Food waste management current practices and

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0808-4

REGIONAL CASE STUDY

Food waste management current practices and sustainable future approaches: a Saudi Arabian perspectives Nuhu Dalhat Mu’azu1 · Nawaf I. Blaisi1 · Ammar A. Naji2 · Isam Mohammed Abdel‑Magid1 · Ali AlQahtany3 Received: 3 March 2018 / Accepted: 26 October 2018 © Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Food waste management (FWM) has been a global issue that persistently challenges several developed and developing countries. Many socio-economic factors have been leading to generation of huge volume of food waste (FW) in Saudi Arabia (KSA). With no documented study which comprehensively addressed this issue, this paper presents the scenario of FW and its management in KSA. Currently, neither clear strategies nor policies relevant to FWM are established. Recent Saudi Food Bank initiative has been recording tremendous successes in FW source reduction, though more stakeholders’ efforts are required while government proactive support and policies are necessary to ensure prosperity of such types of initiatives are sustained. Lack of sufficient FW data as well as difficulties in capturing data for the entire KSA cities suggest that the global food sustainability index should be cautiously embraced despite its objectivity. Major challenges to FWM in KSA include solid waste segregation, inadequate legislations, well accepted traditional landfill disposal practices, public attitudes, lack of awareness as well as uncertainty of FW byproducts acceptability. Taking into cognizance the global trend of concept of circular economy with immense contributions of FW to prospective bio-refineries could be of paramount importance in achieving environmental sustainability as enshrined in KSA Vision-2030. Keywords Sustainable food waste management · Food losses · Saudi Arabia Vision-2030 · Food sustainability index · Saudi food bank · Circular economy bio-refineries

Introduction Adequate management of food waste (FW) from sustainability point of view has been an issue that persistently challenged many countries across continents. The local and global impact of FW is known to be stretched across social, environmental, and economic levels [1, 2]. Food is mostly considered as an easily disposable product with over third of all food produced for human consumption reportedly being * Nuhu Dalhat Mu’azu [email protected] 1

Department of Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O Box 1982, Dammam 31451, Saudi Arabia

2

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80210, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

3

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 2397, Dammam 31451, Saudi Arabia

wasted either intentionally or unintentionally [3, 4]. Parfitt et al. [5] defined FW as food losses taking place towards the end of the food chain (particularly final and retail consumption), associated with the behaviors of consumers and retailers, a definition adopted by Food Agriculture Organization (FAO) and widely embraced, globally. In KSA, the generation of huge volume of FW has been attributed to many socio-economic factors. The gross mismanagement as well as unclear sustainable future plan towards FW management (FWM) requires serious attention. Unfortunately, literature review shows that this issue lacks documented records despite the clear related current and future challenges facing KSA. With the most recent KSA national planning tagged “Vision 2030” which targets sustainable initiatives in the direction towards enhancing productivity and efficiency of resources utilization [6], the importance of addressing sustainable FWM issues cannot be overemphasized. Within the context of KSA, this study reviews issues related to FW such as its generation, behaviors towards its handling and management, relevant policies. The study also

13

Vol.:(0123456789)

proffers future recommended sustainable solutions in light of current and future global perspective of FWM.

Global current and future perspective of food waste management According to FAO, 32% of the food produced for human consumption in the world is wasted or lost, which has been estimated to have reached up to 1.3 billion tons annually in recent years [7]. This amount is approximately amounting to carbon footprint of 3.3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere and up to a $750 billion direct annual economic loss [8]. Consequently, there are continuous debates across the globe on ways to reduce food loss for a better sustainable society. Globally, significant differences toward FWM can be attributed factors such as religious beliefs, cultural attitudes, socio-economic status, educational levels and working conditions [9]. The most recent study conducted by Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) [10] employed a food sustainability index (FSI) to rank 34 countries selected amongst low- to high-income countries that represent over 85% of global GDP and two-thirds of the global population. The FSI is defined as “the ability of a country’s food system to be maintained without depletion or

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

exhaustion of its natural assets or compromises to its population’s health, and without compromising future generations’ access to food” [10]. The FSI was based on food loss and waste (FLW) components that evaluate food sustainability as well as quality of countries’ policies towards addressing FLW. Figure 1 shows ranking of the studied countries based on the overall FSI performance scores for the year 2017 [10]. Meanwhile, Fig. 2 further presents the year 2017 FSI sub-index for FLW which was obtained when other components included in the overall FSI index calculation were not included [10]. The higher the index score, the better the country is on the right path to addressing issues related to FLW. Accordingly, France, Japan and Canada have higher values for both indices, while, counties like KSA, Egypt, Lebanon and India and United Arab Emirates (UAE) possess lower values. Thus, these indices suggest that most world developed countries have better attitudes towards FLW compared to developing countries. Generally, the notable approaches to FWM beside source reduction include production of animal feeds, compost, biomaterials production and waste-to-energy (WTE) processes. The main FWM drivers are identified to be reduction of FWL via technological improvements and innovations along entire food supply chain [11]. The most developed countries tried to develop FWM pyramid that ranked FWM options in order

Fig. 1 Overall peformance FSI for various countries across the globe for 2017 [10]

13


Fig. 2 Food loss and waste FSI for various countries across the globe for 2017 [10]

of priority (best to least) [12, 13]. For instance, in the USA, “Food Recovery Hierarchy” (FRH) [14] prioritized FW reduction from source, people and animals’ feeding, industrial uses, composting, and last, incineration or landfill. Meanwhile in the UK and Singapore, similar FRHs were also proposed which either neglected industrial uses option and/or feeding [13]. In recent decades, organic materials such as FW have been identified as “bio-resource”. As such, for sustainability, the global drivers involve bio-based economy which enhances bio-resource utilization in valorization technologies via “bio-refineries” [15–17]. This approach leads to transition from linear to circular-economies which is gaining increased relevance globally [17–20]. This implies that employing FW as feedstock in future bio-refineries is promising towards integrating FWM, energy and materials production sectors in a prospective circular bio-economy [11, 20, 21].

The generation of food waste in Saudi Arabia Generally, published data and studies on waste generation and management in KSA have received lukewarm attention from researchers interested in SWM until recently

when issues on sustainability become global. As consequence, literature relating to FW studies from KSA is presently, very scarce. Recent studies in KSA showed that the total amount of MSW generated in 2014 was estimated to have reached up to 15 million tons (which is expected to be doubled by 2033) consisted of about 75% organic waste with FW having the largest contribution of 37–50.6% [22, 23]. According to these studies, the percent composition of the different components of the KSA MSW is illustrated in Fig. 3 [22, 23]. Based on these studies, the estimated annual FW generation was 7.7 million tons at average rate of 0.71 kg per capita per day [22]. Report credited to Ouda et al. [24] showed that the annual MSW generation in three major cities of KSA (Dammam Jeddah and Riyadh) could exceed 6.7 million tons by the year 2032. Arguably, without improved and new proactive FWM initiatives, the generation of FW is expected also to increase accordingly. This huge amount of generated FW has been greatly influenced by considerable loss emanating from unethical discharge of edible food by consumers which could have been avoided. For instance, it has been estimated that 35–40% of cooked rice is been wasted annually in KSA which is valued to cost nearly SR1.6 billion [25]. Coupled with the Saudi society’s habit of serving guests with surplus food, these

13


Fig. 3 MSW composition in Saudi Arabia [22, 23]

are suggested by some researchers to significantly contribute to the high FW generation per capita [22]. Another recent study showed that 30% of about 4 million dishes prepared daily valued at over SR1.2 million could be lost during Ramadan season [26]. Exceptionally, for holy cities of Makkah and Medina, where millions of pilgrims from around the globe troop to perform religious rituals from month of Ramadan till end of Zul-Hajj month of Hijri calendar, the evident of massive FW generation in KSA is more conspicuous [23–27]. For example, it has been reported that in 2014 pilgrimage season only, more than 5000 tons of FW was generated within the Makkah municipality in less than a week [23, 27]. Considering the FW coming from households and restaurants as well as during parties and festivities, the amount of FW generation in KSA is expected to be majorly influenced by consumers’ behavior [28]. Obviously, this scenario could be supported by the fact that, as opposed to many other developing countries, KSA depends mainly on food importation which amounts to about 80% of its total consumption [29, 30]. This shows that FW generated during postharvest and processing stages may not be that significant factor in the context of KSA.

13

Current status of food waste management (FWM) in KSA Similar to several developing countries [3, 31], FW recycling and reusing is marginally practiced in KSA. Arguably, there is so far no regulation or operational guidelines in place for FWM in KSA. As a consequence, the operations of recycling and reuse for beneficial uses are performed in most cases by informal campaigns thereby using only little fraction of the entire generated FW. Recently, in the KSA Eastern Province, FW recycling campaigns aimed at encouraging the locals to first conserve food via reducing the amount of food prepared were initiated [32]. In addition, part of the program is to voluntarily encourage retailers to engage in composting FW rather than to throw it away. Generally, legislations governing SWM in KSA are either currently scarce or not well established, thereby, creating indifferent attitudes towards SWM by most people. Consequently, there exist inadequate and/or inappropriate education programs to enhance FW collection and separation. There is also lack of serious encouragement on FW separation for beneficial activities. Consequently, majority of FW is comingled with other MSW and


disposed-off in landfills with no clear strategy for adopting better sustainable management practices. Very few municipalities have given attention to FWM while draft legislations are incomplete which presently appear to be not approved and as such cannot be implemented [33]. Thus, the major challenges to FWM in KSA could relat to poor consumer habits, deficient administrative legislative measures as well as lack of investments in FWM programs. In KSA, collection and distribution of edible FW to needy people as well as converting FW into animal feeds have been limited to people’s habits which are directly linked to Islamic doctrine which discourages resource wastages in general [32]. Even with the existence of such an influencing cultural doctrine, only few private charitable organizations ventured into philanthropic activities related to collections and distribution of both fresh food and edible FW. Moreover, eating only when hungry as a means to quenching the human weakness associated with hunger is well known to be part of this doctrine for centuries. Within the context of this doctrine, it implies that eating exactly to satisfaction when feeling hungry is a virtue. The most documented successful FW reduction in KSA from source which has not been reported in literature is the popular Saudi Food Bank (SFB) initiative founded in 2010 under Al-Fozan business empire via a charitable foundation called “Ita’am initiative” [34]. This initiative helps in feeding the underprivileged people by collecting and distributing excess food from ceremonies, hotels, banquets and wedding parties to the poor and needy. Currently, the initiative captures only six cities within the three most populous provinces of KSA, i.e., Riyadh, Dammam and Jeddah. The monthly distribution of food secured by SFB for entire 2016 presented in Fig. 4a shows that over 2.4 million meals were saved and distributed with percentage contributions of 38, 37 and 25% from these three (3) provinces (Fig. 4b), respectively [34]. Interestingly, the number of meals distributed in 2016 nearly doubled compared to that of the previous year as shown in Fig. 5a. Meanwhile in 2017, over 2.2 million meals were distributed by the end of September (Fig. 5). Moreover, the surplus quantities of edible food collected which reached 231,764 meals in 2013 raised to about 924,296 by 2017 (Fig. 5b). This observed sustained improved performance of the SFB initiative between 2016 and 2017 could have influenced the sudden increase in KSA overall FSI performance as well as FLW FSI sub-index from 47.43 to 27.6 in 2016 to 57.8 and 61.97 in 2017, respectively (Figs. 1, 2) [10, 35]. Inferably, this significant improvement, especially for the FLW sub-index, owes to the fact that the FSI uses some individual indicators and underlying metrics selected on the basis of EIU experts’ knowledge and analysis, consultation with external food sustainability and nutrition experts as well as inputs from other entities [10, 35]. Yet, lack of sufficient data as well as difficulties in capturing

FLW data for the whole KSA cities and towns suggests that the FSI index should be cautiously embraced. Nevertheless, the FSI analysis objectively assigned very low individual rating regarding quality of administrative policies towards addressing FLW in KSA [10]. At personal and household levels, practicing the FW saving cultural doctrine is still lacking by large. One notable example was led by the Eastern Province Municipality in KSA that established an awareness program targeting local community and aims to reduce FW generated by locals [32]. Though these campaigns have made a good progress with establishing shared social awareness and recycling programs, how the issue of sustaining them and extending them further cannot be ascertained as they are not backed by strong legislation. Moreover, still missing is long-term integrated sustainable approach in KSA, taking into account the huge quantity of FW getting disposed in landfills compared to the fraction that is currently reused and recycled. Thus, issues related to FW generation and its management have been the focus of several entities in KSA in recent years. In fact, in the most recent and updated KSA national planning, tagged Vision 2030, the issue has been embedded into the national emphasis on sustainable initiatives in the direction towards enhancing productivity and efficiency of resources utilization [6]. The KSA vision 2030 contains a special emphasis on upgrading and implementing sustainable waste management practices from holistic point of view [6]. The vision clearly stipulated prioritizing achieving environmental sustainability via preserving natural resources and their prudent utilization, while safeguarding environment by increasing the efficiency of waste management, establishing comprehensive recycling projects and reducing all types of pollution as a responsibility towards future generations [6]. However, lack of correct and clear strategic planning to achieve these target goals would invariably impact on FWM. Therefore, KSA must identify the challenges and solutions to FW in order to meet the strategic goals set by Vision 2030.

Factors hindering food wastes management in Saudi Arabia Hariri et al. [36] had earlier reported some of the factors affecting FW generation in KSA. Generally, notable factors include over-buying, poor choice of food products, people culture and habits of over supply or overcooking of food, opting for fresh food and lack of household planning, rampant daily practice of dumping of unsold or expired food items at home and commercial places and potential low demand of FW by-products. However, the most essential factors that hinder apt FWM in KSA can be broadly enumerated as follows:

13

Fig. 4 KSA monthly number of food collected and distributed by Saudi Food Bank in 2016 (a) in different operational cities (b) percent distribution for the three major KSA provinces [34]


Monthly # of excess food meals collected and distributed to needy in 2016 300,000

A A

250,000 200,000

150,000 100,000 50,000 0

Jan

Feb March April May

Eastern

Jun

Jeddah

Jun

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Riyadh

B 37% 38%

25%

Eastern

• Lack of data on actual amount of FW and its potentials. • Absence of systems for collection, isolation, recovery

and reuse of FW. • Abandoning of the socio-religious doctrine that considers food conservation as a virtue. • Deficiency in adequate and sufficient knowledge and awareness of importance of recycling FW among public and government officials.

13

Jeddah

Riyadh

• Lack of knowledge and awareness of different methods

of converting FW to resources as well as the socioeconomic potential and environmental protection associated with such practices. • Lack of legislation encouraging and protecting stakeholders and investors in FWM. • Absence of incentives to stakeholders in FWM business.

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Fig. 5 a Amount of food collected and distributed by Saudi Food Bank in 2013–2017 in KSA operational cities. b Comparison of 2016 and 2017 data [34]

Number of excess food meals collected and distributed to needy by SFB

A

2,405,120

2,242,241

1,246,765

231,764

Jan-Dec 2013

B

Jan-Dec 2015

Jan-Dec 2016

Jan-Sept 2017

350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000

100,000 50,000 0 Jan

Feb

March

April 2016

• The marketability of products coming from FW pro-

cessing, especially energy related products in the midst of huge supply of energy from abundant fossil fuel reserves. • Lack of clear knowledge regarding the level of acceptability of FW products and also who are the potential customers.

May

Jun

Jun

Aug

Sept

2017

Future perspectives for food waste management in Saudi Arabia Based on the above preview, the current FWM practices in KSA would no longer help towards achieving SDGs. This owes to the fact that strictly adhering to the popular landfilling and other existing practices in KSA are not viable

13

means for tapping the vast economic potentials of FW. Unfortunately, documented literature shows that no policy related to plan and future initiatives for FWM exists. Apparently, Hariri et al.’s [36] presentation on FWM in KSA appeared to be the pioneered comprehensive analyses not only in KSA, but also in the entire GCC that directly addresses the problem of FW while providing suggestions for way forward. In such a study, they underscored the importance of formation of FW data bank to act in harmony with all concerned stakeholders via establishing a “Think.Eat.Save” country initiative with well-defined tasks and leverages. Additionally, they identified that formulation of a road map for evidence-based research related to zero FW plan in the society to be of paramount importance [36]. This is expected to encourage setting strategy for encouraging investors and interested business community to launch industrial programs that would enable the country move away from current food consumption and generated FW disposal society to rather material recovery and productivity. As a result, removing the present constraints of FW data limitation, adequate quantification of actual amount of FW generation in KSA as well as its potentials towards improving people’s well-being is of paramount importance. Thus, the first priority should be related to quantification of the total amount of the FW generation vis-à-vis FW encountered during pre-consumption, post- consumption FW as

Fig. 6 Proposed food waste management hierarchy for Saudi Arabia

13


well as estimates of losses incurring in between considering available food supply chain data [3]. Knowledge of accurate estimates of FW quantities and classifications from various sources along the KSA food chain should be followed by analyses of the avenues for FW production reduction as well as the potential beneficial use of the different components of generated FW. Consequently, there is a need for establishment of FRH pyramid for prioritizing FWM options which serves as a guide for best recommended future practices for different components of the FW. The FRH suggested in this study is somehow similar to that of the USA as discussed earlier. However, the best FRH for KSA can only developed when local KSA inhabitants cultural and overall socioeconomic context are taken into cognizance. Additionally, in order to achieve that, KSA’s FRH should also integrate some aspects of both identified current and recommended future management strategies. Thus, a recommended FRH for KSA is illustrated in Fig. 6. Considering that the huge amount of FW can by large be attributed to mainly the attitude and culture that fail to emphasize or convince people the importance of conserving food [22, 25], the major solution is FW reduction should begin from the source, especially, within households, hotels and restaurants. Massive awareness is greatly needed in order to inculcate the attitude of food conservation and driving economic benefits from unavoidable FW generated. Moreover, based on the quality of the food prior to disposal into domestic and restaurant trash bins, feeding


the needy people and using the FW for animal feed should be next to source reduction. Certainly, beside animals’ feed production, there would still be category of people in KSA that would continue to greatly benefit from the established programs of feeding people from food excesses across vast restaurants and households that generate huge quantity of edible FW. Currently, this exercise is usually implemented by very few charitable organizations as highlighted earlier. The recorded achievements by the SFB initiative as discussed earlier is an encouraging trend which suggests that rendering the initiative to spread across all KSA cities would help in reducing volume of FW generation. Consequently, it will play a great role in the proposed integrated sustainable FWM in KSA. However, further concerted efforts are required by citizens and cooperative entities as per as FLW reduction is concerned. More importantly, the government should be more proactive by swiftly intervening with supportive programs as well as quality policies to ensure sustained prosperity in this regard. Nevertheless, the huge volume of unavoidable FW generated as well as its high organic content would allow other FWM options to be relevant, thereby providing avenues for exploring industrial reuse as well as energy recovery options [22–24, 37]. This would help in raising awareness towards exploring better strategies for FWM that would add values to the socio-economic well-being of KSA people for sustainable development. This is one of the main reasons that steered the establishment of ministry of environment in 2016 for the first time in the history of KSA under the robust legislations dealing with environmental issues as enshrined in the most ambitious KSA vision 2030. Accordingly, future approach to FWM in KSA should emphasize on industrial food reuse and recycling followed by energy recovery. The next option should be conversion of FW to compost for agricultural usage prior to treatment and/or disposal landfill [37]. Due to the high biodegradable organic content of FW, AD to produce bio-energy has been identified as the most preferred option for FW treatment, globally as highlighted earlier [38–40]. Meanwhile landfilling FW considerably increases land area demand while incineration requires more energy input, thereby rendering these options the least options from environmental point of view [13]. This implies that, for sustainability, WTE should play greater role besides industrial recycling in KSA. Unfortunately, in KSA, the energy value potential of MSW, and FW in particular, has not been studied well, thereby jeopardizing further practical efforts in implementation of this option. As a consequence, until now there exists no single waste-to-energy (WTE) facility for generating energy from MSW in KSA. Establishing WTE facilities and other bio-refineries has been trend spreading globally, especially in developed countries as enumerated earlier. In KSA, it could significantly

ensure sustainable FWM strategy which could upset the ever increasing energy demand. Recent feasibility studies on the potential use of MSW for generating energy using WTE suggest that such approach could provide significant contributions in addition to other potential renewable energy sources in KSA while alleviating cost of landfill coupled with mitigation of associated environmental impacts [23, 24]. Moreover, such studies suggest that further in-depth analyses that collectively take technical, financial and environmental analysis are paramount to arriving at more pragmatic conclusions. Thus, in the context of KSA, this would require dissipating concerting efforts towards ascertaining the type of WTE facilities that would be cost-effective in the midst of abundant cheap source of energy in KSA. Consequently, depending of the WTEF cost-effectiveness, prioritizing of energy recovery over aerobic composting could be ascertained in the FRH accordingly. Table 1 summarizes the available management option itemizing their respective current status, potential benefits and challenges as well as suggested approach for adequate management of FW in future. More importantly, considering the concept of circular bio-economy with immense contribution of FW as feedstock in prospective FW bio-refineries or other forms of bio-refineries as discussed earlier would be of paramount importance. This owes to the fact that taking this into cognizance has great potential for mitigating the economic as well as environmental menace associated with improper FWM in KSA. Also, it would help the government in realizing its dream of attaining strategic economic and environmental sustainability as enshrined in its vision 2030 which is in line with UN-SDGs.

Conclusion Like many developed and developing nations, FWM is known to be a challenging issue in Saudi Arabia. An estimated 15 million tons total MSW generated in 2014 projected to double by 2033 consisted of about 75% organic waste with FW having the largest contribution of 37–50.6% of total MSW. Under current waste management scenario, the generation of FW is expected to also increase accordingly. Thus, the management of FW in KSA requires adoption of proactive management initiatives. This study reports the current status of FW and its management in KSA. Strategies towards ensuring better socio-economic solutions in light of associated challenges are proposed. Currently, neither clear strategy nor relevant policies towards FWM are established. The successful documented FWM so far via source reduction has been the recent SFB initiative founded in 2010 under Al-Fozan Business Empire. However, more efforts are required by individuals and private entities as well as the government proactive intervention with similar

13

13

Has been in existence

Has been in existence Few charitable organizations implementing it and philanthropic basis [34] Few cities are covered No adequate record or data do exist Not yet reported in literature

Source eduction

Feeding needy people

Might be in existence but documented records are lacking

Energy recovery facility Recommended for future FW management No ERF do exist currently

Anaerobic digestion

Animal feed production Has been in existence A well-known and accepted FW management approach

Current status

Management option in order of priority

Challenges

Suggested recommendations

Fulfilling religious obligations prudent utilization of resources/ wealth and avoidance of wastage

Changing current people’s individual attitudes and culture towards making food according to need

More efforts and massive public campaign and enlightenment via different avenues; media, social gathering, conferences, schools etc. Provides social and economic harmony Collection, packaging, distribution and Increasing the awareness of people for the duty of care towards needy. Estabidentifying the needy people while fulfilling cultural and religious lish of more charitable organization to Sustaining the program and prosperity obligations of feeding needy people partake in SFB. Also more efforts and in covering more cities and avoiding resources/wealth wastmassive public campaign and enlightage enment via different avenues; media, social gathering, conferences, schools etc [36] More concerting efforts are required by individuals and cooperate entities Government should be more proactive by swiftly intervening with similar supportive programs and quality policies to ensure sustained prosperity in this regard Strategic approach for adequate collecUpsetting cost of importation of animal As this practice has been a culture, tion of FW is needed towards better there’s no data on its contribution on feedstock while fulfilling religious implementation to improve its contributhe animal feedstock supply in Saudi obligations of avoiding resources/ tion in the economy. Formation of FW Arabia as well as the economic value wealth wastage value business chain for collection derived from it and trading FW for animal feedstock production Strongly recommended Providing alternative renewable source No FW separation/recovery is performed. All FW is commingled with Proper separation and recovery of FW while preserving non-renewable suitable for the processes other solid wastes Upsetting cost of energy consumption Insufficient and non-implementation of Establishment of know-how as related from commercial to physical conditions in Saudi Arabia technical knowledge on process Enabling achieving concept of circular Demand of final product not ascertained [24] bio-economy Enactment of supporting regulations Public and cooperate acceptance of byproducts Strongly recommended [24] Providing alternative renewable source No FW separation/recovery is performed. All FW is commingled with Proper separation and recovery of FW while preserving non-renewable suitable for the processes other solid wastes Upsetting cost of energy consumption Insufficient and non-implementation of Establishment of know-how as related to from commercial physical conditions in Saudi Arabia. technical knowledge on process Enabling achieving concept of circular Enactment of supporting regulations [36] Acceptance of final product not ascerbio-economy tained

Potential socio-economic benefits

Table 1 Benefits, challenges and recommendations for sustainable food waste management options within the context of Saudi Arabia


Current status

Has been in existence but documented records are lacking Not well practice by household

Has been in existence for commingled waste and some specialized waste but not food waste

Has been in existence The most common, well-known and accepted practice Sanitary landfill encourage by the Government with new emerging legislations

Management option in order of priority

Aerobic composting

Incineration

Landfilling

Table 1 (continued)

Getting rid of FW A known existing old practice and vast availability of land which is easier to implement

Release of ash, air and waterborne pollutants at incineration facility is needing treatment as well as cost of energy input to maintain facility

Strongly discouraged Proper separation and recovery of FW suitable for processes Establishment of know-how as related to physical conditions in Saudi Arabia. Enactment of supporting regulations Should part of the least preferred options Takes considerable exorbitant land Contribution FW to land requirement Should be discouraged as well as increase in leachate volume within landfill requiring proper design Should part of the least preferred FW options of sanitary landfill with adequate monitoring system. Sanitary landfills are rare; technicality for proper design and management are still underway Biogas from landfill difficult to be competitive option And its demand not ascertained

Strongly recommended Needs FW separation/recovery for Proper separation and recovery of FW building large plants Demand of final product not ascertained suitable for processes Establishment of know-how as related to Public and cooperate acceptance of physical conditions in Saudi Arabia. byproducts Enactment of supporting regulations

Upsetting cost for commercial compost for landscaping while getting rid of environmental nuisance Simple technique easily adoptable even at household level Enabling achieving concept of circular bio-economy Getting rid of FW No clear economic benefits

Suggested recommendations

Challenges

Potential socio-economic benefits


13

supportive programs and quality policies to ensure sustained prosperity in FLW reduction. Lack of sufficient data as well as difficulties in capturing data on FLW in the entire KSA cities suggest that the FSI should be cautiously embraced. Nevertheless, the FSI analysis objectively assigned very low individual rating regarding quality of administrative policies towards addressing FLW in KSA. Within the context of KSA and based on its socio-economic factors, a proposed FWM hierarchy underscores the significant contributions that could be provided by massive public awareness and quality legislations that would immensely support source reduction, recycling and reuse of FW items. For achieving environmental sustainability as enshrined in KSA strategic VISION 2030, considering the global trend of adopting the concept of circular economy with immense contribution from FW as feedstock to prospective bio-refineries is of paramount importance. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University for its continuous support with this research work.

References 1. Gentil EC, Poulsen TG (2012) To waste or not to waste—food? Waste Manag Res 30:455–456 2. Thyberg KL, Tonjes DJ (2017) The environmental impacts of alternative food waste treatment technologies in the US. J Clean Prod 158:101–108 3. Oelofse SH, Nahman A (2013) Estimating the magnitude of food waste generated in South Africa. Waste Manag Res 31:80–86 4. Reynolds CJ, Mavrakis V, Davison S, Høj SB, Vlaholias E, Sharp A, Thompson K, Ward P, Coveney J, Piantadosi J, Boland J, Dawson D (2014) Estimating informal household food waste in developed countries: the case of Australia. Waste Manag Res 32:1254–1258 5. Parfitt J, Barthel M, Macnaughton S (2010) Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365:3065–3081 6. Vision2030 (2016) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s vision 2030. http:// vision2030.gov.sa/en. Accessed 27 Nov 2017 7. Liu C, Hotta Y, Santo A, Hengesbaugh M, Watabe A, Totoki Y, Allen D, Bengtsson M (2016) Food waste in Japan: trends, current practices and key challenges. J Clean Prod 133:557–564 8. FAO, Global initiative on food loss and food waste reduction (2015) United Nations publications http://www.fao.org/save-food/ en/. Accessed 27 Nov 2017 9. Abdelradi F (2018) Food waste behaviour at the household level: a conceptual framework. Waste Manag 71:485–493 10. The-Economist-Intelligence-Unit (2017) The Food Sustainability Index (FSI), Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition (BCFN) Foundation. http://foodsustainability.eiu.com/ Accessed May 2018 11. Canali M, Amani P, Aramyan L, Gheoldus M, Moates G, Östergren K, Silvennoinen K, Waldron K, Vittuari M (2017) Food waste drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions. Sustainability 9:37

13

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 12. Papargyropoulou E, Lozano R, Steinberger JK, Wright N, Ujang Zb (2014) The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J Clean Prod 76:106–115 13. Ng BJH, Mao Y, Chen C-L, Rajagopal R, Wang J-Y (2017) Municipal food waste management in Singapore: practices, challenges and recommendations. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 19:560–569 14. USEPA (2010) Reducing food waste for businesses, in, Environment Protection Agency United States.. http://www.epa.gov/foodr ecovery. Accessed 13 Sept 2017 15. Maina S, Kachrimanidou V, Koutinas A (2017) A roadmap towards a circular and sustainable bioeconomy through waste valorization. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 8:18–23 16. Paul S, Dutta A, Defersha F, Dubey B (2018) Municipal food waste to biomethane and biofertilizer: a circular economy concept. Waste Biomass Valoriz 9:601–611 17. Peng W, Pivato A (2017) Sustainable management of digestate from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and food waste under the concepts of back to earth alternatives and circular economy. Waste Biomass Valor. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s1264 9-017-0071-2 18. Cristóbal J, Caldeira C, Corrado S, Sala S (2018) Techno-economic and profitability analysis of food waste biorefineries at European level. Biores Technol 259:244–252 19. Venkata Mohan S, Nikhil GN, Chiranjeevi P, Nagendranatha Reddy C, Rohit MV, Kumar AN, Sarkar O (2016) Waste biorefinery models towards sustainable circular bioeconomy: critical review and future perspectives. Biores Technol 215:2–12 20. Dahiya S, Kumar AN, Shanthi Sravan J, Chatterjee S, Sarkar O, Mohan SV (2018) Food waste biorefinery: sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy. Biores Technol 248:2–12 21. Nizami AS, Rehan M, Waqas M, Naqvi M, Ouda OKM, Shahzad K, Miandad R, Khan MZ, Syamsiro M, Ismail IMI, Pant D (2017) Waste biorefineries: enabling circular economies in developing countries. Biores Technol 241:1101–1117 22. Miandad R, Rehan M, Ouda OKM, Khan MZ, Shahzad K, Ismail IMI, Nizami AS (2017) Waste-to-hydrogen energy in Saudi Arabia: challenges and perspectives. In: Singh A, Rathore D (eds) Biohydrogen production: sustainability of current technology and future perspective. Springer India, New Delhi, pp 237–252 23. Ouda OKM, Raza SA, Nizami AS, Rehan M, Al-Waked R, Korres NE (2016) Waste to energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 61:328–340 24. Ouda OKM, Raza SA, Al-Waked R, Al-Asad JF, Nizami A-S (2017) Waste-to-energy potential in the Western Province of Saudi Arabia. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci 29:212–220 25. SaudiGazette (2014) Saudis throw away 440 tons of rice annually. http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/89553/Saudis-throw-away-440tons-of-rice-annually. Accessed 15 Nov 2017 26. Mohammed I (2014) Massive wastage ‘unacceptable’. In: Arab News, Jeddah. http://www.arabne ws.com/news/596446 . Accessed 15 Nov 2017 27. Rehan M, Nizami AS, Shahzad K, Ouda OKM, Ismail IMI, Almeelbi T, Iqbal T, Demirbas A (2016)Pyrolytic liquid fuel: a source of renewable electricity generation in Makkah. Energy Sources Part A Recover Util Environ Effects 38:2598–2603 28. Aschemann-Witzel J, de Hooge I, Amani P, Bech-Larsen T, Oostindjer M (2015) Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action. Sustainability 7:6457 29. Taha SM (2014) Kingdom imports 80% of food products. In: Arab News, Jeddah. http://www.arabne ws.com/news/558271 . Accessed 15 Nov 2017 30. Saudi-General-Authority-of-Statistics (2018) Foreign trade statistics on food exports and imports. https: //www.stats. gov.sa/en/214. Accessed May 2018

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 31. De Clercq D, Wen Z, Gottfried O, Schmidt F, Fei F (2017) A review of global strategies promoting the conversion of food waste to bioenergy via anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79:204–221 32. AMANA (2017) Saudi Arabian Eastern province, Dammam interview. https://www.eamana.gov.sa/. Accessed 27 Nov 2017 33. Thi NBD, Kumar G, Lin C-Y (2015) An overview of food waste management in developing countries: current status and future perspective. J Environ Manag 157:220–229 34. Saudi-Food-Bank (2017) Al Fozan Social Foundation Ita’am initiative. http://www.alfozan.com/en/corporate-social-responsibi lity/itaam-saudi-food-bank. Accessed May 2018 35. The-Economist-Intelligence-Unit (2016) The Food Sustainability Index (FSI), Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition (BCFN) Foundation. https://www.barillacfn.com/m/documents/the-food-susta inability-index-results-presentation.pdf. Accessed May 2018 36. Hariri A-RS, Abdel-Magid IM, Faris FG (2014) Food waste: reduce, reuse, recycle, re-think. In: International conference of

37. 38. 39. 40.

engineering, information technology, and science (ICEITS 2014), Infrastructure University, Kuala Lumpur, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, pp 1–19 Stabnikova O, Ding H-B, Tay J-H, Wang J-Y (2005) Biotechnology for aerobic conversion of food waste into organic fertilizer. Waste Manag Res 23:39–47 Guo X-H, Sun F-Q, Sun Y-J, Lu H-H, Wu W-X (2014) Characterization and energy potential of food waste from catering service in Hangzhou, China. Waste Manag Res 32:791–795 Levis JW, Barlaz MA, Themelis NJ, Ulloa P (2010) Assessment of the state of food waste treatment in the United States and Canada. Waste Manag 30:1486–1494 Schott ABS, Vukicevic S, Bohn I, Andersson T (2013) Potentials for food waste minimization and effects on potential biogas production through anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag Res 31:811–819

13