The EU uses more than its fair share of global land; in 2010 the amount of land needed to satisfy our consumption of agricultural goods and services was 43% greater than the land available within its boundaries. This report stresses the responsibility that the EU has to measure, monitor and reduce its global land footprint.

"Life cycle assessment of food waste management options", Sven Lundie and Gregory M. Peters, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 13, Issue 3 , February 2005 This Australian study made an environmental assessment of in-sink food waste processor (FWP) unit, home composting, landfilling food waste with municipal waste ("codisposal") and centralised composting of green (food and garden) waste.

This paper, co-authored by FCRN member Christian Reynolds, investigates the economic and environmental efficiency of charities and NGOs that divert and redistribute wasted but edible food. Through a case study of food rescue organizations in Australia, the authors show that food rescue operations generate approximately six kilograms of food waste per tonne of food rescued, at a cost of US$222 per tonne of food rescued. This is lower than purchasing edible, non-food waste food at market-cost. Secondly, for every US dollar spent on food rescue, edible food to the value of US$5.71 (1863 calories) was rescued.

This user-friendly book introduces biochar to potential users in the professional sphere. It de-mystifies the scientific, engineering and managerial issues surrounding biochar for the benefit of audiences including policy makers, landowners and farmers, land use, agricultural and environmental managers and consultants, industry and lobby groups and NGOs.

This ILRI blog post discusses a new US report from President Obama’s Global Change Research Program.

A new CCAFS working paper, Climate-smart livestock sector development: the state of play in NAMA development, sheds light on key elements in the development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) within the livestock sector.

This report by Compassion in World Farming highlights the so-called “negative externalities” associated with livestock-based food production – that is, costs to human health and the environment that are borne by society as a whole and which are not accounted for by the cost of producing the food or the price of consuming it.

Psychological research has shown that people often don’t make decisions on a rational basis, but rather do so heuristically - based on rules of thumb - that can systematically bias choices. This has important implications when it comes to promoting the sustainable consumption of food.