Better policy requires obtaining better data and better understanding of the issues. Yet many gaps remain in data and knowledge concerning water footprints for food and agriculture, especially in relation to sustainability and broader concerns around fair water footprints (see Box 1).
For example, it can be challenging to isolate how trade in rainfed agricultural goods specifically disrupts green water flows and thus compromises environmental flow requirements or erodes biodiversity. Equally, there is a paucity of data on the grey water footprint of agriculture and food products, particularly in terms of data that can be segmented by country and/or commodity or product. Although much of the water footprint for food goods is directly attributable to production processes, the full picture is complicated. Product lifecycle analyses often end at the farmgate; this precludes greater understanding of the subsequent impacts of food processing, distribution, consumption and waste streams.
There is little detailed understanding of how future changes in diets, trade patterns and environmental conditions may collectively influence the volumes and geography of water availability and use over time.
Looking forward, there is little detailed understanding of how future changes in diets, trade patterns and environmental conditions may collectively influence the volumes and geography of water availability and use over time. Forecasts of national-level baseline water stress (from irrigation, livestock and economy-wide stresses – see Annex 2) show a broadly consistent global distribution of stresses over different mid- to late-century time horizons and under different climate change scenarios, albeit worsening as global temperatures rise and as time progresses. However, these scenarios assume demand for agricultural products remains largely consistent with demand today – an assumption that is increasingly being challenged by consumption growth and by observable divergences in trade relationships and environmental risks relative to previous dynamics.
Water stresses may present non-linear threats in certain geographies or in respect of certain commodities. For example, reductions in glacial melt could have substantial impacts on water availability for agricultural production in countries such as India; and a reduction in groundwater levels could – aside from reducing water availability – increase the concentration of pollutants in aquifers and increase bioaccumulations in crops (arsenic in rice, for example). At the same time, rising sea levels may increase infiltration of saline water into groundwater supplies (with the consequent costs of running desalinization plants potentially being passed on to consumers).
Although the precise shape of future stressors is unknowable, we can be certain that political decisions, relationships and policies will continue to exert significant influence over the management of the food and agriculture sector’s water supply, water demand and water redistribution at all levels – from the global geopolitical level down to the river basin level – in the coming years. In this context, it is especially important for policy to move beyond disparate interventions siloed in individual supply chains or government departments. What is needed, instead, are holistic and coordinated efforts that promote inclusive outcomes and find synergies between water, climate and biodiversity actions taken across government, between producer and consumer countries, and involving public sector and private sector actors (see ‘Conclusion and policy options’). The outcome-orientated missions championed by the Global Commission on the Economics of Water provide one useful approach to addressing these interconnections, and to finding systemic solutions.
Given that climatic pressures and other shocks disproportionally affect vulnerable communities – and the most vulnerable people within communities – it is crucial that social inclusion considerations are at the forefront of approaches to building resilience in food and agriculture’s use of water resources. If policies fail to address water security in an inclusive manner, this will undermine the resilience of communities involved in, and close to, supply chains and potentially introduce additional social and political challenges to ensuring continuity of supply. The urgency of developing inclusive policies is only increasing as population, geo-economic, geopolitical and environmental pressures mount.
