Contents

Summary in English

Background and approach

The background for the project is that EU Commission has introduced new regulations and policies for food waste prevention and monitoring. The new regulations are part of the revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD is the legal framework for requesting all member countries in the EU (and EEA, including Norway and Iceland) to report data on amount of waste being generated in each country.

In our systematic overview of methodologies for food waste quantification in general and the methods that have been used in the Nordic countries up to September 2020, we have narrowed down our approach to description of methods that are relevant for quantifying food waste according to the new EU regulations. We have separated methodologies in two main categories, covering both methods to quantify data about food waste and loss at the lowest level (primary data from business units, households, primary producers etc.) as well as methods and approaches for upscaling of primary data to national statistics. We have discussed similarities and dissimilarities between the different national monitoring systems in a systematic way.

In the tables presenting the findings from each part of the food chain, we focus on how data on food waste and edible food waste are gathered and reported in the latest available reports from each country up to September 2020.  While Environmental authorities and national statistics organisations are responsible for the organic waste statistics, statistics and reporting of food waste or edible food waste (matsvinn) varies more between countries and has changed over time.

For prevention of food waste it is important to have available data of all food that is lost and not being used to feed humans. Prevention and reduction measures should focus on the upper part of the waste hierarchy which means that there is a need for quite detailed data on which types of food which is lost at each stage of the food chain. There should also ideally be connections between detailed food waste monitoring and analyses of root causes for why food is wasted, as an important source of ideas for solutions to be evaluated and implemented.

 Main findings – system boundaries and definitions

The report illustrates current best practice up to 2020 in each country considering definitions and boundaries and to bring clarity into the definitions and boundary conditions used in the national reporting in the Nordic regions. The survey covers the national reporting as well as the voluntary reporting carried out based on negotiated agreements, which are independent initiatives from the national reporting.

From the assessment it can be concluded that until now Finland and Norway have adopted a more pronounced bottom up-approach than Sweden and Denmark. Sweden and Denmark link their reporting closely to the waste framework directive (WFD) while Finland and Norway base most data collection on voluntary reporting in close collaboration with stakeholders. The different perspectives explain why Norway and Finland report on a much more detailed level than Sweden and Denmark and consider a broader scope of losses than required by the WFD.  The more detailed level of reporting makes it possible to estimate impacts like costs and GHG-emissions. 

Other major differences are linked to edible parts of Food where Norway and Finland as well as Denmark differentiate between edible and non-edible parts of food in the supply chain while Sweden currently only does for households. Considering product categories Norway and Finland distinguish between product categories in all step of the supply chain and Denmark distinguishes between product categories for retail, food service and households. Food losses used as feed or being valorized to other products are included in the food waste assessment in Norway (although not quantified separately so far) and Finland. Sweden has collected some information regarding feed while Denmark has not addressed feed nor valorisation. Only Finland has so far systematically collected data on food left on field without harvesting.  Although not food waste, donations are captured in the reporting from the negotiated agreement in Norway. Data are also at hand in Finland and Denmark (reported individually by stakeholders), while Sweden does not address donations.

Main findings – monitoring methods

The main findings in the report show how the countries differ in their approach to data collection, and whether the data picks up edible parts of food, various product categories, food waste to the drain, food used as feed, valorization of food losses, food left ready to harvest, financial loss and donations.

The methods that are in use in the Nordic countries to quantify food waste data are in line with methods being recommended in the manuals and guidelines that have been published by EU, WRI etc. As mass of food waste is the unit that is required to quantify and report food waste statistics, it is recommended to weigh food being wasted either before it is wasted or after being collected in waste bins. In some stages in the food chain, food waste is measured in other units, either as economic value (retail and wholesale), as numbers (primary production) or in volumes (primary production, hospitality sector etc), as it is most efficient to get access to reliable and detailed enough data (bottom-up approach in retail and wholesale). In those cases, it is important to have proper factors to transform data to mass-based units, e.g. economic factors, specific weights etc.

All Nordic countries have necessary detail in data that are measured to fulfil the requirements set by the purpose of food waste monitoring program, regarding amount of food ending up for final treatment.  The new EU regulation is based in a minimum requirement to report on total amount of food waste from the whole food chain, separated for each stage, but excluding food being used as ingredients for animal feed and as raw materials in new non-food products.  Only Norway and Finland have taken a real bottom-up approach and are collecting data with a detail that is necessary to identify where in the food chain and for which types of products, the potential for prevention is highest.

There are not always representative number of sampling points (households, canteens/restaurants, retail shops etc) to give a reasonable basis for upscaling to national statistics based in “waste factors” for each sampling point. There is generally a lack of data from small and medium sized companies in most sectors and countries, resulting often in good economic representativeness (high share of total turnover), but lower statistical representativeness (biased and too small sample of population).  

Reporting of food waste to Eurostat according the EU regulations means that the amounts of food waste must be separated from other types of waste and split into different steps in the food chain as previously described. It can be concluded that the Nordic countries considering current reporting frameworks and definitions should be well equipped in order to develop accurate formal national reporting frameworks aligned with the new EU regulation when taking the practice developed for voluntary reporting into consideration. However, data are rather scattered. In particularly for primary production the data gaps are severe.

In the Nordic region Sweden and Denmark are mainly driven by the work by the authorities applying the top-down approach while the work in Finland and Norway has evolved making use of the bottom-up perspective. Both approaches have pros and cons. The top-down approaches are generally commissioned by the authorities to collect national data on food waste, where the main aim is to produce aggregated data. The bottom up approaches are used by the negotiated agreement like in Norway and national projects like the Finish project being assessed.

The project has shown that the there is a potential for further collaboration in developing and implementing frameworks for collecting data, although the systems must be developed according to each country’s ambitions. Having good experience from both top-down approaches (Sweden, Denmark) and bottom-up approaches (Finland, Norway) there is a potential for mutual learning between the Nordic countries to further accelerate data collection and follow upon food waste on national level as well as from stakeholder driven projects.

Our survey has not been able to evaluate in-depth costs between different monitoring systems. Most of the costs will be at the stage where primary data are generated, i.e. among waste generators in companies and municipalities, which is not easy to estimate. Here we also find the most important difference between the detailed bottom-up approach and the top-down approach. Data gathering and upscaling to national statistics will not be as influenced by the different approaches taken by the waste generators. However, on the other hand it is it the waste generators who have the most benefits from waste reduction and bottom-up monitoring. 

Main findings – prevention measures in households and retail

Halving food waste by 2030 calls for radical changes in the food chain. These radical changes require four dimensions: technology push, societal pull (meaning driven), market pull (market driven), and regulatory push. Based on these four dimensions, we have classified measures to reduce food waste into four topics:

1. Policy instruments (regulatory push),
2. Changing social norms (societal pull),
3. Nudging and changing practices (technology push & societal pull), and
4. Intelligent technology and new products & business models (strong technology push and market pull).

The four topics are again divided into 16 subtopics to help identify different kind of measures to reduce food waste. To effectively reduce food waste, different measures need to be combined, and therefore the aim is to find measures for all four main topics. For each topic we have described both: 1) Past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste and 2) future recommended measures to reduce food waste.

The main force in Policy instruments is the regulatory push.  Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into three subtopics: Political acts, Voluntary Agreements and Steering instruments.

The main forces in Changing social norms -dimension is the Societal pull. Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into four subtopics: Information steering, Education, Social and cultural norm, and Branding food waste. The changing of social norms is vital in order to get the society on board with a need for change.

The main forces in Nudging and changing practises -dimension are technological push and societal pull. Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into four subtopics: smart packaging, technology assistance, pricing, and product environment. 

The main forces of technology and new products & business models -theme are strong technological development and market pull. Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into five subtopics: food waste management tools, product development, package innovation, improved ordering system, and new businesses around food waste.

It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness (to reduce food waste) of the existing measures, not to talk about pointing out which are the most effective measures. This is because there are a very few existing studies that quantify or even evaluate the potential of a measure to reduce food waste. 

Recommendations

A set of recommendations from the project is presented in the last chapter of the report, focusing on what can be improved in food waste monitoring in the region as well as how the Nordic countries can continue to strengthen their collaboration in the area. We recommend that

1. The Nordic countries cooperate in developing reporting frameworks with common system boundaries, definitions and methodologies that makes it possible to share and compare data on food waste in total and per capita over the whole food chain.
2. Follow up a leading position in developing and implementing monitoring systems that are based in bottom-up approach with more detailed data on food waste than required by EU regulations as a measure to prevent food waste.
3. Further develop, harmonize and make available guidelines for methods to quantify food waste at the point of generation, both to make measurements as comparable as possible and to make the measurements valid and efficient.
4. Collaborate in developing common food waste factors as a basis for developing national statistics as well as comparing changes in amount of food waste over time.
5. Prove effectiveness of measures to prevent food waste by taking lead on long-term systematic monitoring of detailed food waste levels.
6. Establish, share and further develop national food waste reduction road maps, where all countries continue listing the existing and future food waste reduction measures and start following the overall impact of the measures to the food waste level
7. Set up a Nordic network and system for information sharing and learning, in order to use the strengths of national work with food waste monitoring

Sammendrag på nordisk

Bakgrunn og tilnærming

Bakgrunnen for prosjektet er at EU-kommisjonen har innført nye forskrifter og retningslinjer for forebygging og overvåking av matavfall. Det nye regelverket er en del av det reviderte rammedirektivet for avfall (WFD). WFD er det juridiske rammeverket for å be alle medlemsland i EU (og EØS, inkludert Norge og Island) rapportere data om mengden avfall som genereres i hvert land.
I vår systematiske oversikt over metoder for kvantifisering av matavfall generelt og metodene som er brukt i Norden, har vi innskrenket vår tilnærming til beskrivelse av metoder som er relevante for å kvantifisere matsvinn i henhold til det nye EU-regelverket. Vi har skilt ut metoder i to hovedkategorier, som dekker begge metodene for å kvantifisere data om matsvinn og tap på laveste nivå (primærdata fra forretningsenheter, husholdninger, primærprodusenter osv.), Samt metoder og tilnærminger for oppskalering av primærdata til nasjonale statistikk. Vi har diskutert likheter og ulikheter mellom de forskjellige nasjonale overvåkingssystemene på en systematisk måte.
I tabellene som presenterer funnene fra hver del av næringskjeden, fokuserer vi på hvordan data om matsvinn og spiselig matsvinn samles inn og rapporteres i de siste tilgjengelige rapportene fra hvert land. Mens miljømyndigheter og nasjonale statistikkorganisasjoner er ansvarlige for statistikken for organisk avfall, varierer statistikken og rapporteringen av matavfall eller matsvinn (matsvinn) mer mellom land og har endret seg over tid.
For å forebygge matsvinn er det viktig å ha tilgjengelige data om all mat som går tapt og ikke brukes til å mate mennesker. Forebygging og reduksjonstiltak bør fokusere på den øvre delen av avfallshierarkiet, noe som betyr at det er behov for ganske detaljerte data om hvilke typer matvarer som går tapt i hvert trinn i næringskjeden. Det bør også ideelt sett være sammenhenger mellom detaljert overvåking av matsvinn og analyser av årsaker til hvorfor mat blir kastet bort, som en viktig kilde til ideer for løsninger som skal evalueres og implementeres.

Hovedfunn - systemgrenser og definisjoner

Rapporten illustrerer dagens beste praksis i hvert land med tanke på definisjoner og grenser og for å bringe klarhet i definisjonene og grenseforholdene som brukes i nasjonal rapportering i Norden. Undersøkelsen dekker nasjonal rapportering samt frivillig rapportering utført basert på forhandlede avtaler, som er uavhengige tiltak fra nasjonal rapportering.

Fra vurderingen kan det konkluderes med at Finland og Norge til nå har benyttet seg av en mer uttalt bottom up-tilnærming enn Sverige og Danmark. Sverige og Danmark knytter rapporteringen sin nært til avfallsrammedirektivet (WFD), mens Finland og Norge baserer mest datainnsamling på frivillig rapportering i tett samarbeid med interessenter. De forskjellige perspektivene forklarer hvorfor Norge og Finland rapporterer på et mye mer detaljert nivå enn Sverige og Danmark, og vurderer et bredere omfang av tap enn WFD krever. Det mer detaljerte rapporteringsnivået gjør det mulig å estimere effekter som kostnader og klimagassutslipp.
 
Andre store forskjeller er knyttet til spiselige deler av mat hvor Norge og Finland samt Danmark samler inn data om spiselige deler av mat for alle trinn i forsyningskjeden, mens Sverige bare gjør for husholdninger. Tatt i betraktning produktkategorier Norge og Finland skiller mellom produktkategorier i alle trinn i forsyningskjeden, og Danmark skiller mellom produktkategorier for detaljhandel, matservering og husholdninger. Mat tap som brukes som fôr eller blir vurdert til andre produkter, er inkludert i matavfallsvurderingen i Norge (men ikke så langt kvantifisert så langt) og Finland. Sverige har samlet inn noen opplysninger om fôr mens Danmark ikke har adressert fôr eller valorisering. Bare Finland har hittil systematisk samlet inn data om mat som er igjen på marken uten høsting. Selv om det ikke er matsvinn, blir donasjoner fanget opp i rapporteringen fra den forhandlede avtalen i Norge. Data er også tilgjengelig i Finland og Danmark (rapportert individuelt av interessenter), mens Sverige ikke adresserer donasjoner.

Hovedfunn - overvåkingsmetoder

Resultatene fra kartleggingen av metoder og tilnærminger til matovervåkingsovervåking er beskrevet i rapporten og mer detaljert i tabellene i vedlegg 2, sektor for sektor. For hvert land og trinn i næringskjeden har vi beskrevet hvordan overvåking utføres i praksis. Metodene som er i bruk i de nordiske landene for å kvantifisere data om matsvinn er i tråd med metoder som er anbefalt i håndbøkene og retningslinjene som er publisert av EU, WRI etc. Da masse matsvinn er den enheten som er nødvendig og rapporterer statistikk over matsvinn, anbefales det å veie mat som blir kastet bort før den blir kastet bort eller etter at den er samlet inn i søppelkasser. I noen ledd i næringskjeden måles matsvinn i andre enheter, enten som økonomisk verdi (detaljhandel og engros), som antall (primærproduksjon) eller i volumer (primærproduksjon, hotellsektor osv.), Da det er mest effektivt å få tilgang til pålitelige og detaljerte nok data (bottom-up-tilnærming i detaljhandel og engros). I disse tilfellene er det viktig å ha riktige faktorer for å transformere data til massebaserte enheter, f.eks. økonomiske faktorer, spesifikke vekter etc.
 
Alle nordiske land har nødvendige detaljer i data som måles for å oppfylle kravene som er satt av formålet med overvåkingsprogrammet for matsvinn, angående mengden mat som ender for sluttbehandling. EU-reguleringen er basert på et minimumskrav for å rapportere om den totale mengden matavfall fra hele næringskjeden, atskilt for hvert trinn, men unntatt mat som brukes som ingredienser til dyrefôr og som råvarer i nye ikke-matvarer. Bare Norge og Finland har benyttet seg av en real bottom-up-tilnærming og samler inn data med en detalj som er nødvendig for å identifisere hvor i næringskjeden og for hvilke typer produkter potensialet for forebygging er høyest. Det er ikke alltid et representativt antall prøvetakingssteder (husholdninger, kantiner / restauranter, butikker osv.) For å gi et rimelig grunnlag for oppskalering til nasjonal statistikk basert på "avfallsfaktorer" for hvert prøvetakingspunkt. Det mangler generelt data fra små og mellomstore selskaper i de fleste sektorer og land, noe som ofte resulterer i god økonomisk representativitet (høy andel av total omsetning), men lavere statistisk representativitet (partisk og for lite utvalg av befolkningen).
 
Rapportering av matavfall til Eurostat i henhold til EU-regelverket betyr at mengden matavfall må skilles fra andre typer avfall og deles opp i forskjellige trinn i næringskjeden som tidligere beskrevet. Det kan konkluderes med at de nordiske landene som vurderer gjeldende rapporteringsrammer og definisjoner, bør være godt rustet for å utvikle nøyaktige formelle nasjonale rapporteringsrammer i tråd med den nye EU-forskriften når de tar hensyn til praksis utviklet for frivillig rapportering. Imidlertid er data ganske spredt. Spesielt for primærproduksjon er datahullene alvorlige.
I Norden drives Sverige og Danmark hovedsakelig av myndighetsarbeidet fra top-down-tilnærmingen, mens arbeidet i Finland og Norge har utviklet seg ved å benytte perspektivet nedenfra og opp. Begge tilnærmingene har fordeler og ulemper. Top-down-tilnærmingene er vanligvis gitt i oppdrag fra myndighetene å samle nasjonale data om matsvinn, hvor hovedmålet er å produsere aggregerte data. Bunn-opp-tilnærmingene brukes av den forhandlede avtalen som i Norge og nasjonale prosjekter som det endelige prosjektet som blir vurdert.
Prosjektet har vist at det er et potensial for videre samarbeid om å utvikle og implementere rammer for innsamling av data, selv om systemene må utvikles i henhold til hvert lands ambisjoner. Med god erfaring fra både top-down-tilnærminger (Sverige, Danmark) og bottom-up-tilnærminger (Finland, Norge) er det et potensial for gjensidig læring mellom de nordiske landene for å fremskynde datainnsamlingen ytterligere og følge opp matsvinn på nasjonalt nivå også som fra interessentdrevne prosjekter.
 
Undersøkelsen vår har ikke vært i stand til å evaluere grundige kostnader mellom forskjellige overvåkingssystemer. De fleste kostnadene vil være på det tidspunktet primærdata genereres, dvs. blant avfallsgeneratorer i selskaper og kommuner, noe som ikke er lett å estimere. Her finner vi også den viktigste forskjellen mellom detaljert bottom-up-tilnærming og top-down-tilnærming. Datainnsamling og oppskalering til nasjonal statistikk vil ikke være like påvirket av de ulike tilnærmingene. Det er også avfallsgeneratorene som har størst fordeler av avfallsreduksjon, noe som kan være ganske betydelig ved å være involvert i bunn-opp-overvåking.

Hovedfunn - forebyggende tiltak i husholdninger og detaljhandel

Halvering av matsvinn innen 2030 krever radikale endringer i næringskjeden. Disse radikale endringene krever fire dimensjoner: teknologipush, samfunnstrekk (meningsdrevet), markedstrekk (markedsdrevet) og regulatorisk push. Basert på disse fire dimensjonene har vi klassifisert tiltak for å redusere matsvinn i fire temaer:

1. Politiske virkemidler (regulatorisk push),
2. Endring av sosiale normer (samfunnsstrekk),
3. Nudging og endring av praksis (teknologi push & samfunnsdrag), og
4. Intelligent teknologi og nye produkter og forretningsmodeller (sterk teknologipush og market pull).

De fire emnene er igjen delt inn i 16 underemner for å identifisere ulike slags tiltak for å redusere matsvinn. For å effektivt redusere matsvinn må ulike tiltak kombineres, og målet er derfor å finne tiltak for alle de fire hovedtemaene. For hvert tema har vi beskrevet begge: 1) Tidligere / pågående tiltak for å redusere matsvinn og 2) fremtidige anbefalte tiltak for å redusere matsvinn.
Hovedkraften i virkemiddelapparatet er regulatorisk press. Basert på svarene fra hvert land, delte vi temaet videre inn i tre delemner: Politiske handlinger, frivillige avtaler og styringsinstrumenter.
Hovedkreftene i å endre sosiale normer - dimensjon er samfunnets trekk. Basert på svarene fra hvert land, delte vi temaet videre i fire underemner: Informasjonsstyring, Utdanning, Sosial og kulturell norm, og merkevareavfall. Endring av sosiale normer er viktig for å få samfunnet om bord med behov for endring.
Hovedkreftene i Nudging og endring av praksis - dimensjon er teknologisk push og samfunnsdrag. Basert på svarene fra hvert land, delte vi emnet videre inn i fire underemner: smart emballasje, teknologihjelp, priser og produktmiljø.
 
De viktigste kreftene innen teknologi og nye produkter og forretningsmodeller - tema er sterk teknologisk utvikling og markedstrekk. Basert på svarene fra hvert land, delte vi temaet videre inn i fem delemner: verktøy for håndtering av matavfall, produktutvikling, pakkeinnovasjon, forbedret bestillingssystem og nye virksomheter rundt matsvinn.
 
Det er vanskelig å evaluere effektiviteten (for å redusere matsvinn) til de eksisterende tiltakene, og ikke snakke om å påpeke hvilke som er de mest effektive. Dette er fordi det er svært få eksisterende studier som kvantifiserer eller til og med vurderer potensialet i et tiltak for å redusere matsvinn.

Anbefalinger

Et sett med anbefalinger fra prosjektet presenteres i siste kapittel av rapporten, med fokus på hva som kan forbedres i matovervåkingsovervåking i regionen, samt hvordan de nordiske landene kan fortsette å styrke sitt samarbeid i området. Vi anbefaler at de nordiske landene:

1. Samarbeider om å utvikle rapporteringsrammer med felles systemgrenser, definisjoner og metoder som gjør det mulig å dele og sammenligne data om matsvinn totalt og per innbygger over hele næringskjeden.
2. Følger opp en ledende posisjon i å utvikle og implementere overvåkingssystemer som er basert på en bottom-up-tilnærming med mer detaljerte data om matsvinn enn det som kreves av EU-regelverket som et tiltak for å forhindre matsvinn.
3. Videreutvikler, harmoniserer og gjør tilgjengelige retningslinjer for metoder for å kvantifisere matsvinn ved generasjonspunktet, både for å gjøre målinger så sammenlignbare som mulig og for å gjøre målingene gyldige og effektive.
4. Samarbeider om å utvikle vanlige matvarefaktorer som grunnlag for å utvikle nasjonal statistikk, samt sammenligne endringer i mengden matsvinn over tid.
5. Dokumenterer effektiviteten av tiltak for å forhindre matsvinn
6. Etablerer, deler og videreutvikler nasjonale veikart for reduksjon av matsvinn, der alle land fortsetter å liste opp eksisterende og fremtidige tiltak for å redusere matsvinn og følger den samlede effekten av tiltakene til matsvinn
7. Setter opp et nordisk nettverk og system for informasjonsdeling og læring for å kunne bruke styrkene i det nasjonale arbeidet med matovervåkingsovervåking

1 Introduction and background

The background for the project is that EU Commission has introduced new regulations and policies for food waste prevention and monitoring 31 March 2019, with quite specific requirements to how food waste is defined and should be quantified. The new regulations are part of the revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD is the legal framework for requesting all member countries in the EU (and EEA, including Norway and Iceland) to report data on amount of waste being generated in each country.

All Nordic countries have collected data, developed national statistics for and reported to Eurostat on those waste categories over the past 20–30 years. However, as shown in Table 1 below, each country has selected different classification systems for national waste statistics, although all countries have had to report data to Eurostat in the EW classification systems defined. Finland and Sweden have used the European classification system also for national statistics, whereas Denmark and Norway have used different systems nationally, making it necessary to transform data when reporting to Eurostat.

Table 1 Waste categories used in national statistics related to organic waste types and year when monitoring started

All Nordic countries were quite early to start focusing on food waste generation in the society and on how to prevent food waste, and in most countries the first reports on food waste statistics for parts of the food chain were published around 2010. In most countries this started as national pilot projects, either initiated by the environmental authorities, by the food sector or through the interest from R&D institutes. Whereas waste statistics reported to EU and Eurostat first of all is based in the need to see how much waste is generated of different types, from which sources and how it is treated, food waste statistics were initiated to understand how food waste could be prevented in the society. It was thus necessary to understand how much food waste that was generated at different stages in the food chain and which types of food, but with a higher focus on how food waste could be prevented. It was thus a focus in many countries on edible food waste vs total food waste, to distinguish between food that could or should have been eaten, and inedible parts as peal, bones and skins etc.

In our systematic overview of methodologies for food waste quantification in general and the methods that have been used in the Nordic countries, we have narrowed down our approach to description of methods that are relevant for quantifying food waste according to the new EU regulations. We have thus not focused on methodologies for how present statistics for “organic type waste” have been and is carried out, but focused on how food waste monitoring and reporting have been carried out in the Nordic countries, with special focus on the latest available report in each country.

Figure 1 Overview of processes to monitor organic types of waste and food waste in the four Nordic countries included in this study

The two types of surveys on food waste and waste statistics have been carried out in parallel in the Nordic countries since 2010, with national statistics for “organic types of waste” according to European Waste classification as part of national waste accounting and statistics, and food waste statistics as parallel surveys organized differently in each country (see Chapter 8.3). From 2020, the New EU regulations on food waste statistics makes it mandatory both to sort out food waste from other waste fraction for separate collection, as well as to report on food waste statistics nationally from all stages in the food chain. The first report shall be sent to Eurostat by 1 July 2022, based on statistics from 2020.

It is thus necessary to develop new and more comprehensive and formal national systems for data gathering, systemizing and upscaling of data to national statistics on food waste from all Nordic countries from 2020. This will change the way statistics for “organic types of waste” is dealt with today, and will make it necessary to formalize the type of food waste statistics which so far has been done more on a voluntary and experimental basis in most of the Nordic countries.

This is the background for this project initiated by the Nordic Council of Ministers, to identify how food waste surveys and reporting has been carried out in the Nordic countries and the potential gaps between present methodologies for data gathering, definitions and system boundaries as well as upscaling methods and the new EU regulations. We have thus in the project focused most on the way food waste surveys and reporting has been carried out in each country, and not so much on national statistics for “organic types waste” which has been carried out over time according to earlier regulations and classification systems. We have used the latest available report from each country of food waste surveys and reporting as a basis for our systematic review of methodologies, definitions and system boundaries, and used this as a basis for the gap analyses compared to new regulations from 2020 on food waste statistics.

2 Goal and deliverables from the project

The goal of the project has been defined in the intention set up from the Nordic Council of Ministers in their tender document:

"The project should investigate how to monitor both food waste and food loss in a harmonized and comparable way in the Nordic countries and to push regional policies for the reduction of food waste and loss. The project will identify actions taken in the Nordic region to reduce food waste particularly at the retail and consumer levels.”

According to the request from Nordic Council of Ministers, we have focused on the following deliverables from the project:

1. A report describing the main outcome of the project, as well as the outcome of the workshop described below. The report will be written in English with a short summary in each of the Nordic languages and will be published in TemaNord.
2. Planning and organization of a Nordic workshop for experts in the field of food waste monitoring, covering representatives from authorities, business sectors and academia. This workshop was carried out through a webinar 22th September with one open part to present the main results from the study of definitions and methods in food waste monitoring, and a smaller workshop with invited participants to discuss prevention measures in households and retail. There were about 70 participants in the first part of the workshop, representing all Nordic countries, and about 30 participants in the second part, representing relevant organizations in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.
3. An oral presentation of the main results from the project for the members of NMR Circular Economy group, and with a power point presentation that can be used by NMR representatives after the project period.

3 How the project has been carried out

The project has been carried out according to the tender document from March 2020 and the project plan that was approved by the Nordic Council of Ministers in their contract with NORSUS.

The main methodological approach applied in the project work has been to identify relevant documents in the form of written reports, papers and presentations from each of the Nordic countries covering definitions of food waste and loss used in the different countries, and also considering latest European Commission C(2019) 3211 requirements as well as describing methodologies that have been used to quantify and monitor food waste and loss and what is required by the EU Commission. We have used as a background the available data and statistics for food waste and loss from the Nordic countries as presented by Hanssen et al. (2016) and updated with new figures from the latest available statistics. We have gone through national reports to identify and systematize information about which definitions and methods that have been used as a basis for the food waste monitoring and statistics. We have separated methodologies in two main categories, covering both methods to quantify data about food waste and loss at the lowest level (primary data from business units, households, primary producers etc.) as well as methods and approaches for upscaling of primary data to national statistics. We have discussed similarities and dissimilarities between the different national monitoring systems in a systematic way, and through this approach identified if the differences between Nordic countries can be explained by methodological differences or if the differences are due to differences in wasting behavior. We have used the reports from the FUSIONS project (Møller et al 2013 a, b), WRI Food Waste Protocol and C (2019) 3211 as a basis to categorize the methods applied in each country. Those who want a more detailed description of how the different methods can be applied for food waste monitoring should go to the reports mentioned beyond.

We have developed a common framework to make a systematic evaluation of documents, combined with input by each partner based in his/her experiences from and knowledge about food waste monitoring and prevention in each country. Input has also been received from national authorities and experts in all countries being involved in the work.

Project activities

The project has consisted of the following activities:

1. Systemized present practice and definitions in the light of the new EU-regulations and the reporting of food loss and waste in relation to Agenda 2030 and SDG12.3.  The aim is to create a common understanding to be used in the Nordic countries for comparing national datasets for food waste and loss (matavfall, matsvinn og sekundærressurser)
2. Systemized present methodologies used in the Nordic countries for monitoring food waste and loss along the food chain, and propose a common, cost-efficient methodology for monitoring and reporting to be used in all countries in a way that it meets the Commission requirements as well.
3. Planned and organized an expert workshop with key persons from the Nordic region, covering authorities, businesses, consultancies and academia.
4. Investigated how the Nordic countries could support and strengthen the pace of food waste reduction at the retail and household level.
5. Developed a final report from the project to be published in TemaNord and make an oral presentation for the NMR group.
6. Project management and coordination

Due to the present Corona-restrictions for meetings both nationally and internationally, the whole project, including the expert workshop, has been done through Teams-communication between partners, the Steering Committee and the workshop participants. This has been an efficient, but not ideal way to carry out the project, probably with a broader representation in the workshop if it had been organized as a physical meeting.

4 Monitoring of food waste – methods, definitions and motivations

4.1 Monitoring systems – quantification, data collection and validation, up-scaling, reporting

Food waste monitoring can be done on different levels in the society, in companies, in business sectors and at the national level. Food waste monitoring will include the following key elements:

1. Quantifying food waste at the point of generation, i.e. in farms, in the dairies and slaughterers, retail shops, households etc. This is the key element in monitoring, to quantify mass of food being wasted over a period of time on a certain level of detailedness or to estimate mass of food waste as good as possible, as primary data.
2. Data gathering and systematization. Once data are available as primary data, it is necessary to get access to the data in a systematic and efficient way, presently through web-based portals, questionnaires, etc. Data should be gathered from as many data points as possible, to have representative data sets for further use in up-scaling and reporting. Data that has to be gathered are mass of food waste (eg economic value) generated over a certain time period, combined with data on production or turnover, to estimate waste factors (kg food waste per tonne of production).
3. Upscaling to national statistics, based in food waste factors and production or sales statistics for sectors or subsectors. Upscaling should be done with basis in food waste factors from representative samples (economic or statistical) and within as homogenous samples as possible.
4. Reporting which can be done annually on company level, sector level or on national level of food waste statistics through national official statistics and to Eurostat/EU. Reporting nationally and to EU should be based in the same data sets and be similar on aggregated levels but can be structured differently based in national and EU requirements.

In this report we have focused on quantifying food waste to be used in national monitoring of food waste with the aim to develop national statistics and for reporting to Eurostat.

The methodological description and analyses of food waste monitoring practise in the Nordic countries are based on earlier reports being carried out through the FUSIONS project (Møller et al. 2013, 2014, Tostivint 2015), the Food Waste and Loss protocols and reporting manuals from World Resource Institute and UNEP^{[1]https://www.wri.org/publication/food-loss-and-waste-accounting-and-reporting-standard}, the EU monitoring regulations from 31 March 2019^{[2]COMMISSION DELEGATED DECISION (EU) 2019/1597 of 3 May 2019 supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform measurement of levels of food waste}.

In the tables presenting the findings from each part of the food chain, we focus on how data on food waste and edible food waste are gathered and reported in the latest available reports from each country.  While Environmental authorities and national statistics organisations are responsible for the organic waste statistics, statistics and reporting of food waste or edible food waste (matsvinn) varies more between countries and has changed over time, as shown in the tables below.

Food waste can be measured and quantified principally with three main approaches:

1. Measuring food that will be wasted before it ends up in the waste bin or waste collector
2. Measuring food waste after being wasted, through analyses of waste that has been generated.
3. Indirect estimates of food waste

For all approaches, there are a number of different methodologies available to do the practical measuring, as described comprehensively by Møller et al. (2013, 2014) based in the work in the FUSIONS project. Which methods to use in different situations (e.g. stage in the food chain) are discussed and described more in detail in the manual from FUSIONS (Tostivint 2015) and FLW protocol^{[3]https://www.wri.org/publication/food-loss-and-waste-accounting-and-reporting-standard}.

It should be noted that all methods are based on quantifying food waste as far as possible in mass flows, giving the numbers in tonnes or kilogram of food waste. In cases where it is difficult to measure food waste in mass directly, transformation factors are used for instance from economic values (e.g. retail sector), volumes (e.g. agriculture and fisheries, packing or storing houses) or land use (e.g. agriculture). All masses are given in fresh weight, i.e. with a normal water content of the food waste. This makes it important to store food waste to be weighted in a cool and humid environment before being studied in waste composition analyses (e.g. Hanssen et al. 2015).

Detailed data about which types of food that is wasted at each stage in the food chain is also a necessary basis to calculate environmental impacts (especially Greenhouse Gas (GHG) -emissions) and economy value of food being wasted. Reporting on GHG-emissions and economic value of food waste have been implemented in the Norwegian and the Finnish food waste monitoring system, based in availability of detailed quantitative data on food waste.

One important output from food waste quantification is food waste factors (kg food waste per ton of production or per unit of turnover). Waste factors are important element as a basis for national food waste statistics, when scaling up from a sample of companies or municipalities/households being analysed, to national levels. Waste factors should be generated based in representative samples of waste generating units (companies, public services, municipalities etc), with both mean values as well as with standard deviations, to assess if the sample sizes are satisfying. Waste factors can thus also be used as proxy factors to estimate food waste from other organisations. Hanssen et al (2013) proposed to use the same approach for estimating food waste that is used in GHG accounting, with so-called Tier 1 to Tier 3 factors. Tier 1 can be used as a proxy on a “global” level, e.g. food waste factors for the food industry In the Nordic region. Tier 2 is national proxy factors which are relevant for specific sectors on a national level and Tier 3 is specific food waste factors at a company or municipality level.

The most relevant methodologies to be used in the three approaches are briefly described in the following. Those who want more details about the methodologies should go to the reports referred to above.
 

I. Measuring food waste before ending in the waste bin

The most relevant and applied methods are

1. Scanning of food that is no longer possible to sell in ordinary channels, e.g. in retail companies, whole-sellers, food industry etc. This is a widely used method in the retail sector to have track on inventories of the stores, and to keep focus on economic loss from non-sold products. Staff in the retail companies scan all products that have to be wasted, and the records are gathered in big internal data bases in companies and used to evaluate which products that are not sold in big enough volumes. As scanning first of all measure economic loss directly, it is important to include a set of categories of losses, to distinguish between economic loss (e.g. donations) and food waste (food that is sorted out for final waste treatment).
2. Weighing or measuring volumes of food or food scraps that is not used/sorted away before throwing it into the waste bin/collector. Such weighing is used by many companies and facilities in the hospitality sector, where there are technologies to directly register mass of food being wasted in data systems. Weighing or estimating mass of food waste from volumes being wasted is also used in production, processing and packing of fruits, vegetables and potatoes in primary production.
3. Food waste diaries, where people are recording which products are wasted in households, in canteens and restaurants before throwing food and food rests in the bin is used mostly in shorter tests and experiments to increase motivation for food waste reduction. Diaries is also often used over a certain time period (2-4 weeks) to estimate amount of food waste being generated in a control period, to upscale to total amounts per year. In the hospitality sector, an increasing number of organisations are using smart scales or kitchen scales where food that is wasted can be quantified and with smart scales registered directly.
4. Estimate amount of non-harvested secondary resources^{[4]Vegetables, fruits, cereals wasted before harvesting (side flows)} from agriculture production, especially from production of fruits and vegetables, potatoes, cereals etc. In such cases estimates are done about how much non-harvested secondary resources are left per m² or per unit of control areas, to upscale to total amount from production in a farm or production unit.
5. Other pre-waste methods used in the food sector, e.g. counting of units or measuring volumes of food that is collected for waste treatment, combined with factors for specific weight per unit or per volume.
    

II. Measuring and estimating food waste from the waste bin

1. Weighing mass of total waste or mass of organic waste and then estimate the proportion of food waste, is clearly the most common method to register mass of food being wasted. Mass of food waste is normally measured by waste contractors or by the waste handling operators in municipalities when waste is collected. Waste contractors register normally/often mass of waste individually per collection site, as a basis for invoicing companies per ton of waste collected. In some cases, volumes are registered based in size of containers and degree of filling and must then be multiplied with specific weight of the type of waste being collected.
2. Waste composition analyses, by picking representative samples of larger volumes or populations, both to measure amount of food waste in total, share of food waste from other waste types in mixed waste collection, share of edible and non-edible food stuffs and proportion of food types being wasted (see Hanssen et al. 2016 etc for description of methodology).
3. Other relevant post-bin methods.

III. Indirect estimates of food waste

1. Mass balance approach, where the amount of food waste is estimated based in quantification of food stuffs entering a process or a facility and the amount of food products being produced and sold. The difference between the two will in line with the mass conservation principles be an estimate of food being wasted. This can typically be used in the food industry, the retail sector, food service companies.
2. Estimates based in waste factors, from earlier studies, from sector reports etc, showing amount of food waste being generated per tonne of product being produced, per area of production of vegetables, per m3 of milk being produced in a farm etc. Those commonly used factors are used for up-scaling but can also be a first approach to estimate food waste from a given production. Waste factors can be seen in parallel to Tier 1 or Tier 2 factors in GWP-estimates in climate accounting.
3. Factors showing edible fraction of different food types. Some countries follow the traditional segregation in edible and non-edible food waste, to have a specific focus on food stuff which most easily can be prevented from being wasted. In Norway, Food authorities has published a food table, showing average values for edible parts of about 1600 different types of food (Matvaretabellen 2020).

4.2 Motivation for food waste monitoring in companies and municipalities – top/down and bottom-up approaches

Monitoring food waste can be done for different purposes, but the three main reasons for why organizations should quantify regularly (at least once a year) food waste are:

• To use data in own organisation to identify where and how measures should be taken to prevent and reduce food waste internally and to measure effects of reduction over time, as well as to share data with other organisations in the food chain for the same reasons.
• To make data available for national statistics and reporting of status and trends in food waste generation, to see if the country achieves national and international goals for food waste reduction, e.g. 50% reduction before 2030 as defined by United Nations and EU.
• To improve quality of data, through continuous learning and improving the methods for data gathering both by those who generate the data and by those who gather data and systemize and analyse data towards national statistics.

It is often given most emphasize on the second point in this context, and guidelines and regulatory acts are often established first of all to get access to data as a basis for national statistics. It is however a well-known fact, that prevention and reduction is realised in each organisation, that organisations need those data to manage their food waste and that data used as a basis for national statistics not have the best quality, if organisations that generate the primary data do not see the value of the data for themselves. To have data available as a basis for prevention it is important to have available data of all food that is lost and not being used to feed humans. Prevention and reduction measures should focus on the upper part of the waste hierarchy which means that there is a need for quite detailed data on which types of food which is lost at each stage of the food chain. There should also ideally be connections between detailed food waste monitoring and analyses of root causes for why food is wasted, as an important source of ideas for solutions to be evaluated and implemented.

Figure 2 Bottom-up and top-down approaches to food waste monitoring

 This have been the idea behind the Norwegian food waste prevention work from the very beginning in 2010 with the ForMat-project, followed up by the Negotiated agreement in 2017, to involve companies directly in the work. Companies have been followed up with results and statistics, both for their own business as well as for their sectors, and many companies use their data first of all for internal work with prevention measures and actions. The same has been the case in Finland since 2010, where LUKE has been the main actor in promoting the waste hierarchy. 

The top down perspective is aimed for understanding and follow up on policy measures and how politics is implemented in member states. In contrast, the bottom-up approaches are aimed for change management on stakeholder level.  The choice of methodology and choice of boundary conditions approach will be determined by the aim of the monitoring initiative (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Top-down approach and bottom-up approach for collecting food waste statics

5 Regulatory framework for food waste monitoring in the EU and globally (SDG)

5.1 EU regulations

From 2020 the EU countries are obliged to report food waste data according to the new waste framework directive. Through the Paris Agreement and Agenda2030 the Nordic countries have agreed to work towards the 17 Sustainability goals which also address food waste reduction though SDG12.3 stating​^{[1]sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg12}:

“By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”

To follow up on SDG12.3 indicators have been developed. To support food waste reporting large efforts have been made to align the EU-reporting and the reporting towards SDG12.3 as much as possible to avoid unnecessary double work.

This chapter aims to bring clarity into the definitions and boundary conditions used in the national reporting in the Nordic regions also covering the voluntary agreement/national projects on food waste monitoring.

5.2 Reporting according to the Waste Framework Directive

Understanding of the scope of the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) is crucial for understanding the new reporting obligations. In this section a short review of the scope of WFD (linked to food waste) is provided to create an understanding on the legal obligations of reporting. The methodologies used are further explained in Chapter 5.

According to the WFD^{[1]Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0098} all EU countries and countries linked to the EEA agreement are obliged to report to EU on waste statistics. The guidance document^{[2]https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/342366/351811/Guidance+on+food+waste+reporting/5581b0a2-b09e-adc0-4e0a-b20062dfe564} provided by Eurostat provides a comprehensive overview of what to report (according to the WFD which is the legal basis for national reporting

According to the waste framework directive:

Waste means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.

Further on, by-product is defined in the waste framework directive as:

A substance or object, resulting from a production process, the primary aim of which is not the production of that item, may be regarded as not being waste but as being a by-product only if the following conditions are met: (a) further use of the substance or object is certain;(b) the substance or object can be used directly without any further processing other than normal industrial practice; (c) the substance or object is produced as an integral part of a production process; and (d) further use is lawful, i.e. the substance or object fulfils all relevant product, environmental and health protection requirements for the specific use and will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts.

The EU legislation^{[3]COMMISSION DELEGATED DECISION (EU) 2019/1597 of 3 May 2019 supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform measurement of levels of food waste,}​^{[4]COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2019/2000 of 28 November 2019 laying down a format for reporting of data on food waste and for submission of the quality check report in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council} is based on the definition of Food according to the European Food law (EC) No 178/2002) as provided in section 4.1 and the definition of waste according to the WFD as described in Figure 4. In the light of this the concept of food and food waste is explained by the commission according to:

"(Food) encompasses food as a whole, along the entire food supply chain from production until consumption. Food also includes inedible parts, where those were not separated from the edible parts when the food was produced, such as bones attached to meat destined for human consumption. Hence, food waste can comprise items which include parts of food intended to be ingested and parts of food not intended to be ingested"

Figure 4 Food waste to be reported to EU in relation to the WFD and the European food law

Further, according to the definition in the food law the following fractions are excluded since they are not considered as food or are very small:

• By-products and animal by- products including food placed on the market for transformation into feed (not considered as food)
  •  material that has not become food yet e.g. raw material before harvest and slaughter (not considered as food).
• Food waste fractions in side-flows where you do not expect food waste
• Street waste
   

 The EU Commission has also asked the member states to on a voluntary basis report

• Parts of food intended to be ingested by humans ("Edible parts")
• Food waste drained as or with wastewater
• Surplus food (not waste):
  • Food redistributed for human consumption (not waste)
  • Food placed on the market for transformation into feed

  • Former food stuff^{[1]https://www.effpa.eu/what-are-former-foodstuffs/}
     

The total food waste as defined by the WFD considering the expectations above and the voluntary amounts as described above are to be reported for each step in the supply chain:

• Primary Production
• Processing and manufacturing
• Retail and other distribution of food
• Restaurants and food services
• Households
   

The reporting shall be done on an annual basis. The member states shall measure the amount of food waste in metric tonnes of fresh mass generated. Further in-depth measurement for a given stage of the food waste using one of the prescribes in depth methods should be carried out at least once every fourth year, meaning that the data reported must not be older than 4 years.

For the first reporting period (jan-dec 2020) in-depth methods must be used for all stages in the supply chain. Data sets used must not be older than from 2017.

Figure 5 provides an overview of material, boundaries, and destinations relevant for food waste reporting as covered by the WFD and delegated act as described above.

Figure 5 Overview of food related material flows and boundaries covered by the European Waste Framework Directive

5.3 Reporting according to SDG12.3

5.3.1 Reporting terms and definitions

FAO distinguishes between Food loss and Food waste as well as material losses and qualitative losses^{[1]FAO. 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO} where

Food losses is the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by food suppliers in the chain, excluding retailers, food service providers and consumers

and

Food waste refers to the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by retailers, food service providers and consumers.

Since it is difficult to objectively distinguish between Food Loss and Food Waste in all situation a pragmatic approach has been taken when developing the two indicators Food Loss Index (FLI) and Food Waste Index (FWI)^{[2]FAO. 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO}. FLI refers to the Food Loss and Waste (FLW) on the on the supply side of the food chain (Green in Figure 6.) and FWI cover refer to the demand side of the supply chain from retail to consumption (Yellow in Figure 6).

The definition of FWI is linked to the 50% reduction target (SDG12.3) and FLI is not linked to the second part of the SDG12.3 goal being that food losses shall be reduced all along the food chain. The Indicators do not reflect qualitative losses. It is however recommended (if possible) to collect information on prices and destinations, that is how the FLW handled, in order to extract information on the qualitative loss in the future^{[3]FAO. 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO}.

Figure 6 Definition of boundaries for FLI (green) and FWI(yellow) with respect to the food supply chain^{[1]FAO. 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO}

5.3.2 Indicators for SDG12.3

The indicators used by FAO are relative, that is they compare the relative FLW percentage based on mass to the FLW percentage under a defined period (base year) on a global/regional basis. Considering national data countries are free to choose base year. (National indicators are not reported to FAO)

As for the EU definition of food waste the indicators cover all side flows (edible and inedible parts of food) going for waste management (including anaerobic digestions). Seed, feed and industrial use are not included.
 

Food Loss index (FLI)

The FLI is developed by FAO and the methodology is well described^{[1]https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-12-03-01A.pdf}.

Food loss is defined as

“All the crop, livestock and fish human-edible commodity quantities that, directly or indirectly, completely exit the post-harvest/ slaughter/catch supply chain by being discarded, incinerated or otherwise disposed of, and do not re-enter in any other utilization (such as animal feed, industrial^{[2]Industrial use “ includes biofuels, fibres for packaging material, creating bioplastics (e.g. polylactic acid), making traditional materials such as leather or feathers (e.g. for pillows) and rendering fat, oil or grease into a raw material to make soaps, biodiesel or cosmetics are not considered as FLW nor is use as such as fertilizer and ground cover”.}  use, etc.), up to, and excluding, the retail level. Losses that occur during storage, transportation and processing, as well as imported products, are therefore all included”.

FLI is based on the ten most important raw material based on FAOs statics within the following product categories

• Cereal and pulses
• Fruits and vegetables
• Root, tubes and oil-bearing crops
• Animal products
• Fish and Fish products

Each country is free to choose which products to follow-up on.

For the global calculations and time being FAO will not collect data on harvest and slaughter/catch (light green in Figure 6) however for the national data FAO recommend to collect these data. The FLI will be calculated based on the data collected though FAO’s annual Agriculture Production Questionnaire in April every year^{[3]https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-12-03-01A.pdf}.

Food waste Index

FWI is still under development by UNECE. The definition that can be found is^{[4]https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-12-03-01A.pdf}:

Food waste are all food that completely exits the food chain from retail level, including consumption stages of the food supply chain

According to the information given so far, the discussion on the FWI is an overlap between the scope covered by the EU legislation for retail up to consumption and the scope of FWI^{[5]https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-12-03-01A.pdf[6]https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/webinar-on-food-waste-measurement,  final discussion.}. No common base year has been agreed upon​^{[7]Personal communication Tom Quested, WRAP, May 2020} The reporting cycle is every two years and starts 2020. A questionnaire will be sent to countries every 2 years by UNSD/UNEP requesting annual data^{[8]https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/webinar-on-food-waste-measurement,  final discussion.}.

5.4 Comparing the new EU-legalisation and FLI and FWI

Table 2 provides an overview of what is included as obligatory and voluntary respectively in the EU-legislation and for the reporting on SDG12.3 using FLI and FWI. It can be concluded that the frameworks are relative coherent.

The major differences are that the food chain stages Household and Restaurants are combined in the SDG framework and that in the EU-framework Wholesale and retail and transport are combined while for reporting according to the SDG12.3 retail becomes a apart of FWI and Wholesale and Logistic is a part of the FLI. An important difference is that FLI requires that a set of specific products are followed up rather than the waste percentage for a whole sector (e.g. for EU requires reporting on “Primary production” “Processing and manufacturing” and “Retail and Distribution”) Further FAO has chosen to not include “Primary production” as obligatory of practical reasons. there is a lack of data globally and the information cannot be extracted from the FAO food balance sheets being the major source for calculating FLI on a global scale^{[1]Fabi C (2020) https://vimeo.com/402112586}.

Only the destinations for side flows included in the current reporting are provided in Table 2. The destinations for the EU-reporting and reporting against Agenda 2030 (SDG12.3) are coherent, besides for primary production, where the FWD is more restrictive^{[2]Exluded from thteh WFD is (1) Straw and other natural non-hazardous agricultural or forestry material used in farming, forestry or for the production of energy from such biomass through processes or methods which do not harm the environment or endanger human health” (2) Wastes that are internally recycled (e.g. disposal of by-catches and fish guttings from fishery at sea, however any disposal operation, such as the disposal of waste at a company’s own landfill; energy recovery operations should be included).(3) animal carcasses and animal by-products covered by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009}. The destinations are not specifically reported in either framework but serve as important boundary conditions on what to include or not as the different steps in the in the food chain. However, destinations are an obligatory element in the Global food loss and waste accounting and reporting standard which forms the bases for the collections of data by stakeholders^{[3]https://flwprotocol.org/flw-standard/}.​

Table 2 Overview of the of similarities and differences between what to report according to the new EU-law on reporting food waste and the SDG12.3Indicators FLI and FWI.

6 Survey of food waste monitoring in the Nordic countries

6.1 Introduction

The purpose of this overview is to illustrate current best practice in each country considering definitions and boundaries and to bring clarity into the definitions and boundary conditions used in the national reporting in the Nordic regions. The survey covers the national reporting as well as the voluntary reporting carried out based on negotiated agreements, which are independent initiatives from the national reporting. The voluntary reporting contributes however to the national reporting in the Nordic countries and is therefore relevant and an important source for data and may contribute to the national reporting though established frameworks for reporting.

In our assessment we have chosen to cover all destinations irrespective of what is formally defined as food waste. An overview of all destinations is crucial from a stakeholder perspective to take appropriate actions to reduce food waste and at the same time take care of any food waste as resource efficient as possible.

It should be stressed that this survey provides an overview of the frameworks used rather than actual data being at hand.

6.2 Identifying definitions, terminologies and boundary conditions applied in the Nordic countries

The reports forming the base for the survey are provided in Table 3. Those reports were considered as the most comprehensive national reports at hand in each of the countries and thus reflects best practice in the Nordic region. The reports are a mix of National reports from negotiated agreements (Norway) as well as national reports based on collaborative projects (Finland) with the authorities and national reports based on the work by authorities (Sweden and Denmark).

The scope of the reporting in each country is assessed according to:

Material: Information is collected on which type of material that is assessed. Specifically, if edible parts of food are reported separately or alternatively inedible part of food are reported together.

Destinations: Information is collected on how a side-flow /food waste flow is taken care of. Also, destinations not defined as food waste are covered e.g. donations. Donation is a voluntary destination to report according to the new EU-reporting requirements. To have an overview of all destinations is crucial from a stakeholder perspective to take appropriate actions.

Supply chain steps: Provides information on from which steps in the supply chain that are distinguished between in the reporting of the material being assessed.

Level of detail: Which level of detail are the data reported on in the different Nordic countries

Additional indicators: Besides the amount of material are other indicators linked to the amount of food waste reported

Additional information that was assessed were time frame for the reporting and if any particular side flow is excluded, for example waste leaving through the drain or the material collected is limited to what is defined as waste according to the waste framework directive. The principles for allocating waste to a certain step of the food supply chain were also compared. The two approaches that can be used are that the amount of waste is allocated based on (i) the owner of the mass or (ii) by where the waste physically appears.

It should be noted that although the definitions and boundaries are in place it does not mean that complete datasets are available. That assessment is out of scope in this project

The detailed assessments on a country base are provided in Appendix 1. Definitions and Future perspectives are provided in chapter 8.1.1 below.

Table 3 Reports forming the base for the current assessment

6.2.1 Overview of defintions and future perspectives.

Denmark

The Danish definition for food waste is consistent with the EU defintion of waste being: Food waste = Inedble parts of food and edible parts of food wasted. Edible parts of food will be estimated for all parts of the value chain from farm to fork.

Future perspectives: In Denmark the Ministry of Environement and Food has established a Thinktank on food waste called ONE\THIRD. ONE\THIRD has established a voluntary agreement on food waste reduction targets and data reporting.
 

Finland

The Finnish definition for food waste applied is based on a recent Finnish research project led by Luke (head funder is Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 2018-2020). In the project Luke has arranged national discussions between different actors of the food chain to discuss definitions, food waste data collection methodologies, and measures to reduce food waste. The project is also based on Luke’s past research studies and international collaboration. In the project Luke has published the definition for food waste, has tested and further developed food waste quantification methodologies and reported the results, and is going to publish the first version of the national food waste reduction road map by the end of 2020. The key driver behind definitions is to monitor, reduce and report food waste (both nationally and to EU and UN). The data collection is more detailed than what Commission and UN require. The Finnish definition is:

Food waste = inedible (like bones and peels of fruits) and originally edible food which is not utilized as human consumption, feed or other value components.

Edible parts of food waste = originally edible food which is not utilized as human consumption, feed or other value components.

Future perspectives: In future Luke is pursuing that data collection is reported and more open. Luke will also calculate and report the financial loss and environmental impacts of food waste which will require further data collection on financial figures and higher data resolution.
 

Norway

The Norwegian data set assessed is based on the work of the Norwegian negotiated agreement (Bransjeavtalen om reduksjon av matsvinn). The definition for food waste (matsvinn) according to the voluntary agreement is:

“Food waste (Matsvinn) = all useful parts of food produced for humans which are either discarded or removed from the food chain for other purposes than human food, from the time of slaughter or harvesting”

The rationale behind the very detailed and comprehensive Norwegian registration and reporting system for edible food waste (“matsvinn”) is to have a good basis for actions to prevent food being wasted or not used for its primary intention, as human feed. A deep involvement from business actors and the public sector (includes both municipalities for household waste and public sector as food provider to own employees as well as users) along the whole food chain from the food industry via retail and wholesale to the food service sector results in detailed data, which is used both internally and by the signatories of the Negotiated Agreement to follow trends over time. Involvement of NORSUS from the very beginning (and from SINTEF in fishery and aquaculture sector) has been important for development of methodologies for measuring, upscaling and transforming data into mass flows, economic values and GHG-values.

Future perspectives: The present system which is now well integrated in the Negotiated Agreement will be the basis for further development of the system into national statistics and official reporting of data on food waste to Eurostat, according to new EU regulations.
 

Sweden

The Swedish dataset assessed is based on the work by SMED (Swedish MiljöEmissionsData) on behalf of the Swedish EPA. The definition for food waste (livsmedelsavfall) is consistent with the EU definition of waste being. Further, losses not covered by the WFD is suggested to be referred to as “livsmedelsförluster”. Donations are neither but seen as an economic loss.

It should be noted that Sweden has collected data also beyond what is required in related to resource efficiency and food loss and waste. These are included in Figure 7 even though they are not linked to the official reporting of food waste 2018 since they are at hand.

Future perspectives: In Sweden linked to the Swedish environmental objectives and the milestone target on reducing food waste (as defined by EU) with 20% /capita from 2020 to 2025 it is further stated that an increased amount of food produced shall reach retail and consumer by 2025. To follow up this Sweden is currently developing methods for following up lost and wasted food from farm (harvest losses) up to retail as an additional part of the national statics. The VA “Samarbetet för minskat matsvinn” (SAMS) will collect data from its member that the SEPA and Swedish Board of Agriculture will have access to for national statistics. The Swedish Food Agency are also making surveys in public kitchens this can hopefully be used in the national statistics in the years to come^{[1]Linstow et al. 2021}.

6.3 Similarities and difference in the Nordic countries considering national reporting

An overview of the current frameworks used for reporting is provided in Figure 7 where white means that this is common for all and grey means that there are differences in the different countries. Each grey box is further coded based on which countries that do address the content in the grey box, bold means that the country generally address the content while not bold means it is approached to some extent.

Figure 7 A comparison of the reporting in Denmark, Finland Norway and Sweden. Grey means that there are differences. D= Denmark (reporting commissioned by the authorities), N=Norway (Bransjeavtalet), F=Finland (collaborative research project) and S= Sweden (reporting commissioned by the authorities). Bold means that the material and destination is reported for most supply chain steps.

Specifically, we can see that

• Bottom-up vs. top-down: Until now Finland and Norway have adopted a more pronounced bottom up-approach than Sweden and Denmark.
• Edible parts of Food. Norway and Finland as well as Denmark collect data on edible parts of food for all steps in the supply chain while Sweden only does for households.
• Product categories: Norway, Finland, and Denmark (for retail, food service and household food waste) distinguish between product categories.
• Drain: Food waste that goes to the drain has been addressed in Norway (food industry and hospitality sector partly), Finland (households), Sweden (households and some industry) and Denmark (households).
• Feed: Data on Food used as feed are included in food waste statistics in Norway (although not quantified separately so far) and Finland, and Sweden has in a different project commissioned by the authorities and based on current information, made some estimates. Denmark has not addressed Food lost as feed.
• Valorization: Norway includes food losses being valorized to other products, but without any specific quantification. Finland is quantifying food losses going to valorization. Sweden has some data sets and Denmark does not address valorization.
• Ready to harvest: Only Norway and Finland have so far addressed this fraction, but only Finland has so far collected data on food left on field without harvesting.
• Financial Loss: Norway and Finland have estimated financial losses due to food loss and waste.
• Donations: Although not food waste, donations are captured in the reporting from the negotiated agreement in Norway. Data are also at hand in Finland and Denmark (reported individually by stakeholders), while Sweden does not address donations.

Based on the assessed frameworks, being based on what has been considered as best practice in each country, we can see that Sweden and Denmark link their reporting closely to the waste framework directive while Finland and Norway base their most data collection on voluntary reporting in close collaboration with stakeholders. This explains why Norway and Finland report on a much more detailed level and have enough detailed data to estimate impact like costs and GHG-emissions.

Who is going to report the waste needs to be clarified under certain circumstances to avoid that waste is double counted or not counted at all? Logically the owner of the waste when disposed should be responsible for the reporting. It is however not always done, rather the waste is reported by the entity disposing it (= point of generation). For example, a dairy takes care of milk not sold by the retailer as a service or the wholesaler dispose vegetables that cannot be distributed due to that they at arrival do not fulfil the requirements in quality agreed upon. The Norwegian “Bransjeavtalen” has the ambition to use the ownership of the waste as reference while in Sweden, Denmark and Finland the reference is defined by point of generation.

6.4 Survey on methodologies for food waste monitoring in the Nordic countries

6.4.1 Cross national survey of food waste monitoring systems

The results from the survey of food waste monitoring methods and approaches are described in Table 5 and in more detail in the tables in Appendix 2, sector by sector as given below.

Table 4 Description of the stages in the food chain that is included in the survey

For each country and stage in the food chain, we have described how monitoring are carried out with focus on the following main elements:

• Starting and frequency of monitoring
• Responsibility and involvement
• Internal use of food waste monitoring in managing and preventing food waste
• Representative samples
• Type of measuring method
• Unit of monitoring
• Other impacts reported?
• Type of food products being monitored
• Validation and control
• Upscaling methodology and data basis for national statistics
• Gap analyses between present methodologies and the new EU regulation on food waste monitoring

We have systemized existing information about the methodological framework for each step in the food chain and for each country in the following sections, with a discussion at the end about similarities and dissimilarities identified.
 

6.4.2 Denmark

Food waste quantification in Denmark is led by the EPA. The primary approach is top-down (except for the retail sector), with a variation of methods chosen and often combined in each of the sectors. In 2020 a voluntary agreement was launched in Denmark under the thinktank ONE/THIRD, where members from the valuechain will report in bottom up data to an independent third party, however these data will not be published, but solely used to monitor progress towards the voluntary reduction target in 2030.
 

Data gathering and upscaling

There are various methodologies applied in the collection of food waste data in Denmark (Table 5). For all parts of the value chain datasets on separately collected organic waste are present in the national waste data system (ADS). These data are qualified by various means dependent on the organisation and data presence of the value chain. In primary production ADS data is supplemented by expert interviews and statistics on biogas production and production volumes. In food industry Data is collected though questionnaires and targeted interviews to the largest producers. Food waste data from the retail sector is reported by more than 2/3 of the sector, based on scanning and weighing of separately sorted food waste. Food waste data from the hospitality sector and households are supplemented by data collected though waste composition analysis.
 

National statistics and reporting

The first detailed data on food waste in Denmark was published in 2011, prior to this publication food waste data were collected as part of the municipal waste stream with the first reports dating back to 1979. Data is collected and reported by the Danish EPA. Data collection for 2020 meets the commission requirement for food waste data. 2020 will be the first year where data will be reported from all of the steps in the value chain. The datasets for households and retail have a good representation and data reporting are continuously improving in the rest of the sectors.
 

6.4.3 Finland

Finland started food waste quantification in 2008. The primary approach in Finland is bottom-up approach to collect specific enough data to both quantify food waste, but also to gain better understanding on destination of food waste and reasons for food waste. Luke in close collaboration with the food industry has set up a food waste quantification system (covering the whole food chain) and is continuously improving and automatizing food waste data collection. Food waste data collection is voluntary in Finland, but the amount of food waste data reporting has been increasing over the past years.
 

Food waste quantification

There are various methodologies to collect food waste data in Finland (Table 5). In primary production data is based on questionnaires (farmers’ own estimates) and statistics. In food industry and retail sector the actors follow their food waste and report waste amounts in concentrated questionnaires. Food waste data is collected from hospitality sector using food waste diaries (including food waste weighting). Food waste data in households is quantified using food waste diaries, and waste composition analysis. In addition, questionnaires and interviews are used to gather qualitative data from all steps of the food chain.
 

Data gathering and upscaling

Food waste data is collected and analysed by Luke. Data collection has become more systematic and automized during the past years and is continuously developed by Luke. Data is upscaled based on different indicators (Table 5).
 

National statistics and reporting

Food waste quantification and reporting started in Finland in 2008. Data is collected and reported by Luke. Data collection meets the commission requirement for food waste data. However, data collection does not meet the requirements to establish national food waste statistics, because statistics have high standards regarding sample sizes and data representativeness. In future the aim is to increase sample sizes and continuously systemize data collection to better meet the requirements for statistical data.
 

6.4.4 Norway

Norway has typically taken a bottom-up approach to food waste monitoring from the very beginning in 2010, starting through the ForMat project (Stensgård & Hanssen 2016), with detailed data from a number of product groups available from most of the food chain. Food waste monitoring is connected to the negotiated agreement between the food sector and the Government from 23 June 2017, with associated signatories from more than 100 food companies who will both deliver data to monitoring and work systematically to prevent food waste according to the national goals. Food waste monitoring has been done annually since 2010 but included the food service and hospitality sector first from 2018.
 

Food waste quantification

Quantification of food waste is a combination of measuring food waste before being wasted through scanning (retail and wholesale) and by weighing with scales manually or electronically in food service and hospitality, with weighing of waste being generated combined with waste composition analyses (Table 5). As shown in Table 5 and Appendix 2, food waste monitoring has not yet started systematically in the primary sector, but pilot projects have been carried out both in the fishery sector (Carajal et al. 2020) and in the horticulture sector (Hanssen & Stensgård 2018). Methods to do systematic monitoring in the agriculture sector have been described in a report from Landbruksdirektoratet and are used in monitoring of food waste in 2020. The food industry has been involved in food waste monitoring since 2010, with methods being described in the guidelines from Matvett and NORSUS (Stensgård et al. 2020). Methods for quantification are a mix of quantifying food before being wasted, scanning and weighing food waste in collectors. The retail and wholesale sectors have also long experience with food waste quantification, first of all through scanning of food that are not sold, but ends up being donated, used in own canteens or wasted. Scanning is thus combined with classifying the destination of food, used to quantify what is really being wasted. Food waste quantification in the food service and hospitality sector started in 2017, and the number of facilities that measure and report food waste has increased to more than 650 facilities in 2019, first of all hotel kitchens and canteens. The dominant method to quantify food waste is to weigh food before being wasted, with either electronic or manual registration. Weighing of food waste combined with waste composition analyses have also been important methods. In households, weighing of waste being collected by waste collection cars is the dominant method, combined with waste composition analyses on different degree of detail (Table 5, Appendix 2).

Quantification takes place in companies and municipalities being involved in the reporting, either through the negotiated agreement or through national statistics. Data are thus available from companies covering a high share of the economic turnover in each sector, but are to less extent statistical representative, as smaller companies and municipalities are underrepresented. Data from private companies are controlled and to some extent validated by NORSUS.
 

Data gathering and upscaling

Food waste data are gathered by NORSUS on behalf of Matvett, from the food industry, retail and wholesale companies and the food service and hospitality sector, based in systems that have been developed over many years. Data from municipalities on organic waste are gathered by Statistics Norway through the national waste accounting system and has been used to estimate food waste based in waste composition analyses data from a number of municipalities. Data gathering from primary production has not been carried out and reported in full scale and is still on the research approach but will be done systematic from 2020.
 

National statistics and reporting

National statistics on food waste has been reported back to 2010, based in data from the ForMat-project (2010-15) and from the negotiated agreement since 2016 (interim agreement). National statistics cover both total mass of food waste in tonnes as well as kg/capita in Norway, and is split in data for each step in the food chain and in a number of food types. Based in data on mass of food waste and the detailed data sets on food waste composition, NORSUS estimates both greenhouse gas emissions and economic value of food being wasted.
 

6.4.5 Sweden

Sweden started food waste quantification in 2004. The primary approach is top down, several methods are used for the different sectors. In 2020 a voluntary agreement was launched in Sweden and thus there is a possibility to get some more bottom down data in the years to come.
 

Food waste quantification

There are various methodologies to collect food waste data in Sweden (Table 5). In primary production data is based on an old survey and new methods are required. In food industry data is mainly collected through environmental reports and some questioners for segments not covered by environmental reports. From the retail sector food waste data was voluntary given by the main large retailers in Sweden. Food waste data is collected from hospitality sector using various methods such as, a detailed study from 5 municipalities that weigh the food waste and residual waste. There is also waste picking analysis in order to determine the amount of food waste in the residual waste. Food waste data in households is quantified using data from the Swedish Waste Management Association where municipalities voluntarily leave data. Waste composition analysis are also used. For liquid waste a Down the drain study have been made and the results have been reused from that study.
 

Data gathering and upscaling

Food waste data is collected and analysed by SMED, it is IVL and SCB (Statistics Sweden) that does this together and thus incorporate waste know how with statistical knowledge. Data collection has become more systematic during the past years and is continuously developed by SMED. Data is upscaled based on different indicators (Table 5).
 

National statistics and reporting

Food waste quantification and reporting started in Sweden in 2004 but has been more systematic and less research based since 2010. Data is collected and reported by SMED on behalf of the Swedish EPA. Data collection meets the commission requirement for food waste data. However, data collection does have some gaps in the national food waste statistics, for example for 2018 when the method for data was changed and gathered from retailers directly there was a larger amount than previously thought. Data from wholesales and hotels are missing. In future the aim is to fill the gaps and to keep on improving the methods used.

Table 5 Most typical used methods to quantify food waste in different sectors in the Nordic countries with reference to 2019 as a basis year.

6.5 Gap analyses between present systems for food waste monitoring and reporting and new EU regulations

The main elements identified in the gap analyses as shown in Table 6 are that the Nordic countries in general have clear and consistent definitions and system boundaries for what to include and not include in the monitoring system, e.g. where to set system boundaries for food waste in primary production and including or not non-edible food waste and food being used as ingredient in animal feed. As the reporting to Eurostat must be done according to the definitions given by the Waste Framework Directive and EU regulations from 31 March 2019, all Nordic countries must report statistics of food waste according to the definitions shown up in Chapter7. Norway must do some recalculations in transforming data to EU-regulations, whereas the other Nordic countries are more or less in line with EU-regulations.  Transformation need some extra data gathering regarding how much food that is used as animal feed or as input to new non-food products, as those flows have to be withdrawn from present statistics for edible food waste.

The methods that are in use in the Nordic countries to quantify food waste data are in line with methods being recommended in the manuals and guidelines that have been published by EU, WRI etc. As mass of food waste is the unit that is required to quantify and report food waste statistics, it is recommended to weigh food being wasted either before it is wasted or after being collected in waste bins. In some stages in the food chain, food waste is measured in other units, either as economic value (retail and wholesale), as numbers (primary production) or in volumes (primary production, hospitality sector etc), as it is most efficient to get access to reliable and detailed enough data (bottom-up approach in retail and wholesale). In those cases, it is important to have proper factors to transform data to mass-based units, e.g. economic factors, specific weights etc. Such factors have been developed both in Norway and Finland to have access to detailed data on food types being wasted, and can also be found in official guidelines to distinguish between edible and non-edible fractions of food (www.matvaretabellen.no ).  

All Nordic countries have necessary detail in data that are measured to fulfil the requirements set by the purpose of food waste monitoring program, regarding amount of food ending up for final treatment.  The EU regulation is based in a minimum requirement to report on total amount of food waste from the whole food chain, separated for each stage, but excluding food being used as ingredients for animal feed and as raw materials in new non-food products.  Only Norway and Finland have taken a real bottom-up approach and are collecting data with a detail that is necessary to identify where in the food chain and for which types of products, the potential for prevention is highest.

There is as shown in Table 7 not always representative number of sampling points (households, canteens/restaurants, retail shops etc) to give a reasonable basis for upscaling to national statistics based in “waste factors” for each sampling point. There is generally a lack of data from small and medium sized companies in most sectors and countries, resulting often in good economic representativeness (high share of total turnover), but lower statistical representativeness (biased and too small sample of population).  Each country and stage in the food chain should make studies of variations and means of food waste factors based in primary data for mass of site specific waste flows and waste composition analyses, to estimate the need for representative sample size for up-scaling to national food waste statistics.

Table 6 Summarizing the gap analyses of present food waste monitoring systems and obligatory requirements in new EU regulations with reference to 2019 as a basis year​.

Table 7 Summarizing the gap analyses of present food waste monitoring systems replace improvements​ to meet the country specific targets in the voluntary parts of the new EU regulations and National food waste quantification. The identified gaps are based on each countrys’ own analyses and ambition level with reference to 2019 as a basis year​, and therefore cannot be compared.

In general, present statistics for “organic type waste” from the Nordic countries are based in the present definition of waste, which means that neither food being used as ingredients for animal feed nor as by-product for non-food production is included in the national statistics, whereas in-edible parts are included. The big gap regarding this statistic is that normally only sorted and separately collected food waste is included in the national statistics, whereas all food still being part of residual waste being treated by incineration, anaerobic digestion or composting, is not included.

6.6 Monitoring costs (measurements, data gathering, upscaling, reporting)

It is difficult to estimate total costs of food waste monitoring, at least because costs are highly dependent on:

• Chosen quantification methodologies
• Existing investments on systematic food waste quantification, both in companies and municipalities as well as in organizations being responsible for data gathering, data management, upscaling and reporting
• Detailedness of data
• The number of companies and municipalities being necessary to have representative samples
• Effectiveness of data gathering and data management systems and personnel involved
• Effectiveness of upscaling and reporting

In this project we chosed not to collect specific costs for national monitoring systems from each country, because costs are not easily available. Some cost estimates are available from Norway and Finland related to data collection, systematization, upscaling and reporting, but these costs are not complete costs. For instance, costs related to quantification and measuring done by those who generate the waste are not readily available.

It is an important lesson that costs will decrease to a certain level over time, due to the fact that the whole system with data gathering, systematization, analyses and up-scaling is improving over time, and thus becomes more efficient. All countries and sectors starting up new food waste monitoring systems will thus experience high costs in the first years although the number of participating companies and municipalities can be rather low. Over time, number of data points with quantitative data will increase while total costs will decline.

Our survey has thus not been able to evaluate in-depth costs between different monitoring systems. Most of the costs will be at the stage where primary data are generated, i.e. among waste generators in companies and municipalities, which is not easy to estimate. Here we also find the most important difference between the detailed bottom-up approach and the top-down approach. Data gathering and upscaling to national statistics will not be as influenced by the different approaches. It is also the waste generators who have the most benefits from waste reduction, which can be quite substantial by being involved in bottom-up monitoring.
 

Food waste quantification

Food waste quantification is normally done in companies and municipalities through use of internal resources and highly integrated with other activities, as inventory management, waste management, waste composition analyses for other purposes etc. Most of the costs connected to those quite time-consuming activities are thus internal costs in companies and municipalities, that are not easy to estimate. Costs depends on how detailed quantification that is done in the first hand in companies and municipalities. Detailed waste composition analyses are more time consuming than analyses of food waste or edible food waste, but the extra cost for detailed analyses are not necessarily extensive compared to the cost of waste composition analyses as such.
 

Data gathering and upscaling

Costs related to data gathering, data management and upscaling are typically costs that have to be covered by organizations that are responsible for food waste statistics and monitoring nationally. Costs are closely related to how many companies and municipalities that must be involved to get representative samples of sectors or more homogenous sub-sectors. The workload and costs for both quantification and data gathering increase with the number of food generation points being involved. On the other hand, effective systems for data gathering and data management with good routines and effective systems for management of data (electronic questionnaires, web portals etc) will keep costs at a lower level. This are typically costs that are covered by those who are responsible for national monitoring. Both Norway and Finland have developed good systems for data collection, management and upscaling over many years, with relatively lower costs now than in the initial phase. In Norway, the costs for collection, management and analyses of data from food industry, retail and wholesale and food service and hospitality sectors is about 0,7 mill NOK per year, including a consumer survey.
 

National statistics and reporting

Costs related to developing national official statistics and reporting are normally taken care of by institutions who are responsible for reporting to Eurostat and publishing national waste statistics (Statistics Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark). Costs related to those organisations are thus part of their normal budgets for waste statistics and reporting and is not easy to sort out.

Reporting on food waste monitoring in Norway through Matvett is an integrated part of the work NORSUS are doing each year based in data from the food industry, retail and wholesale and food service sector, and is thus part of the total cost for doing the work with data gathering, systematization and up-scaling.
 

Potential economic benefits from food waste monitoring and prevention

Although there clearly is an increase in costs when going from a minimum requirement to food waste monitoring based in the top-down approach, to a bottom-up approach that involves waste generators more deeply with a more detailed monitoring system, the benefits are also much higher if food waste in the society is reduced. In Norway, the alternative sale value of food being wasted is estimated to about 20 billion NOK per year (2 billion Euro; Stensgård et al 2018), and a 15% reduction that has been reported between 2015 and 2018 has a potential value of about 3 billion NOK, not taking the reduced costs of waste treatment into consideration (at least 600 NOK per tonne). This is a high payback for a cost of about 0,7 mill NOK per year for the very detailed monitoring system that has been developed in Norway.

6.7 Discussion

Reporting of food waste to Eurostat according the EU regulations means that the amounts of food waste must be separated from other types of waste and split into different steps in the food chain as previously described. It can be concluded that the Nordic countries considering current reporting frameworks and definitions should be well equipped in order to develop accurate formal national reporting frameworks aligned with the new EU regulation when taking the practice developed for voluntary reporting into consideration. However, data are rather scattered. In particularly for primary production the data gaps are severe.

It can also be concluded that although different countries measure differently, the assessed frameworks from, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden can be superimposed (Figure 7) opening up opportunities for future collaboration and exchange of methodology between the Nordic countries.

In the Nordic region Sweden and Denmark are mainly driven by the work by the authorities applying the top-down approach while the work in Finland and Norway has evolved making use of the bottom-up perspective (Figure 3). Both approaches have pros and cons. The top-down approaches are generally commissioned by the authorities to collect national data on food waste. They are driven by the need to follow up on regulations as in our case the EU Delegated Act and national targets. The main interest is to produce aggregated data. Methodologies are usually based in various statics and upscaling of more local studies. Results are aimed for understanding and follow up on policy measures. In contrast, the bottom-up approaches are aimed for change management on stakeholder level. The bottom up approaches focus on the entity. Aggregated data are collected among the engaged stakeholder for benchmarking and to develop common strategies for collaboration. The bottom up approaches are used by the negotiated agreement like in Norway and national projects like the Finish project being assessed.

The results from the bottom-up project are generally used by the authorities as one of the sources for collecting food waste statistics. Thus, the exchange of data is crucial and by collaboration the data quality may be considerable improved.

In summary, this project has shown that the there is a potential for further collaboration in developing and implementing frameworks for collecting data, although the systems must be developed according to each country’s ambitions. Having good experience from both top-down approaches (Sweden, Denmark) and bottom-up approaches (Finland, Norway) there is a potential for mutual learning between the Nordic countries to further accelerate data collection and follow upon food waste on national level as well as from stakeholder driven projects.

As is shown in this survey and discussed by Corrado et al. (2019) in their review of methods to monitor and report food waste, what is a satisfactory level of detail and which methods that should be used, depend very much on the scope of the work to be done. From a methodological point of view, food waste monitoring can focus on three different levels of detail:

1. Food waste in general, including all types of edible and non-edible food, which is in accordance with the requirement for reporting according to the EU regulation.
2. Edible food waste vs total food waste, separating between food waste that is considered as edible for “normal eating”. In Norway, NORSUS use information from “Matvaretabellen” developed by the Food authorities, showing edible fractions of more than 1600 types of food (www.matvaretabellen.no) to distinguish edible fractions from the food industry, from retail and wholesale, hospitality sector etc.
3. Detailed information about a number of food types, following classifications in main groups and sub-groups as developed by the food sector in Europe.  

The first level is reasonable if the scope and aim of the work is to fulfil reporting requirements to Eurostat according to EU regulations. If the scope is to identify opportunities for food waste prevention and to report on effects of measures to prevent food waste by different sectors along the food chain, more detailed data in line with level III is necessary.

Sweden and Denmark follow the requirements to detail as given in the EU regulations. Denmark distinguish between edible and non-edible food waste from all sectors except primary production. Sweden is reporting only total food waste from most stages in the food chain, except for households where edible food waste is reported separately from total food waste.

Norway and Finland have very detailed system for data gathering and monitoring, distinguishing between more than 10 different food types, between edible and non-edible and including also food being used as ingredients in animal feed.

As the reporting in the Nordic Countries goes much further than the definition of food waste in the EU regulations, the term “matsvinn (NO), madspild (DK), are used to make a clear distinction to food waste. The reason behind this detailed food monitoring system is to be found in the waste hierarchy (pyramid) model of food waste, with the following ranking of measure to prevent, reduce and treat waste by the food sector as described by Matvett (2017) (can also with some exceptions be applied to households):

1. Sell food to normal prices to be used for human eating
2. Sell food to reduced prices to be used for human eating
3. Donate or give away food to be used for human eating
4. Use food as ingredients in producing new food
5. Use sorted food (non-animal) as ingredients in animal feed
6. Use food was raw material to produce non-food products or materials
7. Treat food waste in anaerobic digestion
8. Treat food waste by composting
9. Treat food waste by incineration and energy recovery.

To be able to identify potential for managing food resources on the highest possible level in this hierarchy, it is necessary to have data available for how much food that is available for preventative actions, i.e. priorities 1-3 in the rank of priorities.  Data should also be as detailed as possible with regards to type of food being wasted, to see where the highest potential is for food waste reduction in different stages of the food chain.

On the other hand, the present framework for food waste monitoring according to new EU regulations is a necessary minimum monitoring system to get an overview of total amounts of food waste to be sent to waste treatment, i.e. anaerobic digestion, composting or incineration. By not separating between edible and nonedible and food being used according to primarily intention as food for human beings or not, it is difficult to identify where the biggest potential for food waste prevention is in the food system.  It can be argued that present EU regulations do not have high incentives to develop measures high up in the waste hierarchy, because there are not detailed enough data available.

7 Measures to prevent food waste in the retail sector and in households

7.1 Survey approach

The EU Commission and United Nations (UN) have set a target to reduce food waste, “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”. In order to fulfil this target, measures need to be implemented. In this chapter measures being used in the Nordic countries are presented in the tables below (SDG 12.3)

Halving food waste by 2030 calls for radical changes in the food chain. These radical changes require four dimensions: technology push, societal pull (meaning driven), market pull (market driven), and regulatory push (Norman & Verganti 2014). Based on these four dimensions, we have classified measures to reduce food waste into four topics:

1. Policy instruments (regulatory push),
2. Changing social norms (societal pull),
3. Nudging and changing practices (technology push & societal pull), and
4. Intelligent technology and new products & business models (strong technology push and market pull).

Figure 8 demonstrates the relationship between the four topics in a XY-diagram, where X is socio-cultural change and Y is technological change. Measures that belong to ‘intelligent technology and new products & business models’ -topic are closer to y-axis, whereas measures from ‘changing social norms’ -topic are close to X-axis. Measures from ‘nudging and changing practices’ -topic are somewhere in between, because they require both technological and socio-cultural change. Measures that belong to ‘policy instruments’ -topic are not defined in the same XY-diagram, but they work as the pulling force for other measures to meet the target to cut food waste into half by 2030.

Figure 8 Relationship between the four food waste reduction topics (©Hanna Hartikainen 2020)

These four topics are divided into 16 subtopics in Tables 8 to Table 15, to help identify different kind of measures to reduce food waste. To effectively reduce food waste, different measures need to be combined, and therefore the aim is to find measures for all four main topics.

Each topic has two tables: 1) Past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste and 2) future recommended measures to reduce food waste.  Past/ongoing measures include selected measures that have been or are currently implemented in the country. Future recommended measures can be past/ongoing or totally new that have not been tested in the country or elsewhere but seem highly potential. Additionally, future measures can be modified and improved versions of old measures.

There is no exhaustive list of existing measures, and thus, the very first step was to start identifying existing measure. For that purpose, we established the method where each country has identified existing measures with the help of four main topics and 16 subtopics. In the process of identifying existing measures, each country, has made a review and/or used the existing knowledge of identifying a select example of existing food waste reduction measures. The research group has also suggested some future measures that they consider having potential to effectively reduce food waste (including the feedback from workshops). However, similarly to the existing measures, the list of future measures is not exhaustive either, and therefore in future, the list of future measures requires elaboration within each country.

While the aim was to identify the best kind of measures to reduce food waste, this was not viable due to lack of data on the effectiveness of existing food waste reduction measures. However, we argue that the approach to identify measures in all of the four topics will increase the effectiveness of the identified measures, because there is positive synergy between different type of measures (Figure 8).

Additionally, while the scope of the measures is to focus on retail and households, we also include production, food industry and food service sector, especially when they concern the consumer interface (e.g. package design). We acknowledge that some measures could include all steps of the food chain, such as, national food waste monitoring protocol.

7.2 Policy instruments

The main force in Policy instruments is the regulatory push.  Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into three subtopics: Political acts, Voluntary Agreements and Steering instruments. The regulatory push can make advances occur faster through legislation as food waste reporting being mandatory, and for example in France with the obligation to donate food surplus. It can also be used as an incentive with tax relief to encourage certain food saving behaviours in companies.

Table 8 Past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste, Policy instruments topic

Table 9 Future recommended measures to reduce food waste, Policy instruments topic

7.3 Changing social norms

The main forces in Changing social norms -dimension is the Societal pull. Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into four subtopics: Information steering, Education, Social and cultural norm, and Branding food waste. The changing of social norms is vital in order to get the society on board with a need for change. However, it is vital to also have the drivers below from chapter 9.4 and 9.5 to have a system where a shift in social norms also can lead to a change in actual behaviour.

Table 10 Past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste, Changing social norms topic

Table 11 Future measures to reduce food waste, Changing social norms topic (E=existing, M=modified, N=new)

7.4 Nudging and changing practices

The main forces in Nudging and changing practises-dimension are technological push and societal pull. Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into four subtopics: smart packaging, technology assistance, pricing, and product environment.  The approaches of this topic are more subtle and require understanding of peoples’ motives and behaviour, and how to change the current practises by changing the product environment, food serving, and pricing. Additionally, technology can assist the desired behaviour and break the current routines.

Table 12 Past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste, Nudging and changing practices topic

Table 13 Future recommended measures to reduce food waste, Nudging and changing practices topic (E=existing, M=modified, N=new)

7.5 Intelligent technologies and new products & business models

The main forces of technology and new products & business models -theme are strong technological development and market pull. Based on the responses from each country, we divided the topic further into five subtopics: food waste management tools, product development, package innovation, improved ordering system, and new businesses around food waste. The main difference between this topic and Nudging and changing practices -topic, is that in this topic the main drivers are new innovations, whereas, in Nudging and changing practices the main driver is to understand peoples’ motives and behaviour, and how to change the current practises using all kinds of tools.

Table 14 Past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste, Intelligent technology and new products & business models topic

Table 15 Future recommended measures to reduce food waste, Intelligent technology and new products & business models topic (E=existing, M=modified, N=new)

7.6 Reflections

As mentioned, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness (to reduce food waste) of the existing measures, not to talk about pointing out which are the most effective measures. This is because there are very few existing studies that have tried to or even evaluate the potential of a measure to reduce food waste.  The problem has been widely acknowledged, and order to address this problem, there are existing initiatives to establish evaluation-schemes. For instance, in order to address part of this problem the Swedish Food Agency will launch a behaviour intervention study (that aim to make it easier for households to reduce their food waste) where the assessing of effect of measures is a vital part of the study. Additionally, Luke has set a target to evaluate and quantify the effectiveness of food waste reduction measures that are identified as part of the Finnish food waste reduction road map.

In the future, there is need for a systematic approach where each country starts supplementing the list of existing measures and evaluates their impact. The four main topics (Figure 8) identified in this chapter have a key role in this. Measures can be evaluated based on their effectiveness: how exhaustive is the socio-cultural change, how radical is the technological change, how market-driven the action is (and how easily adopted), and/or is the measure based on political or legal activities. The most important thing, however, is that the synergy between the four topics is acknowledged, and all the four topics are equally promoted. Also, even measures that have relatively small impact to food waste amount can become more meaningful when there are many other small measures that support each other, and thus, increase the synergy.

8 Expert workshop

8.1 Workshop set-up

The aim of the workshop was to qualify the discussion of the identified implemented measures in the Nordic Countries to prevent food waste in retail and households and to provide input on future measures to prevent food waste. Results from the workshop are implemented in chapter 6. This chapter will present the setup of the workshop and the main outcomes. The workshop was held on the 22. September 2020 back-to-back with an online conference presenting the preliminary findings of the project with about 70 participants from all over the Nordic region. Approximately 30 participants from Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark participated in a following-up workshop to discuss measures to prevent food waste. Participants represented NGO’s, academia, private companies and authorities with expert knowledge on food waste reduction in households and the retail sector. The workshop was organised as an online workshop in Teams. The facilitation tool Stormz were used to collect written input to the already identified measures and provide the participant the opportunity to rate future measures according to their expected effect and the resource intensity of implementing it. The participant was divided in to four groups focussing on each of the dimensions used in the project to identify measures to reduce food waste:

• policy instruments (regulatory push), 
• changing social norms (societal pull), 
• nudging and changing practices (technology push & societal pull), and 
• intelligent technology and new products & business models (strong technology push and market pull).

8.2 Discussions related to on-going and already implemented measures

Policy instruments

Discussion of policy instruments to reduce food waste. Additional policy instruments suggested in the workshop is included in Chapter 9.

Changing social norms

Discussion of identified past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste through changing social norms. Additional measures for changing social norms, suggested in the workshop is included in Chapter 9.

Nudging and changing practices

Discussion of identified past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste through nudging and changing practices. Additional measures for nudging and changing practices, suggested in the workshop is included in Chapter 9.

Intelligent technology, new products and business models

Discussion of identified past/ongoing measures to reduce food waste through Intelligent technology, new products and business models. Additional measures for Intelligent technology, new products and business models, suggested in the workshop is included in Chapter 9.

8.3 Discussions related to future measures in terms of effectiveness and resource intensity

The workshop participants ranked the identified measures in terms of effectiveness to reduce food waste and resource intensity in implementation. The list below summarizes the top scores in each of the four dimensions: policy instruments, changing social norms, nudging and technology /new business models. 

9 Recommendations and proposals for further Nordic collaboration

Based on the surveys of definitions and system boundaries, methodologies and experiences with measures for prevention of food waste reported in Chapter 8 and 9, we will make the following recommendations to the Nordic Council of Ministers as following up of the project.

 We will recommend that

1. The Nordic countries cooperate in developing reporting frameworks with common system boundaries, definitions and methodologies that makes it possible to share and compare data on food waste in total and per capita over the whole food chain. The Nordic countries are in front of development and implementation of methodologies for food waste monitoring and reporting in Europe. All countries can however benefit from further collaboration in the process with implementing monitoring systems to reporting food waste as required by EU regulations (top down approach). This does not imply that national based monitoring systems must be completely similar in their basic nature, but that data must be transformed to a common reporting format before being reported to Eurostat.

2. Follow up a leading position in developing and implementing monitoring systems that are based in bottom-up approach with more detailed data on food waste than required by EU regulations as a measure to prevent food waste. This implies a higher level of involvement from both business actors, municipalities and other public sectors to quantify food waste on a more detailed level than required by EU regulations. The Norwegian and Finnish systems for monitoring and reporting can be models in this development, not expecting that all parts of the food chain will be highly represented in this work in all countries. Calculating GHG-emissions, economic value and other relevant sustainability impacts of food waste based in monitoring data as is done in Finland and Norway do also depend on access to detailed data about food waste on the level of product types, combined with GHG impact factors for each product type. Development of and sharing of such impact factors for different types of food can benefit from Nordic collaboration.

3. Further develop, harmonize and make available guidelines for methods to quantify food waste at the point of generation, both to make measurements as comparable as possible and to make the measurements valid and efficient. This is especially the case with more detailed data on food types from retail and wholesale, food service and hospitality sector and households, where food waste is a mixture of different types of food. Methods to connect wasting of food to the root causes for wasting food in an organization or in a value chain is important as a basis for implementing measures to prevent and reduce food waste.

4. Collaborate in developing common food waste factors as a basis for developing national statistics as well as comparing changes in amount of food waste over time. Food waste factors are necessary to make upscaling from samples of total population of actors at each stage in the food chain to national statistics and are in common use in all types of waste statistics. Waste statistics are often based in waste factors from primary data collected once per 3-5 years or even more seldom, where waste factors are multiplied with production or economic statistics as a basis for national waste statistics (maximum 4 years intervals according to new regulations). To document real reduction in food waste at a stage or in a sector of the food chain, it is necessary to develop a data bank with food waste Tier 1, 2 and 3.

5. Prove effectiveness of measures to prevent food waste by taking lead on long-term systematic monitoring of detailed food waste levels. Since the work with food waste prevention started systematically in 2010, only a few studies have quantified or evaluated the effectiveness of different food waste reduction measures. This is an essential step to identify the most effective measures to meet the national and EU-targets to halve food waste by 2030, and to promote the best measures in different sectors and countries. While there is limited understanding of the effectiveness of the measures, we argue that when there are several measures under each topic, it creates a positive synergy between the measures, and consequently food waste reduction is more effective. Furthermore, the topics create a systematic catalogue for food waste reduction strategies, and the whole approach can be seen as a solid basis for further development.

6. Establish, share and further develop national food waste reduction road maps, where all countries continue listing the existing and future food waste reduction measures and start following the overall impact of the measures to the food waste level. It is important that the measures are concretized: hence weblinks and/or contact information is always provided. The key principle in the national food waste reduction road maps is “More together”, which means that all food chain actors and stakeholders need to work together to efficiently reduce food waste. 
    
7. Set up a Nordic network and system for information sharing and learning, in order to use the strengths of national work with food waste monitoring. Here things like effective methods for the measuring of food waste could be shared, as well as food waste data and food waste factors. And also to share examples of effective food waste prevention measures that works and can be adapted to work in other Nordic countries.

10 References

Andersson T, Stålhandske S, 2020 Matavfall i Sverige -Uppkomst och behandling 2018. ISBN: 978-91-620-8861-3.

Andersson T, Bhasin A, Viklund L, Stålhandske S, Uppföljning av etappmålet för ökad resurshushållning i livsmedelskedjan: Data för år 2018. ISSN 1653-8102.

Carvajal, A., Myhre, M.S., Shraddha, M., Dyrstad, J.S., Remme, J.F. 2020. Kartlegging av mengder og årsaker til matsvinn I sjømatnæringen. SINTEF Ocean Report 2020: 00536. Trondheim. ISBN: 978-82-14-06509-1.

Corrado S., Caldeira C., Eriksson, M., Hanssen, O.J., Hauser, H.-E.,Holsteijn, F. Hadewych van⁠, Liu, G., Östergren K., Parry A. , Secondi L., Stenmarck Å. & Sala S. 2019. Food waste accounting methodologies: Challenges, opportunities, and further advancements. Global Food Security 20, 93-104.

Hanssen, O. J., Stenmarck Å., Dekhtyar, P., O`Connor, C., Östergren, K. (2013). Food Waste Statistics in Europe. Evaluation of Eurostats Waste Statistics. Report from FUSIONS.

Hanssen, O.J., Syversen, F. & Sto, E. 2016.  Edible food waste from Norwegian households – Detailed food waste composition analyses from two different regions in Norway. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 109, 146-154.

Hanssen, O.J. & Stensgård, A.E. 2018. Methods and systems for quantifying food waste from primary production in Norway. Report from a pilot project for Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Ostfold Research OR.12.18, Fredrikstad. 35 pp.

Hartikainen, H., Riipi, I., Katajajuuri, J-M., Silvennoinen, K. (2020) From measurement to management: Food waste in the Finnish food chain, Food Waste Management: Solving the Wicked Problem, Palgrave 2020.

Lerche, F., Petersen, C., Tønning, K. 2018.  Kortlægning af sammensætningen af dagrenovation og kildesorteret organisk affald fra husholdninger. Miljøstyrelsen, København. ISBN 978-87-93614-78-9  

Lindow, K. et al. (2021) Livsmedelsförluster i Sverige Metoder för ökad kunskap om livsmedelsproduktionens förluster och resurser, Rapport 2021:2 https://www2.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.2a4b211817814f136ad1ec8b/1615317572968/ra21_2.pdf

Matvett 2017. Rapport anbefalinger tiltak mot matsvinn. Fra ”Arbeidsgruppe for tiltak” under intensjonsavtalen om reduksjon av matsvinn. Matvett, Oslo 2017.

Møller, H., Hanssen, O. J., Gustavsson, J., Östergren, K., Stenmarck, Å., Dekhtyar, P., 2013. D1.3 Report on review of (food) waste reporting methodology and practice. Report D1.3 from FUSIONS project

Møller, Hanne; Hanssen, Ole Jørgen; Svanes, Erik; Hartikainen, Hanna; Silvennoinen, Kirsi; Gustavsson, Jenny; Östergren, Karin; Schneider, Felicitas; Soethoudt, Hans; Canali, Massimo; Politano, Alessandro; Gaiani, Silvia; Redlingshöfer, Barbara; Moates, Graham; Waldron, Keith; Stenmarck, Åsa, 2014 Standard approach on quantitative techniques to be used to estimate food waste levels, Fusions Report. Østfoldforskning OR.21.14. 108 p

Norman, A.D., Verganti, R. (2014) Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change, Article in Design Issues, January 2014.

Petersen, C., Kaysen, O., Manokaran, S., Tønning, K., Hansen, T. 2014. Kortlægning af madaffald i servicesektoren. Miljøstyrelsen, København. ISBN 978-87-93178-75-5

Stensgård, A. & Hanssen, O.J. 2016. Matsvinn I Norge 2010-15. Sluttrapport fra ForMat-prosjektet. Østfoldforskning, OR.17.16, Fredrikstad.

Stensgård, A., Prestrud, K., Hanssen, O.J., Callewaert, P. 2019. Food Waste in Norway. Report on key figures 2015-18. Østfoldforskning. OR.32.19. Fredrikstad. 978-82-7520-814-7

Stensgård, A., Hanssen, O.J., Møller, H. 2020. Veileder for kartlegging av matsvinn i matindustrien. Versjon 2.0 2020. Østfoldforskning OR.10.18. ISBN 978-82-7520-777-5.

Tostevint, C., Östergren, K., Quested, T., Soethoudt, H.,  Stenmarck, Å., Svanes, E., O’Connor, C. 2016.  Food waste quantification manual to monitor food waste amounts and progression.  BIO by Deloitte, Paris. FUSIONS -project. (http://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Food%20waste%20quantification%20manual%20to%20monitor%20food%20waste%20amounts%20and%20progression.pdf)

11 Appendix 1

Overview of system boundaries and definitions applied in food waste monitoring in the Nordic countries

Figure 9 Food waste reporting in Denmark. Grey means that this material destination or supply-chain step or boundary condition is not relevant, and blue refers to that data are collected but not officially published. Note that donations are not defined as food waste.

Figure 10 Reporting in Finland. Grey means that this material destination or supply chain step or boundary condition is not relevant and blue refers to that data are collected but not officially reported. Note that donations are not defined as food waste.

Figure 11 Reporting in Norway according to Bransjeavtalen. Grey means that this material destination or supply chain step or boundary conditions is not currently relevant for reporting and blue refers to that data are collected but not officially reported. Note that donations are not defined as food waste but is followed up on but not reported officially.

Figure 12 Food waste reporting in Sweden. Grey means that this material destination or supply-chain step or boundary condition is not relevant, and blue refers to that data are collected but not officially published in the National reports on food waste reported.

12 Appendix 2

Methodological approaches for food waste monitoring applied in the Nordic countries

Table 16 Food waste monitoring methodologies used in fisheries and agriculture

Table 17 Food waste monitoring methods applied in the food industry sector

Table 18 Methods used for food waste monitoring in retail and wholesale sector

Table 19 Overview methods used for food waste monitoring in the hospitality sector

Table 20 Methods used for food waste monitoring in households

About this publication

Monitoring Food Waste and Loss in the Nordic region

Definitions, methods and measures for prevention​
Ole Jørgen Hanssen, Karin Östergren, Hanna Hartikainen, Tova Andersson, Mads Werge and Kjersti Prestrud

ISBN 978-92-893-6917-6 (PDF)
ISBN 978-92-893-6918-3 (ONLINE)
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/temanord2021-504

TemaNord 2021:504
ISSN 0908-6692

Cover photo: Marta-Logina / Momenti
© Nordic Council of Ministers 2021

Disclaimer

This publication was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the Nordic Council of Ministers’ views, opinions, attitudes or recommendations.

Rights and permissions

This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.

Translations: If you translate this work, please include the following disclaimer: This translation was not produced by the Nordic Council of Ministers and should not be construed as official. The Nordic Council of Ministers cannot be held responsible for the translation or any errors in it.

Adaptations: If you adapt this work, please include the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with its author(s). The views and opinions in this adaptation have not been approved by the Nordic Council of Ministers.

Third-party content: The Nordic Council of Ministers does not necessarily own every single part of this work. The Nordic Council of Ministers cannot, therefore, guarantee that the reuse of third-party content does not infringe the copyright of the third party. If you wish to reuse any third-party content, you bear the risks associated with any such rights violations. You are responsible for determining whether there is a need to obtain permission for the use of third-party content, and if so, for obtaining the relevant permission from the copyright holder. Examples of third-party content may include, but are not limited to, tables, figures or images.

Photo rights (further permission required for reuse):

Any queries regarding rights and licences should be addressed to:
Nordic Council of Ministers/Publication Unit
Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen
Denmark
pub@norden.org

Nordic co-operation

Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involving Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.

Nordic co-operation has firm traditions in politics, economics and culture and plays an important role in European and international forums. The Nordic community strives for a strong Nordic Region in a strong Europe.

Nordic co-operation promotes regional interests and values in a global world. The values shared by the Nordic countries help make the region one of the most innovative and competitive in the world.

The Nordic Council of Ministers
Nordens Hus
Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen
pub@norden.org

Read more Nordic publications on www.norden.org/publications