HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report: Water and Food Security
In October 2013, the Committee on World Food Security requested the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) to prepare a report on Water and Food Security. Final findings of the study will feed into CFS 42nd session in October 2015.
As part of the process of elaboration of its reports, the HLPE now seeks inputs, suggestions, comments on the present V0 draft. This e-consultation will be used by the HLPE to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external expert review, before finalization and approval by the HLPE Steering Committee.
HLPE V0 drafts are deliberately presented at a work-in-progress stage – with their range of imperfections – early enough in the process, when sufficient time remains to give proper consideration to the feedback received so that it can be really useful and play a real role in the elaboration of the report. It is a key part of the scientific dialogue between the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee and the rest of the knowledge community. In that respect, the present draft identifies areas for recommendations at a very initial stage, and the HLPE would welcome any related evidence-based suggestions or proposals. We would also appreciate if this draft is not cited or quoted until it is finalised.
In order to strengthen the related parts of the report, the HLPE would welcome comments and inputs on the following important aspects:
- 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?
- 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?
- Food security involves trade of agricultural produce, and a virtual trade of water. Agricultural trade interact 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?
- 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?
- Which systemic actions/solutions/approaches would be the most effective to enhance water governance, management and use for food security?
We are aware that we have not yet adequately covered, in the V0 draft, some issues of importance. We invite respondents to suggest relevant examples, including successful ones and what made them possible, good practices and lessons learned, case studies, data and material in the areas of: and invite respondents to suggest relevant examples, case studies, data and material in the areas of:
- Comparative water performance (productivity and resilience) for food security and nutrition of different farming systems, and food systems, in different contexts
- Water use in food processing
- Water for food and nutrition security in urban and peri-urban contexts
- Water governance and management systems capable of better integrating food security concerns while tackling trade-offs between water uses/users in an equitable, gender just and deliberative manner. We are particularly interested in examples that have enhanced social justice and also benefitted marginalised groups.
- We welcome also examples on how the role of water for food security and nutrition is accounted for in land governance and management and land-use, including links between land tenure and water rights.
We thank all the contributors in advance for their time to read, comment and suggest inputs on this early version of the report.
We look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation.
The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee.
- 阅读 116 提交内容
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.
Water is life and so water forms part of our every day life. Water is life to man , animals and plants.
Water is a landmark and demarkates borders. We will be contributing shortly what water is both to man ,animal and plant with emphasis on Agriculture and livelihood.. We have text cases and models to discuss.
Lizzy Igbine mrs
Niwaafa.
Different UN MDGs are water-related, health and education as well as gender equality in our education system. The most difficult MDGs have been those related to infant and material mortality – often linked to infectious diseases and lack of access to clean water.
Globally the objectives are to cut by 50% the proportion of people unable of accessing potable water and 100% access by 2025. In Africa, a number of about 330 million African peoples have no access to potable water and 600 million no access to sanitation.
Many water initiatives have been taken to improve food security in Africa. The African Development Bank Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative aims at meeting the basic water and sanitation needs of rural peoples – at least 80% – by 2015. Further, the African Water Facility, established in support of African Water Ministers, has the goal to enhance water management and enhance the investment environment. Furthermore, the NEPAD/AU Water and Sanitation program has the goal on the preparation of bankable projects for investment both by the public and private sector.
In Africa, food security is compromised by inadequate infrastructure for water storage, water management; and management and protection of our river basins, trans-boundary waterways, such as the Nile, the Congo, the Niger, the Zambezi, and Mano River. In the same vein, the Lake Chad is shrinking and farmers cultivating agricultural products around this Lake are recording famine. The Lake Victoria is showing high rate of pollution and its populations are recording low agricultural production.
At the continent level, several water programs to be implemented both in rural and urban areas, concern building new water storage capacity, water supply systems, rehabilitating networks and protection of our lakes, rivers and river basins, for water access and sanitation in order to contribute better irrigation, hydro power and other economic utilizations. All these activities to enhance nutrition and food security.
Thank you very much indeed for this info.
Surely, we all at JANANEETHI, are interested in participating in the consultation proposed. Let us see the proposals emerged in the consultations. We hope we too will have to contribute from our experiences and policy changes drastically happening in the country in favour of the corporate lobbies endangering the future of the generations to come.
George Pulikuthiyil
Executive Director
JANANEETHI
Comments on the report “Water and Food Security”
The description of the work of the World Commission on Dams is accurate.
What is inaccurate is the paragraph that followed.
“The World Bank, which was a founding member of the WCD, rejected its conclusions alongside key dam-building nations such as India, China and Turkey as well as the International Commission on Large Dams and the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage”.
and particularly the statement “In recent years dams have made a comeback”. In reality only China and Turkey ignored the recommendations of CDM.
The World Bank reacted to some recommendations but followed others and never abandoned financing of dam construction. In any case the WB loans where only part of the money needed and the rest comes from local resources.
The paragraph referring to Ansar et al clearly misrepresents the reality
“A recent study by Ansar et al (2014) draws upon cost statistics for 245 large dams built between 1934 20 and 2007. Without even taking into account social and environmental impacts, the study finds that "the 21 actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return" (Ansar et al., 2014: 44). This study also found that dam construction costs were on average more than 90% higher than initial budgets, while 8 out of 10 suffered a schedule over-run, thus seriously questioning their economic/financial viability (ibid)”.
The evidence that the WCD amassed shows that some projects costed more than anticipated but this is a common characteristic of large infrastructure projects over the world.
The fact that 40-80 million people have been displaced by large dams has to be weighted by the fact that at least 1 billion people have been greatly benefited from the electricity supplied by large dams as shown clearly in the WCD Report.
Sao Paulo, 21 October 2014
Jose Goldemberg
We do think the topic is very imprtant especially to Africa where many go without food. We propose that we have done many intervections on food security and our our organisation is wiling and ready to work with you in this noble cause.
Nicholas SSenyonjo
CEO
Uganda Environmental Education Foundation.
European Coordination La Via Campesina position paper on water - March 2012.
Main message: the issue of water is inseparable from food sovereignty
The Nile Basin Territories has witnessed significant demographic growth, since its independence, its popualtion went from around 60 million to the current 450 million and the projections for 2100 is expected to reach around 888 million persons.....this demographic growth combined with rapid urbanization put major demands and pressures on the ecological foundation (Land, Water, Climate, biodiversity etc)....which make imperative wise-management of the Nile Basin territorail capital on sound priciples of sustainablity and responsible investments in all capitals.
The university of Udine is conducting research in food security (food wastage), urban waste and resource amangements and will be happy to share its experience, accumulated knowlodge and research findings.
Feel free to share this video containing interviews conducted with key informants during the 4th Nile Basin developemt forum.....
For more information, link with this forum or the NBDF or send an email to: [email protected]
Thanks
Right to food and water is right to life and living. To quote Gandhiji "hunger is shame to humanity and a curse to mankind". Availability, Access and Absorption of food are vital for civilised living.
Availability is ensured by good agricultural practices. Agricultural production is art and science involving appropriate government policy, use of science and technology and efforts of farmers. Marketing and demand-supply economics have made food production a specialised occupation. Area under farming is getting reduced, irrigation water dwindling and farm labour and energy costly' food production is becoming a challenging avocation with a lot of challenges and opportunities as well. Green Revolution during 1962 onwards made India self sufficient in food production, but the purchasing power of people being low, subsidised food has to be made available. Minimum Support Prices have made producer-farmers sure about an income in a world of economic uncertainty. Even with a reasonable food buffer stock and subsidised food, about 260 million people in India go to bed without a meal.
A hungry stomach is a violent stomach leading to violence. Any talk on food security should take into consideration level of education, health care and population density.WTO should be consumer friendly and pro-poor.
该活动现已结束。请联系 [email protected] 了解更多信息。