case study methodology. (n.d.). FAO elearning Academy. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://elearning.fao.org/course/view.php?id=374
27. Food loss and waste data capture sheet. (n.d.). WRAP. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://wrap.org.uk/resources/tool/food-loss-and-waste-data-capture-sheet
28. Food Waste Index Report 2021. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2026, from https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstreams/65bd600c-ddfa-4116-83a0-5f07afa6d0da/download
29. GIZ. (2015). Rapid Loss Appraisal Tool (RLAT) – RLAT in practice: A toolbox for maize. Retrieved from https://wocatpedia.net/images/5/55/GIZ_RLAT_toolbox.pdf
30. GIZ. (2021). Green Innovation Centre for the Agriculture and Food Sector in Viet Nam. Retrieved from https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2021_en_GIAE_Factsheet_Vietnam.pdf
31. 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
32. Haass, R., Dittmer, P., Veigt, M., & Lütjen, M. (2015). Reducing food losses and carbon emission by using autonomous control – A simulation study of the intelligent container. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 400–408
33. Hall, K. D., Guo, J., Dore, M., & Chow, C. C. (2009). The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact. PLOS ONE, 4(11), e7940.
34. Hanson, C., Flanagan, K., Robertson, K., Axmann, H., Bos-Brouwers, H., Broeze, J., et al. (2019). Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Ten Interventions to Scale Impact. Retrieved January 19, 2026, from https://www.wri.org/reducing-food-loss-and-waste-ten-interventions-scale-impact
35. Hanson, C., & Mitchell, P. (2017). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste. Retrieved January 19, 2026, from https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/business-case-for-reducing-food-loss-and-waste.pdf
36. 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.
37. 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
38. IRRI. (2010). Storage: How to use the IRRI Super bag. Retrieved from https://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/images/docs/fs_how_to_use_the_super_bag.pdf
39. Kiaya, V. (2014). Technical paper on Post-Harvest Losses. Retrieved from https://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/technical_paperphl_.pdf
40. Kumar, D., & Kalita, P. (2017). Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries. Foods, 6(1), 8
41. Li, Y., Shang, J., Zhang, C., Zhang, W., Niu, L., Wang, L., & Zhang, H. (2021). The role of freshwater eutrophication in greenhouse gas emissions: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 768, 144582.
42. Lomborg, B. (2018). Prioritizing Development: A Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
43. Meng, B., Zhang, X., Hua, W., Liu, L., & Ma, K. (2022). Development and application of phase change material in fresh e-commerce cold chain logistics: A review. Journal of Energy Storage, 55, 105373
44. National Strategy for Food Waste Reduction. (n.d.). Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/food-and-nutrition/food-waste/national-strategy-for-food-waste-reduction.html
45. Ndiaye, O., Komivi, B. S., & Ouadi, Y. D. (2015). Guide for developing and using the FAO – Thiaroye processing technique (FTT-Thiaroye). Retrieved from https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3f1d1905-0861-43cf-a620-768b413fa7c4/content
46. Nicastro, R., & Carillo, P. (2021). Food Loss and Waste Prevention Strategies from Farm to Fork. Sustainability, 13(10), 5443
47. Phalan, B., Bertzky, M., Butchart, S. H. M., Donald, P. F., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Stattersfield, A. J., & Balmford, A. (2013). Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLOS ONE, 8(1), e51759.
48. Raza, S., Zamanian, K., Ullah, S., Kuzyakov, Y., Virto, I., & Zhou, J. (2021). Inorganic carbon losses by soil acidification jeopardize global efforts on carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 315, 128036.
49. ReFED Insights Engine. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://insights.refed.com/
50. Republic of Uganda. (n.d.). Uganda Vision 2040. Retrieved from https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/uga155949.pdf
51. 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
52. SAVE FOOD INITIATIVE: Our mission and objectives. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.save-food.org/en/Save_Food_Initiative/Mission
53. SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. (n.d.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.fao.org/save-food/news-and-multimedia/events/detail-events/en/c/271382/
54. Sharma, A., Tyagi, V. V., Chen, C. R., & Buddhi, D. (2009). Review on thermal energy storage with phase change materials and applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(2), 318–345.
55. Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2017). Review: Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 70, 1–12.
56. Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2026, from https://www.fao.org/4/ae075e/ae075e18.htm
57. Sustainable food cold chains: Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. (2022). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0923en
58. The EX-Ante Carbon-balance Tool for value chains (EX-ACT VC). (n.d.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.fao.org/in-action/epic/ex-act-tool/suite-of-tools/ex-act-vc/en/
59. The FLW Standard. (n.d.). Food Loss and Waste Protocol. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://flwprotocol.org/flw-standard/
60. Venus, V., Asare-Kyei, D. K., Tijskens, L. M. M., Weir, M. J. C., de Bie, C. A. J. M., Ouedraogo, S., et al. (2013). Development and validation of a model to estimate postharvest losses during transport of tomatoes in West Africa. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 92, 32–47
61. von Braun, J., Sorondo, M. S., & Steiner, R. (2023). Reduction of Food Loss and Waste: The Challenges and Conclusions for Actions. In Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation (pp. 569–578). Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_31
62. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. (2021). Roadmap Post-Harvest Loss Reduction in Selected Vietnamese Value Chains – Phase 1. Retrieved from https://edepot.wur.nl/548408
63. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. (2022). Roadmap Post-Harvest Loss Reduction in Selected Vietnamese Value Chains. Retrieved from https://edepot.wur.nl/577022
64. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 141–148
65. World Bank. (2020). Addressing Food Loss and Waste: A Global Problem with Local Solutions. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/674c11d6-79eb-5905-8822-fcd9663eabb4/content
66. WWF UK. (2021). Driven to waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on Farms. Retrieved from https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/6yoepbekgh_wwfuk_driven_towaste__the_global_impact_of_food_loss_and_waste_on_farms.pdf
67. Yilmaz, I. C., & Yilmaz, D. (2020). Optimal capacity for sustainable refrigerated storage buildings. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 22, 100751
68. Yusuf, B. (2011). Design, development and techniques for controlling grains post-harvest losses with metal silo for small and medium scale farmers. African Journal of Biotechnology. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.academia.edu/96675082/Design_development_and_techniques_for_controlling_grains_post_harvest_losses_with_metal_silo_for_small_and_medium_scale_farmers
69. Zhu, J., Luo, Z., Sun, T., Li, W., Zhou, W., Wang, X., et al. (2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nature Food, 4(3), 247–256