Contextualising water and food access

In this post, I will review various indexes used to study water and food

How do we measure, identify and strategise against the issue of water and food?

There are various indexes that researchers have proposed and utilised to measure the extent of water in Africa. There are quantitative indexes such has the Water Stress Index (Fallenmark and Lindh, 1974) which provides a quantitative index of water scarcity as the amount of renewable freshwater that is available per person per year and proposes a threshold of 1,700 m 3 per person per year to identify the regions that suffer from water stress (Fallenmark et al., 1989).

The issue with WSI is that it oversimplies water scarcity, which is a relatively complex term. The metric has been criticised for being context-specific to the semi-arid industrialised country of Israel (Damkjaer and Taylor, 2017). It fails to take into account the unique socioeconomic challenges faced by African nations, such as variations in water management practices, infrastructure, and accessibility. The complexities of water stress in Africa, including issues related to population growth, agriculture, and climate change, may not be adequately captured by a metric designed for a different context. Whilst Physical water scarcity occurs when more than 75% of river flows in a country are withdrawn for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes, and the country is unable to meet future demands after accounting for its adaptive strategy (Damkjaer and Taylor, 2017), economic water scarcity occurs where renewable water resources are adequate (water withdrawals are less than 25% of river flows) but where there is a lack of significant investments in water infrastructure in order to make these resources available (Rijsberman, 2006). 

This relates back to what Binyavanga says about the perception of Africa, as outlined in my previous post. Ultimately, lack of region-specificity can lead to misinterpretations and inadequate assessments. 

Figure 1: Map showing the type of water scarcity that varies across the continent. (Damkjaer and Taylor, 2017)

Food security is defined as the physical and economic access to safe, sufficient, and nutritious food that enables individuals to live healthy lives (World Food Summit, 1996). There have been indexes such as the Global Food Security Index launched by the Economist which looks at factors inspired by this definition, but which have been criticised for multiple reasons.

I find that the FAO’s pillars of food security to not only be relevant towards food but also other resources which also includes water. In my personal opinion, the pillar concept helps me to brainstorm an assessment of food security, especially in relation to mitigation and adaptation of climate change. I have adapted them to demonstrate how they can be visualised not just for food but also for other resources such as water and energy.

Figure 3: The 3 pillars of resource security

In order to ensure the roof (Resource Security) does not ‘collapse’, we need the pillars (Availability, Access and Utilisation) and the foundation (Stability). Stability is particularly important because it underpins the overall resilience and sustainability of the entire system, providing a crucial base for managing resources effectively and preventing disruptions that could compromise the 3 pillars.

Conclusion

In order to paint an accurate picture of the extent of food and water security, we need to utilise the results from all of these measures in order to cover the limitations. I do not claim that my 3 pillars are a perfect way of assessing water security for example, but I hope that it introduces a holistic perspective about the current situation and systems alongside objective measures such as WSI.