Seeing "Invisible Water": Challenging conceptions of water for food, agriculture and human security

For Peer Review O

nly

Seeing 'Invisible Water': Challenging conceptions of water

for agriculture, food and human security

Journal: Canadian Journal of Development Studies /Revue canadienne d’études du développement

Manuscript ID: CJDS-2014-0006.R3

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Keywords: food security, water productivity, green water, virtual water, Central Asia

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjds

Canadian Journal of Development Studies /Revue canadienne d'études du développement

For Peer Review O

nly

Figure 1: Water withdrawal as a percentage of total water available

Source: http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/jpg/0400-waterstress-EN.jpg

Figure 2: World Water Scarcity

Source:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Map_showing_Global_Physical_and_Eco

nomic_Water_Scarcity_2006.gif

Table 1. Criteria for Determining Socio-Ecologically Productive (SPG) and Non-

Productive Green Water

Page 1 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

SPG Water SNPG Water

● transpires through vegetation

● maximizes transpiration, or water use

efficiency (WUE), in growing an

agricultural product

● is used to grow plants in climates they

are physiologically-adapted to

● contributes to local household food and

livelihood security

● contributes to the sustainability of the

ecosystem

● ensures ecosystem services are

maintained with sufficient amount of

water

● is not utilized to grow invasive

species, or to cultivate plants which

degrade the land

● transpires through vegetation

● does not maximize WUE in growing an

agricultural product

● is used to grow plants in climates not

suited to their physiology, thereby

creating a higher water input

● undermines local household food and

livelihood security

● compromises the sustainability of the

ecosystem

● is utilized in activities which do not

leave a sufficient amount of water for

ecosystem services

Table 2: Consumptive water use (blue + green water) use at field level for cotton

production in 10 largest cotton producing countries

Country (Rank) Cotton

production

(1000

metric

tonnes in

2013/14)

Crop water

requirement

(mm)

Effective

rainfall

(Green

water)

(mm)

Blue water

requirement

(blue water

withdrawal)

(mm)

Irrigated

share of

area (%)

Total

consumptive

water use

(mm)

Australia (7) 893 901 322 579 90 843

Brazil (5) 1633 606 542 65 15 551

China (1) 6967 718 397 320 75 638

Greece (10) 298 707 160 547 100 707

India (2) 6641 810 405 405 33 538

Page 2 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Pakistan (4) 2068 850 182 668 100 850

Turkey (8) 501 963 90 874 100 963

Turkmenistan

(9)

327 1025 69 956 100 1025

United States

(3)

2811 516 311 205 52 419

Uzbekistan (6) 904 999 19 981 100 999

Source: derived from Chapagain et al, 2006: p. 190; and

www.statista.com/statistics/263055/cotton-production-worldwide-by-top-countries/

Table 3: Governance Indicators for Canada and Uzbekistan 2013

Indicator Canada Uzbekistan

Voice and accountability 95.3 2.1

Political stability and violence 83.9 26.5

Government effectiveness 97.1 17.7

Regulatory quality 95.2 3.2

Rule of law 94.8 11.4

Control of corruption 95.2 8.1

Source: World Bank http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports

Page 3 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Abstract

Climate change and variability combined with increasing population shape a discourse of ‘water

crisis’, with a heavy emphasis on water scarcity particularly in the global South. The primary

metric used to reach this conclusion involves ‘freshwater availability’, the ratio between

population and renewable freshwater defined as annually available surface and groundwater. In

this article, we challenge this view of limited or diminishing freshwater availability particularly

as it relates to food production – characterized as a ‘blue water bias’ – and introduce the concepts

of green water and virtual water. In particular, we expose the fallacy of ‘water scarcity’ as it

relates to freshwater availability, highlight the value of a green water perspective, and apply

these conceptual understandings to the case of cotton production in Uzbekistan. We show that

there is enough water and land for food security for all. Shortages are most often the result of a

combination of ‘water blindness’ and decision making in support of narrowly conceived

economic criteria rather than satisfaction of basic human needs. Therefore, to achieve food

security, the discourse for water and agriculture must broaden and begin to explore new

explanations and perspectives around key issues; more specifically, it should challenge dominant

conceptualisations of ‘scarcity’ through new and refined concepts such as blue, green and virtual

water. New perspectives and concepts yield new insights regarding the many social and

environmental challenges ahead.

Page 4 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

1

Introduction

The world water crisis is said to be a freshwater crisis partly of our own making. While the

amount of freshwater in the world is limited and finite, the human population with all of its

complex needs is increasing. For nearly three decades, a veritable mountain of research has

been conducted to demonstrate the facts of this crisis. At the end of the 1990s, Postel

(1998) questioned whether we would have enough water for food production in 2025. At

about the same time, the World Bank declared that future wars would be fought over

water. During the first decade of the 21st Century, numerous meetings were held to

establish a global governance framework for water. Today, a great deal of speculation

concerns the impact of climate change on hydrological cycles, food and energy production

capacities, leading to a complex ‘nexus’ of resource (in)security (WEF, 2011). At the heart

of these exercises are three questions: Is there enough water for our needs? Is there

enough water for food production in order to feed the world? If we do not have the ability

to grow our own food, how do we ensure food security? (Falkenmark, 2001).

The answers given to each of these questions reflect conventional beliefs in

humanity’s having reached a number of limits, boundaries or tipping points (Rockstrom et

al, 2009). So, while there is enough water for both our needs and for food production now,

there is no guarantee this will be so in the near future. For those states having already

reached their limits, they must abandon any interest in food self-sufficiency and pursue,

instead, a policy of food security, which may mean guaranteeing access to imported staples

such as rice or wheat, or actually acquiring the rights to land and water in another country.

Each of these hypothesized options are steeped in controversy: the former in terms of the

dangers of putting a state’s food security in the hands of global food markets; the latter in

Page 5 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

2

terms of the perception of land and water ‘grabs’, meaning the alienation of local small

holder farmers from common lands by rentier states interested in new streams of national

revenue.

All of these discussions are dominated by a discourse of ‘scarcity’: that available

freshwater resources are threatened by ever expanding human uses and demands; that many river

basins are ‘closed’ and cannot accommodate new users; that climate change will make all of this

worse (WWDR I-IV). Decision makers are being asked to better integrate water related decisions

as they impact across the resource use landscape within what is now called the ‘water-energy-

food-climate security nexus’ (WEF, 2011). Unfortunately, the water crisis and scarcity narratives

place their emphasis on a limited and, in our view, outdated conceptual understanding of the

resource that inadvertently narrows the possibilities for better decision-making. The discourse

on water availability must broaden and begin to explore new explanations and perspectives on

water, especially as they relate to: (i) the overall resource endowment; and (ii) the types of water

available for the production of food and other agricultural goods.

In this article, we challenge theseveral dominant and emerging conceptualizations of

water availability in order to push the discussion forward regarding how much water there is

available for human use, in particular for food and agricultural production. In particular, we

examine the concepts freshwater availability, water scarcity, and blue, green and virtual water.

Sustainable and equitable approaches to water use and management require new ways of

understanding the resource base. The article proceeds as follows. In the next section, we address

the question ‘how much water is there?’ showing that there is a great deal more water available

than we are generally led to believe. This is because a ‘blue water bias’ exists that makes a

majority of water professionals and policy makers blind to the significant amounts of green water

Page 6 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

3

available for human needs. In the third section we discuss the concept green water, arguing that

while it is fundamentally important in helping us understand how much water there is in the

world, the concept needs to further distinguish between types of productive green water. We

label these socio-ecologically productive green water (SPG) and socio-ecologically non-

productive green water (SNPG). While large scale mono-cropping produces biomass (SPG), it

often produces negative environmental and social effects (SNPG) as well. In the penultimate

section, we present a case study focused on cotton production in Uzbekistan to illustrate the

utility of the conceptual advances we are proposing. The final section presents some policy

related concluding remarks.

How much water is there?

In his first World Water Report, Peter Gleick asked the important question, ‘how much

water is there, and where is it?’ The answer, then, as it is now, was offered in terms of country-

by-country freshwater availability (see also WWDR I). Freshwater is defined as naturally

occurring surface and groundwater. Available freshwater is that which is readily accessible for

human use, which is said to be only 0.007 per cent of all water on earth. The water scarcity – and

therefore ‘water for human security’ – narrative turns on the fact that it is only this small amount

of water on Earth that ‘is available to fuel and feed its 6.8 billion people’

(www.environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/). While a

common (and perhaps alarming) statement, it is incorrect. Of the 1700m3 of water we each need

per year to survive, approximately 1400m3/cap/yr manifests in the form of food, of which an

estimated 1200m3/cap/yr is embedded in food grown through direct rainfall (Falkenmark and

Rockstrom, 2004). In other words, 70% of all the water we need each year bears no direct

relation to ‘freshwater availability’, measured as rainfall runoff and aquifer recharge.

Page 7 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

4

Researchers remain blind to the important role this water – taken up directly by plants through

soil moisture – plays in overall water security. For Falkenmark and Rockstrom (2004: 9), such a

perspective constitutes a ‘blue water bias’ as well as a ‘water blindness’: although ‘some 60-70%

of world food production originates from rainfed agriculture’, for engineers and water

professionals ‘crop production [is] thought of as an irrigation issue’. In their opinion, it is a grave

error to continue to base our food production systems around the potential for commandeering

accessible blue water, i.e. about 14% of all the rain that falls on land and turns into run-off, while

ignoring the other 86%. If we are to achieve food security in a sustainable way, it is imperative to

focus not on blue water but on what Falkenmark and Rockstrom term green water. We return to

this concept below.

Fanning the flames of fear about looming water shortages is the conceputalisation of

‘water scarcity’. Brown and Matlock (2011) and Lautze and Hanjra (2014) provide useful

overviews of water scarcity indices and methodologies. Originally developed by Falkenmark

(1986) as a ‘water crowding index’, the scarcity index measures freshwater availability in terms

of cubic metres per capita with a threshold of 1700 m3/cap – i.e. the amount of water required to

satisfy human needs on average each year – below which countries will experience either stress

or scarcity (<1000m3/cap/yr). In 2007, the United Nations added the category of water

vulnerability, i.e. <2500m3/cap/yr (see www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.html). Situations

of water stress or water scarcity will lead to particular difficulties in resource use decision

making, not present in ‘water rich’ countries. The two most common depictions of increasing

world water insecurity are presented in the two well-known maps below (Figures 1 and 2), the

first one from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP); the second from the

International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

Page 8 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

5

FIGURES 1 AND 2 ABOUT HERE

In Map 1, it is clear that many parts of the world that seem to have abundant freshwater

resources (South America, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)) are also those areas where many people

lack access to sufficient potable water and water-borne sanitation systems. In Map 2, this is

partly explained by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in the SSA case as a

function not of absolute water scarcity, but economic water scarcity, i.e. that there are

insufficient resources available for the harnessing of the available water resources for improving

human security.

What is perhaps more puzzling is the claim that large sections of the United States and

Mexico, Central and South Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, suffer from or are near to

approaching ‘physical water scarcity’, yet there are no violent conflicts over the resource in these

areas. How is this to be explained? In the main, it is explained by the major contribution of green

water to daily water use. In addition, Allan (1998; 2002) pioneered the concept ‘virtual water’, to

explain how the Middle East in particular was able to live beyond its ‘water barrier’ by importing

the vast majority of the (green and blue) water it consumed in the form of food. He labelled this

‘virtual water’ – the measurable amount of water embedded in the production of a commodity,

most particularly food. In global terms, as a major food exporter, the United States is a net

exporter of virtual water (Konar et al., 2011).

When we combine green water with virtual water, we are able to see that there is often a

great deal more water available in places considered to be ‘water stressed’, so helping to explain

the absence of conflict. Indeed, the World Bank highlights that, in 2013, while Canada had

Page 9 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

6

81,062m3/cap in internally renewable freshwater resources, Jordan had on 106m

3, Israel had

93m3, Egypt only 22m

3, and Uzbekistan 540m

3 per capita. Yet violent conflict, where it is

present, is about many things, but not available water.

In our view, achieving food security – particularly across the arid and semi-arid regions

of Africa and South/Central Asia – requires moving beyond accepted criteria such as blue water

availability toward new ideas and framings, such as green water. Let us now turn to a discussion

of green water.

Green Water

Green water is defined as the sum of the amount of water that has evaporated (from the

soil and through interception), plus the amount of water that has transpired through a plant

(Falkenmark and Rockstrom, 2004). In this definition, transpiration is considered ‘productive

green water’, because biomass is produced, while evaporation is considered ‘non-productive

green water’, because no biomass is produced as the water returns directly to the atmosphere.

The utility of this approach is clear: an accurate measure of green water provides a baseline from

which planners, policy makers and resource users such as farmers, can estimate the potential for

increasing biomass production through manipulation of the landscape, crop choice, tree-planting,

and so on. An empirical measure also provides an important baseline for comparing

‘productivity’ across similar landscapes, say semi-arid savannas, which could then support

research regarding the factors leading to more or less productive green water, such as landscape

change due to widespread deforestation. For example, Falkenmark and Rockstrom (2004: 53)

suggest that ‘in generic terms and disregarding the impact of management, it is possible to talk of

a relatively universal average of some 1500m3 of green water to produce one tonne of terrestrial,

plant-based food, which is equivalent to 150mm/tonne/ha’. However, ‘[t]he range of actual green

Page 10 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

7

water use in a farmer’s field is huge, often between 1000 and 6000m3/tonne (or 100-600

mm/tonne/ha) for a given crop within a given hydroclimate’. Their conclusion is that ‘the

negotiable part of crop water needs’ – i.e. what is grown where, why and how – ‘induces a larger

variation of crop water requirements than the non-negotiable biophysical parameters’

(Falkenmark and Rockstrom, 2004: 53).

As stated above, around 1200 m3/person/year of green water flow originates from rainfed

food production (Falkenmark & Rockstrom, 2004: 69). Green water plays a prominent role in the

production of horticultural crops, so contributing importantly to nutritional security. There is a

misconception that the majority of the world’s food is produced through blue water withdrawal

by irrigation, since 90% of direct water needs are used to produce food, but in reality, most food

is produced with rain at the point where water hits the soil. Indeed, 80% of cropland on a global

level is rainfed, with rainfed agriculture contributing to 60-70% of world food crops (Falkenmark

& Rockstrom, 2004: 67). With food production’s high dependence on rainfed agriculture, then,

water management must not take for granted, or overlook the improvements to be made in this

form of agriculture and focus instead on how best to increase yields through blue water use in

commercial farming, as is currently the norm across much of South and Central Asia (Allan,

2003). With the multiple ecological, political, and economic limitations of enlarging large-scale

irrigation at a global level, improvements in rainfed agriculture is a logical focus for 21st Century

food policy.

Despite popular belief, much research has shown that it is not water scarcity due to low

cumulative rainfall that is to blame for crop failure. Rather, it is the poor distribution of rainfall

over time that hinders crop yields (Rockstrom, 2000). In tropical and sub-tropical regions, the

climate tends to alternate between dry and wet seasons. Within these regions, are semi-arid zones

Page 11 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

8

where rates of potential evaporation tend to be higher than precipitation: i.e., a majority of the

water that falls evaporates immediately, leaving little to none for infiltration into the soil.

Worsening the situation are human-made disturbances to the land surface: conventional

agricultural practices, such as mechanized or draught-animal tillage, can compact the soil,

lowering the ratio of how much water is infiltrated versus that which evaporates or becomes

surface runoff (Falkenmark & Rockstrom, 2004: 34). With decreased infiltration, the amount of

water necessary for the most crucial times in crop growth – germination, flowering, and filling –

is compromised. Ultimately, management of water resources for food must take into account

these environmental pre-conditions. Proposed solutions to meet the water demand of feeding an

immense population have included vapor shifting green water in present cropland, adding more

local water to crops through supplemental irrigation, and capturing surface runoff generated from

adjacent non-agricultural land (Falkenmark & Rockstrom, 2004: 62). In all situations, the water

utilized must be productive: maximizing efficiency by producing more crop per drop, while

maintaining the surrounding ecosystem.

A green water focus allows us to begin to incorporate the significant amounts of

‘invisible water’ directly into planning processes. It provides us with a new way of thinking

about how much water we have and, in particular, of the relationship between rainfall,

biophysical location, and evaporative demand. For Falkenmark and Rockstrom, a green water

focus encourages planners, policy makers and farmers to concentrate on achieving a vapour shift:

discouraging evaporation and encouraging infiltration at the point where the rainfall hits the soil,

so that water is available to plants in their growth cycles thereby enhancing the biophysical

pathway for productive green water.

Page 12 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

9

Where food security is concerned, green water provides an empirical means for assessing

the social value of biomass production: what sort of plants are being grown, where, when and

why. Thus, in our view, the productivity of green water is not just a biophysical process, but a

socio-economic/socio-political/socio-ecological one as well. The productivity of green water is

subject to human intervention, as humans play a large role in determining when, how, for whom

and for what biomass is produced.. It is important to recognize, therefore, that ‘productivity’ is

determined by natural processes made subject to social ends, so plant physiology and climates in

relation to, among other things, agricultural practices, crop choice, governance, trade policy and

so on. Thus, for green water, as a concept, to help contribute to food security, its definition must

be refined, distinguishing between the biophysical and social pathways of productive green

water.

Biophysical and Socio-ecological Pathways of Productive Green Water

Humans exert a powerful influence over the quantity of water that is directed towards

various means. Technological advancements have enabled the damming, diverting and draining

(Conca, 2006) of entire water bodies, thereby controlling how much, to where, and to what end

uses water should serve. What water is used for, though, is highly politicized, rendering it to

flow towards means that do not always consider environmental impacts, or utilize the resource

efficiently nor in an equitable way for all peoples. Beyond the strictly empirical measure of

evaporation relative to transpiration (the biophysical pathway), it is imperative to ask the

question ‘what sort of vegetation, for what benefit and for whom?’ Rockstrom et al (2014: 266)

argue that ‘[s]trategies for water resilience require water governance and management regimes

that focus on ecosystem-based landscape management’ which must include ‘favorable

partitioning of rainfall into green and blue flows, the generation of bundles of ecosystem services

Page 13 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

10

and safeguarding moisture feedback for future rainfall’. Essential to achieving such outcomes,

however, is a clear recognition that decisions are taken for socio-political and socio-economic

purposes.

By asking what sort of biomass is produced through green water productivity, we are

encouraging debate regarding the best use to which green water is put, its relationship to blue

water use and availability, and the ecosystem more generally. Food security should begin with

growing crops for local human consumption, before, say, maize or jatropha or sugar cane for

biofuel production. IThis is because, in an era of climate change, where hydrological cycles are

unpredictable and perhaps destabilized, it makes far more sense to grow drought resistant crops

in semi-arid environments based on vapour shift – i.e. concentrating on where the raindrop hits

the soil – utilizing a prudent mix of blue water storage and withdrawal, as opposed to engaging

in expensive blue water engineering projects for sugar cane or wheat or cotton production,

thereby tying national economies into virtual water dependency relations (Mwadalu and

Mwangi, 2013), while, in many instances, driving small holders off of their land, as has most

recently happened in Mali, Ethiopia and Tanzania (Rulli et al, 2013; Arezki et al, 2011). Finally,

the water that is utilized through the pursuit of growing food and agricultural products can only

be categorized as socio-ecologically productive if its share of the green water flow considers the

sustainability of the surrounding ecosystem. This includes ensuring that sufficient water is left

available for important ecosystem services (e.g., biodiversity, including local fisheries, through

wetlands maintenance as a result of sufficient groundwater recharge), or that the water is not

utilized to grow invasive species, or to cultivate plants which degrade the soil.

Along the biophysical pathway, non-productive green water is empirically demonstrable

as water that evaporates, producing no biomass. It is only non-productive strictly in this sense, as

Page 14 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

11

evaporation performs other sorts of ecosystem services. Along the socio-ecological pathway,

biophysically productive green water may be deemed non-productive where it produces biomass

but either (i) negatively impacts the environment through, for example, invasive species; or (ii)

negatively impacts local households’ food and livelihood security through resource capture for

non-local, often non-food production.= In each case, the unproductive nature may be empirically

demonstrable, but, like certain aspects of biophysically non-productive green water, causality

and/or persistence will be embedded in social practices. We label this socio-ecological non-

productive green water (SNPG water).

In Table 1 below, we put forward several criteria for defining green water as either

productive or non-productive along the socio-ecological pathway.

TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

To illustrate the utility of our conceptual innovations, we turn briefly to the case study: cotton

production in Uzbekistan.

Uzbekistan: addicted to cotton

In many ways, Uzbekistan is a prisoner of its history as an outpost of the Soviet Union at

a time when man truly believed that he could dominate nature – the era of the ‘hydraulic

mission’ (Allan, 2003). First under Stalin and then under Krushchev, Soviet Central Asia was

turned into a feeder economy, producing cotton and wheat through industrialized collective

farming, for the Russian heartland. Despite their arid environments, with rainfall in the range of

100-500mm per annum – achieving perhaps 900mm in the highlands near the top of watersheds

– large swaths of this region were turned over to irrigated agriculture. By canalizing the waters

Page 15 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

12

of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers – together constituting more than 50% of available

renewable freshwater in the region -- Kazakhstan was turned into one large wheat cropping

monoculture, with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan effectively becoming cotton plantations.

According to World Bank data (http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.5 ), Uzbekistan uses 56 billion

m3 of freshwater, of which only 16 billion m

3 is internally renewable. Most of the water it uses,

therefore, originates outside of its own borders in upstream countries such as Tajikistan and

Kazakhstan. Typical of projects conceived for the periphery by the centre, the Soviet drive for

food and textile self-sufficiency ruined not only local economies and cultures but entire

ecosystems, as illustrated by the loss of smallholder farming, artisanal and commercial fisheries,

the decimation of wetlands of all types, most poignantly the Aral Sea (Spoor, 1998;

http://undp.akvoapp.org/en/project/525/). Despite such widespread socio-ecological disaster, as

an independent country, Uzbekistan seemingly remains trapped by its need to generate wealth

and jobs: cotton in all its destruction is its ‘comparative advantage’.

Cotton is the most important and heavily used fibre in the global textile industry

(Chapagain et al., 2006, p. 187). According to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, in

2014/15, Uzbekistan was the third largest exporter of cotton in the world, accounting for 8 per

cent of global exports. Only the United States (30.7%) and India (15.7%) exported more cotton

(https://icac.generation10.net/index/index). The industry is said to employ more than one million

Uzbeks, but at harvest time this number swells into several million as the Uzbek government

forces citizens of all walks of life, including children as young as nine years of age, to pick

cotton. (Economist, 2013). This practice of government-sanctioned forced labour has brought the

Uzbek government in for a great deal of global criticism. While farms are now held by individual

farmers in private leasehold from the government, farm owners exist in a quasi-feudal

Page 16 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

13

relationship to the government which sets quotas, prices and so on. Farmers must sell their entire

crop to the government at prices considerably below world market values. The government, in

turn, sells on the international market – mainly to China and Bangladesh – reaping considerable

profit which, the Economist says, disappears into ‘opaque accounts’ (Economist, 2013).

Accrording to the World Bank, irrigated agriculture, of which cotton constitutes the large

majority, accounts for 93% of Uzbek water withdrawals (domestic at 4% and industry at 3%

account for the rest). Agriculture constitutes 18% of Uzbekistan GDP, standing third behind

industry and services. Government reports that 26% of the population is employed in agriculture,

with 17% of the total population living below the poverty line (UNDP, 2014). Access to

improved sources of water and sanitation are high by world standards: 100% for sanitation in

both rural and urban areas; 81% and 99% for rural and urban water supply. Despite being an

agricultural society, with 36% of the population living in cities, staple food imports have been

rising, with imports of wheat accounting for 82% of cereal imports over the 2005-8 period. In

2013, according to official figures, food imports increased by 19.5% to USD 1.2 billion while

food exports fell by 55.9% to USD 884 million. Malnutrition is also on the increase, with 5%

(1.1 million) of the population being malnourished in 1990-2 as compared with 11% (3 million)

in 2005-07. Partly in response to criticisms regarding food insecurity and lack of differentiation

in the agricultural sector, the government has shifted irrigated land out of cotton and into wheat.

As a result, cotton production has decreased by 30% over the 1991-2012 period, whereas cereal

production more than doubled over the first decade of the 21st Century. Despite this shift, the

agricultural sector remains extremely inefficient and World Bank data shows that Uzbekistan

withdraws more than 342% of its internally renewable and more than 100% of its total renewable

water resources.

Page 17 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

14

Table 2 illustrates the top ten cotton producing countries of the world in terms of: total

crop production for the year 2013/14; the crop water requirement which reflects the physiology

of the plant and the climate of the country; the amount of effective rainfall, i.e. rainfall that is

taken up by the crop as soil moisture; the amount of blue water required to supplement effective

rainfall; the percentage of the growing area of cotton that is irrigated (through blue water

withdrawals); and the total consumptive water used in the production of the crop (blue water plus

green water).

TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

According to Falkenmark and Rockstrom (2004: 55), cotton’s water requirement

generally ranges between 550-950mm/ha, i.e. the amount of seasonal water required per hectare

depending on hydroclimate, soil types and so on. This will yield 4-5 tonnes of product. They also

show that cotton’s average water productivity (i.e. the amount of water required to produce 1

tonne/ha of cotton) is 2160m3. In comparison, wheat’s water requirement ranges from 450-

650mm, with a yield range of 4-6 t/ha, and a water productivity average of 1480m3/t/ha.

Table 2 shows the relative water use efficiencies of growing cotton in different parts of

the world, with the United States and Brazil being by far the most efficient, followed closely by

India and China. At the other end of the scale, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan show water

requirements beyond the range presented by Falkenmark and Rockstrom: 999mm/ha in

Uzbekistan and 1025mm/ha in Turkmenistan, with 100% of the cropped land being irrigated.

Considering this high water requirement, it is important to examine further, what methods of

irrigation are being used and what is the water efficiency of those systems.

Page 18 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

15

In the case of Uzbekistan, in September 2013 the Asian Development Bank pledged USD

220 million to help modernize their irrigation systems (Economist, 2013). The main method of

irrigation in Uzbekistan from about 1960 until about the late 2000s has been furrow irrigation.

By the 1970s they were already experiencing waterlogging and salinity problems (Mohan Reddy

et al., 2013). Furthermore, they were consuming huge quantities of water; this is a result of the

fact that the government owned the land and leased it to civilians, on which they mandated

cotton and winter wheat to be grown. Then they provided bulk water, for free, to the Water User

Associations (WUA) who then distributed the water to leaseholders who used it for irrigation.

Civilians were only charged a service fee, by the WUA, for supplying the water, and were

charged based on the area of their crops and not the amount of water they actually used; thus

farmers had no incentive to practice water efficiency or monitor their water consumption (Mohan

Reddy et al., 2013).

Realizing that this was unsustainable, the Government of Uzbekistan has recently been

encouraging improved methods of irrigation and water management (e.g. short-furrow irrigation,

laser land leveling) (Ibragimov et al., 2007). Drip irrigation is slowly increasing in popularity

and short furrow and alternate furrow irrigation are quickly becoming the dominant forms of

irrigation (Mohan Reddy et al., 2013).

The shift from open furrow to drip irrigation is important as this will put back into the

system a great deal of blue water, which, as it flows downstream and recharges aquifers may

constitute the beginning of new and more sustainable forms of land use practice and the

regeneration of degraded systems such as wetlands. Or, it may simply lay the foundation for the

extension of already socio-ecologically destructive mono-cropping practices. As stated earlier,

new ways of seeing water provide the basis for more informed decision making. While

Page 19 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

16

biophysical parameters are fairly constant, the productivity of the land for people and ecosystems

can be greatly influenced by human decision making and action (Falkenmark and Rockstrom,

2004). How decisions are taken, therefore, matters a great deal. World Bank governance

indicators for Uzbekistan suggest that new knowledge about water resource availability may not

lead to better practice. Table 3 shows a comparison between Uzbekistan and Canada across six

governance indicators, with scores ranging from 0 (worst possible governance) and 100 (best

possible governance). These indicators are averaged out from nine sources drawn together by the

World Bank (see . http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports).

TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

It is clear that governance is a serious problem in this part of ex-Soviet Central Asia.

Achieving food security, therefore, is about much more than having enough water and land. For

example, in terms of malnutrition, ‘food is available but the main problem is more the quality of

people’s diets, their purchasing power distribution, and access to food for all the groups within

the population’ (UNDP, 2010). Put differently, it is the social dynamics across the country that

put a significant cohort of the population at risk; not the absence of the resource itself – be it land

or water – but access to it in quality and quantity appropriate to household food security.

Discussion

Let us now evaluate the case study in relation to the three questions asked at the outset: Is

there enough water? Is there enough water for food? In difficult (arid and semi-arid)

environments, what should be done in relation to achieving water and food security? We answer

Page 20 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

17

these questions in relation to the concepts discussed: freshwater availability, scarcity, virtual,

blue and green water.

World Bank data shows that per capita freshwater availability is only 540m3/cap/yr. The

Falkenmark indicator suggests, therefore, that Uzbekistan should be facing dire choices

regarding freshwater allocation. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this.

Typical of most regions in the world, data for Uzbekistan show that population densities and

human settlements vary directly with amounts of precipitation and the presence of surface water.

In particular, the vast majority of the population is located along the Amu Darya river and its

tributaries. In terms of systems of delivery for domestric use, Uzbeks have access to improved

water and sanitation in both rural and urban areas. Food is also available but the poor

composition of the diet – with more than 50% of dietary energy derived from cereals, in

particular wheat – is reflected in the doubling of the percentage of malnourished people over the

last twenty years. While the country consumes more than three times the available internally

renewable water resources, 93% of this use is for irrigated agriculture, most of which is exported.

Porkka (2011) shows that Uzbekistan is a net importer of virtual water, primarily due to the need

to import wheat from outside the country. The government has, for more than a decade, been

aggressively pursuing policies of wheat self-sufficiency, and high food commodity

protectionism. While the shift from cotton to wheat leads to significant improvements in

freshwater use efficiencies, the UNDP (2010) suggests that this focus should be reconsidered.

The implication is that Uzbekistan could open up its domestic market and possibly shift some of

the water saved through inexpensive imported food toward industrial activities such as textile

manufacturing. Imported wheat could also release land for crops or livestock with greater water

use efficiencies. This suggests that there is a great deal of opportunity for improved land and

Page 21 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

18

water use for improved food security in Uzbekistan. Indeed, according to Porkka (2011: 27),

while ‘Central Asia is generally perceived as a water scarce region, even though its water

resources are relatively abundant … the actual problem in the region is not the availability of

water resources but its uneven distribution and excessive use.’

Let us now turn to the second question: is there enough water for food production? The

simple and obvious answer is yes. As the sixth largest producer of cotton in the world, it is clear

that there is abundant water for agricultural production. It is also clear from the evidence

provided above that present systems are terribly inefficient: because they produce cotton;

because of the way they produce cotton; and because of the social and ecological impacts that

result from state-directed monocropping of cotton. So pervasive are these blue water-focused

systems of agriculture, it is almost impossible to speculate about the possible contribution to be

made from green water. If cotton production was halved, what would this do to the landscape

through a shifting water balance? Is it too far-fetched to believe that the Aral Sea could recover?

(Palaniappan and Gleick, 2009). Table 2 shows that Uzbek cotton has a water requirement of 999

mm/ha, of which 19 mm derives from green water. Its meagre 2% contribution notwithstanding,

it seems fair to conclude that green water use in cotton production in Uzbekistan satisfies all

criteria determining socio-ecologically non-productive green water (SNPG): it is inefficient;

helps undermine local household security particularly as it relates to food; and contributes

directly to ecosystem degradation. As the installation of drip irrigation systems help realize water

use efficiencies, green water should be turned away from SNPG toward SPG activities.

Lastly, in terms of the third question, it is clear that the presence of significant amounts of blue

water flowing across arid and semi-arid environments creates opportunities for domestic food

and non-food agricultural production quite different from similar environments without perennial

Page 22 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

19

surface waters. It is also clear, however, that the presence of blue water – like Middle Eastern

states’ abilities to import cheap food as virtual water – creates a complacence among decision-

makers that is misguided. In Uzbekistan, it is clear that the government has no intention of

participating in virtual water trade to take the pressure off of national and shared transnational

fresh water resources and freshwater dependent ecosystems. It is determinedly pursuing national

food security strategies through wheat monocropping. It is using cotton in the export market as a

hard currency generator. Poor governance is driving these practices, which among other things

put the needs of the central state ahead of the majority of Uzbek citizens. It is obvious from the

evidence provided here that the Uzbek state has a significant blue water bias leading it to be not

only water blind, but blind to the socio-ecological challenges that stem such a bias.

Conclusion

The world water crisis is said to be a function of poor governance and improper

management leading to unsustainable practices and resource scarcity. In many places,

particularly arid and semi-arid environments, we are said to be heading toward tipping points.

There seems to be no better example than the decimation of the Aral Sea. Yet, in our view, the

crisis and scarcity narrative closes off lines of inquiry that may assist us in moving forward

toward real, lasting and sustainable solutions.

In this article, we have challenged the utility of current conceptualisations of freshwater

availability and water scarcity. To do so, we disaggregate water into its blue, green and virtual

components, so helping us see water more holistically. We expanded the definition of green

water to include biophysical and socio-ecological pathways of productivity, recognizing that

most limitations to food security stem from human dimensions of resource use as opposed to

strictly biophysical limits. To demonstrate the utility of these innovations, we presented the case

Page 23 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

20

of Uzbekistan where it was shown that (i) there is plenty of water but that it is misused largely

due to a ‘blue water bias’; (ii) scarcity is largely social in the sense that malnutrition and poverty

affect approximately one-fifth of the Uzbek population despite massive agricultural output; and

(iii) advances toward more sustainable water use and food security could be made through shifts

away from cotton production, and the importation of virtual water in the form of wheat.

Moreover, we suggest that (iv) there will surely be major socio-ecological benefits from

improved water use efficiency, in particular for those downstream nearer to the mouth of the

Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers. However, (v) the real challenge is not the biophysical limits

imposed by the semi-arid environment but the socio-political and socio-economic limits imposed

by adherence to nearly a century of wrong-headed agricultural policy and practice which, today,

serves to reinforce a situation of poor governance. We recognize the deeply political nature of

water and land use around the world, but we argue that advances in both policy and practice

require more critical thinking not only about what drives policy but about the concepts and ideas

that often reinforce practice.

References

Allan, J.A., 1998. Virtual water: a strategic resource. Global solutions to regional deficits.

Groundwater, 36(4), 545-546.

Allan, J.A., 2002. Hydro-peace in the Middle East: Why no water wars? A case study of the

Jordan River Basin. SAIS Review 22(2): 255-272.

Allan, J.A., 2003. IWRM/IWRAM: a new sanctioned discourse? Occasional paper 50. SOAS

Water Issues Study Group. London: School of Oriental and African Studies/King’s

College London (April).

Arezki, R., K. Deininger, H. Selod, 2011. What Drives the Global “Land Rush”? IMF Working

Paper WP/11/251 (November).

Brown, A. and M.D. Matlock, (2011). A Review of Water Scarcity Indices and Methodologies.

The Sustainability Consortium White Paper 106: University of Arkansas (April).

Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., Savenije, H.H.G., & Gautam, R. (2006). The water footprint

Page 24 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

21

of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton

products on the wider water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecological

Economics (60), p. 186- 203.

Conca, K. (2006). Governing Water. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Economist, The, (2013). In the Land of Cotton: forced labour in Uzbekistan, (October 16).

Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/10/forced-labour-

uzbekistan

Falkenmark, M. (2001). The Greatest Water Problem: The Inability to Link Environmental

Security, Water Security and Food Security. International Journal of Water

Resources Development, 17(4), 539-554.

Falkenmark, M. (1986). Fresh water – Time for a modified approach. Ambio 15(4): 192-200.

Falkenmark, M., & Rockstrom, J. (2004). Balancing water for humans and nature: the new

approach in ecohydrology. London; Sterling.

Gleick, P., 1998. The World’s Water, 1998-1999. The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Ibragimov, N., S.R. Evett, Y. Esanbekov, B.S. Kamilov, L. Mirzaev, J.P.A. Lamers, 2007. Water

Use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation. Agricultural

Water Management 90(1-2) May: 112-120.

Konar, M., Dalin, C., Suweis, S., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A., Rodrigues-Iturbe, I. (2011). Water

for food: The global virtual water trade network. Water Resources Research (47), p. 1-17.

Lautze, J., and M.A. Hanjra, ‘Water Scarcity’. In: J. Lautze, ed., 2014. Key Concepts in Water

Resource Management: A Review and Critical Evaluation. Routledge & Earthscan: London &

New York, pp. 7-24.

Mohan Reddy, J., Jumaboev, K., Mayyakubor, B., & Eshmuratov, D. (2013). Evaluation of

furrow irrigation practices in Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan. Agricultural Water

Management (117), p. 133-144.

Mwadalu, R., & Mwangi, M. (2013). The Potential Role of Sorghum in Enhancing Food

Security in Semi-arid Eastern Kenya: A Review. Journal of Applied Biosciences,

71(1), 5786-5799.

Palaniappan, M. and P. Gleick, (2009). Peak Water. In: P. Gleick, ed., The World’s Water,

2008-2009. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 1-16.

Porkka, M. (2011). The role of virtual water trade in physical water scarcity: case Central Asia. Master’s Thesis, Aalto University, School of Engineering.Postel, S. (1998). Water for Food Production: Will there be enough in 2025? Bioscience 48(8): 629-37.

Page 25 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

22

Rockstrom, J. et al. (2014). Water Resilience for Human Prosperity. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Rockstrom, J., Karlberg, L., Wani, S., Barron, J., Habitu, N., Oweise, T., Bruggeman, A.,

Farahani, J., & Qiang, Z. (2010). Managing water in rainfed agriculture—The need for a

paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management 97, p. 543–550.

Rockstrom, J. , et al., (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for

Humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): article 32.

Rockstrom, J. (2000). Water resources management in smallholder farms in eastern and southern

Africa: An overview. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and

Atmosphere, 25(3), 275-283. Rulli, M.C., A. Saviori, P. D’Odorico, 2013. Global land

and water grabbing. PNAS, 110:3, pp. 892-897.

Spoor, M., 1998.The Aral Sea Basin Crisis: Transition and Environment in Former Soviet

Central Asia. Development and Change 29(3): 409-35.

UNDP (2014). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

UNDP, (2010). Food Security in Uzbekistan. Tashkent: UNDP.

UNESCO and UN Water, 2003. Water for People, Water for Life (WWDR I).

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr1-2003/

UNESCO and UN Water, 2006. Water, a Shared Responsibility (WWDR II).

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-

sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr2-2006/

UNESCO and UN Water, 2009. Water in a Changing World (WWDR III).

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3-

2009/

UNESCO and UN Water, 2012. Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk (WWDR IV).

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr4-

2012/

World Economic Forum (WEF), 2011. Water Security: The water-food-energy-climate nexus.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

World Water Development Reports, Volumes I – IV.

Page 26 of 26



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Seeing "Invisible Water": Challenging conceptions of water for food, agriculture and human security

Documents

Transcript of Seeing "Invisible Water": Challenging conceptions of water for food, agriculture and human security