scholarly journals Unravelling the interplay between water and food systems in arid and semi-arid environments: the case of Egypt

Food Security ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga ◽  
Angel de Miguel Garcia ◽  
Gert-Jan Wilbers ◽  
Hanneke Heesmans ◽  
Rutger Dankers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Food System ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Intervention Strategy ◽  
Water Volume ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Production Distribution ◽  
Food Subsidy ◽  
Semi Arid

AbstractFood system analysis in arid and semi-arid countries inevitably meets water availability as a major constraining food system driver. Many such countries are net food importers using food subsidy systems, as water resources do not allow national food self-sufficiency. As this leaves countries in a position of dependency on international markets, prices and export bans, it is imperative that every domestic drop of water is used efficiently. In addition, policies can be geared towards ‘water footprints’, where water use efficiency is not just evaluated at the field level but also at the level of trade and import/export. In this paper, Egyptian food systems are described based on production, distribution and consumption statistics, key drivers and food system outcomes, i.e., health, sustainable land and water use, and inclusiveness. This is done for three coarsely defined Egyptian food systems: traditional, transitional and modern. A water footprint analysis then shows that for four MENA countries, differences occur between national green and blue water volumes, and the volumes imported through imported foods. Egypt has by far the largest blue water volume, but on a per capita basis, other countries are even more water limited. Then for Egypt, the approach is applied to the wheat and poultry sectors. They show opportunities but also limitations when it comes to projected increased water and food needs in the future. An intervention strategy is proposed that looks into strategies to get more out of the food system components production, distribution and consumption. On top of that food subsidy policies as well as smart water footprint application may lead to a set of combined policies that may lead to synergies between the three food system outcomes, paving the way to desirable food system transformation pathways.

Assessment of Water Footprint in Selected Crops: A State Level Appraisal

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-25
Author(s):  
Mohammad Suhail
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Large Fraction ◽  
State Level ◽  
Soil Survey ◽  
National Bureau ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water Consumption ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Green Component

Every commodity or goods has intake of water i.e. either in processing or furnished stage. Thus, the present study propensities macro-level (states-level) water footprint (WFP) assessment of selected eight crops namely, Wheat, Barley, Maize, Millets, Rice, Sorghum, Soybeans and Tea. The aim of present research is to assess water use in selected crops at field level. In addition, the spatial evaluation at state level also considered as one of the significant objective to understand regional disparity and/or similarly. Methodology and approach of assessment was adopted from Water Footprint Assessment Manual (2011). Data was collected from state Agricultural Directorate, National Bureau of Soil Survey and landuse, published reports and online database such as FAOSTAT, WMO, WFN, and agriculture census. Results show that green component of WFP contributes large fraction as about 72 percent, while blue and grey component amounted of about 19 and 9 percent of the total water consumption, respectively. Moreover, spatial variability of blue, green and grey among the states assimilated by soil regime and climate barriers. Supply of blue water is high where the region imparted to semi-arid or arid land. Consequently, a balanced approach between green and blue water use has been recommended in the present study to address increasing water demand in the future.

scholarly journals A spatially detailed blue water footprint of the United States economy

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 3007-3032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Rushforth ◽  
Benjamin L. Ruddell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Virtual Water ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Information Administration ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Consumptive Use ◽  
The Us ◽  
Per Capita

Abstract. This paper quantifies and maps a spatially detailed and economically complete blue water footprint for the United States, utilizing the National Water Economy Database version 1.1 (NWED). NWED utilizes multiple mesoscale (county-level) federal data resources from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the US Department of Energy (USDOE), and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to quantify water use, economic trade, and commodity flows to construct this water footprint. Results corroborate previous studies in both the magnitude of the US water footprint (F) and in the observed pattern of virtual water flows. Four virtual water accounting scenarios were developed with minimum (Min), median (Med), and maximum (Max) consumptive use scenarios and a withdrawal-based scenario. The median water footprint (FCUMed) of the US is 181 966 Mm3 (FWithdrawal: 400 844 Mm3; FCUMax: 222 144 Mm3; FCUMin: 61 117 Mm3) and the median per capita water footprint (FCUMed′) of the US is 589 m3 per capita (FWithdrawal′: 1298 m3 per capita; FCUMax′: 720 m3 per capita; FCUMin′: 198 m3 per capita). The US hydroeconomic network is centered on cities. Approximately 58 % of US water consumption is for direct and indirect use by cities. Further, the water footprint of agriculture and livestock is 93 % of the total US blue water footprint, and is dominated by irrigated agriculture in the western US. The water footprint of the industrial, domestic, and power economic sectors is centered on population centers, while the water footprint of the mining sector is highly dependent on the location of mineral resources. Owing to uncertainty in consumptive use coefficients alone, the mesoscale blue water footprint uncertainty ranges from 63 to over 99 % depending on location. Harmonized region-specific, economic-sector-specific consumption coefficients are necessary to reduce water footprint uncertainties and to better understand the human economy's water use impact on the hydrosphere.

scholarly journals The Actors, Rules and Regulations Linked to Export Horticulture Production and Access to Land and Water as Common Pool Resources in Laikipia County, Northwest Mount Kenya

Land ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariah Ngutu ◽  
Salome Bukachi ◽  
Charles Olungah ◽  
Boniface Kiteme ◽  
Fabian Kaeser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Systems ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Food System ◽  
Arid Zone ◽  
Rural Livelihoods ◽  
Common Pool Resources ◽  
Institutional Setting ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Common Pool ◽  
Semi Arid

Agriculture is the backbone of Kenya’s economy, supporting up to 80% of rural livelihoods. Kenya’s export horticulture is currently the leading agriculture subsector in Kenya and is regarded as an agro-industrial food system based on the economies of scale, producing for mass markets outside of the production area. Much of the food consumed from Kenya’s export horticulture sector has undergone multiple transformations and been subject to a host of formal and informal institutions (rules, regulations, standards, norms and values). Kenya’s export horticulture production, driven by rising global demands, has expanded beyond the ‘traditional’ mountainous high yielding areas into arid and semi-arid (ASALs) zones such as Laikipia County, Northwest of Mount Kenya. An anthropological study of export horticulture viewed as an agro-industrial food system in Laikipia County was carried out utilizing the new institutionalism theory in anthropology to explore the actors, rules and regulations linked to export horticulture production and access to common pool resources. The study employed qualitative data collection methods to collect data over an extended field work period of eight months. The data from 40 in-depth interviews complemented by unstructured observations, four focus group discussions and five key informant interviews was transcribed, coded and analyzed thematically based on the grounded theory approach. This paper, therefore, presents findings from the qualitative case study on the actors as well as the rules and regulations (the institutional settings) of export horticulture production and access to common pool resources from an emic perspective of the involved actors. The formal and informal rules and regulations which form the institutional setting in this food system are viewed as changing and defining the operations of the food system’s access and management of common pool resources, namely water and land. With the agro-industrial food system competing with local food systems such as agro-pastoralism and small holder agriculture for these scarce resources in a semi-arid zone, there is potential for conflict and reduced production, as well as overall benefits to the different actors in the study area.

scholarly journals Blue Water Footprints of Ontario Dairy Farms

Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 2230
Author(s):  
Mariam Al-Bahouh ◽  
Vern Osborne ◽  
Tom Wright ◽  
Mike Dixon ◽  
Andrew VanderZaag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Wash Water ◽  
Conservation Practices ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Plate Cooler ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Seasonal Water Use

The blue water footprint (WF) is an indicator of freshwater required to produce a given end product. Determining the blue WF for milk production, the seasonal water use and the impact of water conservation are important sustainability considerations for the dairy industry in Ontario (Canada). In this study, a water footprint network (WFN) method was used to calculate the seasonal blue WF’s from in-barn water use data and the fat–protein-corrected milk (FPCM) production. Various water conservation options were estimated using the AgriSuite software. Results showed that the total water use (L of water·cow−1·d−1) and the average blue WF (L of water·kg−1 of FPCM) were 246.3 ± 6.8 L·cow−1·d−1 and 7.4 ± 0.2 L·kg−1, respectively. The total water use and the blue WF could be reduced to 182.7 ± 5.1 L·cow−1·d−1 (25.8% reduction) and 5.8 ± 0.1 L·kg−1 (21.6% reduction), respectively, through adaptive water conservation measures as the reuse of the plate cooler and milk house water. For example, conservation practices could reduce the milk house wash water use from 74.3 ± 8.8 L·cow−1·d−1 to 16.6 ± 0.1 L·cow−1·d−1 (77.7% overall reduction).

scholarly journals A Spatially Detailed and Economically Complete Blue Water Footprint of the United States

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Rushforth ◽  
Benjamin L. Ruddell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
The United States ◽  
Irrigated Agriculture ◽  
Energy Information Administration ◽  
United States Geological Survey ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
The U.S

Abstract. This paper quantifies and maps a spatially detailed and economically complete blue water footprint for the United States, utilizing the National Water Economy Database version 1.1 (NWED). NWED utilizes multiple mesoscale federal data resources from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to quantify water use, economic trade, and commodity flows to construct this water footprint. Results corroborate previous studies in both the magnitude of the U.S. water footprint (F) and in the observed pattern of virtual water flows. The median water footprint (FCUMed) of the U.S. is 181 966 Mm3 (FWithdrawal: 400 844 Mm3; FCUMax: 222 144 Mm3; FCUMin: 61 117 Mm3) and the median per capita water footprint (F'CUMed) of the U.S. is 589 m3 capita−1 (F'Withdrawal: 1298 m3 capita−1; F'CUMax: 720 m3 capita−1; F'CUMin: 198 m3 capita−1). The U.S. hydro-economic network is centered on cities and is dominated by the local and regional scales. Approximately (58 %) of U.S. water consumption is for the direct and indirect use by cities. Further, the water footprint of agriculture and livestock is 93 % of the total U.S. water footprint, and is dominated by irrigated agriculture in the Western U.S. The water footprint of the industrial, domestic, and power economic sectors is centered on population centers, while the water footprint of the mining sector is highly dependent on the location of mineral resources. Owing to uncertainty in consumptive use coefficients alone, the mesoscale blue water footprint uncertainty ranges from 63 % to over 99 % depending on location. Harmonized region-specific, economic sector-specific consumption coefficients are necessary to reduce water footprint uncertainties and to better understand the human economy's water use impact on the hydrosphere.

Assessment of Water Footprint for Koshi River Basin (KRB), Nepal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raj Deva Singh ◽  
Kumar Ghimire ◽  
Ashish Pandey
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Green Water ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Green And Blue Water ◽  
Koshi River Basin

<p>Nepal is an agrarian country and almost one-third of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is dependent on agricultural sector. Koshi river basin is the largest basin in the country and serves large share on agricultural production. Like another country, Nepalese agriculture holds largest water use in agriculture. In this context, it is necessary to reduce water use pressure. In this study, water footprint of different crop (rice, maize, wheat, millet, sugarcane, potato and barley) have been estimated for the year 2005 -2014 to get the average water footprint of crop production during study period. CROPWAT model, developed by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2010b).</p><p>For the computation of the green and blue water footprints, estimated values of ET (the output of CROPWAT model) and yield (derived from statistical data) are utilised. Blue and green water footprint are computed for different districts (16 districts within KRB) / for KRB in different years (10 years from 2005 to 2014) and crops (considered 7 local crops). The water footprint of crops production for any district or basin represents the average of WF production of seven crops in the respective district or basin.</p><p>The study provides a picture of green and blue water use in crop production in the field and reduction in the water footprint of crop production by selecting suitable crops at different places in the field. The Crop, that has lower water footprint, can be intensified at that location and the crops, having higher water footprint, can be discontinued for production or measure for water saving technique needs to be implemented reducing evapotranspiration. The water footprint of agriculture crop production can be reduced by increasing the yield of the crops. Some measures like use of an improved variety of seed, fertilizer, mechanized farming and soil moisture conservation technology may also be used to increase the crop yields.</p><p>The crop harvested areas include both rainfed as well as irrigated land. Agricultural land occupies 22% of the study area, out of which 94% areas are rainfed whereas remaining 6% areas are under irrigation. The study shows 98% of total water use in crop production is due to green water use (received from rainfall) and remaining 2 % is due to blue water use received from irrigation (surface and ground water as source). Potato has 22% blue water proportion and contributes 85% share to the total blue water use in the basin. Maize and rice together hold 77% share of total water use in crops production. The average annual water footprint of crop production in KRB is 1248 cubic meter/ton having the variation of 9% during the period of 2005-2014. Sunsari, Dhankuta districts have lower water footprint of crop production. The coefficient of variation of water footprint of millet crop production is lower as compared to those of other crops considered for study whereas sugarcane has a higher variation of water footprint for its production.</p>

scholarly journals The water use of Indian diets and socio-demographic factors related to dietary blue water footprint

2017 ◽  
Vol 587-588 ◽  
pp. 128-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Harris ◽  
Rosemary F Green ◽  
Edward J M Joy ◽  
Benjamin Kayatz ◽  
Andy Haines ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Demographic Factors ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Socio Demographic Factors

Successes and Problems with Measuring Water Consumption in Beef Systems

2019 ◽  
pp. 651-670
Author(s):  
Mieghan Bruce ◽  
Camille Bellet ◽  
Jonathan Rushton
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Multiple Uses ◽  
Large Water ◽  
Efficient Water Use ◽  
Livestock Systems

Beef production is considered to have a large water footprint, with values ranging from 3.3 to 75,000 L H20/kg. The water consumption in beef production is primarily associated with feed, estimated to be about 98%, with other requirements representing less than 1%. However, beef production is a complex system where cattle are often raised in different areas using a range of resources over their lifetime. This complexity is demonstrated using three countries with very different environments and production systems, namely Australia, Brazil, and Kenya. To achieve efficient water use in beef systems, and food systems more generally, a classification system that reflects how animals are managed, slaughtered, and processed is required. Methods for assessing water use in livestock systems, from production to consumption, need to be standardized, whilst also including the alternative uses, multiple uses, and benefits of a certain resource in a specific location.

scholarly journals Assessing blue and green water utilisation in wheat production of China from the perspectives of water footprint and total water use

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 3165-3178 ◽  
Author(s):  
X. C. Cao ◽  
P. T. Wu ◽  
Y. B. Wang ◽  
X. N. Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Yangtze River ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Wheat Yield ◽  
Green Water ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Wheat Production ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Wheat Product

Abstract. The aim of this study is to estimate the green and blue water footprint (WF) and the total water use (TWU) of wheat crop in China in both irrigated and rainfed productions. Crop evapotranspiration and water evaporation loss are both considered when calculating the water footprint in irrigated fields. We compared the water use for per-unit product between irrigated and rainfed crops and analyzed the relationship between promoting the yield and conserving water resources. The national total and per-unit-product WF of wheat production in 2010 were approximately 111.5 Gm3 (64.2% green and 35.8% blue) and 0.968 m3 kg−1, respectively. There is a large difference in the water footprint of the per-kilogram wheat product (WFP) among different provinces: the WFP is low in the provinces in and around the Huang–Huai–Hai Plain, while it is relatively high in the provinces south of the Yangtze River and in northwestern China. The major portion of WF (80.9%) comes from irrigated farmland, and the remaining 19.1% is rainfed. Green water dominates the area south of the Yangtze River, whereas low green water proportions are found in the provinces located in northern China, especially northwestern China. The national TWU and total water use of the per-kilogram wheat product (TWUP) are 142.5 Gm3 and 1.237 m3 kg−1, respectively, containing approximately 21.7% blue water percolation (BWp). The values of WFP for irrigated (WFPI) and rainfed (WFPR) crops are 0.911 and 1.202 m3 kg−1, respectively. Irrigation plays an important role in food production, promoting the wheat yield by 170% and reducing the WFP by 24% compared to those of rainfed wheat production. Due to the low irrigation efficiency, more water is needed per kilogram in irrigated farmland in many arid regions, such as the Xinjiang, Ningxia and Gansu Provinces. We divided the 30 provinces of China into three categories according to the relationship between the TWUPI (TWU for per-unit product in irrigated farmland) and TWUPR (TWU for per-unit product in rainfed farmland): (I) TWUPI < TWUPR, (II) TWUPI = TWUPR, and (III) TWUPI > TWUPR. Category II, which contains the major wheat-producing areas in the North China Plain, produces nearly 75% of the wheat of China. The double benefits of conserving water and promoting production can be achieved by irrigating wheat in Category I provinces. Nevertheless, the provinces in this category produce only 1.1% of the national wheat yield.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document