Water and Food Security Nexus Regional Gap Analysis

Findings on Water and Food Security Nexus – Regional Gap Analysis

Expert ConsultationICARDA, Cairo, Egypt

25th June, 2013FAO Regional Initiative

Dr. Andy Bullock, FAO Consultant

Key messagesHigh value in convergence at the interface between water and food security –

unifying towards a common agenda

Evidence reveals three principal gaps. These each provide opportunity for convergence:

Gap 1: There is a general weakness in scaling-up from many successful case studies

Gap 2: Most of the (dis)incentives to water inefficiency lie outside of the water domain. The necessary multi-disciplinarity has not yet been mobilised

Gap 3: There is an absence of explicit food security strategies, for now and the future, to guide water interventions. In light of different (blend of) pathways available to countries

Three principal gaps in a common agendaGap 1: There is a general weakness in scaling-up from

many successful case studies

Many examples of successful case studies …

System feasibility, design, technology, management and operations• Irrigation modernization and rehabilitation, Groundwater , Drainage water re-use, Wastewater re-use Water in crop production systems• On-farm water use and productivity, Rainwater harvesting,, Conservation agriculture

Water and environmental issues• Forestry/watershed management, Pollution from agriculture, Water and Food Safety Fisheries and aquaculture

Water and livestock

Despite positive experiences, scaling up of impact remains elusive

Numerous ‘technical’ lessons learned …. But

proliferation of atomised pilotsalso, proliferation of technology optionsthat collectively are not contributing impact at scale

Overall: there are new technology opportunities but the core constraint on impact is not technological. Scaling-up, impact and delivery require other factors beyond technologies.

Scaling up ‘spaces’ – shifting from pilots to impact at scale

Fiscal/financialNatural resource/environmentalPolicyInstitutional/organizational capacityothers including political, cultural, partnership, learning

Different factors have relevance at different levels of uptake …Scaling-up from 100 ha to 1,000 within a scheme invokes one set of factorsScaling-up from 1,000 ha to 10,000 across schemes invokes a different set, etc

Overall performance rating

Performance characteristics % of PCR ProjectsGlobal (MENA)

A >70% of water infrastructure targetsOn time, or with extension of up to 2-3 yearsWithin x2 budgetAttributable support to higher-level goals

40 (30)

B 30-70% of water infrastructure targetsOn time, or with extension of up to 5-7 yearsWithin x 4 budgetSome project restructuring at MTRSome connection to higher-level goals

40 (30)

C 0- <30% of water infrastructure targetsOn time, or with extension of up to 5-7 yearsWithin x 4 budgetCan include major project restructuringNo connection to higher level goals

20 (40)

Initial attempts at scaling-up (by doing more of the same) have not worked

Scaling-up 70+ water interventions for impact at scale is complexScaling-up five AWM ‘business lines’ is simpler

Multiplicity of different water interventions

Food security

A

B

AWMBusiness

Lines

Different faces of agricultural water management

Economic and social outcomes (Vision, Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategies, Medium-Term Framework etc)

Annual growth in agricultural GDP

Increased export earnings;

Value addition and rural development

National Food self sufficiency

Job creation, Incomes growth

Significant reduction of poverty; Household food security

Economic

Social

Values and benefits of agricultural water management

Business Lines 1. Large-scale market-oriented irrigation on a PPP basis or purely private basis

2. Modernization and expansion of existing large-scale irrigation

3. Individual micro- and small-scale irrigation for high value crops

4. Small-scale community-managed irrigation

5. Enhanced water management in rainfed agriculture

(Agriculture Policy) physical infrastructure and beneficiary targets

Another opportunity for convergence – greater water policy coherence

Multiplicity of different

water interventio

ns

Food security

Policy coherence

(eg)

Risk reduction and disaster management

Climate change adaptation

IWRM

Catchment management

Water stewardship

Stronger policy coherence

Not end-points in themselves

Diverse actors and institutional agenda

Policy alignments

Three principal gaps in a common agendaGap 2: Most of the (dis)incentives to water inefficiency lie

outside of the water domain. The necessary multi-disciplinarity has not yet been mobilised

There are bottlenecks, drivers, incentives and disincentives that predominantly lie outside of the ‘engineering’ and water management sub-sectors.

Different (political economy) narrative that means different lessons,different gaps and different response options

Gap 2 Principal findings that all point outside the water domain

Different demands on water - inter-related policies and structural rigidities on food security (eg import substitution, safety nets, self-sufficiency) mean large number of farmers are using water inefficiently

Subsidies (credit, energy, etc) and price controls – transferring water to less competitive, high water consumptive crops

Water User Associations – small number of successful experiences, but overall experience ‘far less positive’.

Demand management – shorter-term financial interests (eg deferring investment decisions) have been overriding opportunities for efficiency and equity

Water allocations – current allocations t0 agriculture deemed unsustainable in light of resource depletion and env. integrity

PPP/Private sector engagement – real, practical opportunities (under different models) if oriented to farmer needs

Public management and decentralised governance – Different timelines between reform and political terms ‘Whole-of Government’ approaches needed, not in isolation

Recent quotes on AWM“Potential solutions to the region’s water problems are well known but have often not been implemented because of constraints in the broader political economy” (OECD)

“Non-water policies in particular create incentives for inefficient water use”. “Water is not an isolated sector but an integral part of a wider economic system.” “Any agenda for reform of water policy must respond to the realities of the political economy.” … “Actions outside the sector will be important” “(Successful) Water reforms … often done so as part of broader economic and structural changes” (World Bank)

“Due to distortions in water scarce countries, all of which encourage excess water use for irrigation, water scarcity currently plays only a small role in determining trade patterns.” (African Development Bank)

Food losses and waste

Balady bread – Egypt Wheat losses and waste = 43% of 9.8 MT. Water use equivalent of 3.7 BCM

Scale perspectivesWater reformers have recognised the importance of

transboundary water management.

But, they need to go further, and look at regional and intra- and inter-continental ‘political economies’.

‘Universality’ is part of post-2015 shift from ODA-based MDGs

Three principal gaps in a common agendaGap 3: There is an absence of explicit food security

strategies, for now and the future, to guide water interventions in light of different (blend of) pathways available to countries

In simple terms, if you don’t know where a country intends to get its food from – now and in the future - it is very difficult to achieve outcomes through water.

Political trade-offs among outcomes

Economic and social outcomes (Vision, Medium-Term Framework etc)

Annual growth in agricultural GDP

Increased export earnings;

Value addition and rural development

National Food self sufficiency

Job creation, Incomes growth

Significant reduction of poverty; Household food security

Economic

Social

Values and benefits of agricultural water management

Business Lines 1. Large-scale market-oriented irrigation on a PPP basis or purely private basis

2. Modernization and expansion of existing large-scale irrigation

3. Individual micro- and small-scale irrigation for high value crops

4. Small-scale community-managed irrigation

5. Enhanced water management in rainfed agriculture

(Agriculture Policy) physical infrastructure and beneficiary targets

Risk of food insecurity

Simplified food security pathwaysFood

importsProduction Food Aid

Direct sourcing

Export of high-value

commodities. Foreign exchange earnings.Irrigation, fish, tree-

crops, livestock

Self-consumption

of grown food.

Value chains into local markets

Water implications in exporting countries

Each pathways has different water implications for farmers

Summary – evidence points to 3 strategic entry points to a common agenda

2. Opening up to political economy challenges‘Whole of Government’

Farmer behaviour (uptake, vested interests)

3. Response to more explicit agricultural outcomes

Food security strategiesWater strategies that will deliver outcomes

Benchmarking

1. Scaling of water’s potential contribution• Business Lines and scaling-up spaces

• Water Policy coherence

WaterFood

security

Recommendations – actions that advance1. The need to better understand the potential of water in

contributing to food security in a cost effective way (evidence based)

2. The need to address the root causes of low impact ‘at-scale’ and poor performances through political economy analyses

3. The need for better alignment of water and food security strategies, in the framework of larger national goals, and the need for improved national food security strategies.

4. The proposal to start measuring progress and performance against some international benchmarks. (eg Mexico, Australia, Indonesia?)

Thank you