As regards to governance, it is to be noted the definition proposed by FAO regarding the formal and informal rules, organizations and processes through which public and private actors articulate their interests, as well as make and implement decisions. This formulation conveys the idea that there are various public and private settings, from local, to regional, national, and international contexts that participate in this process. Different communities, oversight bodies, business organizations and even large-scale enterprises, besides the competent public administrative entities, are called upon to be present. Social, political, and economic dimensions, together with traditional authorities, and customary laws and norms, enter this vision.
Considering these elements, I note that governance over land and water resources may be conceived as an enabling attribute of the social economic and political environment in which land and water management actions take place at multiple levels. In addition, there are the legal and regulatory frameworks and institutions, relevant for planning, decision-making and monitoring. Effective governance means responsible actions and measures to protect and ensure the sustainability of resources for current and future generations and to optimize the services and benefits obtained from those resources.
In the past years, there has been a shift from focusing on promoting “good governance” principles – from participation (including the rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, inclusion, effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability) (United Nations ESCAP, 2009)), to establishing a formal normative set of institutional, financial, and organizational procedures for regulating natural resources.
These efforts include informal and operational approaches to address the complex “policy bottlenecks, political conflicts and local organizational realities that impede effective decision-making and land and water governance” in practice, according to FAO studies (2021). The focus has also shifted towards a more pragmatic agenda committed to bottom-up problem-solving approaches that recognize the legitimacy of development processes deeply rooted in established socioeconomic, cultural, and political relationships at national and local levels.
It is important to note that land and water resources are also source of revenues’ generation and drive economic growth. And yet, studies assess that the way institutions operate and cooperate, and the relative power and capabilities of different actors involved, strongly shape outcomes and welfare distribution. In this context, strengthening governance presuppose enabling effective and efficient problem solving and decision-making, in ways that stakeholders regard as legitimate. Compliance mechanisms are also of relevance.
And what about the introduction of other elements such as the goal of setting up and equitable land and water governance? A renewed approach to governance is influenced by the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement’s objectives to address climate change in a holistic way that “ensures that food production is not threatened”. This approach provides elements to integrate food security and the vulnerabilities of climate change, in the analyses regarding water and food governance. The so-called “intrinsic relationship that climate change actions, responses and impacts” have on the “equitable access to sustainable development and eradication of poverty” and the “fundamental priority of safeguarding food security”, are among the building pieces to provide a structured approach to the needs of reconciling climate solutions with land and water management.
One issue that appears in this scenario is the need to enable the effective coordination across various instruments and relevant institutional arrangements, in a way that matches with what the IPCC special report on climate change and land (IPCC, 2019) has indicated. In the context of the domestic climate policies, this requires that specific actions related to the right to water and sanitation are built on the basis of a comprehensive and coherent policy strategy and adequate governance bodies, supported by an appropriate legal framework.
Also, when framing water strategies, two sides of the same subject should be addressed. On the one hand, there is the assertion that land provides the principal basis for human livelihoods and well-being including the supply of food, freshwater and multiple other ecosystem services, along with biodiversity. Human use directly affects more than 70% (likely 69– 76%) of the global, ice-free land surface (IPCC panel says that this assertion enjoys high confidence). And it is known, land plays an important role in the climate system.
On the other side, studies suggest that some options and policies, may result in trade-offs, including social impacts, ecosystem functions and services damage, water depletion, or high costs, that are not easily well-managed, even when applying institutional best practices. The goal then is to address such trade-offs to avoid maladaptation, and to weigh the costs and benefits of specific responses for different partners.
Against this backdrop, an issue that remains open is how to interact with stakeholders and communities that have knowledge and innovative gaps, and that should be fully integrated in the adaptation processes. A wide perspective for decision makers must look at the way these categories fit in a comprehensive landscape of laws and regulations.
Now, it is time for some thoughts about the 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly refer to water or food in its operative provisions. But its preamble provides elements to guide the interpretation of the former, when it “recognize[s] the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impact of climate change.” There is also a generic reference to human rights, although with no explicit mention of the right to water.
It derives from the above that there is an increasing recognition in international and national frameworks, and governance mechanisms, of the crucial role of land and water management in climate change. The IPCC special report on climate change and land (IPCC, 2019), would highlight that land must remain productive to maintain food security as the population increases and the impacts of climate change on soils and crops are felt.
On a different note, the roles of soil and land management in carbon sequestration and emission mitigation are also particularly noticeable. They require recognition in policies and governance instruments backed up by land-use and resource evaluation, as well as vulnerability risk assessments. As it has been acknowledged, land must be targeted as part of the climate solution, when attending to situations like desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security and GHG fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.
Another dimension of international governance may be looked at under the WTO system, where the question is how to integrate the right to water and the right to food in the regulatory framework and to articulate these concepts consistently with the core principles of that system and its applicable mechanisms. This has been considered in several studies that point out to the search for avoidance of deviations from the core principles and the exercise of state competences in a manner that includes those concerns.
But the subject also entails other areas that consider strategies for an increase in sector-wide investment and capacity-building, promoting innovation and evidence-based action, enhancing cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation among all partners, and adopting a more integrated approach to water management. This approach aims at enhancing the potential of an organization like the WTO whose system may contribute to the realization of SDG 6 on water and sanitation, along the lines of what resulted from the UN 2023 Water Conference for Sustainable Development, held in New York, and sponsored by Tajikistan and the Netherlands.
In the 2023 report on WTO’s contribution to attaining UN SDGs’ goals, the essential role played by trade measures and water conservation and management strategies, is well noted. In that regard, it is relevant to look at trade in services in supplying water for consumption and for the treatment of wastewater. And to underscore the importance of public- private partnerships to help developing economies improve water supply and sanitation services. The report also examines “indirect trade in water”, the trading of water-intensive products, particularly in the agricultural sector. And according to FAO studies regarding the relationship between international trade and national water endowments, other factors, such as labour, capital, land endowment and access to arable land, farming structure, technology and agricultural policies are more important than water availability in determining agricultural andvirtual water trade patterns. Then, it comes out the assumption that aligning trade and sustainable water use is also critical to improve global water governance.
The multidimensional approaches that characterize water governance also derive from the role of various treaties that address water issues, in particular those negotiated in the context of 1992 Rio Conference on the Environment and Development. These are the UNFCCC, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), addressing biodiversity (CBD), and the UNCCD about desertification, land degradation and drought. The earlier adopted Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance was among the first instruments to integrate water in the study of certain habitats whose protection appears as relevant. As thoughtful analyses say, these instruments should be highlighted as tools to look at the relationship between water and land.
Core principles and mechanisms emerging out of these frameworks are supposed to operate convergently in search of sustainability. Coherence is a notion that appears frequently in these studies. As an example, SDG 15 on sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainable forests, combatting desertification, and reversing land degradation and halting biodiversity loss, constitutes an ambitious source to test the value and ability of law as a tool that articulates goals and the means to achieve them.
