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

WATER SECURITY

A - Comparative water performance (productivity and resilience)

B - Water use in food processing

C - Water for food and nutrition security in urban and peri-urban contexts

D - Water governance, policies and management

E - Role of water for food security and nutrition

WATER is “ a resource under increasing stresses…”

Preliminary statements at INTRODUCTION:

            Water performance , comparative or other, is worthy of  an effort of definition. While productivity is a common shared defined, resilience is not. Per se the definition stated in Wikipedia (In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly) is not a direct quality aspect of water, but water in fact takes part active or passive to a varied number of ecological events and aspects.

The term resilience is tipical of science’s properties of materials, where a resilient materiali is nearer to a tough material and the definition of resilience is much an effect of intimate energy and resistance of a material based on molecular structure and its potential to resist to external stresses.

Without entering the debate, the interpretation appears to cause most common doubts of understanding the useful use of the term.

            AgoraAmbrosiana suggest a revision of use of the term “resilience” and “resilient” in reference to the word “water”, that should also make a difference in its “molecular state” (altready providing a complex material per se, with effects of states, aggregation and resistance to disturbances not only determined by pressure and temperature, also derived by micro.impurity determine by other materials in contact, from air – to any other surface.

            Please take care of use of:  “Increasing pollution in many parts of the world from both agriculture and industry are rendering water unfit for use and impacting on human and ecosystem health.” The diffused “Unsustainable resource  management is reducing ecosystem functions and services”, but new important examples of complete recovery of edible water have been gained in small quantities at use of Astronauts in ISS orbit and in large industrialized processes by NESTLE and by the facilities operating in Milano at the “DEPURATORE of NOSEDO”, providing a final top quality standard for SPACE USE.

NO REFERENCE IS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT - SAVE ONE BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION - FOR NESTLE  (The case of Nestlé, Bunge and Cargill. Water Alternatives 5(3): 619-

47 635) none for SATELLITE observations, nor SPACE or ASTRO or ISS (intenrantional spatial station).

AgoraAmbrosiana draft issue of a plan of debate theme contains references updated up to 2012 while the results cited above are derived from information obtained months ago from NESTLE and from the top management of DEPURATORE DI NOSEDO. Both provided relevant information… with poor “echo” in the mass media.

The chapter of interest of the PRESENT DRAFT VO (in addition to INTRODUCTION) is like to be chapter “2.3 Water re-use  - 2.3.1 Dealing with wastewater and marginal quality water – Urban agriculture – 2.3.2 Dealing with Desalination COULD be updated with ongoing projects and applications which are operating in the Arabian Gulf.

Chapter 1.3.4 Water and energy linkages provides a short info on the new important and popular source of energy as is “shale gas and oil” which interfere largely with water contamination and recovery processes, while on the site of energy sources no mention is made to tidal energy, sea wave energy that are at the industrialization phase in many spots of the Globe.

Similar inclusion of future availability of innovative resources and usages shall be discussed and debated as it is during the last five years in US, where a large open debate is ongoing in reference to the large industrial exploitations of shale gas and the definition of the law and regulations. The approach is made STATE BY STATE with non uniform trend statements.

3.1 Local water governance regimes: accessing water for FSN should take in a proper focus the subsequent points of  3.1.1 Multiple ways to allocate and access water, as each exploitation is open to family exploitation of shale gas or oil well or of wide grids of fields for industrial operation. The state of the debates and regulations at work in a continuous challenge versus other socio political pressures. Europe is far back on this theme and at present Poland appears as the most advanced among the European states. 

Similar issues shall become valid also for 3.2 Water reform processes  (3.2.1 From New Delhi to Dublin, 3.2.2 Water reform processes and Integrated Water Resources  Management (IWRM). 

The present state of the draft VO is hereafter quoted and could be given more emphasis as future tag of more specific rules and definition of impact to the resource of water/energy needs which must adapt to local territories situation.

“Moreover the increasing use of the drilling practice of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," as it is more  commonly known, raises concerns on its impact on water resources. Most studies of the impacts of fracking on water have focused on water quality, but some studies have also looked that impacts on water quantity and competition for use with other sectors, including the agricultural sector. There has been little quantification of the actual water use because requirements are dependent on the nature of the shale, well depth, the number of fracking stages and the length of the lateral pipes underground (Nicot & Scanlon 2012). Frac sand mining— an off shoot of hydrofracking industry—is a related sector whose impact of food systems is yet to be assessed as well.”

My limited appreciation of the new scenario is edited in two articles in Italian in PLAST, ex Reed Business Information Italy magazine (now acquired by EDB Italia, who continue the editions) under my authorship.

The regularly ongoing of special contribution provided by NESTLE to water experts and organizations is daily part of the accessible documents at the corporation home sub title “Creating share values”.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the V0 draft study Water and Food Security.  I own a farming operation in Ghana, on the shores of Lake Volta, so I've had the opportunity to consider the role of water as it relates to food production, efficiency, and the sustainability of our investment in Ghana, and its impact on our Ghanaian farmer friends and neighbors.  

The draft report is excellent, but here are some ideas that may be useful to consider as the committee seeks to examine the full extent to which water can optimize food security.  My comments relate to Africa, so this is a limiting factor, but perhaps these themes could be relevant in other food insecure regions.

1. Access to water increases land productivity; makes African farm enterprises more bankable; reduces risk of crop loss; and increases land real estate value.  

Access to water unlocks value in four ways: 

(1) increases the productivity of the land (this addressed in the study relating to irrigation); 

(2) increases a farmer's access to seasonal and operational finance (this is not addressed in the study); 

(3) reduces the risk of crop failure/loss due to drought, thus making crop insurance more economically feasible (this is not addressed in the study); and 

(4) helps poor African farmers build tangible assets (with proper land title) that can appreciate in value and can be sold/transferred to create wealth for African farm enterprises (this is not addressed in the study). (e.g. un-irrigated, untitled land is worth less than $100 per hectare; irrigated, titled land is worth $10,000+ per hectare)

2. Access to bulk and cold chain transport by water will save money and reduce post-harvest loss. 

Think about the Mississippi River (and other waterways) transport systems impact on U.S. agriculture industry: billions per year in cost savings vs. ground transport.  Bulk and cold chain transportation by water costs a fraction (per km, per kg) of road transport and should be included as an important "food security" variable.

Improved water transport will unlock value in four ways:

(1) will reduce COGS (cost of goods sold); (this is not addressed in the study), 

(2) will reduce post-harvest losses (this is not addressed in the study); 

(3) will reduce the cost of food for consumers (this is not addressed in the study); and 

(4) will increase farmer incomes (this is not addressed in the study).  

Summary Comments

Again, the study is excellent as far as it goes.  But it leaves billions of dollars off the table of value for food security related to leveraging water resources.  The increase in productivity is covered very well, as is water quality; but farm enterprise bankability, crop insurability, and land value appreciation etc is what will unlock commercial-grade investment, which is absolutely required for sustainability in African food production.  And water transport efficiency will provide a dramatic increases in direct and indirect cost savings, passed on to farmers and consumers alike, in the form of more affordable food, less reliance on imports, etc.

These items - billions of dollars of value to farmers and ultimately African consumers, offered by improved water policies, land values, improved crop banking and insurance risk profiles, infrastructure, systems - are unaccounted for in this draft study.

I would be happy to pursue these themes in more depth with the HLPE, if interested.

Best,

Jon

Jon Vandenheuvel

CEO

Africa Atlantic Holdings Ltd

www.AfricaAtlantic.com

Informal Comments on “Water and Food Security” (HLPE Study V0 Draft)

(by Abdul Razak Ayazi, Agriculture Attaché, Afghanistan Embassy, Rome  )

General Comments on the HLPE Study

1.     It is a well prepared study based on the thorough review of available literature on water resources, their management and their governance. One may say that it is an inventory of the knowledge at hand which is true. However, it is a thoughtful and analytical assessment of the inventory.  In view of the importance of the topic, the length of the study is not excessive, despite some repetitions here and there.

2.     The structure of the document is fairly balanced, though some sub-sections can be beefed up as I shall mention later. That said, the separation of water management (Part 2) from issues of water governance (Part 3) is a wise approach. It fits the water problems currently facing the people in all parts of the world. It is becoming increasingly clear that water governance at national and sub-regional level is most critical for all countries and especially for countries and regions facing severe water scarcity.

3.     The study presents sound and clear recommendations each covering a specific feature of water management and/or  governance. The division of the recommendations by 12 key areas  provides a better focus. However, the 70 Actions under the 12 Recommendations may benefit from consolidation leading to some reduction.

4.     The content of the 23 boxes has enriched the substance of the HLPE report, though it has added to its length.

5.     The presentation of a better matrix of global water resources would have been useful. This could have been done by the inclusion of a table to show how the annual precipitation of 400,000 Km3 on our earth is distributed i.e. amount  falling on land surface, amount evapotranspired, amount flowing into the sea, amount going under the ground and amount forming surface water. It is only  40,000 Km3 of fresh water, 10% of all precipitation, which is available to meet the needs of human beings, animals and plants. This figure is finite and the projected 9 billion population of 2050 has to rely on this finite quantity of fresh water. The matrix could also have shown how this available 40,000 Km3 is distributed by regions and sub-regions within the region.

6.     Figure 1 on page 11, though not very neat, does illustrate how the  availability, access, stability and utilization of freshwater are interrelated. For planning purposes this interrelationship is essentials but unfortunately often overlooked at the national level.

7.     Table 4 on page 38 which shows water productivity for different food products is useful. Perhaps non-food crops should have been added. By the way the values could change if the water required is provided through irrigation only.

8.     Policy implications for water management (pages 48-49) presents some valuable and decisive points based on the information and analysis presented in Part 2 (Improved Water Management for Improved FSN). Readers should appreciate the policy implications.

9.     Part 3 (Governing Water for FSN) : This part is well structured and each sub-section is well articulated. It hits the basic features of water governance, the complexities facing its installation and conflicts among users.  The journey from equity and universality (the so-called New Delhi Statement) to declaring water as an economic good (the so-called Dublin   Statement) is convincingly presented. Sub-section 3.4 presenting the national experience of water governance in 5 developing countries ( Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Jordan and Tanzania) is useful. Sub-section 3.5 is also a good synthesis of the global water governance regime. Far too many actors are involved in water governance. The UN  Water alone consists of 30 UN Organizations and 25 other international partners. The field is crowded.

Some Specific Comments

Sub-section 1.1.2 (pages 13-14): is well done as the quality of drinking water has a direct effect on human health and this is more so in the treatment of waste water for household use which is rising globally.

Section 1.2 (page 14) : It needs to be beefed up to show water resource distribution by water basins, and by regions and sub-regions. In addition, it would be useful to have a special section on regions where water resources are extremely limited and are the source of major concern not only for food security but for providing safe drinking water. This is particularly the case of the 29 countries of the Near East, Central Asia and North Africa (13 countries of West Asia, 6 in Central Asia and 10 in North Africa). These 29 countries have 7.6 % of the world population but only 1.9 % of the world’s renewable freshwater resources. On the other hand, these countries account for 12% of the world’s annual freshwater withdrawal of 3.9 trillion cubic meters.

Part 2 (Improved Water Management for Improved FSN) :  This part is adequate in coverage and depth. While the sub-section on Groundwater for Irrigation is well presented mention could have been made to situation where aquifers are mined with no consideration for future generations. In this respect, it may be useful to show by sub-regions where groundwater resources are over-exploited and where less exploited and regions where groundwater resources are not exploited.  A small sub-section comparing the cost-benefit of irrigation by groundwater versus surface water irrigation would have been helpful.   

Sub-section 2.2: It could be shortened by eliminating tables 2 and 3 because lines 33-51 on page 33 makes it clear that the data on the use of water in food processing is incomplete and in any case low in terms of volume. In line 37-38, it cannot be true that in 2005 the amount of water for industrial use in the USA was 70 cubic meters  per day (may be it is 70,000 cubic meters?).

In 2.3.1 on page 35: The point could have been made that the cost of recycling water is fairly high due to rising energy cost.  

2.3.2 : Because of the importance of desalination in some parts of the world, it would have been useful to beef up this sub-section. In the Arab countries, especially the Gulf countries, desalinated water is on the rise. At present 55% of water supplied to the cities in the Gulf countries is desalinated water. It is projected that by 2025 the desalinated capacity will reach 83 million cubic meters per day. Although the running  cost per cubic meter of desalinated water has declined considerable, the cost of installation per cubic meter still remains high.

2.4.2 :  The upgrading of rainfed agriculture (pages 39-42) is well covered.

2.4.3 : The sub-section on investing in irrigation could have demonstrated how costly on-farm modern irrigation is, especially for smallholders and also the enormous investment required in developing large irrigation structure which IFIs no longer wish to entertain. On irrigation efficiency the report hits it right. Measurement of irrigation efficiency should include both original water application plus recycling and the experience of Egypt is a good one. In South Asia not much reuse is made of irrigation water due to lack of drainage and hence water logging.

Part 3 (Governing water for FSN) : It may be advisable to bring sub-section 3.6 (The right to water and the right to food) forward because it is the starting point for water governance and water management. Box 21 could be included in it.

3.2.3 : On water user associations, it may be advisable to include a box on one of the several successful cases in Asia, e.g. Indonesian water Supply Association and Philippine Association of Water Districts or some other successful  water user association in the Asian continent.

One issue that does not come out of the study is shared water, not only surface water but also groundwater. There is adequate knowledge on shared surface water but not enough knowledge on shared groundwater. This knowledge is important because globally groundwater accounts for 43% of the total consumptive use of irrigation water and irrigates some 113 million hectares, with India, China and USA at the top of the list.

Recommendations: The twelve recommendations is a good and balanced set. All the 12 Recommendations are useful and indeed pertinent. Their rationale is embedded in the analysis presented in Parts 2 and Part 3 of the study.

That said, one sees that the number of Actions proposed for the implementation of the  12 Recommendations amount to 70 Actions. The range varies from 3 to 9 Actions per recommendation. One wonders if there is room for reduction in the number of the Actions. Also there are some 32 Actions which are of a joint nature by States, Donors, UN Organizations and NGOs. One wonders if this a clean way of delegating responsibilities for different Actions and actors.   

Actions by the private sector is mentioned only three times. One action relate to Recommendation 5 (Addressing Changing Diets) and two Actions relate to Recommendation 10 (Water Governance). Actions by private sector could equally relate to some of the other 10 recommendations, especially recommendation 2 (Access to sufficient and safe water by poor women and men needs to move up to the top of political agendas for long-term FSN) and Recommendation 4 (Sustainable use of groundwater).

The 12 Actions by CFS  relate to seven Recommendations (Recommendations 1, 6. 8, 9.10, 11 and 12). With respect to monitoring CFS also has a role in the remaining 5 Recommendations.

With respect to Recommendation 1 (water and sanitation nexux), it is advisable to link it to Goal 6 of the Post-2015 Development Agenda (Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all) and its 8 targets.

With 15 international river basins, southern Africa relies on water as a driver of economic growth and social development. Climate change is expected to increase water variability and lead to more frequent and intense floods and droughts while regional constraints imposed by the management of Tran boundary.

Waters make the water landscape more complex. The World Bank is scaling up support to water resources management in the region to provide a platform for broad-based economic development.

Water supply for growth centers and the institutional and infrastructure capacity to build resilience to climate change. To strengthen the quality and impact of projects, and leverage investment and policy dialogue the World Bank, through the WPP, brings innovation in water resources management.

The Water Partnership Program (WPP) supports a coordinated approach to this regional challenge. WPP-funded study found that nearly €1.8 billion in investments to curb pollution is needed to comply with EU standards. The study also identified six pollution hotspots in the eastern Adriatic that will require around €400 million in priority investments. These investments, aimed at addressing the sea's major economic, environmental and coastal management challenges, are now being planned through the Adriatic Sea Environment Program (ASEP), to be funded by several regional stakeholders.

The native/indigenous livestock breeds for food and agriculture are highly adapted to the ecosystems where water is one of the main limiting factor. Such breeds are highly adated to the harsh and hostile environments of such ecosystems and ensure food security in turn of very low in put. Camel is one of the best example in this regard. Camel produce health promising milk in conditions where she take an amount of 2-3 liter of water for production of 1 liter milk where the ambient heat is 40 + Celcius. In the same condition high yielding exotic cow needs 10-20 liter of water for 1 kg milk production.

I think one of the best option to ensure food production undre scarce water conditions is the promotion and conservation of the native livestock breeds. The keepers of such breeds are always neglected while formulating policies regarding their breeding pattern and production systems. Such policies are always a failure story. I strongly support the involvement of the small scaled livestock keepers in the policies fabrication regarding food security and sustainable production systems.

My best regards

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

Note:

1. Contributor Submitted to “The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee”: (a) online on web link: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/water-food-security-v0, & (b) Email:  [email protected] [Note: Submitted on Tuesday, October 21, 2014].
2. Institutional Affiliation of the Contributor: Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra (Ph. D.), Technical Assistant, Population Education Resource Centre, Department of Continuing and Adult Education and Extension Work, S. N. D. T. Women's University, Patkar Hall Building, First Floor, Room. No.: 03, 1, Nathibai Thackerey Road, Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra, India. (http://sndt.ac.in/) [Email: [email protected]  Tel.: +91-022-22066892 (O), +91–022–28090363 (R), +09224380445 (M)].

We are aware that we have not yet adequately covered, in the V0 draft, some issues of importance. We invite respondents to suggest relevant examples, including successful ones and what made them possible, good practices and lessons learned, case studies, data and material in the areas of:

1. Comparative water performance (productivity and resilience) for food security and nutrition of different farming systems, and food systems, in different contexts:

• CARICOM Project: From Farm to Fork: Improving Food and Nutrition Security in the Caribbean: This project is aimed at improving the nutrition and health of CARICOM populations through sustainable agricultural technologies that increase food availability and diversity of food choices. This initiative was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, and with the financial support of the Government of Canada provided through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

The CARICOM (Caribbean Community and Common Market) is an economic grouping of 15 developing countries in the Caribbean, many of them small islands, identified by FAO as experiencing food insecurity. These countries have a long history of reliance on exportation of plantation crops for economic development, but have paid limited attention to local food production, particularly vegetables and fruits. Additional constraints on vegetable and fruit production in CARICOM include seasonality and scarcity of water supply, inefficient use of land and agricultural technologies, and imperfections in market structures and incentives. Consequently, there is a high dependence on importation of energy-dense foods leading to low rates of consumption of vegetables, fruits and pulses, creating a paradox of obesity and under-nutrition, and threatening population health. 

The project was conceptualized based on the release of two land-mark reports (the “Jagdeo Imitative” and the Report of Caribbean Commission on Health and Development) adopted by CARICOM Heads of Government, and stressing the need for linkage between agriculture and human health to improve CARICOM development. The overall goal of the project is to improve nutrition and health outcomes of CARICOM populations through an integrated, gender equal, environmentally sustainable systems approach to availability, safety and quality of food.  Through a combination of socio-economic and community surveys, field research, and nutrition interventions in schools, the project addresses problems of land and water degradation, inefficient pre- and post harvest practices that underlie food and nutrition security. Innovations in inclusive market-oriented development and environmental management could lead to policy changes for sustained food security in CARICOM.  

The project is regional in nature, and piloted in four countries (Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, St. Lucia, and St. Kitts & Nevis); it is multidisciplinary in scope, and its scientific merit lies in its “farm-to-fork” systems approach to human health.  Project benefits include human capacity building through education and training and community sensitization programs for a range of stakeholders. A major expected outcome is a change in consumer behaviour towards the consumption of a more diversified diet of fruits and vegetables.

The King Abdullah Initiative for Saudi Agricultural Investment Abroad (KAISAIA): This project was launched January, 2009. In June 2012, the Saudi Cabinet set certain parameters for projects and investment and green-lighted projects financed by KAISAIA so they may finally get under way. Up to 60 percent of the financing is to be provided by the government. Target countries need to agree to allow export of at least 50 % of the crops. Investors should be able to benefit from agricultural equipment owned by local farmers in the host country.  It is a joint initiative by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi private sector. It is managed through the Ministry of Agriculture. Key objectives of the project (KAISAIA) are:

• maintaining food security for Saudi Arabia,
• enhancing international food security, and
• encouraging Saudi Investors to utilize their resources and experiences abroad.

Current targeted Countries: Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Turkey, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Brazil, and other suitable countries with agricultural investment. Priority actions in this project are:

• Provide funds, credit and logistics to Saudi investors to invest abroad in agriculture;
• Establish a strategic reserve for basic food commodities, to meet the Saudi needs for food and to avoid future food crises;
• Identifying the suitable hosting countries for agricultural investment;
• Studies to define local requirements for basic food products (present and future);
• Studies to define strategic reserves for basic food commodities;
• Establishing a holding company;
• Signing bilateral agreements with hosting countries to identify and preserve the rights and commitments of all parties; and
• Identifying the suitable forms of off-taking agreements between the government and the investors.

Water use in food processing:

• Water recycling for sustainable food manufacturing in Australia: New water recycling research aims to reduce the reliance on drinking water by food manufacturing and processing plants and address consumer concerns about the use of recycled water. This research aims to enable more sustainable use of water across the agri-food industry. Food processing is Australia’s largest and thirstiest manufacturing industry. Each year the food processing sector consumes about 215 gigalitres of water (equivalent to 86 000 Olympic size swimming pools). This is a third of the total water used for all manufacturing across Australia.

The industry has recognized the need to adopt alternative water management strategies ahead of a future with greater water scarcity and cost.  However, consumer perceptions and economic and regulatory barriers have prevented many food businesses from recycling water. Research through the “Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence” aims to reduce the reliance on fresh water throughout the agri-food supply chain.

Led by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the research will identify water recycling opportunities for food manufacturers by demonstrating economic, environmental and social benefits. Working closely with the food manufacturing, dairy and meat industries, the researchers will examine the full potential of water reuse, from energy recovery and nutrient re-use through to the use of spent process water for external purposes.

The team will also identify consumer and regulatory barriers hindering water recycling and propose strategies to overcome these barriers based on sound science. The research will:

• inform water recycling strategies for the agri-food industry,
• deliver decision making tools for the industry to assess water recycling options based on the value proposition and available technologies,
• improve understanding of consumer attitudes and emotions when consuming foods associated with recycled water and communicate positive messages to help increase consumer confidence, and
• provide advice to industry on regulatory guidelines for recycling water in food manufacturing plants.

This project ties into other work by the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence that is examining public attitudes and perceptions related to water recycling. The project's research activities began in early 2012.  As of September 2013 the following progress has been achieved:

• targeted literature reviews for water recycling in the dairy, meat, food and municipal water sectors in relation to all sub-project areas;
• the collection of data and information from key stakeholders;
• completing a choice modelling experiment to understand the attitudes, values and emotions of consumers when consuming a food product associated with recycled water;
• developing a methodology to assess the value proposition for water recycling scenarios;
• developing a framework to select technology options for recycling water for different applications;
• identifying and understanding the regulatory framework for water recycling in the agrifood sector;
• mapping the sources and sinks of water in the dairy, meat, food and utility sectors in Australia;
• completing a preliminary study for salt and nutrient uptake modelling when dairy effluents are used in irrigation; and
• commencing industry base trials and desktop studies in water recycling for the dairy, food and meat sectors.

The main focus of the project is to collaborate with industry to demonstrate higher-value water recycling opportunities that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits to the agri-food industry and community. The project will pursue a holistic cross-sector approach with stakeholders in meat, dairy and broader food manufacturing and retail sectors. Water authorities and regulatory and policy agencies are also involved. The project established an industry reference group to help ensure expected project outcomes are aligned to the requirements of external stakeholders, to seek advice and guidance in collecting relevant data and information, and to organise site visits. Administered through the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence, the project partners include:

• Australian Meat Processors Corporation,
• Meat & Livestock Australia,
• Dairy Innovation Australia Ltd.,
• Australian Food & Grocery Council,
• Queensland Government, and
• Industry partners.

Water recycling in food production and manufacture, Australia: The project identified and enabled water recycling opportunities in the agri-food industry through integrated systems analysis, technology assessment and targeted research to address implementation barriers. The project focused on addressing industry challenges, including regulatory and policy pressures, developed strategies to increase acceptance by consumers, and undertook customer attitude surveys.

The project collaborated with industry to demonstrate higher-value water recycling opportunities that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits to the agri-food industry and community. The project pursued a cross-sector approach with outcomes addressing water recycling interests with stakeholders in meat, dairy, horticulture and broader food manufacturing and retail sectors. Water authorities and regulatory and policy agencies were involved and participated with industry partners. The project team has met all major milestones including case studies for:

• recycling water options at Kellogg’s Botany site, based on physical constraints at the site and other factors
• salt and nutrient modelling, the regulatory framework, and demonstrating the value proposition tool for Bega Cheese and Dairy Innovation Australia Ltd (DIAL)
• evaluating a complete system to produce potable water (phosphorous recovery, membrane bioreactor, reverse osmosis and disinfection) for Warnambool Cheese and Butter and DIAL
• the meat sector (Australian Meat Processor Corporation and Meat & Livestock Australia), with a series of fact sheets, a review of the removal of oils, fat and greases from effluents of meat processing plants, and a position paper dealing with the reduction of nutrients from meat processing effluents and the reduction of salt from reverse osmosis retentate.
• The project’s framework for assessing appropriate technologies for treating waste water for different recycling and irrigation purposes has now been trialled by a couple of industry sectors (food processing and dairy), and the value proposition tool for calculating the net present value of water recycling investment has also been validated in industry-based trials (dairy and food. An industry forum organized for September 2014 for food, dairy and meat sector stakeholders aims to identify the cross-sector learnings from this project and to synthesise the broader opportunities for water recycling within these industries.

Lead organization is the CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Science. Partner organizations are:

• Meat & Livestock Australia,
• Australian Meat Processors Corporation,
• Dairy Innovation Australia,
• Australian Food & Grocery Council,
• Southern Rural Water, and
• Melbourne Water.

Recycled Water Opportunities in Sustainable Food Production and Manufacture, Australia:  AMPC and MLA are participating in a multi-party, cross-sector project to identify and enable water recycling opportunities in the agri-food industry. Led by CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Sciences and the Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the project will collaborate with industry to demonstrate higher-value water recycling opportunities that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits to the agri-food industry and community. It will focus on current industry challenges, including regulatory pressures, the value proposition driving water recycling, and develop strategies to increase acceptance by consumers and enhance the sustainability positioning with customers.

The project will pursue a holistic cross-sector approach with outcomes addressing water recycling interests with stakeholders in meat, dairy, horticulture and broader food manufacturing and retail sectors. Water authorities and regulatory and policy agencies are also involved and will participate in joint initiatives with the agri-food industry participants.

The project will be integrated with AMPC’s Core R&D Sustainability Program over the next two years and will involve integrated systems analysis, technology assessment and targeted research to address water recycling implementation barriers. Activities in the meat sector will involve two main areas:

1. A broad assessment of water recycling and reuse in the red meat processing sector including:

• Review of existing water recycling and reuse practices in the red meat processing sector;
• Comparison of these practices with other food manufacturing supply chains (e.g. Dairy, Pork, etc.);
• Identification of current and future regulatory barriers and opportunities;
• Development of an outline strategy for future R&D for three, five and ten year timeframes;
• Identification of specific demonstration trials and case studies.

1. Identification and development of trial sites including the following activities:

• Collection of information from industry on water usage and disposal, volumes and types of waste streams;
• Collation of existing information on water quality and nutrient content of effluent streams (supplemented by collection and analysis of samples);
• Design and implementation of treatment trials based on the initial review;
• Identification of potential recycle/reuse applications of treated water within the industry (e.g. non-food contact applications like cleaning, washing, cooling, heating, steam etc.);
• Assessment of residual water utilization (e.g. nutrient recovery, fit for purpose, farming, etc.).

The initial phase of the project included a survey of the AMPC membership which enabled data gathering on water use, recycling and disposal at red meat processing facilities. A total of 25 responses were received of which 23 contained useable data for the red-meat processing industry. Respondents ranged from the largest in Australia to small country abattoirs processing around 30 tonnes of hot standard carcase weight (HSCW) per month. There were thirteen beef-only plants, one sheep-only plant and nine multi-species plants. The average water usage for all respondents was 7.21 kL/tHSCW processed and ranged from 1.15 to 15.91 kL/tHSCW. The smaller plants used much less water per unit production than the larger plants because they did not carry out any further processing such as boning of carcasses or rendering of by-products. The average water usage for red meat plants producing greater than 1,500 tHSCW per month was 8.64 kL/tHSCW. This is a slight reduction on the figure of 9.4 kL/tHSCW obtained during the environmental sustainability survey of 14 sites done for AMPC and MLA in 2008-09. 

All plants that responded to the survey reuse water for some purpose. For most, treated effluent was used for irrigation of pasture, farms or gardens on-site and off-site. In addition over 60% of respondents recycled water to replace potable water in a variety of uses such as yard and stock washing, initial tripe washing, cooling applications, boiler feedwater, etc. Only two plants recirculated water within the same process. These related to beef hot water decontamination systems where the used water was treated and re-heated before being sprayed back on the beef sides. 

The data gathered from the survey will be used to benchmark water recycling within the red meat processing sector for comparison with other sectors, such as dairy and horticulture, as well as to identify potential water recycling opportunities. Having collated, interpreted and analyzed the survey results, CSIRO are now planning a series of site visits to determine:

• Process-related and technology-related opportunities for recycling water;
• Priorities for processors for water recycling;
• The site specific needs in relation to water recycling, and;
• Trial sites for the next phase of the project.

Recent meetings have also been held between AMPC, CSIRO, the University of Queensland and a range of other R&D providers working with AMPC and the meat processing industry, to identify options for collaboration and share information on the progress of current projects. These meetings have assisted in identifying the options for commercial trials, which will likely build on other work underway with AMPC members that relates to water and energy efficiency through tripe waste water re-use, steam sterilization of chillers and viscera water recycling.

In addition, the industry project to establish “environmental benchmarks” or performance measures in relation to water, energy and other natural resource use is now underway. This project will review and collect new data since the previous examinations conducted in 2003 and 2008. This project will also provide indicative analysis of the future targets for the red meat processing industry so as to benchmark environmental measures.

Water for food and nutrition security in urban and peri-urban contexts:

• Using water wisely to feed growing cities, Tunisia: North Africa contains 5 per cent of the world's population but only has 1 per cent of the world's available water resources. In Tunisia, water availability is as low as 350 m³ per person per year, but rapid urbanization and climate change are placing further stress on water resources and food production. Use of treated wastewater for irrigation has helped to sustain agriculture in peri-urban areas, but severe government restrictions on wastewater use are constraining production.

“With greenhouses, crops can be grown in the earth and suspended above ground”

In the town of Soukra, six kilometres from the capital city, Tunis, hundreds of low-income families live off the crops they grow. In recent years, however, rapid urbanisation has caused the city to expand, encroaching on farms, driving land speculation and threatening the livelihoods of Soukra's farmers. Since the 1990s, nearly 30 per cent of arable land has disappeared. Farmers are also facing significant water stress: climate change has altered rainfall patterns, causing more extreme droughts and floods and leading farmers to draw more water from wells. As a result, saltwater from a nearby lagoon has been seeping into the groundwater, leaving some fields waterlogged and others too salty to grow healthy crops.

With funding from Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Tunisian NGO Club UNESCO/ALECSO pour le savoir et le développement durable (FTCUA Tunisie) set out to find comprehensive ways to mitigate the environmental threats farmers face, while helping them secure and improve their livelihoods. "We spent a year with experts, researchers, regional and local NGOs and the municipality to understand the origin of these problems, the farmers' perspectives and their aspirations for the future," says Moez Bouraoui of FTCUA Tunisie and president of the Urban Agriculture Association of the Middle East and North Africa.

This led to the development of a plan that would address environmental threats to agriculture while improving farmers' incomes. The idea was to deploy new, environmentally-sustainable sources of water for irrigation to increase agricultural production, and create small businesses for the farmers who had largely been growing subsistence crops. "These farmers only have small plots ranging from 1,500 m² to one hectare," Bouraoui explains, "so we opted for greenhouses which help conserve water, protect crops from grazing animals and theft, and allow for more intensive farming. This much more intensive form of agriculture has vastly increased yields by allowing crops to be grown in the earth and suspended above ground”.

“Snails, which provide fertilizer, are farmed in containers”

Technicians then installed ground-level basins adjacent to farmers' land to store rainwater and deliver it to crops. This water is directed to the greenhouse crops using highly efficient micro-irrigation. “After a few months of experimentation and research, we installed rainwater collection systems on the greenhouses”, Bouraoui adds. Gutters built into the greenhouses’ support structure channel the rain into storage tanks, which can meet up to 60 per cent of its water needs. Wastewater - including water used for household bathing and cleaning - was also captured, filtered and used for irrigation. Following Tunisia's strict regulations on wastewater use, it is only used to grow flowers, which are a lucrative crop. To restore saline soil, fresh earth was added and olive trees planted which will tolerate a large range of soil conditions and can be irrigated with wastewater.

Greenhouses usually have to be moved every five years to avoid soil depletion, but this is impossible because of a lack of space. Farmers began to experiment with lucrative crops that could be grown in containers above the soil - such as strawberries and lettuces - to allow the ground to lie fallow. Snails, which provide fertilizer, are also farmed in containers. Farmers who once grew crops for subsistence are diversifying and cultivating more cash crops, including ten kinds of fruit and vegetables, which they sell in nearby markets. Greenhouses have also extended the growing season and increased incomes, as farmers can earn much more for produce such as tomatoes, when they are out of season. For example, one greenhouse produces six tonnes of tomatoes, worth around US$4,600. Farmers who were once amongst the poorest are enjoying better lives. One mother paid for her daughter's wedding, others have expanded their homes. One of the most tangible signs of success is that some farmers are reinvesting their profits into building more greenhouses.

“In the town of Soukra, hundreds of low-income families live off the crops they grow”

The research team has worked closely with the city government to help it recognize the ecological and economic value of urban agriculture, and to include small-scale farming in land use planning. Bouraoui explains: “Together we thought about how to develop a structure that could unite the farmers that could defend their interests, and provide them with services to support the development and growth of their businesses. We put in place a cooperative which is gradually taking over the research and gives farmers a stronger voice in local decision-making. In some ways, this is one of the greatest achievements of the project”.

This model of urban agriculture and the technical innovations that have been produced are now being disseminated throughout Tunisia through mass media, journal articles, workshops and conferences. Through associations like the Arab Network for Urban Agriculture, the knowledge gained in Soukra is being shared with groups throughout the region. “The solutions pioneered in Soukra provide excellent examples for countries in the region coping with water scarcity and climate change”, Bouraoui concludes.

Ensuring water security in urban areas through better understanding and management of the water, energy, food nexus (WEFN), China: China faces the challenge of developing resource efficient livable cities for a growing population and economy in areas of increasing water scarcity. Therefore new and innovative solutions need to be found in the design of urban water infrastructure and the institutional planning and management of water in the cities, associated industries and surrounding rural areas. This means integrating water and energy efficient solutions in the urban planning and design of new cities and in the re-development of existing cities.

The co-lead partnership on the water-energy-food nexus was initiated by Sweden and China through the Swedish Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Water Resources of China, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute (NHRI), Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR), MWR Development Research Centre (DRC), Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). A closely linked co-lead partnership on the water-energy nexus was initiated by the United Kingdom focused on ensuring water security by better managing the interactions between water and energy in the process of urban development and the energy resources that support that development. The co-lead projects bring together technical experts to work with policy makers and municipal governments to apply best international practice and innovation to practical problems and identify the areas, where European and Chinese enterprises can work together in a mutually beneficial manner.

The WEFN is an important component of the overall Urban Water Challenge, the WEFN projects will coordinate with Integrated Urban Water management projects and with the EU-China Urbanization Partnership for the development of resource efficient Low carbon Cities. Key activity areas with programs jointly developed by Chinese and European partners encompass:

• Taihu Basin Region Urban Water Security Program,
• Managing water risks in China’s energy sector – especially the impact on water resources of  Development of Shale Gas and Synthetic natural gas supplies,
• Managing energy risks in China’s Urban Water Sector – especially the influence of energy use of different source in planning the water resources development strategy for Qingdao, and
• Sustainable and intensive agriculture for urban areas.

Participating organizations are:

• Swedish Ministry of Environment,
• UK Foreign Commonwealth Office,
• Stockholm Environment Institute,
• Stockholm International Water Institute,
• Atkins International,
• Stockholm Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),
• Ministry of Water Resources,
• P.R. China,
• China CEWP Secretariat,
• Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute,
• Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR),
• Development Research Centre (DRC) of the Ministry of Water Resources,
• Tai Lake Basin Authority,
• Applied Energy Innovation Center (AEI) in Ningbo,
• ChangCE, and
• World Resources Institute.

Water governance, policies and management systems capable of better integrating food security concerns while tackling trade-offs between water uses/users in an equitable, gender just and deliberative manner. We are particularly interested in examples that have enhanced social justice and also benefitted marginalised groups:

• Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS), Hong Kong: Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS) will play a significant role in identifying the key challenges in improving food security in the APEC region, and in recommending appropriate policy initiatives going forward. The long term goal of the PPFS shall be the attainment of a food system structure by 2020 sufficient to provide lasting food security to APEC member economies.  The PPFS should look to further define the elements of a food system structure as part of its objectives.

It is emphasized that, APEC’s approach to food security must reflect member economies’ commitment to facilitation of investment, trade and markets and sustainable development of the agricultural sector as outlined in the Niigata Declaration on Food Security. Each APEC member government may nominate private sector representatives to sit on the PPFS for an initial period of three years. ABAC may also nominate private sector representatives, who shall be endorsed by SOM in consultation with ABAC.  Private sector participants may represent agrifood-related industry bodies, farmers’ groups or individual companies and should strive to see that their views represent consensus within the industry.  

The private sector representatives to the PPFS will nominate a principal advisor to serve as a vice chair along with the government representatives in the PPFS management council.  The selection process for the principal advisor will be an open and transparent process, conducted by ABAC and approved by APEC Senior Officials. The APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) has been engaged in food security efforts since 1999 when APEC Leaders endorsed a plan for a unified APEC Food System. 

In the year 2009, ABAC issued a strategic framework for food security which among its recommendations called for the establishment of an ongoing mechanism at a high level to ensure the policy and technical cooperation necessary to achieve an integrated food system. This mechanism should include direct input and participation from the private and research sectors, as well as the public sector in the form of a formal, institutionalized “Food Dialogue”.  This laid the foundation for the creation of a Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS) three years later.

In 2010, APEC Ministers Responsible for Food Security agreed to consult with relevant stakeholders and instructed Senior Officials to integrate ABAC into APEC's food security efforts in a more substantive manner. In the year 2011, APEC Senior Officials agreed to create a Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS).

“A partnership towards the goals of food security”

In February 2012, PPFS was established, and the 1st PPFS Management Council Meeting was held in Moscow, Russia. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Sergey Aleksashenko from the Russian Federation.  The three Vice-Chairs were Mr. Bradley Fenwick from USA, Dr. Haryono from Indonesia, and Mr. David Dodwell from ABAC (also the Executive Director of the HK-APEC Trade Policy Group).  Government and private sector representatives from APEC member economies also attended the meeting. The blue print of the work of the PPFS were discussed and endorsed in APEC Senior Officials Meetings in May and the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in September 2012. The ABAC played a lead role in championing for the establishment of PPFS. In the years ahead, ABAC members and the private sector will continue to engage in the work of PPFS towards the goals of food security in the APEC region.

Increasing irrigation water productivity in Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe through on-farm monitoring, adaptive management and Agricultural Innovation Platforms: This project aims to find means of meeting the African government’s plans for greater food security while using limited water resources more sustainably. The project is funded with $3.3 million from the Australian Government via the Australian International Food Security Research Centre (AIFSRC) of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), with additional contributions from participating organizations.

A trans-disciplinary team has been assembled to address the recalcitrant problems of poor yields, low profitability leading to under-investment in infrastructure, market failure and degradation and abandonment of irrigated lands. The project will be led in Australia by the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance at The Australian National University, with contributions from CSIRO Land and Water and the University of South Australia. Partners in Africa include the Food and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN), International Centre for Crop Research in the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the University of Pretoria, Ardhi and Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania, and the National Institute for Irrigation in Mozambique.

An estimated one in four people go hungry in Africa; it is the region with the largest proportion of people living in extreme poverty. At the same time the agricultural potential of Africa is considered enormous; in terms of uncultivated farming land, reserves of exploitable water and in the levels of productivity that can still be achieved. Irrigation is under-developed in sub-Saharan Africa, and could potentially make a significant impact on food security.

“Irrigated onions, Igomelo Irrigation Area”

This project builds on a scoping study that reviewed the work of International Water Management Institute, International Food Policy Research Institute, World Bank, Challenge Program, Gates Foundation and others on how irrigation could contribute to food security in nine sub- Saharan African countries. This research (scoping study) into use of harvested rain (dams, rivers, aquifers) for sustainable food production aimed to understand how better water management can be achieved at the farm and community scale. The research examined what the farmers need in terms of technology and training, and how governance and learning systems can sustain productive use in a whole-of-catchment context.

The region seeks investment of 10% of national budgets to increase agricultural production at six times the current rate under the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program initiative. The land and water resources for such expansion are theoretically available. Set against these agricultural expansion plans are:

• a history of irrigation in the region failing to provide adequate return on investment,
• weak market integration and weak water governance institutions, and
• significant degradation and abandonment of irrigated land.

Furthermore, surface water is scarce and subject to competition in key river basins, such as the Limpopo and Rufiji. Despite these drawbacks, irrigation expansion will take place, and so research is needed to increase water productivity, the economic value per volume of water consumed. It is also needed to mitigate environmental degradation in current and new irrigated lands.

There are no “silver bullet” interventions to improve water productivity in Africa. The irrigation ‘problem’ is systemic in that there is failure at several levels including technical capacity, institutional arrangements and market linkages. These hurdles include the need:

• to develop water resources within the sustainable limits of the catchment / aquifer,
• to schedule water and nutrients to enable high crop yields,
• for farmers to actively participate in the value chain to ensure there is sufficient profit for investing in operation & maintenance costs and purchasing inputs, and
• for farmers to participate in governance arrangements that ensure efficient and equitable distribution of water. 

In response to such complex problems, an FAO (2012) report calls for the introduction of adaptive management approaches that will lead to social and institutional learning. This project seeks to implement such a program by deploying on-farm monitoring of water applied, soil water, nitrate, salt and groundwater depth and using this as a basis for identifying options for improving water productivity. At the same time the project will use existing farmer organisations as a basis for establishing agricultural innovation platforms which comprise farmers, political representatives and players across the market value chain in order to identify obstacles and stimulate opportunities for change. The platforms will consider water productivity as well as other constraints to irrigated agricultural productivity. The objectives are to:

• develop, test and deploy innovative water and solute monitoring systems to stimulate farmer learning toward greater water productivity.
• evaluate whether agricultural innovation platforms, based on existing community organizations can identify and overcome institutional and market barriers to greater water productivity.
• identify and communicate economic and policy incentive mechanisms for greater water productivity.

“Project leader Jamie Pittock standing next to the Madibira Irrigation Scheme”

The project is expected to work directly with approximately 5,000 smallholder irrigator households in six or more irrigation areas in Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The research will model the adaptive learning and innovation platform approach with government and non-government organisations so that they may scale up application to benefit hundreds of thousands of smallholder irrigator households in the region. The project intends to influence national and multi-lateral policies for water, agriculture and food security by providing evidence to enhance sustainability components concerning water and small holder-irrigation.

The project started in July 2013. In August, representatives from all partner organizations attended an inception workshop held in Maputo, Mozambique. The project will conclude in 2017.

We welcome also 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:

• Implementing water reform in Queensland, Australia: Australia implemented a series of reforms to the water sector in the State of Queensland, including the use of a ‘whole of river basin’ strategic plan approach within which local resource operation plans are prepared and implemented. The key lesson learnt is that an incremental approach, with water planning developing in “bite-sized chunks” allowed government to be flexible in response to changing circumstances.

A series of legislative and policy developments to reform the water sector in the State of Queensland, Australia were put in place over 1999-01 (and ongoing), following Commonwealth (national) government water reform initiatives in 1996.  The measures include: 

• Use of consultation across the stakeholder spectrum from high level of government through to farmers to help develop plans
• Preparation of draft policy papers then Bills used to drive process
• Preparation of supporting legislation for regulation of service providers, reform of water authorities; introduction of third party enforcement for offences, compliance notices, increased penalties;
• Introduction of legislation to enshrine environmental flow requirements in the Development of Water (Allocation and Management) Bill
• Use of a ‘whole of river basin’ strategic plan approach within which local resource operation plans are prepared and implemented
• Integration of the reforms with the local planning processes of Queensland 

The case illustrates how environmental flow requirements for rivers can be built into a planning process: includes assessment scenarios to demonstrate what makes a river ‘healthy’. It also demonstrates how river basin scale water planning can be developed incrementally by engaging end-users, and how it can be linked to local government planning initiatives. It is applicable to many other GWP regions which sub-humid/sub-tropical environments and which are struggling with water reform. Lessons learned are:

• An incremental approach, with water planning developing in “bite-sized chunks” allowed government to be flexible in response to changing circumstances.
• However, the process would have been streamlined action had been taken earlier to separate regulatory functions from supply or service provision roles
• Furthermore, a clearer definition of roles and responsibilities should have done earlier
• In water allocation to local governments (and, presumably, to other users), the government should not mandate how the allocated water is to be used. Instead, it should limit itself to the allocation, and allow the local governments to specify how the allocated water is to be used.

Albania Natural Resources Development Project: Forests cover more than 50 percent of Albania’s surface area. Agriculture and forestry have been two important sectors for the development of the rural areas and the national state economy. The post-communist transition period in Albania was characterized by massive internal and external migration of population, weak enforcement of laws and regulations, and overuse of natural resources all of which resulted in the considerable degradation of forests and pastures and erosion of soil. In response, the World Bank and the Swedish Government are supporting participatory forest and pasture management planning and investment in 240 Local Government Units (LGUs) through the National Resource Development Project (NRDP) to restore the forests and land of Albania.

In terms of challenges, after about two decades of transition, illegal logging, overgrazing of forests and pasture lands, and continuous degradation, the Albanians living in rural areas started to become conscious of the damaging effects these practices were having on the environment. To address this, residents organized community-based organizations with their main goals of protecting and rationally using their resources. Farmers, as part of forest and pasture users’ associations, pressured the Government to transfer the rights of use and ownership of both forest and pasture lands to them.

In terms of approach, In June 2008, the Government of Albania formalized the land rights transfer to 345 LGUs, as a concluding response to a former pilot process in 1998. The pilot, which was part of the Albanian Forestry Project financed by the World Bank, gave rights to 30 LGUs. Following the Government’s decision, an additional 315 LGUs benefited from the agreement. As of now, 60 percent of forests and pasture lands have been transferred from state to communal ownership, resources which are used by almost one million people.

In terms of results, the Project totaling US$19.4 million, including an IDA credit of US$7 million, US$5 million from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and co-financing of US$5.2 million from the Swedish Government, aims at establishing or maintaining sustainable, community-based natural resource management in about 240 communities in upland and mountainous erosion-prone lands across the country. This, in turn, is leading to increased productivity and incomes for the rural families as a result of their involvement in the management of forest and pastures, including:

• 25 percent increase in income earned from forest activities in communal forest and pasture lands;
• 50 percent increase in income earned from forest and agriculture activities in micro-catchment;, and
• employment of about 6,000 workers, including 1,900 women and 1,900 beneficiary families, since the project’s start-up.

The transfer of land ownership and user rights to the people has created incentive to manage and protect these resources, which have led to:

• 400,000 tons of erosion reduced;
• improved water management, and conservation of biodiversity, and
• forest protection, which is contributing to less sedimentation in the irrigation channels and hydropower dams.

Besides forestry, watershed, and agriculture, the project is also supporting carbon sequestration measures in degraded lands through simple protection measures such as fencing, control of animal grazing, and afforestation in very nude areas. Albania is one of the first countries to sequester carbon on eroded land. The Biocarbon Fund of the World Bank has reached an agreement with the Government to purchase emission reductions received from these carbon sequestration activities. The country will sell emissions reductions worth an estimated US$11 million to the World Bank’s Biocarbon Fund.

According to Drita Dade, WB Project Team Task Leader, “Given its large areas of abandoned and highly eroded lands, Albania had great potential for carbon sequestration. This would attract the attention of other investors to help Albania afforest its degraded lands, while at the same time be able to sequester some carbon, bringing direct benefits to the communities that are part of this scheme as well as to the globe”. According to a farmer from Gjalish, Uleza Commune, Mat, “You have to have been here 10 years ago to see – no vegetation but much degraded lands and overgrazed forests. Through some interventions under the World Bank Project we made a huge service to the forest. We cleaned and thinned it to allow good woods to grow better and to open space for the wildlife to come back in our forests. We stopped goats and animals from grazing for the first three years. What we see here now shows that with proper management we can have good quality of timber, and animals and other plants are coming back”. In terms of future course of action, more sustainable, community-based natural resource management in Albania will lead to enhanced productivity, incomes, and, overall, improvements in land and water resources for the public sector.

Brief Bio of Contributor (Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra)

Dr Santosh Kumar Mishra is researcher & demographer employed with the S. N. D. T. Women’s University (SNDTWU, http://sndt.ac.in/) located at Mumbai in India. He underwent training in demography from the IIPS, Mumbai, India. (http://www.iipsindia.org/). He acquired Ph. D. in 1999. He is Reviewer/Editorial Board Member for 31 international journals. He has also reviewed papers for 5 international conference sessions, including EURAM 2014 Conference (4-7 June 2014, University of Valencia, Spain, http://site.aace.org). His subject areas of interest include: population & development education, issues pertaining to population-development linkages, education for sustainable development, adult & continuing education/non-formal/extension education, etc.

 Dr. Mishra has (a) co-authored 5 research studies (published by the SNDTWU); (b) presented 32 papers for national conferences & 11 papers for international conferences, & (c) authored/co-authored 5 handbooks/booklets (published by the SNDTWU, 5 books, & 11 book chapters. In addition, he has 30 articles published in national journals and 18 in international journals.   Dr. was previously awarded Government of India fellowship at the IIPS (1986-1987) and travel scholarship for sharing his research views at international conferences and summits held at Karachi (Pakistan), Dare es Salaam (Tanzania), Stockholm (Sweden), Madison (USA), Dushanbe (Tajikistan), Canberra (Australia), and Manila (Philippines). He is Advisory Board Member of the American Academic & Scholarly Research Center (http://aasrc.org/?page_id=38) and Reviewer–cum–International Advisory Board Member for the AASRC 2013 International Conference – Beirut, Lebanon (http://aasrc.org/conference/? page_id=803). He was invited as Guest Speaker at the Pakistan’s 11th International Convention on Quality Improvement-ICQU, 2007 (organized by PIQC Institute of Quality Improvement, Lahore), Karachi, Pakistan, November 26-27, 2007.

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

Note:

1. Contributor Submitted to “The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee”: (a) online on web link: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/water-food-security-v0, & (b) Email:  [email protected] [Note: Submitted on Tuesday, October 21, 2014].
2. Institutional Affiliation of the Contributor: Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra (Ph. D.), Technical Assistant, Population Education Resource Centre, Department of Continuing and Adult Education and Extension Work, S. N. D. T. Women's University, Patkar Hall Building, First Floor, Room. No.: 03, 1, Nathibai Thackerey Road, Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra, India. (http://sndt.ac.in/) [Email: [email protected]  Tel.: +91-022-22066892 (O), +91–022–28090363 (R), +09224380445 (M)].

We are aware that we have not yet adequately covered, in the V0 draft, some issues of importance. We invite respondents to suggest relevant examples, including successful ones and what made them possible, good practices and lessons learned, case studies, data and material in the areas of:

1. Comparative water performance (productivity and resilience) for food security and nutrition of different farming systems, and food systems, in different contexts:

• CARICOM Project: From Farm to Fork: Improving Food and Nutrition Security in the Caribbean: This project is aimed at improving the nutrition and health of CARICOM populations through sustainable agricultural technologies that increase food availability and diversity of food choices. This initiative was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, and with the financial support of the Government of Canada provided through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

The CARICOM (Caribbean Community and Common Market) is an economic grouping of 15 developing countries in the Caribbean, many of them small islands, identified by FAO as experiencing food insecurity. These countries have a long history of reliance on exportation of plantation crops for economic development, but have paid limited attention to local food production, particularly vegetables and fruits. Additional constraints on vegetable and fruit production in CARICOM include seasonality and scarcity of water supply, inefficient use of land and agricultural technologies, and imperfections in market structures and incentives. Consequently, there is a high dependence on importation of energy-dense foods leading to low rates of consumption of vegetables, fruits and pulses, creating a paradox of obesity and under-nutrition, and threatening population health. 

The project was conceptualized based on the release of two land-mark reports (the “Jagdeo Imitative” and the Report of Caribbean Commission on Health and Development) adopted by CARICOM Heads of Government, and stressing the need for linkage between agriculture and human health to improve CARICOM development. The overall goal of the project is to improve nutrition and health outcomes of CARICOM populations through an integrated, gender equal, environmentally sustainable systems approach to availability, safety and quality of food.  Through a combination of socio-economic and community surveys, field research, and nutrition interventions in schools, the project addresses problems of land and water degradation, inefficient pre- and post harvest practices that underlie food and nutrition security. Innovations in inclusive market-oriented development and environmental management could lead to policy changes for sustained food security in CARICOM.  

The project is regional in nature, and piloted in four countries (Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, St. Lucia, and St. Kitts & Nevis); it is multidisciplinary in scope, and its scientific merit lies in its “farm-to-fork” systems approach to human health.  Project benefits include human capacity building through education and training and community sensitization programs for a range of stakeholders. A major expected outcome is a change in consumer behaviour towards the consumption of a more diversified diet of fruits and vegetables.

The King Abdullah Initiative for Saudi Agricultural Investment Abroad (KAISAIA): This project was launched January, 2009. In June 2012, the Saudi Cabinet set certain parameters for projects and investment and green-lighted projects financed by KAISAIA so they may finally get under way. Up to 60 percent of the financing is to be provided by the government. Target countries need to agree to allow export of at least 50 % of the crops. Investors should be able to benefit from agricultural equipment owned by local farmers in the host country.  It is a joint initiative by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi private sector. It is managed through the Ministry of Agriculture. Key objectives of the project (KAISAIA) are:

• maintaining food security for Saudi Arabia,
• enhancing international food security, and
• encouraging Saudi Investors to utilize their resources and experiences abroad.

Current targeted Countries: Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Turkey, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Brazil, and other suitable countries with agricultural investment. Priority actions in this project are:

• Provide funds, credit and logistics to Saudi investors to invest abroad in agriculture;
• Establish a strategic reserve for basic food commodities, to meet the Saudi needs for food and to avoid future food crises;
• Identifying the suitable hosting countries for agricultural investment;
• Studies to define local requirements for basic food products (present and future);
• Studies to define strategic reserves for basic food commodities;
• Establishing a holding company;
• Signing bilateral agreements with hosting countries to identify and preserve the rights and commitments of all parties; and
• Identifying the suitable forms of off-taking agreements between the government and the investors.

Water use in food processing:

• Water recycling for sustainable food manufacturing in Australia: New water recycling research aims to reduce the reliance on drinking water by food manufacturing and processing plants and address consumer concerns about the use of recycled water. This research aims to enable more sustainable use of water across the agri-food industry. Food processing is Australia’s largest and thirstiest manufacturing industry. Each year the food processing sector consumes about 215 gigalitres of water (equivalent to 86 000 Olympic size swimming pools). This is a third of the total water used for all manufacturing across Australia.

The industry has recognized the need to adopt alternative water management strategies ahead of a future with greater water scarcity and cost.  However, consumer perceptions and economic and regulatory barriers have prevented many food businesses from recycling water. Research through the “Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence” aims to reduce the reliance on fresh water throughout the agri-food supply chain.

Led by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the research will identify water recycling opportunities for food manufacturers by demonstrating economic, environmental and social benefits. Working closely with the food manufacturing, dairy and meat industries, the researchers will examine the full potential of water reuse, from energy recovery and nutrient re-use through to the use of spent process water for external purposes.

The team will also identify consumer and regulatory barriers hindering water recycling and propose strategies to overcome these barriers based on sound science. The research will:

• inform water recycling strategies for the agri-food industry,
• deliver decision making tools for the industry to assess water recycling options based on the value proposition and available technologies,
• improve understanding of consumer attitudes and emotions when consuming foods associated with recycled water and communicate positive messages to help increase consumer confidence, and
• provide advice to industry on regulatory guidelines for recycling water in food manufacturing plants.

This project ties into other work by the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence that is examining public attitudes and perceptions related to water recycling. The project's research activities began in early 2012.  As of September 2013 the following progress has been achieved:

• targeted literature reviews for water recycling in the dairy, meat, food and municipal water sectors in relation to all sub-project areas;
• the collection of data and information from key stakeholders;
• completing a choice modelling experiment to understand the attitudes, values and emotions of consumers when consuming a food product associated with recycled water;
• developing a methodology to assess the value proposition for water recycling scenarios;
• developing a framework to select technology options for recycling water for different applications;
• identifying and understanding the regulatory framework for water recycling in the agrifood sector;
• mapping the sources and sinks of water in the dairy, meat, food and utility sectors in Australia;
• completing a preliminary study for salt and nutrient uptake modelling when dairy effluents are used in irrigation; and
• commencing industry base trials and desktop studies in water recycling for the dairy, food and meat sectors.

The main focus of the project is to collaborate with industry to demonstrate higher-value water recycling opportunities that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits to the agri-food industry and community. The project will pursue a holistic cross-sector approach with stakeholders in meat, dairy and broader food manufacturing and retail sectors. Water authorities and regulatory and policy agencies are also involved. The project established an industry reference group to help ensure expected project outcomes are aligned to the requirements of external stakeholders, to seek advice and guidance in collecting relevant data and information, and to organise site visits. Administered through the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence, the project partners include:

• Australian Meat Processors Corporation,
• Meat & Livestock Australia,
• Dairy Innovation Australia Ltd.,
• Australian Food & Grocery Council,
• Queensland Government, and
• Industry partners.

Water recycling in food production and manufacture, Australia: The project identified and enabled water recycling opportunities in the agri-food industry through integrated systems analysis, technology assessment and targeted research to address implementation barriers. The project focused on addressing industry challenges, including regulatory and policy pressures, developed strategies to increase acceptance by consumers, and undertook customer attitude surveys.

The project collaborated with industry to demonstrate higher-value water recycling opportunities that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits to the agri-food industry and community. The project pursued a cross-sector approach with outcomes addressing water recycling interests with stakeholders in meat, dairy, horticulture and broader food manufacturing and retail sectors. Water authorities and regulatory and policy agencies were involved and participated with industry partners. The project team has met all major milestones including case studies for:

• recycling water options at Kellogg’s Botany site, based on physical constraints at the site and other factors
• salt and nutrient modelling, the regulatory framework, and demonstrating the value proposition tool for Bega Cheese and Dairy Innovation Australia Ltd (DIAL)
• evaluating a complete system to produce potable water (phosphorous recovery, membrane bioreactor, reverse osmosis and disinfection) for Warnambool Cheese and Butter and DIAL
• the meat sector (Australian Meat Processor Corporation and Meat & Livestock Australia), with a series of fact sheets, a review of the removal of oils, fat and greases from effluents of meat processing plants, and a position paper dealing with the reduction of nutrients from meat processing effluents and the reduction of salt from reverse osmosis retentate.
• The project’s framework for assessing appropriate technologies for treating waste water for different recycling and irrigation purposes has now been trialled by a couple of industry sectors (food processing and dairy), and the value proposition tool for calculating the net present value of water recycling investment has also been validated in industry-based trials (dairy and food. An industry forum organized for September 2014 for food, dairy and meat sector stakeholders aims to identify the cross-sector learnings from this project and to synthesise the broader opportunities for water recycling within these industries.

Lead organization is the CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Science. Partner organizations are:

• Meat & Livestock Australia,
• Australian Meat Processors Corporation,
• Dairy Innovation Australia,
• Australian Food & Grocery Council,
• Southern Rural Water, and
• Melbourne Water.

Recycled Water Opportunities in Sustainable Food Production and Manufacture, Australia:  AMPC and MLA are participating in a multi-party, cross-sector project to identify and enable water recycling opportunities in the agri-food industry. Led by CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Sciences and the Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the project will collaborate with industry to demonstrate higher-value water recycling opportunities that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits to the agri-food industry and community. It will focus on current industry challenges, including regulatory pressures, the value proposition driving water recycling, and develop strategies to increase acceptance by consumers and enhance the sustainability positioning with customers.

The project will pursue a holistic cross-sector approach with outcomes addressing water recycling interests with stakeholders in meat, dairy, horticulture and broader food manufacturing and retail sectors. Water authorities and regulatory and policy agencies are also involved and will participate in joint initiatives with the agri-food industry participants.

The project will be integrated with AMPC’s Core R&D Sustainability Program over the next two years and will involve integrated systems analysis, technology assessment and targeted research to address water recycling implementation barriers. Activities in the meat sector will involve two main areas:

1. A broad assessment of water recycling and reuse in the red meat processing sector including:

• Review of existing water recycling and reuse practices in the red meat processing sector;
• Comparison of these practices with other food manufacturing supply chains (e.g. Dairy, Pork, etc.);
• Identification of current and future regulatory barriers and opportunities;
• Development of an outline strategy for future R&D for three, five and ten year timeframes;
• Identification of specific demonstration trials and case studies.

1. Identification and development of trial sites including the following activities:

• Collection of information from industry on water usage and disposal, volumes and types of waste streams;
• Collation of existing information on water quality and nutrient content of effluent streams (supplemented by collection and analysis of samples);
• Design and implementation of treatment trials based on the initial review;
• Identification of potential recycle/reuse applications of treated water within the industry (e.g. non-food contact applications like cleaning, washing, cooling, heating, steam etc.);
• Assessment of residual water utilization (e.g. nutrient recovery, fit for purpose, farming, etc.).

The initial phase of the project included a survey of the AMPC membership which enabled data gathering on water use, recycling and disposal at red meat processing facilities. A total of 25 responses were received of which 23 contained useable data for the red-meat processing industry. Respondents ranged from the largest in Australia to small country abattoirs processing around 30 tonnes of hot standard carcase weight (HSCW) per month. There were thirteen beef-only plants, one sheep-only plant and nine multi-species plants. The average water usage for all respondents was 7.21 kL/tHSCW processed and ranged from 1.15 to 15.91 kL/tHSCW. The smaller plants used much less water per unit production than the larger plants because they did not carry out any further processing such as boning of carcasses or rendering of by-products. The average water usage for red meat plants producing greater than 1,500 tHSCW per month was 8.64 kL/tHSCW. This is a slight reduction on the figure of 9.4 kL/tHSCW obtained during the environmental sustainability survey of 14 sites done for AMPC and MLA in 2008-09. 

All plants that responded to the survey reuse water for some purpose. For most, treated effluent was used for irrigation of pasture, farms or gardens on-site and off-site. In addition over 60% of respondents recycled water to replace potable water in a variety of uses such as yard and stock washing, initial tripe washing, cooling applications, boiler feedwater, etc. Only two plants recirculated water within the same process. These related to beef hot water decontamination systems where the used water was treated and re-heated before being sprayed back on the beef sides. 

The data gathered from the survey will be used to benchmark water recycling within the red meat processing sector for comparison with other sectors, such as dairy and horticulture, as well as to identify potential water recycling opportunities. Having collated, interpreted and analyzed the survey results, CSIRO are now planning a series of site visits to determine:

• Process-related and technology-related opportunities for recycling water;
• Priorities for processors for water recycling;
• The site specific needs in relation to water recycling, and;
• Trial sites for the next phase of the project.

Recent meetings have also been held between AMPC, CSIRO, the University of Queensland and a range of other R&D providers working with AMPC and the meat processing industry, to identify options for collaboration and share information on the progress of current projects. These meetings have assisted in identifying the options for commercial trials, which will likely build on other work underway with AMPC members that relates to water and energy efficiency through tripe waste water re-use, steam sterilization of chillers and viscera water recycling.

In addition, the industry project to establish “environmental benchmarks” or performance measures in relation to water, energy and other natural resource use is now underway. This project will review and collect new data since the previous examinations conducted in 2003 and 2008. This project will also provide indicative analysis of the future targets for the red meat processing industry so as to benchmark environmental measures.

Water for food and nutrition security in urban and peri-urban contexts:

• Using water wisely to feed growing cities, Tunisia: North Africa contains 5 per cent of the world's population but only has 1 per cent of the world's available water resources. In Tunisia, water availability is as low as 350 m³ per person per year, but rapid urbanization and climate change are placing further stress on water resources and food production. Use of treated wastewater for irrigation has helped to sustain agriculture in peri-urban areas, but severe government restrictions on wastewater use are constraining production.

“With greenhouses, crops can be grown in the earth and suspended above ground”

In the town of Soukra, six kilometres from the capital city, Tunis, hundreds of low-income families live off the crops they grow. In recent years, however, rapid urbanisation has caused the city to expand, encroaching on farms, driving land speculation and threatening the livelihoods of Soukra's farmers. Since the 1990s, nearly 30 per cent of arable land has disappeared. Farmers are also facing significant water stress: climate change has altered rainfall patterns, causing more extreme droughts and floods and leading farmers to draw more water from wells. As a result, saltwater from a nearby lagoon has been seeping into the groundwater, leaving some fields waterlogged and others too salty to grow healthy crops.

With funding from Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Tunisian NGO Club UNESCO/ALECSO pour le savoir et le développement durable (FTCUA Tunisie) set out to find comprehensive ways to mitigate the environmental threats farmers face, while helping them secure and improve their livelihoods. "We spent a year with experts, researchers, regional and local NGOs and the municipality to understand the origin of these problems, the farmers' perspectives and their aspirations for the future," says Moez Bouraoui of FTCUA Tunisie and president of the Urban Agriculture Association of the Middle East and North Africa.

This led to the development of a plan that would address environmental threats to agriculture while improving farmers' incomes. The idea was to deploy new, environmentally-sustainable sources of water for irrigation to increase agricultural production, and create small businesses for the farmers who had largely been growing subsistence crops. "These farmers only have small plots ranging from 1,500 m² to one hectare," Bouraoui explains, "so we opted for greenhouses which help conserve water, protect crops from grazing animals and theft, and allow for more intensive farming. This much more intensive form of agriculture has vastly increased yields by allowing crops to be grown in the earth and suspended above ground”.

“Snails, which provide fertilizer, are farmed in containers”

Technicians then installed ground-level basins adjacent to farmers' land to store rainwater and deliver it to crops. This water is directed to the greenhouse crops using highly efficient micro-irrigation. “After a few months of experimentation and research, we installed rainwater collection systems on the greenhouses”, Bouraoui adds. Gutters built into the greenhouses’ support structure channel the rain into storage tanks, which can meet up to 60 per cent of its water needs. Wastewater - including water used for household bathing and cleaning - was also captured, filtered and used for irrigation. Following Tunisia's strict regulations on wastewater use, it is only used to grow flowers, which are a lucrative crop. To restore saline soil, fresh earth was added and olive trees planted which will tolerate a large range of soil conditions and can be irrigated with wastewater.

Greenhouses usually have to be moved every five years to avoid soil depletion, but this is impossible because of a lack of space. Farmers began to experiment with lucrative crops that could be grown in containers above the soil - such as strawberries and lettuces - to allow the ground to lie fallow. Snails, which provide fertilizer, are also farmed in containers. Farmers who once grew crops for subsistence are diversifying and cultivating more cash crops, including ten kinds of fruit and vegetables, which they sell in nearby markets. Greenhouses have also extended the growing season and increased incomes, as farmers can earn much more for produce such as tomatoes, when they are out of season. For example, one greenhouse produces six tonnes of tomatoes, worth around US$4,600. Farmers who were once amongst the poorest are enjoying better lives. One mother paid for her daughter's wedding, others have expanded their homes. One of the most tangible signs of success is that some farmers are reinvesting their profits into building more greenhouses.

“In the town of Soukra, hundreds of low-income families live off the crops they grow”

The research team has worked closely with the city government to help it recognize the ecological and economic value of urban agriculture, and to include small-scale farming in land use planning. Bouraoui explains: “Together we thought about how to develop a structure that could unite the farmers that could defend their interests, and provide them with services to support the development and growth of their businesses. We put in place a cooperative which is gradually taking over the research and gives farmers a stronger voice in local decision-making. In some ways, this is one of the greatest achievements of the project”.

This model of urban agriculture and the technical innovations that have been produced are now being disseminated throughout Tunisia through mass media, journal articles, workshops and conferences. Through associations like the Arab Network for Urban Agriculture, the knowledge gained in Soukra is being shared with groups throughout the region. “The solutions pioneered in Soukra provide excellent examples for countries in the region coping with water scarcity and climate change”, Bouraoui concludes.

Ensuring water security in urban areas through better understanding and management of the water, energy, food nexus (WEFN), China: China faces the challenge of developing resource efficient livable cities for a growing population and economy in areas of increasing water scarcity. Therefore new and innovative solutions need to be found in the design of urban water infrastructure and the institutional planning and management of water in the cities, associated industries and surrounding rural areas. This means integrating water and energy efficient solutions in the urban planning and design of new cities and in the re-development of existing cities.

The co-lead partnership on the water-energy-food nexus was initiated by Sweden and China through the Swedish Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Water Resources of China, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute (NHRI), Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR), MWR Development Research Centre (DRC), Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). A closely linked co-lead partnership on the water-energy nexus was initiated by the United Kingdom focused on ensuring water security by better managing the interactions between water and energy in the process of urban development and the energy resources that support that development. The co-lead projects bring together technical experts to work with policy makers and municipal governments to apply best international practice and innovation to practical problems and identify the areas, where European and Chinese enterprises can work together in a mutually beneficial manner.

The WEFN is an important component of the overall Urban Water Challenge, the WEFN projects will coordinate with Integrated Urban Water management projects and with the EU-China Urbanization Partnership for the development of resource efficient Low carbon Cities. Key activity areas with programs jointly developed by Chinese and European partners encompass:

• Taihu Basin Region Urban Water Security Program,
• Managing water risks in China’s energy sector – especially the impact on water resources of  Development of Shale Gas and Synthetic natural gas supplies,
• Managing energy risks in China’s Urban Water Sector – especially the influence of energy use of different source in planning the water resources development strategy for Qingdao, and
• Sustainable and intensive agriculture for urban areas.

Participating organizations are:

• Swedish Ministry of Environment,
• UK Foreign Commonwealth Office,
• Stockholm Environment Institute,
• Stockholm International Water Institute,
• Atkins International,
• Stockholm Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),
• Ministry of Water Resources,
• P.R. China,
• China CEWP Secretariat,
• Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute,
• Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR),
• Development Research Centre (DRC) of the Ministry of Water Resources,
• Tai Lake Basin Authority,
• Applied Energy Innovation Center (AEI) in Ningbo,
• ChangCE, and
• World Resources Institute.

Water governance, policies and management systems capable of better integrating food security concerns while tackling trade-offs between water uses/users in an equitable, gender just and deliberative manner. We are particularly interested in examples that have enhanced social justice and also benefitted marginalised groups:

• Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS), Hong Kong: Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS) will play a significant role in identifying the key challenges in improving food security in the APEC region, and in recommending appropriate policy initiatives going forward. The long term goal of the PPFS shall be the attainment of a food system structure by 2020 sufficient to provide lasting food security to APEC member economies.  The PPFS should look to further define the elements of a food system structure as part of its objectives.

It is emphasized that, APEC’s approach to food security must reflect member economies’ commitment to facilitation of investment, trade and markets and sustainable development of the agricultural sector as outlined in the Niigata Declaration on Food Security. Each APEC member government may nominate private sector representatives to sit on the PPFS for an initial period of three years. ABAC may also nominate private sector representatives, who shall be endorsed by SOM in consultation with ABAC.  Private sector participants may represent agrifood-related industry bodies, farmers’ groups or individual companies and should strive to see that their views represent consensus within the industry.  

The private sector representatives to the PPFS will nominate a principal advisor to serve as a vice chair along with the government representatives in the PPFS management council.  The selection process for the principal advisor will be an open and transparent process, conducted by ABAC and approved by APEC Senior Officials. The APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) has been engaged in food security efforts since 1999 when APEC Leaders endorsed a plan for a unified APEC Food System. 

In the year 2009, ABAC issued a strategic framework for food security which among its recommendations called for the establishment of an ongoing mechanism at a high level to ensure the policy and technical cooperation necessary to achieve an integrated food system. This mechanism should include direct input and participation from the private and research sectors, as well as the public sector in the form of a formal, institutionalized “Food Dialogue”.  This laid the foundation for the creation of a Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS) three years later.

In 2010, APEC Ministers Responsible for Food Security agreed to consult with relevant stakeholders and instructed Senior Officials to integrate ABAC into APEC's food security efforts in a more substantive manner. In the year 2011, APEC Senior Officials agreed to create a Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS).

“A partnership towards the goals of food security”

In February 2012, PPFS was established, and the 1st PPFS Management Council Meeting was held in Moscow, Russia. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Sergey Aleksashenko from the Russian Federation.  The three Vice-Chairs were Mr. Bradley Fenwick from USA, Dr. Haryono from Indonesia, and Mr. David Dodwell from ABAC (also the Executive Director of the HK-APEC Trade Policy Group).  Government and private sector representatives from APEC member economies also attended the meeting. The blue print of the work of the PPFS were discussed and endorsed in APEC Senior Officials Meetings in May and the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in September 2012. The ABAC played a lead role in championing for the establishment of PPFS. In the years ahead, ABAC members and the private sector will continue to engage in the work of PPFS towards the goals of food security in the APEC region.

Increasing irrigation water productivity in Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe through on-farm monitoring, adaptive management and Agricultural Innovation Platforms: This project aims to find means of meeting the African government’s plans for greater food security while using limited water resources more sustainably. The project is funded with $3.3 million from the Australian Government via the Australian International Food Security Research Centre (AIFSRC) of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), with additional contributions from participating organizations.

A trans-disciplinary team has been assembled to address the recalcitrant problems of poor yields, low profitability leading to under-investment in infrastructure, market failure and degradation and abandonment of irrigated lands. The project will be led in Australia by the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance at The Australian National University, with contributions from CSIRO Land and Water and the University of South Australia. Partners in Africa include the Food and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN), International Centre for Crop Research in the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the University of Pretoria, Ardhi and Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania, and the National Institute for Irrigation in Mozambique.

An estimated one in four people go hungry in Africa; it is the region with the largest proportion of people living in extreme poverty. At the same time the agricultural potential of Africa is considered enormous; in terms of uncultivated farming land, reserves of exploitable water and in the levels of productivity that can still be achieved. Irrigation is under-developed in sub-Saharan Africa, and could potentially make a significant impact on food security.

“Irrigated onions, Igomelo Irrigation Area”

This project builds on a scoping study that reviewed the work of International Water Management Institute, International Food Policy Research Institute, World Bank, Challenge Program, Gates Foundation and others on how irrigation could contribute to food security in nine sub- Saharan African countries. This research (scoping study) into use of harvested rain (dams, rivers, aquifers) for sustainable food production aimed to understand how better water management can be achieved at the farm and community scale. The research examined what the farmers need in terms of technology and training, and how governance and learning systems can sustain productive use in a whole-of-catchment context.

The region seeks investment of 10% of national budgets to increase agricultural production at six times the current rate under the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program initiative. The land and water resources for such expansion are theoretically available. Set against these agricultural expansion plans are:

• a history of irrigation in the region failing to provide adequate return on investment,
• weak market integration and weak water governance institutions, and
• significant degradation and abandonment of irrigated land.

Furthermore, surface water is scarce and subject to competition in key river basins, such as the Limpopo and Rufiji. Despite these drawbacks, irrigation expansion will take place, and so research is needed to increase water productivity, the economic value per volume of water consumed. It is also needed to mitigate environmental degradation in current and new irrigated lands.

There are no “silver bullet” interventions to improve water productivity in Africa. The irrigation ‘problem’ is systemic in that there is failure at several levels including technical capacity, institutional arrangements and market linkages. These hurdles include the need:

• to develop water resources within the sustainable limits of the catchment / aquifer,
• to schedule water and nutrients to enable high crop yields,
• for farmers to actively participate in the value chain to ensure there is sufficient profit for investing in operation & maintenance costs and purchasing inputs, and
• for farmers to participate in governance arrangements that ensure efficient and equitable distribution of water. 

In response to such complex problems, an FAO (2012) report calls for the introduction of adaptive management approaches that will lead to social and institutional learning. This project seeks to implement such a program by deploying on-farm monitoring of water applied, soil water, nitrate, salt and groundwater depth and using this as a basis for identifying options for improving water productivity. At the same time the project will use existing farmer organisations as a basis for establishing agricultural innovation platforms which comprise farmers, political representatives and players across the market value chain in order to identify obstacles and stimulate opportunities for change. The platforms will consider water productivity as well as other constraints to irrigated agricultural productivity. The objectives are to:

• develop, test and deploy innovative water and solute monitoring systems to stimulate farmer learning toward greater water productivity.
• evaluate whether agricultural innovation platforms, based on existing community organizations can identify and overcome institutional and market barriers to greater water productivity.
• identify and communicate economic and policy incentive mechanisms for greater water productivity.

“Project leader Jamie Pittock standing next to the Madibira Irrigation Scheme”

The project is expected to work directly with approximately 5,000 smallholder irrigator households in six or more irrigation areas in Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The research will model the adaptive learning and innovation platform approach with government and non-government organisations so that they may scale up application to benefit hundreds of thousands of smallholder irrigator households in the region. The project intends to influence national and multi-lateral policies for water, agriculture and food security by providing evidence to enhance sustainability components concerning water and small holder-irrigation.

The project started in July 2013. In August, representatives from all partner organizations attended an inception workshop held in Maputo, Mozambique. The project will conclude in 2017.

We welcome also 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:

• Implementing water reform in Queensland, Australia: Australia implemented a series of reforms to the water sector in the State of Queensland, including the use of a ‘whole of river basin’ strategic plan approach within which local resource operation plans are prepared and implemented. The key lesson learnt is that an incremental approach, with water planning developing in “bite-sized chunks” allowed government to be flexible in response to changing circumstances.

A series of legislative and policy developments to reform the water sector in the State of Queensland, Australia were put in place over 1999-01 (and ongoing), following Commonwealth (national) government water reform initiatives in 1996.  The measures include: 

• Use of consultation across the stakeholder spectrum from high level of government through to farmers to help develop plans
• Preparation of draft policy papers then Bills used to drive process
• Preparation of supporting legislation for regulation of service providers, reform of water authorities; introduction of third party enforcement for offences, compliance notices, increased penalties;
• Introduction of legislation to enshrine environmental flow requirements in the Development of Water (Allocation and Management) Bill
• Use of a ‘whole of river basin’ strategic plan approach within which local resource operation plans are prepared and implemented
• Integration of the reforms with the local planning processes of Queensland 

The case illustrates how environmental flow requirements for rivers can be built into a planning process: includes assessment scenarios to demonstrate what makes a river ‘healthy’. It also demonstrates how river basin scale water planning can be developed incrementally by engaging end-users, and how it can be linked to local government planning initiatives. It is applicable to many other GWP regions which sub-humid/sub-tropical environments and which are struggling with water reform. Lessons learned are:

• An incremental approach, with water planning developing in “bite-sized chunks” allowed government to be flexible in response to changing circumstances.
• However, the process would have been streamlined action had been taken earlier to separate regulatory functions from supply or service provision roles
• Furthermore, a clearer definition of roles and responsibilities should have done earlier
• In water allocation to local governments (and, presumably, to other users), the government should not mandate how the allocated water is to be used. Instead, it should limit itself to the allocation, and allow the local governments to specify how the allocated water is to be used.

Albania Natural Resources Development Project: Forests cover more than 50 percent of Albania’s surface area. Agriculture and forestry have been two important sectors for the development of the rural areas and the national state economy. The post-communist transition period in Albania was characterized by massive internal and external migration of population, weak enforcement of laws and regulations, and overuse of natural resources all of which resulted in the considerable degradation of forests and pastures and erosion of soil. In response, the World Bank and the Swedish Government are supporting participatory forest and pasture management planning and investment in 240 Local Government Units (LGUs) through the National Resource Development Project (NRDP) to restore the forests and land of Albania.

In terms of challenges, after about two decades of transition, illegal logging, overgrazing of forests and pasture lands, and continuous degradation, the Albanians living in rural areas started to become conscious of the damaging effects these practices were having on the environment. To address this, residents organized community-based organizations with their main goals of protecting and rationally using their resources. Farmers, as part of forest and pasture users’ associations, pressured the Government to transfer the rights of use and ownership of both forest and pasture lands to them.

In terms of approach, In June 2008, the Government of Albania formalized the land rights transfer to 345 LGUs, as a concluding response to a former pilot process in 1998. The pilot, which was part of the Albanian Forestry Project financed by the World Bank, gave rights to 30 LGUs. Following the Government’s decision, an additional 315 LGUs benefited from the agreement. As of now, 60 percent of forests and pasture lands have been transferred from state to communal ownership, resources which are used by almost one million people.

In terms of results, the Project totaling US$19.4 million, including an IDA credit of US$7 million, US$5 million from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and co-financing of US$5.2 million from the Swedish Government, aims at establishing or maintaining sustainable, community-based natural resource management in about 240 communities in upland and mountainous erosion-prone lands across the country. This, in turn, is leading to increased productivity and incomes for the rural families as a result of their involvement in the management of forest and pastures, including:

• 25 percent increase in income earned from forest activities in communal forest and pasture lands;
• 50 percent increase in income earned from forest and agriculture activities in micro-catchment;, and
• employment of about 6,000 workers, including 1,900 women and 1,900 beneficiary families, since the project’s start-up.

The transfer of land ownership and user rights to the people has created incentive to manage and protect these resources, which have led to:

• 400,000 tons of erosion reduced;
• improved water management, and conservation of biodiversity, and
• forest protection, which is contributing to less sedimentation in the irrigation channels and hydropower dams.

Besides forestry, watershed, and agriculture, the project is also supporting carbon sequestration measures in degraded lands through simple protection measures such as fencing, control of animal grazing, and afforestation in very nude areas. Albania is one of the first countries to sequester carbon on eroded land. The Biocarbon Fund of the World Bank has reached an agreement with the Government to purchase emission reductions received from these carbon sequestration activities. The country will sell emissions reductions worth an estimated US$11 million to the World Bank’s Biocarbon Fund.

According to Drita Dade, WB Project Team Task Leader, “Given its large areas of abandoned and highly eroded lands, Albania had great potential for carbon sequestration. This would attract the attention of other investors to help Albania afforest its degraded lands, while at the same time be able to sequester some carbon, bringing direct benefits to the communities that are part of this scheme as well as to the globe”. According to a farmer from Gjalish, Uleza Commune, Mat, “You have to have been here 10 years ago to see – no vegetation but much degraded lands and overgrazed forests. Through some interventions under the World Bank Project we made a huge service to the forest. We cleaned and thinned it to allow good woods to grow better and to open space for the wildlife to come back in our forests. We stopped goats and animals from grazing for the first three years. What we see here now shows that with proper management we can have good quality of timber, and animals and other plants are coming back”. In terms of future course of action, more sustainable, community-based natural resource management in Albania will lead to enhanced productivity, incomes, and, overall, improvements in land and water resources for the public sector.

Brief Bio of Contributor (Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra)

Dr Santosh Kumar Mishra is researcher & demographer employed with the S. N. D. T. Women’s University (SNDTWU, http://sndt.ac.in/) located at Mumbai in India. He underwent training in demography from the IIPS, Mumbai, India. (http://www.iipsindia.org/). He acquired Ph. D. in 1999. He is Reviewer/Editorial Board Member for 31 international journals. He has also reviewed papers for 5 international conference sessions, including EURAM 2014 Conference (4-7 June 2014, University of Valencia, Spain, http://site.aace.org). His subject areas of interest include: population & development education, issues pertaining to population-development linkages, education for sustainable development, adult & continuing education/non-formal/extension education, etc.

Dr. Mishra has (a) co-authored 5 research studies (published by the SNDTWU); (b) presented 32 papers for national conferences & 11 papers for international conferences, & (c) authored/co-authored 5 handbooks/booklets (published by the SNDTWU, 5 books, & 11 book chapters. In addition, he has 30 articles published in national journals and 18 in international journals.   Dr. was previously awarded Government of India fellowship at the IIPS (1986-1987) and travel scholarship for sharing his research views at international conferences and summits held at Karachi (Pakistan), Dare es Salaam (Tanzania), Stockholm (Sweden), Madison (USA), Dushanbe (Tajikistan), Canberra (Australia), and Manila (Philippines). He is Advisory Board Member of the American Academic & Scholarly Research Center (http://aasrc.org/?page_id=38) and Reviewer–cum–International Advisory Board Member for the AASRC 2013 International Conference – Beirut, Lebanon (http://aasrc.org/conference/? page_id=803). He was invited as Guest Speaker at the Pakistan’s 11th International Convention on Quality Improvement-ICQU, 2007 (organized by PIQC Institute of Quality Improvement, Lahore), Karachi, Pakistan, November 26-27, 2007.

Comment on the CFS/HLPE Report: WATER AND FOOD SECURITY (DRAFT V0-OCT 1, 2014)

By Aziz Elbehri, Trade and Market Division, FAO

My comment will be restricted to the question of trade which the draft report has not adequately addressed in my opinion. There are scattered references to trade in the report, but these do not amount to a coherent treatment given the potential role of trade in correcting national imbalances of water. The following are further elaborations on trade-related themes for consideration into the future version of the report:

1.      “Virtual water” is a concept developed to examine the role that trade could play to correct for water imbalances across countries and to contribute, in part, to solving the projected negative impacts on food security. Virtual water allows countries to assess the value of producing a specific crop locally versus importing it. Given different water endowments across countries, it is proposed that water-abundant countries produce water-intensive products and export to water deficit regions. However, this is not as easy as it looks, as they are several difficult policy trade-offs to consider, not mention to the political feasibility of such an approach.

2.      The main issue is that trade is closely tied with policy (including related farm and energy policy more broadly). It can be fairly assumed that improvements in agricultural water productivity through investments in improved rainfall and irrigation systems, through better demand management (including through improved water pricing and water trading) as well as better governance of water management, distribution and use, can go long way in alleviating much of the water shortage problems, while the rest can be filled by trade. However, overreliance on imports could increase country vulnerability to global market volatility, sudden food market shortages, or even political decisions (export bans or sanctions). Local food production has also other socio-economic and developmental benefits to rural areas. A more reasonable strategy would be to combine investments in rainfed and irrigated agriculture with strategic complementary trade policies both of which can contribute to reducing the amount of additional water required to meet food demands. Moreover, trade policies need to be closely aligned and harmonized with farm subsidies, energy subsidies, competition policies so as to avoid unintended detrimental consequences on water supply and demand, and hence on the country’s food security. Finally, as water is becoming a global concern, this has implications for multilateral trade rules and arrangements. One issue to ponder here is whether the existing WTO rules are flexible enough and with sufficient safeguards to allow water-deficit countries to source their food requirements through trade or are new multilateral mechanisms and safeguards required.

3.      Beside trade there is also the question of investments. Promoting open trade to facilitate imports of water-intensive commodities may also open the door to inflows of foreign investments which can be “a double edged sword”. Investments may bring in capital and technology but could also create risk of diverting water resources away from much needed food security uses. A typical example is the investment in land for biofuel feedstocks (which would also require huge amounts of water resources, especially under intensive production systems). A particular concern in developing countries. Appropriate investment policies and safeguards that could balance between protecting investors rights and those of the local communities, are very much needed for water as much as for land investments.

4.      Climate change is expected to exacerbate water scarcity and induce future irrigation shortages in many parts of the world. This brings to the fore the role of trade as a potential correcting mechanism. Again potential is underlined since trade and or climate policy could direct the trade impacts in a positive or negative way. While an open trading system has the potential to correct part for the water variability and increased scarcity problem, there are many unanswered issues that need further investigation. Among these is the search for the correct balance between investing in improving water & food productivity versus relying on imports and between promoting foreign investments versus protecting communities’ interests and right to food and water.

In conclusion, the above considerations call for more analysis on the role trade can play in correcting the emergence water imbalances and their implications for food security.  International organizations, such as FAO, WB and others along with water specialized research centers need to partner to develop the technical and economic knowledge base required to support developing countries and to assist the formulation of appropriate national water policies as well as engage in global policy dialog on water and food security issues.

The concept of Food and nutrition security implies that every individual has the physical, economic, social and environmental access to a balanced diet that includes the necessary macro & micro nutrients, safe drinking water, sanitation, environmental hygiene, primary health care and education so as to lead a healthy and productive life.

A sustainable national nutrition security system should address the three issues of Availability, Access and Absorption. The decline in per capita food grain availability and its unequal distribution have serious implications for food security in both rural and urban areas.

Rural Food Insecurity: Several Studies have shown that the poverty is concentrated and food deprivation is acute in predominantly agriculture and rural areas with limited resources. In India of the 310.7 million rural workers, 103.12 million are agricultural labourers. Of these, about 48.37 million are females.  Female Agricultural labourers are especially vulnerable to food insecurity on account of lower wages as well as the effects of migration. 

Urban Food Insecurity: It is often presumed that, since urban areas are covered by the PDS, food security is not a major issue in urban areas.  This is not true.  During the 1990, the PDS has been weakened both by repeated increases in the issue prices of food grains and by the switch to a system of targeted PDS.  People should be able to access grains from PDS whenever they want, wherever they want and any quantity they want, subject to a few ground rules to prevent purchase for hoarding and subsequent sale at high prices,

Action Plan:

A.      Reform of the Delivery System: Restructure the delivery systems relating to all nutrition support program on a life cycle basis, starting with pregnant women and 0-2 infants and ending with old and infirm persons.

A.      Community Food Security Systems: Promote the establishment of Community grain and water banks, involving Panchayats and local bodies. This program should be based on the principle “Store grain and water everywhere”.

B.      Eradicate hidden hunger: Nutrition literacy should be promoted at the school level. High priority should go to the elimination of iron deficiency anemia among pregnant women through fortification of salt and kitchen gardens.

C.       Designing and introducing a Food Guarantee Act: A National Food Guarantee Act should lead to a decentralized network of grain storage structures and thereby help to prevent panic purchase of food grains during periods of drought of flood.

D.      Every Village a knowledge centre: 21st century Agriculture will be knowledge intensive.  Knowledge connectivity should there be a key component of Bharat Nirman, designed to provide a new deal for Rural India. 

E.      Convergence and Synergy among Public, Private and Academic Sector initiatives: There is a need for convergence and synergy among numerous initiatives of Central and State Governments in the area of ICT for good governess and development.

Strategies to address micronutrient malnutrition: Three of the main strategies for addressing micronutrient malnutrition are dietary diversification, fortification (including bio fortification) and supplementation.

Supplementation:  It is a technical approach in which nutrients are delivered directly by means of Syrup or Pills.  Supplementation is most appropriate for targeted population with a high risk deficiency or under special circumstances such as during pregnancy or in an acute food shortage.

Fortification: This strategies utilize widely accessible, commonly consumed foods to deliver one or more micronutrients.  The most widespread effort to date has been fortification of Salt with Iodine.  However, many other foods may be used as vehicles for a variety of micronutrients.

Governments often assisted by International Agencies for many decades taken steps to eliminate or reduce micronutrient deficiencies.  Building on the impressive results of the reduction iodine deficiency disorders (IDD) through the fortification of table salt with Iodine.

Bio-fortification: Bio-fortification, or plant breeding for the specific purpose of enhancing the nutritional properties of crop varieties, reflects the new application of an ancient technique.  Recently breeding trials have been undertaken for the specific purpose of enhancing the nutritional value of crops with the specific objective of improving human nutrition.  There have been some reported successes, including high protein maize, high carotene sweet potato and cassava and Iron enhanced rice (IFPRI 2002)

Dietary Diversification: Dietary diversity can be augmented by variety of foods by expanding the production, processing, marketing and consumption of a wide variety of foods.  This information needs to be disseminated to the public through traditional information channel. 

Factors for Success: Increased food collaboration and political commitment: Complimentary public health interventions that can help reduce micronutrient malnutrition including de-warming, Malaria prophylaxis, improved water and sanitation facilities and childhood immunization.  Holistic strategies using mixture of direct and indirect interventions and public health measures as well as education and awareness campaign have proved to be the best successful in reducing micronutrient malnutrition (Underwood, 1999)

First, there is a need for the FFS programs to link crop choice and diversification to food consumption, nutritional needs and dietary practices within local communities. 

Incorporating nutrition in Former Field Schools (FFS): In many developing countries food insecurity in combination with the high incidences of infection continuous to have detrimental effect on the nutrition and health status of poor households.  However there are a large number of Agricultural Extension Activities including large scale Former Feed School Programs in more than 50 countries.  The FFS are participatory and hand on Adult education courses that focus on topics ranging from Pest Management and Dairy Production to food security.

Demand Projections and Constraints:  In the next 10 years we have to add 55 million tones of food grains, 5 million tones of edible oil, 65 million tones of vegetables and fruits, 70 million tones of milk, 1 million tones of fish, 3 million tones of meat & chicken and 100 billion eggs.  As 80% of the estimated addition has to come from vertical growth, productivity has to be 64% 120% and 136-157% respectively.

The major problems are rapid decreasing production – productivity growth of food grains :shrinking water resources; declining soil health and soil productivity; over two-thirds of the area remaining rain-fed with very low and inconsistent productivity; declining farm net-return; shortage of farm labor due to mass migration of rural folk to urban areas; increasingly limiting but badly required genetic variability; continued reservation against genetically modified crops; and unfolding adverse effects of climate change. 

Technological and Development Interventions for Advances in Sustained Production:  Integrated Crop Management (ICM) Modified form of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) designed and promoted by the Food and Agricultural Organization is an effective strategy to realize the maximum of the potential yield of a crop variety.  Designed with two broad objectives of (i) maximizing productivity by narrowing the yield gap and (ii) maximizing sustainability by optimally using natural and monitoring inputs, the ICM is site and farmer-specific.

Sustaining the natural endowments:  Conservation and optimal utilization of natural resources – soil, water and plant genetic resources hold the key to sustainable future growth of agriculture.  Yet another natural resource that has not been receiving due attention for long is conservation of genetic resources, which are crucial for progressive improvement of crop plants and farm animals.  Indian subcontinent is one of the gene rich regions of the world.  Sadly, not even 15% of the available diversity could be utilized for crop improvement and hardly any variability of value, known to occur in the native breeds, has been taken advantage of for desired improvement of our livestock.

Climate change is a real and it is bound to adversely impact all our life-supporting systems and mainly Agriculture, given the size of crop losses being experienced due to unusually erratic monsoon behavior and / or rising temperature.

Favorable Policy Environment for maximizing the benefits from Technological and Developmental Interventions:  The following are some of the issues and areas, where clear and pro-growth policy directions are important to sustain farming and the farmer.

(1)Enhanced Investment on Agriculture; (2) Credit Facilities and Crop Insurance are very important for the availing of  government extended credit, subsidy and crop insurance facilities.  Significantly in such group forming, land ownership will remain with the farmer concerned and land consolidation though desirable, would be optional.

Underutilized human capital in rural areas: Over one-half of our population is in the age group of 20 – 35.  Youth in rural India accounts for 296 million as against 131 million in urban India.  Majority of this human resource remains under utilized.  Our failures to create rural bio-resources based employment opportunities and develop appropriate skill in them continued to be the reason for mass exodus of young people from rural areas to urban areas.

Spiraling Food Prices: The most challenging problem now, the world-over is unaffordable and escalating food prices.  Food inflation at an all time high of 18-20% during the last few years, leaving many more lakhs to go to bed hungry is of great concern. Of the many factors that contribute such price raise, the more important are; demand-supply gap in food commodities, high economic growth, triggered raise in the income level of poor, unfolding globalization factors and lack of checks on speculative trade in food commodities

Thanks & regards,

Prof.(Mrs) Vijaya Khader, PhD

Former Dean, Acharya N G R A University, Hyderabad & Principal Investigator, Food Technology, e-PG Pathshala

9848054853||040-27052759

www.vijayakhader.info

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for sending this interesting Draft V0.

First of all, I want to congratulate HPLE for dealing with this substantial topic. As mentioned in your introduction, we should consider this Draft as a startpoint for further improvements. Please, read my comments/remarks under this aspect. I would distinguish the comments in general remarks and some minor comments. My comments will mainly underline the importance of research in the field of plant breeding for a sustainable water management and for its significance for developing countries.

Let me start with some general remarks:

1.       First of all, to include in the topic of food security is very useful and laudable. Water is for me the most important food and  nutrient. If I consider the title of the paper, I expect  the text-proportion between water and food of about 1:1. But water is considered in the documents as the most important prerequisite to produce food. Therefore I would propose to change the title into:

 „Water for food security“ (s. also headline to 3.5.1 on p. 66 in your draft)

2.       At the end of Introduction (p. 10), I miss a clear statement of the objective of the paper.

Furthermore, specific recommendations for policy and practice should be given. I miss some challenges for science/research for a more efficient use of water, e.g. as objective for plant breeding. Plant breeding should be considered as the starting point for the  human food chain and there is a large potential for a more efficient water use (e.g. see SCAR 2008; The Royal Society 2009; Reynolds 2010; Newman et al. 2011; Flachowsky et al. 2013). The paper should not be only a report/description of the present stage of water (miss)management, it should also mention/demonstrate real challenges for science and motivate the policy for adequate scientific projects, e.g. as formulated/proposed by the Royal Society (RS; 2009) some years ago. Potentials of plant breeding incl. biotechnology to increase drought tolerance and to improve water efficiency are described by many authors, e.g. such as Cominelli and Tonelli (2010), Reynolds (2010), Newman et al. (2011) and Deikman (2012).

3.       p.27, 2. Improved Water Management…, This chapter should contain clear challenges for science/research (esp. plant breeding: Increase of efficiency of water use by plants, Effects in C3 and/or C4-plants; Influence of water household of plants; Mechanism for more efficient water use in plant metabolism, consequences of expected climate change). RS (2009) spent much attention to the more efficient use of „limited“ natural resources such as water, fuel, arable land, some minerals etc. and an maximal use of „unlimited“ natural resources, such as sunlight/energy, carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the air as plant nutrients.

4.       p.29. l. 43: Which types of research to you propose in the case of water productivity in livestock (see also p. 78; l. 5-7)?

There exist many papers about the requirements for drinking water of various animal species/categories (e.g. Meyer et al. 2004 or Nutrient Requirements of food producing animals by various scientific societies; such as NRC or GfE; which include information about water intake and water quality) or on global scale (e.g. Schlink et al. 2010). Much more water as for drinking by animals is needed for feed production (about or more than  1 m3 per kg dry matter).

5.       p. 45, l. 44 ff.: There are some new knowledge/developments in the case of global phosphorus availability. Scholz and Wellmer (2013) used a more dynamic model to calculate the global P-resources and came to the conclusion that P is much longer available (about 1 000 years)  than expected previously. Similar conclusions were drawn by the US Department of geological resources some years ago.

6.       Subchapter 3.3.3 deals with „The role of the private sector….“, but I miss a similar subchapter for the role of the public (research) sector for a sustainable water management.

I beliefe that the private research sector will presently not be able to contribute substantial to an improved and sustainable water management in the field of plant breeding. More public investment (including public-private collaboration) will be needed to make this new `genetic revolution` beneficial for all people including people from developing countries (see Flachowsky 2013).

I underline public activities in this field, because I don´t believe that private investments would be able to overcome the present imbalance between Planet (P) – People (P) – Profit (P; three P-concept) under consideration of ethical aspects and to contribute substantially to a more balanced 3P-concept (see IUCN 2005; Casabona et al. 2010; Makkar and Ankers 2014). Presently, we have a strong exploitation of natural resources (Planet) and population (People) to make more (and more) Profit.

Some minor comments:

1.       Abbreviations should be explained after first use of  the full term (e.g. FSN in 1 Water for food security and nutrition (FSN) on p. 4

2.       p. 8: Water use in % of total water need of various users should be mentioned in the introduction

3.       p. 8: in l. 5; Table 1 is mentioned, but I could not find any Table 1, which shows the water per capita in the future. Table 1 (p. 31) shows the „Global survey of groundwater irrigation“

4.       p.11, Figure 1 is not full clear to me. Some percentages of water use may be helpful (e.g. in text of p. 13).

5.       p. 28, Figure 9: Apart from yield per ha; t water/t grain yield should be also given (or in a separate table).

6.       p. 38, Table 4: Where from (references) are the data for water productivity of beef? Which yield did you use for calculation in the case of beef (e.g. body weight gain, slaughtering body weight gain, meat yield, edible protein or what)? Further animal yields (e.g. milk, pork, chicken for fattening and eggs) should be included in this Table or a table for food of animal origin should be introduced.

7.       p. 47; 2.5.1. Water footprint: I would propose to include a table of „Water footprints“ for some important feeds and food and also for some industrial products in the paper.

8.       p. 48; 2.6. Policy implications: I would include a paragraph concerning „Support of public research for a more sufficient use of water by plants with the objective of more and sustainable water efficiency to produce valuable phytogenic biomass“

9.       p. 69; 3.6 The right to water and the right to food, but in 3.6.1; you started with the right to food, followed with the right to water (3.6.2). I think, it should be other way round.

Conclusion

The paper should more focus on development and research for a more sustainable water management. The authors should give clear recommendations to policy makers for further research. Plant breeding by public research with the objective of more efficient water use to produce high amounts of available biomass for more people with less limited resources (such as water) can be considered as one of the main aims for the future in this field.

The paper is mainly focussed to the policy, but we should also focus on more long-term public research to the policy in order to contribute or to solve the problems of water scarcity in many regions of the world. A lower need of water by feed and food producing plants (e.g. reduction of water need per kg dry matter from about 1 to 0.8 or 0.6 m3 per kg dry matter) may substantial contribute to overcome this global problem (also in developing countries, if such seeds are available in developing countries).

Progresses in plant breeding to more efficient plants in using limited natural resources (incl. water) and plants with high and stable yields which sustainable contribute to stabilize human nutrition with food of plant and animal origin could be considered as the starting point for an improved food chain and to overcome imbalances present in the 3P-concept.

Some references mentioned in the comments above:

Casabona, C.M.R., Epifanio, L.E.S., Cirion, A.E. (2010) Global food security: Ethical and legal challenges. Wageningen Academic. Publ., Wageningen, The Netherlands, 532 p.

Comibelli, E., Tonelli, C. (2010) Transgenic crops coping with water scarcity. New Biotechnology 27, 473-477

Deikman, J., Petracek, M., Heard, J.E. (2012) Drought tolerance through biotechnology: Improving translation from the laboratory to farmers´field. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 23, 243-250

Flachowsky, G. (2008) What do animal nutritionists expect from plant breeding? Outlook on Agriculture 37, 95-103

Flachowsky, G. (2013, ed.) Animal nutrition with transgenic plants. CAB International, Vol. 1; Biotechnology Series, Wallingford, UK,  and Boston, USA, 234 p.

Flachowsky, G., Meyer, U., Gruen, M. (2013) Plant and animal breeding as starting points for sustainable agriculture. In: Lichtfouse, E. (ed.) Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 12, Springer Science-Business Media, Dordlecht, Netherlands, pp. 201-224

Makkar, H.P.S., Ankers, P. (2014) Towards sustainable animal diets: A survey based study. Animal Feed Science and Technol. (in press)

Meyer, U., Everinghoff, M., Gädeken, D., Flachowsky, G. (2004) Investigations on the water intake of lactating dairy cows. Livestock Prod. Sci. 90, 117-121

Newman, J.A., Anand, H., Hal, M., Hant, S., Gedalof, Z. (2011) Climate Change Biology. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 289 p.

Reynolds, M.P. (2010) Climate Change and Crop Production. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 292 p.

SCAR (EU Commission on Agricultural Research; 2008) New challenges for agricultural research: Climate change, rural development, agricultural knowledge systems. The 2nd SCAR Foresight Exercise, Brussles, December 2008, 112 pp.

Schlink, A.A., Nguyen, M.-L., Viljoen, G.J. (2010) Water requirements for livestock production: A global perspective. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties 29, 603-619

Scholz, R.W., Wellmer, F.-H. (2013) Approaching a dynamic view on the availability of mineral sources: What we may learn from the case of phosphorus. Global Environmental Change. 23 (11), 11-27

The Royal Society (RS; 2009) Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. RS policy document 11/09, issued Oct. 2009 RS 1608, ISBN: 978-0-85403-784-1

Dear Colleagues,

I hope that you may understand my ideas mentioned above. Please ask me, if you have further questions.

Best regards

Gerhard Flachowsky

Prof. Dr. G. Flachowsky

Senior Visiting Scientist

Institute of Animal Nutrition

Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI)

Federal Research Institute for Animal Health

Bundesallee 50

38116 Braunschweig

Germany

Dear Madam/Sir,

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute.

Despite the fast revision, the report seems to be well structured and consistent in all parts, exempt in the 2.4.5. fisheries and aquaculture section, that seems to be very poor in the decription and lacking of data, that can be integrated and completeted completely or partially with  eg According the FAO The State of fisheries and aqauculture 2014 (kindly find attached) : "Some 58.3 million people were engaged in the primary sector of capture fisheriesand aquaculture in 2012. Of these, 37 percent were engaged full time. In 2012, 84 percent of all people employed in the fisheries and aquaculture sector were in Asia, followed by Africa (more than 10 percent). About 18.9 million were engaged in fish farming (more than 96 percent in Asia). In the period 2010–2012, at least 21 million people were capture fishers operating in inland waters (more than 84 percent in Asia).

Looking forward to hear from you, let me thank you, Madam/Sir, for the efforts that your Organization do to enhance the International cooperation, sustainable development and to eradicate poverty and hunger.

Sincerely.

Gianluca RAGUSA – International consultant (Fishery and aquaculture specialist)

Via Tuscia, 7 . 00191 Rome (Italy)

Ph.: (+39) 063291240

Mobile: (+39) 3393096798

Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/pub/gianluca-ragusa/45/514/61a

Skype : gianluca.ragusa12