المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

HLPE CONSULTATION ON WATER AND FOOD SECURITY REPORT

General comments

Types of water: the draft report addresses the issue of types of water and water usage. We would like to draw the attention of the HLPE to the Codex international standards such as the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables that have quite prescriptive requirements around the types of water that can be used in production and measures to be taken to prevent contamination of the produce and/or water used. The Code may assist around water usage, particularly where it might concern re-use of water.

Integrating water quality into water quantity policies: It would be good to have more description about integrating water quality into water quantity policies and decisions, particularly for water resource allocation. There was a comment late in the report about quantity impact on quality but it did not appear to be discussed earlier on in the report. For more information, the report could refer to the report prepared on characterising the relationship between water quality and quantity on the Department of Environment’s website: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/characterising-relationship-between-water-quality-and-water-quantity.

The report could also look at the Australian Murray Darling Basin Plan for an example of integrating water quality targets into water resource allocation plans: http://www.mdba.gov.au/what-we-do/basin-plan

Water for agricultural systems – Irrigation: On approaches and methodological issues (page 29, line 50), we believe that metrics and data for water and food security are adequate and valuable. However, we would like to suggest to incorporate more maps on irrigated area that have positive outcomes on food security including systems used for these achievements  and  more graphs (especially scatter plots) for a broad understanding and critical review of the correlation between water usage across the globe and food security with emphasize on best practices used in irrigation. An Australian a case study in Victoria is found below as an example.

Case study: Victorian On-Farm Priority Project

“The Victorian On-Farm Priority Project was designed to deliver on the Commonwealth Government’s environmental priorities for water-related programs in the Murray Darling Basin through on-farm efficiencies which increase the viability of farm businesses. The project is helping to maintain and grow milk production to meet increasing demand, despite the challenges of climate variability. In turn, a strong dairy sector maintains and creates regional employment: both directly (through on-farm roles) and indirectly (through associated industries).

The project is estimated to have boosted the regional economy and community with an estimated net present value of $78 million, and the creation of approximately 200 short- and long-term jobs. Additional benefits expected over the long-term include improved water quality and salinity management, and increased resilience of the regional economy to a range of socioeconomic and environmental pressures.

Victorian On-Farm Priority Project enabled farmers to invest in new technology to help combat climate variability, which had already impacted the value of production during years of lower water allocations.

The project strengthened the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District economy (estimated to be $1.6 billion at the farm gate, and $6.5 billion with processing and other value adding) as it provided a stimulus to farm infrastructure investment and retained 50 per cent of the resultant water savings for productive use.

In developing the Victorian On-Farm Priority Project, the Victorian Government estimated water use efficiency increases and productivity increases of 13 to 22 per cent, depending on the farming industry (e.g. dairy, grains, horticulture, etc.).

Irrigation upgrades:

• install irrigation scheduling equipment including soil-, plant- or weather-based monitoring systems to calculate crop water requirements and water budgets
• improve border-check irrigation by lasering, installing reuse systems, automating bay outlets, facilitating fast , establishing farm channel reconnections or installing pipes and risers
• lay piping and lining farm channels
• convert border-check irrigation systems to pressurised systems, including conversion to centre pivot, linear move, fixed sprinkler or surface and sub-surface drip systems.”

Salinity: The draft report refers to two strategies are available to deal with salinity (page 30, lines 22-27). We note that the draft report covers a more worldwide perspective where in most cases salinisation of productive land is occurring due to salts being added to soils in cultivation processes, for example,  from fertilisers or in the water being used for irrigation (particularly if it is from treated sewage effluent and/or storm water). The two methods described (cultivating more saline tolerant species or allowing leaching to remove the salts) are the two options. It should be noted that leaching would require the amount of salt being added to the soil be reduced through either better fertiliser management and /or lowering the salt level in the water being applied to allow leaching to occur. It would also be enhanced through increase drainage but this could lead to downstream impacts (i.e. the salts do not disappear; they get dissolved in water and moved somewhere else in the environment). The draft report focuses on agricultural productivity and does not seem to discuss any environmental risks associated with the transfer of the salts. The Australian dry land salinity issue is slightly different with the salts already in the soil being mobilised through changing land use practise and irrigation that leads to rising water tables. This means that in addition to the options from above, land management, such as tree planting, and optimised irrigation management which would both decrease water table rises, could be added to the list.

Water quality:  We do not agree with some of the recommendations to address water quality (pages 76-77). While ‘investing in water quality monitoring to address food security and nutrition and public health challenges’ is a good idea, we think there needs to be words around monitoring being targeted and risk based otherwise it can be impractical and expensive.

Closing the nutrient cycle in water in wastewater: The recommendation to ‘close the nutrient cycle in water and wastewater’ should be investigated on a case-by-case basis. We suggest that it is more appropriate for smaller scale cases as economics and health and safety issues of re-using wastewater products as fertilisers have been difficult to resolve. We believe that while there are risks associated with stormwater and sewage re-use, these have to be balanced against the environmental effects and or the health and safety issues associated with the current practices, which may be very unsanitary and environmental damaging, and the benefits of increased environmental water (if extraction is reduced,) decreased nutrient transfer (eutrophication) and pathogen release and increased agricultural productivity.

Development and implementation of water-neutral industrial and domestic water and wastewater strategies:  It is not clear to us what the recommendation means. We believe it may mean that significant resources even on the most basic scale, for example, a house that collect roof top rain water (i.e. not a farm dam or other interference with environmental flows), stores it in a tank, uses it for domestic purposes (which may require disinfection), collects the used water, treats it to remove pathogens and excess nutrient and applies it to crop or treats it further for domestic re-use. Even this basic model would require a tank, some plumbing for the collection of the used water, a septic or other biological treatment system, plumbing to and a pump to move the treated water to a crop or back to storage and possibly a disinfection and or filtration system, all of which would cost money to purchase and would require ongoing maintenance. There might need to be some clarification on what this recommendation is trying to achieve.

Water reform processes: we supply a copy of the study below conducted to help understanding the balance between the water needs of communities, industries and the environment as key to achieving a healthy working Basin.

Case study - Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program

‘Within Australia, the Murray–Darling Basin is Australia's largest and most iconic river system. It is also one of the largest river systems in the world and one of the driest covering an area of over 1 million km2. More than 2 million people live in the Murray–Darling Basin, with more than 1.3 million people who live outside the Basin also dependent on its water resources.

Irrigated agriculture in the Murray–Darling Basin makes an important contribution to the Australian and regional economies. In 2010–11, the Basin accounted for 61 per cent of Australia’s total area irrigated and 40 per cent of Australia’s irrigating agricultural businesses (ABS 2012). These businesses undertake a variety of irrigated agricultural enterprises, including vegetable crops, perennial tree and vine crops, pastures for grazing, hay, rice, cotton, cereals and oilseed crops. Many of these enterprises rely heavily on irrigation water.

Ensuring a balance between the water needs of communities, industries and the environment is key to achieving a healthy working Basin. The Basin Plan, which came into law on 22 November 2012, sets new long-term average sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) that reflect an environmentally sustainable level of water use (or 'take'). This is the amount of water that can be taken for town water supplies, industry, agriculture and other human or 'consumptive' uses, while ensuring there is enough water to maintain healthy river and groundwater systems.

The Australian Government is meeting the challenges of water scarcity through long-term strategic investments that will improve water management arrangements and deliver a range of water policy reforms. More than $12 billion has been committed for programs in support of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. Of this, over $5 billion will be invested through the infrastructure component of the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program (SRWUIP). SRWUIP provides funding for rural water infrastructure upgrades to improve water use efficiency on and off farm, with a share of water savings helping to ‘bridge the gap’ to the sustainable diversion limits in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.”

Miscellaneous general comments

The table below contains miscellaneous general comments for noting on a range of topics found throughout the report that may improve text/language clarity.

INDIA IN DEEP WATERS, by VARUN GANDHI 

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141028/commentary-op-ed/article/india-deep-waters

 Attachéd is a doc on recharging of bore wells

A simple technology assures continuous moisture supply for agriculture in water-scarce arid and rain fed areas. Full report at: 

 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/orchards-desert

K.S. Gopal's presentation Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip7j3k3CEZU

Dear HLPE committee

The report has touched key points to explain the relationship between water security and food security. Water security from the water quantity perspective has been explored well, but from a quality perspective is less addressed; esp when we look water quality as an input for food production .For example in case of aquaculture, water quality is an important input. For small- medium fish farmers who generate 90% of aquaculture output this quality is an ecosystem service blessed through tidal functions. Today with over use of the ecosystems by different stake holders have made this input costly for fish farmers which could push them from traditional/ extensive/ improved extensive fish farming practices to livelihood vulnerablities.The result is they are deprived of fish as food (subsistence safety bracket) as well as fish as Income (loss of export earnings due to fish disease and fish mortality). With deteriorating water quality, the ability of aquaculture as an important player to ensure food security looks scanty.

As a research scholar, I try to explore this relationship. The thesis is due for submission in few months

Regards

Rosewine Joy

Research Scholar

Cochin University, Kerala, India

Please, let me add and practical example, published recently in „Biotech Crops, Annual Updates 2013; Maize“:

„In the dry region of the USA, a drought tolerant maize wiil be cultivated in 2015 on a larger area and an increase in yield from 5.5 to 7.5t/ha is expected“.

In addition to maize, I would also add some aspects to rice, because rice used about 30% of freshwater for crops worldwide. There are already some older studies (2005-2007) which demonstrate a higher salinity and drought tolerance by plant breeding (e.g. Oh et al. 2005, Karaba et al. 2007; see references below).

I think that these examples will underline my requirements for more public fundamental research for a more efficient use of the limited resource water by plants. These results will improve the water efficiency and/or the water footprints per t of crops (L/t) and could be considered as sustainable contributions for food security.

Refernces mentioned above:

A.Karaba, S. Dixil, R. Greco, A. Ahoroni, K.R. Trijatmiko, N. Marsch-Martinez, A. Krishnan, K.N. Nataraja, M. Udayakumar, A. Pereira (2007) Improvement of water use efficiency in rice by expression of HARDY, an Arabidopsis drought and salt tolerance gene. PNAS 104; 15270-15275

S.H. Oh, S.I. Song, Y.S. Kim, H.-Y. jung, S.Y. Kim, M. Kim, Y.-K. Kim (2005) Arabidopsis CBF3, DREB1A and AFB3 in transgenic rice increased tolerance to abiotic stress without stunting growth. Plant Physiology 138, 341-351

Food security is directly related to water availability for crops. There should be law (not just law, prove by implementation) in UN to manage the available water in the World. In many fertile countries mostly water is lost just due to because they do not have any water management resources due to certain political issue. There is need to address Water and Food Security on priority bases without involving political issues. One fertile country can support a big part of human being from hunger.

Regards

Abdul Rahim Khan

R.O/P.I/T.L

Post Harvest Research Centre

Ayub Agricultural Research Institute

Faisalabad-Pakistan

          Water Problems in Rural India and Our Possible Intervention in 2014-15

                                                                       By: - Ravindra Botve & Mendu Srinivasulu

Water is a fundamental to human food security and nutrition. Water of sufficient quantity and quality is an essential input to all types of agricultural production, as well as the preparation and processing of food.

In this document we try to focus what problem rural India face when we meet farmers across country at the same time we also learn possible solution. We hope our little learning will useful to in V0 draft and meet FSN challenges.

In 2014-15 Social Advancement Venture Foundation and Rural Youth Agriculture Research Foundation committed to launch following possible intervention to meet FSN.

1.      Problem: -  Lack of Farm planning as per farm resource and microclimate

As per our observation 90 % of farmer not plan his crop as per farm resources likes water, livestock, capital, soil, man power and climate which affect crop yield and economic condition some time overutilization of farm resources affect ecosystem (ex. Monocropping, soil salaination,and pest and diseases outbreak )

A)    Possible intervention: - Individual Farmer profiling to meet FSN by SAVe Foundation

Case study: - Mr. Prallad Sontakee in viral village of Maharatsra has 5 acre (2 ha ) land , one  1 cow and 12 feet well  . Last 5 year he grows only cotton because his neighbour farmers grow cotton but he unable to make profit. In April 2014 we meet him plan his land as per availability of water and market situation so we plan half acre vegetable (coriander ) as per water situation in well and market demand 2 acre cotton  and 2.5 acre soybeans when sufficient rainfall occur after 2month (June ) as per our discussion with IMD expert team (Indian Metrological Department ) Pune they predict less rainfall  so we suggest farmer to shift on soyabean (low water requirement crop as compare to cotton )  so he  plan to cultivate 4 acre  Soyabean crop and 05 acre hybrid jawar for his cow.

After 1.5  month he get income 25,000 income from fresh coriander which he was sell in local market at Rs 5 per 50 gm because in month of May fresh  coriander leaves has good market and price from this money he buy good quality  seed and fertilizer for  soybeans  . He gave supplement irrigation to soybeans which was available in his well. Last month (November 2014 ) he harvest 20 qt soybeans which market cost Rs 60,000 and also got sufficient fodder for his cow from 0.5  . If he plan cotton in 5 acre this year his whole crop fail to due to lack irrigation and his cow unable to get fodder.

We think if individual farmer plan his crop as per farm resources available in his farm it will  help making more profitable and fulfil Food security demand . Need to farm planning at individual level not village level.

2.      Problem :- loss of water due to deep tillage

Every year farm carried out  deep tillage operation to make soil lose and break hard pan with help of tractor or bullock pair which increase gravitational water ( after rainfall water goes to deep layer so plant root unable to extract or absorb  it ) which rise cost of production as well as  water use

Possible Intervention

We think only training will not change this custom for that need  Field demonstration  In May-2015 through SAVe foundation we will sensitise farmer on shallow tillage operation with field demonstration.

3.      Problem :- Water requirement at critical growth stages

Farmer provide irrigation to crop as per soil condition if it dry then they will start to give irrigation which loss water and increase soil salinatiztion

Most of farmer unaware about critical growth stage of crop if farmer give water at this stage 50 % more the chances to increase yield if miss more than 50 % reduction

Possible intervention: - Need to Find out critical and most critical growth stage of crop so farmer can store or plan to irrigate crop .

Through the Rural Youth Agriculture Research Foundation in  2015 we conduct research trail on critical and most critical growth stages of soybean , pigeon pea and Gram crop through that learning SAVe foundation organise  village level work shop on  water for grain to sensitize farmer on critical and most critical growth stage of crop

4.      Problem :- 50 % loss of water due to evaporation

We observe and study evaporation cause 50 % water loss from field. Farmer are aware about that but they can’t afford plastic mulch due to low level income.

Most of sugarcane grower farmer burn sugarcane trash to destroy pest and good root emergence which cause environment pollution 

Possible intervention:-

Rural youth Agriculture Research foundation establish demonstration  how  soybean , Gram , pigeon pea , paddy , sugarcane and  wheat crop straw act as   as a mulch , manure as well as reduce evapotranspiration . through SAVe foundation we will scale  this model

5.      Problem :- Monoculture of high water requirement crop in rainfed or dryland area

Marathwada come under rain fed zone but more than 40 % farmer which having more water supply from bore / well / pipeline from lake  grow high water requirement  crop like sugarcane , banana and flower due high income and less care management which  decrease water table some time rural people face drinking water problems.

Possible intervention:-

Need to sensitize farmer on cost benefit ratio of high water demanding crop compare to pulses and other Millets with its effect on ecology after that they will move to  region and climate specific crop otherwise one day these people not get drinking water . For that need to establish community managed water responsible group to avoid extraction water from lake for high water requirement crop.

6.      Problem :- why farmer avoid drip irrigation

Farmer know drip irrigation save water and increase yield but till that date  they avoid use of drip irrigation when we meet farmer we receive following information

1.      Cost of drip irrigation goes beyond the Rs. 50,000 per acre for that marginal farmer can’t afford

2.      Government provide subsidies for drip irrigation but in block level no dealer ship available to purchase drip irrigation set

3.      Farmer  unable to know its technical details how to install drip irrigation

4.      Salt accumulation and rodent cut pipe is major constrain 

Possible intervention:

Private sector drip irrigation company need to establish dealership at block or local level so farmer can purchase its drip irrigation set with assign one consultant to install drip irrigation set as well slove problem face by people

Government should encourage drip irrigation farmer by giving nominal incentive to his produce in the name of water star like energy star in electrical items or If possible not give 3 phase electrical connection those farmer who not use drip  

Try to increase subsides 60 % with quick loan sanction with least document process

7.      Problems :- why urban waste water not utilised in agriculture

Everyone know single house in urban area use minimum 25 lit of water think about multi-storey building  why this water not use for fruit or other crop production because all water (wash  and swedge water is mixed ) which is very hard to treatment or recycle

Possible intervention: -  Green Building

if builder plan separate pipe wise outlet of wash and sweade water then people can use wash water to raise fruit and agriculture purpose . it is fact even swedge contain more nutrient to increase crop yield but no one wish to raise crop from this water . if we make wash outlet people defiantly use this water for greenery purpose .

 8.       Problem :- Industrial waste water pollution

Lot of sugar and textile industry in maratwada region discharge water to river  or lake which create river /lake water unsafe  for drinking purpose , kill fish and affect agriculture production . Even raising this issue government not take action due to their nexus with industry leader    

Possible solution: - Media and Community

Role of Media in that case is very active it can raise this issue so Government can take some action

          SAVe foundation will planning to establish Green Warrior Youth in such affected         village to legally fight such matter to save environment

9.      Problem :- waste of good Processing water

Most of industries use water only for clean purpose like wash vegetable , some electronic part , bottle and other thing without any modification of water ( heating , mixing chemical or other process )

Possible intervention: - if these industry set up silvi-horticulture plant around industry then this water become useful for production of fruit crop as well increase owner income for that we plan to meet Industry leader with such Plan.

10.   Water bucket challenge -2014-15

SAVe foundation participate Seva-mela in Hyderabad in that mela we organise  water bucket challenge for that we announce

Chose a village which is challenged by the availability of Safe water access and work in collaboration with public – private institutions to ensure that the selected village gets access to 100% clean and safe drinking water within one year!

 Are you ready for this Challenge?

Please do provide your details in the register.

We will work together for this Social Infrastructure Revival Initiative…

                            Social Advancement Venture Foundation

Vision: - To be a dynamic Social Development organization that continuously works in collaboration with public, private institutions for necessary social advancements. 

Mission: - Reaching the unreached to promote a happy living society with dignity and equality

Our approach: - Social Advancement Ventures Foundation (SAVe Foundation) will work on some of the most pressing problems of the society in sustainable way to bring happiness to each family and the society.

                    SAVe Foundation is committed to bring the desired positive changes in the society by offering various products, services, technologies either produced and or delivered by SAVe Foundation or offered through Joint Ventures, Collaborations or by distributing the products/services/technologies to the needy people/institutions.  SAVe Foundation is intended and committed to engage in those products, services and technologies that have high potential to advance the society to next level by bringing value addition, improving their living standards and bringing happiness to the individuals, families and society as a whole.

                          Rural Youth Agriculture Research Foundation

•         Vision :- Discover what help the rural people to brings prosperity in life

•         Mission :- Design and evaluate program in Real context with real people and provide hands on assistance to brings successful program in scale

•         Our Model: - Innovate --- evaluate & design potential solution – evidence – mobilise and support decision maker.

•         Establishment :- 15 October 2014

       We are committed to do research which suit in farmer field ’

Mr.Ravindra Botve:-Founder of Rural Youth Agriculture Research Foundation, Certified Crop Advisor. Work as Agriculture advisor in GIZ, Cohesion foundation, Yuva Mitra , Jeeven Tirtha and SAVe foundation  .

Mr. Mendu Srinivasulu:- Founder of Social Advancement Venture Foundation and Assistant Vice President at BASIX 

The draft report is quite correct in drawing attention to the need for coordination of water for domestic sanitary and health purposes (WASH) with food security. One problem is that there seems to be much support for self-standing WASh projects, when such development can be a very valuable catalyst for a much wider agricultural and rural development. These self standing WASH projects to a large extent "run off with the jam" and make wider agricultural and rural development harder.

This thought is spelled out a bit more in a piece I prepared earlier this year which is below.

The Corriere della Sera for 23 January gave favourable coverage to a press conference at the Davos World Economic Forum given by the co-founders, Gary White and the actor Matt Damon of a non-profit entity, Water.org. The aim of the agency is to assist developing countries to improve their domestic water and sanitation through micro-credit arrangements modelled on the Gramin Bank experience. Their target is to raise US$100 million by 2020 and, according to the Corriere’s report on the level of enthusiasm shown at the press conference - they may well be successful.

The Water.org initiative seems to be in line with the UN Global Compact CEO Water Mandate by which CEO’s of multinationals agree to undertake public-private partnerships to address problems of water scarcity. From only six signatories in 2007 some 93 multinational corporations have now endorsed the Mandate. The PepsiCo Foundation has pledged US$35 million to water programmes in developing countries, of which US$12.1 million goes to Water.org.  According to the Economist other multi-nationals investing in water (but not necessarily through Water.org) include the Caterpillar Foundation (US$11.3 million), IKEA Foundation (US$5 million), the Swiss Re Foundation, Bank of America Foundation, Levi Srauss & Co and Mastercard. 

All of this would appear to be extremely encouraging and a cause for celebration, if only all development assistance was equally easy and of equal attractiveness to both donors and beneficiaries. Unfortunately that is not the case. Drinking water and sanitation projects are at the top of the list of favourites for donors, governments and beneficiaries. They have the great advantage of being self-targeting to the poor, since the better-off have generally already made their arrangements; they tend to have a benefit bias towards women, since water provision for the family is generally considered women’s duty; and they make excellent political publicity. From the beneficiary’s viewpoint they have a beneficial and immediate impact on family welfare as soon as the works have been completed as well as providing employment during their construction. Technically water provision solutions are relatively straightforward and a sizeable programme can be mounted over a quite short,  2 or 3 years, implementation period.

In sharp contrast to water investments many rural project challenges are very much more difficult.

Take, for example, watershed management or forest rehabilitation projects. In both cases the usual situation is a steadily deteriorating physical and community condition, which somehow has to be turned round so that the areas are stabilised, environment better protected, hydraulic regime improved, productivity of the area and family incomes increased. All too often the background to such projects is a number of failed attempts funded either by government or donors.

To make any impact in this situation any project has to have the full commitment of the beneficiary population - and for this the beneficiaries have to have full confidence in the project. Initially beneficiaries are likely to be highly sceptical, not least because of bad past experiences. Moreover the project cannot realistically promise any breath-taking change in living standards. Better managed watershed or village forest means some improvement in living standards, but through items such as better feeding of housed livestock, planting of grasses along terrace edges, increased non-timber forest products and such-like relatively small - even if important - changes.  

As well as falling well outside the “get-rich-quick” category, such projects also require quite a bit of social engineering. User groups and committees need to be established at local, community and higher levels to help carry through the programme and to try to ensure equable sharing of costs and benefits. This is a complex and time consuming exercise[1][1][1].

This is the point at which inclusion of a drinking water or drinking water and sanitation component can have such a good impact. If the component is implemented early on in the project it can demonstrate immediately that the project is capable of delivering benefits, which is then reflected in greater interest and commitment to group formation and participation in project implementation.

The water component can therefore be said to have played a truly catalytic role in project implementation which will ultimately lead to a much more successful project outcome.

It is for these reasons that a strategy of having self-standing water or water and sanitation projects is likely to prove counter-productive.  Not being able to include a water component means that it is going to be more difficult to get full beneficiary participation, particularly of women. Not only do they have a direct interest and traditional responsibility for water provision, but in many instances become responsible for collection of money for maintenance and repair of the system, which can also develop into small communal processing enterprises or savings and micro-credit schemes.

Dear HLPE Secretariat,

We think it would be important to include something in the document about water quality implications to food safety. Looking at the zero draft, we thought that this could be done right upfront in the section 1.1.2 Water quality and food security and nutrition.

We therefore suggest to add the following text on page 13 line 19.

Many, if not most, foodborne illnesses can be related back to poor water quality used in food production and/or postharvest processing. Water can in fact  be the vehicle for both pathogens and chemical contaminants to be transferred from the environment into the food chain, thus impacting on Food Safety and Public Health. Water quality implications should be carefully considered not just from an environmental and agricultural perspective, but also taken into account to integrate Water Management, Public Health and Food Safety into joint policies and decision making. Furthermore,  the growing demand for quality water accompanied by the increasing water scarcity and pollution, calls for a more systematic and at the same time safe approach to water re-use (see section xxxx).

Thank you and best regards,

Vittorio Fattori

Food Safety and Quality Unit

1. Water should be free from corosive material.

2. Rivers in the areas of mining and oil refinaries should free from oil spillage to enhence fishing.

3. Water need need to be clean free from microorganisms.

4. Areas in Sub Sahara should be provide with wells for available water.

5. Fish and other living animal in water need to have water condusive to their survivals.

This is to provide clean drinking water and shelter to animal who uses water for living and those farmer using it for sourcve of income.

The zero draft has adequately  addressed the diversity of linkages between water, food security and nutrition. 

However, agricultural production alone is not sufficient to guarantee stable food supply and sustainable use of water.  Water use in processing, packaging and information technology could be carefully analysed to facilitate access to information which is one definite way of sharing and fostering linkages.

There is the need for education, research, policy, advocacy and partnerships on the use of water. What kind of partnerships do we need as we consider the weak linkage between agricultural processing and water use where more women are found and industry? 

Agriculture must be cast beyond production objectives to include agri-business related linkages and the relation to water. The bulk of the foods consumed in Africa are processed using very simple technologies and methods which diminish the use of water. These are indigenous food technologies where a lot of women are found. A typical example is in the processing of shea butter at Gbimsi in northern Ghana. The use of appropriate technology completely eliminates the use of water which indirectly saves the environment. Modernizing agriculture to eliminate pollution of water bodies will require a holistic, value chain  approach. Women’s involvement makes a difference on the global scene since gender is cross-cutting.  Gender mainstreaming must be considered in all steps in the food production and value addition activities if water is to be saved for other purposes.

These technologies affect the economic and social life of the operators who are mostly women and contribute to family nutritional status. Modernising to reduce water use may require Setting-up small scale co-packing facility to provide services to the small- and medium-scale food enterprises where women abound.

This could lead to less capital expense for equipment, plant or water. Informal education and other information sharing strategies should promote good handling and use of water, processing and packaging. Social equity and environmental justice must remain at the heart of sustainable development not forgetting equitable use and distribution of water.