Virtual Water and Water Footprint: A Case Study from Spain

(1)

Presentation

Presentation from the 2008 World Water Week in Stockholm

(2)

Stockholm Water Week 2008

Virtual Water and Water Footprint: From Theory to Practice

Virtual Water and Water Footprint: A

p y

Virtual

Water

and

Water

Footprint:

A

Case

Study

from

Spain

M. Ramón Llamas§

Alberto Garrido*, Maite M. Aldaya§_,_Paula_{Novo*,Roberto}

R d í C d * C l V l O t * Rodríguez Casado*, Consuelo Varela‐Ortega*

§_Universidad_Complutense,_Spain

*Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

(3)

•

Sylabus

Motivation

Objectives

Data

Results

(4)

Motivation

• _WF

₊

_VW

_are

_indicators

_that

_inform

_water

policy decisions

policy

decisions

• There

are

critical

issues

that

the

literature

has

covered

only

superficially:

– The Green‐blue water components,p , and droughtg

cycles

– Virtual water trade as water policy indicatorVirtual water trade as water policy indicator

• A

few

but

crucial

methodological

issues

i

hi h

WF VW

l

i

f

S

i

(5)

Objectives

1. Obtain

new

evaluations

of

WF

and

VW

at

lower

scale

(provincial)

and

for

different

years

2 Evaluate water scarcity in light of the

2. Evaluate

water

scarcity

in

light

of

the

evaluations

of

WF

and

VW

3. Distill

water

policy

and

farm

policy

lessons

(6)

Data sources

1. Area/yield of 93 crops, rainfed and irrigated, in each

province along 9 years (1997 2005) (Ministry of province along 9 years (1997‐2005) (Ministry of

Agriculture)

(

2. ETP evaluated for each crop, province and year (Allen

et al., 1998; INM, 2007)

3. Blue water estimated as a complement to available

(7)

Results

1. Comparisons from previous evaluations f

2. Spanish agricultural and livestock footprints 3. Agricultural Virtual Water Trade

4. Hydrological and economic water productivity

5 Does international agricultural trade increase water 5. Does international agricultural trade increase water

use in Spain?

6 Does agricultural footprint depend on water 6. Does agricultural footprint depend on water

scarcity??

i b i l i h G di

(8)

1. Comparisons from previous evaluations

Strong differences in agricultural water use and virtual water 'trade'...

Virtual water ‘trade’

(Mm3/year)

Agricultural Water Use (Mm3/year)

Exports Imports

Year 2003 25,6021 9,8611 24,1402

Chapagain y

Hoekstra3 50,570 17,440 27,110

Source: 1 Own elaboration; 2 MAPA (2005) and Chapagain y Hoekstra (2004) ; 3 Chapagain y Hoekstra (2004), 1997-2001

VIRTUAL WATER CONTENT (m3_/ton)

Our Work Chapagain y Hoekstra

Wh

...due to:

– Distinction between rainfed and

irrigated agriculture

Wheat 507 1227

Barley 434 1070

Maize 727 646

O 326 362

irrigated agriculture

– Different data sources

Orange 326 362

Tomato 93 53

Olive 496 3295

(9)

2. Agricultural Water footprint

45 000

Changes of in the Water footprint

35 000 40 000 45 000

Million m

3

Smaller footprint

25 000 30 000 35 000

Water footprint agriculture Virtual water exports livestock

15 000 20 000

Water footprint agriculture Virtual water exports livestock Water footrpint agricultural sector Virtual water imports livestock

5 000 10 000

Net exports

0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

(10)

3. Agricultural virtual water trade

25000 Virtual Water 'Imports' 25000

Virtual Water 'Exports'

Crops

15000 20000

p

Crops Products

Livestock Products

10000

Mm

3

10000

Mm

3

5000 5000

0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0

(11)

3. Agricultural Virtual Water trade

Virtual water exports Virtual water imports

5000 6000

Mm

3

p

25000 30000

Mm3

p

3000 4000

15000 20000

1000 2000

5000 10000

0 000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

year

0 5000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

year

Vineyard Vegetables Tuber

Pulse Olive Industrial crops

Fresh fruit Fodder Dry fruit

Coffee/tea Citrics Cereals

(12)

3. Agricultural Virtual Water trade

Virtual water exports Virtual water imports

25000 30000

Mm

3

p

25000 30000

Mm3

p

15000 20000

5000 10000

0 5000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

year

0 5000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

year

Vineyard Vegetables Tuber Pulse Olive Industrial crops Fresh fruit Fodder

Dry fruit Coffee/tea Citrics Cereals year

(13)

4. Water productivity and blue-green water use

4,0

14 000 ₃)

3,0 3,5 4,0 10 000 12 000 14 000 r use

(Mm3) Crop blue water use

Crop green water use

W t t d ti it vity

(€/m 3 2,0 2,5 6 000 8 000 10 000 Crop w a te

r _{Water apparent productivity}

(14)

5. Does international agricultural trade increase water use in Spainp ?

Agricultural and Livestock Exports _{Agricultural and Livestock Imports}

12000 15000 10000 12000 M€ (Mm 3) 7000 8000 9000 25000 30000 35000 M€ M m 3) 6000 9000 6000 8000 W

ater 'Exports' 4000

5000 6000 15000 20000 25000 a ter 'Im ports' (M 3000 2000 4000 Virtual W 1000 2000 3000 5000 10000 Virtual W a 0 0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Agricultural Virtual Water 'Exports' Livestock Virtual Water 'Exports'

0 0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Agricultural Virtual Water 'Imports' Livestock Virtual Water 'Imports' Livestock Virtual Water 'Exports'

Agricultural Exports Livestock Exports

Livestock Virtual Water Imports Agricultural Imports

(15)

6. Is agricultural footprint dependent on water scarcity?y

Mediterranean regions Mainland regions

Green and blue water apparent productivity in irrigated agriculture

.0

0

4 Mediterranean regions

.004

Mainland regions

Each dot, a province

.0 0 3 .0 0 3 (1997-2005)

R-squared = 0.3810

.0

0

2 R-squared = 0.0019

.0

0

2

R-squared = 0.1229

.0

0

1

R-squared = 0.0065

.001

0

0 .1 .2 .3 .4

Scarcity value (€/m3)

0

0 .1 .2 .3 .4

Scarcity value (€/m3)

Fitted values Fitted values

Crop blue water use 1000 m3/€ Crop green water use 1000 m3/€

Fitted values Fitted values

(16)

7. Regional analysis: the Guadiana Basin

Water Footprint analysis (green and blue), both from a hydrological and economic perspective, for the whole Guadiana basin in collaboration with the Portuguese Water Institute (INAG) within the NeWater project

Institute (INAG) within the NeWater project.

(17)

Agricultural use of water resources in the Guadiana (106 _m3_{/year) (2001)}

CÁCERES CUENCA TOLEDO 835 BADAJOZ ALBACETE CIUDAD

REAL UPPER GUADIANA

1286 93 835 905 745 142 ALBACETE CÓRDOBA MIDDLE GUADIANA 3 PROVINCES LOWER GUADIANA

FORMER LOWER GUADIANA II DOMAIN UPPER GUADIANA

MIDDLE GUADIANA

GREEN WATER BLUE SURFACE WATER BLUE GROUNDWATER SEVILLA HUELVA LOWER GUADIANA 21 103

0 25 50 100 150 200Km

FORMER LOWER GUADIANA II DOMAIN

(18)

Water consumption and economic value in the Guadiana Basin (2001)

GUADIANA RIVER BASIN*

Human population Green Water 106 3_/

Blue Water 106 3_/

Per capita

3_/ _/

GVA illi €

Blue water economic

productivity p p

106_m3_/year ₁₀6_m3_/year _m3_/cap/year _million_€ p y

€/m3_/year

1,417,810 Agricultural 2,212 1,827 2,849 1,096 0.6

Livestock 22 16 286 12.7

Urban 130 91 128 0.9

Industrial 20 14 1,557 77.9

Total 2,212 1,999 2,970 3,068 1.53

(19)

Conclusions

VW & WF inform water, trade & agricultural policies

1. VW alleviates and cushions drought cycles

2. Green vs. Blue water accountingg is essential to evaluate

VW+WF (composition varies with years and regions).

3. The ‘water scarcity’ paradigm should be revisited in light of