As of this
point, my blog has largely focused on how the efficiency, scale and
sustainability of agriculture across sub-Saharan Africa can be improved, in
line with progress to achieve the ‘Zero Hunger’ sustainable development goal
(SDG number 2). Within the next two posts, this blog will consider how trade in
virtual water proposes an option to help improve food security without
achieving agricultural self-sufficiency. Virtual water is defined as ‘the
volume of water required to produce a commodity or service’ (Hoekstra
and Chapagain 2007: 36), and was introduced by Allan as a conceptual
trading strategy to solve issues of water scarcity in the Middle East (Allan
1993; Allan 2001). With food production accounting for nearly 80% of annual
freshwater usage (Suweis et al. 2011), food imports are equivalent to importing
virtual water (as opposed to real water) and reduce the pressure on domestic
water resources. The scale of virtual water exportation is vast, making up approximately
19% of the global water footprint (Hoekstra and Mekonnen
2012). Global food trade is suggested to be a more efficient and
sustainable model than self-sustenance, saving approximately 10% of global
irrigation withdrawals (Dalin and Conway 2016).
How useful is
the concept of virtual water?
The concept of
virtual water captures the global relationship between trade, water and
commodities, valuing the significant volumes of water used in agriculture to
produce food. It encourages imports of virtual water to be considered as an
exogenous source of water, providing an alternative to endogenous sources.
Knowing the virtual water value of a commodity can help to determine how
best to utilise scarce water resources in semi-arid and arid environments of
sub-Saharan Africa. Valuing virtual water often poses a challenge with
commodity prices based on a multitude of factors including labour content and
transport costs, the concept consequentially lacks a sense of tangibility and grounding (Antonelli 2014). The concept provides no information about the sustainability of
resource use for commodity production or trading, so it is limited in its
ability to achieve the sustainability focused aspects of SDG’s 2 and 6. By
nature, the concept ignores the factors causing local water stress or
agricultural inefficiency such as politics, poverty and inequitable trading
schemes.
Benefits of
trading in virtual water:
Importing commodities
with high virtual water content and exporting commodities with low virtual
water content, a nation could reduce the amount of water resources it uses for
agriculture at minimal cost. Virtual
water importation can also further help to alleviate water-stress by reducing
agricultural water demands such as for irrigation. Multiple studies have
highlighted how positive virtual water flow is a remedy to local water deficit
or drought, suggesting it helps to increase food security and prevent famine
through the redistribution of water resources in response to production gaps (Dalin and Conway 2016). Studies on virtual water trade in
sub-Saharan Africa have noted how imports can alleviate the water-deficiency induced by precipitation variability, leading to decreases in undernourishment - a variable used by Konar and Caylor (2013)
to proxy food security. Interestingly Karapinar’s (2011) study of
Ethiopia found that the exportation of virtual water-intensive commodities does
not actually contribute to food insecurity, largely because its water uses
seldom competed with that required to produce food staples.
Drawbacks of
trading in virtual water:
It is frequently
suggested that virtual water in practice flows from cash-poor to rich
countries. A global virtual water trading model developed by Susweis (et al.2011) shows that a few countries have access to vast trade networks affording
them cheap and steady supplies of virtual water, whilst a larger number of
countries have very few trade connections, making them significantly more
vulnerable to market effects. Paternalistic characteristics are inherently
linked with the concept as a result of the disproportionate access to trading
connections, effectively denying poorly connected developing countries from
making trade and economic decisions in their own interest (Allan 2003). Trading in virtual water also causes
a disconnect between society and the natural resources they use, potentially
reducing resilience in the face of severe drought (Paolo
D’Odorico et al. 2010).
I hope this post has provided an
interesting introduction to the concept of virtual water and its potential as a
food security strategy. Whilst its usefulness as a concept and political
strategy is highly contested, virtual water trading’s potential has often been
considered by academics in the sub-Saharan Africa context. The next blog post
will build upon these foundations and consider the potential value virtual
water trading has in sub-Saharan Africa. I look forward to seeing you next
time!
Comments
Post a Comment