Editing Test:SRCCL/Chapter-1 (section)

== 1.3.3.1 Supply management ==

<div id="section-1-3-3-1-supply-management-block-1"></div>

Food losses from harvest to retailer. Approximately one-third of losses and waste in the food system occurs between crop production and food consumption, increasing substantially if losses in livestock production and overeating are included (Gustavsson et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r726|726]]</sup> ; Alexander et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r727|727]]</sup> ). This includes on-farm losses, farm to retailer losses, as well retailer and consumer losses (Section 1.3.3.2).

Post-harvest food loss – on farm and from farm to retailer – is a widespread problem, especially in developing countries (Xue et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r728|728]]</sup> ), but are challenging to quantify. For instance, averaged for eastern and southern Africa an estimated 10–17% of annual grain production is lost (Zorya et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r729|729]]</sup> ). Across 84 countries and different time periods, annual median losses in the supply chain before retailing were estimated at about 28 kg per capita for cereals or about 12 kg per capita for eggs and dairy products (Xue et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r730|730]]</sup> ). For the year 2013, losses prior to the reaching retailers were estimated at 20% (dry weight) of the production amount (22% wet weight) (Gustavsson et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r731|731]]</sup> ; Alexander et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r732|732]]</sup> ). While losses of food cannot be realistically reduced to zero, advancing harvesting technologies (Bradford et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r733|733]]</sup> ; Affognon et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r734|734]]</sup> ), storage capacity (Chegere 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r735|735]]</sup> ) and efficient transportation could all contribute to reducing these losses with co-benefits for food availability, the land area needed for food production and related GHG emissions.

'''Stability of food supply, transport and distribution.''' Increased climate variability enhances fluctuations in world food supply and price variability (Warren 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r736|736]]</sup> ; Challinor et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r737|737]]</sup> ; Elbehri et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r738|738]]</sup> ). ‘Food price shocks’ need to be understood regarding their transmission across sectors and borders and impacts on poor and food insecure populations, including urban poor subject to food deserts and inadequate food accessibility (Widener et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r739|739]]</sup> ; Lehmann et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r740|740]]</sup> ; Le 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r741|741]]</sup> ; FAO 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r742|742]]</sup> ). Trade can play an important stabilising role in food supply, especially for regions with agro-ecological limits to production, including water scarce regions, as well as regions that experience short-term production variability due to climate, conflicts or other economic shocks (Gilmont 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r743|743]]</sup> ; Marchand et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r744|744]]</sup> ). Food trade can either increase or reduce the overall environmental impacts of agriculture (Kastner et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r745|745]]</sup> ). Embedded in trade are virtual transfers of water, land area, productivity, ecosystem services, biodiversity, or nutrients (Marques et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r746|746]]</sup> ; Wiedmann and Lenzen 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r747|747]]</sup> ; Chaudhary and Kastner 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r748|748]]</sup> ) with either positive or negative implications (Chen et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r749|749]]</sup> ; Yu et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r750|750]]</sup> ). Detrimental consequences in countries in which trade dependency may accentuate the risk of food shortages from foreign production shocks could be reduced by increasing domestic reserves or importing food from a diversity of suppliers (Gilmont 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r751|751]]</sup> ; Marchand et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r752|752]]</sup> ).

Climate mitigation policies could create new trade opportunities (e.g., biomass) (Favero and Massetti 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r753|753]]</sup> ) or alter existing trade patterns. The transportation GHG footprints of supply chains may be causing a differentiation between short and long supply chains (Schmidt et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r754|754]]</sup> ) that may be influenced by both economics and policy measures (Section 5.4). In the absence of sustainable practices and when the ecological footprint is not valued through the market system, trade can also exacerbate resource exploitation and environmental leakages, thus weakening trade mitigation contributions (Dalin and Rodríguez-Iturbe 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r755|755]]</sup> ; Mosnier et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r756|756]]</sup> ; Elbehri et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r757|757]]</sup> ). Ensuring stable food supply while pursuing climate mitigation and adaptation will benefit from evolving trade rules and policies that allow internalisation of the cost of carbon (and costs of other vital resources such as water, nutrients). Likewise, future climate change mitigation policies would gain from measures designed to internalise the environmental costs of resources and the benefits of ecosystem services (Elbehri et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r758|758]]</sup> ; Brown et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r759|759]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-1-3-3-2-demand-management"></div>

<span id="demand-management"></span>