Global Water Crisis Vs. Environmental Change

As per with most subject, looking into something can provide new information and, at the same time, make us realise how much more there is to know, learn and explore.

Our global virtual water footprint is an interesting concept. And it only plays one part when it comes to our whole planet's ecosystem. This is especially clear when we consider our planetary boundaries, a framework comprising a subdivision of the Earth's systems within which us humans can safely live and operate.

Introducing this concept after a small exploration into virtual water is to show that getting to know one subject can help us connect it to others, and help us reach a wholesome understanding of the Earth's system and how they are connected.

I will let Rockström explain further.

Johan Rockström: Let the environment guide our development

In his presentation Rockström has the bravery to involve our planet as a stakeholder, rather than keeping his speech completely anthropocentric.

Losing system resilience and crossing thresholds means we need of a new paradigm to direct us to concrete actions that will encourage and trigger tangible change.

Considering the planet as a complex self-regulating system, and thinking of the interconnectedness of systems, shows that in addition to the main three planet boundaries of climate change, ocean acidification and ozone depletion with large-scale thresholds, there are slow variables, underlying systems which regulate and determine the state of the main 3. These include nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, land use change, rate of biodiversity loss, air and chemical pollution and freshwater use, connected to the concept of virtual water.


Once again we go back to the legislative role, mentioned by Rockström: local actors need to be governing the commons on a global scale with resilience and sustainable development at the forefront of priorities.

In fact, in order to be able to achieve a prosperous future within a safe operating space needs, first of all we have to undergo a shift in mindset, and in the past few months I have realised how important human psychology is in behavioural change, including environmental change.



Thinking of water as something that links everything we do and use every single moment of every day has added a new layer of understanding and knowledge that has been affecting my own decision-making.

Not everyone has access to the same information as me, yet whether it's the words of scientists or of poets and word artists, there is a whole lot of potential and sources of inspiration.

Prince Ea - Dear Future Generations: Sorry (3'35'' - 4'45'')

The multitude of issues we are facing as a planet are serious and critical, but needn't be overwhelming: all things which need changing in fact simply present an opportunity of improvement, from local-level tweaks to massive global shifts.

The good thing is that small improvements can be tried any day.
Due to the role of agriculture in our global virtual water footprint, we can make an effort to reduce beef consumption at any mealtime, or even better, favour plant-based food to meat and other animal products, therefore reducing water use and pollution.

By being aware and attributing the environmental value to everyday goods and services as part of a mindset shift, we could appreciate all we have access to more, taking small steps in steering the Anthropocene away from environmental degradation and towards a respectful, recovering stage.

Eat Less Water - Part 2

As initiated in my previous post about Eating Less Meat Water, meat - and beef in particular - has a very high virtual water footprint: 15,500 litres of water is the average amount required to produce one single kg of it (Hoekstra, 2008).
This explains how the water cost of a single burger is so high at around 2,400 litres, as showed in the picture I enclosed at the start of the blog.

But as also noted, animal products demand is rising. Most of the quantity need of water lies in the production of feed for animals to grow in order to satisfy this demand globally.

Hoekstra's report, "The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy" is invaluable in illustrating this topic very clearly.

The water footprint of an animal includes all the water needed for its consumption of feed, all drinking water and servicing water such as cleaning. 


Hoekstra explains that the main elements which make up the water footprint of animal products are the feed conversion efficiency and the feed composition.

The former is the amount of feed needed to produce a certain amount of animal product: it is more efficient in industrial systems as the animals don't move much and therefore do not require as much feed to convert into meat.
The latter is more water-intense in such industrial systems where the feed is more concentrated and often made of irrigated and fertilised water-intensive crops, as opposed to grass and fodder crops which have a lower water footprint.

In the case of beef, the water footprint can vary as cattle can be located in regions with different levels of water availability.
 
Blue, green and grey water access also vary in different geographies, causing different environmental and social impacts, supporting the idea that the water footprint is an issue which goes beyond mere quantities and differs according to local water sources.

This in turn is amplified due to globalisation, and our regular food consumption patterns including regularly consuming food that was grown and processed elsewhere, and which affected water footprints far from the eating location.

GMO Corn grown for cattle in New Tecumseth, ON, Canada.
In this region, availability of land for crops and of blue, green and grey water make the area suitable for growing food that could be used directly for human consumption rather than cattle feed. Own photo.

The report continues by comparing the water footprint of animal products to that of crops.

Interestingly, from a nutritional standpoint, one of the main points from Hoekstra's report states: "The water footprint of any animal product is larger than the water footprint of a wisely chosen crop product with equivalent nutritional value." and that "For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than that for pulses."


It moves on to compare the water footprint of an omnivore diet including meat and a vegetarian one.
In industrialised countries, moving toward a vegetarian diet, still including dairy and eggs, can reduce the food-related water footprint of people by 36%. (Hoekstra, 2012)


He concludes by highlighting that despite the unsustainable need of resources by the meat and dairy industries, there is no real governmental or policy effort to highlight and address the impact that these sectors have on the planet's resources.

Corporations nowadays have more and more power, so I had a look at if and how some companies are addressing water scarcity issues.

Some of the solutions aim at offsetting the water footprint of companies and meat production, usually by investing in technology that will find solutions to save water usage (Hoekstra, 2012).

Water Neutrality Perception

Though...
is using more energy and efforts to merely mitigate the effect of actions that are so high in energy and resource use the best option or simply the most appealing one, from the point of view of a business that has enough funds to do so and wants to prove its care for environmental sustainability while maintaining "businesses as usual"?

It may sound overly pessimistically realistic, perhaps even a surprise - after all, the concept of embedded water doesn't get a fraction of the coverage it deserves.

However, I was excited to find out that while some sources show the global outlook is propelling itself towards a more animal-dense - therefore resource-intense - future, social media research engines such as Brandwatch predict that 2017 will be the year of vegan meat.

Aside from the trend factor, this links back to supply responding to demand for a product which, in substitution for animal products, requires less water and could make a significant change in the use of water for food production.

Keeping in mind high-population countries considered to be developing, such as Brazil and China (FAO; FAO, 2012), are some of the drivers of this increase in demand, in some instances aspiring to live a Western lifestyle, and despite the FAO itself trying to promote pulses as sustainable protein sources to promote healthy diets and combat climate change and malnutrition, perhaps the rise of vegan options in the West is going to translate in high demands of such foods in developing countries too, eventually decreasing the overall demand for meat and therefore lightening the pressure on the use of water resources for its production.

Better labelling could help too! Imagine if packets of food had values noting the water footprint of the contained product, similarly to some products' packaging showing the certified carbon neutral symbol: that would be an additional way to highlight the environmental effect of food and the more sustainable nature of meat-free varieties.


How effective do you feel are such market changes as drivers in demand for products with different levels of water footprints?

Do you feel that change at a legislative level remains the best option?
Would more informative labelling work?

Eat less water - Part 1

By now the notion of eating water will probably make sense.

Water is a renewable but finite resource, and food production requires a lot of energy and use of finite resources, such as water.

During the Christmas break my family enjoyed a joint of roast beef. An ordinary thing to do, right?

The thing is, when I see a chunk of beef, I don't see a mere meal.
I see a piece of an animal organism that requires a lot of energy to produce, with a large carbon and virtual water footprint.


This is how...

Take a look at this graph from the UNEP website showing the trends in global water use by sector:



Vital Water Graphics, UNEP

This source is from 1999, demonstrating such data has been around a few years, and the projections are clear: the agriculture sector clearly surpasses not only the domestic but also the industrial use of water in terms of extraction and consumption.



Going back to the visual set of FAO's factsheets on water, more recent data shows the agriculture sector accounts for 70% of our planet's water use.

 

FAO

The main data set for agriculture is at 1'40''.

Within the agricultural sector, beef in particular is one of the most water-needing types of agricultural good to produce.
Considering a variety of sources, it requires a staggering 15,000 - 15,500 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef.

In fact, according to "The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products" study by Mekonnen and Hoekstra published by UNESCO, (for differentiation of green, blue and grey water please refer to my previous post on Shades of Water), findings showed that beef cattle have the largest contribution to the global water footprint of farm animal production, at 33%, followed by dairy cattle and pigs (19% respectively) and broiler chickens (11%).


That is also the reason why so many water footprint calculators, ask to specify what kind of meat consumer we are. Take a glance at ones I mentioned in my first post.

Projected increase in demand and therefore production of animal products indicated that this sector is going to carry on adding pressure on the Earth's freshwater resources (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010).


What could effectively decrease our water footprint: better feed for the animals? A shift in our diets?


For someone who is used to eating animal-free vegan food, and happy to so, the answer is a no brainer, the connection between daily meals and water scarcity issues is clear and an obvious one.

However, more general factors need to be taken into consideration and addressed from the food production point of view in order to understand why there has been such a strong trend leading us, the human species, to consume more and more animal products that are draining the Earth's water resources both directly and indirectly.

The main driver in increased demand of animal products since the 1980s has been stimulated by improvements in economies and people's disposable income.
Higher demand meant that animal production had to be intensified and shifted from grazing to a more intense and industrial system, itself triggering a diversification in animal feed, which had a different - higher - water footprint (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010).



Different stages of agriculture require uses of water that make it add up to such large quantities: production of the meat and requirements of water directly for the animals and water to grow their feed, water to look after the animals and water needed during processing, transportation and packaging.

In addition to all this, these processes involve practices which pollute ground and surface water. This takes place both when the animals are growing and in slaughterhouses (FAO).


Out of all the water needed to produce animal products, the biggest factor making animal products' water footprint so high is the water needed for animals' feed (Hoekstra, 2012)...

(To be continued in Part 2)