Thanks for eliciting contributions on a really timely initiative. I’m sorry however my comments do not seem to fit with the suggested questions.
In a way this draft is still very supply-dominated. Water is essentially perceived as an input for commodity (in particular cereal and meat/dairy products) production. A lot of attention to value chains, not enough on food systems. Agro-ecology and local governance come at the end. One of the problems probably being that we departed from local governance in the first place (the role of colonization is well acknowledged in the document). An initial section retracing historical changes in water use could be useful.
More attention should be given to community dimensions. The attention to rain fed agriculture is well appreciated but the need to protect subsistence agriculture and/or accompany change where relevant should be explicitly mentioned. Access to water is not only important for health and hygiene, but also in terms of time management and social linkages.
The projections of water demand are flawed by the simplistic prevailing economic modeling, which does not take into account necessary dietary changes (in particular reduction of animal protein consumption) and reduction of food waste. The promotion of sustainable diets (healthy, safe, environmentally friendly and socially equitable) can bring consumers back to the governance table. The importance of health and nutrition education and communication should therefore be emphasized.
The draft covers the impact of climate change on water availability, but the impact of production systems and related use of natural resources (including forests and water) on climate change would need to be more explicitly mentioned. It is urgent to plan production systems on an environmental basis, rather than adapt the environment (e.g. through irrigation) to standard commodities.
Water use for food processing is certainly an important dimension. It would be important to have a better understanding of small-scale vs. industrial processing. The impact of contaminated effluents on local food production (including subsistence agriculture) should be extended to non-food industrial processing (e.g. mining, textile industry…) and linked to the right to food.
The attention given to right to food is well appreciated. “Successful” hydrological management (Sénégal river, Mekong basis) have led to changes in local diets and livelihoods, and erosion of local biodiversity and indigenous food systems, resulting in increased food insecurity and malnutrition of the local population. It is important not to limit impact evaluation to “beneficiaries” but also assess indirect impacts at community and local level (third party effects). [shouldn’t the reference to Jordan be extended to Occupied Territories along the Jordan valley?].
This draft points out yet again to the importance of territorial planning/watershed management (including city-regions food systems) to deal with complexity and promote sustainable development. Adopting an eco-system approach would help deal with cross-border and trans-boundary issues, as well as conflicts over access to water and other natural resources (e.g. pastoralists vs. sedentary farmers).
With best wishes for the next stage, I remain at your disposal for any clarification.
Florence Egal