Thank your for the opportunity to comment on this important report.
The introduction does not mention the purpose and scope of the report. It would be helpful to clearly place this report in the context of the other reports prepared by the HLPE, and also to relate its recommendations to the previous recommendations made in the already published reports.
1. The scope of the topic of water and food security is very broad. Do you think that the V0 draft has adequately charted the diversity of the linkages between water and food security and nutrition? Is there important evidence or aspects that the present draft has failed to cover?
The report addresses the broad topic comprehensively, which allows to obtaining a good overview, but in some chapters some more depth would be helpful:
- Chapter 1 would benefit a lot from a number of additional figures and maps, e.g. on global water availability, water scarcity, groundwater resources, expansion of irrigation, land and water use etc. Some of these figures could be taken from the CA report, which is cited extensively anyway.
- A figure on interfaces between water and food security is of major importance, your suggested figure 1 is a good starting point, and I assume that it is only a sketch that will be redrawn in a more professional way.
- Chapter 2.1.3 on resilience of agriculture to climate change is very basic, some more details including IPCC scenarios would be helpful
- Chapter 2.3.1 should be beefed up with more insights and figures on the potential of marginal water use for irrigation, as well as on associated health risk through contaminated food and measures to prevent it.
- Chapter 2.4.4 on agroecology is very general and lacks a more profound water focus. The chapter should qualify and quantify the potential of agroecological approaches to increase water productivity.
- Chapter 2.5.1: The use of the water footprint concept in water for agriculture would deserve a more detailed discussion of opportunities and challenges
- Chapter 3.5.1: The proposed SDG framework is only addressed very briefly and generally. The proposed SDG framework by the open working group suggests in goal 6 e.g. to substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors, and in goal 2 e.g to double agricultural productivity and to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices. The way how these goals are finally formulated, how they are measured and implemented is probably one of the main drivers that shapes the water for food security discussion in the near future. The suggested SDG frameworks would thus deserve a much broader discussion. And how do these goals relate to the recommendations in the final chapter?
2. Has the report adequately covered the diversity of approaches and methodological issues, in particular concerning metrics and data for water and food security? Which metrics do you find particularly useful and which not?
I miss a specific chapter on water metrics and availability of data. Some aspects (e.g. water accounting and scarcity of data) are covered in 1.4 on the dynamics of water scarcity, in chapter 2.4 water productivity is explained (but without giving a clear definition) and in chapter 2.5 the concepts of water footprint and virtual water are introduced. It would also be helpful to give a clear definition of water efficiency (as compared to water productivity), as e.g. the proposed SDG framework speaks about water use efficiency and water productivity. The recent IWMI report “On target for people and planet” gives a good introduction into water productivity, water efficiency and water accounting and could be used as inspiration.
The report mentions the challenge that global, regional and national data often lack granularity to understand the extremely different and local water contexts across the globe. Many global indices and debates in the water domain are highly generalized and often too aggregate to take on board local nuances and differences. The report is silent on how to tackle this challenge and I miss a recommendation that more locally relevant metrics should be developed.
The potential of new ICT approaches to monitoring water resources through both remote sensing and crowd sensing (through mobile phones) and to disseminate relevant information is mentioned in recommendation No 8, but not further reflected in the previous chapters.
3. Food security involves trade of agricultural produce, and a virtual trade of water. Agricultural trade interacts with water and food security in various ways, and differently for food importing countries, food exporting countries, water scarce versus water rich countries. Do you think the V0 draft has appropriately covered the matter?
The concept of virtual water is very appealing for informed decision-making on where to grow what crop or whether to substitute domestic food production with food imports. However, in practice such decisions involve huge trade-offs for policy makers in terms of food sovereignty and in terms of economic development of domestic rural areas. The report covers this matter rather briefly. Is there already evidence that the virtual water concept has in fact shaped policy decisions for substitution of domestic food production with food imports? If yes, it would be interesting to mention this.
The challenge with the virtual water concept is that it looks only into one production factor (water) and its application might lead to economic inefficiencies. From a global water security perspective, the decision on where to grow what crop should be rather based on the long term sustainability of water withdrawals for a given area (where demand matches supply without depleting water tables and ecosystems). If long term sustainability of water withdrawals is not given in a certain area, some agricultural water use could be substituted by food import– but not necessarily from a region with the lowest virtual water amount for production, but from a region with a sustainable water use profile.
4. In this report, we considered the potential for an expansion of the right to water to also encompass productive uses. What kind of practical and policy challenges would this bring?
The report discusses the existing and potential further linkages between the human right to food and the human right to water. We should definitely consider the human right to drinking water and sanitation and the human right to food jointly and assess their combined effect on protecting livelihoods and water resources. However, the recommendations in the report go much beyond the exploration of linkages, but suggest an expansion of the right to drinking water and sanitation which would include the right to water for productive use and the right to water for ecosystems.
Many developing countries are struggling to respect, protect and fulfil the human right to drinking water and sanitation, mainly due to lack of funds. While the importance of water for productive uses and water for ecosystems is not to be questioned, I don’t expect that an expansion of the right to water to encompass productive uses and ecosystems would make any difference on the ground, but instead it could impede the progressive realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation by creating confusion and by shifting priorities and financial resources. It is important that countries respect existing water rights – be they formal or informal – for productive uses of vulnerable groups, but this should be achieved by other means than a human right to productive water use. The practical challenges of a human right to productive water use seem almost insurmountable: One would have to define the water amount for productive use that is sufficient for the right to be respected. This amount will vary significantly even on a local scale according to rainfall, cultivated crop, soil, etc. Furthermore, subsistence farming in developing countries is predominantly rain-fed, to respect a right to productive water use under the variable climatic conditions (and specifically in the case of a dry-spell) would entail the building of massive infrastructure (be it development of water harvesting infrastructure, pipelines or groundwater development) for which the financial resources would not available anyway. And it could potentially result in a misallocation of water that does not reflect economically and environmentally reasonable water use: wherever somebody decides to settle the state would be obliged to provide water for productive use.
As for the right to water to support the ecosystem, which is also suggested to be included in a more comprehensive right to water, the challenges to define what is needed to protect this right would be even bigger. Protecting water related ecosystems should be a matter of both domestic and international environmental law and not of an universal human right to water.
In recommendation 12 it is suggested that “the alignment of the rights to water and food would prioritize the right to water for food production over water use for other uses, at whatever scale”. While this is justified to a certain point, one should not forget the urban poor who depend on a job in order to buy sufficient food. They need industry to provide job opportunities – a too narrow focus that only looks into food security of smallholders misses the big picture and inherent trade-off in achieving food security for all.
Another issue that needs a clearer presentation in the report is the sustainability of water management and managing water within its local limits and its importance for future generations. A human right does not provide an excuse to overuse natural resources for the benefit of present populations and at the expense of future populations. This would go against the sustainability principle (environmental sustainability). This is clearly mentioned in many papers on Human Rights and it is also mentioned in this report but not as explicit (fundamental principle) as one would wish.
5. Which systemic actions/solutions/approaches would be the most effective to enhance water governance, management and use for food security?
Despite some criticism of the IWRM approach raised in the paper, I strongly believe that this approach, if followed in a pragmatic and flexible way and considering the local context holds the key for improved water governance and water management. The core element of IWRM is to look simultaneously into the different water use sectors and to try to balance the joint water use of all the sectors together with supply in a sustainable way. Existing challenges with the IWRM concept might stem from a too rigid and sometimes donor-driven application, but this does not mean that the concept as such is flawed or not valid. If the IWRM concept is not perceived as a blueprint approach with fixed expectations on the outcomes, but as a transitional process from a mostly informal to a mostly formal water economy, it is still the approach that holds the biggest potential to enhance water governance, including for food security.
Manfred Kaufmann