We bring ourselves to language. A big part of the way a word is understood is the people and context within which it is used. If you talk about the bar to sports fans after a game they are likely to assume you are speaking of an establishment where alcohol is consumed. Speak of the bar at a courthouse and they will probably imagine the collective of all lawyers qualified to practice in a given court or jurisdiction. At a gym they’ll hand you a long metal rod and ask how much you lift. 

Similarly, when we speak of food loss and waste (FLW), we are speaking to one concept yet how it manifests in different areas of the world will be vastly different. In the Global South, FLW reflects complex, context-specific challenges that differ from those typically faced in wealthier nations. While consumer-level waste dominates the discourse in the Global North, developing countries often confront systemic losses earlier in the food supply chain. For instance, post-harvest losses stemming from inadequate storage, transportation, and processing infrastructure are a pervasive issue in rural areas. 

For smallholder farmers across Africa and South Asia, food loss might mean crops rotting in the field due to poor refrigeration or pest infestations in traditional storage structures. In the informal markets of urban Latin America, “food waste” often refers to unsold produce spoiling due to the lack of preservation techniques. These realities contrast with the image of consumer-driven food waste in supermarkets, which characterizes much of the Global North’s understanding of FLW.

Failure to understand this before approaching the problem may lead to misaligned priorities, overlooked local knowledge and suboptimal outcomes. A contextualised approach that embraces local realities and knowledge systems could provide tailored solutions such as improving on-farm storage techniques, strengthening market linkages, and addressing supply chain inefficiencies. These solutions may have more immediate and impactful results than focusing solely on consumer behavior change.

Localization: the battle to turn an ideal into practice

Localization has long been touted as one way to solve for understanding and using the understanding of context. Localization, in its ideal form, involves transferring power, resources, and decision-making to local actors, enabling them to lead interventions based on their specific needs and knowledge. In the context of FLW, true localization goes beyond engaging national-level NGOs in capital cities, which might still be removed from the grassroots realities of rural communities.

This requires a shift towards embracing traditional food systems and indigenous knowledge, which often offer sustainable, culturally resonant solutions to FLW challenges. For instance, in arid and semi-arid regions of Kenya, traditional preservation techniques for indigenous foods are closely tied to climate resilience and should be elevated within FLW interventions. 

These solutions, however, are frequently overlooked by Global North funders who may prioritize more formal, Western models of organization and innovation. This overlooking is further emphasized by the existing power dynamics in the ecosystem. Effective localization means recognizing and amplifying the networks and practices that already sustain food systems in the Global South, ensuring that interventions resonate with the communities they are designed to serve. However, several challenges persist: 

• Terminology and framework mismatch: Donor-driven frameworks such as “circular economy” or “value chain efficiency” often fail to capture the nuanced realities of food systems in the Global South. Local communities might understand FLW in terms of seasonal variations, cultural food norms, and survival strategies, which these terms do not account for.
• Overemphasis on quantifiable metrics: While Global North funders favor evidence-based interventions, this metric fixation can sideline tacit knowledge and traditional practices that are essential to understanding local food systems. For example, in traditional markets in Nigeria and Kenya, behavioral change interventions like point-of-purchase guides must be designed with local market dynamics in mind, where experiential learning trumps rigid data.
• Short-term project cycles: Global North funders’ tendency to operate within 1-3 year funding cycles which is often misaligned with the long-term nature of building sustainable food systems. Successful interventions addressing FLW, particularly those rooted in behavior change and indigenous knowledge, require iterative learning and longer-term engagements. As seen in Busara’s food waste reduction project, upscaling and sustaining change in traditional markets demand continuity and flexibility (Jumare & Schun, 2024).
• Overlooking informal systems: The informal sector plays a crucial role in food distribution in the Global South. Global North funders often neglect the importance of informal networks, which are integral to FLW interventions in regions where much of the food trade and storage occur outside formal channels, by focusing on formal market systems.
• Technology bias: There’s often a preference for introducing high-tech innovations to solve FLW problems, which may ignore the simpler, more context-appropriate local practices that are better suited to resource-constrained environments. Sustainable change may come not from new technology but from enhancing traditional methods or facilitating local adaptations.

Bridging the divide: towards a co-created future

Addressing these challenges requires a paradigm shift in how Global North funders collaborate with Global South practitioners. The following strategies are critical to move towards truly localized and effective FLW interventions:

1. Embrace genuine co-creation: Funders must prioritize collaborative program design, allowing local actors to co-develop priorities and strategies from the start. This avoids token consultation and fosters genuine ownership of solutions.
2. Invest in local research and evaluation: Strengthening local research capacity allows Global South institutions to develop metrics and methodologies that reflect the real drivers of FLW in their contexts. These approaches can bridge the gap between donor expectations and ground realities.
3. Flexible, long-term funding models: Funders should explore longer-term, adaptable funding structures that support the timeframes needed to embed sustainable change. Iterative cycles that build on ongoing learning are vital for long-term capacity building.
4. Value traditional and experiential knowledge: Tacit and traditional knowledge systems should be valued equally alongside formal research. This requires shifting the narrative around what constitutes “evidence” and recognizing the importance of context-specific practices in addressing FLW.
5. Facilitate south-south learning: Rather than always turning to Global North expertise, funders should promote cross-country knowledge exchange within the Global South, where solutions to FLW may be more relevant and adaptable.
6. Redefine innovation: Innovation should be seen not only as the introduction of new technologies but also as the adaptation, scaling, and improvement of existing local practices that have sustained communities for generations.

The divide between Global North funders and Global South realities can be bridged by adopting these approaches, resulting in more impactful, context-appropriate FLW interventions. Such a shift is critical for building a sustainable, equitable global food system that genuinely reflects the diverse food cultures and knowledge systems of the Global South.

Reference

Jumare, F., & Schun, L. (2024, December 19). Funny-looking produce tastes just as good: How increasing consumption of funny-looking produce in food can reduce food waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. LinkedIn.