Can the water footprint contribute to climate change...

International Conference Adapt to ClimateNicosia, Cyprus28 March 2014

Can the water footprint contribute to climate change adaptation strategies?

Christos Zoumides a, Adriana Bruggeman b & Theodoros Zachariadis a

a Department of Environmental Science & Technology, Cyprus University of Technologyb Energy, Environment and Water Research Center, The Cyprus Institute

What is the water footprint?

An indicator of water use (m3/year) introduced by Hoekstra in 2003 most studies focus on agriculture as the highest water using

sector Builds on two concepts that distinguish it from traditional

water use indicators

virtual water trade concept introduced by Allan in the 1990s

differentiates between the two types of water engaged in biomass production green & blue water

Crop water use

In arid and semi-arid regions, the greatest proportion of incoming precipitation returns to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration (80-90% in Cyprus)

Blue water refers to the “usable” remainder of the incoming precipitation, which flows in streams and is stored in lakes, dams or aquifers high opportunity cost

Green water originates from precipitation and refers to the water stored in the soil as soil moisture, which returns to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration

The water requirement of crops refers to the total amount of water that is needed to produce crops and is satisfied by green and/or blue water

Crop water requirements vary depending on the climate, type of crop, type of soil etc.

Contents

Water footprint of crop production (1995-2009) year-to-year analysis to capture the impact of climate variability distinguish the type crop water use (green vs. blue); spatial and temporal variations on CWU & yield; composition of crop water use; economic productivity of crop water use

The water footprint of supply utilisation internal vs. external (import dependency vs. sufficiency) supply utilization virtual water exports

Blue water scarcity index Conclusion

Methodology

Total crop water use computed using the spatiotemporally explicit model developed by Bruggeman et al. (2011) daily soil water balances which calculated the water use of all

crop systems at community level in Cyprus (1980-2009) adjusted for 1995-2009 (Zoumides et al. 2012, 2013)

The model follows the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient approach for computing crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and scheduling irrigation (Allen et al. 1998)

The model distinguishes the crop’s use of precipitation (green) and irrigation water (blue)

Model Input Data

Climate variables: daily data from 34 stations and 70 rain gauges (CMS)

Area & production: annual data spatially adjusted to 431 communities based on 2003 agr. census (Cystat)

No. of Crop: 83 crop production systems Crop parameters: Allen et al. (1998), adjusted to

local conditions and irrigation practices (Markou & Papadavid , 2007)

Soil Properties: Hadjiparaskevas (2005); FAO et al. (2009); ESBN (2005)

Climate variables

Source: Zoumides et al. (2012)

Irrigated vs. Rainfed cropland

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Har

vest

ed C

rop

Are

a(h

a ×

103 )

Irrigated Rrainfed

Source: Zoumides et al. (2012), based on Cystat (1997-2010)

Crop production water footprint


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Precipitation(m

m)

Wat

er F

ootp

rint c

rop

prod

uctio

n(M

m3 /

yr)

CWU blue [IR] CWU green [IR] CWU green [RF] Precipitation

Crop water footprint composition (avg.)


187 Mm3/yr37%

319 Mm3/yr63%

506Mm3/year

Cereals40%

Roots3%

Pulses1%

Nuts4%

Oil crops8%

Veg.3%

Fruits22%

Fodder19%

Tobacco0%

Cereals2%Roots8%

Pulses1%

Nuts5%

Oil crops14%

Veg. 9%

Fruits53%

Fodder8%

Tobacco0%

Economic value & productivity


0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

1,25

0

100

200

300

40019

95

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Water Econom

ic Productivity (€2009 /m

3)

Gro

ss E

cono

mic

Val

ue cr

op p

rodu

ctio

n (€

2009

mill

ion)

GEV blue water [IR] GEV green water [IR] GEV Green [RF]Blue WEP [IR] Green WEP [RF+IR]

Effects of climate variability

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry

Rainfed Irrigated Weightedaverage

Yield (ton/ha)

virtu

al w

ater

con

tent

(m3 /

ton)

Barley

Green VWC

Blue VWC

Yield

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

50

100

150

200

Wet Dry

Irrigated

Yield (ton/ha)

virtu

al w

ater

con

tent

(m3 /

ton)

Potatoes

Green VWC

Blue VWC

Yield

0

5

10

15

0

200

400

600

800

Wet Dry

Irrigated

Yield (ton/ha)

virtu

al w

ater

con

tent

(m3 /

ton)

Oranges

Green VWC

Blue VWC

Yield

0

5

10

15

20

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Wet Dry

Irrigated

Yield (ton/ha)

virtu

al w

ater

con

tent

(m3 /

ton)

Alfalfa

Green VWCBlue VWCYield


Spatiotemporal variations


Water, Trade and Supply Utilization

ProductionDomestic Exports

-

Internal Water Footprint

ImportsForeign Exports

-

External Water Footprint+

Total Water Footprintor

Total Available Water Supply

Food Feed Seed Processing Waste Other Util.

Input Data

Trade data: Combined Nomenclature (8-digit) (Cystat, 1997-2010) more than 1400 traded commodities, standardized in 285 crop products

Conversion coefficients per country: FAO (2003) and Eurostat (2008)

External WF: global crop water use assessment by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011)

Supply Utilisation Accounts: FAOSTAT (2013) and Cystat (1997-2010)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Per

capi

ta W

ater

Foo

tprin

t cro

p su

pply

(m

3 /ca

p/ye

ar)

Internal WF per capita External WF per capita Total WF per capita (b)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Tota

l Wat

er F

ootp

rint c

rop

supp

ly

(Mm

3 /ye

ar)

Total Blue Water Footprint Total Green Water Footprint

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009


Tota

l Wat

er F

ootp

rint c

rop

supp

ly

Internal Blue WF External Blue WF Internal Green WF External Green WF

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009


Tota

l Wat

er F

ootp

rint c

rop

supp

ly

Food Feed Other Food Feed Other

(a)

(c) (d)

Total crop water footprint


Virtual water trade


Virtual water exports

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0

50

100

150

20019

95

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% of W

ater Footprint productionDom

estic

Exp

orts

(Mm

3 /ye

ar)

Blue Water Green Water % WFprod blue % WFprod green


Blue water scarcity index

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Precipitation (mm

)

Blue

Wat

er S

carc

ity In

dex

Precipitation (mm) Blue Water Scarcity Index

Blue Water Scarcity Index (No Exports) Blue Water Sustainability Threshold


Summary

On average, crop production relies 63% on green & 37% on blue water irrigated crops provide higher revenue than rainfed crops, but… green water is the major component of total crop water use despite the low economic productivity, rainfed crops are productively

using this water source that would have otherwise being lost Highly variable precipitation

significant impact on crop water use and yield determines the availability of blue water resources and crop supply existing crop matrix and climatic conditions unsustainable blue

water exploitation index groundwater overpumping Virtual water trade and supply utilisation

net losses on blue water fruit and potato exports net gains on green water mainly in cereals and oil crops that are

used for feed high meat and dairy consumption

Water footprint & climate adaptation

“Water footprint is highly valuable as an awareness-raising, educational and advocacy tool that leads to better understanding of water impacts and can demonstrate the case for better water management.

As part of a framework of climate impact assessment it can help […] to assess the ability of hydrological systems to meet the demands being placed upon them.

Water footprint assessments should be recognized as the basis upon which water adaptation policies can be formulated: changing crop varieties; providing incentives for production and consumption with lower water

demands; developing robust IWRM plans that manage the competing demands on

water resources within environmental constraints. All countries should conduct sectoral water footprints studies”

Global Public Policy Network on Water Management (2009:11)

Conclusion

The set of indicators applied facilitates an improved understanding of the trade-offs between different policy objectives.

The water footprint provides a renewed perspective and additional information regarding water management

Adaptation policies adjust crop production systems based on the availability of land and water resources, in the light of climate change

Informed contribution towards more sustainable consumption patterns food-water nexus.

Policy options for crop production systems under climate change National Level AGWATER project (2012-2014) European level COST Action ES1106 EURO-AGRIWAT (2012-

2016)

Reference

Bruggeman, A., Zoumides, C., Pashiardis, S., Hadjinicolaou, P., Lange, A. M. and Zachariadis, T. (2011). Effect of climate variability and climate change on crop production and water resources in Cyprus. MANRE, Nicosia.

Zoumides, C., Bruggeman, A. and Zachariadis T. (2012). “Global versus local crop water footprints: the case of Cyprus”, in Zhang et al (eds.) Solving the Water Crisis: Common Action Toward a Sustainable Water Footprint. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 60, UNESCO-IHE, pp. 7-27. Delft, the Netherlands.

Zoumides, C., Bruggeman, A., Zachariadis, T. and Pashiardis, S. (2013). Quantifying the poorly known role of groundwater in agriculture: the case of Cyprus. Water Resources Management 27, pp. 2501-2514.

Zoumides, C., Bruggeman, A., Hadjikakou, M. and Zachariadis, T. (2014). Policy-relevant indicators for semi-arid nations: The water footprint of crop production and supply utilization of Cyprus. Ecological Indicators 43, pp. 205-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.012

AGWATER http://www.cyi.ac.cy/climatechangeandimpact-ongoing/item/613-agwater-options-for-sustainable-agricultural-production-and-water-use-in-cyprus-under-global-change.html

EURO-AGRIWAT http://www.cost-es1106.eu/

Thank YouChristos Zoumides

Research Fellow / PhD CandidateDept. of Environmental Science & Technology

Cyprus University of Technology

P.O. Box 503293603 Lemessos, CyprusTel. +357 9987 3748

Email: [email protected]

Can the water footprint contribute to climate change...

Documents

Transcript of Can the water footprint contribute to climate change...