INCOTERM para la Exportación de Miel a Alemania

CAPÍTULO VI ESTRATEGIA DE PLAZA

6.3 Incoterms

6.3.1 INCOTERM para la Exportación de Miel a Alemania

Austria 2,110 261 1 64 35

Belgium, inc

Luxembourg 8,980 840 1 85 13

Bulgaria 10,500 1,321 19 78 3

Czech Republic 2,570 250 2 57 41

Denmark 1,270 239 42 26 32

Estonia 160 115 5 39 56

Finland 2,480 480 3 84 14

Germany 47,050 574 20 68 12

Hungary 7,640 766 32 59 9

Iceland 150 538 0 66 34

Ireland 1,130 297 0 77 23

Latvia 290 120 12 33 55

Lithuania 270 73 7 15 78

Luxembourg (see Belgium)

The Netherlands 7,940 501 34 60 6

Norway 2,190 490 10 67 23

Poland 16,200 420 8 79 13

Romania 23,180 1,033 57 34 9

Slovakia - - - - -

Sweden 2,970 336 9 54 37

Switzerland 2,570 358 2 74 24

UK 9,540 160 3 75 22

Total 149,190 - 21.9¹⁾ 64.5¹⁾ 13.6¹⁾

n.d.: no data

1) Average withdrawal by sector

6.3.3 Water stress

The water stress index (WSI) referred to a whole country can vary considerably, depending on the water resources and water withdrawal data used to calculate it. In Figure 6.3 (from Bixio et al., 2005), the European countries are ranked according to their water stress index. It can be recognized that some countries, e.g. Cyprus and Malta, have a very high WSI (60%

and higher), as could be expected because of the climatic conditions and, consequently, the limited water resources. In these countries, where tourism plays a very important economic role, strong seasonal peaks in municipal water demand have to be expected, due to the water consumption of the tourists and also for other special uses such as for golf courses and sport fields irrigation and operation of swimming pools. In these countries, the water need for agricultural irrigation is also very high, due to the arid or semi-arid climatic conditions. It can be noted that some central European countries are also ranked with a high water stress index, for example, Belgium and Germany. In these cases, the high water stress is due to high water extraction: in these very densely populated regions, water withdrawals for municipal and industrial purposes are particularly high.

“Uneven distribution and seasonal variations of water resources make the semi-arid coastal areas and the highly urbanised areas particularly affected by water stress. Changing global weather patterns will make the situation worse, in particular for the southern European

countries, susceptible to drought conditions that can be a major environmental, social and economic problem” (Bixio et al., 2005). Common problems in water-stressed countries are groundwater over-extraction with consequent water table depletion and salt-water intrusion in coastal aquifers (Belgium, Greece, and Spain). Over-extraction from surface water may also endanger wetlands (e.g. in Spain and the Czech Republic) (Bodo, 2004).

Figure 6.3. Water stress index (WSI) for European countries (Bixio et al., 2005).

In a study carried out by the University of Kassel, Germany (Lehner et al. 2001), the water stress was calculated on a river basin basis. The data used for calculating the WSI were the average annual water availability in the respective European river basins based on the 30-year climate time series 1961-90 and the average annual water withdrawals in 1995. The results of this calculation are shown in Figure 6.4. This more detailed spatial consideration of the water stress permits the recognition of regional variations, which can not be detected just on a country base alone.

Figure 6.4. Water stress in Europe on a river basin base (Lehner et al., 2001).

0 20 40 60

Cyprus Bulgaria Malta Belgium Spain Germany Italy Turkey Poland France Denmark Portugal Czech Republic Greece Lithuania Estonia UK Netherlands Slovenia Hungary Switzerland Austria Romania Slovak Republic Ireland Finland Luxembourg Latvia Sweden Norway

Water Stress Index [%]

10 0 20 40 60

Water Stress Index [%]

“River basins identified to be experiencing severe water stress are - among others - the Don, the Seine, the Meuse, the Thames, as well as most river basins in South Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey. All in all, about one fifth of European river basin shows a water stress index higher than 40%, so that these areas can be classified as being under severe water stress. However, river basins may be in the severe water stress category for very different reasons” (Lehner et al., 2001). Whereas in south European countries, the irrigation water needs, combined with dry weather periods, can cause severe water stress, the numbers indicate, for some water-rich densely populated catchment areas, that the high demand for industrial use causes severe water stress.

However, statistics have to be interpreted carefully and it does not seem appropriate to compare water stress index figures of Belgium (43%) and Germany (28%) with those of Spain (30%) and Italy (24%), as can be read from Figure 6.3 (see Box 6.1).

As already mentioned, the water stress index varies considerably depending on the water uses and the wastewater treatment. In many countries, e.g. Belgium and Germany, the largest amount of water is withdrawn for cooling purposes in power plants. The only alteration in the quality of the discharged water is a slightly higher temperature, which make it possible to use the discharged water for other purposes. In other countries, most of the water is extracted for

‘consumptive uses’ (especially irrigation), so that it is not available any longer for other uses, and as a consequence there is a higher pressure on water resources (See Box 6.1).

Box 6.1 Can statistics tell lies?

Does Germany have a water stress similar to that in Spain, for example, as the water stress indexes in Figure 6.3 indicate? Everybody who knows these countries is surprised by this result. On the one hand, Germany with a green landscape and forests throughout the whole summer, and enough rain to almost abandon irrigation; on the other hand, the dry landscape of Spain, where millions of Germans spend their holidays each year because of the nice, rain-free weather and where intensive agriculture is not thinkable without irrigation. Why does this subjective difference not match the statistical data?

One key might be that the withdrawal data do not distinguish between ‘consumptive’ and ‘non-consumptive’ uses. Water extracted for consumptive uses - especially for irrigation, where it is evaporated by plants - is no longer available for other uses, and as a consequence puts higher pressure on water resources than non-consumptive uses like cooling in power plants, where most of the water is returned to the water body with almost no quality deterioration and can be used again.

The same is true for most municipal and industrial waters, which do not disappear by use but are returned to the rivers as (treated) wastewater and might be used again downstream.

In addition to the fact that water, after non-consumptive use, is still available and, as a result, puts less pressure on water resources, it has to be considered that in the published statistical data this amount of water is counted as ‘leaving the countries by rivers’ and, as a consequence, lowers the calculated water resources and increases the water stress index. As this example shows, the method for calculating water stress indexes is questionable and needs at least careful interpretation.

The numbers for Germany clearly illustrate this fact. Using the data of the FAO (the data of other sources e.g. Statistisches Bundesamt (2001) are up to 15% lower) the water stress index for Germany can be calculated as 31% by dividing the withdrawal of 47,050 Mm³/yr (Table 6.3) by the natural renewable water resources of 154,000 Mm³/yr (Table 6.2). The statistical yearbook of Germany states that about 26,000 Mm³/yr of the withdrawn water is cooling water (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2001) which is mainly returned immediately to the same water body from which it was taken. Subtracting the amount of cooling water, the water stress index would drop form 31%

to (47-26)/154 = 14%.

Table 6.4. Comparison between water resources and water withdrawal data of Germany and Spain.

Unit Germany Spain (Source)

Average precipitation (1961-90) IPCC

mm/year 700 636 1

total Mm³/yr 154,000 111,500 1

Natural renewable water resources

(NRWR) per capita m³/year 1,878 2,794 1

Population (available data in 2004)

10⁶ cap 82.43 40.34 2

total Mm³/yr 47,050 35,630 1

per capita m³/yr 574 883 1

agriculture (%) 20 68 1

industry (%) 68 19 1

Water withdrawals

withdrawals by sector (as a percentage of

total) domestic (%) 12 13 1

Computed water

stress index % 31 32 2

land area 1,000 km² 349.2 499.5 2

arable land % 34 26 2

arable land 1,000 km² 118.2 130.2 2

permanent crops % 0.59 9.87 2

year of the data est. 1998 est. 1998 2

km² 4,850 36,400 2

Land

irrigated area

irrigated to arable

land ratio (%) 4 28 1

Sources: 1: (FAO, 2005); 2: (The World Factbook, 2005)

In addition, 98% of the roughly 18,000 Mm³/yr of all industrial and municipal wastewaters are treated adequately and returned to the surface water. Together with the cooling water, these used waters amount to 44,000 Mm³/yr out of 47,000 Mm³/yr which are still available after they have been used. Statistically they might be counted twice, once as withdrawal and a second time as ‘leaving the country by rivers’.

Keeping that in mind, the water stress index of Germany would drop far below 5% and be in accordance with the feeling of the population and the experts, that Germany as a whole is a country with sufficient water. Nevertheless, regional differences and future developments mean it is necessary always to be alert as far as water resources are concerned.

In Table 6.4, water resources and water withdrawal data for Germany and Spain are compared.

As mentioned above, the computed water stress index for Spain (32%) is just slightly higher then for Germany (31%). But considering the irrigated land area and water use, a very large difference can be noted. Whereas in Germany 20% of the withdrawn water is used in agriculture (according to the data of FAO), in Spain the amount of water used for irrigation rises to 68%. This means that about two thirds of the withdrawn water are destined for ‘consumptive’ uses, so that they are not available any more and implying a high pressure on water resources.

Conclusion: statistics do not tell lies, but need to be carefully interpreted.

Figure 6.5 compares different water indexes such as:

• water stress index as computed on the basis of the data of the FAO (Figure 6.5A);

• water stress index as referred to in Bixio et al. (2005) (Figure 6.5B);

• water exploitation index WEI as referred to in EEA (2005) (Figure 6.5C);

• water exploitation index not considering water withdrawal for energy production (WEI - energy) (EEA 2005) (Figure 6.5D);

• water consumption index WCI (EEA 2005) (Figure 6.5E).

In Figure 6.5, the countries are ranked on the x-axis with decreasing water stress index as computed on the basis of the data of the FAO.

In the first three (A to C) diagrams of Figure 6.5, the y-axes are scaled to the same maximal value of 70%, whereas in the last two diagrams (D and E), the y-axes represent 20%

respectively to facilitate the comparison between the different indexes.

The water consumption index is the total water consumption divided by the long term freshwater resources of a country. It considers only the ‘consumptive uses’, also only those uses through which the water is really consumed, so that it is removed from the (liquid) water cycle, for example by evaporation in irrigated fields. This index highlights those regions where higher consumptive uses such agriculture are predominant. “For the purpose of this assessment it has been assumed that 80% of total water abstracted for agriculture, 20% for urban use, 20% for industry and 5% for energy production is consumed and not returned to the water bodies from where it was abstracted. These figures have been widely accepted, though they may vary by about 5 to 10% depending on the sectors and other factors. For example, actual consumption in agriculture, the largest water-consuming sector, depends on climatic conditions, crop composition and irrigation techniques. Energy is the least consuming sector, returning 95-97% of the abstracted water” (EEA, 2005).

It can be noted from the first three diagrams (A to C), that there are some relevant discrepancies in the water stress index according to different sources. This reflects the difficulty of obtaining trustworthy data about water resources and water withdrawal for the different countries. Another difficulty is the estimation of the water resources of bordering countries. “Inflows from boundary watersheds can add significant percentage up to the freshwater resources in a country, either as surface flow or as groundwater flow. In most cases, the availability of these external resources is regulated by treaties between the water-sharing countries. The correct allocation of the flow along borders is decisive in the water balance, since it is the main source of discrepancies when comparing data of water balances in neighbouring countries, particularly for those along the Rhine, Danube and Oder rivers”

(EEA, 2005).

Figure 6.5. Comparison between differently defined water indexes.

Bulgaria Belgium Germany Poland Denmark Czech Republic Romania Netherlands Hungary United Kingdom Switzerland Austria Finland Ireland Sweden Estonia Lithuania Latvia Norway Iceland Luxembourg Slovakia

Water Stress Index

no data no data no data no data

(A)

Water Stress Index

no data no data no data no data

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

In document México, exportador de miel a Alemania. (página 129-133)