implications of bio-fuels expansion on water
DESCRIPTION
Freshwater Team. Implications of bio-fuels expansion on water. Rome, September, 2010. László Máthé Bioenergy coordinator WWF International/Scotland. Outline. First, understand the water implications for food... What does this mean for biofuels? 4 first steps. Step 1 - Read this!. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Implications of bio-fuels expansion on water
Rome, September, 2010
László Máthé
Bioenergy coordinator
WWF International/Scotland
Freshwater Team
Outline
• First, understand the water implications for food...
• What does this mean for biofuels? • 4 first steps
Step 1 - Read this!
Our water future?• In the next 50 years the global population will rise to a projected 9 billion.• Rural to urban migration and changing diets will increase agricultural
water demand, as people choose to eat more “thirsty crops” like fruit, vegetables, edible oils and especially meat.
• Therefore food and feed crop demand will nearly double over the next 50 years (not including fibre and biofuels).
• With current water productivity this increased demand will result in a 70-90% increase in evapo-transpiration from agriculture.
• These estimates do not yet include the impacts of climate change on evapo-transpiration.
• Currently around 70% of all water abstraction globally is for agricultural purposes.
• Irrigation provides 40% of the world’s food from less than 20% of its arable land.
• In times of crisis, governments will prioritise their national needs for food security over other concerns.
Projected changes under the CA’s
“Optimistic Scenario”
Year 2000
Year2050
Irrigated agricultural area (million ha)
% growth
340 394
+16%
Rainfed agricultural area (million ha)
% growth
860 920
+7%
Irrigated cereal yield (metric tonnes/ha)
% growth
3.70 5.74
+55%
Rainfed cereal yield (metric tonnes/ha)
% growth
2.46 3.88
+58%
Water productivity: irrigated crops (kg/m3)
% growth
0.68 1.01
+48%
Crop water consumption: rainfall (km3)
% growth
5560 6570
+19%
Crop water consumption: irrigation (km3)
% growth
1570 1945
+24%
Withdrawals for irrigation (km3)
% growth
2630 2975
+13%
Water-saving practices for thirsty crops
Crop Selected water-saving practices
Rice
Shorter land preparation period Direct or dry seeding Laser levelling Aerobic rice varieties
Sugarcane
Drip, sprinkler and alternate furrow irrigation Water deficit during crop elongation Replanting crop die-off each year
Cotton
Knowledge about cotton growth models Water deficit in non-critical growth periods Shallow soil cultivation Drip, sprinkler and alternate furrow irrigation
Wheat
Broad-bed cultivation Drip, sprinkler and alternate furrow methods Zero tillage and laser levelling Water deficit in non-critical growth periods Crop varieties that grow under sub-optimal water availability
Biofuels
• What does this all mean for biofuels?
• Subject to the same if not more scrutiny• Under the spotlight – judged as competition• Watershed – not field level impacts are what
matters• Understand your total ‘context’
Under the spotlight
1. Screen using the WBCSD tool2. Target Water Footprint on problem areas3. Reduce your own ‘impacts’4. Get the context managed
Four steps to start
Step 1 – Screen using WBCSD tool What is the water status around your factories and farms?
Abundant
Stress
Scarce
Extremely scarce
Sufficient
Acknowledgements to SABMiller
Step 2 - Target Water Footprint assessment on known problem areas
What kind of water dependency is it?
34
293
391
47
281
836
416
-
-
459
350
155
-
96
-
-
148
-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Barley - Taung (irrigated)
Barley - Caledon (rain fed only)
Maize - Mpamalanga (rain fed only)
Maize - NW Province (irrgated)
Hops - George (irrigated)
Sugar - Natal (part irrigated)
Depth of water per hectare of cultivation (mm)
Green Water
Blue Water
Grey Water
Step 3 - Reduce your own ‘impacts’Reduce the impacts of your operations and purchases –
without this you are not credible
Step 4 - Get the context managedAct beyond the fence-line
Water is a shared problem so work together to address it Working together will reduce costs of mitigating risks
-38
-36
-34
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
metr
es b
elo
w g
rou
nd
level
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
mil
lio
ns o
f kil
iog
ram
mes
Mean groundwater level* Annual asapragus production** (millions kg's)
Species example
“we shan’t save all we’d like to, but we shall save a great deal more
than if we had never tried.”
Sir Peter Scott – WWF Founder