Water-use efficiency and productivity improvements

Water Security xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Security journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasec

Water-use efficiency and productivity improvements towards a sustainable pathway for meeting future water demand Olcay Unver a,⇑, Anik Bhaduri b, Jippe Hoogeveen a,1 a b

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Contents 1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

Future water needs and the Sustainable Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revisiting the concepts of water-use efficiency and water productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Efficiencies and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Increasing productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Re-allocation of water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demand management strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Options beyond the water domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Reduction of losses in the post-harvest value chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Reduction of demand for irrigated production through substitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Looking at different solutions in Aral Sea Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Morocco’s Green Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Policy recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1. Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Economic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3. Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Future water needs and the Sustainable Development Goals Kummu et al. [19] reported that while water consumption increased fourfold in the last 100 years, the population facing water scarcity increased from 0.24 billion people (14 percent of the global population 100 years ago) to 3.8 billion (58 percent of today’s population). Most population growth is taking place in developing countries, where water is scarce and characterized by rainfall seasonality, intermittent dry spells, recurrent drought years and high evaporative demand [28]. Agriculture is the largest water user by far. As nations move forward on a path of socioeconomic development, incomes, dietary habits and preferences change. It is projected that the global average daily calorie avail⇑ Corresponding author at: Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Unver), [email protected] (A. Bhaduri), [email protected] (J. Hoogeveen). 1 Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

ability could rise to 3070 kcal per person by 2050, 11 percent higher than in 2005/2007 and a major step forward in the fight against undernourishment. Achieving such an increase in calorie availability by 2050 would require a 60 percent increase in world agricultural production compared with 2005/2007 [1]. FAO [9] indicates that achieving this increase would involve an expansion of irrigated areas, the intensification of crop production, and increased and better use of non-conventional water resources, and it projects a 10 percent increase in water withdrawals for irrigation and a 6 percent increase in the area of irrigated land worldwide. The FAO projection [1] reflects the magnitudes and trajectories estimated for the world’s agricultural production in the future based on current trends. Normative objectives on how this projection should be obtained, like for example by eliminating undernourishment, or avoiding food overconsumption leading to obesity, or reducing waste to much lower levels, are not part of the assumptions. Nonetheless it should be noted that such an increase in food production should be achieved through a transition to sustainable food and agriculture that ensures food security, which is obtained

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2017.05.001 2468-3124/Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: O. Unver et al., Water-use efficiency and productivity improvements towards a sustainable pathway for meeting future water demand, Water Security (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2017.05.001

2

O. Unver et al. / Water Security xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life, contributes to livelihoods through enhanced social and economic opportunities, and protects ecosystems [13]. About 330 million ha of land is irrigated today (FAO, 2017a), accounting for about 70 percent of total water withdrawals (estimated at 4000 km3 per year) (FAO, 2017b). In many developing countries, the proportion of total water use directed to irrigation is often much higher, at 75–85 percent – water policies in such countries focus on the development of irrigation infrastructure and the expansion of irrigated land, although water demand continues to increase [3]. In many river basins, water use is approaching its full development. Given continued urbanization (which increases pressure on water supplies) and an increasing need to protect, preserve and restore environmental flows, there is limited scope for the further expansion of irrigation [25]. Even though water is a scarce resource, it is often wasted along the value chain and across sectors due to a range of factors, including water-inefficient processes, a lack of – or low-quality – infrastructure, mismanagement and poor governance [25]. In the agriculture sector (comprising crop production, livestock, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry), the efficient use of irrigation water and increased water productivity are crucial for sustainable water management and adaptation to climate change. At a national scale, water-use efficiency in irrigated agriculture is in the range of only 40–65 percent (with a global average of 55 percent) [14], with much of the water withdrawn never reaching crops due to conveyance losses such as leakage and evaporation. Water is included both explicitly and implicitly in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The global community has agreed on the importance of water as an integral part of human development and in meeting the needs of ecosystems. Meeting the SDGs requires action to increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and to reduce the suffering of the people from water scarcity by 2030 substantially. In addition to the SDG dedicated to water (SDG6), sustainable water management is linked to other goals through a number of targets [39]. Improvements in water-use efficiency are instrumental for addressing the projected 40 percent gap between demand and supply in 2030 [20] and mitigating scarcity as targeted by Sustainable Development Goal 6. Water-use efficiency in irrigated agriculture is often regarded as a measure of the extent to which an irrigation system delivers the volume of water that enters the system (‘‘water used versus water withdrawn”). In this sense, water-use efficiency measures the efficiency of the conveyance systems as the ratio between the quantity of water required for irrigation and the quantity of water diverted from the source, thus looking only at irrigation engineering and management efficiency. Perry [25] discussed the history of the analysis of ‘‘irrigation efficiency” and compared irrigational and hydrological approaches and terminologies at various scales, from the field through irrigation schemes to regions and basins. He emphasized that when water is scarce, it would be better to reduce non-beneficial consumption and non-recoverable flows to the extent that no unintended consequences of such reductions occur. The potential for flow recovery is location-specific; thus, the choice of efficient irrigation technology (for example) depends on basin characteristics such as groundwater condition and proximity to the sea. A discussion on water efficiency would be incomplete without considering water productivity as water efficiency (as defined above) does not incorporate agronomic efficiency at the farm level. Efficiencies are dimensionless ratios and are more applicable to the performance of management and of infrastructure, while productivity denotes output and is measurable in, for example, crop

yields, value added, and the economic value associated with production per input. Agricultural water productivity refers to ‘‘more yield per drop”, and agricultural productivity refers to more yield per input (including water). Water managers, regulators and those involved in broad management performance tend to use measures of efficiency, and farmers are more interested in productivity. Rockström et al. [28] found that the potential to increase water productivity in both irrigated and rainfed agriculture is high in many developing countries, where a large amount of water is lost in crop fields as non-productive evaporation. Improvements in water productivity would reduce the requirement for additional freshwater by an estimated 16 percent against a business-asusual baseline. Alexandratos and Bruinsma [1] projected that about 70 percent of the increase in future agricultural production would come from crop yield growth. Especially in developing countries, where crop yield gaps still exist, increases in crop yields can be obtained by promoting improved seed material, better pest management, the better use of fertilizers, and other improved farming practices such as conservation agriculture. Increases in crop yields will also result in higher crop transpiration rates but, in combination with better water management practices, unproductive evapotranspiration will decrease, and the productivity of the water applied to crops will increase. Note that improvements in water productivity do not necessarily mean more water for others. For example, farmers might use the water they save due to increased efficiency to expand production. Conversely, a downstream user could productively use water that was applied ‘‘inefficiently” upstream, thus enabling more water to be used in production. The point here is that at different levels of water management in agriculture, ranging from national to basin scale to farm plots, different stakeholders use different criteria for improving their operations. The preferred management approach would be to use a ‘‘dashboard” of multiple relevant indicators for multiple decisions. At the broadest level, the suite of indicators adopted for Target 6.4 of SDG6 comprises three elements – or macro indicators – related to the three aspects of sustainability: a) economic (wateruse efficiency); b) environmental (water stress); and social (people affected by scarcity), although the explicit domain is water quantity. In this case, the dashboard available to national decisionmakers comprises indicators relevant to multiple targets of the SDGs, not only those of SDG6. Increasing water productivity will contribute to the sustainability of food production systems and the use of resilient agricultural practices (SDG2, Target 4), which may help increase agricultural productivity and the incomes of small-scale farmers (SDG2, Target 3). Note that the above considerations relate to water use in agricultural production and not across value chains or at the consumer end. Because the greatest part of withdrawn water is used in production, improving performance in that part of the value chain is key to achieving significant water savings. Food systems, as we indicate elsewhere in this paper, promise significant room to save water and to represent compensation and offset potential for the water they use [38].

2. Revisiting the concepts of water-use efficiency and water productivity Any viable effort towards achieving optimal water-use efficiency in a future in which agriculture is highly productive must incorporate the following five principles of sustainable food and agriculture: i) improving efficiency in the use of resources; ii) conserving, protecting and enhancing natural ecosystems; iii) protecting and improving rural livelihoods and social well-being; iv) enhancing the resilience of people, communities and ecosystems;



and v) promoting the good governance of both natural and human systems [13]. These principles help guide national policies and efforts. Nevertheless, the cascading continuum from resource to production, processing and consumption involves many levels and multiple stakeholders with differing needs and priorities. For many (possibly most) farmers, concepts of water efficiency are meaningful when linked to maximizing the economic productivity of their farms rather than saving water, except perhaps where their own allocated resources are inadequate. Thus, using economic criteria for water efficiency rather than engineering criteria appears to be a practical approach while assessing irrigation performance at the farm level, because managerial (e.g. scheduling) and operational (e.g. equipment) inefficiencies associated with irrigation have been considered implicitly in assessments. 2.1. Efficiencies and productivity The term ‘efficiency’ in irrigation can be associated with the irrigation system or can refer to water-use in a broader sense. The onfarm adoption of efficient irrigation technologies is a potential way of conserving water. Drip irrigation, for example, allows the optimal delivery of water to crop root zones, with little loss to runoff, deep percolation or unproductive evaporation. A farmer’s decision to adopt irrigation technologies depends on several factors. Studies have shown that risk is the most important factor determining the adoption of efficient irrigation technologies, among other socio-economic, structural and demographic variables ([16,17,34]; Saha et al., 1994; [18,35,3]). Uncertainty associated with the adoption of technologies in agriculture arise from various sources, such as the perceived risk to future farm yields after technology adoption; price uncertainty related to farming itself; and production uncertainty due to the possibility of water shortages [3]. Evidence exists that irrigation technologies that apply water at the appropriate time and location close to plant root zones may increase crop consumptive use of water and crop yield as irrigation efficiency increases [26]. A farmer who uses efficient technologies, therefore, may both obtain higher crop yields and enjoy higher gross income (depending on the price of water, the cost of installing efficient irrigation technology, and the costs and returns of production). Conservation technologies may be beneficial from the economic perspective of farmers, but the basin-level consumptive use of water could increase, raising the question of whether enhanced water-use efficiency can guarantee additional water to new users. There is a notion that the water inefficiency of one user is the source of another user’s water supply because the quantity of water applied in irrigation that is not lost in evapotranspiration returns to the basin from which it was withdrawn via surface runoff or deep percolation [37]. Technological interventions, therefore, may not lead to desirable outcomes for the Basin, and the concept of basin-level irrigation efficiency is largely irrelevant to farmers. Rather, they aim to achieve the best use of a potentially limited supply by neither over- nor under-irrigating and minimizing non-beneficial losses. This approach is often described as ‘‘applying the right amount of water at the right time in the right place”, and any water ‘‘saved” would be allocated to additional crops. In contrast to individual farmers, water regulatory authorities – the prime objective of which is to balance the water needs of all abstractors (including the aquatic environment) – generally view increasing water efficiency as a means of saving water and promoting environmental sustainability [11]. A definition of water-use efficiency is yet to be universally agreed and adopted [32,23,15,25,36,24]. In the water sector, the term is generally understood as the ratio between water used and water withdrawn, and in the agriculture sector, it is often used as a measure of the efficiency of crops in the production of biomass

3

or harvestable yield. The lack of a common definition has led to misunderstandings at the policy level in both the agriculture and water sectors. The term ‘‘water-use efficiency” is best avoided, therefore, and ‘‘irrigation efficiency” and ‘‘water productivity” used instead. In most cases, ‘‘water productivity” should be the metric of choice because – unlike ‘‘irrigation efficiency” – it is not scaledependent and can be applied more widely. The overall aim is to address sustainability in all its dimensions, and therefore there are more options for managing water demand than increasing water-use efficiency by reducing water losses. One of these is increasing crop productivity per unit of water used – that is, producing more crop or in value per volume of water applied [11]. 2.2. Increasing productivity Water-use efficiency is often overemphasized in efforts to manage demand in agriculture, with efforts aimed at reducing water losses in irrigation distribution systems [10]. Two factors limit the scope for and impact of water loss reduction. First, part of the water ‘‘lost” in withdrawals can be recovered. Second, some of the water lost between the source and the end use returns to the hydrological system via aquifers or river systems and can be re-used downstream. In most cases, the single most important means for managing water demand in agriculture is increasing agricultural production per unit volume of water. Increases in crop yield (i.e. production per unit of land) can be achieved through better water control combined with improvements in, for example, genetic materials and soil fertility. The best approach from a farming perspective, therefore, is to manage overall water demand by focusing on water productivity rather than the technical or management efficiency of water use [10]. 2.3. Re-allocation of water Farmers seeking to increase incomes can re-allocate water to higher-value uses by limiting the area of irrigated land under a particular crop to reduce evapotranspiration or by diverting water to higher-value crops. The latter might require changes in irrigation management and associated technology to provide farmers with more control of their water supply. Shifts to higher-value crops also require access to inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, credit, technologies and know-how. In practice, the option of diverting water to higher-value crops is unavailable to many farmers because markets for higher-value crops are limited [10]. 3. Demand management strategies Understanding the roles, attitudes and strategies of stakeholders is a key aspect of demand management strategies. Ultimately, most water is consumed at the farmer level. Incentives can be used to drive the behaviour of farmers and their capacity to adapt, such as structural and institutional changes and increased reliability and flexibility in the water supply. Water tariffs have sometimes been used successfully to reduce agricultural water demand but are often difficult to enforce [10]. Viewpoints vary on how water prices should be determined. It is often argued that water pricing establish a recognised water value and could promote water-use flexibility provide incentives for more efficient water use [31]. Shah et al. [30] argued that it may be optimal to increase water prices to encourage quicker adoption of water conservation technologies. Carey and Zilberman [4] suggested that water markets could delay the adoption of modern irrigation technologies on farms with scarce water supplies, and they predicted that unless the expected present value of


4


investment exceeded the cost by a potentially large hurdle rate, farmers might not invest in modern technologies. Ram and Athalye [27] also find that if water pricing does not capture the true opportunity cost of water, then it will be a least important factor in influencing the adoption of new technologies. Bhaduri and Manna [3] investigated whether flexible water pricing alone could guarantee the higher adoption of efficient irrigation technologies, given the uncertainty in water supply stemming from climate change. Their theoretical results indicated that flexible water pricing could not guarantee greater adoption of efficient irrigation technology under increasing variance in the water supply. Uncertainty will have less negative impact on investment in efficient irrigation technologies under flexible water pricing, however. Bhaduri and Manna [3] find that if there is a possibility to invest in water storage capacity, then farmers will be motivated to save more water. Consequently, the relationship between aggregate investment in efficient irrigation technology and uncertainty in water supply might be positive. Efficient water pricing is obtained when the marginal benefit is equal to the marginal social cost, including environmental externalities and other opportunity costs [22,29]. However, the opportunity cost of water is difficult to measure despite the concept’s apparent simplicity. Such opportunity cost assessment in the absence of well-functioning water markets requires a systems approach and some assumptions about the real impacts and the responses to those impacts [7]. Another approach uses the cost recovery principle to ensure that operational and maintenance costs are recovered, and the project is therefore financially sustainable. None of these approaches, however, considers the willingness of farmers to pay for water. There is evidence that some farmers are unwilling to pay higher prices for water, despite an ability to pay [6,12], possibly stemming from a lack of transparency and accountability. Water fees might be set low to motivate the farmers to pay, but low prices make it more difficult to recover costs and lead to inefficient water use. Moreover, service delivery may be low as a result, weakening the incentive to pay more for water and resulting in a vicious circle of poorly managed water resources. If farmers are charged for water using a top-down approach, water pricing can act as a regulatory tax without fully meeting the objective of cost recovery or funding the maintenance of the irrigation system, which also decreases the motivation of farmers to pay more for it. Approaches such as incentive-based water pricing, water rights, water quotas and water-use (or withdrawal) rights tend to have a higher probability of success. 4. Options beyond the water domain Water cuts across the realms of agricultural production, food systems, including value and supply chains, and that of the consumers. Managers of water have a say in these realms, albeit at varying levels of influence but are hardly the primary decision maker. Significant room to save water, as a result, exists in the non-water domains. 4.1. Reduction of losses in the post-harvest value chain Beyond agricultural production, addressing diets, waste in the food chain, and the role of agricultural trade can achieve substantial water savings. Losses and wastage occur at all stages of the food chain and are estimated to constitute as much as 50 percent of production in developed countries [10]. 4.2. Reduction of demand for irrigated production through substitution Options for reducing demand for irrigated production in a country include increasing production in rainfed agriculture and

importing food products. Opportunities for rainfed agriculture vary greatly by location. Where the climate is conducive, the potential is high to improve productivity where yields are low. In parts of subSaharan Africa, for instance, improved agricultural practices, greater access to finance, inputs and markets, and other measures could achieve substantial improvements in agricultural productivity with little impact on water resources. Trade is particularly important in countries where water scarcity limits the capacity of agriculture to produce the full range of agricultural commodities. The concept of ‘‘virtual water” implies that certain crops are grown most efficiently where climates enable high water productivity at low cost, and the products traded to places with lower water productivity. Virtual water trade is likely to increase in the future [10].

5. Case Studies 5.1. Looking at different solutions in Aral Sea Basin The severity of water scarcity is exemplified in Central Asia, which became one of the world’s largest irrigated regions due to a tremendous expansion of irrigated agriculture to produce cotton. Although Uzbekistan is not the largest country in Central Asia, it hosts more than half the region’s population and more than 50 percent of its irrigated croplands. The inefficient use of (irrigation) water resources, however, have led to water overuse in some parts of the Uzbekistan while water scarcity in other parts of the country, as well as reduced environmental flows that contributed to the desiccation of the Aral Sea [21]. Improving a single water management measure will be insufficient to overcome the country’s water-scarcity challenge. Rather, a combination of measures geared towards water-use reduction along the entire production supply chain is needed, concurrently addressing all relevant economic sectors. Today, more than ninety percent of total water withdrawals in Uzbekistan (about 62 km3 annually; [35] is comprised of irrigated agriculture. The high dependence of the Uzbek economy on water is especially challenging because a large part of the water resource originates in the upstream countries of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan [33]. Uzbekistan is one of the countries with highest rates of water use per capita and ha [40]. Crops such as cotton and paddy rice predominate the irrigation sector, despite reduced water access in recent decades. Market prices for agricultural commodities are strongly seasonal, with the lowest prices occurring in harvesting periods (summer and autumn) and the highest in non-harvesting periods (winter and spring) due to a lack of processing and storage facilities. Given the dominance of high-water-demanding crops such as cotton and rice and the substantial water losses that occur in irrigation, measures are needed to improve water productivity. Possible strategies for reducing water use include the following: i) the implementation of advanced irrigation technologies; ii) reducing the area of currently dominant crops (cotton and rice) in favour of expanding the production of fruit and vegetables; iii) the development of the industrial and services sectors and upgrading production value chains by expanding the production of commodities with higher value added; iv) reducing the waste of commodities at the production and consumption levels; and v) diversifying exports, for example by replacing exports of cotton fibre with commodities with higher value added, such as fabrics and clothing. Initiatives in both the public and private sectors are essential for putting such strategies into effect. In particular, the challenge for government is to create an enabling environment by providing adequate infrastructure, technological investment and efficient


5


institutional rearrangements. Empowering water users and raising their awareness of, and providing support for, strategies and technologies for reducing water use would also help in achieving a technological and economic transformation. Governmental organizations can play a key role in achieving efficient water use by investing in human capital, ensuring the rule of law, providing reliable long-term planning for farmers to enable them to invest in water savings on their farms, and providing the conditions in which farmers themselves can develop and implement innovative solutions. The use of incentive-based water management mechanisms such as water pricing, concurrently providing a legal basis for this, can enhance understanding of the real value of water among users, which is important in achieving efficient water use while aiming at increasing water productivity. It will likely take time for measures such as the development of infrastructure, industrial enterprises and responsive institutions to have an impact on the ground, and reforms, therefore, need strong longterm backing. Efforts to improve water-use efficiency should be implemented as soon as possible to reduce the enormous water risks facing countries, even though most of the benefits are likely to be realized only in the long term [2]. 5.2. Morocco’s Green Plan Water demand in Morocco is higher than the supply which makes Morocco a water scarce country. In many areas, water withdrawals are higher than the annual recharge rates which result in dropping groundwater levels (in some cases with a rate of almost 2 metres per year) and rivers that do not reach the sea any longer [5]. Agriculture is the main user of the water; 88 percent of all the water withdrawn is used for irrigation (FAO, 2017). After the independence, an agricultural policy promoted the implementation of public irrigation schemes. As a result of this, the irrigated area of Morocco grew from 90,000 ha in 1961 to about 220,000 hectares in 1966 and almost 1,500,000 hectares in 2011. (FAO, 2017). As a result of these efforts irrigated agriculture accounts now for about 14 per cent of national GDP, 75 per cent of all exports and 25 per cent of employment nationally, and 40 percent in rural areas [5]. In 2007 Morocco initiated its green plan, a national strategy to revive the agricultural sector and make it more sustainable,

especially socio-economically but also from an environmental perspective. Part of this Green Plan is the Plan National d’Economie d’Eau en Irrigation, which promotes the improvement of water productivity in a more sustainable way. The ultimate objective of the Plan National d’Economie d’Eau en Irrigation is to double, in economic terms, the productivity of the water withdrawn. This needs to be done by modernising existing irrigation schemes and promoting higher value crops. Modernisation of the irrigated sector in the context of this strategy consists mainly of converting surface irrigation systems to pressurised localised irrigation systems. The reason for doing so is the perceived low irrigation efficiency of surface irrigation (50–60 percent) as compared to localised irrigation (90 percent). The result of this modernisation strategy is an average annual increase in localised irrigation systems of about 16 percent since the Plan National d’Economie d’Eau en Irrigation came into effect (FAO, 2017). It is likely that the strategy laid out in the Green Plan is effective about increasing the economic water productivity of the water withdrawn, and as such contributed to the socio-economic sustainability of irrigated agriculture. However, there seems to be no clear evidence that real water savings were obtained, and that groundwater overdraft has been put to a halt, which implies that the environmental sustainability of the irrigated sector did not improve as a result of this strategy. 6. Conclusion and way forward Water scarcity is percieved as one of the greatest challenges of the twenty-first century, and it entails as one of the biggest economic and social risks in the next ten years. Addressing water scarcity and enhancing water efficiency and increasing water productivity go hand-in-hand. Water is used inefficiently and in many cases wastefully in most sectors during production and along the entire value chain, including in agriculture, industries and households, for reasons ranging from water-inefficient processes, the lack or low quality of infrastructure, mismanagement, and poor governance. Due to a lack of intersectoral coordination, for example between water, agriculture and energy, decisions taken in one sector can have adverse impacts on water availability in others. Efficiency gains leading to water savings are possible in all agriculture sectors, including crop production, livestock, fisheries,

Table 1 Action Domains in Agriculture and Food Systems.

Agricultural production

Water relevance

Opportunity/objective

Remarks

Withdrawal/extraction

Sustainable withdrawals (not exceeding replenishment rates). Increased efficiency (reduce unaccounted for water; minimize leaks, evaporation, and unauthorized use). Increased productivity/efficiency (more yield per drop). Better farming and irrigation practices Increased water availability through re-use, wastewater use, return flows, reduced pollution, choosing ‘‘water smart” inputs. Sustainability practices, better site selection, supply chain optimization, ‘‘water smart” processing, resource stewardship, minimized pollution, corporate social responsibility.

Prospects to encourage small-holder farmers to increase productivity by making them beneficiaries of compensation and offset programs. Prospects to encourage high-value crops and agri-products to offset.

Conveyance systems

On-farm distribution Field application Drainage Re-use

Food value chain

Consumption/user end

Storage Shipping Transportation Processing Packaging Distribution Marketing Drinking Hygiene Embedded in food Embedded in lifestyles

Reduction in wasteful practices, food loss and wastage. More informed and greater impact on policy processes and in stakeholder fora.

Best practices abound. Primary prospects for offset and compensation programs.

Domain for awareness-raising, advocacy, charitable contributions.


6


aquaculture and forestry; at all stages of value chains; in domestic and industrial uses; and in the production, storage and distribution systems, including a reduction in food waste. Actions are needed on both the supply and demand side of water management. On the supply side, it is essential to use all available water resources: soil moisture, runoff and groundwater. Increased reuse and recycling, including of agricultural runoff, has huge potential. Treated wastewater can be used in conjunction with rainwater and surface water. On the demand side, economic instruments can be used to generate the investments needed to bring about water reforms and to trigger behaviour change among farmers, producers, users, consumers and decision-makers in addressing water scarcity. Table 1 depicts the three distinct domains, i.e. agricultural production, food value chain and consumer end, that have water saving prospects in various areas along with the respective stakeholders involved. The following recommendations are based on those proposed by the 2016 Budapest 2016 Water Summit [8]. 6.1. Policy recommendations Actions from decision-makers can be taken around the interconnected dimensions of technology, economics and governance. 6.1.1. Technology Scale up of the implementation of technical solutions to foster water-use efficiency along value chains, including transportation, storage, processing and consumption phases, by: Encouraging and motivating farmers to increase farm-level efficiency, using the right mix of technology, infrastructure and management, such as appropriate and water-efficient irrigation systems, conjunctive use of surface water and ground water, on-farm water storage, night irrigation and adapted cropping patterns. Ensuring that municipal authorities and water service providers, including irrigation services, are actively detecting and preventing leaks and monitoring losses in water distribution and conveyance systems. Encouraging farmers to use extension services to obtain information on the availability and benefits of improved crop selection; water-saving technologies and practices; drought resistant seeds; optimal crop-water requirements; and water savings in livestock, fisheries and aquaculture, including the reuse of treated wastewater and multiple uses of the same water resources. In collaboration with scientific and professional communities, increasing the availability of innovative technologies by, for example, facilitating start-ups. Providing, through governments, the conditions for ensuring that such technological solutions are readily available and affordable. 6.1.2. Economic Use economic instruments to foster the rational use of water resources, collect needed revenues and trigger behaviour change among water users by: Implementing the principles of polluter-pays and user-pays by setting and collecting sufficient abstraction and pollution charges for surface water, groundwater and untreated used water discharge to encourage water efficiency and quality. Using economic instruments to catalyse finance for water and water-related infrastructures, such as for drinking water supplies, wastewater management and irrigation systems, including rehabilitation and modernization.

Implementing measures such as subsidies, incentives and disincentives for ecosystem services, with careful consideration of cross-sectoral impacts. Taking measures that strive for fairness, equity and gender equality when using economic instruments and in designing investment policies and programs. The needs and capacities of the poor, smallholders and other vulnerable groups should especially be considered. Strengthening international cooperation on agricultural trade by s Substantially improving market access while maintaining appropriate safeguards for developing countries, especially for the most vulnerable people. s Substantially reducing trade-distorting domestic support to agriculture. s Widening, strengthening and enforcing consultation and notification processes related to World Trade Organization rules for export restrictions. s Promoting ‘‘Aid for Trade” initiatives to facilitating the integration of developing countries mostly affected by climate change, water scarcity and reduced productivity into the international food trade system.

6.1.3. Governance Encourage adaptive and flexible water governance systems that promote water-use efficiency at all levels by: Fostering coordinated planning and management across water, land and soil at the relevant scales, taking into account administrative, landscape and hydro(geo)logical boundaries. Considering water as part of broader tenure, including land tenure, engaging with key stakeholders (e.g. through reviews, reflections and discussions) on the concept of water tenure, and developing a common understanding of its use as a governance instrument. Empowering water-user associations as mechanisms for managing water at the relevant scale, recognizing that a minimum of financial, legal and technical support is needed for such associations to operate effectively. In cases where water users are not organized, identify processes and structures to involve them in the governance of water resources. Striving to reduce socio-economic inequalities (including in access to water resources), and strengthening the capacities of vulnerable farmers (women and men), farmer organizations, water-user organizations, women’s organizations, trade organizations and consumer organizations at all levels. Raising the awareness of stakeholders on water risks and costs to increase their willingness to pay for services and to save water across the value chain and to reduce food losses and waste. Encouraging focused capacity development to deal with tradeoffs, co-benefits and synergies and to provide smallholder farmers with vocational training.

References [1] N. Alexandratos, J. Bruinsma, World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. (pp. 94–97). Rome, FAO, 2012. [2] M. Bekchanov, J.P. Lamers, A. Bhaduri, M. Lenzen, B. Tischbein, Input-output model-based water footprint indicators to support IWRM in the irrigated drylands of Uzbekistan, central Asia, in: D.J. Borchardt (Ed.), Integrated Water Resources Management: Concept, Research and Implementation, Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, Germany, 2016, pp. 147–168. [3] A. Bhaduri, U. Manna, Impacts of water supply uncertainty and storage on efficient irrigation technology adoption, Nat. Resour. Model. 27 (1) (2014) 1– 24.


O. Unver et al. / Water Security xxx (2017) xxx–xxx [4] M. Carey, D. Zilberman, A model of investment under uncertainty: modern irrigation technology and emerging markets in water, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84 (2002) 171–183. [5] CES, La gouvernance par la gestion intégrée des ressources en eau au Maroc: Levier fondamental de développement durable, Conseil Economique, Social et Environnemental (CES), 2014. [6] G. Cornish, B. Bosworth, C. Perry, G. Burke, Water Charging in Irrigated Agriculture-An Analysis of International Experience. Rome: FAO Water Report 28, 2006. [7] J. Briscoe, Managing water as an economic good- Rules for reformers, Water Supply 15 (4) (1997) 153–172. [8] Budapest Water Summit, 2016. Summary and recommendations. Accessed at https://www.budapestwatersummit.hu/data/images/Kepek_2016/BWS2016_ Messages_Policy_Recommendations.pdf. [9] FAO, 2011. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture: Managing systems at risk. Rome, FAO & London, Earthscan. [10] FAO, 2012. Coping with water scarcity: An action framework for agriculture and food security. FAO Water Reports 38. (Available at: http://www.fao. org/docrep/016/ i3015e/i3015e.pdf). Accessed 18 April 2016. [11] C. Batchelor, J. Hoogeveen, J.-M. Faurès, L. Peiser, Water accounting and auditing - A sourcebook. FAO Water Reports 43, 2016. [12] W.K. Easter, Y. Liu, Cost Recovery and Water Pricing – Irrigation and Drainage Projects. Washington DC: World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 26, 2005. [13] FAO, 2014. Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture. Rome. [14] J. Hoogeveen, J.M. Faures, L. Peiser, J. Burke, N. van de Giesen, GlobWat—a global water balance model to assess water usage in irrigated agriculture, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015 (19) (2014) 3829–3844. [15] T.C. Hsiao, P. Steduto, E. Fereres, A systematic and quantitative approach to improve water use efficiency in agriculture, Irrig. Sci. 25 (2007) 209–231. [16] R. Jensen, Adoption and diffusion of an innovation of uncertain profitability, J. Econ. Theory 27 (1982) 182–192. [17] R. Just, D. Zilberman, Stochastic structure, farm size and technology adoption in developing agriculture, Oxf. Econ. Papers 35 (1983) 307–328. [18] P. Koundouri, C. Nauges, V. Tzouvelekas, Technology adoption under production uncertainty: theory and application, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 88 (2006) 657–670. [19] M. Kummu, P. Ward, H. de Moel, S. Eisner, M. Flörke, M. Porkka, P. Ward, The world’s road to water scarcity: shortage and stress in the 20th century and pathways towards sustainability. Nature-Scientific Report, 2016. [20] McKinsey & Co. 2009. Charting Our Water Future. [21] P. Micklin, The Aral sea disaster, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 35 (2007) 47–72. [22] J.R. Lund, M. Israel, Water transfers in the water resource systems. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 121(2), pp. 193–204, 1995. [23] L.S. Pereira, T. Oweis, A. Zairi, Irrigation management under water scarcity, Agric. Water Manage. 57 (2002) 175–206. [24] L.S. Pereira, I. Cordery, I. Iacovides, Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving, Agric. Water Manag. 108 (2012) 39–51.

7

[25] C. Perry, Efficient irrigation; inefficient communication; flawed recommendations, Irrigation and Drainage 56 (4) (2007). [26] J.M. Peterson, Y. Ding, Economic adjustments to groundwater depletion in the high plains: do water-saving irrigation systems save water?, Am J. Agric. Econ. 87 (2005) 147–159. [27] R. Ram, S. Athalye, Drought resilience in agriculture-the role of technological options. land use dynamics, and risk perception, Nat. Resour. Model 22 (2009) 437–462. [28] J. Rockström, M. Lannerstad, M. Falkenmark, Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (15) (2007) 6253–6260. [29] P. Rogers, R. Silva, R. Bhatia, Water is an economic good: how to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability, Water Policy 4 (1) (2002) 1–17. [30] F. Shah, D. Zilberman, U. Chakravorty, The technology adoption in the presence of an exhaustible resource-the case of groundwater extraction, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77 (1995) 291–299. [31] B. Shaliba, D. Bush, Water Markets in Theory and Practice-Market Transfers, Water Values, and Public Policy, Westview Press, Boulder CO, 1987. [32] P. Steduto, Water use efficiency, in: L.S. Pereira, R. Feddes, J.R. Gilley, B. Lesaffre (Eds.), Sustainability of Irrigated Agriculture, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996, pp. 193–209. [33] W.R. Sutton, Integrating environment into agriculture and forestry-progress and prospects in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. World Bank Publications, 2008. [34] Y. Tsur, M. Sternberg, E. Hochman, Dynamic modeling of innovation process – adoption with risk aversion and learning, Oxf. Econ. Papers 42 (1990) 336– 355. [35] UNDP, Water—critical resource for Uzbekistan’s future. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Energy and Environment Unit, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2007. [36] G.E. Van Halsema, L. Vincent, Efficiency and productivity terms for water management: a matter of contextual relativism versus general absolutism, Agric. Water Manag. 108 (2012) 9–15. [37] F.A. Ward, M. Pulido-Velazquez, Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (47) (2008) 18215–18220. [38] World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2009. Water for Business, Initiatives guiding sustainable water management in the private sector, Version August 2009. [39] WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme). 2016. 2016. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2016: Water and jobs. Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). [40] World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 2002. Living planet report 2002. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland. [41] Y. Xie, D. Zilberman, Theoretical implications of institutional, environmental, and technological changes for capacity choices of water projects, Water Resour. Econ. 13 (2016) 19–29.
