Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Comments from the Right to Food team at ESA on the V0 draft of the HLPE report on Water and food security

The comments below relate to approaches to water governance/management/use (question 5 of cover letter) and to conceptual issues in the human rights-based approach. The report covers quite a lot of ground including in the human rights aspects of water and food security. A general comment is that the notes and discussions in the different parts could be better streamlined and systematized. We have seven main comments and other relatively minor textual comments.

1.      the definition of human rights-based approach (HRBA): The first paragraph of section 3.6 is structured in a difficult-to-read way mainly because it attempts to make a condensed presentation of too many conceptual issues. The legalistic definition of HRBA could be restrictive as the approach is broader than protection “by law and legal mechanisms”. The questions do not quite capture the central elements of HRBA and the more important elements of participation, accountability and inclusion of the most vulnerable come up only later. These elements should actually be used as defining features of HRBA in the first line – together with non-discrimination, transparency, empowerment... See FAO (2009) Guide on Legislating for the Right to Food, 78-83.

The human rights obligations are also better defined upfront in terms of the respect, protect and fulfil typology – rather than the positive/negative classification as the latter is used based on the potentially confusing criteria of whether the obligations are resource dependent or need actions or omissions.

2.      The content of the right to water – entitlement v mechanism: in section 3.6.2, the report recites the elaboration of the right to water by the UN GA and the CESCR. It also refers to normative obligations of non-interference. The obligation to protect could be clearer, for example, in connection with land/water grabbing. The more contentious issue of access to water for agriculture/farming/food production is just mentioned as something recognized in GC15 of the CESCR. The obligation of states (fulfill?/facilitate?) is not clear in this respect, especially in the prevalent contexts of water scarcity. This has to either be clarified or at least be flagged as an issue. The report should further delineate the “entitlement” and “systemic” aspects of the right to water/food and HRBA. There is a tendency to look at the rights to food and water merely as sources of entitlements. In this regard, while it is made clear that the right to water doesn’t imply access for free (page 70, line 31), it would make sense to add a similar sentence with respect to the right to food (that it is primarily a right to feed oneself in dignity and not a right to receive food for free) on page 69, Line 29. In the same vein, looking at “water for productive uses” merely as an entitlement could be problematic. The report should clearly highlight that HRBA provides a mechanism that helps manage resources and entitlements in various contexts in fair/equitable ways - by creating an enabling environment through participation, inclusiveness, non-discrimination, accountability, empowerment. It is worth mentioning that HRBA addresses critical governance issues in food security. See FAO (2011) Right to Food Making it Happen: Progress and lessons learned through implementation, pp 6-7.

3.      The difference in implications of the right to food and the right to water: the recognition of any right (in a constitution) at least in principle requires that the state takes steps to ensure that its present and future policies and conducts are in line with the requirements of the right. The recognition of the right to water could be peculiar in this respect because it implies or relates to the role of the state in the management of water resources, which are hitherto regulated in non-right-based frameworks or are left to customary or private practices. Food is mainly produced by various (private) actors, whereas water is essentially a naturally available (public) good. The report could be clearer with regard to this difference because these features significantly affect the recognition as well as implementation of the right to food and the right to water. For example, the Parliament of EL Salvador had embarked on the amendment of article 69 the Constitution to provide for the right to food and the right to water. Although the amendment was approved in the first stage in 2012, the reform failed to get the support it needed in the second round of voting in October 2014 mainly because of the debates around the implications of the right to water. See “ACUERDO DE REFORMA CONSTITUCIONAL N° 3. AL ARTICULO 69, REFERENTE AL DERECHO AL AGUA Y ALIMENTACIÓN” (available at http://www.asamblea.gob.sv/eparlamento/indice-legislativo/buscador-de-documentos-legislativos/reformase-la-constitucion-de-la-republica). It is probably for the same reason that there are differing formulations of the provisions on the right to wáter in various national laws - see http://www.righttowater.info/progress-so-far/national-legislation-on-the-right-to-water/#AL

4.      The informal food sector: The report should address the issue of access to clean/safe water by small scale “informal” food producers, including street food vendors, on which the livelihoods of millions of people (producers and consumers) depends in developing countries. This is important for two main reasons. First, without access to clean water or policies that make it possible, the small scale (informal) food producers are forced to remain in the informal sector and would be marginalized from value chains. They are also exposed to arbitrary prosecution/extortion by local governments because of their inability to meet food safety and health standards in a context where that is not realistic or feasible due to lack of appropriate policies and services. Second,  poor consumers that depend on the informal food sector are exposed to higher risks to their health than people that can afford to buy food through the formal channels. The number of people that depend on the informal food sector is quite high. In 2007, FAO estimated that 2.5 billion people have a meal provided by street food vendors every day (http://www.fao.org/AG/magazine/0702sp1.htm). Further see FAO (2003) The informal food sector http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4312e.pdf; FAO (2007) Promises and challenges of the informal food sector in developing countries  http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1124e/a1124e00.htm

5.      Transnational human rights obligations: Despite the close relationship between international watercourse law and extraterritorial obligations of states – whether or what obligations one (source) state holds towards people living in riparian (downstream) states - the two are treated in different parts of the report and no relationship is indicated (see page 71, lines 6-12 and section 3.6.5). The report should also address the issues of “regime conflict” (among international watercourse, trade, investment and human rights laws/treaties) and regulation of the conduct of TNCs/private companies more clearly, for example,  with regard to their involvement in land/water grabbing that it alludes to. It must, however, be acknowledged that the extraterritorial dimension of human rights obligations, including the regulation of TNCs, is a bone of contention in international law. See FAO (2009) Guide on Legislating for the Right to Food, pp 133-134.

The notes under section 3.6.5 could be systematized. The first paragraph could preferably talk about “regime conflicts” in addition to the existence of lacuna in international agreements. Moreover, although the general focus is on international investment, the section may further look into the right to water issues in international trade and development cooperation. In this regard, the sentence in lines 36-39 on page 73 should be clearer.

6.      Reference to relevant provisions of the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security: Guideline 8(c) calls on states to improve access to and the sustainable use of water. The report should refer to the provision and relevant explanatory materials (e.g., FAO (2009) Guide on Legislating for the Right to Food, section 4.4, pp 212ff - if the South African example on the issue of fixing minimum entitlements to water is to be used, please have a look at the later judgment of Constitutional Court.

7.      HRBA-related recommendation: it would be wise for the report to include a recommendation on the importance of following a human rights-based approach in efforts to ensure access to water or in water management/governance. This may complement recommendations 2, 9, 12 and elements of recommendation 10, which should be streamlined or at least be listed consecutively. The recommendations could stress the need for the adoption and implementation of (domestic) legal, policy and institutional frameworks for access to water/water management/the right to water in participatory, non-discriminatory, inclusive and transparent manners and to put in place easily accessible accountability mechanisms that redress possible violations of the right to water. This would go well with the recommendation that CFS should facilitate dialogue/work towards a framework instrument that supports the right to water.

In what follows, we provide specific textual comments with a view to improve the clarity and accuracy of the report in the section relating to the rights to food and water.

Page 69, Line 42: - suggested change  “... the right to food  is interdependent with the recognition of ....” – as it stands, it looks like a unilateral dependence. Furthermore, in this paragraph, it could be good to refer to the requirement of “free, prior and informed consent” as the criteria to be met in conditions where the listed indigenous people’s rights may be infringed with under special circumstances.

Page 70, Line 28:- September of the same year?

Page 70, line 34:- please insert the underlined: “... water and sanitation, the right entitles....

Page 71, lines 11-12:- the last sentence is quite vague – not clear how the advisory nature relates to inclusion in the right to water – is the intention to indicate that the provisions are not binding?

Usage of the term “violation” – violation is a technical term that is used where there is an independent finding that a duty-bearer failed to carry out a human rights obligation. “impairment” or “non-realization” could be alternative terminologies in places such as page 72, line 33

Consistency in the use of some phrases/names – Special Rapporteur on the right to food/water rather than Special Rapporteur for food/water – see page 73, first paragraph

Dear Modeator,

In my capacity as President of the Lebanese Association of the Water Friends,

Please find below my comments on the HLPE Zero-Draft consultation paper entitled "Water and Food Security":

First: General comments.

1-  The paper is very well written.  It is highly concentrated.  It is true.  But it covers all the points related to Water and Food Security, all over the World.

2-  Due to the importance of the problems discussed and the fact that not many readers have the patience to read all the points covered by the paper, I wish if the authors have expanded para, page 10, from line 14-25, as to make it an Executive Summary of the paper.

3-  I know that there are many references, in the paper on the relevance, in many cases, of establishing Water Users Associations, due to the important role they play in the governance and management of water, especially in developing countries. But, still some would argue that WUAs are not successful in many parts of the world.  Is this true or not?  Therefore, I would suggest that, starting page 75, on recommendations, a para should be added summarizing all the benefits of establishing Water Users Associations (WUAs).

4-  There is no Glossary of abbreviations contained in the Paper.  This should be corrected and a Glossary should be added.

5-  I would like, kindly, to draw your attention that somewhere in the paper, maybe under governance, water laws customary arrangements, you have to say something about the Andalusian Water Court, in Spain.  It is very old.  It is in charge of preserving peace among farmers and ensuring fair water distribution.The Court is based on simplicity, verbal communication, speedy arrangementsand decisions and economic and minimal costs procedures.

6-  I suggest that, on page 75, the title on the top of the page, should be: Conclusions and Recommendations One of the conclusions I suggest to add is related to further research to be undertaken, mainly in the MENA region by ICARDA, ACSAD, AOAD and AAAID,in areas of water for irrigation and FSN, water vulnerabilities and climate change in the Arab World.

Second:  Specific comments. 

There are some errata and typing errors, which should be corrected as follows:

1-  Page 17-line 30: it should be Figure 5.

2-  page 19-line 23: it should be Figures 6 and 7 and Box 5.

3-  page 21 - line 18: it should be corrected as follows: energy is that it must be... 

4-  page 22 Section 1.3.5; Water grabbing should be associated with Land grabbing especially for countries rich in oil, like the GCC countries.  They can afford to save on land and water and aim for better FSN 

5-  page 23-line 33: it should read: figure 8.

6-  page 25, lines 25-34: How to produce more with less water? The case of harvesting rainfall in the Philippines, which is a rich rainfall country, they are very skillful in harvesting water rainfall, for domestic use and even for crop irrigation.  In the Sultanate of Oman, they have started a very important project of fog collection in Dhoffar. In the whole country, farmers have to rely on the use of hydroponics and drip/bobbler  irrigation for the modernization of the system, instead of the surface/flood irrigation, as it is presently practiced    

7-  page 28-line 26: it should read "figure 9 below" instead of "table 1 below".

8-  page 29, lines 1-14:  Yields of crops, under rainfed conditions should attract the attention of ICARDA and other CGIAR institutes.  These research institutes should make more efforts in research on better high yielding varieties of wheat, barley and sorghum, under rainfed conditions .  The concept of GAP (good agricultural practices) in drylands areas and the practice of rotation should be followed scrupulously. Cereals production should be preceded by fallows or legume production in order to maintain good nutritients in the soil for better yields in cereals production.

9-  page 29, lines from 28-43: The poultry industry in Lebanon is a good successful example, whereby the business import animal feed from abroad at competitive international prices to produce eggs and broilers. Thus, the country became self sufficient, even exporter,  in poultry products. The same for mutton and sheep milk, Lebanon benefits from the transhumance of sheep flocks, coming from Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, looking for pasture.  Some of these flocks will be kept by sheep breeders, in the country, for the production of mutton and milk.

10-page 31-box 8: Changes in irrigation in Spain.  What is relayed in this box is a good example and experience which should serve as a model for many MENA countries. This could be communicated to these countries through a training programme administered by the UPM (Union pour la Mediterranee), under the auspices of the European Union.

11-page 32-Box 9- Groundwater regulation.  The problem here is how to administer, regulate and control the large number of wells by the Administration responsible for that.  In general, the Administration is understaffed to do that in due form.

12-page 56, line 9, para:3.2.1.From New Delhi to Dublin.  Here it should be remembered that in the Islamic World, water is considered as a gift of God.  Therefore, we should not pay for water, at least for drinking purposes.  Hence, the policy all over the Islamic countries, to subsidize the services of potable water.

13-Page 59,  Para 3.3.1 Valuing and pricing water: with the present system of pricing and subsidies, in the  majority of the Arab countries, we are forcing nature and the  environment beyond any permissible limits, which will fire back on the entire economy.  Look at Saudi Arabia digging for wells and pumping water for irrigation, as deep as 1000 m, to grow wheat, which is bought by the Government, at a subsidized price of $1200/ton, and sold at the international market for $300/ton. This was an insane policy, which was stopped, fortunately, by the Government.

Best regards:  Adel Cortas, President of the Lebanese Association of the Water Friends

Thank your for the opportunity to comment on this important report.

The introduction does not mention the purpose and scope of the report. It would be helpful to clearly place this report in the context of the other reports prepared by the HLPE, and also to relate its recommendations to the previous recommendations made in the already published reports.

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?

The report addresses the broad topic comprehensively, which allows to obtaining a good overview, but in some chapters some more depth would be helpful:

• Chapter 1 would benefit a lot from a number of additional figures and maps, e.g. on global water availability, water scarcity, groundwater resources, expansion of irrigation, land and water use etc. Some of these figures could be taken from the CA report, which is cited extensively anyway.
• A figure on interfaces between water and food security is of major importance, your suggested figure 1 is a good starting point, and I assume that it is only a sketch that will be redrawn in a more professional way.  
• Chapter 2.1.3 on resilience of agriculture to climate change is very basic, some more details including IPCC scenarios would be helpful
• Chapter 2.3.1 should be beefed up with more insights and figures on the potential of marginal water use for irrigation, as well as on associated health risk through contaminated food and measures to prevent it.
• Chapter 2.4.4 on agroecology is very general and lacks a more profound water focus. The chapter should qualify and quantify the potential of agroecological approaches to increase water productivity.
• Chapter 2.5.1: The use of the water footprint concept in water for agriculture would deserve a more detailed discussion of opportunities and challenges
• Chapter 3.5.1: The proposed SDG framework is only addressed very briefly and generally. The proposed SDG framework by the open working group suggests in goal 6 e.g. to substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors, and in goal 2 e.g to double agricultural productivity and to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices. The way how these goals are finally formulated, how they are measured and implemented is probably one of the main drivers that shapes the water for food security discussion in the near future. The suggested SDG frameworks would thus deserve a much broader discussion. And how do these goals relate to the recommendations in the final chapter?

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?

I miss a specific chapter on water metrics and availability of data. Some aspects (e.g. water accounting and scarcity of data) are covered in 1.4 on the dynamics of water scarcity, in chapter 2.4 water productivity is explained (but without giving a clear definition) and in chapter 2.5 the concepts of water footprint and virtual water are introduced. It would also be helpful to give a clear definition of water efficiency (as compared to water productivity), as e.g. the proposed SDG framework speaks about water use efficiency and water productivity. The recent IWMI report “On target for people and planet” gives a good introduction into water productivity, water efficiency and water accounting and could be used as inspiration.

The report mentions the challenge that global, regional and national data often lack granularity to understand the extremely different and local water contexts across the globe. Many global indices and debates in the water domain are highly generalized and often too aggregate to take on board local nuances and differences. The report is silent on how to tackle this challenge and I miss a recommendation that more locally relevant metrics should be developed.

The potential of new ICT approaches to monitoring water resources through both remote sensing and crowd sensing (through mobile phones) and to disseminate relevant information is mentioned in recommendation No 8, but not further reflected in the previous chapters.

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, water scarce versus water rich countries. Do you think the V0 draft has appropriately covered the matter?

The concept of virtual water is very appealing for informed decision-making on where to grow what crop or whether to substitute domestic food production with food imports. However, in practice such decisions involve huge trade-offs for policy makers in terms of food sovereignty and in terms of economic development of domestic rural areas. The report covers this matter rather briefly. Is there already evidence that the virtual water concept has in fact shaped policy decisions for substitution of domestic food production with food imports? If yes, it would be interesting to mention this.

The challenge with the virtual water concept is that it looks only into one production factor (water) and its application might lead to economic inefficiencies. From a global water security perspective, the decision on where to grow what crop should be rather based on the long term sustainability of water withdrawals for a given area (where demand matches supply without depleting water tables and ecosystems). If long term sustainability of water withdrawals is not given in a certain area, some agricultural water use could be substituted by food import– but not necessarily from a region with the lowest virtual water amount for production, but from a region with a sustainable water use profile.

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?

The report discusses the existing and potential further linkages between the human right to food and the human right to water. We should definitely consider the human right to drinking water and sanitation and the human right to food jointly and assess their combined effect on protecting livelihoods and water resources. However, the recommendations in the report go much beyond the exploration of linkages, but suggest an expansion of the right to drinking water and sanitation which would include the right to water for productive use and the right to water for ecosystems.

Many developing countries are struggling to respect, protect and fulfil the human right to drinking water and sanitation, mainly due to lack of funds. While the importance of water for productive uses and water for ecosystems is not to be questioned, I don’t expect that an expansion of the right to water to encompass productive uses and ecosystems would make any difference on the ground, but instead it could impede the progressive realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation by creating confusion and by shifting priorities and financial resources. It is important that countries respect existing water rights – be they formal or informal – for productive uses of vulnerable groups, but this should be achieved by other means than a human right to productive water use. The practical challenges of a human right to productive water use seem almost insurmountable: One would have to define the water amount for productive use that is sufficient for the right to be respected. This amount will vary significantly even on a local scale according to rainfall, cultivated crop, soil, etc. Furthermore, subsistence farming in developing countries is predominantly rain-fed, to respect a right to productive water use under the variable climatic conditions (and specifically in the case of a dry-spell) would entail the building of massive infrastructure (be it development of water harvesting infrastructure, pipelines or groundwater development) for which the financial resources would not available anyway. And it could potentially result in a misallocation of water that does not reflect economically and environmentally reasonable water use: wherever somebody decides to settle the state would be obliged to provide water for productive use.

As for the right to water to support the ecosystem, which is also suggested to be included in a more comprehensive right to water, the challenges to define what is needed to protect this right would be even bigger. Protecting water related ecosystems should be a matter of both domestic and international environmental law and not of an universal human right to water.

In recommendation 12 it is suggested that “the alignment of the rights to water and food would prioritize the right to water for food production over water use for other uses, at whatever scale”. While this is justified to a certain point, one should not forget the urban poor who depend on a job in order to buy sufficient food. They need industry to provide job opportunities – a too narrow focus that only looks into food security of smallholders misses the big picture and inherent trade-off in achieving food security for all.

Another issue that needs a clearer presentation in the report is the sustainability of water management and managing water within its local limits and its importance for future generations. A human right does not provide an excuse to overuse natural resources for the benefit of present populations and at the expense of future populations. This would go against the sustainability principle (environmental sustainability). This is clearly mentioned in many papers on Human Rights and it is also mentioned in this report but not as explicit (fundamental principle) as one would wish.

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

Despite some criticism of the IWRM approach raised in the paper, I strongly believe that this approach, if followed in a pragmatic and flexible way and considering the local context holds the key for improved water governance and water management. The core element of IWRM is to look simultaneously into the different water use sectors and to try to balance the joint water use of all the sectors together with supply in a sustainable way. Existing challenges with the IWRM concept might stem from a too rigid and sometimes donor-driven application, but this does not mean that the concept as such is flawed or not valid. If the IWRM concept is not perceived as a blueprint approach with fixed expectations on the outcomes, but as a transitional process from a mostly informal to a mostly formal water economy, it is still the approach that holds the biggest potential to enhance water governance, including for food security.

Issue of water and food security

Issues of water are following: 

1. sweet water sources be made pollution free and sustainable for drinking and agriculture purpose.

2 equal use of agriculture water for poors and influential people.

3. new and cheep methods to be explored for making sweet to underground brackish water.

Solution:

1. All sweet water sources such as rivers and wetlands to be made pollution free by prohibiting use of poisons for catching fish.

2. no cash crops to be grown along 1 km area of the rivers and wetlands where chemicals and insecticides are being used and in this area jungles and trees to be promoted and it to be declared for food crops or as livestock area.

3. such food crops to be promoted that are eco-friendly and takes less water and is also economical for farmers such as wheat from local or natural seeds that can also be cut as grass for 2-3 times for  animals before riping it

Water and food security - a zero-draft consultation paper

1.    Overview

We thank you for giving us the opportunity to study the zero draft of this consultation paper on this very important question.

While there is much in the report to commend it, we regret that we find it both confusing and lacking in the balance and objectivity that is expected from a report for an UN body. Unfortunately, the current draft seems to be a mix of interesting material and facts with unsubstantiated and ideologically motivated assertions. This gives the impression that the report fails to fulfil its mandate and misses an important opportunity to provide good advice for policy makers on this pressingly important subject of water and food security.

Whilst we recognise that this is very much work in progress, we do believe that it requires a significant effort in re-drafting to improve its structure and ensure its readability, balance and credibility for decision-makers. At present, in some sections it reads more as a lobby document for a particular point of view rather than balanced analysis and advice. These comments apply particularly to section 3 of this draft, which seems to have drifted far from the subject and the mandate. We hope that this is unintentional and that it can be corrected by providing a more balanced view in subsequent drafts.

We would suggest that more effort is given to the section on draft recommendations to turn this from a “wish list” to something that provides constructive suggestions for decision makers, not only on what should be done, but also on how to do it.

2.    Generic questions

In light of the above we attempt to give generic answers to the five key questions that you pose. This is not an easy exercise and as a result our replies are necessarily limited. However, we hope they will be seen to be constructive and helpful.

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?

The topic is indeed very broad. In our view the authors have attempted to introduce too many subjects that are not strictly related to the mandate given. This makes it extremely difficult for the reader to identify and comprehend the linkages in a meaningful way. We have made a few suggestions on matters that could be removed from sections 3.2.1, 3.3.3, 3.6.3, etc.

At the same time, some important issues that have very great importance in the real world (water energy linkages, competition for water between food and biofuels, fibre etc., the management of diffuse pollution, economic issues including financing and pricing etc.) are underplayed. A specific example is the pollution of water caused by food production.

The focus of the report is Water and Food Security. It should not be seen or understood as Water for Food at the expense of Water Security.

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?

On a general level, the metrics and data dimensions of the paper could be developed further to underline the water and food security challenges. At the heart of this is the question of how to grow enough food using no more water than that which is available today. In this regard, we believe the scenarios developed by the OECD in its work associated with the production of the Environmental Outlook to 2050: the Consequences of Inaction, offer an interesting example and useful data.

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, water scarce versus water rich countries. Do you think the V0 draft has appropriately covered the matter?

This question is an important one and will become more so as the underlying drivers limiting food production and increasing demand for food evolve alongside the development of competing constraints and demands, including those on water. As the report’s general philosophy appears to be weighted against the economic dimension of sustainable development in favour of the other two, its contribution to this discussion appears less fertile than it could be.

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?

It appears to us that the report takes the logic of human rights too far. Mixing the water needs of people with those of irrigation and ecosystems in this report is likely to add more confusion than provide solutions. This would not help decision-makers and is likely to devalue much of the rest of the content of the report. We suggest that the recommendation on extending the existing human to access to safe drinking water and sanitation beyond its current well-defined scope is removed from section 3.

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

At this stage, we would suggest the report places more emphasis on the processes of water stewardship as a practical way to enhance water governance, resource allocation, and improve water management to ensure food security in ways that are consistent with the needs to meet other securities. In our experience, water stewardship is a more practical and operational approach to mitigate water security issues than the water footprint one. The water footprint is good for awareness raising, but does little to give real guidance for concrete action. We therefore suggest you add a section on water stewardship.

A more in-depth discussion of how states can develop national policies and priorities to improve water productivity in both rain fed and irrigated agriculture would be beneficial.

It also difficult to see how this question can be answered satisfactorily without a much more serious consideration of the economic dimensions of the challenge, including the questions of costs, price and value. Without this, the capital and operating investments necessary cannot be assessed and nor can the value of the benefits to be generated.

3.    General comments on content

Given that this is an early draft, we do not believe it is of much value to make very specific comments on detailed drafting. Nevertheless there are a number of points which we believe it would be useful to highlight. Please do not consider this an exhaustive list.

a.    Allocation and reallocation

One of the most difficult challenges that decision-makers will have to face in coming years, is the need to prioritise between competing interests and trade-offs of different parties, both individual and collective interests. At the heart of this will be the need to ensure the water, food, energy, land and other securities of individuals, communities, both state owned and private corporations, the environment, states, regions and global systems. The geographic scale and temporal constraints of these are likely to become less and less well aligned.

Much of this is inherent in the draft report, but obscured by the lens through which the report has chosen to examine this complex subject. Decision-makers at many levels of government will be called on to both allocate limited resources, such as water, and much more difficult, reallocate, which may mean removing or restricting and allocation that someone already has for the good of everybody else. Some such decisions have to be permanent and others temporary to respond to a drought or similar event. There are real practical challenges to align individual rights and collective interests. Whilst the report rightly draws attention to the need to include all stakeholders, including those with a weak or no voice, the report appears to champion these latter stakeholders without helping policy makers develop policies that satisfy all water demands simultaneously.

b.    Pollution prevention, protecting water quality, water reuse and resources recovery

The questions of preventing pollution, catching and removing polluting substances from used or polluted water so the water can be reused safely and of recovering the resources thus removed for beneficial use is becoming widely recognised globally. These questions apply to agricultural as well as urban, industrial activities and to energy production. They are partially mentioned in the report. In our view however, this needs to be reinforced much more strongly because it could help to reduce the difficulties just mentioned above.

In many cases, agricultural activities are the cause of very significant amounts of both “point source” and “diffuse” pollution. Poor agricultural practices, including uncontrolled discharges, polluted run-off and erosion are one of the most serious causes of damage to the aquatic environment worldwide. They pose a real threat to water security at all levels. At the same time, they reduce the amount of usable water and lead to expensive waste of other resources.

Recent and ongoing work by the OECD could be referred to in this context.

Governments, farmers, food processors and consumers all need appropriate information, incentives, regulations and penalties, designed to overcome these pollution related issues. Action needs to be taken that is encapsulated in the 3R’s approach: Restrict pollution at source, Remove pollution from water after use and Reuse the water and other resources beneficially. We believe that there is considerable scope for the report to be reinforced to highlight this as a very important way of improving the water-food-energy-land security nexus.

It should also be recognised that the reuse of urban wastewater is growing steadily throughout the world as a means of mitigating water scarcity. It would be useful to add a paragraph to section 2.3.1 explaining that to mitigate potential health difficulties, WHO has produced guidelines that are periodically reviewed and improved[1].

The concluding point of the policy recommendations on page 49 – line 6, should have the words “water reuse and recycling, nutrient recovery and reuse” added after the words “urban agriculture”.

c.    Increasing water use productivity in Agricultural production

The section of the report on this topic seems comprehensive. As indicated by the OECD in the Environmental Outlook to 2050[2], there will be little scope for increasing water for irrigation. This point should be introduced more clearly and developed further in the report. It is very important to understand this as a global constraint and quantitative limit to water available for agricultural production. This means that the water productivity of water used in agriculture will need to improve very substantially. Building a virtuous circle of improved water productivity, primarily in irrigated agriculture, but also in rain-fed production, reduced wastes of water, energy and other related inputs and reduced damage to water resources, needs to be given more emphasis. Could you not also examine the potential for upscaling the approach outlined in section 2.4.4 to cover a wider range of producers than small scale subsistence farmers alone?

d.    Section 3.2.1 From Delhi to Dublin

The way the report sets the fourth Dublin principle apart for the other three appears to be very unhelpful. Our understanding is that all four Dublin principles were intended to act together and inseparably. It seems much more helpful to recognise that water is a social good and an environmental and an economic good, and that it is also a common good and a private good. It is all of these things at the same time, with the relative importance of one dimension varying relative to another only in degree depending on circumstances. By isolating the fourth principle from the rest and apparently opposing the economic approach, the report perpetuates an outdated and unconstructive view. It is hard to see why this section is detailed in the report, in particular when it is well-known that water to farmers is under-priced in most parts of the world. This is a tendency that is further exacerbated by the unintended consequences of water and energy subsidies in a number of countries.

e.    Section 3.3

As indicated above, several parts of section 3.3 seem to build on this unhelpful approach. Taking account of its title “Contestations around water”, it even appears that this may be the purpose of this section.

Section 3.3.1 valuing and pricing water could be made into a constructive and helpful discussion on the basis of developing the statement made in the first sentence “Water pricing policies can improve efficiency and sustainability when combined with appropriate supporting policies”. For example, the OECD highlights water pricing as a useful policy option to create incentives for water efficiency. “Water pricing can be used to signal scarcity and to create incentives for efficient water use in all sectors (e.g. agriculture industry, domestic). Social consequences are best addressed through well-designed tariff structures or targeted measures. In combination with regulations, standards and public support to innovation, water pricing will curb water demand and make alternative water sources (such as reusing untreated wastewater) competitive.”[3]

There is little in section 3.3. of real use for policy makers. Statements such as “water pricing may conflict with the idea that the provision of water services as a basic right to all individuals if water prices rise to a level that low income households cannot afford”, which is not based on the position of the human right to safe water and sanitation, are misleading and very far from the water for food topic of the report. Other statements have nothing to do with the context being discussed, for example, “and past and controversial attempts at water privatisation”; “The role of the World Bank has been particularly controversial around both the hydropower and privatisation debates.” They should be removed to avoid devaluing the report.

Section 3.3.3 provides a very distorted view of activities of the private sector and does nothing to recognise the constructive contribution made by many different firms and business organisations from different industrial sectors to improve the understanding of water issues including the water food energy nexus. Private companies also provide know-how, processes and technologies and investment as well as implementing cooperative water management processes with governments and other stakeholders.

The first three pages of this section are exclusively on the provision of public drinking water and sanitation services, which is a long way from the topic of the report. In addition the section presents a distorted picture, implying that private water operators do not see water as a public good to be provided at affordable rates for everybody. This is contrary to the position defended for many years by our Federation of private water operators. This material should be deleted.

f.     Section 3.6

Section 3.6 appears to stray further and further from the subject of the report and as a result becomes less and less helpful. It appears to be designed to put pressure on human rights specialists to accept a particular perspective rather than to provide operational advice to those working in the field of food and nutritional security.

The introductory paragraph concludes with the statement “the right to determine and set one’s own priorities and strategies.” There is a trap in this, because there have to be limits to what the individual can do when this intervenes with or impinges on the rights of other individuals or the community as a whole. This dilemma appears to be recognised in some of the comments in the rest of this section, but no helpful advice is offered..

Section 3.6.3 appears to be designed to exacerbate the supposed controversies rather than to resolve them. Again, much of this section has nothing to do with the subject, particularly box 22, which should be removed since it has no linkage with food security..

4.    Draft recommendations

At this stage, we have little concrete to add concerning this section beyond what we said in our introduction. We reiterate that for the report to be truly useful effort should be made to turn this from a “wish list” to something that provides constructive suggestions not only on what should be done, but on how to do it.

As indicated above, we believe that expanding the existing right to safe drinking water to include “water for ecosystem reserves and water for subsistence production” would be detrimental to the billions of people who are still waiting to have their human right to access to drinking water that is really safe satisfied. For this reason, we suggest that recommendation 12 is removed and replaced by a recommendation that focuses on water for food production only.

First it has to be asked why a document concerned with the water implications for food security chooses to concentrate its recommendations on water supply and sanitation. No doubt farming communities make multiple use of locally accessed water, but this is hardly a food security issue.

Second, rather than a generic description of water use in agriculture (for which the 2007 Comphrehensive Assessment was produced anyway), a more pointed examination of the water variable in the accepted definition of food security would be welcome.

Finally, the references to groundwater in section 1.2.2 really needs to take account of the authoriative FAO work on the partition of surface water and groundwater sources for irrigation (Siebert, S., Burke, J., Faurès, J.-M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P., Portmann, F.T. (2010): Groundwater use for irrigation - a global inventory. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14, 1863-1880) and the subsequent update of the Global Map of Irrigation Areas (Version)

Please see comments from Humane Society International in attached PDF document.

Thank you.

The report is a very welcome one. However, the report does not address the relationship between “green infrastructure” (trees and extant vegetation) and water quality and availability.

TREE AID has been delivering a pilot initiative in Northern Ghana aimed at improving water quality and constancy in water stressed environments through improved natural resource management along rivers. 

We give a summary of our learning from that initiative in the attached file.

Comment of EWN to HLPE Study on Water and Food Security (Zero-Draft), Nov 4, 2014

The Ecumenical Water Network  (EWN) is a program of the World Council of Churches  - a fellowship of 345 churches in 110 countries and represents    around 550 million Christians around the world.  The EWN has   a network of churches and Christian organizations promoting people's access to water and sanitation  around the world.  The EWN advocates   for realization of human right to water and sanitation for all with a justice perspective. Enclosed please find a statement of EWN on water justice.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment   on the Zero draft of the HLPE study on Water and Food Security (Zero-Draft) . The Ecumenical Water Network applauds the authors for extensively covering   the broad range of water issues related to food security and nutrition. The study is timely initiative  as not only water scarcity and conflicts are rising in many regions of the world but  are affecting food security severely.

Right to adequate standard of living  (recommendation Nr.  12)

We welcome the human rights’ approach  in the study. As the access to water is vital for food security and nutrition we think it is of utmost importance to secure the legitimate user rights of local communities. We would like to therefore propose some additional points to the recommendations:

-          States should recognize the legitimate rights to water under the gamut of right to food , as they are essential for the livelihood of peasants, herders, fishers  and others and it needs formal recognition.

-          States should put policies and targets in place of its progressive realization. States should respect the water uses of local communities, should protect them against dispossession and take measures to fulfill their water rights. (This goes beyond merely individual rights).

-          There is the need for national strategies for both ecologically  and socially viable water use. States should ensure that their water policies are transparent and accountable. Water allocation should be fair, taking the food and water needs of the most vulnerable groups into account. Water management should be decentralized and take into account the participation of the water using communities as an important stakeholder.

-          States should analyze the coherence of their FSN policy, their water policy with their investment policies. I.e. the investment agreements often undermine human rights.

-          States should control the large scale water use by powerful private or public users. All investments (in agriculture, energy, infrastructure, industry and mining, bottling of water, etc) need to have a thorough water right impact assessment concerning future access to water (blue and green water) and quality of waste water, concerning the impact on local communities and ecosystems.

-          By no way states should sell out the rights to private actors (e.g., privatizations of rivers and lakes). Home states shall control corporates also operating in other countries (extra-territorial obligation) and make them accountable on their water use/abuse.  Private actors have to follow a “do no harm” approach.

-          We consider it very important that States build up grievance redressal mechanism,  to address violation of human right to water and that of food!  

-          States should enhance the participation of the local population and their representations in the governance of water. The principle of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) need to be applied (please add the consent to page 81, line 12). 

Gender (Recommendation Nr. 9)

-          Women’s empowerment and participation in policy developments and decision making is key to overcome the discrimination and marginalization in their access to water.

-          The right to water and the rights to food and nutrition need to be seen interlinked with women’s rights. Without overcoming the existing gender discrimination practices in our society, the water and food goals cannot be achieved.

Stigma and Discrimination : (missing)

Often Stigma and Discrimination existing in the society, particularly in a multicultural context, can be seen as an impediment to realization of human right to water as well as to right to food.   For example  Gender, Caste, race, religion, ethnicity, diseases, physical condition can deter a particular individual or community from accessing water or food in a dignified manner, even if there are provisions for .  The  Special Rapporteur to Human Right to Water and Sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque has dealt with this issue extensively in her report to the 21st session of Human Rights Council in 2012.  This aspect is completely missing from the Study draft !

Water management and Agroecology (chapter 2.4.4)

-          This chapter still stays rather general. We would welcome, that it would become clearer that the production systems impact differently on the natural resources.

-          To our understanding the long-term and sustainable water availability should be a key criterion for the selection of crops and production method. They need to be site-specific and appropriate to the available natural resources.

-          Agroecology is an alternative to the business as usual model of production, which is responsible of many problems, you are describing. Therefore the study should be more specific in order to make clear that agroecology is a system of production, which serves to keep the water where it is needed.  Organic agriculture can lead to better infiltration, reduced evaporation through soil coverage, the build up of soil organic matter and enlarged root growth and all together to an increased soil moisture holding capacity. Integrated animal husbandry and low input of chemical fertilizers/ phytosanitary measures uphold the quality of waste water. Physical methods (terracing, hedges, ditches and walls) help additionally in water harvesting and prevent erosion. Research needs to build up on traditional knowledge system  .

Water and Food in occupied territories and protracted crisis: (Missing)

The water and food situation is most at risk in protracted crisis (Palestine, Dafur and others). This is not mentioned in the zero draft, but certainly needs particular attention. We have a clear position on this issue, expressed in a statement  on water crisis in Palestine.

To be further explored: Transboundary conflicts

In many regions water is a highly sensitive issue. The use of upstream users of water resources (for purposes of agriculture and electricity production) has a direct impact  on the downstream users. Israel’s use of water from river Jordan, Ethiopia and Sudan’s use of water from the Nile are examples where food security is directly affected. As water is a common good, and the physical nature of water is not limited to a certain territory water government goes beyond boundaries (be it states or regions) and exceed the human rights obligation of states (the same as air pollution or carbon emissions, in the context of climate change).  Although it is mentioned under recommendation 7, we believe that the issue is far more complex. This should either be treated in a separate chapter or in a separate following study.

Water foot print (recommendation Nr. 5)

·         Water consumption is not only related to growing food demands and changing diets. The water footprint of biomass production for energy requirements, e.g. bio fuel , or new demands from the bio economy need be discussed as well, as this has an  impact of water usage on food production when   industries  consume water for increased biomass production.

-          The nexus between energy- water- food in the old and the new “bio”- economy needs to be further analysed.

-          States should investigate on how to make the water foot print (i.e. the blue and grey water) transparent (water usage for cotton, sugar, meat can be very different depending on production methods and places of origin).

-          The water footprint shall not be burdened on consumers only. States should define goals and ways of reducing the national water footprints.

-          Reducing the water footprint should be part of the environmental strategy of a business, as part of their corporate social responsibility. States do have the obligation to control them under their Human Right obligation and extraterritorial obligation.

Recommendation No. 11 (pg 81)

Under the heading “Improved efficiency along food chains and in food systems (2.5)” , “virtual water” has been explained that it makes sense that by using virtual water  calculations, water intensive crops/meats can  be imported, from countries where there are plenty of water and water starved country make the most of their available fresh water by less water intensive crops.  Further in Recommendation No. 11,  this argument is put forward that through trade, which is open and  fair.  However, as we all know, that “fair-trade” is far from reality in today cut-throat competitive market economy.   In water starved countries smallholders and peasants live from farming and husbandry.  This approach could drive them  out of business by imports (meat from Europe, not from the Sahel - from what do herders live then?) Food imports need to be very carefully thought out keeping these vulnerable groups’ interest in mind and not to threaten the right to food of smallholders. Furthermore, the  bottom line in virtual water/trade  should be t  “affordable” for all !  Otherwise, the human right  to access water and food will be diluted !

On behalf of the International Reference Group of EWN                                           

Dinesh Suna                                      Carolin Callenius

Coordinator,                                       IRG Member, EWN,

Ecumenical Water Network                (Focal Point, Right to Food)

World Council of Churches