Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

2. CICMA suggests not approaching the right to food in terms of right of poor groups or as priority  for  the most vulnerable the categories. This approach is not in  harmony with the universal level of  "human rights". The right to water and to food is universal and must be guaranteed to everyone, not just only to the most vulnerable people.

Our proposal is to confirm, in the draft,   the universality of   "human rights" linked to human dignity. The human rights   must be   recognized and guaranteed by all   the States.   It is time to assert the universal, inalienable, supra-national, inter-religious level of “human rights”  and promote the States' commitment  to recognize the “rights of nature/land” (ecosystems).

2. Has the report revealed 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?

Consideration.

Referring  to the parameters of "quantification" to ensure food and water in terms of  “security”, the document suggests some  parameters  proposed by UN Agency for the minimum quantity of access to water. On the basis of the experience and assistance provided by FAO, it is possible  to propose in the draft a minimum quantify of water necessary to produce food for basic nutrition in rural areas?

Proposal

CICMA proposes that the draft  would formalize some proposals  regards the minimum quantity of water for drinking and sanitation in terms of “human water right”.   In order to realise and implement  the UN resolution is necessary to quantify the minimum guaranteed as a "human right" and at the same time  to identify  an instrument of international law that ensures this “ water right”.

CICMA  propose that the document adopt  of certain parameters in terms of the right to water for human use and for food production.

The parameters  to introduce as a benchmark are as follows:

1. Universal human water-right

• The right to water: minimum quantity of between 50 and 100 litres per day per person taken in charge by the State;
• The right to individual and collective welfare: between 100 and 250 litres day/peers access is guaranteed through a progressive tariff system in respect of good state of eco-systems;
• The right of water (sustainability of ecosystems): the  domestic use  in excess of 250 litres/day/p  is prohibited.

2. Universal right to access to water for food production and uses

• Right to collective water use: up to 1700 m3 year for all purposes, cost taken in charge by  to local community;
• Right to collective water use: uses ranging from 1.700 m3 /y/p   at to 2500 m3/y/p , access is guaranteed through a progressive tariff system
• Uses of water for intensive production   from   3500 m3 /y/p are prohibited if unendurable for the ecosystems.

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

Consideration.

Referring to  the concept of “food security”  it should be noted that not all the rural communities and farmers recognize the priority of these approaches, because food security do not defend their rights, but those who

have the ability to access the food market and to purchase it.

Access to food, the right to food and nutrition,  can not be addressed only as " availability of a food", possibly to access at low-cost or an affordable price, and  at if possible with a low water footprint.

The growth of national income  of  the countries  through export of agricultural products  with virtual trade water, does not the guaranties to transfer  these incomes to the peasants and the opportunity to ensure the

food.  The vision of “food security”  in terms of production and access to food does not guarantee the right to

food and basic nutrition for all, in particular for the poor community.

The right to food, the access to food  can not be assuring  providing to the rural community  the money to buy the food on the market or giving food-free .

To adopt the “virtual trade water” as a parameter to select or  to orient local agricultural and food production improve  the necessity to realize a national “market price of water”.  This approach support the prevailing view, imposed by the water companies and many national policy, that “water is a commodity” and not a human right.

Proposal

CICMA suggest introducing in the document the concept of “food and water sovereignty” as a way to real ensure food security, in terms of the right to access to water and food.

The paradigms of “food sovereignty”  and  “water sovereignty”  are used to strengthen the claim of the right to food,  to  water, to land of communities and to manage  production and agriculture processes, may  be realized in respect of human and environmental rights.

A vision of the right to food and water based on "sovereignty", namely in terms of self-determination of the

farmers, rural communities and peoples engaged to the rights to water, to the environment and the sustainable use of common resources (water, land , seeds, biodiversity) is preferable to a model of agricultural production oriented only to respect  “water footprint” or national food security through  the importation of technology, seeds and economic standards for agricultural production.

CICMA suggest preventing in the document the approach of “virtual water consumption”, witch strengthening the vision of “water is a commodity”, a resource with economic value in the market.

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

The approach of "extension" of the right to water raised by the report is good but requires the positions defined on the legal basis on which the claim can be set.

Consideration

The approach of the report to consider the potential for an expansion of the right to water to encompass productive uses is good approach. We suggest, however, that this approach should be strengthened by clarifying the legal framework and the bases of reference.

Thanks to the mobilization of the water movements, ad international et national level, “water” is characterized today from a very advanced  international legal framework in terms of recognition as “human right to water and sanitation”.  The recognition of this right is secured by a specific UN resolution  and supported by States and subsequently by the Human Rights Council.

This  can proceed fire  by introducing   an international legal instruments concretely  realising the resolutions and conventions already ratified by the States and sanctioning j the violations.

The legal framework currently existing  for right to food and nutrition as human right is only at the level of reference in the Declaration of Human Rights (article 25) and of principles in terms of economic, cultural and social rights. There is no specific resolutions at human right.

Proposal

Cicma suggest that to explore the hypothesise that   water and food rights must be associated, with the support of experts.   A legal basis   such as   a Treaty or Protocol specific for human as a human right, adopted by the States and international community defining obligations of States, in terms of quantities, methods and sanction against of the violations of universal right to water.

Only  through the adoption  of this framework and the procedures for guarantying  the human righty to water we think   it will be possible to introduce principles in relation to  the right for water and food of vulnerable groups.

With reference   to other productive uses of water, it is proposed that this international legal framework confirms  that the human right to water and sanitation should  prevail  of other productive uses,  and that access to water for all other uses is subject to the balance of available water resources in that territory. Access to water for agricultural production and other purposes, must be based on a progressive tariff system for levels of consumption. The uses incompatible with the water balance of an area (resources of ecosystem or basins) should be prohibited.

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

Consideration.

The document highlights the importance of water governance and identifies three level and models, but does not identify what is the most relevant to ensuring the right to food and food security.   The reflection on the most appropriate models of “governance” brings us back to the concept of the management model in terms of “food security”, “water security”.

Proposal.

1.Cicma suggest the opportunity to activate a process of analysis, with debate  and  consultation in CFS respect to the food security production, as model to access to right-food and to  promote  individual welfare of the poor, the farmer, and the rural community .

We think that the approach of "food sovereignty" linked to the rights of communities and rural producers, is a and responsible model of agricultural production with a more respectful cycle, combining individual rights, and more respect of the environment right’s (use of soil, land, water etc)

Referring to the management-governance of common goods, particularly of water, the governance must be conceived in terms of the sovereignty at global level (humanity, peoples) with the involvement of local people and communities, and not in terms of local, national security for access to food, water, and environment.

The concepts of “food security” and “water security” are linked to a concept of “national sovereignty” (State / Country) of naturals resources (water, soil, food) and therefore are associated to national security and defence policies.   In order to defend the access to national   goods it’s allowed and tolerated the use of military security in the name of “sovereignty” ( see   water wars, land wars ( grabbing),   wars for   food / bread),

To avoid these conflicts and ensure the “security of access to resources” for all, current trends’ tend to build models of “governance” that give the power to “definition of rules and legal bases” to stakeholders, reducing State’s sovereignty. We suggested to avoid  in  the “draft  zero”  supporting this model of governance  only practiced and supported by European Commission  and the principal corporations for “water management and  governance”  (  refer  to  policy’s  of  World  Water  Council,  CEO,  UNwater,  Blue  print  of  EC,TTIP negotiations USA-UE )

2. With respect to governance models, we believe it urgent to promote a reflection on   designing new models. The most appropriate model to ensure news governance  for the rights of the commons goods  is to create instruments of international law and supranational structures of law with legislative and sanctioning powers, about of the  national sovereignty of  States. One hypothesis, at international level, proposed by CICMA and other Movements is to promote a World Water Authority and  an International Court for Water and the commons goods.

At the regional level   it is necessary to propose and to adopt models of governance based on local communities.  These models  may  be recognized  by  legal  frameworks, by protocols or by treaties that introduce management at a local  areas, particularly transboundary basins of water.    Basin management committees should be  composed by  representatives of local governments and citizens  who live on the land and use the water resources, in particular citizens, farmers, stakeholders.

3. With reference to the principles, the appropriate model of governance must ensure   the rights of the citizens living  in the territories. Necessary to guarantee: the right to information on the quality of water  and on sources used by public or private actors; the right to the participation for civil sociality ;  the sanctions  of the right to violations;  the respect of the  human-right  water also in the wars  the respect for the rights of the environment (soil, climate) .

Part 2 : Recommendations

Point. 12 - The right to water and food

Consideration

On the basis of the above considerations, for CICMA suggest

• Binding  human right to water and the right to food, referring only to the common belonging as “human rights” recognized byn the Declaration of the United Nations, is a wach approach
• difficulties are even greater for the proposal to associate the right to food to recognition of the  rights of nature and ecosystems.  The failure of the Climate conferences’  that the States are not willing to give up their sovereignty over natural resources managed in terms of security

The recognition of the human right to water and sanitation, as established by resolution of the United

Nations, does not make an explicit reference he right to food ; it is difficult to sustain that it  be automatically extended in terms of food right, especially as a right to access to food for the poor.

Maybe it ’s possible to introduce the right to water for food  and  extension of the human right to water and the right to a dignified life ( right for the life).

The recognition of the right to water may be promoted and pursued:

-  At the level international, through a Treaty or International Protocol

-  At the level of individual countries,   through national legislative frameworks

The  definition  of  the  human  right  to  water,  the  regulation  of  the substantive  issues  that  need  to  be guaranteed by the States at the substantive and the procedural level, through an international Treaty adopted by the United Nations Assembly, could increase the possibility of obtaining a specific recognition for the right to water for food production, particularly for the most vulnerable groups.

At international level,   CICMA is engaged to promote a proposal for a Second Optional Protocol to the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, on the right to water and sanitation

( PIDESC) ; in this  draft  there are  definitions of  water-right  in terms of “drinking water and sanitation”, and “drinking water”   is inclusive of   water use by human for   drinking, cooking, food preparation, personal hygiene and health or similar purposes.

At national level,  it is necessary that States adopt national law ensuring that “everyone has access to  safe water” and adopt roll propose  by the Optional Protocol for water an sanitation .

We   here remind that   the most advanced model of water-right is implemented in Ecuador : after having inserted of the right to water and right of nature in its Constitution, the Government passed a national law to regulating the different uses and recognizing the right to water to communities for food self-production.

Proposals

The Italian World Water Contract proposes to the drafting group to introduce in the “draft-zero” the following proposal :

1. to request to the Human Rights Council to propose to the States to adopt an instrument of international law,  a Treaty or Protocol, in order  to ensure the human right, autonomous, specific to water and sanitation, the obligations of States on the substantive and procedural terms.

2. to request to the Human Rights Council to adopt a  resolution  formally declaring  the connection between the human water-right, food-right” and right of water ecosystems. Such resolution should recognized the local community  as the subject who has the right to  manage plans for protection and use of  water, land and food.

3. to request to FAO to identify  the appropriate channels, at the level of United Nations, supporting  the proposal for a Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (PIDESC) and at the same time promoting, among the objectives of sustainable development of the UN Agenda post-2015, the formalisation of the right to water, food, land as State’s commitments.

4. the request to FAO to give immediate effect to "voluntary guidelines" on land and resources management, by identifying the legal means for effectively implementation the protection of rights by the States.