Upload
icarda
View
657
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Dr. M. Ahmad, FAO Cairo
Citation preview
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