Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear Collegues,

Firs of all, I would like to thanks FAO for inviting to comment on this paper.

In this draft V0, the topic of water and food security is very broad analized and has been well tackled. Also the nexus water-(food-enery-land) - security has been well observed. The paper is very innovative and stresses the importance of increasing knowledge about scientific issues relating to water in agriculture sector. In fact, they are often under-represented in rural development policies in different countries.

The paper addresses emerging topics like “water grabbing”, often included in the broader context of the global phenomenon of land acquisition, a topic at the centre of international debate, and that has attracted the attention of organizations. International governments, civil society and academic institutions worldwide. The renewed interest in agricultural land by different types of investors - private companies, public-private partnerships, local governments, investment funds has occurred since the 2000s, intensified considerably during the crisis in 2007-2008, through the rent - for a period generally between 50 and 99 years - of large tracts of agricultural land on which to install new business.

Finally, a very detailed analysis is then dedicated to the section of the paper relative to improved water management for improved FSN and important aspects like virtual water and water footprint have been well analysed.

Comments on HLPE Water and food security - zero-draft consultation paper from Professor J.S. (Pat) Heslop-Harrison, University of Leicester, LE1 7RH UK.

E-mail: [email protected] www.molcyt.com   Phone: +44/0 116 252 5079 / 3381

I welcome the fact that the FAO Committee on World Food Security has requested the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) to prepare a report on Water and Food Security. The draft report makes some science-based contribution to the facts and defining needs for water usage and its availability with respect to food security, but in many areas is off-topic and does not cover the ground in relation to the request of the UN Committee on Food Security. Therefore, I have significant reservations about the impact of the report in the present format. At a little over 100 pages, it is far from concise, and is poorly structured, so data, recommendations and the key messages are lost. Unfortunately, I think the draft report also misses key aspects where robust scientific advice is needed to inform political, policy and treaty decisions or recommendations. Although indicated in the Terms of Reference, the target audience and route to implementation of recommendations should be made explicit and the report needs focus. I think that many areas of the third chapter, ‘Governing water for FSN’, stray into political issues, when the purpose of this report (and the Terms of Reference) is to provide scientific underpinning for robust policy advice.

In particular, I think there are three critical recommendations required in terms of Water and Food Security.

First, a robust, global measurement framework to collect data a world-wide map with high spatial and temporal (seasonal) resolution is required for water availability, usage and quality, throughout the world. This will inform policy decisions and give a base-line for interventions.

Second, a major genetic research effort is required to understand the genetic variation available within current and candidate agricultural plants, and to an extent animals (including fish and insects), as related to the efficiency of water usage; and to study how this variation can be exploited in current and prospective socioeconomic and farming conditions.

Thirdly, education is critical to future agricultural sustainability, ecological management, capacity building and equality. This recommendation should cut across other issues, and is important at all levels from primary school through to post-graduate and farmers.

While I am critical of the excessive length of the report, with discourses on management of somewhat peripheral water-related issues, I believe it does not give enough emphasis to the significant successful (or unsuccessful, and including reactive interventions to water problems) examples where science-based policy changes and management, implemented by farmers and regional governments, have occurred with respect to water and food security (including sustainable usage) usage in many countries over the last century.

-          The significant Australian successes are not well covered – they go far beyond the water reform legislation in 2007- 2008; water management has become central in every family farm in that country (many of thousands of hectares) in the last two decades.

-          Going further back, the remediation of arguably the greatest human-caused environmental catastrophe, in the 1930s, of the dust-bowls of the Western US, was an example of successful agricultural and water management reacting to a major problem.

-          Within this century, two significant new policies are already having major effects on agricultural water usage as well as current and future, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has implemented major structural and regulatory changes, away from the plan for high production of cereals (self-sufficiency, as initiated in the 1980s) because it became clear in the 2000s that it is too resource-intensive in terms of water: trade with countries with more water is more efficient and sustainable for cereals. In the Indian Punjab, region-wide changes in agriculture now mean double cropping of much land, but depletion of aquifers was becoming a major possibility; restrictions on irrigation dates are now implemented.

It is good that the report considers the entirety of the position of water in food security and socioeconomic context. However, it is grossly imbalanced: the term ‘sanitation’ is mentioned no less than 133 times, more than twice ‘drink’... or ‘indust’…, or four times ‘salin’…! This is but one example where peripheral issues have high prominence, and I think that major rebalancing is required to focus on key issues. As another example where key issues are buried, the global population change is mentioned multiple times (2050 and two billion more people and increase in meat and oil consumption), the global figure means little compared to the impact in individual countries. For example, on page 16, the graph should show population growth for Ethiopia as well as other lines: the progress from famine of 1984 to a reasonably fed population now, with growth from 40 million to 96 million in the same period, is remarkable.

With respect to my three aims set out above,

GLOBAL MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK

I believe it is important that all countries have a rigorous measurement framework for the status of water with a national, high resolution grid, and finer resolution in the vicinity of open water or aquifers (coasts, lakes or major rivers). The appropriate grid scale and parameters must be defined in conjunction with timescales and resource implications, but my suggestion would be 10km over most areas and 1km in water-impacted regions. There should, though, be robust, evidence-based reasons regarding grid size and where a larger grid is appropriate, as it will be in landscapes with even geology, vegetation and unchanging features. The measurements should include water input, flows/extraction, evapotranspiration, groundwater, water tables, salinity, and BOD among other routine parameters. Page 9 notes “In water, data is very often a challenge for action. Data definition, quality and transparency, precision at lower geographical scales, disaggregation by users, and gaps are the biggest issues.” but there is little mention later of the need for international data. Section 8 also has some relevant material.

How will this be implemented? The single mention of “remote sensing” on p79 is extremely weak: it is a key technology for assessment and monitoring of water amounts, distribution, quality and flow; policy definition, development and research on new water usage approaches, even for plant breeding selection approaches. Is it satellite, aircraft, ROV, in situ transponders/sondes? The one mention of remote sensing in the draft report is even in the context of “citizen science” – I would suggest data collection on water is a major duty of every government (as, indeed, it has been up to now) and remote sensing is undoubtably the way to improve the quality and granularity of water data for use by national governments, geographical regions, and international organizations.

As pointed out, water availability is highly variable across time and space and characterised by the complex interactions. Other key methods are isotope analysis with environmental isotopes to assess water resources, recharge of aquifers, nutrient flow and other aspects of monitoring of water and aquifers: training and standardization of these methods is required. There are problems with current published statistics including quality, granularity, comparison/standardization of types. 

GENETICS RESEACH

It is remarkable that no mention of different crops and plant breeding opportunities except as “Seed multiplication/drought resistant seeds” and “Crop genetic improvement programme/Animal genetic resources/ Genetic improvements can lead to crops that required less water or are more drought resistant” as a vague reference in a table at the very end (p. 101). Such research is critical to the sustainable intensification of agriculture, and the increase of appropriate, rain-fed or ground-water based, agricultural production systems to feed people without overuse of water resources. Plant breeders and research scientists recognize not only that there are huge differences between difference crop species in water use and water quality requirements, but there is also extensive genetic variation within existing crop species and their wild relatives. With more research, the genetics can be discovered and applied to ensuring productive agriculture while using less water.

There is also need to consider nutritional aims in the breeding context – of both the plants (beyond water requirements), with respect to nitrogen and other nutrients; and importantly with respect to the nutritional value of the crops, the major impactor on human health.

The genetic needs should be in the context of existing programmes but not exclude potential significant contributors: CGIAR Centres, the Joint IAEA/FAO Genetics and Plant Breeding programme, national agricultural research centers (NARs), Universities and the private sector.

EDUCATION

A key to ‘Water and Food Security’ is education. There is minimal mention in the report of this aspect beyond a phrase “how to provide small farmers in particular with the necessary information to improve productivity, access to markets etc. In this process, the use of open source software should be the basis of all developments in this field”. Why the limitation to small farmers? Why open source? The private sector has an excellent track record in delivery of products to farmers and teaching them how to use them. Indeed, heavily protected technology such as mobile phones, internal combustion engines, personal computers, or even (unnecessary) soft and alcoholic drinks, have the widest market penetration even when ‘open-source’ equivalents exist. (In the context of open-ness, much more of a problem is that Governments keep publicly-funded data of water use and quality secret.)

The use of water for efficient agriculture starts with the farmer, and it is critical that farmers are given access to up-to-date research and demonstrations of best-practices in water-efficient agriculture. They are the people – female and male – who will make the difference to agricultural water usage and ensure food sustainability. Broader education occurs through early-adopters with demonstration technology, University and NAR outreach centres staffed with people trained to undergraduate or Masters-level. In much of South India for example, the benefits of large numbers of such people are clear in the disease-control and agronomy practices which are now universal. Involvement of communities at all levels, from use of questionnaires through to community partnerships or cooperatives, can deliver sustainable water usage.

Beyond the farmer-level, University research with appropriately trained biologists, agronomists, and geographers is critical to understand the role of water in the environment and food security. Political interference has no part in this science-based training, and there have been problems in implementing and establishing fundamental aspects of agricultural developments. The implementation requires high level governmental support with appropriate funding; international collaborations as the way to develop the new technologies required now and in the next 100 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Unfortunately, I feel that the current Draft report is too vague and does not address key issues. No doubt that major interventions are required to increase the sustainability of use of the world’s water, with efficient usage and increased production from agriculture. This can be achieved by measuring water usage, improving the genetics of crops, and teaching people. The policy questions need to be well defined, and lead to high quality and robust scientific advice feeding into those policy questions.

Professor J.S. (Pat) Heslop-Harrison                          November 2014

 Department of Biology  University of Leicester  Leicester LE1 7RH UK

 E-mail: [email protected]   Skype: Pat.HH  Twitter: PatHH1 Websites: www.molcyt.com  www.sblab.org

Phone: +44/0 116 252 5079 / 3381 FAX: +44/0 116 252 2791

Dear colleagues,

Many thanks for inviting FO to comment on this zero draft. Since the document is at an early stage of development FO would like to offer a generic feedback rather than detailed comments to the different sections of the text:

1.      The draft focuses almost exclusively on “one side of the coin” - water productivity, water use, water governance, etc. Except for the short section on agro-ecology (2.4.4.) the draft hardly makes any reference to the sustainable management and conservation of the source / supply areas of water, e.g. mountains and watersheds. The document should make reference to the fact that 60-80% of the world’s freshwater resources for domestic, agricultural, industrial and ecological needs (in both upstream and downstream areas) originate in upland and mountain areas and that, accordingly, particular attention should be paid to the sustainable management, development and conservation of these areas.  

2.      The draft takes a rather sectorial and narrow approach to the theme. The need to apply a landscape approach in the sustainable management of the water resources and to integrate the different landuse systems available within a landscape is almost completely missing. In this context, watershed management could be exemplified as a very appropriate approach: the landscape approach, which is followed by watershed management, is based on land suitability analysis and a multi-stakeholder planning process and accordingly allows for a maximum efficiency in the use of natural resources. In addition, watershed management creates local resilience against climate change as well as adaptation options.     

3.      The crucial role of forests and trees in the hydrological cycle and in ensuring food security is almost completely missing in the draft. The text should make reference to the fact that forests influence the amount of water available and regulate surface and groundwater flows while maintaining high water quality. Moreover, forests and trees contribute to the reduction of water-related risks such as landslides, local floods and droughts and help prevent desertification and salinization.

Please be informed that inputs were provided in February via the FSN Forum (see attached communication). You will see that this submission in February already raised the same concerns as listed above which means that FO’s submission was somehow not considered in the formulation of the 0-draft. FO would like to ensure that this time our contribution does not go unheard. We are available for any further input which might be required in this matter.

We hope these comments are useful at this stage. We assume the proposed additions could most logically be reflected and incorporated in chapter 2 of the draft. We available for any clarification which may be required.

With best regards,

Office of the Assistant Director-General

Forestry Department

HLPE e-consultation to set the track of the study on” water and food security”

Contribution from the Watershed Management and Mountains Team

Thank you for providing the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion.

One aspect which is not adequately reflected in the study outline is the need to protect the world’s freshwater resources for which it is proposed to include a separate chapter at the beginning, before dealing with water use, governance and management aspects. Protection of increasingly scarce surface and ground water resources will be of vital importance if we are to cope with growing demands of a rising world population and new challenges stemming from climate change. 

With a substantial increase in the demand for food and energy, mobilization of water resources for agriculture and food production will be critically important but there is a need to balance short-term productivity gains in agriculture with the long-term role that water flows provide for maintaining sustainable ecosystem services in landscapes and serving multiple benefits to human well-being. The quantity, timing and quality of water flows in landscapes must be sustained to meet the increasingly competing demands and to balance between a wide range of water uses and users. 

Ecosystems such as mountains, forests and wetlands provide crucial water-related services, and the conservation and protection of these ecosystems is of global importance. 

A high proportion of the fresh water required for domestic, agricultural, industrial and ecological purposes comes from forested areas in mountain areas. Mountains, covering 27% of the Earth’s land area, provide on average 60-80% of the word’s freshwater resources while this rate can rise up to 95 % in semi-arid and arid regions. In order to conserve and protect the increasingly scarce surface water resources, both in terms of quantity and quality, increased attention is required for the wise and integrated management of mountain areas.

Wetlands can store excess water during the wet season and release it slowly as water levels fall in the dry season. High altitude wetlands such as glacial lakes, marshes, wet grasslands and peat lands support unique ecosystems and services that sustain the livelihoods of people. They store large quantities of water from rain and glacial melt, feed aquifers, trap sediments and recycle nutrients, enhancing both the quantity and quality of water supplied throughout the year. In arid zones wetlands are vital sources of water in otherwise uninhabitable landscapes. As sources of water, food and fibre, they are critically important life-support systems for the survival of people. They help provide regular water supplies and fertile soils, improve water quality, recharge underground aquifers and lessen the impact of seasonal floods. Inland marshes and vernal pools store water in areas where there are no permanent rivers or streams.

Forests and forested watersheds are particularly important for the provision of freshwater resources. The role of trees and forests in the hydrological cycle by maintaining high water quality, influencing the amount of water available and regulating stream flow and groundwater recharge is more and more being recognized, ultimately contributing to food security and sustainable development.

More attention should be given to forest protection and forest management for the provision of clean water, and one way to achieve this is by increasing areas under forest cover specifically for the protection of soil and water. According to FRA 2010, only eight percent of the world’s forests have soil and water conservation as their primary objective. 

Watershed management can be a suitable approach to combine natural resources management, agricultural production and livelihoods improvement for the sustainable development of rural landscapes. Watershed management contributes to the regulation of surface water flows, the reduction of sediment load in river systems and the maintenance of water quality, all indispensable characteristics of surface water systems for successful and sustainable food production.

The International Year of Family Farming 2014 presents an opportunity to focus attention on the merits and challenges of family farming including in mountain areas. The study could therefore make specific reference to the most vulnerable and food insecure small-scale producers who may depend on access to water for their survival and who could benefit tremendously from targeted investments in small-scale water harvesting and water storage as well as low-cost micro-irrigation systems. Fostering local level solutions including the safeguarding of indigenous knowledge and local agro-biodiversity may contribute significantly to a more rational water use and improved agricultural water productivity.

References:

FAO (2006) The new generation of watershed management programmes and projects. FAO Forestry Paper No. 150. Rome

FAO (2008) Forests and water. FAO Forestry Paper No. 155. Rome

FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO Forestry Paper No. 163. Rome

Keys, P., Barron, J., and Lannerstad, M. (2012) Releasing the Pressure: Water Resource Efficiencies and Gains for Ecosystem Services. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute

www.wetlands.org

P. Wolter

Watershed Management and Mountains Team

FAO Forestry Department

12 Feb 2014

El informe toma un enfoque incompleto y sesgado de las metodologías existentes para contabilizar la huella hídrica y los impactos ambientales debidos al consumo de agua de los productos agrarios. Un informe con firma de las Naciones Unidas, por sus implicaciones científicas y políticas, no debería mostrar estas carencias.

Concretamente, el informe se limita a comentar la aproximación de la Huella Hídrica de Hoekstra y colegas, mientras que olvida nombrar otras metodologías como la del Análisis de Ciclo de Vida (ACV) y estándares cruciales (ISO 14046 de la huella hídrica) que especifican principios, requisitos y guías para la realización de estudios de huella hídrica de productos y procesos.

El informe habla en numerosas ocasiones de los impactos ambientales debidos al uso del agua en agricultura. La aproximación del ACV proporciona una plataforma ideal para cuantificar estos impactos. Para ello, el ACV contabiliza, en una primera etapa, la cantidad de agua utilizada a lo largo del ciclo de vida de un producto agrícola, desde su producción a la gestión de los residuos que genera (i.e, m3 usados o consumidos). En una segunda etapa, el ACV transforma estos m3 de agua utilizada en indicadores de impacto ambiental, tomando en cuenta las especificidades geográficas y climáticas. El ACV permite comparar el impacto ambiental sobre la biodiversidad y sobre la salud humana de consumir un mismo litro de agua en varios lugares del mundo. El ACV tiene en cuenta no sólo que el agua se distribuye desigualmente en el planeta, dando lugar a zonas más áridas que otras, sino que también toma en cuenta la regionalización de la biodiversidad y de los medios socio-económicos que determinan el acceso al agua para regar o para beber.

EL ACV es una metodología respaldada por la ISO 14046 para realizar estudios de huella hídrica de productos. Por su relevancia en estudios presentes y futuros sobre los impactos ambientales del uso del agua, ni la ISO 14046 ni la metodología de ACV deberían quedar fuera del presente informe.

Montse Núñez, Ph.D.

[email protected]  

+33 (0) 4.99.61.25.19

UMR ITAP – Pôle ELSA

www.elsa-lca.org 

Irstea Montpellier

361, rue J.F.Breton, BP5095

34196 Montpellier Cedex 5

www.irstea.fr

El tema de Seguridad Alimentaria y Agua debe considerar algunos aspectos que no se mencionan en el Borrador Cero. Uno es la consideración respecto a no diferenciar ya el campo de la ciudad, es decir, considerar el Territorio en sus distintos niveles como un sólo continuo que tiene diversas características tanto urbanas como rurales. Así el agua y la alimentación podrán verse como una unidad interrelacionada que se sirve la una de la otra. se complementan y no deben verse en lo individual.

Otra situación es tomar en cuenta las aportacionjes, conocimientos, tradiciones y experiencias de losm pueblos originarios de todo el mundo. Ellos tienen una concepción de la naturaleza como un todo y no diferencian entre los bienes (producidos) y los recursos (naturales). El agua y la alimentación son parte de la misma naturaleza y en corelación con el territorio lo ven como un sólo Hábitat, la Pacha Mamaen América del Sur, el Altépetl entre los mesoamericanos.

También, el Borrador Cero debería incluir la situación del Cambio Climático y cómo afecta la relación agua-comida. El Panel Intergubernamental de Expertos en Cambio Climático en su informe de principios de noviembre de 2014 señala algunos aspectos que podrían considerarse para el Informe.

Estimadas compañeras y compañeros del equipo del HLPE,

Desde el Instituto de Estudios Agrarios y Rurales de Guatemala (IDEAR) queremos hacerles llegar nuestro entusiasmo por este trabajo sobre agua y seguridad alimentaria. 

Compartimos plenamente los términos generales del reporte y especialmente su aproximación al agua como un derecho humano cuya satisfacción se encuentra delimitada por relaciones de poder. El estudio es muy oportuno considerando el contexto actual de presión corporativa sobre la tierra, el agua y los bosques que se vive en Guatemala y en otros países y regiones del sur y del norte global ricos en bienes naturales. Nos parece especialmente preocupante la enorme demanda de agua que acarrea la expansión de cultivos como la caña de azúcar y la palma de aceite. Una aproximación a los impactos socio-ecológicos de la expansión de la caña y la palma en Guatemala pueden conocerse en un informe que elaboramos en el IDEAR en 2011: "Plantaciones agro-industriales: Dominación y despojo indígena-campesino en la Guatemala del s.XXI", disponible en: http://www.congcoop.org.gt/images/stories/pdfs-congcoop/Plantaciones_y_… (ver especialmente sobre el agua pps. 89-104). Así mismo, queda reflejado en los siguientes materiales audiovisuales

1- Documental Aj´R´al Ch´och (Hijas e Hijos de la Tierra). Subtítulos en inglés (Caracol Producciones e IDEAR, 2012). Disponible en: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgpEvC94OM0&spfreload=10 

2- Noticia Tele Sur: "Producción de palma africana contamina norte de Guatemala", en http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6BKO4OWyC0    

Confiamos en que el presente estudio del HLPE sirva como base para la elaboración de unas Directrices sobre Acceso al Agua y Derecho a la Alimentación en el marco del Consejo de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial (CSA). Consideramos muy oportuno replicar en el caso del agua la positiva experiencia de las Directrices sobre Tenencia de la Tierra, los Bosques y las Pesquerías en el Contexto de la Seguridad Alimentaria Nacional.

Fraternalmente,

Alberto Alonso-Fradejas.   

Correlation of Food Waste/ Food Loss and Water Conservation:

Every food product is produced only after spending its share of resources, may it be water, fertilizers, etc. Wasting food means, indirectly one is wasting all the inputs/ resources spent for its production, processing, marketing etc.

So reducing food waste/ food loss can directly ensure food security and indirectly allow proper utilization of all the virtual water spent for production, processing, marketing the food product. Hence there is grave necessity to mention prevention of Food Wastage/ Food Loss in relation to Water Conservation

Different Levels for prevention of Food Loss/ Food Wastage and Water Loss/ Water Wastage:

Field Level:

Crop Diversification: Growing single crop in large areas at a stretch may lead to production more than needed leading to wastage. Improper production strategy of farmers would result in over production which ultimately leads to wastage and also very low returns to the farmer.

Growing different type of crops in an area and enlighten farmers about advances in farming practices and irrigation systems of different crops, along with care to be taken while harvesting and also after harvest would prevent loss of lots of produce. There should be a government policy to plan production strategy for farmers, to decide crop area based upon demand in the nation.

Improper cultivation practices: Lack of proper knowledge about cultivation, harvesting and package; lot of food grains, fruits and vegetables are lost.

Post Harvest:

Judging proper maturity indices, based upon market availability would prevent food loss to great extent. Enlightening farmers about proper post harvest, packing, storage techniques depending upon on crop, climate and demand would play a very important role in reducing food loss during storage and transport.

Quality of water plays a very major role in maintaining quality parameters of processed products. Storage capacity of processed products also widely depends on quality of water used. While in other hand, export value of processed foods also depends upon quality of water used while processing.

Consumer Level:

Educating people to prevent domestic food wastage by conducting campaigns in communities, schools, colleges and other public places. Make a strong policy to prevent food wastage by levying extra tax on people wasting food in the restaurants.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit our comments on the HLPE. We congratulate the HLPE for hammering out a very timely and long overdue paper linking water, food security and nutrition. Below are my organization's comments on the document. 

1.    The scope of the topic of water and food security is very broad. Do you think that the V0 draft has adequately charted the diversity of the linkages between water and food security and nutrition?  Is there important evidence or aspects that the present draft has failed to cover?

We welcome the report as it’s indeed very comprehensive and a successful attempt to link the water with food security, nutrition and other important related issues such as energy.  Other issues that we want to highlight, which in some ways have been addressed by the paper:

·         Security of access and tenure to land, forests, watersheds and territories for small-hold agricultural communities, agricultural and forest workers, and indigenous communities are crucial to protecting watersheds, aquifers and the overall quality and supply of raw water.  Such communities are integral to maintaining the multifunctionality of agriculture in which water is a central element.  

·         Too much water is captured by manufacturing industry, extractive industry, industrial agriculture and luxury/high end recreation and housing complexes—thus reducing the amount of water available for food and agricultural production.  Such sectors and projects are increasingly located in sensitive watershed and aquifer areas, and are responsible for creating actual water scarcity as well socio-economic water scarcity.  In addition to capturing majority of the water in the area, they also pollute and deplete water sources, and severely restrict the ability of local communities to access water for food and agricultural production, daily use and other livelihood activities.

·         Water connects everyone from the farmer upstream to a city dweller downstream. It ignores all political boundaries and separations. Its pollution or overextraction in one region will affect both people and animals in another region. And it is likely to become the visual symbol of ever increasing climate change, as countries face unprecedented droughts in some regions and devastating floods elsewhere. The good news is that despite the doom-laden warnings of Water Wars, our history has shown that water is more often the cause of cooperation rather than conflict.

2.    Has the report adequately covered the diversity of approaches and methodological issues, in particular concerning metrics and data for water and food security? Which metrics do you find particularly useful and which not?

·         It is important to highlight that the discourse regarding ‘scarcity’, ‘conflict’ and ‘security’ put forward in the paper will not allow already dominant state and corporate actors to determine the parameters they are willing to accept in confronting the ‘climate and water crisis’. In other words, thee discourse on water scarcity should not make things worse for those most vulnerable to the negative aspects of climate change and changed/ing hydrological cycles: water and land capture for the few; marginalization for the many.

3.    Food security involves trade of agricultural produce, and a virtual trade of water. Agricultural trade interact with water and food security in various ways, and differently for food importing countries, food exporting countries, water scarce versus water rich countries. Do you think the V0 draft has appropriately covered the matter?

·         Indeed the paper showed through the concept of virtual water, lots of the water we use comes from somewhere else in imported food. But virtual trade of water also highlights the narrative of resource capture by the few and ecological marginalization of the many (socially constructed scarcity vs. physical and economic scarcity). For example, many of the feeds imported by the Netherlands come from supposedly water resource-rich countries such as Indonesia. But this comes at a very high price and oftentimes at the expense of communities’ access to water, which instead of being used domestically is used for export agriculture. The proposal for promoting virtual trade of water must be taken with a grain of salt as this can promote water scarcity and insecurity for many and in fact a form of indirect water grabbing as virtual water is an embedded/hidden/embodied water trade to produce commodities, minerals and energy for export.

·         Here for example, the Council of Canadians highlighted that Canada is the second net virtual water exporter in the world—amounting to just under 60 billion cubic meter, enough to fill the Rogers Center in Toronto 37,500 times.  The virtual water trade concept, according to their report, is "useful in terms of looking at how impoverished and water poor countries are depleting their water supplies in order to maintain export markets, while other more wealthy countries import most of their water footprint in order to protect their own limited water resources". In essence, virtual water trade (though has its own conceptual limits and use for policy making) through investment and free trade agreements, effectively connects local water availability with global flows of trade and investment. 

·         A clear example which is connected to the land grabbing phenomenon is the production of biofuels. Water is needed especially during feedstock cultivation—estimates are in the range 500-4000 liters of water for every 1 liter of ethanol. Water consumption and agrochemical use during biofuel production could adversely impact both availability and quality of water (e.g. with runoff and soil erosion the high fertilizer application rates especially for corn crops in Midwestern US provide the greatest flux of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Mississippi river contributing to the hypoxic situation in the Gulf of Mexico ). For biofuel processing, you also need 2-10 liters of water per liter of ethanol , which can have localized impacts on water quality and quantity. The assumption here is that as you increase land requirement for biofuels, there is also a corresponding increase in water use and demand .Scientists estimate that we need 50 gallons of water per mile driven using biofuels, and while large quantities of water are also needed to produce energy from traditional sources, the water requirements to produce an equivalent amount of energy from biofuels are comparatively large and more consumptive. The use of “water footprint” can however be a double edged sword—there are studies which show that if you mitigate the water footprint of biofuels, it will be alright to have them, without taking into consideration the land use and changes in property and social relations within which such production happen.

·         The problem with focusing too much on scarcity is that it drives the neoliberal agenda, meaning, pricing water correctly and everything will be alright. This is problematic especially when you start to price raw water and the paper already showed the pitfalls of water rights trading in Australia and how it has allowed for the marginalization of small farmers.  

·         There are many positive points in terms of becoming more resource efficient vs. achieving food security and nutrition at different scales and across different sectors. But policy proposals for such must also challenge the dominant approach to water security, especially at the global governance level, which is security for the few and insecurity for the many.

4.    In this report, we considered the potential for an expansion of the right to water to also encompass productive uses. What kind of practical and policy challenges would this bring?

·         In the context of the multiple crises, especially of a climate changed/changing world, expanding and linking the right to water and sanitation to other rights—the right to adequate food, food sovereignty, livelihood, right to land, and ultimately, to life itself are crucial. It is very important that at this day and age, the FAO and the UN embrace a much more comprehensive approach to the right to water as we cannot separate one from the other. This is why it’s important that the paper highlighted that when we talk about implementing the right to water, we need to understand the other threats to these right such as land and water grabbing, the destruction of our forests, the building of hydropower, mining, and extractive activities, and mega infrastructure, among others that are affecting the quality and availability of water, especially for food production

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

·         Very important to revolutionise water management and governance. There are a number of approaches and models on this. One is democratization experiments and innovative models of public service delivery, which also covers rural water management. For example in Tamil Nadu, India, under the engineers of the Change Management Initiative of the Tamil Nadu Water Board, a public utility, water was supplied to 60 million people of Tamil Nadu and irrigation water was delivered to the farms of more than one million families. This was accompanied by attitudinal changes, shifts in perspective and transformation in the institutional culture of water engineers using a process-oriented participatory training methodology based on the traditional practice of Koodam, a Tamil word that means gathering, social space, and consensus-building, implying harmony, diversity, equality and justice. The transformation in the institutional culture of water engineers, and the changes in perspectives and relations between local communities and the Tamil Nadu water utility have facilitated the implementation of the joint management of water resources between them. Women in the communities took a pro-active role in taking care of their water sources, ensuring safe and quality drinking water for all members of the community as well as ensuring water for food production. The communities instituted their own oversight and monitoring systems to check the quality of their water sources. These have been strong positive tools for improving public water service delivery, caring for water sources and instituting community empowerment.

·         Notions of what is ‘public and publicness’ have also been expanded and reclaimed by citizens and people in the global South. In Colombia, social participation has taken on new forms. A national public-community partnership led to the strengthening of communal aqueducts in the country, which is the primary pipeline that delivers water to households as well as to farms. Led by the water movement in Colombia, communities were systematically organized and provided with the necessary technical, legal and economic support to ensure that good quality water is delivered to both the rural and urban areas. Women also played a vital role as leaders in the strengthening and structuring of the aqueducts.

·         There are also upstream-downstream partnerships, especially around managing competing claims over the same resource. In the Philippines, there have been initiatives by public utilities that have allowed communities to manage and maintain the water sources for the cities. The public utilities directly invest in agro-ecological farming practices and in community livelihoods, with the idea that a “good environment will produce good water.” Public utilities have also taxed or levied industrial and commercial water users and ring-fenced it for watershed protection. In Thailand, the competing demands for water from households, agriculture, tourism and industry has led the different interest groups in the Ping River, one of the main tributaries of the Chao Phraya River, to negotiate and balance such competing demands. The Ping River Basin Committee had brought together various water users such as local non-government organizations (NGOs), residents of communities located upstream and downstream of the river, farmers and indigenous people relying on the river for livelihood and sustenance. The result was mutually agreed on ecologically sustainable and equitable system of water allocation for all.

·         Similarly, diverse actors have taken collective actions to protect watersheds and sources of water against the threats of extractive industries like mining. When companies applied to mine inside the Sibalom watershed located in Central Philippines, local community-based water users, village and municipal governments, public water utilities and NGOs banded together to oppose the approval of the applications. They have also invited researchers to conduct studies to estimate the benefits of watershed protection as a means to oppose mining applications within the watershed area. In so doing, the various concerned groups, especially the riparian communities within the Sibalom watershed, were able to gain deeper insights into the laws of nature, motivating them to respect and understand the interconnectedness of ecosystems, and thereby effectively oppose the mining projects.

·         What perhaps the HLPE fails to mention or at least to articulate is the need for a new water vision that looks at the interrelatedness of water, food security and nutrition. The models and examples I mentioned above promote a new vision for water management, one that re-establishes water as commons and prioritises social and ecological justice and democratization within water governance. Water justice is key to ensuring that all communities, especially the poor and marginalised have equal and equitable access to safe, affordable and sustainable water use for various purposes such as drinking, food production, fishing, recreational and cultural uses—even at a time of additional stress.

6.    On the recommendations: policies and actions

·         The nature of agricultural production being promoted by governments and multilateral development industry negatively affects the quality and availability of water; this includes commercialised and industrial farming, aquaculture, agribusiness operations, etc.  In order to restore and maintain the integrity of ground and surface water, and ensure sufficient availability, we have to reorient agricultural production systems away from chemically intensive and extensive agriculture and towards sustainable agriculture. We support the recommendation of the paper to promote agroecology as a viable and practical solution/policy.

·         Water is an essential/crucial public good and public service, and should not be privatised and commodified in any form.  Instead of public-private partnerships, we urge governments and FAO to accept and promote public-public partnerships through which, governments work with rural and urban communities and societal actors in the preservation, delivery, management, financing and governance of water.

·         Water is a key ingredient in the multifunctional nature of agriculture; in fact, water itself can be considered multifunctional:  not only does it serve multiple needs and purposes but also, it is used, shared, managed and protected through a variety of local systems in smallhold farming and indigenous communities.  Government and multilateral agencies should promote agricultural systems that facilitate and support the multifunctionality of water.

·         Rural communities-especially indigenous communities, smallhold and subsistence producers and workers—should have legally guaranteed and secure access and tenure to lands, forests, watersheds and territories.

Ø  This will encourage local commitments and 'investments' to use, conserve and share water.

Ø  It will encourage communities sharing the same eco-systems to work out how to share water, resolve water disputes, etc.

·         One of the biggest threats to water quality and availability is large scale, industrial agriculture, especially plantations, monocultures and mono-cropping, etc. Large agribusinesses see water as a factor of production and do not recognise its full ecological, social, economic and cultural value.  They tend to externalise the costs of pollution, waste, aquifer depletion and contamination, etc.

Ø  Industrial agriculture should be discouraged.

Ø  Industrial agricultural companies must be pay for the ecological, economic and social costs (“externalities”) of pollution, contamination, aquifer depletion, etc.

·         Industries, mining, tourism and recreational resorts/complexes, luxury housing, etc. located in or adjacent to  watershed, wetlands and other water catchment areas divert water away from food production, food harvesting, daily use, livelihood activities, aquifer replenishment and crucial environmental flows.  These trends are a major cause of water scarcity.   As long as governments and multilateral agencies continue to promote high-growth oriented development that does not 'internalise' the social, economic and environmental costs of natural resource use, water scarcity will increase and result in negative impacts on local livelihoods as well as give rise to water related conflicts.  In order to  redress problems of water scarcity and prevent future scarcities, governments have to start moving towards an ecologically sustainable model of development.

·         Water scarcity in relation to climate change cannot be addressed without first addressing the high-carbon, high-energy systems/models of agricultural production, distribution and consumption that are currently dominant.  Governments and multilateral agencies must promote and actively support low carbon lifestyles, sustainable agriculture, localisation of production and consumption, and energy saving/conserving technologies.

I would like to commend you on such a detailed text, especially when it comes to linking the right to water to the right to food. However, I found the argument in page 70 para 3 lines30- 33 quite alrarming, and does not sufficiently emphasise that the right to water should not be compromised by market based mechanisms, in many cases this is what happens.

In my country, there is a poor allocation of water resources from the Nile especially during Summer, where small farm holders are only given very poor quality water for irrigation, and not regularly enough resulting in crop failures, and  decline in the soil quality, making the winter crop even more challenged than the year before. Larger holdings, get better quality water during summer, since these holdings export their produce to Europe, and hence are a more important investment. Like everything else in Egypt, the water allocaion infrastructure needs renovation, and the water allocation for agriculture legislations need to be revised to fit our current reality, where the need exceeds the supply, with no guarantee that there will be enough left for future generations. For that I suggest a binding international treaty for prioritizing the right to water and the measures that guarantee that all individuals enjoy that right.