Presentation Presentation from the 2008 World Water Week in Stockholm ©The Author(s), all rights reserved Stockholm Water Week 2008 Virtual Water and Water Footppyrint: From Theory to Practice

Virtual Water and Water Footprint: A Case Study from Spain M. Ramón Llamas§ Alberto Garrido*, Maite M. Aldaya §, Paula Novo*,Roberto RdíRodríguez Cd*Casado*, ClConsuelo VVlarela‐OtOrtega *

§ Universidad Complutense, Spain *Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

Project Funded by • Sylabus

Motivation Objectives Data Results Discussion Motivation • WF + VW are indicators that inform water policy decisions • There are critical issues that the literature has covered only superficially: – The Green‐blue water compp,onents, and drought cycles – Virtual water trade as water policy indicator • A few but crucial methodological issues question hit herto WF+VW evaliluations for SSipain 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 evaluations of WF and VW 3. Distill water policy and farm policy lessons drawn from the WF and VW Data sources

1. Area/yield of 93 crops, rainfed and irrigated, in each 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 green water and checked with Water Authorities 4. Trade of all crop products and years (MITYC, 2007) Results

1. Comparisons from previous evaluations 2. Spanish agricultural and livestock footprints 3. Agricultural Virtual Water Trade 4. Hydrological and economic water productivity 5. Does international agricultural trade increase water use in Spain? 6. Does agricultural footprint depend on water scarcity?? 7. River bibasin analliysis: the GGdiuadiana case 1. Comparisons from previous evaluations

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

Agricultural Water Virtual water ‘trade’ (Mm3/year) 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 Our Work Chapagain y CONTENT (m3/ton) Hoekstra Wheat 507 1227 ...due to: Barley 434 1070 – Distinction between rainfed and Maize 727 646 irrigated agriculture Orange 326 362 – Different data sources Tomato 93 53 Olive 496 3295

Source: Chapagain y Hoekstra (2004), 1997-2001 and own elaboration, 2003 2. Agricultural Water footprint

Changes of in the Water footprint

3 45 000 Smaller 40 000 footprint Million m

35 000

30 000

25 000 Water footprint agriculture Virtual water exports livestock

20 000 Water footrpint agricultural sector Virtual water imports livestock

15 000

10 000 Net exports

5 000

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year 3. Agricultural virtual water trade

Virtual Water 'Exports' Virtual Water 'Imports' 25000 25000

Crops 20000 20000 Crops Products Livestock Products

15000 15000 3 3 Mm Mm

10000 10000

5000 5000

0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 3. Agricultural Virtual Water trade

Virtual water exports Virtual water imports 6000

30000 Mm3

5000 Mm3 25000

4000 20000

3000 15000

2000 10000

1000 5000

0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 year year Vineyard Vegetables Tuber Pulse Olive Industrial crops Fresh fruit Fodder Dry fruit Coffee/tea Citrics Cereals 3. Agricultural Virtual Water trade

Virtual water exports Virtual water imports 30000

30000 Mm3 25000 Mm3 25000

20000 20000

15000 15000

10000 10000

5000 5000

0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 year Vineyard Vegetables Tuber Pulse Vineyard Vegetables Tuber Pulse

Olive Industrial crops Fresh fruit Fodder Olive Industrial crops Fresh fruit Fodder year Dry fruit Coffee/tea Citrics Cereals Dry fruit Coffee/tea Citrics Cereals 4. Water productivity and blue-green water use

14 000 4,0 ) 33

12 000 Crop blue water use 3,5 Crop green water use 3,0 use (Mm3) 10 000 vity (€/m rr WtWater apparent prod ucti tiitvity 2,5 8 000 2,0 Crop wate t producti

6 000 nn 1,5

4 000 1,0

2 000 050,5 er appare wat

0 0,0 Blue 5. Does international agricultural trade increase water use in Spain?

Agricultural and Livestock Exports Agricultural and Livestock Imports

12000 15000 35000 9000 M€ M€ 8000

) 10000 30000 3

12000 ) 3 7000 m (Mm

MM 25000 8000 6000 9000 20000 5000 6000 15000 4000

ater 'Exports' 6000 ter 'Imports' ter 'Imports' ( aa WW 4000 3000 10000 3000 2000 Virtual 2000 Virtual W 5000 1000

0 0 0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Agricultural Virtual Water 'Exports' Agricultural Virtual Water 'Imports' Livestock Virtual Water 'Exports' Livestock Virtual Water 'Imports' Agricultural Exports Agricultural Imports Livestock Exports Livestock Imports 6. Is agricultural footprint dependent on water scarcity? Green and blue water apparent productivity in irrigated agriculture

Mediterranean regions regions Mainland regions regions .004 .004 Each dot, a province (1997-2005) .003 .003

R-squared = 0.0019 .002 R-squared = 0.3810 .002 .001 .001

R-squared = 0.0065 R-squared = 0.1229 0 0 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 Scarcity value (€/m3) Scarcity value (€/m3)

Fitted values Crop blue water use 1000 m3/€ Fitted values Crop blue water use 1000 m3/€ Fitted values Crop green water use 1000 m3/€ Fitted values Crop green water use 1000 m3/€ 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.

Source: CHG (2008) 7. Regional analysis: the Guadiana Basin Agricultural use of water resources in the Guadiana (106 m3/year) (2001)

CUENCA CÁCERES TOLEDO

835 1286 142 93 745 905 CIUDAD UPPER GUADIANA BADAJOZ REAL ALBACETE MIDDLE GUADIANA

CÓRDOBA 3 10 21 PROVINCES GREEN WATER UPPER GUADIANA BLUE SURFACE WATER LOWER GUADIANA SEVILLA MIDDLE GUADIANA BLUE GROUNDWATER HUELVA LOWER GUADIANA FORMER LOWER GUADIANA II DOMAIN

025 50 100 150 200 Km

Source: Aldaya and Llamas (2007) 7. Regional analysis: the Guadiana Basin Water consumption and economic value in the Guadiana Basin (2001)

GUADIANA RIVER BASIN* Blue water economic Green Water Blue Water Per capita GVA Human pppopulation ppyroductivity 106m3/year 106m3/year m3///cap/year million € €/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

*These data do not include trade. Source: Aldaya and Llamas, 2007 Conclusions

VW & WF inform water, trade & agricultural policies

1. VW alleviates and cushions drought cycles 2. Green vs. Blue water accounting is essential to evaluate VW+WF (composition varies with years and regions). 3. The ‘water scarcity’ paradigm should be revisited in light of water VW trade