Coordinating Land and Water Governance in the Context of Food Security

Madiodio Niasse /Jan CherletPretoria, 15-16 June 2015

Structure of presentation

1. Introduction

2. The food security challenge: what it means for land, water

3. Changing course?

4. How does coordinated governance of land and water governance contribute to addressing food security ?

5. Coordinated governance at various scales

6. Conclusion

1. Introduction (1/2)

• IWRM defined by GWP as a process that "promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems" (GWP, 2000).

• IWRM faced serious challenges with regards to its operationalisation – too complex, too broad, embraces too much.

• Focussing on “land” dimensions of IRWM help narrow down the scope of IWRM

• How can you integrated water and land if you are mainly working from a water angle (risk of putting too much emphasis on water at the expense land)?

• Collaboration between GWP (focussing more on water, IWRM) and ILC (focussing more on land, land reform and governance)

1. Introduction (2/2)

• Looking at land and water governance in general, without linking it to a specific context or a purpose (governance for what?) would lead to a boundary-less exercise, hence the focus on food security

• The notion of “integration” has also been criticised, not only because of its vagueness, but also because of trying to “integrate everything”, for the sake of integrating, wile in some contexts a lighter degree of interaction, of collaboration, would be enough. Hence the use of “ coordinated” instead integrated.

• A key challenge we have to the theme we are presenting: The world has been managing land and water separately until now without any major problems, why should we look at these resources simultaneously now? What has changed in the context that justifies the shift?

2. The food security challenge: what it means for land, water (1/3)

• Since the 2007-2008 food price hikes amidst financial and energy crises, a key question in the international agenda is whether the world will be able to feed itself.

• Why bother given past performance?

Global agricultural production increased 2.5 times between 1960 and 2000 ;

Target of increasing food production by 60 to 110 % by 2050, should not be a problem if past performance is replicated;

Replicability is problematic because past performance was mainly based on increased productivity per unit of land

It resulted in the doubling of freshwater withdrawals => groundwater depletion / closing river basins;

It resulted in closing the yield gaps => limited scope for further increase in productivity

• Implications of a business as-usual scenario in land and water management:

To meet the projected global food demand, we will need an additional 5,000 km3 of freshwater per year in the next 40 years, representing a 70% increase to present use of 7,130 km3/year

=> crossing the planetary boundary for water use

If trends in yield gains are not substantially improved, 1 to 1.4 billion ha of new agricultural land (20-30% increase) will be needed

=> such levels of land conversion carry high environmental costs (deforestation, loss of biodiversity, GHG)

2. The food security challenge: what it means for land, water (2/3)

100

200

300

400

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

150

250

350

sources: UNESA 2013, FAOSTAT 2013, FAO 2011, HLPE 2012, MEA 2005, Rockstrom et al 2009

Rel

ativ

e gr

ow

thb

asel

ine

= 1

96

0 =

10

0

global cereal production

global extension of cultivated land

global freshwater withdrawal

global extension of irrigated land

2010-2020 : A turning point for land & water governance?

• Aggravating factors:

Conversion of food crop land to non-food use;

Expansion of agrofuels: Only 2% of arable land today, but is expected to increase 4-fold by 2030

Climate change:• Loss of land suitable for agriculture

• large areas of farmland and rangeland used for carbon sequestration at the expense of food production

Land degradation: If current trends are not reversed, more than 300 million hectares of agricultural land would be lost by 2050

• The challenges we are faced with calls for novel approaches to developing, managing and governing land and water, the two key natural resources that support food production

2. The food security challenge: what it means for land, water (3/3)

• Predicted "perfect storm" (Beddington, 2009): Doomsday scenario if necessary measures are not taken to avoid the looming food, water and energy crises.

• In the water and land sectors, navigating the storm will require among others a breakdown of at least 3 walls:

Technocratic approaches that ignore political aspects and vice versa

Water and land managed in isolation from each other

Land and water dealt with at the confines of nation-states in ignorance of the international context

• Overcoming the barriers requires a strategic and more inclusive governance that reconnects land and water

3. Changing course ? Overcoming barriers

• The notion of “coordination”: the idea that some form of interrelation needs to be established in the management and governance of land and of water. Three levels:

• concerted governance (information flow)

• interconnected governance (planning and use of water or land factor in possible implications for the other resource)

• integrated governance: two resources are cohesively considered as part of one single system.

• The concept of “governance”: the system of actors, rules, mechanisms and processes through which land and water are accessed, used, controlled, transferred, and related conflicts managed.

3. Changing course? Toward coordinated governance of land and water for sustainable

response to food security challenge

• Parallel narratives of virtual water vs virtual land Virtual water. From the late 1990s. "Water embedded in key-water-

intensive commodities". The virtual water trade flows typically from water-rich countries to water-poor countries.

Virtual land: Kumar & Sigh (2005) observe that the most important determinant of what is referred to as virtual water was the availability of arable land, not of water. E.g. Japan, Indonesia etc. vs Australia. => "virtual

land": land embodied in internat. trade. Limitation: e.g. Saudi Arabia.

• Land grabbing vs water grabbing

land grabbing

water grabbing

• In both cases, a narrow-sectoral perspective lead to distorted understanding of the reality.

3. Changing course? Examples of anachronisms in the uncoordinated approach to land and water

• Virtual land and water trade with aim of improving resource-use efficiency.

• Accounting for water in land allocation decisions. Case of LSLDs

• Securing land rights to ensure water-use efficiency, and in particular improve agricultural productivity. Tenure security of often a necessary but not a sufficient condition

• Securing land rights to ensure access to water. E.g. of South Africa

4. How does coordinated governance of land and water contribute to addressing food security (1/2)

• Coordinating water and land management for reducing land degradation

• Securing women’s land rights, pre-requisite for equitable access to water for productive use

• Coherence between national and local land use plans and water development strategies

• Raising the profile of land in integrated river basin management

4. How does coordinated governance of land and water contribute to addressing food security (2/2)

Scale Land and/or water governance issues Possible benefits of coordinated governance

(I)Grass-rootsSub-national

Inequities in access to land and/or to water

Tenure insecurity of land and/or water Unsustainable levels of abstraction and

use of land and/or water resources Land and water degradation Land- and/or water-related conflicts; -Poor implementation of national land and

water laws -Inconsistencies in land and water tenure

systems

Securing access to land rights as means of ensuring greater equity in access to water achieving;

Investing in water infrastructure as means of securing land rights;

Securing land rights as incentive for sustainable water conservation and for improved land productivity;

Factoring water access rights in land use plan, as means of preventing or resolving resource use conflicts (e.g. between farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolks)

Greater coherency in local land use plans and water development strategies;

(II)Nation/State

Sub-national inequities in land access and tenure insecurity

Formulation of national land- and/or water- related laws, strategies, action plans (rural development strategies; climate adaptation plans; plans against desertification; poverty reduction strategies; MDG plans) done in parallel;

Inconsistencies and incoherencies in approaches to land and agrarian reform; water policies and water law reforms

Water policies and laws are informed by challenges and risks to land sector and vice versa;

Water policies used as enabling environment for land policy objectives and vice versa;

Ensure wider citizen input to water and land policy formulation, with involvement of water-and land-concerned actors;

More coherent and inclusive national platform for food security and poverty reduction strategies, especially in agrarian economies

5. Coordinated governance at various scales (1/2)

Scale Land and/or water governance issues Possible benefits of coordinated governance

(III)River basinsRegional inter-States integration groupings

Typically undefined responsibilities of River basin organisations on the management/governance of river basin land (basin cooperation agreements typically deal only with water issues);

National territorial sovereignty clashing with and constraining water cooperation for addressing food sovereignty ;

High occurrence of conflicts in trans-border land and water use (cross-river or upstream-downstream water- land-users);

Basin cooperation more sensitive to and supportive of agriculture and food security needs of riparian states and communities;

Fairer allocation of water across sectors (irrigation, energy, etc.);

National decisions on land (e.g. concessions to investments) better take into account inter-state commitments on water

(IV)International/Global

Disconnected land and water discourses, theories and normative policy processes

Cross-sectoral concerted normative response to water and land ;

Joint collaborative efforts to address land and water challenges;

Greater cooperation, experience and perspectives sharing between global alliances of social movements of land-and water concerned actors.

(IV)Interplay between scales

• Disconnect between domains International and inter-state commitments better informed by realities at lower levels;

Land and water policy practices at lower levels are inspired by and comply with

5. Coordinated governance at various scales (2/2)

• Context of resource scarcity and the increasing food demand

• General agreement on the need for a paradigm shift:water-food-energy nexus (WFE), water-energy-land nexus (WEL)

• As seen as if IWRM had done its time

• Need for a more politically sensitive, coordinated governance of land and water

→ opportunity to re-examine and use the full potential of IWRM paradigm

→ Opportunity to operationalise land component in IWRM

6. Conclusion -- Coordinated governance of land and water as opportunity to restore the relevance

of the IWRM paradigm

THANK YOU !