Virtual water export during drought - what are sustainable solutions?

Joe S. Whitworth writes:
The United States is the third largest exporter of water in the world -- a wild thought against the backdrop of a national drought.

To read the full article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-s-whitworth/water-footprint_b_1775976.html

Regarding consumption, import and export of virtual water, please take a look at this fabulous info graphic published in Scientific American:

http://www.waterfootprint.org/downloads/2012-06-ScientificAmerican.jpg

as well as the graphic published in the Guardian:

http://www.waterfootprint.org/downloads/2012-TheGuardian-VirtualWaterFlows.gif

Some try to find sustainable solutions, e.g. farming without water

http://www.cuesa.org/article/farming-without-water

Are there other solutions you can think of?

4 Answers

1. Comprehensive study on international virtual water flows and national and global water savings as a result of trade Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011) quantify and map the water footprints of nations from both a production and consumption perspective and estimate international virtual water flows and national and global water savings as a result of trade. The entire estimate includes a breakdown of water footprints, virtual water flows and water savings into their green, blue and grey components. The main finding of the study can be summarized as: - The global water footprint in the period 1996-2005 was 9087 Gm3/yr (74% green, 11% blue, 15% grey). Agricultural production contributes 92% to this total footprint. - About one fifth of the global water footprint relates to production for export. - The total volume of international virtual water flows related to trade in agricultural and industrial products was 2320 Gm3/yr (68% green, 13% blue, 19% grey). Trade in crop products contributes 76% to the total volume of international virtual water flows; trade in animal and industrial products contribute 12% each. As a global average, the blue and grey shares in the total water footprint of internationally traded products are slightly larger than in the case of domestically consumed products. - Mexico and Spain are the two countries with the largest national blue water savings as a result of trade. - The global water saving as a result of trade in agricultural products in the period 1996-2005 was 369 Gm3/yr (59% green, 27% blue, 15% grey), which is equivalent to 4% of the global water footprint related to agricultural production. The global blue water saving is equivalent to 10% of the global blue water footprint related to agricultural production, which indicates that virtual water importing countries generally depend more strongly on blue water for crop production than the virtual water exporting countries. The largest global water saving (53%) is due to trade in cereal crops, followed by oil crops (22%) and animal products (15%). - International trade in industrial products can be associated with an increased global water footprint that is equivalent to 4% of the global water footprint related to industrial production. - The water footprint of the global average consumer in the period 1996-2005 was 1385 m3/yr. About 92% of the water footprint is related to the consumption of agricultural products, 5% to the consumption of industrial goods, and 4% to domestic water use. - The average consumer in the US has a water footprint of 2842 m3/yr, while the average citizens in China and India have water footprints of 1071 m3/yr and 1089 m3/yr respectively. - Consumption of cereal products gives the largest contribution to the water footprint of the average consumer (27%), followed by meat (22%) and milk products (7%). The contribution of different consumption categories to the total water footprint varies across countries. - The volume and pattern of consumption and the water footprint per ton of product of the products consumed are the main factors determining the water footprint of a consumer. In their study Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011) illustrate the global dimension of water consumption and pollution by showing that several countries heavily rely on water resources elsewhere (for example Mexico depending on virtual water imports from the US) and that many countries have significant impacts on water consumption and pollution elsewhere (for example Japan and many European countries due to their large external water footprints). To download the main report: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report50-NationalWaterFootprints-Vol1.pdf and the appendices: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report50-NationalWaterFootprints-Vol2.pdf and the data: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterStat-VirtualWaterFlows Reference: Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011) National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption, Value of Water Research Report Series No.50, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands. available at http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterStat-VirtualWaterFlows

2. An example where the sustainability aspects have not been considered yet: cotton export from the Murray-Darling basin in Australia. To read the article, go to: http://www.news.com.au/national/irrigation-water-shipped-overseas-as-cotton-crop-consumes-twice-cubbies-entitlement/story-fndo4dzn-1226477632774

3. Virtual water export issue and solutions to it has many faces. In recent years, dry farming has become a buzz term in the wine industry. Wine grape growers and other viniculture professionals understand the purpose and value of dry farming, but many casual wine enthusiasts don't. Farmers should understand that dry farming is considered a sustainable agricultural practice because it doesn't deplete water resources which can already be lacking in dry, grape-growing regions. It will be a good step in reducing the water foot prints. But its hard to practice by farmers as the production is uncertain some times.

4. related to this you may consider reading the article by Charles Fishman that appeared 16 August 2012 in the New York Times: Don't waste the drought "... Though the drought has devastated corn crops and disrupted commerce on the Mississippi River, it also represents an opportunity to tackle long-ignored water problems and to reimagine how we manage, use and even think about water... ...But just as the oil crisis of the 1970s spurred advances in fuel efficiency, so should the Drought of 2012 inspire efforts to reduce water consumption... ...We also need to rethink where we grow crops. Rice farmers in Texas have howled about having their irrigation water cut off. Rice farming? In Texas? Based on rainfall patterns and projections, we need to be brutally realistic about what kind of crops we should be growing, and where... ...The pain of this drought, a slow-motion disaster, is very real. Drought can lead to paralysis and pessimism — or it can inspire us to fundamentally change how we use water. Water doesn’t respond to wishful thinking. If it did, prayer services and rain dances would be all we’d need." link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/opinion/dont-waste-this-drought.html?_r=1&hp