Table of Contents

Introduction: ..................................................................................................... 6
Introduction:

Agriculture is the largest freshwater user, accoun ng for 99% of the

global consump ve (green plus blue) water footprint(Hoekstra and
Mekonnen, 2012). Growing popula ons, coupled with changing
preferences in diets and rising demand for biofuels, will put
increasing pressure on the globe’s freshwater resources (Falkenmark
et al., 2009; Gleick, 2003; Rosegrant et al., 2009). The consump ve
water use (from both precipita on and irriga on) for producing food
and fodder crops is expected to increase at 0.7% per year from its
es mated level of 6400 billion m3 /year in 2000 to 9060 billion m3
/year in order to adequately feed the global popula on of 9.2 billion
by 2050 (Rosegrant et al., 2009). The growing freshwater scarcity is
already evident in many parts of the world (Gleick, 1993; Hoekstra et
al., 2012; Oki and Kanae, 2006; Postel, 2000; Vörösmarty et al., 2010;
Wada et al., 2011). Raising water produc vity in agriculture (“more
crop per drop”) can contribute to reducing the pressure on the global
freshwater resources (Passioura, 2006; Rockström, 2003). The water
footprint (WF) offers a quan fiable indicator to measure the volume
of water consump on per unit of crop, as well as the volume of
water pollu on (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008; Hoekstra et al.,
2011). The green WF measures the volume of rainwater consumed
during the growing period of the crop; the blue WF measures the
volume of surface and groundwater consumed. The grey WF
measures the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the
nutrients and pes cides leaching and running off from crop fields and
reaching groundwater or surface water, based on natural background
concentra ons and exis ng ambient water quality standards
(Hoekstra et al., 2011). WF benchmarks for crop produc on can be
an instrument to compare actual WFs in certain regions or even at
field level to certain reference levels and can form a basis to
formulate WF reduc on targets, aimed to decrease water
consump on and pollu on per unit of crop (Hoekstra, 2013a,b). WFs
of crops vary enormously across regions and within regions (Brauman
et al., 2013; Fader et al., 2011; Finger, 2013; Hoekstra and Chapagain,
2007; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011; Siebert and Döll, 2010). There
are no previous studies that aimed to develop benchmarks for the
WF of crops, but a number of studies exist on benchmarking water
produc vi es. The water produc vity (ton/m3 ) in crop produc on is
in fact the inverse of the green–blue WF (m3 /ton) of crop
produc on. Water produc vity studies can be grouped into four
classes: field studies, modelling studies, studies based on remote
sensing, and studies employing a combina on of field measurement
and modelling or satellite data. In field studies, the rela onship
between seasonal water use and crop yield is determined from field
measurements (Oweis et al., 2000; Rahman et al., 1995; Sadras et al.,
2007; Sharma et al., 1990, 2001; Zhang et al., 1999, 1998). Water
produc vity studies based on field measurements are bound to
experiments on a rela vely small number of fields, so that results are
always limited to local condi ons such as climate, soil characteris cs
and water management prac ces and cannot easily be scaled up for
larger areas. In modelling studies, soil water balance and crop growth
models are used to es mate the components of the seasonal crop
water balance (Amir and Sinclair, 1991; Asseng et al., 1998, 2001).
The limita on of model studies is that they generally do not account
for all constraining factors and may exclude important factors such as
pests, diseases and weeds and their use is limited by data availability
and quality (Grassini et al., 2009). Remote sensing studies use
satellite data to es mate the spa al varia on of water produc vity
(Biradar et al., 2008; Cai et al., 2009; Zwart and Bas aanssen, 2007;
Zwart et al., 2010a,b). The use of remote sensing allows es ma ng
the water produc vity over large areas. A number of studies
combined measured data with simula on models (Grassini et al.,
2009; Robertson and Kirkegaard, 2005; Sadras et al., 2003) and
others combined measured data with remote sensing data (Cai and
Sharma, 2010). While crop water produc vity is receiving an
increasing amount of a en on, minimizing water pollu on (the grey
WF) per unit of crop produc on receives much less a en on. It is
clear, though, that the grey WF per unit of crop varies greatly from
place to place depending on agricultural prac ces (Chapagain et al.,
2006; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010, 2011). To our knowledge, there
has been no previous study providing global benchmark values for
green–blue and grey WFs of crops. The studies cited above are
limited to either a few crops or specific loca ons. The objec ve of the
current study has been to develop global WF benchmark values for
124 crops based on the spa al variability of crop WFs as found in our
earlier global WF assessment of crop produc on (Mekonnen ) (1)
 Water footprint overview :

Everything we use, wear, buy, sell and eat takes water to make.
The water footprint measures the amount of water used to
produce each of the goods and services we use. It can be
measured for a single process, such as growing rice, for a
product, such as a pair of jeans, for the fuel we put in our car,
or for an entire multi-national company. The water footprint can
also tell us how much water is being consumed by a particular
country – or globally – in a specific river basin or from an
aquifer.

The water footprint is a measure of

humanity’s appropriation of fresh water in
volumes of water consumed and/or
polluted.

The water footprint allows us to answer a broad range of

questions for companies, governments and individuals. For
example:

 where is the water dependence in my company’s operations or

supply chain?
 how well are regulations protecting our water resources?
 how secure are our food or energy supplies?
can I do something to reduce my own water footprint
and help us manage water for both people and nature?

Depending on the question you are asking, the water

footprint can be measured in cubic metres per tonne of
production, per hectare of cropland, per unit of currency
and in other functional units. The water footprint helps
us understand for what purposes our limited freshwater
resources are being consumed and polluted. The impact
it has depends on where the water is taken from and
when. If it comes from a place where water is already
scarce, the consequences can be significant and require
action.

The water footprint has three components:

Green, Blue and Grey. Together, these components

provide a comprehensive picture of water use by
delineating the source of water consumed, either as
rainfall/soil moisture or surface/groundwater, and the
volume of fresh water required for assimilation of
pollutants.
Direct and indirect water use:

The water footprint looks at both direct and indirect

water use of a process, product, company or sector and
includes water consumption and pollution throughout the
full production cycle from the supply chain to the end-
user. It is also possible to use the water footprint to
measure the amount of water required to produce all the
goods and services consumed by the individual or
community, a nation or all of humanity. This also
includes the direct water footprint, which is the water
used directly by the individual(s) and the indirect water
footprint – the summation of the water

The three water footprint options:

Green water footprint is water from precipitation that is

stored in the root zone of the soil and evaporated,
transpired or incorporated by plants. It is particularly
relevant for agricultural, horticultural and forestry
products.

Blue water footprint is water that has been sourced

from surface or groundwater resources and is either
evaporated, incorporated into a product or taken from
one body of water and returned to another, or returned
at a different time. Irrigated agriculture, industry and
domestic water use can each have a blue water
footprint.
Grey water footprint is the amount of fresh water
required to assimilate pollutants to meet specific water
quality standards. The grey water footprint considers
point-source pollution discharged to a freshwater
resource directly through a pipe or indirectly through
runoff or leaching from the soil, impervious surfaces, or
other diffuse sources.

The relation between consumption and water use:

“The interest in the water footprint is rooted in the

recognition that human impacts on freshwater systems
can ultimately be linked to human consumption, and that
issues like water shortages and pollution can be better
understood and addressed by considering production
and supply chains as a whole,” says Professor Arjen Y.
Hoekstra, creator of the water footprint concept.

“Water problems are often closely tied to the structure of

the global economy. Many countries have significantly
externalised their water footprint, importing water-
intensive goods from elsewhere. This puts pressure on
the water resources in the exporting regions, where too
often mechanisms for wise water governance
and conservation are lacking. Not only governments, but
also consumers, businesses and civil society
communities can play a role in achieving a better
management of water resources.”
footprints of all the products consumed. (2)
IRRIGATION TECHNIQUES:

There are five types of Irrigation Systems→

Irrigation is essential to support agricultural crop growth. Relying on

rain is not practical, especially in Australia where rainfall can be both
unreliable and insufficient. However, overwatering can be just as
detrimental to crop growth, so choosing the right irrigation system is
one of the most important steps in setting up a successful farming
operation.
The goal of irrigation is to encourage plant growth while minimising
soil erosion and water loss. To choose the right irrigation system you
will need to have a knowledge of soil, equipment, plant species and
land formation.
These are 5 of the most common types of irrigation systems.,

1. Drip Irrigation Systems-

Commonly used in orchards, vineyards and high-value vegetable
crops, drip irrigation systems consist of a network of tubes that have
small holes or emitters. They can be placed above or below the soil’s
surface and slowly drip water into the soil over long periods.

Advantages include:

• Uses 30–50% less water than other systems

• Prevents soil erosion and nutrient runoff
• Continuous flow allows water to penetrate deep into the soil and
down to the roots
• Controls fungal growth
• Easy to modify

2. Sprinkler Irrigation
In sprinkler irrigation systems, water flows through a series of pipes
and is delivered in a fine spray to specific areas. Micro sprinklers are
particularly effective for tree crops. They also use less water and are
cheaper to run.

Advantages include:

• Affordable and easy to set up

• Allows even distribution of water
• Easy to covers large areas
• Water at your chosen time of day to minimise evaporation

3. Centre Pivot Irrigation

A centre pivot irrigation system is self-propelled and works with the
use of a central pipe with outlets rotating around a central pivot
point. It works like the sprinkler irrigation system, but it is much
bigger and is supported by steel or aluminium towers.

Advantages include:

• Water is distributed evenly

• Covers large areas in a short period of time
• Prevents water runoff
• Operates at a lower pressure saving energy

4. Furrow Irrigation Systems

Furrow irrigation is a form of surface irrigation where small parallel
channels are created and filled with water. Crops are grown on the
ridges between the channels. Furrow irrigation is suitable for a wide
range of crops, especially row crops like corn, sunflower, sugarcane
and soybean and those that would be damaged by flooding like
tomatoes and beans.

Advantages include:
• Usually results in a higher yield
• Low installation cost
• Saves time and labour
• Saves money on water

5. Terraced Irrigation
Terrace irrigation is an ancient agriculture practice that still exists
today, generally in mountainous regions. A series of steps are cut into
the sloped land so that when it rains, the water flows down from the
top step down to the succeeding steps retaining the soil nutrients as
it goes.

Advantages include:

• Manages water runoff

• Prevents soil runoff
• Improves soil fertility
• Improves land productivity

(3)
CROP SELECTION AND ROTATION

Crop rotation is the practice of growing a series of different types of

crops in the same area across a sequence of growing seasons. This
practice reduces the reliance of crops on one set of nutrients, pest
and weed pressure, along with the probability of developing resistant
pests and weeds.
Effects of crop rotation and monoculture at the Swojec Experimental
Farm, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences. In the
front field, the "Norfolk" crop rotation sequence (potatoes, oats,
peas, rye) is being applied; in the back field, rye has been grown for
58 years in a row.
Growing the same crop in the same place for many years in a row,
known as monocropping, gradually depletes the soil of certain
nutrients and selects for both a highly competitive pest and weed
community. Without balancing nutrient use and diversifying pest and
weed communities, the productivity of monocultures is highly
dependent on external inputs that may be harmful to the soil's
fertility. Conversely, a well-designed crop rotation can reduce the
need for synthetic fertilizers and herbicides by better using
ecosystem services from a diverse set of crops. Additionally, crop
rotations can improve soil structure and organic matter, which
reduces erosion and increases farm system resilience.
CROP CHOICE :-
A preliminary assessment of crop interrela onships can be found in
how each crop:Contributes to soil organic ma er (SOM) content.
Provides for pest management.Manages deficient or excess
nutrients.How it contributes to or controls for soil erosion.
Interbreeds with other crops to produce hybrid offspring.
Impacts surrounding food webs and field ecosystems.
Crop choice is o en related to the goal the farmer is looking to
achieve with the rota on, which could be weed management,
increasing available nitrogen in the soil, controlling for erosion, or
increasing soil structure and biomass, to name a few. When
discussing crop rota ons, crops are classified in different ways
depending on what quality is being assessed: by family, by nutrient
needs/benefits, and/or by profitability (i.e. cash crop versus cover
crop). For example, giving adequate a en on to plant family is
essen al to mi ga ng pests and pathogens. However, many farmers
have success managing rota ons by planning sequencing and cover
crops around desirable cash crops.The following is a simplified
classifica on based on crop quality and purpose.
Row crops--
Many crops which are cri cal for the market, like vegetables, are row
crops (that is, grown in ght rows).While o en the most profitable
for farmers, these crops are more taxing on the soil. Row crops
typically have low biomass and shallow roots: this means the plant
contributes low residue to the surrounding soil and has limited
effects on structure. With much of the soil around the plant exposed
to disrup on by rainfall and traffic, fields with row crops experience
faster break down of organic ma er by microbes, leaving fewer
nutrients for future plants.
In short, while these crops may be profitable for the farm, they are
nutrient deple ng. Crop rota on prac ces exist to strike a balance
between short-term profitability and long-term produc vity.
Legumes
A great advantage of crop rota on comes from the interrela onship
of nitrogen-fixing crops with nitrogen-demanding crops. Legumes,
like alfalfa and clover, collect available nitrogen from the atmosphere
and store it in nodules on their root structure. When the plant is
harvested, the biomass of uncollected roots breaks down, making
the stored nitrogen available to future crops.In addi on, legumes
have heavy tap roots that burrow deep into the ground, li ing soil for
be er lth and absorp on of water.
Grasses and cereals
Cereal and grasses are frequent cover crops because of the many
advantages they supply to soil quality and structure. The dense and
far-reaching root systems give ample structure to surrounding soil
and provide significant biomass for soil organic ma er.
Grasses and cereals are key in weed management as they compete
with undesired plants for soil space and nutrients.
Green manure
Green manure is a crop that is mixed into the soil. Both nitrogen-
fixing legumes and nutrient scavengers, like grasses, can be used as
green manure.Green manure of legumes is an excellent source of
nitrogen, especially for organic systems, however, legume biomass
does not contribute to las ng soil organic ma er like grasses do.

PLANNING A ROTATION -
There are numerous factors that must be taken into considera on
when planning a crop rota on. Planning an effec ve rota on requires
weighing fixed and fluctua ng produc on circumstances: market,
farm size, labour supply, climate, soil type, growing prac ces, etc.
Moreover, a crop rota on must consider in what condi on one crop
will leave the soil for the succeeding crop and how one crop can be
seeded with another crop. For example, a nitrogen-fixing crop, like a
legume, should always precede a nitrogen deple ng one; similarly, a
low residue crop (i.e. a crop with low biomass) should be offset with
a high biomass cover crop, like a mixture of grasses and legumes.(4)
LIVESTOCK WATER MANAGEMENT
Water treatment is an essen al aspect of livestock farming because it
helps ensure a healthy animal lifecycle, and it can affect the eventual
meat yield.There are various ways to manage agricultural water
effec vely, including different forms of water treatment. They are:--
1.UV sterilisa on
2.Reverse osmosis, and
3.Chemical water treatments, such as Oxyl-Pro and chlorine dioxide.
UV Sterilisa on
Sterilising water for livestock, using germicidal ultraviolet lamps, is a
rapid water disinfec on method that does not rely on heat or
chemicals.UV or ultraviolet energy exists on the electromagne c
spectrum between visible light and x-rays. It is a form of invisible,
short-wave radia on.UV energy can kill microorganisms. When
ultraviolet radia on hits a cell, it penetrates its outer membrane,
passes through the body and disrupts DNA to prevent
reproduc on.Applying UV radia on in this way does not alter water
chemically, and adds nothing to it except energy.This energy is lethal
to microorganisms, including bacteria and viruses, thereby proving an
effec ve means of water disinfec on.There are several reasons why
UV sterilisa on is a good method for livestock water treatment:-
-Fast
-Safe
-Cost-effective
-Easy to use
You can apply this method using specialist, low-pressure UV
lamps.While making no contact with the water, these lamps produce
ultraviolet radia on at the op mal wavelength for disinfec on.They
combine highly efficient performance with low energy
consump on.However, UV sterilisa on cannot guarantee 100
percent destruc on of microorganisms, and there can be variables
which influence how effec ve it is as a water treatment
method.These include water quality, and the flowrate capacity of the
UV unit.There are also limita ons to the effec veness of UV
sterilisa on. The UV lamp must be kept clean, and changed when
required. One that has expired, or is dirty, will render ultraviolet
radia on ineffec ve.Firstly, it is a point disinfectant, meaning it will
kill bacteria at one point in a watering system, but cannot create
residual protec on downstream.Therefore, if any bacteria escape at
the point of treatment, they could a ach to downstream piping and
mul ply from there.Secondly, UV sterilisa on does not remove the
bacteria cells, but converts them into pyrogens. In theory, this can
transform the cells the method kills into a food source for any
surviving bacteria.
Reverse osmosis
The reverse osmosis (RO) method for water treatment involves
pushing water through a semipermeable membrane to remove its
impuri es.The membrane is a thin film composite (TFC), which only
allows hydrogen and oxygen to pass through it.This is a process
known as cross-flow filtra on. The water that comes through to the
other side of the TFC is permeate, and is then suitable for use for
feeding to livestock.The remainder, which is contaminated and has
been le behind, is known as concentrate.Some RO methods allow
for recycling of this unused concentrate back into the system, for
further extrac on of purified water, though this can be done only a
finite number of mes.
The benefits of reverse osmosis include:
Removal of up to 99 per cent of total dissolved solids in water, as well
as other impuri esEnergy efficiency, since the RO filtra on system
consumes no energy
-Cost effec ve
-Easy to maintain
East Reverse osmosis is less rapid a method than UV sterilisa on,
and it does involve the ongoing expense of replacing filters regularly.
Chemical water treatments
As the name suggests, as a livestock water treatment this involves
adding a decontamina on agent and disinfectant to livestock water
supplies.One such treatment uses chlorine dioxide to treat the
water.Chlorine dioxide is a chemical compound. It is made up of one
chlorine atom and two oxygen atoms.It has several an microbial
uses, including the disinfec on of water.Even in small doses, it can kill
a wide range of bacteria, including e-coli, crypto and giardia.It is also
applicable to a range of water sources, such as surface water,
boreholes, streams and springs.Chlorine dioxide has been used in
water treatment since the 1950s.But in the 1970s, another chemical
began providing the basis for effec ve livestock water treatment. This
was hydrogen peroxide, widely-used as an an microbial agent.The
standard water treatment based on this chemical is silver-stabilised
hydrogen peroxide.Silver peroxide has certain advantages as a
chemical disinfectant:There is no residual toxicity from applica onIt
is safe for both animals and humans, andIn an applied environment,
it is stableHydrogen peroxide is less harmful to the environment than
chlorine-based products. However, silver and silver nitrates can be
extremely toxic to plants and marine life.

Oxyl-Pro, the alterna ve to silver hydrogen peroxide:

Stabilising asep c grade hydrogen peroxide using food-safe
ingredients creates a disinfec ng and decontamina ng agent, Oxyl-
Pro.This is an alterna ve to silver-stabilised hydrogen peroxide.Oxyl-
Pro uses an encapsula on process that permits only a highly-
controlled method of release.Each individual hydrogen peroxide
molecule is encapsulated and, when in contact with organic
substances, only the amount necessary for disinfec on becomes
ac ve.The rest of the solu on remains unchanged.This results in a
stable decontamina on agent and disinfectant that acts rapidly to
destroy micro-organisms and biofilms.It works effec vely against:
Viruses
Moulds
Yeast
Fungi
Bacteria, including legionella and pseudomonasIn agricultural
applica ons, Oxyl-Pro is ideal for livestock water treatment, including
con nuous dosing.Why your choice of livestock water could be
cri cal Poor quality drinking water can mean livestock drinking less,
affec ng the animals’ general health.Invasive bacteria can also affect
the overall nutrient content of the end-product.Without a properly
maintained and treated water supply, livestock are at risk from
disease, a loss of condi on with lower produc on rates as a
consequence.Effec ve livestock water treatment therefore is about
economic as well as animal welfare.(5)
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION :

Of the world’s 1500 million ha of arable land, 288 level of water

deple on. In arid and semi-arid countries, million ha (19%) is
presently irrigated . Irrigated water is already a limi ng factor for
agricultural agriculture is by for the biggest water user accoun ng
produc on. Climate change is likely to further exacerbate for more
than 70% of global withdrawals and in some the water scarcity
situa on. Thus, under a business-ascountries this share is more than
90%. At global level usual scenario there may not be enough water to
produce annually some 2,664 billion cubic meter (BCM) of the food
needed to feed the world in 2050. It is therefore freshwater is
abstracted from rivers and aquifers for impera ve to promote water
saving prac ces in irrigated irriga on.Water scarcity is not always a
result of agriculture on large-scale. Consequently many physical lack
of water sources but also due to inadequate interna onal
organiza ons, na onal governments, or weak ins tu onal
organiza ons. research ins tutes, farmers’ organiza ons, private
Irrigated agriculture is o en blamed as the guzzler agencies, around
the world are focusing their efforts in of water. In most countries
there is an increasing pressure developing and applying various water
saving measures. to limit water withdrawals for irriga on and to
produce more food with less water. The demand for food is driven
Water Saving Approaches: There is a vast range of primarily by
popula on growth, which is expected technologies available for
improved opera on, be er to increase from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 8.1
billion in 2030 and management and efficient use of irriga on water -
ranging 9 billion in 2050. Between 1950 and 2000, the world from
simple syphon tubes for field water applica on to popula on
increased threefold, irrigated area doubled, sophis cated canal
automa on and telemetry. six fold. Some major river basins
approached an advanced Water saving approaches/ prac ces in
irrigated centralized control system which allows monitoring of
agriculture may be categorized as engineering, the pumping sta on
opera on, surveillance of wells, agronomical, management and
ins tu onal. The success filtering status, loca ng of failures, daily
volumes of of these approaches depends on the level of their water
delivered to each irrigator, opening and closing integra on and socio-
economic dimensions of a of the flow regula ng valves, fer ga on of
plots and given locality. Interna onal Commission on billing of the
water used. Innova ve features of the Irriga on and Drainage (ICID)
launched its global project consist of a ‘Water Teller’ and ‘Water
Account water savings (WatSave) program by se ng up Book’
provided to each irrigator. The ‘Water Teller’ is the WatSave Work
Team in the year 1993 with the analogous to bank’s ATM and
provides irrigators 24-hour objec ve of promo ng and recognizing
water savings service. The key improvements achieved through the
prac ces across the world. Since 1998, WatSave Awards
moderniza on project were (a) overall reduc on in annual
(h p://www.icid.org/index_e.html) are being presented to water
losses in the ‘Irriga on Community’ from 1.2 million individuals/
farmers to recognize their outstanding water m to 0.17 million m , (b)
sustainable exploita on of the saving contribu ons. Some innova ve
technologies/ aquifer, (c) saving in pumping energy, lower cost of
water prac ces of water saving in some countries [3] are briefly to
irrigators and (d) an increased crop produc vity and presented here.
quality of fruits. System Moderniza on: In South Africa, an innova ve
Water Saving Rice Irriga on: In China rice is grown on decision
support program called ‘Water Administra on about 30 million
hectares contribu ng over 39% of the System (WAS)’ has been
developed. The WAS is used total food grain produc on in the
country. The tradi onal by ‘Water User Associa ons’ (WUA) on
irriga on irriga on regime for rice, namely, ’con nuous flooding
schemes in managing their water accounts and water irriga on’ was
prac ced in China prior to 1970s. This supply to clients through
rivers, canal network and regime was characterized by the use of a
large amount of pipelines. It replaces the old manually operated
water water and low rice yields. Due to decreasing water supply
distribu on system commonly used on government for agriculture,
various water efficient regimes for rice irriga on schemes.(6)
Challenges and opportunities

Agriculture and food produc on rely heavily on natural resources

such as water. Agriculture accounts for 70% of global water
withdrawals and four out of ten people around the planet work in
the agriculture sector. Currently, the world produces enough food to
feed all of its inhabitants. However, if no fundamental changes are
made, there will be insufficient resources available to feed a

burgeoning popula on with higher income levels and increasingly

water-demanding dietary habits. To feed the increasing global
popula on, food produc on will have to double within the next 40
years. The challenge is not just about increasing agricultural
produc on to meet the aspira ons of a growing popula on and
global economy. While the world currently produces enough food to
feed everyone, 925 million people go hungry because they cannot
afford to pay for it. Paradoxically, economic progress and advances in
alterna ve energy threaten to worsen the situa on for the poorest.
These developments drive up basic food prices, divert efforts towards
producing more valuable goods such as biofuels and eventually
undermine food security and efforts to eradicate poverty in least
developed countries. Small-scale farmers, occupying about half a
billion small farms in the world, provide the majority of the global
food supply. However, these farmers account for the majority of
South Asia’s and sub-Saharan Africa’s poor and roughly half of the
developing world’s undernourished. In many developing countries,
opportuni es for progress depend on the availability of water and on
irriga on systems. Small-scale farmers o en occupy marginal land
and depend mainly on rainfall for produc on. This makes them highly
sensi ve to climate variability and change, and extreme events such
as droughts and floods. Since 2007, commodity prices in world
markets have fluctuated drama cally and have experienced global
spikes in 2007-2008 and in 2010-2011. These spikes caused poli cal
and economic instability and led to food riots in several countries.
Food prices today remain high, and are expected to remain vola le.
For farmers, this results in large income fluctua ons for which they
have li le or no recourse, such as savings and insurance. Not only do
macroeconomic factors in conjunc on with changes in supply and
demand contribute to price vola lity; specula ve behaviour in
organised futures markets may also contribute to vola le food prices.
Water and agriculture facts
• With no change in dietary habits or in the food chain, and
with no improvements in land and water produc vity, the
global water consump on for agriculture will need to
increase by 70-90% in the next 40 years.
• In developing countries, people spend 50-80% of their
income on food, mostly on raw foodstuffs such as flour and
legumes.
• Roughly one-third of food produced for human
consump on is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to
about 1.3 billion tons per year.
• The food waste per capita of consumers in Europe and
North-America is much higher (95-115 kg/year), than in Sub
Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia (6- 11 kg/year)
• In many developing countries, irriga on accounts for 90% of
the water used.
• Water consumed in agriculture is typically less than 50% of
the water withdrawn due to efficiencies and losses in the
system. (7)
CASE STUDIES

The study dis nguishes between benchmarks for the green– blue WF
and the grey WF of crops. The approach has been to analyse the
spa al distribu on of the green–blue and grey WFs of different crops
as calculated at a spa al resolu on of 5 by 50 with a dynamic water
balance and crop yield model. Details on the model used have been
reported in Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2010, 2011). Basically, the
model computes a daily soil water balance and calculates crop water
requirements, actual crop water use (both green and blue) and actual
yields. Green–blue WFs are calculated by dividing the
evapotranspira on of green and blue water over the growing period
by the crop yield. Grey WFs are calculated based on nitrogen
applica on rates, leaching-runoff frac ons and water quality
standards for nitrate. We did not consider the grey WF from other
nutrients (like phosphorous) or pes cides. The model was applied at
a global scale for the period 1996–005. In total, 124 crops were
studied. We first analysed the WF of wheat in terms of m3 /ton at
three different spa al resolu on levels – country, provincial and grid
level – in order to iden fy the proper spa al resolu on for
developing WF benchmarks for crop produc on. A er choosing the
grid level as the best op on for further analysis, the variability in WFs
of crops over all crop growing grid cells in the world was used for
developing the benchmarks. Per crop, we ranked the WF values for
all relevant grid cells from smallest to largest and plo ed these
values against the cumula ve percentage of the corresponding
produc on. From the graph, we could thus read the WF values at
different produc on percen les. For an analysis of differences in WFs
between developing versus industrialised countries, we used the
country classifica on based on income from the World Bank (2012);
in which countries are divided according to the 2007 per capita gross
na onal income. The groups are: low income (USD 935), lower
middle income (USD 936–3705), upper middle income (USD 3706–
11455) and high income (USD 11,456). In order to analyse differences
in WFs between different clima c regions, we used the Köppen–
Geiger climate classifica on (Ko ek et al., 2006) to group the world
into four major climate classes: tropics (arid and equatorial),
temperate, boreal (snow) and tundra (polar). Since li le or no crop
cul va on exists in the boreal and tundra regions of the world, we
have focused on the tropics and temperate regions.
(8)
Conclusion :

With increasing water scarcity, there is a growing interest in

improving crop water produc vity in order to meet the growing
global food demand with the limited freshwater resources. The
challenge is thus to produce more crops with less water, thus
reducing theWF per unitof cropproduced. This studyhas developed
WF benchmarkvalues for alargenumberofcrops grown in theworld.
The study shows that water savings and reduced water pollu on can
be very substan al – 39% of global water saving and 54% of reduced
water pollu on – ifWFs per unit of crop are reduced to levels similar
to the best quarter of global produc on. Our es ma on of the
poten al reduc on in the global WF of crop produc on is not meant
to imply tha his reduc onis easilya ainable.Raising yields in
lowincome countries will require large investments in capacity
building and appropriate technologies. WF benchmarks for crops as
developed in this study can be used to provide an incen ve for
farmers to reduce the WF of their crops towards reasonable levels
and thus use water more efficiently. When gran ng water
consump on permits to farmers and developing regula ons on
fer liser use, it makes sense for governments to take into account
the relevant WF benchmarks for the specific crops grown. The
benchmarks are equally relevant for the food-processing industry,
which increasingly focusses on the efficient and sustainable use of
water in their supply chain .Unilever, 2012). The same holds for the
apparel sector, par cularly regarding co on (Franke and Mathews,
2013), for the cosme cs industry, which uses various sorts of
agricultural inputs (Francke and Castro, 2013), and the biofuel
sector.WF benchmarks will enable the actors along supply chains –
from farmers through intermediate companies to final consumers –
to compare the actual WF of products against certain reference levels
(Hoekstra, 2014). The benchmark values can be used to measure
performance, to set WF reduc on targets and monitor progress in
achieving the supply energy. (9)
References:

(1) Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012 (Gleick, 1993; Hoekstra et al.,

2012; Oki and Kanae, 2006;Postel, 2000; Vörösmarty et al., 2010;
Wada et al., 2011).

(2)( Ercin et al., 2011). (Hoertenhuber, 2012). Dr. Rick Hogeboom

(3)Goulburn Valley Sprinklers & Landscaping USDA, Na onal

Agricultural Library U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(4) SARE,Sustainable Agriculture Research and Educa on M.M

Mekonnen and A.Y.Hoekstra

(5) Oxyl-Pro, a well-established chemical supplier based in the North

West of England. With over 20 years’ experience in the water
treatment industry and a team consis ng of qualified chemists and
researchers, we pride ourselves on providing excellent products
along with excep onal customer service.

(6) FAO, 2007. Aquastat, h p:// www.fao.org/ nr/ water/

www.waterfootprint.org.
IWMI, 2007. Molden, David (Ed.), Comprehensive Food Produc vity,
Security and Trade, Task Force
Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, Report,
www.icid.org/ 2_report_sep05.pdf.
Water for Food, Water for Life: A comprehensive 8. Lundqvist, J., C.
De Fraiture and D. Molden, 2008,
Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, “Saving Water:
From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses
London, Earthscan and Colombo, IWMI. and Wastage in the Food
Chain”, SIWI Policy Brief,
ICID, 2008. Water Saving in Agriculture, Interna onal
www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Policy_Briefs/
(7) UN Water. The United Na ons World Water Development Report
2021—Valuing Water—Facts and Figures. Available online:
h ps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375751/PDF/375751
eng.pdf.mul (accessed on 16 December 2021).
Manzardo, A.; Ren, J.; Piantella, A.; Mazzi, A.; Fedele, A.; Scipioni, A.
Integra on of water footprint accoun ng and costs for op mal
chemical pulp supply mix in paper industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2014

(8 )(Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979; Ha ield et al., 2001;Sadras et al.,

2007; Zwart and Bas aanssen, 2004)

(9) Unilever, 2012. Sustainable Living Plan: Progress report 2012.

Unilever Ro erdam,The Netherlands.Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B.,
Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P.,Glidden, S.,
Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Liermann, C.R., Davies, P.M., 2010.
Globalthreats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature
467, 555–561.Wada, Y., van Beek, L.P.H., Viviroli, D., Dürr, H.H.,
Weingartner, R., Bierkens, M.F.P.,2011. Global monthly water stress:
2. Water demand and severity of water stress. Water Resour. Res. 47,
W07518.
World Bank, 2012. Countries Classifica on: Income Group. The World
Bank,Washington, D.C., USA.