Presentation made by Dr Uma Lele, Member of GWP Technical Committee, GWP Consulting Partners Meeting, August 2011, Stockholm, Sweden

1. Water, Food, Energy and Institutions: Inextricably
Linked
Uma Lele
Keynote Address
Consulting Partners Meeting
Global Water Partnership, Stockholm
August 18, 2011

2. Food Price Rise and Volatility?
FAO Real Food Price Index
(Annual)
(1990-2011) ?
250
200
2002-2004=100
150
100
50
0
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011
Source: www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/-
Food Price Index

4. Trends in world hunger Undernourishment in 2010, by Region (mill.)
Largest Number of the world’s hungry in South
Asia

5. Under Five Malnourishment Challenge:
South Asia and SSA off track
Child malnutrition rates
remain high in South Asia and
50
Sub-Saharan Africa
2000 2009
Proportion of children under age 5
40
underweight for age (%)
30
20
10
0
Source: United Nations Children's Fund, World Heath
Organization and WDI, World Bank

6. Progress on access to an improved Progress on access to improved
water source sanitation

7. By 2050 World Would Need to Feed 9 Billion+ People
FAO Projects:
– Almost all population and income growth will arise in developing
countries, particularly in Asia and SSA
– Cereal Production (Net of Biofuels) would need to increase by 70%
– Meat production by 220%,
– Cereal Imports of Developing countries will increase by 220%

8. Will Food Supply Keep up With Growing
Demand?
Sources of Demand are Well Increased Risk and Uncertainty
Understood on the Supply Side
•Population Growth: •Climate Change
• All in LDCs •Limits to Land, Water, Soils,
Biodiversity, Forests, Fisheries
•Income Growth •Energy shortages and subsidies,
•Mostly in LDCs •Last Frontiers?
• Brazil, SSA?
•Urbanization:
•Increased Risks and Uncertainty
• Up from 50% to 70% (from climates, global market
•Shift in Food Preferences: integration)
• Rice, Wheat, Maize, •Slowing Productivity Growth
Soybeans for Feed: •Stagnant Investment levels in R
and D
•Biofuels: maize, oilseeds •Interlinked International Markets
•Processed Foods

9. Agricultural productivity growth is slowing
(source Fuglie 2011)
Source: World Bank Development Report 2008 (figure refers to developing countries only)

10. Where Is Water for Food?
72% of Irrigation in Asia
WHERE IS LAND?

13. Two Likely Future Scenarios of Growth in Food
Production
Area Expansion: and Intensification in
SSA> three times the cerrados in Brazil?
Further Intensification of Agriculture
Will be required in Asia
•80% to 90% of increase in
production will have to come
from agricultural
intensification
• Increased yields per ha
• Changing cropping patters
• Multiple cropping on unit of
land

14. More Crop Per Drop?
Regional Productivity Growth in Parts of China has been higher than anywhere
elsewhere on a a scaled up basis”
Top Ten Provinces
The top ten provinces in TFP
growth for the 1985-2007 period.
Six of them are on the east
coast
1 Jiangxi 8.17%
2 Guangdong* 8.11%
3 Hebei* 7.95%
4 Fujian* 7.89%
5 Shandong* 7.37%
6 Hubei 7.34%
7 Inner Mongolia 7.26%
8 Zhejiang* 7.19%
9 Sichuan 7.18%
10 Liaoning* 6.83%
Wang, Tuan, Gale, Somwaru, and Hanson.
AAEA 2011

15. DISTRIBUTION OF TFP GROWTH INDEX
VALUES BY STATES IN INDIA: 1975-2005
JAMMU & KASHMIR
HIMACHAL PRADESH
PUNJAB
UTTARANCHAL
HARYANA ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DELHI
SIKKIM
RAJASTHAN UTTAR PRADESH ASSAMNAGALAND
MEGHALAYA
BIHAR
MANIPUR
TRIPURA
JHARKHAND MIZORAM
GUJARAT MADHYA PRADESH WEST BENGAL
CHHATTISGARH
DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI ORISSA
MAHARASHTRA
ANDHRA PRADESH Note: (1999-2009)
GOA
KARNATAKA
(Red circle) Agricultural Growth Rates > 4%
PONDICHERRYPONDICHERRY
KERALA TAMIL NADU
(Black circle) Agricultural Growth Rates 2% to 4%
(while circle) Agricultural Growth Rates <2 %
TFP Growth Score Class
N.A
Below 60 [Low]
60.00 - 70.00 [Moderate] (Major State Average=70.1)
70.01 - 90.00 (High)
Above 90 [Very High]
Source: Based on Total Factor Productivity and Contribution of Research Investment to Agricultural Growth in
India: Ramesh Chand et al. NCAP 2011

16. Improved Water Management in East and South East Asia and
Scope for Knowledge Transfers/ South – South Learning:
China and Vietnam and South Asia
1. In China and Viet Nam, agriculture water withdrawal
as a percentage of total national water withdrawal
has declined from 92.5 and 88.2 in 1990 to 68.1 and
67.7 in 2000 (FAO) and to 60% according to latest
data (Khalid Mohtadullah)
2. Incentivized Irrigation Bureaucrats in China have
helped improved water management ( Tushaar Shah)
3. Successful innovations in Gujarat in India

19. Water Management Challenges in India
Irrigation Investment & Irrigated Area in India
Source: Amerasinghe et al

20. Government Investment in Total Ag
Research, On Soil and Water (incl. Education)
in Agriculture by Sub-sectors in India: 1960-
1961 to 2007-08 (in million Rs at current
prices)
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1960-61
1962-63
1964-65
1966-67
1968-69
1970-71
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1980-81
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
Crops Livestocks Fisheries Soil and Water conservation
Source: Total Factor Productivity and Contribution of Research Investment to Agricultural Growth in India: Ramesh Chand et al.
NCAP 2011

22. China Stands out in Public Agricultural R and D
Spending Relative to SSA, Brazil and India
Source: ASTI as reported in Beintema and Stads (2011)

23. Average ag TFP growth, 1970-2006 (% per year)
Former USSR
Caribbean Developing
Oceania
Sub-Saharan Africa
Average annual Circled regions show persistently
TFP growth
low TFP growth
> 2%
1-2%
< 1%
Source: Keith Fuglie, Technology Capital, The Price of Admission to the Growth Club

24. Rainfed Agriculture Yields Are Converging
Average Grain yields in Sub-Saharan Africa (37%) of Average Yields in Other Regions
Source: Food Security Assessment, 2010-20 / GFA-21; Economic Research Service/USDA

25. Source: Food Aid Flows Report 2009 by WFP and
www.wfp.org/fais

26. Goal 8
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
IN WATER AND FOOD

27. Fragmented Aid Architecture
Estimates of total aid (all sectors) in 2007
(Source: Kharas, 2009)
Private sources (2007): 60 DAC-Bilateral (2007): 73
….of which: ….of which:
USA 37 USA 18.9
UK 4.1 Germany 7.9
France 1 France 6.2
Japan 5.8
(Source: Hudson Institute, Global
UK 5.6
Index of Philanthropy, 2009)
(Source: OECD DAC database)
NON-DAC (2007): 10
….of which:
Multilateral (2007): 28
China 3
….of which:
Arab
EC 11.3
countries 2.6
IDA 7.5
India 1
UN 3.5
Korea 0.8
Global Fund 1.6
(Source: Homi Kharas, 2009*)
* Brookings Institute: Kharas, H., “Development Assistance in the 21st Century”, Contribution to the VIII Salamanca Forum, The
(Source: OECD DAC database)
Fight Against Hunger and Poverty, July 2009

28. Declining ODA to Agriculture (1979 – 2007)

30. External Investment in Irrigation and Drainage

31. Increased Opportunities for GWP
Decline in Technical Capacity at the World Bank

32. Total Biennial Resources Available (1994-2007)
Note: The above figure shows FAO’s regular program budget is
funded by its members, through contributions, adjusted to the
Euro/US dollar exchange rate fixed by the FAO Conference. This
budget covers core technical work, cooperation and partnerships
including the Technical Cooperation Program, knowledge exchange,
policy and advocacy, direction and administration, governance and
security.
The FAO’s regular budget for the biennium 2010-2011 has been
increased by 7.6% to US$ 1000.5 million from the biennium 2008–
2009 US$ 929.8 million, adjusted to the Euro/US dollar exchange
rate fixed by the FAO Conference. Member states froze FAO's
budget from 1994 through 2001 at US$650 million per biennium.
The budget was raised slightly to US$651.8 million for 2002–03 and
jumped to US$749 million for 2004–05, but this nominal increase
was seen as a decline in real terms. In November 2005, the FAO
governing Conference voted for a two-year budget appropriation of
US$765.7 million for 2006–2007; once again, the increase only
partially offset rising costs due to inflation.
Source: FAO: The Challenge of Renewal: Report of the
Independent External Evaluation of the FAO: September This figure shows FAO’s biennial resources in terms of US K$ at
2007 (figure 7.1) 1994 constant prices.

33. Implications for GWP and Partners
1. GWP’s mission is worthy
2. But development challenges have become more complex
3. Generating and disseminating Relevant Knowledge is a costly business
4. It is easier to explain differences in performance among regions and
countries than to explain why or how and transferability of experience.
5. Donor resources have become limited and fragmented
6. More are being made available through Trust Funds
7. Donor expectations about demonstrating impact has increased
8. But donor time horizon has become shorter
9. Leadership, institutions, capacity and demand for knowledge in developing
countries are key for success
10.GWP needs to mobilize the best of technical expertise. Quality of
relations, trust and confidence with developing countries will be critical
necessary conditions.

34. THANK YOU!