Is Virtual Water Capable of Becoming Policy?

Previous blog posts have focused on more tangible methods to tackle the water and food scarcity issue, such as desalination, drip irrigation and extracting groundwater. But what if we did not have to employ these more tangible methods, and still work towards achieving food security? 

Virtual water is a term coined by Allan (1997); it is used to address the water that is used in the production of any commodity. When this commodity is traded, water is also traded as water is embedded in the commodity (Zeitoun et al, 2010). This applies to agricultural commodities, as the water used in the production of food staples is significant. For instance, 1,000 cubic metres of water is required to produce a ton of grain (Allan, 2003). Therefore, if it is food that is traded, virtual water can globalise the problem of water scarcity and allow countries that are facing this issue to import water intensive crops. The bluewater used for irrigated agriculture is a net drain on water resources and can instead be used for a greater economic or intrinsic value (Zeitoun et al, 2010). 

The use of virtual water has the capability of becoming more than a theoretical concept and an actual policy tool. 

Figure 1: Map showing virtual water trade (TEDx Talks) 

Figure 1 shows that it is the drier countries that generally tend to be the importers of virtual water, mainly due to the food shortages that they face. However, there is no actual international policy that oversees the process of virtual water. 

The virtual water logic is, however, visible in Egypt. Government policy has aimed to decrease the areas of water-intensive rice cultivation and increase rice imports (Barnes, 2013). The use of virtual water trade would also be ideal for the Libyan Jamahiriya. The country receives very little rainfall; 95% of the country receives less than 100mm/year. With rainwater-fed agriculture being so unreliable, the country relies on irrigation and increased demand for the reallocation of groundwater sources (Wheida & Verhoeven, 2007). The Libya Great Manmade River is a network of pipes to extract groundwater; an estimated $30 billion was spent on this though it is expected to only last 20 years (TEDx Talks). Virtual water would be ideal for Libya, where food imports can address the unreliable rainfall and avoid the issues of over extraction from groundwater.

When reading around virtual water, I had an overly optimistic perception of its capability, though now I realise why it may just remain a theoretical concept. 

Food trade can lead to water insecurity. Wait… Was it not meant to help tackle that? Yes, but virtual water trade can mean that politicians ignore the urgent need to reform water-use practises and achieve more sustainable and efficient water use. Furthermore, water is fetishized when it enters the market, extracting it from its context (Barnes, 2013), which overshadows its many other functions. Egypt’s policy to reduce water consumption and increase food security places the value of water on solely rice. However, Egypt’s climate makes its soils very susceptible to salinisation, thereby reducing the soil's agricultural productivity. When rice paddies are irrigated, not only does this produce rice but it also decreases the salinity of topsoil by 25% (Barnes, 2013). Therefore, virtual water trade ignores the other vital functions that water can have. 

To conclude, virtual water trade comes across as an important potential policy idea as it addresses the water and food deficit that many countries face. However, this is difficult to put into practice. Virtual water ignores much needed water management reforms and undermines the role of agriculture for farmer livelihoods. It also is tangled with the political barriers that can prevent trading, as well as the costs of taxes and tariffs.