Arjen Hoekstra: 'Fair Sharing of Water Resources is Key'

Prof. Arjen Hoekstra  wrote his analysis ‘How to reduce our water footprint to a sustainable level’ in ‘UN Chronicle’.

To really do something about our massive overconsumption of water, we should limit the strain we put on rivers and freshwater basins. Information on the water use of our products should be transparent and clear. And in the end, individual citizens would have to change their lifestyle fundamentally. Taking shorter showers simply is not enough. Prof Arjen Hoekstra of the University of Twente, wrote an analysis on this in UN Chronicle, the magazine of the United Nations, on World Water Day.

Rivers such as the Yellow River and Colorado River don’t even meet the ocean anymore, lakes like the Aral Sea and the Lake Urmia dry out: a water crisis has been in the top five risks to the global economy, for many years now. Half a billion people face severe water scarcity, all year round. Two thirds of the world population live under conditions of water scarcity at least one month of the  year.

PURPLE WATER 
“We live in a rainy country, and thus there is no water scarcity, you would say. But 40 percent of our water footprint is outside Europe, often in areas with severe water scarcity”, says Arjen Hoekstra, Professor of Water Management at the University of Twente. In particular, for our daily food, a lot of water is needed: a 200 gram steak takes 3000 liter, a 200 gram chocolate bar 3400 liter. Our clothes often come from countries suffering from severe water scarcity, like China and Bangladesh. There, it is even worse: the water isn’t just consumed but also polluted: “In Bangladesh, the water appears red, purple or deep blue, depending on the latest fashion in the West.”

How do we reach a water footprint that is sustainable, then? According to Hoekstra, we have to put a maximum on the amount of water we extract from the catchments in the world. Dry seasons have to be taken into account, as well as water needed for the natural ecosystem. Water pollution is also a factor: water that returns to the system after it has been cleaned, has no effect on the water footprint.

LIFESTYLE

Apart from this, benchmarks are important, according to Hoekstra: especially for products that require a lot of water, like food, beverages, clothes, flowers and bioenergy. Can the production chain be altered, in order to reduce water consumption? Transparent information about the water foot print of products will help consumers make responsible choices. Save water campaigns are often about taking shorter showers or choosing another programme on your washing machine. In effect, this is just a few percent of our daily water consumption. Another way of living, eating less meat for example, will be far more effective.

40 PERCENT REDUCTION 

A fair use of water is needed as well. In the United States and the South of Europe, citizens use twice the amount of water of the global average. Hoekstra: “If we want to stabilize our water foot print, the average annual consumption has to go from 1385 cubic meter to 835 in the year 2100, taking population growth into account.” In practice, this implies that the American citizen has to do with only 30 percent of his or her current consumption. Even in countries with water scarcity like China and India, consumption has to be reduced by over 20 percent, while at this moment it is rising sharply. It is a discussion that will give rise to sharp debates, just like the ones on climate changes, but this is the time to start, says Hoekstra.

The research of Hoekstra and his colleagues is an example of the UT research theme 'Engineering for a resilient world': how can technology help the world in dealing with risks in a sustainable way? 

Source: University of Twente

Media

Taxonomy

• Resource Management
• Water Access
• Water Resource Management
• Freshwater
• Access
• Consumption
• Water Resource Management

5 Comments

1. Thank you. I am a big fan of Arjen's work. I agree with Mr Ian Pearson to release pressures en strategic resources and I really enjoyed Guy's comparison with the air mask in planes. 

   Please allow me to add 1 point correlating all of you: some wastewater are easier to recycle than others, treated wastewater can even have a negative cost if coming from wastewater that generated energy, fertilisers or other profitable by-products. It is therefore important that some micro-pollutants and other noxious products are simply forbiden to be used because of heavy related costs to treat them (when possible). But forbidden them is almost an utopia so  at http://www.pranasustainablewater.ch/en/index.php  we work on the monetisation of wastewater resources when supplied with certain qualities and in the frame of wastewater infrastructures financed through the commoditisation of treated wastewater (there is still more than 80% of wastewater untreated at global level). The drastic changes in industrial processes must therefore involve also the content of products ending in wastewater. Isn't for example a non sense to pay fully biodegradable detergents more expensive than the one requiring more energy and money to be recycled (when possible if not costs on health and on the ecosystems must be added)?

   If the presently 85% of untreated wastewater are recycled while generating for example energy reducing the water//energy nexus, the water footprints might be the same as today (even if I push for more crops/productions per drops), the global water picture can change not because of wastewater generating revenues but because wastewater reuse would add value when adequate content.

   W2AREX (WasteWater Reuse Exchange) monetisation of wastewater is to influence the valorisation of its content at each wastewater reuse,  push the release of pressure on strategic resources and increase access to sanitation (thanks to the commoditisation of treated wastewater more wastewater valorisation infrastructures should take place)

   valerie@pranasustainablewater.ch 

   1 Comment reply

   1. Nicely stated Valerie. Allow me to fill in the blanks. When doing natural bioremediation there are zero leftover wastes. All compounds have different parameters. 40 years doing this and we are still at Zero. Any and all perceived toxins are naturally chelated into their elemental nutritional state.  One thing is clear. (thank you for bringing it to our attention) So few are even attempting to clean and or recycle their waste water. At this point in time I most certainly do support all efforts in this direction.  No worries. Nature always wins in the end.

2. Excellent point Ian: These comment sections are too short to explain all. May I bring to your attention current technology allows for all industrial waste and waste water to be bioremediated insitu.  This is my area of expertise.  In short all natural elements on the periodic table are nutrients. Each provides an essential ingredient to one of life's basic functions.  Natural forming compounds will be naturally  decomposed. But chlorinated hydrocarbons are much more difficult. This requires an RNA microbial group. Since this microbe has been around for 3 to 4 billion years I think it has a great track record.  It is time to stop government interference in all things we need to live and release the technologies that we already know will eliminate every single environmental problem we have.   FYI the cost of industrial bioremediation currently is $150.00 per a 300,000 waste treatment tank.  This would be 20 cents a gallon. But calculate the cost and treatment of fresh water and the elimination of the infrastructure to bring it to the industrial facility. ($150 is retail. wholesale near $15).  Good observational skills Ian. Cheers!

    

3. Hi Guy, you make some excellent suggestions, but I think you missed one of the main issues that Prof Arjen was making, we have to start making drastic changes in industrial (especially food production) processes.  This is where a strong focus needs to be placed.  Instead of using water once and discharging it to the sewers, industry needs to both reduced water needs and find ways to use water 3 or 4 times before discharging.  This is all possible, but at a cost which will be need to be passed on to the consumer.  So with higher priced but water efficient food production, we will all of necessity eat less meat and chocolate (aaah - my wife will complain about the chocolate).

4. In Pakistan we are also facing the same problem "Over consumption,spillage from Pipelines and going waste in Arabian sea in case of flood conditions. Moreover in Pakistan we are not doing Desalination & Recycling.Rivers being polluted as untreated water being drained in the stream.

5. This article was almost believable until using the word "fair".  Currently the earths fresh water supply is 23,087 gallons per day per person for an average of 72 years life expectancy. I feel enough hype has been given to agenda and now back to reality.  Allowing any government agency to have control of anything you need to survive is suicidal.  They must be reminded you control machines and lead people. Not the other way around. We have already been given the tools to resolve this perceived situation. First obvious action is to decentralize. 1. collect rain water, 2. filter for given use, 3. storage for at least 2 years, 4. prepare a victory garden to receive all future compost, 5. build a greenhouse onto your home, 6.install a bioreactor or biodigester, 7. add a biogenerator for part of your alternative energy needs, 8. Pump and dump, add natures microbes to do their job, eliminate all odor, all pathogens, make electricity, compost for your garden, and potable water for your home.  I believe this puts your "footprint" at ZERO.  Just like an airline safety briefing. "when loss of cabin pressure oxygen mask will drop from overhead. You must secure your mask first and then assist others with theirs.  Common sense costs nothing. Being "fair" will cost you everything you own. Even your dreams.