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

COMENTARIOS AL BORRADOR CERO DEL INFORME “AGUA Y SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA”

1.      El alcance del tema del agua y la seguridad alimentaria es muy amplio. ¿Cree usted que el proyecto de V0 ha trazado adecuadamente la diversidad de los vínculos entre el agua y la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición? ¿Hay pruebas importantes o aspectos que el presente proyecto no ha logrado cubrir?

El borrador cero del informe “Agua y Seguridad Alimentaria” contiene información básica para el análisis de los diferentes vínculos entre el agua, la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición. En este documento se abordan varios temas relevantes, como las dimensiones del agua (disponibilidad, acceso, calidad y estabilidad), el incremento de la demanda del agua para la agricultura, los sistemas agrícolas de riego, los efectos del cambio climático en la producción de alimentos y nutrición, entre otros.

El texto también hace referencia a la limitación que tienen diversos documentos al no abordar el problema de acceso, derecho al agua y su vínculo con la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición. “La importancia del abastecimiento del agua no debe medirse sólo en términos cuantitativos, sino por el hecho de tratarse de un sistema que cubre una necesidad social básica, por ser el objetivo primero y prioritario de la planificación hidrológica y por satisfacer las demandas de sectores estratégicos” (Paneque, 2006). Este concepto requiere integrar lo siguiente:

• Principios para la inversión responsable en la agricultura y los sistemas alimentarios.
• Directrices voluntarias sobre la gobernanza responsable de la tenencia de la tierra, la pesca y los bosques en el contexto de la seguridad alimentaria nacional.
• Directrices voluntarias para lograr la sostenibilidad de la pesca, a pequeña escala, en el contexto de la seguridad alimentaria y la erradicación de la pobreza.

Se sugiere incorporar una sección que haga referencia a diversas opciones de política pública para asegurar el uso del agua en cuatro dimensiones, como son la seguridad alimentaria, la nutrición en las regiones pobres del planeta y en los grupos de mayor vulnerabilidad como indígenas y mujeres. La carencia de agua es un factor de pobreza que afecta el bienestar de la población y que repercute en la adquisición de alimentos.

Al igual se sugiere dar seguimiento a la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible, titulado “El futuro que queremos”, celebrada en 2012 en Río de Janeiro Brasil, principalmente en los siguientes numerales:

“108. Reafirmamos nuestros compromisos relativos al derecho de toda persona a tener acceso a alimentos sanos, suficientes y nutritivos, en consonancia con el derecho a una alimentación adecuada y con el derecho fundamental de toda persona a no padecer hambre. Reconocemos que la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición se han convertido en un desafío mundial apremiante y, a este respecto, reafirmamos también nuestro compromiso de aumentar la seguridad alimentaria y el acceso de las generaciones presentes y futuras a alimentos suficientes, sanos y nutritivos.

109 (…) Reconocemos la importancia de que se adopten las medidas necesarias para atender mejor las necesidades de las comunidades rurales, entre otros medios… la reutilización del agua residual tratada y la captación y el almacenamiento de agua.

119. Reconocemos que el agua es un elemento básico del desarrollo sostenible pues está estrechamente vinculada a diversos desafíos mundiales fundamentales. Reiteramos, por tanto, que es importante integrar los recursos hídricos en el desarrollo sostenible y subrayamos la importancia decisiva del agua y el saneamiento para las tres dimensiones del desarrollo sostenible.

120. Reafirmamos los compromisos contraídos en el Plan de Aplicación de las Decisiones de Johannesburgo y en la Declaración del Milenio de reducir a la mitad, para 2015, la proporción de personas sin acceso al agua potable y a servicios básicos de saneamiento y de elaborar planes de ordenación integrada y aprovechamiento eficiente de los recursos hídricos, asegurando el uso sostenible de esos recursos.

120. Reafirmamos los compromisos contraídos en el Plan de Aplicación de las Decisiones de Johannesburgo y en la Declaración del Milenio de reducir a la mitad, para 2015, la proporción de personas sin acceso al agua potable y a servicios básicos de saneamiento y de elaborar planes de ordenación integrada y aprovechamiento eficiente de los recursos hídricos, asegurando el uso sostenible de esos recursos.

121. Reafirmamos nuestros compromisos relativos al derecho humano al agua potable y el saneamiento, que ha de hacerse efectivo gradualmente en beneficio de nuestra población, respetando plenamente nuestra soberanía nacional.

122. Reconocemos que los ecosistemas desempeñan una función esencial en el mantenimiento de la cantidad y la calidad del agua y apoyamos las iniciativas de protección y ordenación sostenible de esos ecosistemas emprendidas dentro de las fronteras nacionales de cada país.

123. Subrayamos la necesidad de adoptar medidas para hacer frente a las inundaciones, las sequías y la escasez de agua, tratando de mantener el equilibrio entre el suministro y la demanda de agua, incluidos, según proceda, los recursos hídricos no convencionales, y la necesidad de movilizar recursos financieros e inversiones en infraestructura para los servicios de abastecimiento de agua y saneamiento, de conformidad con las prioridades nacionales.

124. Destacamos que es necesario adoptar medidas para reducir considerablemente la contaminación del agua y aumentar su calidad, mejorar notablemente el tratamiento de las aguas residuales y el aprovechamiento eficiente de los recursos hídricos y reducir las pérdidas de agua. Destacamos que para lograr esos propósitos se necesita asistencia y cooperación internacionales.”

2.      ¿El informe abarca adecuadamente la diversidad de enfoques y cuestiones metodológicas, en particular en relación con las métricas y datos para el agua y la seguridad alimentaria? ¿Qué medidas le parecen especialmente útiles y cuáles no?

El documento presenta datos globales sobre el agua, sin embargo carece de indicadores que permitan hacer comparaciones entre los diferentes países del mundo. Asimismo, el documento reconoce que no hay fuentes disponibles de información por categorías de los usuarios de agua, por ejemplo por género o por nivel socioeconómico.

A manera de ejemplo, a continuación se presentan cuatro indicadores incluidos en el Programa Nacional Hídrico 2014-2018.

“1. Índice Global de Sustentabilidad Hídrica (IGSH)

Este índice mide la forma en que se realiza la gestión de los recursos hídricos para lograr la sustentabilidad en las cuencas y acuíferos del país, además de garantizar la seguridad hídrica. Toma en cuenta la cantidad de agua disponible y que se consume por los diferentes tipos de usuarios, la calidad del agua y la administración de los recursos hídricos.

Este índice considera cuatro componentes:

ü  Grado de presión sobre los recursos hídricos.

ü  Medición del ciclo hidrológico.

ü  Calidad del agua.

ü  Gestión hídrica.

2.      Población y superficie protegida contra inundaciones

El indicador determina el número de personas y hectáreas que son protegidos por las acciones de las diferentes instancias e involucrados.

3.      Índice global de acceso a los servicios básicos de agua

Este índice permite evaluar el impacto de la política hídrica en tres dimensiones: cobertura, calidad y eficiencia, de los servicios agua potable y saneamiento. Es evaluado a partir de los siguientes componentes que integran nueve variables:

ü  Acceso a los servicios de agua potable.

ü  Acceso a los servicios de saneamiento.

4.      Productividad del agua en distritos de riego (kg/m3)

Mide la evolución de la productividad del agua en los distritos de riego. El avance se expresará en kilogramos por metro cúbico de agua aplicado. El aumento en la productividad en los distritos de riego mejora la eficiencia en el uso del agua en la agricultura”.

Se sugiere incorporar un apartado que aborde el tema de diseño, evaluación y monitoreo de indicadores del agua, que considere aspectos como línea base, método de cálculo y medios de verificación para dar seguimiento metodológico al tema del agua y seguridad alimentaria.

Por otra parte, se sugiere incluir el tema de la investigación y desarrollo en indicadores y datos para prevenir los efectos del cambio climático sobre la disponibilidad del agua, pues las sequias e inundaciones afectan la producción de alimentos y por ende la seguridad alimentaria.

3.      La seguridad alimentaria implica el comercio de productos agrícolas y un comercio virtual del agua. El comercio agrícola interactúa con el agua y la seguridad alimentaria de diversas maneras, y de manera particular con los países importadores de alimentos, los países exportadores de alimentos, etc. ¿Cree usted que el proyecto de V0 ha cubierto adecuadamente el asunto?

El proyecto V0 aborda el tema del comercio de productos agrícolas y el comercio virtual del agua desde un punto de vista de la eficiencia en el uso los recursos naturales. Una de las recomendaciones es considerar las importaciones de alimentos como una estrategia viable para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional. Esta estrategia atiende a cuando los recursos naturales son insuficientes y se requiere satisfacer las demandas nacionales.

Sin embargo, es importante considerar otros aspectos que pueden afectar a los países importadores de alimentos, tales como las fallas del mercado en la asignación de los recursos y la distribución del ingreso, y la dependencia alimentaria cuando las políticas internas no consideran la productividad en la agricultura familiar.

4.      En este informe, hemos considerado la posibilidad de una ampliación del derecho al agua para abarcar también los usos productivos. ¿Qué tipo de problemas prácticos y de política traería esto?

Como primer requisito se tendrían que mejorar los sistemas de gestión del agua para ampliar su disponibilidad, por ejemplo para el caso de México, la disponibilidad de agua per cápita ha disminuido: 18 035 m3/hab/año en 1950 a 3 982 m3/hab/año en 2013; 35 millones de mexicanos se encuentran en situación de poca disponibilidad de agua en términos de cantidad y calidad.

5.      ¿Qué acciones/soluciones/enfoques sistémicos (as) serían las más eficaces para mejorar la gobernanza del agua, la gestión y el uso para la seguridad alimentaria?

Pilar Paneque (2004) hace un comentario muy importante que da respuesta a esta pregunta:

“Se requiere una transformación en la política de aguas, especialmente por la prioridad otorgada al uso racional y la accesibilidad al recurso, desde una perspectiva económica y social, a la recuperación del buen estado ecológico de los ecosistemas hídricos y a la participación ciudadana en las decisiones sobre el agua. La participación da entrada a la diversidad de perspectivas y valores existentes en torno a la gestión del recurso y, de esta manera, aumentar la calidad de las soluciones alcanzadas y evitar conflictos posteriores a la toma de decisiones”

También es cierto que cada Dependencia Gubernamental será la encargada de gestionar la manera en la que operará, pero resulta interesante poder integrar esta perspectiva, en torno a la participación de todos los legos interesados.  

Para el caso de México, la Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), en su Programa Nacional Hídrico 2014-2018 hace mención del siguiente párrafo sobre la gobernanza del agua:

 “La experiencia que ha dejado en el sector hídrico la creación, operación y restructuración de los consejos de cuenca, demuestra que la inclusión de los usuarios y la sociedad en la gestión del agua ha sido un proceso más lento de lo esperado y es necesario continuar los esfuerzos para romper paradigmas de paternalismo gubernamental, establecer sinergias interinstitucionales en materia de gestión integrada del agua y buscar soluciones que privilegien el bienestar colectivo.

En materia de gobernabilidad en el sector hídrico, la problemática se relaciona principalmente con la administración del agua, que se ha convertido en un factor que limita el aprovechamiento sustentable de los recursos hídricos y empieza a inhibir el desarrollo social, económico y ambiental en nuestro país”.

I am writing you on behalf of UNSGAB, the UN Secretary General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation.

Tasked to advance the global water and sanitation agenda, our Board is very concerned about the improvement of water management that will be required to make the necessary increase of food  production  possible.  We  believe  that  the  international  community  should  pay  more attention to the essential contribution of water to food production throughout its value chain. It is part of our advocacy work. There are too many reports on food security that ignore or underestimate the water-related constraints and opportunities. For example, last September, our Chair highlighted the need for FAO to include water considerations in its Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure[1].

In this context, your future report on Water and Food Security may be very useful. This is why we have read the zero draft dated 1st October that you posted online for comments[2].

In this zero draft, there is unfortunately a draft recommendation with which our Board disagrees totally. This is the last recommendation numbered 12 that aims at "expanding the right to water to water for ecosystems reserves and water for subsistence production".

Further to a Board discussion on the matter, we request that this recommendation is not included in your final report.

As our Board did not discuss the other recommendations, this message is limited to this draft recommendation #12.

In your draft text, this recommendation #12 is not justified with any convincing arguments. Some of the arguments you use are even biased. For example, when the paragraph 3.6.2 mentions that the General Comment 15 to the ICESCR on the Right to water "suggests that States parties should ensure that there is adequate access to water for subsistence farming", this is factually true but, as presented, it makes the reader believe that this statement is a consequence of the Human right to water. However, this is not the case.

It must be noted that the draft text uses repeatedly the wording "right to water” or "human right to water" which hides the fact that the human right that was recognised in international law in

2010 is not a generic "human right to water" but a very specific "human right to safe drinking water and sanitation" (HRSDWS) that has no direct linkage with water for agriculture.

Water resources should not be confused with safe drinking water. Water only becomes safe when it has been purified for human consumption or its natural quality has been controlled to be exempt from any contamination. This is not the water that is needed and used in far larger volumes by farmers and ecosystems. Globally, the volume of ‘drinking water’ that is used by human beings is 20 times smaller than the volume of ‘water’ used for agriculture. This means that a generic "human right to water" would be very different from the "human right to safe drinking water and sanitation" (HRSDWS).

It is estimated that today, about half of the world population (more than 3 billion people) do not have its "human right to safe drinking water" satisfied3 and as a result has a harder or more dangerous life than the other half. We note with satisfaction that you refer to the important issue of water safety in sections 1.1.2 and 1.3.3 of your draft report. However, we suggest that the text of section 1.3.3 is made even more precise by taking advantage of the recent findings disclosed by the 2014 report of the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme4: more than 1.8 billion people use contaminated water! It would be also useful to delete the word "safe" from the sentence that introduces the Figure 4 ( "Figure 4 shows the delivery of safe drinking water in nine regions across the world.") since this figure 4 provides data on access to improved water sources which may or may not be safe.

Out of respect for these billions of people who must have their needs for safe drinking water satisfied urgently and to avoid delay in the implementation of their human rights, we ask you not to confuse governments and the international community by opening debates on potential amendments of their existing rights established under international law.

The requirement of individual farmers to have the raw water that is necessary for growing their subsistence food is a completely different issue. Its satisfaction depends mainly on local rainfall and on their allocation of other accessible water resources. These are not the main drivers of the satisfaction of the HRSDWS. For all these reasons, the effective satisfaction of the water needs of individual farmers for subsistence production should be ensured through legal frameworks that must not be mixed with the legal framework of the HRSDWS.

Water for ecosystems is a third issue that also requires different regulations. If ecosystems need water of "good quality", this quality is very different from the one that is necessary for the water to be safe for people. These two different quality requirements should not be confused.

For all these reasons and to avoid adding confusions that might be detrimental to the satisfaction of the different water needs of people, farmers and ecosystems as well as of the human rights of people, we ask you not to include in your final report the last draft recommendation #12 that aims at "expanding the right to water to water for ecosystems reserves and water for subsistence production".

This would also require that you make adjustments to the narrative on this question in earlier parts of your report.

Gerard Payen, Member of UNSGAB

1  WATER FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION (FSN): CHALLENGES FROM GLOBAL TO LOCAL 

1. Water for Food Production and Nutrition: Individual and Collective Challenges

2 IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED FSN 

2. Improved water management for increased food value and added food value

2.1 Water for agricultural systems 

2.1.1 Rainfed agricultural systems

2.1.2 Irrigated agricultural systems  

2.1.3 Subsidence food production (“Production vivrière de décrue” = cultures vivrières + trous à poissons + etc.)  

2.1.4 Resilience of agriculture to climate variability and change

3 GOVERNING WATER FOR FSN 

3. Governing water for FSN: Individual and Collective Responsibilities

3.1 Local water governance regimes: accessing water for FSN

3.2 Water reform processes   

3.3 Contestations around water  

3.4 National Policies and processes that affect water for food security  

3.5 The emergence of a global water governance regime?   

3.6 The right to water and the right to food  

3.7 Use of water for safe food transport and access: Inland coastal navigation

1  WATER FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION (FSN): CHALLENGES FROM GLOBAL TO LOCAL 

1. Water for Food Production and Nutrition: Individual and Collective Challenges

1.1 Water, key to Food Security and Nutrition (FSN)

Ø  1 1 1 Charting the multiple linkages

Ø  Figure 1 The multiple interfaces between water and food security and nutrition (FSN)

Contribution : Inland coastal navigation

Interface relate to water use for Access to food, Access to market to sell food crops or food: use of rivers, lakes for transport householders and food products

2 IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED FSN 

2. Improved water management for increased food value and added food value

Contribution : List of technologies used to extract water

2.1 Water for agricultural systems 

Contribution : Groundwater use for house agriculture and giant snails production (urban and rural house) – Promotion of “Maison Nourricière”  (opposite of “Maison maçonnerie-désert”) by Convivium Nourriture Saine Benin / Network for ecofarming Benin (NECOFA Benin)  

Innovations 1: Use of plastic can to produce high quality of leaf and fruit legumes for daily use at home; more other plants are also concerned not.

Imported plastic cans contained vegetable oil. After this first use the empty plastic cans are used at home for agriculture. Its life delay is very long (above 10 years) in contrary of “Kenyan sack gardening”. The quantity of water needed per day is between 1-2 litters depending the period of the year (wet or dry season).

 See photos

Innovations 2: Use of closed plastic can and kitchen water re-use to produce liquid fertilizers recycling nutrients waste products, whether animal or crop waste back into the farming process.

 Innovations 3: Use of groundwater to produce high quality of Giant West African Snails Achatina for daily consumption and market at home.

See photos

2.4 Improving water management and uses in agriculture and food systems

 …… Irrigated agro-ecosystems will be affected by climate change in two ways (Wreford et al. 2010, IPCC 21 2014).

Contribution : Research is proving now that there are also Links between increased CO2 levels and decrease of nutrients in some food crops.

Contribution : Diversifying with fisheries and aquaculture, and also Giant West African Snails Achatina

3 GOVERNING WATER FOR FSN 

3. Governing water for FSN: Individual and Collective Responsibilities

3.7 Use of water for safe food transport and access: Inland coastal navigation  

Dear colleagues

a few reflections on HLPE Draft Report: V0 WATER AND FOOD SECURITY

related to suggestions for comments:

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?

Agree, it is a very broad topic. Perhaps equally significant, the challenges look very different today and in the future as compared to recent and, of course, historical contexts. Generally, the draft includes a large number of issues and linkages. It is good that you point out the need to look at nutrition security, which implies something more and different than intake of energy (kcal). For this reason, it is important to add something on what nutritional security means. -- Basically, I miss a food system perspective and comments about the drivers in the system. As I read the draft, its focus is on production and partly on supply. Figure 1 on p. 11 may be seen as an attempt to widen the perspective, but it is a complicated Figure and does not highlight the dynamic trends on the demand side. -- You argue that access to water for the poor is restricted due to overpricing (12:40). It is, of course, true that the poor have severe difficulties to access not only water but also other goods and services. I would welcome more comments/arguments; water provision and most water services are heavily subsidized. -- Box 8 (p. 31) is interesting, but the story involves additional interesting details of the political economy. One consequence of the modernization was an increase in production and, as far as I am told, a substantial overproduction in relation to what the market could absorb at prices that farmers expected. That was not the intention. Government had to make costly intervention a second time – Alberto Garrido can tell you more.  

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?

A food system approach would require additional approaches and methodological issues. Metrics and methodologies about nutrition and overeating are missing. -- Your discussion about water scarcity follows conventional views, 23:22 ff. Could be relevant to discuss scarcity in relation to climate variability and as a function of the dynamics on the demand side. You talk about rainfall (page 9) but do not mention soil moisture and how it relates to rainfall, land use and soil properties,

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?

Trade in food means not only virtual water but also virtual land, virtual energy, etc. Export and import of food do not reflect water distribution very much as far as I know?

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?

This is a tricky issue. Morally and ethically, there is no, or very little, objection to a rights based approach. The devil is in practice and execution both at macro level (legal provisions and policies, including financing schemes, definition of rights in terms of quantity and quality for whom, and similar) and at micro level (e.g. logistics). There is a need for examples on how the practical challenges can be dealt with. SOFI 2104 offers some interesting examples in this regard. Those examples are, however, not very detailed. Links to subsidies are, for instance, not dealt with. If access to water and food are to be guaranteed under a constitutional rights scheme, I guess it must include all individuals. What happens when some communities do not obtain access?  How do rights link to responsibilities, e.g. payments and ownership?  What is the quantity and type of food that should be included in the right to food? Where is the cut-off line above which people are supposed to take care of these needs through their own capacity/abilities?

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

As you can imagine from comments above, I think that a food system approach is warranted, maybe especially if nutrition security is the ambition.

Overall impression: The draft raises a number of important and relevant issues (e.g. nutrition, food safety, water and energy linkages) but the ‘red thread’ is not clear. Focus is on production and supply side. Some statements are made without proper argumentation (e.g. that water is overpriced). Some concepts (e.g. water scarcity) are discussed in conventional terms whereas nutritional security is mentioned but not defined or discussed. Could be very relevant to link nutrition to water and perhaps GHG emissions – I realize it is a big task. 

Thank you for sending us the HLPE report thorough Jordan embassy in Italy.

Our main comment on the report is the need to stress in the last section on "Rights to Food and Water";the need of International Community to support  the Right to water and food for countries with on going conflicts and countries receiving influx of refugee from neighboring countries with on going conflicts.   Jordan is one of the countries that is suffering from exreme pressure on its water resources as a result of refugee influx from neighbouring countries.

Best regards

Rania Abdel Khaleq

Dirctor, Finance and International Cooperation

Ministry of Water and Irrigation-Jordan

Dear All,

For page 35 

Below are a few of Syngenta comments on the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) report on Water and Food Security, version zero. Syngenta is an agri-business company researching and developing seeds, seeds protection, and crop protection products enabling farmers to increase yield in an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable way.

Our comments on the report reflect an agriculture perspective and aim to strengthen a connection between agriculture sustainability, food security and water conservation.

Impact and dependencies of agriculture on water should be highlighted at the watershed level. Agriculture accounts for the majority of global water withdrawal. It is therefore an integral part of any global or national water strategy. In this context the role of:

1. 1. Farmers, as land and water stewards, and
   2. Agri-business companies, as solutions and resources providers should be explained in the report.

A map of irrigated farmland – A geographical map of world-wide distribution of irrigated farmland, guiding on lands that are irrigated and with what type of irrigation, would be an informative piece of information in the report.

The Water Resources Group “Charting Our Water Future” report highlights how input-use efficiency through better technology and related productivity increases is the economically most viable solution to close the water gap in agriculture dominated economies. It should therefore be emphasized how productivity gains in agriculture will have long-term improvement in water use efficiency. The following measures could be considered, as they are deemed to be important in this context:

1. 1. Sustainable Intensive Agriculture - Grow More from Less – we have to use water wisely and efficiently to grow more food and to reduce water wastages and losses throughout a product’s value chain.[1] Produce more crops per drop of water, per hectare of land, per hour of labor, per application of crop protection products.
   2. We agree with the statement in the report that “the challenge for irrigated agriculture in this century is to improve equity, reduce environmental damage, strengthen ecosystem functions, and enhance water and land productivity in existing and new irrigated systems.” However, this could be tackled by focusing on maintaining and improving agriculture water demand and supply balance within a watershed, through for instance:
      1. Alter traditional crop selection criteria – to promote consideration of water supply (not water availability) in the crop selection process. For example, substitute water intensive crops by less water intensive crops or imports, in water scare regions.
      2. Maintain and improve soil structure - to enhance soil water holding capacity and reduce soil based evaporation. This is mentioned at places in the report, but benefits of sustainable soil management and use or good water / irrigation management practices in controlling soil erosion and water contamination are not emphasized. (land productivity section)
      3. Advance water application systems in crop production – to encourage adoption of water efficient irrigation techniques: sprinkler or drip irrigation; combined water, fertilizers, and chemical inputs application techniques.
      4. Trans-boundary cooperation - to maintain and improve water demand and supply balance. For instance, there was not much mentioning in the report of the groundwater boom in Asia.

4.      The section on gender equality in water management and use sector could be strengthened, showcasing accruing benefits of achieving such equality. (we recommend to refer to “Effective gender mainstreaming in water management for sustainable livelihoods: From guidelines to practice” from Dr. Margreet Zwarteveen, Irrigation and Water Engineering, Wageningen University.)

Policy recommendations

Below are a few proposed policy recommendations for water resource management in agriculture sector that could be considered for the report:

·         The use of water in agriculture should be optimized and water optimization should be prioritized in agricultural policies. Policy frameworks which recognize the interdependence of energy, food, water, and health should be promoted as well as practical, feasible, and time bound water policy targets should be set for the achievement of a sustainable level of water efficiency in agricultural sector. Aim of agri-policies should be to get higher yield from every drop of water in a most sustainable manner, if we are to manage this scare resource more wisely.

Policies to be supported by productivity based indicators/metrics, which recognize the interdependence of water with other issues, particularly energy and food, as well as climate. For instance, water metrics based on food calories per unit of irrigated water could be a consideration.

·         Improve the targeting of policies to areas where water wastage and pollution is most acute. This could involve:

o   Integrated planning and management across competing uses of water - to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of water. For instance, there is no mentioning of water user associations/farmer associations – they can be very effective in managing water use in developing countries.

o   Establish and strengthen legal and governance frameworks for water – to facilitate correct mapping and accounting of water scarce regions.  For instance,

§  formalization of water sector to facilitate water valuation and establish water rights;

§  build capacity and knowledge of policy makers and decision takers to help them design and implement and to understand the impacts of policies in advance, as well as to monitor and track on-the-ground progress of enacted policies;

§  set-up information systems for dynamic mapping of water sources in order to support farmers, water managers, and policy makers;

§  support training and educational institutes to build capacities at local level to better manage water resources; and financial institutes that benefit rural poor and resource constraint growers to adopt better means for water resource management,

o   Promote public-private partnerships – to enhance water use efficiency and to support for inter-basin transfer infrastructure.

o   Identify and promote technologies that develop and protect water resources – to enhance agricultural productivity and simultaneously support mechanisms that help in the diffusion and dissemination of these technologies to the ones that need them most.

·         Businesses must be encouraged to drive sustainable solutions at scale while linking development goals to core business interests, identifying and managing their impacts and collaboration with governments and civil society. For example,

o   Incentives for efficient irrigation systems could be tied-up to productivity improvements, or even to amount of calories produce. 

o   Development of simple and pragmatic water accounting and reporting tools to measure agriculture water intensity (off-rain water).

Hi

Water and food security go hand in a glove, disease morbidity and mortality rates remain very high because of the lack of addressing these two key components. The lack of proper based WASH  programs has resulted in many diarrhoeal diseases and some water borne diseases. Water Institutions should after drilling boreholes set up water committees who will in turn built the capacity of other community members, because a lot of contamination happens at the household level, such practices will reduce water problems. Again the lack of climate change implementation practices have led to food and water problems. A lot has been said about climate change, however recurrent droughts and flooding continue to persist because, institutions are not being reliable actors on the ground. On the other hand a lack of  motives to move the food security front, researchers should use the farmer first approach and respect indigenous technology ideals.

Regards

Themba Phiri (Technical Specialist)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. A couple of brief comments:

1. Section 1.3.5 refers to a "grabbing" of water by "big corporates". This sort of language is not constructive and only further accentuates the emotionally-charged public debate on such issues. The text makes it sound as though corporates purposefully withhold water from other parts of society simply for their own use. It needs to be borne in mind that corporates use water in their production processes in order to deliver products that consumers look to buy in global markets. The title and language used in this section of the report should be far more neutral and factual.

2. Section 3.3.1 infers that water pricing can conflict with the basic right to water.  On what basis this assertion is founded? The Human Right to Water is quite clear that there is no conflict between water pricing and the right to water.