Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Many thanks for your open invitation for comments on the Water and Food Security zero-draft consultation paper.

I would like to provide brief insights in order to draw attention on the need to explore stronger arguments about the power of transnational capital and the threat that it represents when seeking systemic actions to attain water and food security.

The rise of development strategies focusing on economic growth at all cost and dismantling the role of the state poses a challenge for the implementation of the human rights approach. Therefore, it would be useful to contextualise the human rights approach with broader development strategies that gives prevalence to the private sector, concentration of capital and commodification of nature.

So long as development strategies are geared towards resource extraction and export oriented production under free market regimes, there will be an inherent conflict of interest for states to protect natural resources and subsequently to ensure food security. There are many documented cases within the extractive industry that provide testimony of this. A landmark case is the devastating impact of the oil extraction in the Ogoniland-Nigeria over a period of 50 years affecting millions of people. (Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland, United Nations Environment Programme, 2011). The unregulated environment for corporations and the voluntary nature of their corporate social responsibility programmes are inconsistent with national legal frameworks and human rights covenants.

Development strategies pursued through public-private partnerships, where public money has been shifted towards promoting corporate led initiatives such the New Alliance for food Security and Nutrition and Agricultural Corridors in Africa, have been widely contested by civil society, as they are expanding corporate control on natural resources and destruction of livelihoods.

The institutional, political and legal apparatus that protects transnational capital through free trade agreements and direct foreign investment needs to be deconstructed in order to bring back the functionality of the human rights approach. Investment treaties and free trade agreements offer few instructions as to how such agreements should be reconciled with human rights obligations of the state. Governments might pursue policies and measures in furtherance of human rights obligations, only to encounter allegations that such initiatives run afoul of parallel international obligations to protect foreign investors and their activities. (Luke Eric Peterson, 2009).

The report would benefit by arguing a stronger case for:

1.     Recommending the food sovereignty framework alongside the agroecology as a viable strategy to build food regimes that ensure water governance, management and use for food security at local and global levels. 

2.     Exposing the conflict of interest between corporate social responsibility and its unsuitability to protect the public interest.

3.     Recommending binding regulations that give power to the state to hold corporations accountable.

4. Exposing cases where state is confronted with protecting foreign direct investment and human rights protection, in order to reject the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. 

Best regards

Graciela Romero 

International Programmes Director

War on Want

Dear Sir or Madame,

first of all I would like to congratulate you to this very comprehensive report on a very relevant aspect. While reading it, I noticed that you focus entirely on the water footprint according to Hoekstra and colleagues when it comes to assessing the amount of water consumed in food production.

While this approach developed by the Water Footprint Network is well known, easy to understand, and well established, I would like to draw your attention to the limitations and drawbacks of such a volumetric method. Simply aggregating volumes of blue, green, and gray water fails to a address the much more relevant dimension of water use: the local impacts resulting from it. Obviously 1 m³ of rain water consumption in Brazilian soy bean production does not compare to 1 m³ of ground water consumption in Spanish tomato production. Consequently, these volumetric figures can be drastically misleading, as products with smaller volumetric footprints in water scarce regions can actually cause more severe consequences than product which consume more water in water abundant areas.

The understanding of the scientific community (including the Water Footprint Network) is that the determination of water consumption volumes is the first step only. Subsequently, the volume of water consumed needs to be interpreted based on parameters like local scarcity, sensitivity of ecosystems, ability of the population to compensate water stress, etc. Attached you can find a position paper of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s working group on water use in LCA (WULCA)  regarding the consideration of water use and associated impacts along product’s life cycle.

Further, I would like to mention that an ISO standard (ISO 14046: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=43263) has been launched this year, which represents the international consensus on how water should be assessed along product life cycles. According to this standard a water footprint is a “metric(s) that quantifies the potential environmental impacts related to water”. Hence, a purely volumetric analysis of the amount of water used or consumed can be termed a water inventory but not a water footprint. This is in conflict with statement in you draft, which states: “The water footprint of a product is defined as the total volume of fresh water that is used directly or indirectly to produce the product” (Page 47, Line 11)

By assessing impact resulting from water use, the water footprint has developed from an inventory to an impact oriented indicator. In that way it is consistent with the carbon footprint, in which various greenhouse gas emissions are weighted according to their environmental relevance. In the same way that GHG emissions can be multiplied by a factor denoting the specific global warming potential, water consumption in different regions can be multiplied by a factor denoting the regional scarcity and sensitivity.

I my opinion your report, that will be of high relevance, should reflect the scientific development which has taken place during the last years. These new aspects can also be integrated quite easily into the existing version I think. If it can be of help, I can also assist you in this respects and make a few proposals.

Kind regards from Berlin,

Markus Berger

We welcome this report, as water is essential for agriculture and critical for the maintenance of human life on earth. We also welcome the recognition of the increase in the consumption of livestock products as one of the main factors behind the increased demand for water.

The report does mention the differences in water consumption between animal products that come from different species, and it also mentions the differences between products from different systems (e.g. grass-based vs grain-fed for ruminants). However, we think that is important to analyse the interaction between both factors.

In that sense, we believe that more emphasis should be given to the distinction between the different components of the water footprint (i.e. green, blue and grey). While we recognize the difficulties in measuring water footprints ad specially, their individual components (blue, green and grey water), it is critical to evaluate the differences between these components in the local context (e.g. in areas with high rainfall, green water use is of lesser concern), to properly evaluate the differences between production systems: beef might have a larger water footprint than pork or chicken, but if we are talking about grass-fed beef, most of that water would probably be rainwater (green) and its usage would have far less impact, whereas in the case of pork and chicken (especially in industrial production systems), a larger proportion of that water would be blue and grey and thus, more relevant. We are attaching a copy of a report that provides further clarification on these issues, as well as figures to support these claims.

The report also points out that livestock production is becoming more and more functionally segregated from crops production, and we’d ad that there is also a geographical segregation, that’s present at the farm, regional, country and even continental level.

Considering that 40% of the cereals and the vast majority of soybean produced globally are directed to feeding livestock, and that those animals are usually reared in different regions to the one where the crops are originated, grain-dependant livestock farming represents a huge part of the virtual water trade that’s mentioned in the report. Furthermore, this practice also favours nutrient accumulation in the areas dedicated to livestock production (mostly via manure accumulation) which further increases grey water footprint in the destination (as well as nutrient depletion in the regions where the crops are grown).

Grain feeding of ruminants also increases the water footprint of ruminant meat, as grain and other concentrated feedstuffs have a much higher water footprint than grass and roughages (and a less favourable distribution between the 3 components of water footprints), as shown in our attached report.

Taking all of the above in consideration, it becomes clear that the increase in production of livestock products has direct as well as indirect effects on water use. Increased production of a water demanding product (e.g. meat) increases water use. Furthermore, the increasing demand for meat can only be met by industrial systems that present serious risks, not just for water, but for every limited resource we depend on this planet.

Once we accept that the increase in the demand for animal products is a big cause of the increase water use, we must accept that besides working on increase the water use efficiency of livestock production (and doing it without increasing its footprints for other impacts), we should be thinking about regulating the demand, to make sure to keep it at the levels that can be achieve by sustainable production.

We welcome the inclusion of the “Addressing changing diets” category among the policy recommendations. However, due to all that was expressed here, we believe that there is the need for a stronger call to address consumption patterns, to move away from water demanding products (including, but not limited to meat). This is mainly the role of the states (as well as the consumers), and we’d like to see an explicit mention in the recommendations to the shift away from water demanding products (and production methods). In the recommendation for the private sector, we would like to see some clarification that the improvements on water efficiency shouldn’t be made at the expenses of other equally valuable resources and the call for a holistic view of sustainability (i.e. not focusing on one metric at the time).

We would also like to see recommendation regarding the different production systems (as illustrated in this commentary around grain vs grass based systems for ruminants, but the argument also extends to other systems).

Finally, we would encourage the consideration of recommendation to reduce food waste, which can be also seen as a virtual water waste (in the same lines of the virtual water trade).

Dear High Level Panel of Experts:

ActionAid USA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Committee on World Food Security’s (CFS) High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) V0 draft report on Water and Food Security. ActionAid is an international organization, working in 45 countries to further human rights for all and defeat poverty. Our comments focus on the impacts of biofuels production on water quality and quantity, an important issue that report touches on but, in our view, could expand upon greatly. Biofuels have arisen as an issue affecting not only food security but also water quality and quantity, and challenges will only worsen as global biofuels mandates increase over the coming decade. As the draft report states, “biofuels consume significant quantities of water” and are just one of many industries putting pressure on water supplies around the world. The report draft rightly acknowledges important issues related to increased biofuels production on water availability, water quality, and other socioeconomic impacts, such as increased use of irrigation, loss of land tenure due to international land grabs to grow biofuels feedstocks, and the likelihood that biofuels production fails to benefit smallholder farmers in water scarce contexts.

In addition to these important issues, ActionAid also recommends that the final report include discussions of the following concerns surrounding biofuels’ impacts on water and food security:

(1) The quantity of water used directly in the production of biofuels at ethanol and biodiesel facilities, in addition to biofuels feedstocks such as sugarcane, soy, and corn.

(2) How this demand for water may increase in the future as biofuels mandates are expanded worldwide, for both feedstocks and the production of biofuels at ethanol and biodiesel facilities. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations (FAO) estimate biofuels production to increase 50 to 60 percent over the coming decade; other international estimates, such as those from the International Energy Agency (IEA) predict even greater expansion of global biofuels production over the same time period.i The corresponding increase in water demand and effects on water quality will be immense as first-generation biofuels, produced primarily from food crops, continue to dominate the biofuels market and require large amounts of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides. The production of potentially less water- and input-intensive second generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol derived from perennial grasses or agricultural wastes has yet to reach commercial production. As the National Academy of Sciences predicted in a 2011

report, companies attempting to produce cellulosic biofuels will continue to struggle with technological and economic challenges, while first-generation biofuels largely produced from food crops continue to degrade water quality and require more water than gasoline in their production process.ii

(3) How water quality issues are exacerbated by biofuels production, particularly in areas growing input-intensive biofuels feedstocks and refining biofuels (such as the American Midwest). Over half of all US waters are impaired or threatened, many the result of agricultural fertilizer and chemical runoff from large-scale farms growing corn and soybeans.iii ActionAid Brazil released a report in Oct. 2014 detailing how smallholder farmers and local communities are no longer able to grow food for their families or local

markets due to the degradation of water supplies and the application of harmful herbicides and pesticides on nearby sugar and soybean fields.iv

(4) How increased water usage for biofuels feedstock production and biofuels production affects food security, both at a local and international level. Currently, approximately

65% of EU vegetable oil, 40% of the US corn crop, and 50% of Brazilian sugarcane are used for biofuels.v Biofuels crops such as corn and soybeans are some of the most water- intensive crops grown around the world. With increased production of food-based, water- intensive biofuels in the coming years, pressure on commodity and food prices will increase as greater percentages of crops are used for biofuels and as price increases encourage large-scale farms to grow fuel instead of food crops. The UN CFS’s expert panel report on biofuels in 2013 noted that “biofuels and more generally bioenergy compete for land and water with food production.” A 2011 report, commissioned by G20

agricultural ministers, recommended that countries “remove provisions of current national policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or consumption,” acknowledging that biofuels production was a significant factor in increased food price and food price volatility. Other experts have estimated that biofuels production was responsible for 10-15% of food price increases and up to 30% of grain price increases since 2007.vi Impacts will only worsen if food-based and land-intensive biofuels mandates and other subsidies continue on auto-pilot.

(5) How women in particular are affected by the loss of access to adequate, clean water supplies and affordable and nutritious food since they bear the burden of providing food, water, and fuel for their families in many parts of the world. As the report acknowledges, there are “trade-offs between water uses/users [which should be tackled] in an equitable, gender just and deliberative manner.”

The HLPE also welcomed “examples on how the role of water for food security and nutrition is accounted for in land governance and management and land-use, including links between land tenure and water rights.” The land rush for biofuels and other agricultural production has resulted in vast tracts of land being sold or leased to commercial interests, many of which are large multinational biofuels companies or agribusinesses aiming to export biofuels to the EU, US, and other countries with large biofuels mandates. Local communities lose land previously used for farming, animal grazing, fishing and gathering wild foods, as well as for wood and water collection, when land deals prioritize investors and outside interests over local livelihoods.

Biofuel-related land deals displacing local communities have been documented in countries ranging from Cambodia to Tanzania.vii

Finally, we believe there is a typo in the last sentence at end of page 63:  the text should indicate that some companies have received water rights even without sufficient water available for such operations, but the word “without” is absent from the sentence.

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report as we work towards increasing food security, access to clean water, and land tenure rights for the most vulnerable populations around the world. If you have any questions, please contact me at  Kristin.sundell [at] actionaid.org.

Sincerely, Kristin Sundell

i http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Oilcrops/Documents/OECD_Repor ts/biofuels_chapter.pdf

ii http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13105,

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12039&page=45

iii http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control

iv http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/biofuels_energy_hunger.pdf

v

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Oilcrops/Documents/OECD_Repor ts/biofuels_chapter.pdf

vi http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-ethanol.pdf, http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/vonbraun20080612.pdf

vii http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/the_great_land_heist.pdf

HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report: Water and Food Security

Submission by Brian O’Riordan, Belgium (Liaison) Office Secretary, International Collective in Support of Fishworkers. Contact e mail [email protected]

The International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), an international network with a Secretariat based in Chennai, India and a liaison office in Belgium, would like to submit the following comments to the consultation on the VO draft of the HLPE report on Water and Food Security, as regards the fishery and aquaculture related aspects.

2.4.1 Improving water and land productivities

Page 39, para 2 lines 8 and 9. The statement “better integration of fisheries and aquaculture with water management systems can also improve water productivity” needs considerable qualification.

Intensification of large scale aquaculture, especially export oriented production, goes hand in hand with more intensive use of external inputs – including industrially produced feeds, antibiotics, pesticides, and a variety of chemicals. This generates considerable pollution with high levels of solid and liquid organic wastes. Pollution of waters by intensive feed based aquaculture reduces downstream water quality, due to eutrophication processes in the water column and on the seabed, and productivity with implications for public health and aquatic biodiversity.

Escapes from fish farms, especially of carnivorous and exotic species, have implications for biodiversity and ecosystems by displacement and elimination of local species including through spread of disease. These impacts have major implications for local food security when such large scale aquaculture operations impact on small scale fisheries, shell fish collectors, and aquaculture. For example in Chile, South America (notably the Chiloe archipelago), intensive salmon farming has caused toxic “red tides”, causing the closure of local shellfish farming and fishery activities. The escape of salmon into the local environment has impacted on local artisanal fisheries. In tropical Asian and Latin American countries intensive aquaculture of shrimp has had similar impacts, with the clearance of mangrove areas, pollution of groundwater, displacement of communities, closure of fishing grounds and violence against local communities.

Better integration of fisheries and aquaculture with water management systems to improve water quality as well as food security and nutrition should focus on:

a)      developing extensive, low input, labour intensive, small-scale activities, mainly oriented to local markets, and in the case aquaculture focussed on species low in the food chain, and based on indigenous species.

b)      fisheries enhancement through “culture based capture fisheries”, optimizing the potential of  reservoirs and other water bodies for sustainable and equitable fishery production.

c)       protecting the land tenure, fishery access and user rights of communities that have traditionally depended on extraction of living aquatic resources.

d)      Ensuring the siting/construction of intensive and large scale aquaculture projects away from sensitive coastal ecosystems like mangroves and the river mouths.

e)      Establishing a proper process of consultation, assuring the rights of affected communities and civil society to access information as part of environmental and social impact evaluations.

f)       Establishing control and monitoring processes that are participative and transparent during the implementation of aquaculture projects.

2.4.5. Diversifying with Fisheries and Aquaculture

Page 45, lines 11 to 33.

Lines 12 to 14 rightly refer to the recent HLPE report on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition. Mention should also be made of the recommendations to the CFS 41 drafted by the rapporteur of the Round Table on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition. Reference should also be made to the considerable body of work undertaken by the FAO Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture over many years to increase understanding of and to document evidence of the linkages between fisheries and food security and nutrition.

Line 16 of the report notes that “high technology cage fisheries can produce 18 up to 100 kg of fish for each cubic meter of water”. However, this overlooks the downstream impacts of the pollution caused by the solid organic wastes produced by such cage operations (dead fish, uneaten food, faeces, and so on), or the pollution by the use of antibiotics, pesticides and other chemical treatment of fungal, parasitic, bacterial and viral diseases, which have implications for small-scale capture fishery operations and other small-scale productive activities in the area.

Lines 18 to 21. It is not correct to say that “fisheries are mostly run by small farmers”. Although in many countries, notably South East Asia, certain kinds of small scale aquaculture practices are integrated into the farming systems, and fish farming activities may be run by small farmers, this is not the overall rule. Fishing operations – i.e. the catching of fish - are generally carried out by men who often don’t engage in other productive activities. On the other hand women are engaged in productive, economic and social and cultural activities throughout the fisheries value chain, in fishing as well as in upstream and downstream pre- and post-harvest activities. Hence the “vital gender” dimension referred to, a dimension that often goes unrecognized and unrewarded. But the role of small farmers in fisheries is limited to certain kinds of fish farming operations that are integrated into farming systems (such as the case with mixed rice and fish cultivation, or in the case of farming waste and by products being recycled in fish farming).

Lines 22 to 27. It would be important to mention the significance of the recently approved FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small Scale Fisheries in the context of food security and poverty eradication (SSF Guidelines) and the role these have to play in contributing to the food security and nutritional needs of poor rural communities in many areas, as well as of the world at large. The SSF Guidelines have been developed over a 7 year period (from 2007 to 2014), with a high level of inclusion and participation. The implementation of the SSF Guidelines will be very important for improving food security and nutrition, especially for marginalized and vulnerable groups. The SSF Guidelines support responsible fisheries and sustainable social and economic development for the benefit of current and future generations, with an emphasis on small-scale fishers and fish workers and related activities and including vulnerable and marginalized people promoting a human rights-based approach.

Lines 26 and 27. Increasing competition for access to and use of coastal and aquatic resources and other commons (coastal areas and fresh waters sources), is also leading to privatization of these resources and the access/ user rights to them, to the detriment of the food security and nutrition of the people who have traditionally depended on accessing these resources. The aquatic equivalent of “land grabs” - “water grabs” - are also a growing concern, with mass tourism projects, energy generation projects, expansion of port infrastructure, industrial aquaculture, and conservation projects displacing fishing communities with implications for food security and nutrition at all levels. 

Box 21 page 68 could usefully include a section on Voluntary Guidelines that have been adopted. These include:

Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y7937e/y7937e00.htm

Voluntary Guidelines Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/nr/land_tenure/pdf/VG_Final_May_2012.pdf

Volunary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication.

Draft Recommendations – 10 Water Governance:

Page 81, lines 11 to 18:

Please include:

States and Civil Society should promote the implementation of the VGGT and SSF Guidelines.

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 is the first within the CFS context to bring together the topics of water and food security and as such makes an important contribution to policy debates and fields of action. The scope is broad and the report comprehensive as it needs to be in order to cover the terrain. 

An aspect which deserves further attention is the impact of different agricultural models on water resources. This is given only a cursory examination. Yet food crop monocultures use up to ten times more water than biodiverse agricultural systems. The water intensity and pollution associated with industrial agriculture and the increasing use of agro-chemicals should be recognised as problems demanding policy re-evaluation. Conversely, more emphasis should be given to water practices rooted in diversified, agro-ecological farming approaches as true leaders in sustainability. 

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?

The report is fairly evenhanded in its diversity of approaches and methodological issues. The report correctly highlights the pressing issue of water stress and water scarcity and provides various figures to underline the urgent need for action and planning. Although it does mention that water scarcity has been induced by policy failures in addition to a number of other factors, this is an area that deserves further attention.

The engineering of scarcity through ecological irrational decision making such as the growing of water intensive biofuel crops in fragile ecosystems like the Tana River Delta in Kenya, the planting of industrial tree plantations which require high volumes of water, and the pollution and degradation of water through the push for Green Revolution style packages of agro-chemical inputs, all need to be brought in here. 

But policy failures occur even before this as well through the human destruction of local environments e.g. through deforestation and the constant over-use of water resources, all of which reduce the water retentive ability of soils and vegetative cover. In extreme cases, this can affect entire river basins and lead to processes of desertification. 

A more thorough examination of some of these issues could lead to some interesting conclusions and point towards other interventions such as reducing water demand and increasing water conservation and recycling efforts.

3. Food security involves trade of agricultural produce, and a virtual trade of water. Agricultural trade interact 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 report brings in the concepts of the virtual trade in water and the water footprint as useful tools which illuminate the water embedded in products that form part of increasingly globalised supply chains. While this is to be welcomed, there are some concerns in the way these concepts are then used in the report.

The trade in virtual water should not be used to suggest an unproblematic exchange between water abundance and water shortage guided by the theory of comparative advantage. Rather, the complex linkages between meeting water demand in one region and the creation of water pressure and scarcity in another should be highlighted. 

The trade in virtual water is rapidly transforming and transnationalising the waterscapes upon which local lives and livelihoods depend, especially as countries are increasingly seeking not only to trade in virtual water but also to ‘lock in’ access to water reserves by acquiring productive land with good access to water abroad. The case of Saudi Arabian investments in Africa has been well documented. While these lock ins and offshoring of production may help capital rich, water deficit countries to resolve their own water and food constraints, the impacts on local livelihoods and ecologies have often not been positive.

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 recommendation of the report to expand the scope of the Right to Water to include also productive uses is most welcome. Water is essential for food production and the realisation of the right to adequate food and the achievement of a decent standard of living. Based on the indivisibility of human rights and the clear way in which water is already deeply intertwined in the daily lives and decision making processes of food producers (both small and large), an expanded approach tot the right to water is most logical.

As the report notes, this recommendation does bring with it many practical and policy challenges. Foremost among them, is how to determine priorities among competing uses of water between different sectors and different actors. Clearly these priorities and contestations are not easy to determine and resolve. In the human rights field, priority is given to the most vulnerable and marginalised. As elaborated in General Comment No. 15 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in ensuring sustainable access to water resources for agriculture to realise the right to adequate food, states shall give attention “to ensuring that disadvantaged and marginalised farmers, including women farmers, have equitable access to water and water management systems”. 

Some countries have taken up this issue of prioritising water use and allocation according to human rights based criteria. Ecuador’s new constitution of 2009 for example affords priority to human consumption and to uses that guarantee food sovereignty and natural processes. Article 318 of the constitution stipulates that water resources shall be destined first to human consumption, then to irrigation to secure food sovereignty, then to ensure environmentally adequate levels of flow in the country’s rivers, and finally to other productive activities.

A second and related challenge is how to effectively link land tenure and water governance regimes through a consistent human rights based approach to these issues. The report could take a clearer position in this respect on the link between land grabbing and water grabbing. Water is a critical factor in land grabbing - both as a driver and as a target. It is determinant in shaping which lands are attractive for investment and which are not and often an investors’ control over land comes with a corresponding control over water. If prior and independent impact assessments are not carried out and local people’s water uses, management systems, and future needs are not adequately recognised, the danger exists that these land investments may negatively appropriate water resources, particularly in contexts marked by significant power inequalities. The need for careful land use planning, rigorous assessments of the impacts of land use changes and the transfer of user rights, and the application of human rights based principles such as non-discrimination, participation, and transparency are paramount.

Following on from this, an important expansion of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Water - as recommended in the report - is to track violations to the right to water. Developing qualified and reliable monitoring tools to track violations and impacts on the most vulnerable when their rights are under threat could be very powerful.

Finally, given the many challenges presented by this and other issues raised in the report and the lack of a global governance instrument on water, a very sound recommendation that the report makes is for the CFS to initiate an inclusive and participatory multi-stakeholder process to formulate International Guidelines on Water Management. 

5. Which systemic actions/solutions/approaches would be the most effective to enhance water governance, management and use for food security?

What is needed above all is a just, democratic and human rights based approach to issues of water governance, management and use for food security.

The report correctly identifies the legal pluralism and the complexity across waterscapes and tenure regimes when it comes to governing for water for food security, noting that this legal pluralism can be both enabling and disabling but that in most instances it is difficult for local users to defend their claims. A key action to be taken, as recommended in the report, is thus to make the ‘invisible’ users of land and water (referring to indigenous peoples, fishers, pastoralists and small-scale food producers who largely lack formal access or titles to land and water) more visible in policy processes and programmes. Recognition and strengthening of customary, collective and informal systems of water management is therefore essential. 

To illustrate the point on the vital contribution that a democratic and people rather than profit-centred models of water governance can make to food security:

While governments (both local and central) are still the main actors to provide water services and are the principal duty bearer to ensure access to water for all citizens, the absence of the government in the vast peri-urban and rural communities is the de facto reality in many countries, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Very often unofficial, autonomous community water systems have filled this gap to organise, run and provide water to community members. Such water systems are not only critical for subsistence and public health but also to sustain livelihoods including food production. There is a rich diversity among community systems, taking on different forms e.g. cooperatives and different names e.g. water committee in Bolivia and community aqueduct in Colombia. Their defining features is their autonomy, having their own norms and mandates to manage public goods.

In Columbia, there are 12,000 community aqueducts and 26% of the population is served by such community autonomous systems. Community aqueducts tend to be isolated (geographically and politically) and not-acknowledged or treated with hostility by local authorities and as a result often have little access to public financing. But the community aqueduct in La Sirena, the peri-urban and rural areas of the department of Valle del Cauca (outside of the city of Cali) is an empowering example of how a community aqueduct can contribute directly to the right to water and the creation of sustainable livelihoods.  The aqueduct in La Sirena has built a partnership with the water workers’ union SINTRACUAVALLE (the public water company ACUAVALLE operating in the Valle del Cauca). Voluntary workers have provided technical support to the  community aqueducts in La Sirena under the horizontal partnership agreement.  Technical support includes knowledge on administrative management, water quality control and preserving water resources in the community where the water comes from. Keeping its autonomous character, the aqueduct in La Sirena has enhanced its capacity to extend and improve its services to the community. Importantly, the aqueduct has built its own water systems (infrastructure) with contributions (labor and finance) from community members and has built a democratic form of governance to sustain the system. La Sirena illustrates how a community aqueduct can contribute to the community’s livelihood (water and food production) especially when they receive appropriate external support. (Find more details at: http://www.municipalservicesproject.org/publication/labour-and-community...). 

Similar positive examples exist elsewhere. In Tameis and Girardota in Colombia, local authorities have acknowledged community water systems (ACUATAMESIS and GIRAGUAS respectively) as water providers and supported them through the the allocation of public finance to upscale their water systems. This arrangement can be called public-community partnerships. In Bolivia, collaborations between water committees (community water operator) are emerging. San Miguel Km 4 Water committee and Habitat for Women in the Auxilidadora Community from one of the poorest neighbourhoods areas of Cochabamba have made a partnership to help each other and enhance their capacity. Now the women’s organisation is providing water to Auxilidadora community. (For more information, see the video at: http://www.tni.org/multimedia/all-one-and-one-all?context=599) 

Community water systems are thus a key actor to tackle water and food insecurity in rural and peri urban areas which point the way for just, democratic and sustainable systems of water use and management.

Dear Sir,

Allow me to present the following brief comments on the report:

1. The Report provides a comprehensive examination of a range of issues related to the complexity of water and food security interrelationships. Many of these are captured in Fig.1. It is an important and critical contribution to global policy debates.

2. In general, I don't think the report provides sufficient examination of the food-non-food production relationships in agriculture, which are critical to income and (therefore) non-own production relationships and food security. There is a need to break down agriculture as described in the report per types of crop, animal husbandry and other outputs.

3. The report explicitly focuses on farming, but in reality provides little exploration of farmers -- they tend to be regarded as a homogenised group, undifferentiated in scale, scope, gender and geographical variation. Breaking down the complexity of this global community is essential to understanding the management challenge for the 70% or more of water that passes through farmers' fields, crops and range of technologies.

4. Virtual water is mentioned, as is water footprinting, but there is little examination of the 'missing middle', i.e. local, regional and global trade in food, global demand and supply shifts and the roles of key governments and corporations.

5. The concluding recommendations are on the whole sound. If the right to sufficient water to meet the FSN requirements of the poor is to be developed further, very clear guidance will be needed on thresholds of water need per different agro-ecologies, as well as specific metrics on understanding the local complexities of defining 'water efficiency' in different types of agriculture. These are not insurmountable challenges.

Kindest Regards,

Dr Alan Nicol

To whom it may concern

The report is quite an impressive work. However, I agree with previous comments, that it is trying to cover everything at the expense of covering the details as well as providing a consistent report.

I will focus my comments on the environmental assessment and footprint of water consumption for ensuring food security.

Especially the chapter 2.5.1 is very biased and does not account for international consensus finding and discussions around the water footprint concept. For instance the new ISO norm on water footprint is in contradiction to the concepts described here (ISO 14046). This reflects the discussion in scientific community that provide more insights into water footprint assessment, that are relevant for assessing environmental issues of water consumption. Some studies are:

Pfister S, Ridoutt BG (2013) Water Footprint: Pitfalls on Common Ground. Environmental Science & Technology 48:4-4 doi:10.1021/es405340a

• Pfister, S. and Hellweg, S. (2009). The water "shoesize" vs. footprint of bioenergy (Letter). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106:E93-E94; doi:10.1073/pnas.0908069106
• Ridoutt, BG. and Pfister, S. (2010). A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environmental Change, 2010, 20(1), 113–120
• Pfister, S.; Bayer, P.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S. (2011). Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environmental Science and Technology, 2011, 45(13), 5761–5768

These papers discuss the relevance of the location of water use, since water used in arid places is more relevant than that used in water-abundant places. Furthermore, combination of green and blue water is not making sense from a water resource perspective, but rather within the virtual water concept (showing how much water can be saved by imports). However, Water footprint tries to account for impacts.

Furthermore the combination with grey water is very strange, since dilution volumes without physical meaning are combined with water volumes. This text should be revised to account for the shortcomings of the presented method and provide solutions to this provided in scientific literature.

Furthermore, the temporal timing of water consumption is a key issue too, which has been accounted for by Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011 in the blue water scarcity index and further elaborated in Pfister and Bayer 2013 (monthly water stress).

Due to the above mentioned critical issues, the presented numbers for water footprint are not indicating the pressure on water resources. Beef produced in Swiss alpine grassland is almost free of any water (could be ~100 liter per kg) consumption and therefore of much lower water footprint than protein from irrigated crops! The presented numbers must be put in context and also the uncertainty and spatial variability must be mentioned (compare above references).

Beyond this, more holistic approaches such as LCA, combining different environmental aspects might be added to avoid trade-offs between water consumption and pollution with more advanced methods for pollution assessment.

Kind regards

Dr. Stephan Pfister

Senior Research Associate

ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Thank you to the HLPE for the opportunity to comment on this report.Water and food security is a broad topic and the report does a good job in highlighting many important aspects, however we have suggestions in filling some critical gaps. The below comments also cover the other questions.

Crises/conflict

There is a lack of real analysis/engagement with water as it relates to food insecurity and nutrition in situations of conflict, occupation and war, where water issues are critical and in some cases can prolong or exacerbate conflict, as well as affect all sectors from agriculture, WaSH, food security and nutrition. The issue of protracted crises has been on the CFS agenda for the past 2 years, and it is important that this report reflect that process. We suggest that the HLPE add a section on these issues, including the international legal obligations associated with water insecurity or denial of water resources in conflict, and there are several examples to be used as case studies.

In Palestine, and especially the Gaza Strip, the Israeli government systematically denies water access to Palestinians. One such example that HIC-HLRN documented is the situation Bedouin communities living in the “unrecognized villages” face in the Negev desert; this information can be found in the HIC-HLRN publication “The Goldberg Opportunity”, found here: http://www.hic-net.org/document.php?pid=3832, as well as the over-extraction affecting water levels in the dead sea: http://landtimes.landpedia.org/newsdes.php?id=q3A=&catid=ow==&edition=pg== . It is also critical to examine the case of Gaza, which faces extreme denial of access to water, having devastating effects of food security and nutrition, sanitation and health. A simple search reveals a plethora of information, including the destruction of water infrastructure during the war on Gaza that took place over the summer. Palestine is an area we work closely with, but it is not the only territory affected- there are many other situations that could and should also be studied and highlighted.

Urban/slums/etc

The report touches on issues of urban access to water outside of urban agriculture, but does not provide enough analysis on the real global challenge of water access for vulnerable urban populations, particularly in slums. This challenge goes beyond general public health issues, into real consequences for food and nutrition security, as briefly mentioned in the present report, however it is imperative that we also analyze all challenges and best practices dealing with urban challenges. For this issue it is important to look at local government and authorities role in managing public resources and service delivery. In the Greater Cairo Area many informal areas and communities are unrecognized by governments and thus are denied access to public water services- Batn al-Baqara in Cairo is one such community (of many), and some information can be found here: http://landtimes.landpedia.org/newsdes.php?id=pGxs&catid=ow==&edition=qw==

Urban areas continue to grow, and will continue to do, with related growth and expansion of informal settlements and slums, and as the “urban poor” increases as do the consequent health, food and nutritional challenges. It is important the barriers to access are fully addressed in the report for urban populations. These challenges continue to persist as water infrastructure is increasingly privatized and prices increase for access.

Privatization/commons/management

We are happy to see the inclusion of the negative effects resulting from the privatization of water, and water infrastructure, especially the resulting power imbalance, including the section on “water grabbing”. This is a real threat to real sustainable development and the realization of human rights for many persons, from urban poor to small scale food producers and indigenous communities. Water, including watersheds, are a part of the commons. This report should reflect this viewpoint more strongly, and present more in-depth the policy/governance best practices and the challenges for managing water as part of the commons. In terms of governance, we urge the HLPE to examine also the benefits of public-popular partnerships for water management, which integrate national and local government with communities directly in planning processes, as an alternative to the public-private partnerships touted by the world bank, which often have damaging outcomes for vulnerable populations. The “Reclaiming Public Water” publication has many good examples of alternative water management systems to be included in this report.

Human Rights and the right to Water, and land

We fully support the inclusion of section 3.6 on the right to water; as a UN mechanism, the CFS is bound by a human rights mandate, and should promote a normative framework in all policy recommendations. The right to water and the right to food are integrally linked, and it is necessary to expand this to cover water for agriculture, fisheries, etc.- without rights to water, the right to food cannot be fully realized. The right to water should also include productive uses to water and the right to water for ecosystems.

The core components of realizing the right to water for the purpose of drinking/hygiene and productive uses should be addressed in the same framework looking at availability, accessibility, and quality. Water is required to produce food, and the rights to water must reflect this connection. The UN CESCR General Comment 15 on the right to water states that “Attention should be given to ensuring that disadvantaged and marginalized farmers, including women farmers, have equitable access to water and water management systems, including sustainable rain harvesting and irrigation technology… States parties should ensure that there is adequate access to water for subsistence farming and for securing the livelihoods of indigenous peoples.”  This report takes a good step in pushing for a more comprehensive understanding of the right to water.

By expanding the right to water, including the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to water and sanitation, food and water, along with land can be treated more coherently at the global and local policy levels. As mentioned previously, water should be treated as part of the commons. The sustainable use of water for agriculture, and other productive uses must be regulated in this lens, especially the overuse/misuse by large corporations. Access to the productive (and safe) water resources should be prioritized for small scale food producers, including livestock and pastoralists. Expanding this mandate, also including extra-territorial obligations, will better underpin the transboundary implications of water resources (and water grabbing), and increase the obligations and safeguards for investment projects, specifically on TNCs.

We are happy to see that report contains good analysis of the problems associated with “de-coupling” water from land, and generally the lack of coherent governance between land and water. Land and water cannot be treated as separate sectors, and must have a balanced and complimentary rights-based approach in governance and policy at all levels.

Better policy coherence also aligns with agroecology, which the report strongly support, as it offers an alternative, more resource conscious method of food production, and also acknowledges indigenous methods of production.  We could welcome more specific information on the benefits of the agroecological approach in managing water resources, especially in areas that are not water rich.

IUF submission to the High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) consultation on water and food security

This comment to the HLPE is submitted by the IUF*, the global trade union federation representing workers in agriculture, food processing and in the hotel, restaurant and catering industries.

The IUF welcomes the decision of the CFS to ask the HLPE to conduct a study on Water and food security. The IUF also welcomes the recognition in the VO draft consultation paper of 1st  October that the scope of the topic of water and food security is very broad and the request to identify important evidence or aspects that the present draft has failed to cover.

The IUF believes that the VO draft fails to address the specific situation of agricultural workers and their access to potable water and how this impacts on their food and water security. The 450 million women and men who labour as waged workers in plantations, farms, orchards, greenhouses and other forms of agriculture throughout the world are essential to global food security. They are also essential to sustainable agriculture and rural development including water conservation and management. See the joint publication by the FAO, ILO and IUF  Agricultural Workers and their contribution to sustainable agriculture and rural development.

Agriculture is the major user of the world’s water supply yet many thousands of people who work in the sector have no access to potable water in their workplaces. There is no systematic collection of data concerning dehydration amongst agricultural workers but IUF affiliates have extensive evidence of serious health problems, including fatalities, resulting from dehydration caused by lack of access to drinking water in the fields for agricultural workers.

See  this account of working in North Carolina’s tobacco fields by the President of the IUF- affiliated Farm Labor Organizing Committee.

There is also evidence that the epidemic of chronic kidney disease affecting sugar works in Central America is related to heat stress and dehydration.

The FAO-ILO-IUF report points out that “Because many agricultural workers live where they work, their lives and occupations are inseparable. There is a close link between housing, worker well-being and productivity”. The publication goes on to emphasize the connection between inadequate housing, non-potable drinking water and the spread of communicable diseases, citing poor sanitation and water provision documented by the ILO in Kenya, for example. Since the agricultural work environment  makes  no  clear  distinction  between  living  and  working,  pesticide exposure poses particular risks to these workers as well as to the water they share with their families and the wider community.

Another  vital  link  is  illustrated  by  the  recent  findings  against  a  major  sugar corporation in Parbhani district in the state of Maharashtra, India, concerning the environmental  and  socio-economic  impact  of  water  pollution.  Pollution  of  the Mannath reservoir caused by sugar mills led to a dramatic decline in fish stocks and a loss of livelihood for fisher folk dependent on the reservoir. Subsequent investigations showed that this water pollution also affected the health of livestock in the area as well negatively impacting agricultural crop yields, which in turn affected the livelihoods of agricultural workers employed on these farms. This impact on local food production, coupled with rising unemployment in the fishing and farming community, had a far-reaching impact on water and food security and nutrition.

We welcome the draft consultation paper’s attention to the impact of climate change on food production and water provision for rural communities and producers, but would also like to highlight the connection between agriculture as itself a major generator of greenhouse gasses, deteriorating water quality and the impact on the agricultural workforce. The 2006 Stern Commission Report identified agriculture as a significant source of climate-changing emissions, stating inter alia that: “Fertilisers are the largest single source (38%) of emissions from agriculture. Agricultural emissions are expected to rise almost 30% in the period to 2020…Around half of the projected growth in emissions is expected to come from the use of fertiliser on agricultural soils”. The nitrogen fertilizers which give rise to nitrous oxide – nearly 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – are also the sources of water eutrophication and contamination which are a major contributor to growing water scarcity. Reversing the food system’s overdependence on agrochemicals is essential  to  advancing  the  agroecological  food  systems  the  report  identifies  as playing an important role in protecting water resources and the right to water in both production and consumption. This reinforces the link between sustainable water management and food production, the living and working conditions of agricultural workers and the role of governments in realizing the rights to food and to water. The IUF believes that existing human rights instruments – the Conventions and Recommendations of the United Nations’ ILO – make this crucial link and need to be integrated into the CFS/HLPE work and all intergovernmental efforts on water security.

The International legal framework on agricultural workers’ access to portable water.

The ILO Plantations Convention, 110, 1958, requires the establishment of minimum standards for plantation housing that cover water supply and sanitary facilities (Article 86).

Convention  184  on  Safety  and  Health  in  Agriculture  calls  for  the  provision  of adequate welfare facilities at no cost to the worker (Article 19).

The Safety and Health in Agriculture Recommendation 192, 2001, which, in giving guidance on how to implement Convention 184, sets out the obligation for employers to put in place “appropriate measures to protect persons present at an agricultural site, the population in the vicinity of it and the general environment, from risks which may arise from the agricultural activity concerned, such as those due to agrochemical waste, livestock waste, soil and water contamination, soil depletion and topographic changes” (paragraph 5 (e).

Paragraph 10 (a) of ILO Recommendation 192 calls for employers to provide “an adequate supply of safe drinking water”.

The ILO’s Code of Practice on Safety and Health in Agriculture (2011) contains important recommendations on the provision of safe water and sanitary facilities and makes the link between accessible potable water, dehydration and productivity:

18.1.1 Dehydration quickly reduces physical and mental ability, thus reducing productivity and increasing the risk of accidents. For this reason, the employer must provide an adequate supply of potable water placed in locations readily accessible to workers. The water should be provided in sufficient amounts to meet the needs of all workers at the worksite, taking into account the air temperature, humidity and the nature of the work performed. [p.259]

Further reading on the general situation of plantation workers and how their working conditions, including lack of access to potable water, lead to widespread violations of the right to food can be found in  Harvesting Hunger – a joint publication by FIAN, Misereor and the IUF.

The IUF therefore calls on the HLPE to ensure that the next draft of its report on Water and food security addresses the issue of lack potable water for agricultural workers and proposes measures to address the issue of lack of potable water in agricultural workplaces.

These measures should include:

• A call to Governments to ensure that (in line with ILO Convention 110 and Recommendation 192 ) agricultural workers have access to potable water and that labour inspectors assess and report on both the quantity and quality of potable water available to agricultural workers in their workplaces;
• A call to governments to ratify ILO Convention 184 on safety and health in agriculture;
• A call to governments to promote use of the ILO Code of Practice on safety and health in agriculture.

Ron Oswald

General Secretary

********

*The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) is an international federation of trade unions representing workers employed in agriculture and plantations; the preparation and manufacture of food and beverages; hotels, restaurants and catering services; all stages of tobacco processing. The IUF is composed of 390 affiliated organizations in 125 countries representing a combined membership of around 2,6 million.

Annex 1: potable water “systems” for sugar cane cutters in Kenya.

a)  Workers bring their own water in recycled containers;

b)  Employers organise water distribution in the fields – usually one person goes to where the workers are to fill their containers or give them a cup of water

c)  Employers park a water tank at the edge of the fields and workers have to walk back and forth to the tank whenever they need to fill their containers with water

Liquid intake under the strenuous working conditions of cane cutters should be 12 litres of liquid while in the fields. The IUF has never seen such amounts of water available to cane cutters.

There is no information available on the quality of the water available to these sugar workers.

Source: IUF