Third WCD Forum Meeting
25-27 February 2001 - Cape Town, South Africa

Statement by FAO

FAO's vision is a world free from hunger and malnutrition. A world where vibrant rural communities are in control of their destiny and where natural resources are used in a responsible manner.

How do we get there? The World Food Summit five years ago has drafted a road map. From that it is clear that we need an enabling environment, more investment in agriculture, fair trade agreements, stakeholder participation including women, devolution of management responsibility etc. An important issue has not received sufficient attention yet or may be controversial. Our view is that most of the food must be produced close to where it is consumed. Rural poverty cannot be overcome with trade or food aid but through a productive, market-oriented agriculture and rural industries and services. The dependence of rural dwellers on agriculture takes two forms - farmers for whom more productivity are needed - and landless workers who depend on farm and non-farm employment. Productivity enhancement is needed and beneficial for both. Studies in Bangladesh and elsewhere have shown that irrigation development for example has beneficial effects on both smallholders and landless laborers through increasing opportunities for year round employment and economic linkages. In addition, access to productive resources (land, water, agricultural inputs) must be increased. In many cases this cannot be achieved through land redistribution but requires expansion of the resource base. Environmentalist groups and activists should ask themselves: What is the impact of our action on the rural poor? The Rio Conference has confirmed the right to development. We must be careful not deny this right to the poor silent majority in rural areas.

Countries differ in their stage of water resources development. Some countries have already developed up to 70% of their renewable water resources. These countries have no choice but to adopt a strategy of demand management and unconventional water development such as desalinization and wastewater reuse to cope with rising demand. Others countries, mainly in SS Africa and Latin America are only using a fraction of their renewable water resources. In SS Africa this fraction is less than 4 %. Even India, contrary to current belief, is using only 25 to 30% of its renewable water resources. These countries must have the option to develop water resources for productive use. All countries should pay increasing attention to water pollution. In some places more water is made unusable through pollution than diverted to consumptive use.

Agriculture is a very vulnerable economic sector. Price fluctuation, high and low prices alike, are damaging for the rural economy. Moreover, agriculture is subject to the vagaries of the weather. Droughts and floods, wet and dry years, pests and diseases follow in an unpredictable sequence. Integrated pest and nutrient management, moisture conservation, water harvesting, staging of crop plating, short cycle varieties can cushion some of the effects. Long-term seasonal forecasting appears to be increasingly feasible. But inter-annual droughts can only be mitigated through large reservoirs in addition to national food stocks and food trade. The Aswan High Dam is a good example of the beneficial effects of large overyear storage. In the eighties it has saved the Egyptian agriculture from seven consecutive years of below average runoff. Large dams are required in some cases. We cannot afford to disregard any option to increase food supply in food deficit countries. But decisions to build dams must be taken in a responsible manner.

It is in this spirit that we welcome the report of the WCD. We understand it as a framework for responsible decision-making, not as a verdict on dams. The Commission has established rules on how to solve conflicts surrounding dam construction. Some people say that the Commission set the stakes too high, that the process recommended is too difficult, too cumbersome and could easily be misused. Perhaps they have a point. We also would have liked to see a more thorough analysis on the effects of dams on food production. The Commission was visibly at pain to recognize the beneficial effects of dams for food supply. The Commission also failed to recognize that a dam doesn't make an irrigation scheme. Substantial investments in irrigation infrastructure, institution and capacity building are required before the water stored by a dam produces food. This explains the time lag in the accrual of benefits between hydel and irrigation dams. The positive and negative effects of reservoirs on fish production could also have been discussed in more depth.

Nevertheless, we recommend testing the recommendations of the Commission in good faith. This test has to be done in the real world. There is little point in continuing the debate in the abstract and discuss whether the world needs 1000 or 3000 dams or whether the economic value of undisturbed rivers and river deltas are greater than benefits from irrigation development. Let's works together to apply these rules, assess realistically any option, look for alternatives, design methods to limit damage and mitigate adverse effects. Let's get over fundamental opposition to water development on the one side and fixation on dams and engineering solutions on the other side. Modern engineers and practical environmentalists have come along way in showing what can be done.

The most important step now is to take the issue to the local level. The upcoming dialogue on Water, Food and the Environment is a tremendous opportunity to follow-up on the work of the Commission and to apply in practice what has been said and written. Details of the dialog are still being discussed; however, the general structure is emerging. The dialog will consist of three parts:

• First, a series of river basin or country dialogs that brings together all legitimate stakeholders. Actual issues in river basins or of the national political agenda will be discussed. The local dialog will be supported by international experience, facilitation, technical support, models to study what - if questions. Ideally it will lead to a self-sustaining process that at the end will yield practical results that help to bring forward the global dialogue.
• The second part of the dialogue is the establishment of a knowledge base. Best practices, studies, models and instruments will be collected and made available to help in solving issues related to Water, Food and Environment.
• Third, a platform will be established that allows people and organization to interact, exchange information, discuss, quarrel and agree. Other options are being discussed.

The governments of Japan and the Netherlands have promised to support the dialogue. The 3rd Forum in Japan will be an opportunity to review the progress. A group of sponsors incl. IWMI, ICID, IUCN, WB, FAO, UNEP, WHO and others is working on the framework. It is the intention to be as inclusive and transparent as possible while not loosing sight of practical and organizational requirements. This forum is an opportunity to look forward, to build the bridge between the work of the WCD and the Global Dialogue. We in FAO will be hosting the next meeting of the working group on the dialog. I would glad to receive your views and suggestions and to convey them to my colleagues. We are moving forward, let's not lose the momentum.