全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

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.