المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

We welcome this report, as water is essential for agriculture and critical for the maintenance of human life on earth. We also welcome the recognition of the increase in the consumption of livestock products as one of the main factors behind the increased demand for water.

The report does mention the differences in water consumption between animal products that come from different species, and it also mentions the differences between products from different systems (e.g. grass-based vs grain-fed for ruminants). However, we think that is important to analyse the interaction between both factors.

In that sense, we believe that more emphasis should be given to the distinction between the different components of the water footprint (i.e. green, blue and grey). While we recognize the difficulties in measuring water footprints ad specially, their individual components (blue, green and grey water), it is critical to evaluate the differences between these components in the local context (e.g. in areas with high rainfall, green water use is of lesser concern), to properly evaluate the differences between production systems: beef might have a larger water footprint than pork or chicken, but if we are talking about grass-fed beef, most of that water would probably be rainwater (green) and its usage would have far less impact, whereas in the case of pork and chicken (especially in industrial production systems), a larger proportion of that water would be blue and grey and thus, more relevant. We are attaching a copy of a report that provides further clarification on these issues, as well as figures to support these claims.

The report also points out that livestock production is becoming more and more functionally segregated from crops production, and we’d ad that there is also a geographical segregation, that’s present at the farm, regional, country and even continental level.

Considering that 40% of the cereals and the vast majority of soybean produced globally are directed to feeding livestock, and that those animals are usually reared in different regions to the one where the crops are originated, grain-dependant livestock farming represents a huge part of the virtual water trade that’s mentioned in the report. Furthermore, this practice also favours nutrient accumulation in the areas dedicated to livestock production (mostly via manure accumulation) which further increases grey water footprint in the destination (as well as nutrient depletion in the regions where the crops are grown).

Grain feeding of ruminants also increases the water footprint of ruminant meat, as grain and other concentrated feedstuffs have a much higher water footprint than grass and roughages (and a less favourable distribution between the 3 components of water footprints), as shown in our attached report.

Taking all of the above in consideration, it becomes clear that the increase in production of livestock products has direct as well as indirect effects on water use. Increased production of a water demanding product (e.g. meat) increases water use. Furthermore, the increasing demand for meat can only be met by industrial systems that present serious risks, not just for water, but for every limited resource we depend on this planet.

Once we accept that the increase in the demand for animal products is a big cause of the increase water use, we must accept that besides working on increase the water use efficiency of livestock production (and doing it without increasing its footprints for other impacts), we should be thinking about regulating the demand, to make sure to keep it at the levels that can be achieve by sustainable production.

We welcome the inclusion of the “Addressing changing diets” category among the policy recommendations. However, due to all that was expressed here, we believe that there is the need for a stronger call to address consumption patterns, to move away from water demanding products (including, but not limited to meat). This is mainly the role of the states (as well as the consumers), and we’d like to see an explicit mention in the recommendations to the shift away from water demanding products (and production methods). In the recommendation for the private sector, we would like to see some clarification that the improvements on water efficiency shouldn’t be made at the expenses of other equally valuable resources and the call for a holistic view of sustainability (i.e. not focusing on one metric at the time).

We would also like to see recommendation regarding the different production systems (as illustrated in this commentary around grain vs grass based systems for ruminants, but the argument also extends to other systems).

Finally, we would encourage the consideration of recommendation to reduce food waste, which can be also seen as a virtual water waste (in the same lines of the virtual water trade).