Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Feedback ActionAid Netherlands to Zero Draft

ActionAid Netherlands welcomes the HLPE report on water and food security and the opportunity to contribute. We feel the draft contains a very strong and human right-based analysis and recommendations on the importance of better understanding ánd addressing the role and challenges of water in food security and achieving the right to water (3.6). We would particularly like to highlight the strong connection between land and water and the particular gendered dimensions this has, as well as the importance of empowerment and a rights-based approach to providing an enabling environment and support to (women) small-scale food producers, to access and provide water and food to themselves and their societies.

-          From our work on sustainable agriculture (climate resilient sustainable agriculture) it shows that supporting smallscale (women) farmers in building agroecological approaches and mitigating as well adapting to water challenges is urgent and promising to food security and biodiversity.

o    See experiences with agroecology and sustainable ánd inclusive water management in for example Kenya here.

o   Water in innovative integrated smallholder farming systems, involving (rainwater) harvesting, small scale irrigation, crop and animal diversity, fish farming etc.

-          From our work and research on land rights, large-scale land investments and land grabs specifically it becomes very clear that:

o   Land grabs often constitute water grabs as well, especially because high potential areas for irrigation are targeted (e.g. near lakes).

o   Climate change, large-scale aquaculture and agriculture as well as mineral-extraction and other mega-development projects reduce fishing and farming communities’ access to land, security of land tenure, and the availability and quality of water for drinking, sanitation and for small-scale food production, as documented by the Polaris Institute and ActionAid.

§  See also specific cases such as the impacts of biofuel investment in Tanzania (Fuel for Thought, ActionAid 2012; and country study by Sulle, 2009) or extractives.

§  Also many other export commodities such as flowers have major impact on local water ánd food supply. The link between industrial monoculture and catchment (watershed) land degradation in large  African catchment resulting in more severe erosion and more severe flooding etc is often not sufficiently acknowledged and addressed.

§  There are also direct health dimensions, e.g. risks of waterborne diseases around large irrigation schemes, etc.

o   Women are particularly affected by both pressures on land as well as water due to lack of protection of their rights as well as the roles they play including producing and providing food, water collection etc. This shows from various case studies as well as our analysis on ‘Gendered Dimensions of Landgrabs’ (From Under Their Feet, ActionAid 2012) and the research under the Women and Mining Project (Womin), such as the impacts of extractives on women’s access to food and water. Women smallholders require access to water for drinking and food production, yet their rights and opportunities are systematically denied, often for the simple reason of being women. Moreover, policies often disregard smallholders contributions to food production, climate resilience, and biodiversity regeneration, among others.

o   Where we support women to claim their land rights, this is only effective if this land is fertile and they have access to water and additional resources to improve their (food) production. When these conditions are met, this approach of empowerment and jointly addressing the right to food, water and land is very successful. (See work with REFLECT circles for example and findings from evaluations of ActionAid programmes, such as published in the report ‘From Marginalisation to Empowerment’ – ActionAid 2013).

§  Many, including the World Bank now acknowledge the important role women play in food production and cooperating with them in the defence and expansion of access to land, water and support for farming can significantly contribute to both women’s rights and food security.

-          Acknowledging the strong interconnected nature of these resources and challenges we feel a more holistic approach to land and water (or in fact natural resource) management starting from the right to food and water is key to achieving food security. In practice there is often little cross-over between people working on water for production, water for consumption and those working on land rights and gender equality. Acknowledging the food-water-land nexus and its gendered dimensions more strongly in research ánd policy making would be a major step forward.

-          It is important that to understand and address the the impact of global/EU/OECD consumption (especially of water intensive crops such as soy, sugar; flowers) on local water availability in for example Africa. One approach is to start measuring and addressing the water footprint, as the Dutch Landscape Agency has started to explore for the Netherlands. This could be done in conjunction with land and other resource footprints, followed by action.

Barbara van Paassen | Policy Advisor | ActionAid Netherlands

Tel: +31205206210 | Email: [email protected] | Skype: barbara.van.paassen | Twitter: @bvpaassen

Bezoekadres: Stadhouderskade 60, 1072 AC, Amsterdam | Postadres: Postbus 10707, 1001 ES Amsterdam

Bottled Water

Within the body of this excellent report there is little discussion of the place of bottled water in relation to water and food security. Undoubtedly in relation to disaster relief bottled water has an important role to play. However, in more general terms it can play little part in the development of a secure and sustainable potable water scenario. In ecological terms it is wasteful of resources both for bottling and containers and in relation to transportation and recycling. In economic terms it is also much more expensive than sources of municipal water and plays an increasingly significant role in diverting scarce resources from the public to the private sectors. In 2013 the global bottled water market was estimated as worth £25bn and in the UK £2bn. In both cases these figures are on an upward trajectory.

(Source:

http://www.ccwater.org.uk/waterissues/currentkeywaterissues/drinkingwaterquality/#sthash.mbdMtyIm.dpuf )

There is considerable debate about the relative qualities of tap water and bottled water. In repeated controlled tests it is shown that people find it very difficult to differentiate the taste and quality of bottled and tap water. Within this ambivalence there remains uncertainty about the macro-biological security of bottled water over long periods of storage and in regard of the leakage of contaminants from the bottles or rigid storage containers.

There are also national, regional and global concerns over the regulatory procedures surrounding bottled water. Whilst public water is very meticulously tested and regulated the procedures concerning bottled water are much more ‘light touch’ and largely rely on the commercial providers to undertake testing and to make returns.

Finally, in areas of low resources and high water insecurity water harvesting by private companies can make significant inroads into supplies of ground water. This can generate situations of water capture and the reallocation of water resources on commercial grounds.

For all of these reasons it would seem warranted to spend a little time within this HLPE report exploring the commercial, regulatory and governance contexts of the bottled water industry.

Ian Hextall  (WaterAid Volunteer)  (Research Fellow Goldsmiths’, University of London)

[email protected]

In support of an expansion of the current right to water for domestic uses to also encompass a right to water for food, the five points below trace implications for the state as duty bearer.

1. Statutory water law should respect and protect any water directly used by people to meet their human right to food.  Currently, the most widespread statutory law, permit systems, entail the opposite. First, micro-users exempted from the obligation to apply for a permit, are categorically relegated to a status of second-class entitlement. Second, small-scale users, especially women, who are obliged to apply for a permit are discriminated by the administrative structure.  The revisions of the permit systems to these ends should be well communicated in local language.

2. The state has the following obligation to fulfil  the right to water for domestic uses and food when investing in public infrastructure. The contents of the human right to water should at least be 50 lpcd.  This is because a significant proportion of clients of water supplies that were designed for domestic uses only, already use those supplies for productive purposes  as well, even at levels that are commonly seen as basic domestic uses (Hall 2013; Van Koppen et al 2009). These productive uses should be respected and protected instead of being declared illegal. Hence, in order to reach the recommendations for absolute minimum for domestic uses of 25 lpcd,  higher service levels are needed.

1. 3. Irrigation projects should also respect and protect the already existing human right to water for domestic uses, in case such domestic needs are not met as yet otherwise. There is no justification why irrigation professionals can ignore that right. Thus, new irrigation schemes should be designed to also meet the human right to water for domestic uses.  In existing schemes, as a minimum, no one should be prohibited to use the scheme for domestic purposes. Instead, such domestic uses should be encouraged and enabled. A minimum volume of 5 lpcd should be safe for drinking and cooking.   

4. People’s own investments in infrastructure for water for multiple uses that contribute to meeting the human right to water for domestic uses and for food should be fully respected and protected , also as the starting point of planning any new public water scheme.  

5. Future users of a new scheme or a rehabilitation, women and men, should have a strong say in the planning of the scheme that affects their lives, especially in the technology choice.

Dear all,

My name is Dr. Itamar Nadav and I’m an agronomist At Netafim- the world leader in drip irrigation. I appreciate your work on the global water status but I have few suggestions to achieve some of the goals.

Regarding dealing with saline water for irrigation, in continue to line 22 on p. 30 I would add: further conventional irrigation with saline water can, in long term, rule this soil out from being feasible for agriculture uses. Adequate irrigation practice such as drip irrigation along with drainage cam maintain the salinity level at the root zone beneath the critical salinity damaging for not salt durable crops. Drip irrigation keeps the root zone constantly wet due to the low discharge rate and the daily irrigation. In those conditions the salinity level can be constrained with less crop yield reduction and sustained soil salinity for long term.    

Regarding the section dealing with ground water in p.31 I would like to add that the reduction of available ground water and the depletion in ground water level requires higher energy inputs and costs. Irrigating with old fashion methods requires large amounts of water and as a consequence high pumping costs. Irrigating with micro irrigation methods requires significantly less water and reduced flow rates which leads to reduced pumping cost and cheaper pumps. Furthermore, long term of flood irrigation along with fertilizers application may cause ground water contamination by leached nutrients, while micro irrigation methods uses less fertilizers that are located in the wetted root zone and hardly leached from there  

This is a good start and a good consultation process.

I have included in the attached document comments on three issues

- the question of the right to water for production (Q4)

- discussion of food processing (Qb)

- the importance of financing (Q1)

Saludos a todos y todas desde el Altiplano peruano sobre los 3850 msnm.

El tema central del V0 es la relación agua y seguridad alimentaria, y en caso mío planteado desde un contexto geográfico, cultural específicos. Según el mapa de cuencas hidrográficas del Perú, elaborada por la Autoridad Nacional del Agua (2012) la cuenca del Titicaca representa 0.5 % de agua disponible del Perú, en el mismo espacio viven el 4 % de la población nacional (total habitantes Perú 30 millones).  Siguiendo la serie histórica de precipitación pluvial acumulada anual durante los últimos 30 años hay un promedio de 700 mm, cuya distribución en los últimos tiempos en errático, además de la variación climática que vive en la zona con fuertes heladas, granizadas y veranillos que afectan las actividades de producción agrícola. También es importante mencionar que el servicio de saneamiento de agua, en forma de agua potable o agua entubada, está tratando de cubrir a toda la población, en el sector rural en mas del 50 %, con el agravante en el sector rural que el agua se ausenta en los sistemas de tubería de agosto a diciembre, por lo que es acceso de agua para consumo humano se hace de otras fuentes alejadas y con riesgo de contaminación.

Este cuadro configura un escenario donde la relación de agua con la producción agrícola y el consumo humano es deficitario, peor aún si se trata de agua para la nutrición. Cerca del 90 % de los cultivos del Altiplano dependen de la lluvia y el agua que consume la población rural solo es agua entubada.

Una de las alternativas que ya impulsa el estado es la cosecha de agua superficial a través de grandes y costosos proyectos de almacenamiento de agua para irrigación de algunas partes bajas. Sin embargo las laderas donde también existe agricultura están totalmente excluidas. Entonces se hace necesario el fomento de proyectos de siembra  y cosecha de agua en las cabeceras de cuencas para atender otras áreas donde ocurre agricultura y para el consumo humano. También está pendiente el tratamiento de aguas entubadas para hacerlas potable y mejorar la salud y la nutrición de quienes los consumen.

Muchas gracias colegas.

Dear HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and comments to the draft consultation paper, “Water and Food Security” that is being prepared for the UN Committee on World Food Security.  The subject is of critical importance to humanity’s prospects for sustainably producing nourishing food for current and future generations; and to do so in balance with our planet’s resource constraints and dynamically changing climatic and environmental conditions.

Clearly, ‘Water and Food Security’ is a complex, multi-dimensional relationship that embraces global and regional hydrologic cycles; disparate agronomic practices; watershed and landscape ecosystem dynamics; and social, cultural and economic  factors that all contribute to our prospects for achieving healthy, prosperous and equitable societies.  Given these complexities, I appreciate the project team’s efforts to describe, document and recommend a set of strategies that could be adopted in farmers’ fields; in technology research and development; in governance of water rights and usage; in public policies that shape private sector practices and investments; and in other disciplines.  Your draft paper has made an admirable effort to articulate these important challenges and opportunities for action.

However, I am concerned that the present draft does not present a sufficiently coherent and forceful assessment of the challenges, conflicting forces and most promising strategies for implementing local, regional and global water and food security.  In my view, despite being nearly 100 pages in length, the paper fails to draw attention to the most important issues and actions that are needed to promote and improve more productive and water efficient agricultural practices and to advocate for the public and private sector frameworks that are needed to accomplish these objectives. 

This consultative paper is far too general in its statements and findings of facts and recommendations of best ways forward.  While it provides many relevant comments and examples; much of what is written is difficult to comprehend.  While only a draft, the paper needs thorough editing for clarity; and to more effectively present its key messages.  The paper should also employ a more narrative organizational format and structure for its findings that provide greater granularity of ‘subject headers’ (e.g. bold font designations) that clearly focus the reader’s attention to the important points being made.   The paper would be significantly improved with the inclusion of an executive summary at the beginning that concisely defines the challenges, issues and recommendations for high priority actions.

As an example, I fully agree with the statement on page 29 (lines 9-12) that “… soil moisture retention and micro-climate management are crucial strategies…agro-ecological approaches are particularly suitable for building healthy soils with higher water retention capacity…”  However, this critical finding is obscured in the dense text of several paragraphs.  I would encourage the paper to format key points of information or action with more easily recognized subhead titles such as: “Soil Fertility and Soil Moisture Retention Are Critical Factors for Water and Food Productivity.”

Similarly, “The Critical Role of Agro-ecological Practices in Building Healthy Soils” could be an excellent subhead title for a discussion of the importance of returning nutrients and organic carbon to soils; adopting multiple crop rotations; providing cover crops and crop residues to reduce evaporation and soil erosion; etc.  These practices are widely recognized as being essential for the restoration and maintenance of fertile soils and more efficiently capturing and using water.  Although the draft often mentions these actions; the points are usually hidden by verbiage and a lack of methodically presenting the argument for what actions are needed.

“Excessive Nutrient Runoff Leads to Eutrophication of Surface and Coastal Waters” would be a clear way to highlight a discussion of how poorly managed applications of chemical or organic fertilizers or livestock manure are contributing factors to water pollution; the reduction of fisheries productivity; and increased human health problems.  This issue is briefly mentioned in the draft, but deserves a more thoughtful description of its negative impacts and the means by which farmers (or food processors) could change their current practices and operations to more efficiently and effectively manage and recover these unused nutrients for productive purposes.

“Soil Nutrient Mining and Poor Recycling of Post-harvest Nutrients Impair Water/Soil Productivity” is another topic that is briefly noted in the paper.  However, the factors contributing to soil nutrient depletion (e.g. smallholders’ lack of access to fertilizers; limited use of micro-dosing and other precision input methods; limited reuse of crop residues and composts; limited reliance on crop rotations and N-fixing crop varieties; negligible use of mycorrhizal fungi and biofertilizers; etc.) deserve much greater attention and consideration.  Furthermore, enhanced recovery and reuse of organic nutrients in food processing wastes; livestock operations; municipal wastes; etc. should also be discussed to address the need to ‘close the farm-to-table nutrient cycle’ in order to replenish soil nutrients.  Given that soil fertility exhaustion is a significant limiting productivity factor even when water supplies are adequate; proper soil stewardship will be absolutely essential for farming in a water constrained future.  

“Improper Irrigation Practices Can Lead to Soil Salinity” would be a useful subtitle header that precedes a discussion of the negative impact of the buildup of salts in soils that are continuously irrigated.  In view of changing precipitation patterns and lengthening drought periods; irrigating what are now rainfed arable lands is certain to become a more widespread adaptation strategy.  However, if such practices lead to soil salinization, the productivity of such farming regions cannot be sustained in the long term.  This is an important challenge and warrants more consideration and examples of best practices that can minimize and manage such environmental degradations.

 “Local Watershed and Groundwater Management Practices for Maintaining Water Tables” should be specifically discussed and prioritized in the paper.  While there is some mention of such measures; this subject deserves far greater emphasis than has been presented in the draft.  There are many examples of successful farmer and rural community interventions (e.g. building check dams; retaining riparian vegetative buffer areas; maintaining local rainwater harvest storage reservoirs; integration of agroforestry and crop cultivation practices; etc.) that should be noted.  With a better appreciation of these measures, hopefully decision-makers would be more interested in creating conditions that enable and support rural development efforts to build and maintain such water resilience infrastructures.

“Breeding and Distributing Drought and Salinity Resistant Crops for Improved Water Use Efficiencies” is an important element of a comprehensive water and food security strategy.  Surprisingly, this entire topic was barely mentioned in the paper.  This oversight must be remedied with the inclusion of a discussion of various means by which public and private research collaborations; region-wide farmer cooperatives and community seed banks; increased crop diversification across staple cereals and horticultural crops; and other methods that can strengthen the vitality and resilience of crops that must adapt to changing climatic and other abiotic and biotic stresses.   The same attention to breeding for improved adaptation capabilities should also be applied to livestock husbandry as well.

“Human Capacity Building for Access to Training, Technology, Capital and Governance Processes” would be an important section to include in the paper in order to address the many institutional issues and challenges that impact and constrain agriculture’s abilities and prospects for improving water and food security.  The critical need to identify the ‘best agronomic practices’ for achieving higher Water Use Efficiencies (WUE); such as crop diversification, soil nutrient and watershed management, etc. must be complemented with facilitating the means by which farmers could improve their practices.  This means better informed and more effective agricultural extension services; developing the next generation of agricultural and ecological systems scientists; more distributed and productive value-added capabilities in rural areas; and much more.  Attention to these institutional and social-economic factors should be given as much consideration as the more field-focused practices that are covered in the paper.

I will conclude with a final comment that this paper clearly strives to introduce important information and perspectives to contribute to the Committee on World Food Security’s cogent and hopefully productive deliberations and actions.  This is a very good beginning draft.  I wish you well in sharpening the paper’s discussions and recommendations to advance this critical cause.

With best regards,

Patrick Binns

Seattle, WA  USA

An inspirational piece! Please, see my comments in the attachment. Kind regards  Barbara van Koppen

FIAN International would like to thank the HLPE for the opportunity to comment on the V0 draft of the report “Water and Food Security” and commends the HLPE Project Team for this comprehensive draft.

FIAN International strongly supports the recommendation of this draft report to apply human rights to water and food security. In the following comments, we would like to focus on what kind of challenges this would bring.

The development of the human right to water has been indeed largely focused so far on safe drinking water and sanitation. The UN CESCR’s General Comment N° 15 (GC 15) on the right to water though has already identified other aspects of the right to water which have remained under-explored and under-developed. We refer to:

• The clear recognition in the GC that “water is required for a range of different purposes, besides personal and domestic uses, to realize many of the Covenant rights. For instance, water is necessary to produce food (right to adequate food) and ensure environmental hygiene (right to health). Water is essential for securing livelihoods (right to gain a living by work) and enjoying certain cultural practices (right to take part in cultural life)” (GC 15, paragraph 6).
• The inextricable linkages of the right to water to the right to the highest attainable standard of health and the rights to adequate housing and adequate food; and the holistic understanding of the right to water as the GC calls to see it  in conjunction with other rights enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights, foremost amongst them the right to life and human dignity (GC 15, paragraph 3); and the rights enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (GC 15, paragraph 4).

-        The development of criteria to give priority in the allocation of water resources to the right to water for personal and domestic uses; and to the right to water in connection with the right to food and health to prevent starvation and disease as well as to meet the core obligations of each of the Covenant rights (GC 15, paragraph 6).

-        The importance of ensuring sustainable access to water resources for agriculture to realize the right to adequate food  giving particular attention “to ensuring that disadvantaged and marginalized farmers, including women farmers, have equitable access to water and water management systems, including sustainable rain harvesting and irrigation technology. Taking note of the duty in article 1(2), paragraph 2, of the Covenant, which provides that a “people may not “be deprived of its means of subsistence”, States parties should ensure that there is adequate access to water for subsistence farming and for securing the livelihoods of indigenous peoples.” (GC 15, paragraph 7).

• The importance of protecting natural water resources from contamination by harmful substances and pathogenic microbes; and the need to taking steps on a non-discriminatory basis to prevent threats to health from unsafe and toxic water conditions (GC 15, paragraph 8).  

In our view, strengthening the interpretation and understanding of these aspects of the right to water and of its inter-linkages with other rights is at the order of the day for all the reasons laid down in the draft report, in particular to address power imbalances, competing demands and increasing water conflicts, as well as to make the management and governance of water for food security more democratic, sustainable and just. We recommend the HLPE team to further develop its recommendations building on these aspects spelled out in GC 15.  

Following the example of the Right to Food Guidelines, we believe that the CFS could play again a catalytic role in several ways:

• It could contribute to deepening the interpretation of GC 15 by developing guidelines on the right to water in food security and nutrition with the aim to provide practical guidance about how to integrate water in national food security and nutrition strategies 1) reaffirming the importance of safe drinking water and sanitation for all people while paying attention to particular situations such as the case of access to safe drinking water of children, of  plantation workers and people facing natural disasters and protracted crisis; 2) giving particular attention  to ensuring adequate access to water for small-scale food producers and for securing the livelihoods of indigenous peoples, fishing and pastoralists communities; 3) increasing coherence and coordination among national authorities dealing with water, agriculture, environment, fisheries, livestock, nutrition, health; and among water and food security national strategies as well.
• It could request the Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Water, the Right to Food, the Right to Health, the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment to address the issues mentioned above in their work and to report back to the CFS providing recommendations. They could specifically be requested to provide guidance on how to apply the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations of States on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to, inter alia, trans-boundary water issues, water trade and the adequate regulation of transnational corporations and other businesses in the context of water and food security.
• It could acknowledge the resolution A/HRC/27/7 of September 2014 of the Human Rights Council and call the Council to continue strengthening the right to water and sanitation by supporting the development of other aspects of the right to water as contained in GC 15 in all its ongoing relevant processes, such as for instance, in the Open-ended Working Group on the rights of peasants and people living in rural areas.

Further remarks:

• The link between water, sanitation and reproductive and maternal health (including infant and young child feeding) is not sufficiently addressed – for example, water-related health complications during pregnancy or due to exposure to chemicals through breast milk (and their long-term impacts on the nutritional status of children) are not mentioned.
• Regarding the recommendation 3 on addressing water quality: As we have already stated in our previous submission, pollution of water sources and destruction of water bodies has been identified in our case work as one of the major obstacles to the realization of the right to food in conjunction with the right to water. Besides the recommendations contained in the report, it would be useful to look into the developments of environmental law when it comes to prosecute and sanction environmental crimes related to water pollution as one important measure to protect natural water resources from contamination by harmful substances and pathogenic microbes. Moreover, it would be useful to provide guidance on best practices about how states should support local communities in restoring and rehabilitating degraded eco-systems.
• The recommendation 10 on water governance should be strengthened by calling to apply a human rights approach to water governance. The recommendations to states, civil society, the private sector, international donors and the CFS should be revised accordingly. The Right to Food Guidelines and the Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests provide references how this could be done. The preface of the Tenure Guidelines in fact invites States to take into account the governance of water in the

implementation of the Tenure Guidelines. Particularly important in this context is the recognition and protection of customary land systems and the commons; and of the rights of indigenous peoples to land and territory and to Free Prior and Informed Consent.