No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Building consensus on water use assessment of livestock production systems and supply chains: Outcome and recommendations from the FAO LEAP Partnership ☆
Abstract
The FAO Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership organised a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to develop reference guidelines on water footprinting for livestock production systems and supply chains. The mandate of the TAG was to i) provide recommendations to monitor the environmental performance of feed and livestock supply chains over time so that progress towards improvement targets can be measured, ii) be applicable for feed and water demand of small ruminants, poultry, large ruminants and pig supply chains, iii) build on, and go beyond, the existing FAO LEAP guidelines and iv) pursue alignment with relevant international standards, specifically ISO 14040 (2006)/ISO 14044 (2006), and ISO 14046 (2014). The recommended guidelines on livestock water use address both impact assessment (water scarcity footprint as defined by ISO 14046, 2014) and water productivity (water use efficiency). While most aspects of livestock water use assessment have been proposed or discussed independently elsewhere, the TAG reviewed and connected these concepts and information in relation with each other and made recommendations towards comprehensive assessment of water use in livestock production systems and supply chains. The approaches to assess the quantity of water used for livestock systems are addressed and the specific assessment methods for water productivity and water scarcity are recommended. Water productivity assessment is further advanced by its quantification and reporting with fractions of green and blue water consumed. This allows the assessment of the environmental performance related to water use of a livestock-related system by assessing potential environmental impacts of anthropogenic water consumption (only “blue water”); as well as the assessment of overall water productivity of the system (including “green” and “blue water” consumption). A consistent combination of water productivity and water scarcity footprint metrics provides a complete picture both in terms of potential productivity improvements of the water consumption as well as minimizing potential environmental impacts related to water scarcity. This process resulted for the first time in an international consensus on water use assessment, including both the life-cycle assessment community with the water scarcity footprint and the water management community with water productivity metrics. Despite the main focus on feed and livestock production systems, the outcomes of this LEAP TAG are also applicable to many other agriculture sectors.
... 15,16,35,49 In a recent publication, the consensus on building water use assessment from FAO livestock environmental assessment and performance (LEAP) partnership recommends using at least two methods for assessment: AWARE and blue water scarcity index. 50 ...
... By using these guidelines, the LEAP initiative supports sustainable water management practices across sectors, contributing to broader environmental goals, including those outlined in the SDGs. 50,123 ...
Freshwater, an essential resource for survival, is becoming scarce because of overuse. A reliable and precise assessment approach is necessary to establish a sustainable water system for use in proper decision-making. This paper explores the range of approaches and methods developed over time to evaluate water consumption, considering factors related to scarcity, quality, and volume. These methods are primarily based on volumetric footprint, impact-oriented assessment, or a combination of both. The water footprinting standard defines water footprint as impact-oriented, where volumetric approach serves as an inventory in life cycle assessment (LCA), which is a widely used tool for evaluating the environmental impact of a product or a system throughout its lifetime. The work provides a thorough overview of more than forty different approaches, tools, databases, and water indices related to water use, water footprint and its environmental impact using life cycle assessment tool and compiled from more than sixty reviewed articles. Many approaches focus on availability and shortage while water quality is generally considered separately, with LCA employing specific indicators. To calculate the impact of scarce freshwater supply on the environment, methodologies are being developed to create a connection between water availability, use and impacts. This is accomplished by employing various characterization models that use environmental mechanisms to convert volumetric input flows into impacts. Some models use cause-and-effect chain relationships to evaluate the effects of water scarcity on ecosystems, human health, and natural resources. Water indices, usually focusing on scarcity or quantity, are used as characterization factors in some models. The paper also presents the most recent approaches to water use assessment that emerged from a consensus between the LCA and water scientific groups. Despite substantial progress, challenges are still present within the sector. Continuous improvement is essential for improving current methods. Enhancing environmental mechanisms, measuring uncertainty, resolving temporal and spatial disparities, undertaking regional evaluations, and improving primary or local data are some of the challenges. This study directs future research toward more efficient and comprehensive water use impact assessment techniques by outlining important areas for improvement.
... Unlike the 1993 model, soy production was Rausch and Belyea, 2006). Therefore, to accurately account for the water use of DDG's and to be in accordance with ISO 14040 standards (ISO, 2006) and LEAP guidelines (Boulay et al., 2021) a mass allocation of 50% was used (Bernardi et al., 2012). Blue water production for ethanol was based on Lui et al. (2019) and blue water use for corn production was based on USDA datasets (2018) resulting in a water intensity of 35 L per kg of DDG produced. ...
... In the present model, because the majority of fat utilized in the feedlot rations was considered to be a coproduct of beef production (inedible tallow and grease; Zinn and Jorquera, 2007) and to avoid double counting water in the beef system a significantly smaller number of 1 L/kg was used. To assess the water use of DDGs a coproduct mass allocation was used (as recommended by LEAP guidelines;Boulay et al, 2021). The allocation was based on USDA production data where DDGs required 50% of the water footprint used, though this value is likely to range by region (Menendez and Tedeschi, 2020). ...
Updating the static model by Beckett and Oltjen (1993), we determined that from 1991 to 2019, U.S. beef cattle blue water consumption per kg of beef decreased by 37.6%. Total water use for the U.S. cattle herd decreased by 29%. As with the 1993 model, blue water use included direct water intake by animals, water applied for irrigation of crops that were consumed by beef cattle, water applied to irrigated pasture, and water used to process animals at marketing. Numbers of cattle, crop production, and irrigation data were used from USDA census and survey data. On January 1, 2019, a total of 31.7 million beef cows and 5.8 million replacement heifers were in U.S. breeding herds, and 26 million animals were fed annually. In total, the U.S. beef cattle herd (feedlot and cull cows) produced 7.7 billion kg of boneless beef, an increase of 10% since 1991. Beef cattle directly consumed 599 billion L of water per year. Feedlot cattle were fed various grain and roughage sources corresponding to the regions in which they were fed. Feeds produced in a state were preferentially used by cattle in that state with that state's efficiency; any additional feedstuffs required used water at the national efficiency. Irrigation of crop feedstuffs for feedlot cattle required 5,920 billion L of water. Irrigated pasture for beef cattle production required an additional 4,121 billion L of water. Carcass processing required 91 billion L of water. The model estimated that in the U.S. 2,275 L of blue water was needed to produce one kilogram of boneless meat. As with the previous model, the current model was most sensitive to changes in dressing percentage and percentage of boneless yield in carcasses of feedlot cattle (62.8 and 65, respectively). In conclusion, with more beef, fewer cows, and lower rates of irrigation, beef cattle’s water intensity has decreased at an annual rate of 1.34% over a 28-year period.
... The FAO Livestock Environmental Assessment Programme (LEAP) recently organized a Water Technical Advisory Group (Water TAG) to review different water use assessment approaches, methods and tools relevant to livestock production systems and supply chains [18]. The FAO LEAP Water TAG recommended a consistent combination of water productivity and water scarcity footprint metrics as a harmonized approach for assessing livestock water use in terms of potential water productivity improvements and minimizing potential water scarcity impacts [18,19]. ...
Assessment of nutritional water productivity (NWP) combines a metric of crop or livestock production per unit water consumed and human nutritional value of the food produced. As such, it can rationalize the use of scarce water for a portfolio of crop and livestock production systems that jointly match human nutritional needs and reduce water scarcity impacts. However, a comprehensive search and review of 40 NWP studies highlighted that current NWP studies vary widely in terms of their methodological approaches, the data and tools used and the water flows and nutrient content accounted for. Most of the studies accounted for evapotranspiration stemming from precipitation and technical water, and/or inclusion of the withdrawn technical water. Water scarcity was only addressed in four studies. The reported NWP values also varied for accounting of macro- (energy, protein, fat and carbohydrates) and micro-nutrient (minerals and vitamins) content. The methodological differences, however, severely limit the informative value of reported NWP values. A multidisciplinary research effort is required to further develop standardized metrics for NWP, including its local environmental water scarcity impacts. A robust NWP analysis framework in agriculture should focus on the integration of assessments of NWP and water scarcity impact (WSI), and development of more field measurements and locally calibrated and validated agrohydrological and farm production models to quantify reliable NWP values and their associated WSI of agriculture production systems worldwide.
... However, in other frameworks, such as life cycle assessment (LCA), the green WF as a quantification of green water use is generally not used in combination with the LF or blue WF 60 . The usefulness of green water is largely questioned in the LCA 61 . ...
Food systems are the largest users of land and water resources worldwide. Using a multi-model approach to track food through the global trade network, we calculated the land footprint (LF) and water footprint (WF) of food consumption in the European Union (EU). We estimated the EU LF as 140–222 Mha yr⁻¹ and WF as 569–918 km³ yr⁻¹. These amounts are 5–7% of the global LF and 6–10% of the global WF of agriculture, with the EU representing 6% of the global population. We also calculated the global LF of livestock grazing, accounting only for grass eaten, to be 1,411–1,657 Mha yr⁻¹, and the global LF of agriculture to be 2,809–3,014 Mha yr⁻¹, which is about two-thirds of what the Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics (FAOSTAT) database reports. We discuss here the different methods for calculating the LF for livestock grazing, underscoring the need for a consistent methodology when monitoring the food LF and WF reduction goals set by the EU’s Farm To Fork Strategy.
... One example is a footprinting approach which includes all sources of water regardless of their depletion of natural capital (these sources are often referred to as green, blue, and grey water). Widespread confusion around water accounting has driven the FAO to facilitate a consensus process among the water footprint researcher community to interpret such metrics (Boulay et al., 2021). Whilst, of course, there are exceptions depending on geography and local water resources, in many such calculations, the quantity of water attributed to livestock systems, particularly grassland-based, is dominated by the green water fraction (equivalent to the amount of rainwater that falls on the lands being grazed). ...
Several water footprint indicators have been developed to curb freshwater stress. Volumetric footprints support water allocation decisions and strive to increase water productivity in all sectors. In contrast, impact-oriented footprints are used to minimize the impacts of water use on human health, ecosystems, and freshwater resources. Efforts to combine both perspectives in a harmonized framework have been undertaken, but common challenges remain, such as pollution and ecosystems impacts modelling. To address these knowledge gaps, we build upon a water footprint assessment framework proposed at conceptual level to expand and operationalize relevant features. We propose two regionalized indicators, namely the water biodiversity footprint and the water resource footprint, that aggregate all impacts from toxic chemicals, nutrients, and water scarcity. The first impact indicator represents the impacts on freshwater ecosystems. The second one models the competition for freshwater resources and its consequences on freshwater availability. As part of the framework, we complement the two indicators with a sustainability assessment representing the levels above which ecological and human freshwater needs are no longer sustained. We test our approach assessing the sustainability of water use in the European Union in 2010. Water stress hampers 15 % of domestic, agricultural and industrial water demand, mainly due to irrigation and pesticide emissions in southern Europe. Moreover, damages to the freshwater ecosystems are widespread and mostly resulting from chemical emissions from industry. Approximately 5 % of the area is exceeding the regional sustainability limits for ecosystems and human water requirements altogether. Concerted efforts from all sectors are needed to reduce the impacts of emissions and water consumption under the sustainability limits. These advances are considered an important step toward the harmonization of volumetric and impact-oriented approaches to achieve consistent and holistic water footprinting as well as contributing to strengthen the policy relevance of water footprint assessments.
Sustainability discussions bring in multiple competing goals, and the outcomes are often conflicting depending upon which goal is being given credence. The role of livestock in supporting human well-being is especially contentious in discourses around sustainable diets. There is considerable variation in which environmental metrics are measured when describing sustainable diets, although some estimate of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of different diets based on varying assumptions is commonplace. A market for animal-free and manufactured food items to substitute for animal source food (ASF) has emerged, driven by the high GHG emissions of ASF. Ingredients sourced from plants, and animal cells grown in culture are two approaches employed to produce alternative meats. These can be complemented with ingredients produced using synthetic biology. Alternative meat companies promise to reduce GHG, the land and water used for food production, and reduce or eliminate animal agriculture. Some CEOs have even claimed alternative meats will 'end world hunger'. Rarely do such self-proclamations emanate from scientists, but rather from companies in their efforts to attract venture capital investment and market share. Such declarations are reminiscent of the early days of the biotechnology industry. At that time, special interest groups employed fear-based tactics to effectively turn public opinion against the use of genetic engineering to introduce sustainability traits, like disease resistance and nutrient fortification, into global genetic improvement programs. These same groups have recently turned their sights on the 'unnaturalness' and use of synthetic biology in the production of meat alternatives, leaving agriculturists in a quandary. Much of the rationale behind alternative meats invokes a simplistic narrative, with a primary focus on GHG emissions, ignoring the nutritional attributes and dietary importance of ASF, and livelihoods that are supported by grazing ruminant production systems. Diets with low GHG emissions are often described as sustainable, even though the nutritional, social and economic pillars of sustainability are not considered. Nutritionists, geneticists, and veterinarians have been extremely successful at developing new technologies to reduce the environmental footprint of ASF. Further technological developments are going to be requisite to continuously improve the efficiency of animal source, plant source, and cultured meat production. Perhaps there is an opportunity to collectively communicate how innovations are enabling both alternative- and conventional-meat producers to more sustainably meet future demand. This could counteract the possibility that special interest groups who promulgate misinformation, fear and uncertainty, will hinder the adoption of technological innovations to the ultimate detriment of global food security.
Detailed knowledge about farm management practices and related hydrological processes on water productivity is required to substantially increase the productivity of precipitation water use in agriculture. With this in mind, the effect of the nitrogen (N) fertilization level on water productivity of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) was analyzed using a modeling approach and field measurements. In this first study of interception loss and water productivity in winter oilseed rape, the crop was cultivated in a field experiment on a sandy soil in Brandenburg (Germany) under five nitrogen fertilization treatments with 0, 60, 120, 180, and 240 kg mineral N ha−1 a−1. Based on data from three vegetation periods the water flows and the mass-based water productivity of seeds were calculated on a daily basis with the AgroHyd Farmmodel modeling software. As recommended from the recently developed guidelines of the FAO on water use in agriculture, the method water productivity was applied and uncertainties associated with the calculations were assessed. Economic profit-based water productivity (WPprofit) was calculated considering the costs of fertilization and the optimal level of N fertilization, which was determined based on a quadratic crop yield response function. Mean water productivity of seeds varied from 1.16 kg m−3 for the unfertilized control sample to 2.00 kg m−3 under the highest fertilization rate. N fertilization had a clearly positive effect on WPprofit. However, fertilizer application rates above 120 kg N ha−1 a−1 led to only marginal increases in yields. Water productivity of seeds under the highest fertilization rate was only insignificantly higher than under medium application rates. The optimum N level for the maximal WPprofit identified here was higher with 216 kg N ha−1 a−1. The conclusion is that further research is needed to investigate the interaction between fertilization and other farm management practices.
This study analyzes the relation between Brazilian broiler and pig production and water productivity using recently developed reference guidelines on water footprinting for livestock production systems and supply chains. Different rainfed crop arrangements, in different scenarios and producer regions in Brazil, were assessed. Water productivity of broiler feed consumption ranged from 0.63 to 1.38 kg per m3 water input to rainfed summer maize (safra) and from 1.20 to 2.21 kg per m3 water input to winter maize (safrinha) while it ranged from 0.28 to 0.95 kg per m3 water input to rainfed soy. For pig feed consumption, rainfed maize ranged from 0.68 to 1.49 kg per m3 water input (safra) and from 1.30 to 2.38 kg per m3 water input (safrinha) while it ranged from 0.30 to 1.03 kg per m3 water input to rainfed soy. A potential amount of water saving of 0.0336 km3 year−1 and 0.0202 km3 year−1 could be attained for producing broiler and pig feed, respectively, depending on the crop rotation and producer region. The results showed that the evapotranspiration of animal feed production represents more than 99% of the total water consumption for broiler and pig production in the study area. The implementation of best crop practices resulted in higher water productivity values of chicken and pork meat and also improved the rainfall water-saving in comparison to conventional agriculture. Hence, the water productivity of the animal production chain in tropical regions demands a close relation to agriculture in order to attain a better understanding and improvement of rainfall water productivity for animal feed production.
The increase of organic agriculture in Germany raises the question of how water productivity differs from conventional agriculture. On three organic and two conventionally farming systems in Germany, water flows and water related indicators were quantified. Farm water productivity (FWP), farm water productivity of cow-calf production (FWPlivestock), and farm water productivity of food crop production (FWPfood crops) were calculated using the modeling software AgroHyd Farmmodel. The FWP was calculated on a mass and monetary basis. FWPlivestock showed the highest productivity on a mass basis occurring on a conventional farm with 0.09 kg m−3Winput, whereas one organic farm and one conventional farm showed the same results. On a monetary basis, organic cow-calf farming systems showed the highest FWPlivestock, with 0.28 € m−3Winput. Since the productivity of the farm depends strongly on the individual cultivated plants, FWPfood crops was compared at the level of the single crop. The results show furthermore that even with a precise examination of farm water productivity, a high bandwidth of temporal and local values are revealed on different farms: generic FWP for food crops and livestock are not within reach.
Purpose
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments.
Methods
In the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning.
Results and discussion
The recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question “What is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?” The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard.
Conclusions
After 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users’ potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensus-based methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.
Recently with limited information from intensified grain-based farming systems in developed countries, livestock production is challenged as being huge consumer of freshwater. The smallholder mixed crop-livestock (MCL) system which is predominant in developing countries like Ethiopia, is maintained with considerable contributions of crop residues (CR) to livestock feeding. Inclusion of CR is expected to reduce the water requirement for feed production resulting improvement in livestock water productivity (LWP). This study was conducted to determine feed water productivity (FWP) and LWP in the MCL system. A multistage sampling procedure was followed to select farmers from different wealth status. Wealth status dictated by ownership of key farm resources such as size of cropland and livestock influenced the magnitude of livestock outputs, FWP and LWP. Significant difference in feed collected, freshwater evapotranspired, livestock outputs and water productivity (WP) were observed between wealth groups, where wealthier are relatively more advantaged. Water productivity of CR and grazing land (GL) analyzed separately showed contrasting differences where better-off gained more on CR, whereas vice versa on GL. These counterbalancing of variations may justify the non-significant difference in total FWP between wealth groups. Despite observed differences, low WP on GL indicates the need of interventions at all levels. The variation in WP of CR is attributed to availability of production factors which restrained the capacity of poor farmers most. A linear relationship between the proportion of CR in livestock feed and FWP was evident, but the relationship with LWP was not likely linear. As CR are inherently low in digestibility and nutritive values which have an effect on feed conversion into valuable livestock products and services, increasing share of CR beyond an optimum level is not a viable option to bring improvements in livestock productivity as expressed in terms of LWP. Ensuring land security, installing proper grazing management, improved forage seed supply and application of soil and water conservation are expected to enhance WP on GL. Given the relationship of production factors with crop biomass and associated WP, interventions targeted to improve provision of inputs, credit, extension and training support due emphasis to the poor would increase CR yield and reduce part of water use for feed production. Optimizing feed value of CR with treatment and supplementation, following water efficient forage production methods and maintenance of healthy productive animals are expected to amplify the benefits from livestock and eventually improve LWP.
We propose the Net Waterfootprint (WFPnet) method to estimate the water footprint (WFP) of food products, in alternative to the current WFP method, based on absolute values. We compared the WFP and WFPnet methods for cattle milk and meat production in different feed efficiency (high and low) and crop water use efficiency (WUE; high, medium and low) scenarios under Mediterranean conditions. The WFP values were, on average, much higher than the WFPnet values for both meat and milk. The WFPnet method appears to be able to properly quantify the water consumption needed for animal food production.
Freshwater scarcity is increasingly perceived as a global systemic risk. Previous global water scarcity assessments, measuring water scarcity annually, have underestimated experienced water scarcity by failing to capture the seasonal fluctuations in water consumption and availability. We assess blue water scarcity globally at a high spatial resolution on a monthly basis. We find that two-thirds of the global population (4.0 billion people) live under conditions of severe water scarcity at least 1 month of the year. Nearly half of those people live in India and China. Half a billion people in the world face severe water scarcity all year round. Putting caps to water consumption by river basin, increasing water-use efficiencies, and better sharing of the limited freshwater resources will be key in reducing the threat posed by water scarcity on biodiversity and human welfare.
This paper is a perspective paper, which investigates whether the water footprint (WF) concept addresses the water–food–energy–ecosystem nexus. First, the nexus links between (1) the planetary boundary freshwater resources (green and blue water resources) and (2) food security, energy security, blue water supply security and water for environmental flows/water for other ecosystem services (ES) are analysed and graphically presented. Second, the WF concept is concisely discussed. Third, with respect to the nexus, global water resources (green and blue) availability and use are discussed and graphically presented with an indication of quantities obtained from the literature. It is shown which of these water uses are represented in WF accounting. This evaluation shows that general water management and WF studies only account for the water uses agriculture, industry and domestic water. Important water uses are however generally not identified as separate entities or even included, i.e. green and blue water resources for aquaculture, wild foods, biofuels, hydroelectric cooling, hydropower, recreation/tourism, forestry (for energy and other biomass uses) and navigation. Fourth, therefore a list of essential separate components to be included within WF accounting is presented. The latter would be more coherent with the water–food–energy–ecosystem nexus and provide valuable extra information and statistics.
Faced with a changing climate, bioenergy has been promoted as a sustainable resource. However, while it is a renewable energy source, biofuel cultivation comes with several environmental problems such as land use change and water consumption, the environmental impacts of which often counterbalance the reduced global warming potential compared to fossil alternatives.
This paper presents life cycle assessment (LCA) results for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (carbon footprints) and water consumption (water scarcity footprint) for different first-generation biofuels in comparison with their fossil alternatives. We employed standard (secondary) LCA data including uncertainties of process activities, resource consumption, and emissions throughout the value chain in order to compare different options under the influence of uncertainties and in order to identify the contribution to variance (CTV) of input data, giving insight into which environmental flows need to be better assessed. Furthermore, by also introducing uncertainties in the impact assessment for GHG emissions and water consumption, we were able to determine which LCA stage is more influenced by uncertainties, the accounting or impact assessment stage. Additionally, we analyzed the effect of choosing different time horizons GHGs (typically set to 100 years).
The analyzed fuels perform differently depending on the choice of impact category considered. For liquid fuels, we observed a tradeoff between resource depletion and water footprint, while biogas options have lower impacts in most categories. Biogas from waste has significantly lower carbon footprints than natural gas for long time horizons and a similar water footprint. However, with the 20-year Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) factors, methane emissions from biogas largely compensate the fossil CO 2 emissions in our case and no robust difference is observed under uncertainty considerations. Both impact assessment and inventory uncertainties are important. Due to the very high number of parameters, the CTV analysis was not robust for assessing GHG emissions.
This study shows that uncertainty is important in LCA and carbon or water footprint assessment of agricultural feedstock production. Integration of parameter uncertainties helps to evaluate the significance of the difference from two product options. For biogas, the choice of the time horizon in carbon footprint assessment is decisive and needs a strong justification.
A series of three expert workshops, including non- LCA experts from hydrology, eco-hydrology, and water supply science, was organized specifically on the topic of a generic stress-based midpoint indicator. They were held in Zurich on 10th September, in San Francisco on 5th October and in Tsukuba on 27th October 2014. In total 49 experts attended. The specific objectives of the workshops were twofold. First, it was to present the identified options of the stress-based indicator narrowed down by the active members of WULCA during the first 8 months of the project and to receive comments on the relevance, usefulness, acceptability, and focus of the selected indicator. Second, the workshop covered different challenges in the modeling of the indicator and presented the experts with background information and specific questions. This paper summarizes the discussions and outcome of these workshops. Where no agreement was reached, the working group of active members is considering all inputs received and continues the work.
Purpose The integration of different water impact assessment methods within a water footprinting concept is still ongoing, and a limited number of case studies have been published presenting a comprehensive study of all water-related impacts. Although industries are increasingly interested in assessing their water footprint beyond a simple inventory assessment, they often lack guidance regarding the applicability and interpretation of the different methods available. This paper aims to illustrate how different water-related methods can be applied within a water footprint study of a laundry detergent and discuss their applicability. Methods The concept of water footprinting, as defined by the recently published ISO Standard (ISO 2014), is illustrated through the case study of a load of laundry using water availability and water degradation impact categories. At the midpoint, it covers scarcity, availability, and pollution indicators such as eutrophication, acidification, human, and eco-toxicity. At the endpoint, impacts on human health and ecosystems are covered for water deprivation and degradation. Sensitivity analyses are performed on the most sensitive modeling choices identified in part A of this paper. Results and discussion The applicability of the different methodologies and their interpretation within a water footprint concept for decision making is presented. The discussion covers general applicability issues such as inventory flow definition, data availability, regionalization, and inclusion of wastewater treatment systems. Method-specific discussion covers the use of interim ecotoxicity factors, the interaction of scarcity and availability assessments and the limits of such methods, and the geographic coverage and availability of impact assessment methods. Lastly, possible double counting, databases, software, data quality, and integration of a water footprint within a life cycle assessment (LCA) are discussed. Conclusions This study has shown that water footprinting as proposed in the ISO standard can be applied to a laundry detergent product but with caveats. The science and the data availability are rapidly evolving, but the results obtained with present methods enable companies to map where in the life cycle and in the world impacts might occur.
In the past decade, several methods have emerged to quantify water scarcity, water availability and the human health impacts of water use. It was recommended that a quantitative comparison of methods should be performed to describe similar impact pathways, namely water scarcity and human health impacts from water deprivation. This is precisely the goal of this paper, which aims to (1) identify the key relevant modeling choices that explain the main differences between characterization models leading to the same impact indicators; (2) quantify the significance of the differences between methods, and (3) discuss the main methodological choices in order to guide method development and harmonization efforts. The modeling choices are analysed for similarity of results (using mean relative difference) and model response consistency (through rank correlation coefficient). Uncertainty data associated with the choice of model are provided for each of the models analysed, and an average value is provided as a tool for sensitivity analyses. The results determined the modeling choices that significantly influence the indicators and should be further analysed and harmonised, such as the regional scale at which the scarcity indicator is calculated, the sources of underlying input data and the function adopted to describe the relationship between modeled scarcity indicators and the original withdrawal-to-availability or consumption-to-availability ratios. The inclusion or exclusion of impacts from domestic user deprivation and the inclusion or exclusion of trade effects both strongly influence human health impacts. At both midpoint and endpoint, the comparison showed that considering reduced water availability due to degradation in water quality, in addition to a reduction in water quantity, greatly influences results. Other choices are less significant in most regions of the world. Maps are provided to identify the regions in which such choices are relevant. This paper provides useful insights to better understand scarcity, availability and human health impact models for water use and identifies the key relevant modeling choices and differences, making it possible to quantify model uncertainty and the significance of these choices in a specific regional context. Maps of regions where these specific choices are of importance were generated to guide practitioners in identifying locations for sensitivity analyses in water footprint studies. Finally, deconstructing the existing models and highlighting the differences and similarities has helped to determine building blocks to support the development of a consensual method.
People use a lot of water for drinking, cooking and washing, but significantly more for producing things such as food, paper and cotton clothes. The water footprint is an indicator of water use that looks at both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or producer. Indirect use refers to the 'virtual water' embedded in tradable goods and commodities, such as cereals, sugar or cotton. The water footprint of an individual, community or business is defined as the total volume of fresh water that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or community or produced by the business. This book offers a complete and up-to-date overview of the global standard on water footprint assessment as developed by the Water Footprint Network. More specifically it: provides a comprehensive set of methods for water footprint assessment shows how water footprints can be calculated for individual processes and products, as well as for consumers, nations and businesses contains detailed worked examples of how to calculate green, blue and grey water footprints describes how to assess the sustainability of the aggregated water footprint within a river basin or the water footprint of a specific product includes an extensive library of possible measures that can contribute to water footprint reduction. Arjen Y. Hoekstra is Professor in Water Management at the University of Twente, the Netherlands; creator of the water footprint concept and Scientific Director of the Water Footprint Network. Ashok K. Chapagain was an irrigation engineer in Nepal for more than a decade, has worked as a researcher at the University of Twente and currently works for the WWF in the UK. Maite M. Aldaya works as a consultant for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and is a researcher at the Water Footprint Network.
The increase in the consumption of animal products
is likely to put further pressure on the world’s
freshwater resources. This paper provides a comprehensive
account of the water footprint of animal
products, considering different production systems
and feed composition per animal type and country.
Nearly one-third of the total water footprint of
agriculture in the world is related to the production
of animal products. The water footprint of any
animal product is larger than the water footprint of
crop products with equivalent nutritional value.
The average water footprint per calorie for beef is
20 times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.
The water footprint per gram of protein for milk,
eggs and chicken meat is 1.5 times larger than for
pulses. The unfavorable feed conversion efficiency
for animal products is largely responsible for the
relatively large water footprint of animal products
compared to the crop products. Animal products
from industrial systems generally consume and
pollute more ground- and surface-water resources
than animal products from grazing or mixed systems.
The rising global meat consumption and the
intensification of animal production systems will
put further pressure on the global freshwater
resources in the coming decades. The study shows
that from a freshwater perspective, animal products
from grazing systems have a smaller blue and grey
water footprint than products from industrial systems,
and that it is more water-efficient to obtain
calories, protein and fat through crop products than
animal products
SUMMARY - Estimating attainable yield under water-limiting conditions remains central in arid, semi-arid and drought-prone environments. To address this need, FAO has been developing a yield-response to water model, AquaCrop , which simulates attainable yields of the major herbaceous crops. As compared to other crop models, AquaCrop has a significantly smaller number of parameters and a better balance between simplicity, accuracy and robustness. Root zone water content is simulated by keeping track of incoming and outgoing water fluxes at its boundaries, considering the soil as a water storage reservoir with different layers. Instead of leaf area index, AquaCrop uses canopy ground cover. Canopy development, stomatal conductance, canopy senescence and harvest index are the key physiological crop responses to water stress. Evapotranspiration is simulated as crop transpiration and soil evaporation and the daily transpiration is used to derive the daily biomass gain via the normalized biomass water productivity of the crop. The normalization is for reference evapotranspiration and CO2 concentration to make the model applicable to diverse locations and seasons, including future climate scenarios. AquaCrop accommodates different water management systems, including rainfed agriculture and supplemental, deficit, and full irrigation. Simulations can be carried out both on calendar and thermal time, and the developing versions will incorporate effects of nutrient regimes, particularly nitrogen, and of soil salinity. AquaCrop is mainly addressed to extension services practitioners, consulting engineers, governmental agencies, NGOs and farmers associations.
1] This study quantifies, spatially explicitly and in a consistent modeling framework (Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land), the global consumption of both ''blue'' water (withdrawn for irrigation from rivers, lakes and aquifers) and ''green'' water (precipitation) by rainfed and irrigated agriculture and by nonagricultural terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, the individual effects of human-induced land cover change and irrigation were quantified to assess the overall hydrological impact of global agriculture in the past century. The contributions to irrigation of nonrenewable (fossil groundwater) and nonlocal blue water (e.g., from diverted rivers) were derived from the difference between a simulation in which these resources were implicitly considered (IPOT) and a simulation in which they were neglected (ILIM). We found that global cropland consumed >7200 km 3 year À1 of green water in 1971–2000, representing 92% (ILIM) and 85% (IPOT), respectively, of total crop water consumption. Even on irrigated cropland, 35% (ILIM) and 20% (IPOT) of water consumption consisted of green water. An additional 8155 km 3 year À1 of green water was consumed on grazing land; a further $44,700 km 3 year À1 sustained the ecosystems. Blue water consumption predominated only in intensively irrigated regions and was estimated at 636 km 3 year À1 (ILIM) and 1364 km 3 year À1 (IPOT) globally, suggesting that presently almost half of the irrigation water stemmed from nonrenewable and nonlocal sources. Land cover conversion reduced global evapotranspiration by 2.8% and increased discharge by 5.0% (1764 km 3 year À1), whereas irrigation increased evapotranspiration by up to 1.9% and decreased discharge by 0.5% at least (IPOT, 1971–2000). The diverse water fluxes displayed considerable interannual and interdecadal variability due to climatic variations and the progressive increase of the global area under cultivation and irrigation.
Hoekstra and Mekonnen (1) offered a comprehensive assessment of global water use from the perspective of national production, consumption, and international trade. This study highlighted the often neglected fact that it is the demand for everyday goods and services that places the most pressure on the world’s freshwater systems. As such, strategies based on sustainable consumption and production are needed to reduce humanity’s burden on freshwater and to complement those strategies that operate at the watershed or water resource level.
Total food crop production still needs to increase to feed a growing world population, and this increase needs to be accomplished under increasing scarcity of water. This challenge has lead to the notion that crop water productivity (WP) needs to be increased. The debate on how to increase WP is confounded by different definitions and scale levels of analysis. Moreover, improvements in WP do not necessarily mean the production of more food. A systematic framework built on generic principles for the analysis of WP can help to identify interventions that can contribute to the dual goal of increasing food production and saving water. In this paper, a conceptual framework with four principles is proposed that can be applied at different scales: (1) increase transpirational crop water productivity, (2) increase the storage size for water in time or space, (3) increase the proportion of non-irrigation water inflows to the storage pool, and (4) decrease the non-transpirational water outflows of the storage pool. These principles can be applied to the improvement of genetic resources and to the improvement of natural resource management. The framework is illustrated with examples at the plant, field and (small) agricultural landscape level, for cropping systems found in semi-arid areas to flooded rice in monsoon climates.
Freshwater scarcity is a growing concern, placing considerable importance on the accuracy of indicators used to characterize and map water scarcity worldwide. We improve upon past efforts by using estimates of blue water footprints (consumptive use of ground- and surface water flows) rather than water withdrawals, accounting for the flows needed to sustain critical ecological functions and by considering monthly rather than annual values. We analyzed 405 river basins for the period 1996-2005. In 201 basins with 2.67 billion inhabitants there was severe water scarcity during at least one month of the year. The ecological and economic consequences of increasing degrees of water scarcity--as evidenced by the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo), Indus, and Murray-Darling River Basins--can include complete desiccation during dry seasons, decimation of aquatic biodiversity, and substantial economic disruption.
Availability of sufficient and clean freshwater has become a growing constraint to sustainable agricultural development in many countries. We explore two pathways that hold the potential to reduce water consumption and pollution related to cereal production in Iran: reducing food waste and changing cropping patterns. Hereto, we first evaluated the green, blue and grey water footprint (WF) associated with production of wheat, barley and rice. Next, we assessed resulting water scarcity and pollution levels at the provincial scale, for the period 1980-2010. Both total WF and its blue water share were found to have increased considerably from 1980 on. For the year 2010 (a representative hydrological year), results show that the national total green-blue WF of production of these major cereals is 43×10⁹m³. Regarding the grey WF of production, 30×10⁹m³ was required to take up surplus N loads to water bodies. Resulting blue water scarcity and water pollution levels are highest in the arid and semi-arid provinces, caused in part by cereal production destined for export to other regions. Exploring reduction pathways showed that bridling cereal waste allows a potential reduction in both the green-blue WF and grey WF of production of up to 5% each. Relocating production areas and modifying cereal trade patterns from water-abundant to scarcer provinces could save up to 3.5% in the green-blue WF of production and up to 25% in the grey WF.
Environmentally extended input-output analysis (EEIOA) supports environmental policy by quantifying how demand for goods and services leads to resource use and emissions across the economy. However, some types of resource use and emissions require spatially-explicit impact assessment for meaningful interpretation, which is not possible in conventional EEIOA. For example, water use in locations of scarcity and abundance is not environmentally equivalent. Opportunities for spatially-explicit impact assessment in conventional EEIOA are limited because official input-output tables tend to be produced at the scale of political units which are not usually well aligned with environmentally relevant spatial units. In this study, spatially-explicit water scarcity factors and a spatially disaggregated Australian water use account were used to develop water scarcity extensions that were coupled with a multi-regional input-output model (MRIO). The results link demand for agricultural commodities to the problem of water scarcity in Australia and globally. Important differences were observed between the water use and water scarcity footprint results, as well as the relative importance of direct and indirect water use, with significant implications for sustainable production and consumption-related policies. The approach presented here is suggested as a feasible general approach for incorporating spatially-explicit impact assessment in EEIOA.
The depletion of water resources, in terms of both quantity and quality, has become a major concern both locally and globally. Ruminants, in particular, are under increased public scrutiny due to their relatively high water use per unit of meat or milk produced. Estimating the water footprint of livestock production is a relatively new field of research for which methods are still evolving. This review describes the approaches used to quantify water use in ruminant production systems as well as the methodological and conceptual issues associated with each approach. Water use estimates for the main products from ruminant production systems are also presented, along with possible management strategies to reduce water use. In the past, quantifying water withdrawal in ruminant production focused on the water demand for drinking or operational purposes. Recently, the recognition of water as a scarce resource has led to the development of several methodologies including water footprint assessment, life cycle assessment, and livestock water productivity to assess water use and its environmental impacts. These methods differ with respect to their target outcome (efficiency or environmental impacts), geographic focus (local or global), description of water sources (green, blue, and gray), handling of water quality concerns, the interpretation of environmental impacts, and the metric by which results are communicated (volumetric units or impact equivalents). Ruminant production is a complex activity where animals are often reared at different sites using a range of resources over their lifetime. Additional water use occurs during slaughter, product processing, and packaging. Estimating water use at the various stages of meat and milk production and communicating those estimates will help producers and other stakeholders identify hotspots and implement strategies to improve water use efficiency. Improvements in ruminant productivity (i.e., BW and milk production) and reproductive efficiency can also reduce the water footprint per unit product. However, given that feed production makes up the majority of water use by ruminants, research and development efforts should focus on this area. More research and clarity are needed to examine the validity of assumptions and possible trade-offs between ruminants' water use and other sustainability indicators.
ISO14046 sets out principles, requirements and guidelines for the quantification of a water footprint taking a life cycle perspective. The international standard is intended to support product water footprint labeling and corporate sustainability reporting. However, the document is not prescriptive in regard to the use of any one specific water footprint indicator. In this study, water scarcity footprints were calculated for milk production on 75 farms in three parts of south-eastern Australia. Three indicators, with distinctly different conceptual basis and model structure, were applied. Included was the AWARE indicator recently developed under the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. The different indicator results were highly correlated (Spearman's rank correlation 0.91–0.99) and the life cycle stages and processes identified as important were the same. Therefore, all three indicators were considered suitable for informing internal strategic action. However, the different indicators produced results which differed greatly in absolute value, in some cases by a factor of > 300. To enable consumers and others to make comparisons between the water scarcity footprints of different products or organisations, program (or scheme) operators will need to specify the indicator to be used. The three indicators were assessed according to scaling, interpretability and coherence with LCA results, and found to differ in terms of suitability for use in a water footprint program. The AWARE indicator was deemed to be least suitable.
Utilisation of water, energy and land resources is under pressure globally because of increased demand for food, fibre and fuel production. Australian pork production utilises these resources both directly to grow and process pigs, and indirectly via the consumption of feed and other inputs. With increasing demand and higher costs associated with these resources, supply chain efficiency is a growing priority for the industry. This study aimed to quantify fresh water consumption, stress-weighted water use, fossil fuel energy use and land occupation from six case study supply chains and the national herd using a life cycle assessment approach. Two functional units were used: 1 kg of pork liveweight (LW) at the farm-gate, and 1 kg of wholesale pork (chilled, bone-in). At the farm-gate, fresh water consumption from the case study supply chains ranged from²2.2 to 156.7 L/kg LW, with a national average value of 107.5 L/kg LW. Stress-weighted water use ranged from 6.6 to 167.5 L H2 O-e /kg LW, with a national average value of 103.2 L H2 O-e /kg LW. Fossil fuel energy demand ranged from 12.9 to 17.4 MJ/kg LW, with a national average value of 14.5 MJ/kg LW, and land occupation ranged from 10.9 to 16.1 m² /kg LW, with a national average value of 16.1 m² /kg LW and with arable land representing 97% to 99% of total land occupation. National average impacts associated with production of wholesale pork, including impacts from meat processing, were 184 ± 43 L fresh water consumption, 172 ± 53 L H2 O-e stress-weighted water, 27 ± 2.6 MJ fossil fuel energy demand and 25.9 ± 5.5 m² land/kg wholesale pork. Across all categories through to the wholesale product, resource use was highest from the production of feed inputs, indicating that improving feed conversion ratio is the most important production metric for reducing the resource use. Housing type and energy generation from manure management also influence resource use requirements and may offer improvement opportunities.
Water footprinting has emerged as an important approach to assess water use related effects from consumption of goods and services. Assessment methods are proposed by two different communities, the Water Footprint Network (WFN) and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) community. The proposed methods are broadly similar and encompass both the computation of water use and its impacts, but differ in communication of a water footprint result. In this paper, we explain the role and goal of LCA and ISO-compatible water footprinting and resolve the six issues raised by Hoekstra (2016) in “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”. By clarifying the concerns, we identify both the overlapping goals in the WFN and LCA water footprint assessments and discrepancies between them. The main differing perspective between the WFN and LCA-based approach seems to relate to the fact that LCA aims to account for environmental impacts, while the WFN aims to account for water productivity of global fresh water as a limited resource. We conclude that there is potential to use synergies in research for the two approaches and highlight the need for proper declaration of the methods applied.
The expected increase in broiler meat consumption in Brazil in future will lead to further increase in water use. The objective of this study was to quantify water productivity of four Brazilian broiler farms. Water use in the four farming systems was analyzed in terms of feed production, drinking, cleaning, and cooling. One focus was the crop water productivity of the respective corn and soy producing regions in Brazil. After the spatial and temporal boundaries of the farm system and the water flows were defined, the indicator farm water productivity was calculated to assess water use at the farm scale. The farm water productivity describes the ratio of farm output to water input, where the water input is the total of those water inflows into the farm system that can be assigned to the generation of farm output. Farm output is expressed on a mass basis, food energy basis, and monetary basis. The farm water productivity and the crop water productivity were calculated using the modeling software AgroHyd Farmmodel. In all fattening systems, water input for feed production accounted for 99.7% of the total water input. In the four systems, farm water productivity accounted for 0.29–0.33 kg carcass weight per m3 water input, 2.60–2.88 MJ food energy per m3 water input, and 0.15–0.17 R$ per m3 water input. The results showed that the highest water demand was for feed production. Improvements in nutritional management will increase the water efficiency of broiler farms.
The water footprint (WF) has been developed within the water resources research community as a volumetric measure of freshwater appropriation. The concept is used to assess water use along supply chains, sustainability of water use within river basins, efficiency of water use, equitability of water allocation and dependency on water in the supply chain. With the purpose of integrating the WF in life cycle assessment of products, LCA scholars have proposed to weight the original volumetric WF by the water scarcity in the catchment where the WF is located, thus obtaining a water-scarcity weighted WF that reflects the potential local environmental impact of water consumption. This paper provides an elaborate critique on this proposal. The main points are: (1) counting litres of water use differently based on the level of local water scarcity obscures the actual debate about water scarcity, which is about allocating water resources to competing uses and depletion at a global scale; (2) the neglect of green water consumption ignores the fact that green water is scarce as well; (3) since water scarcity in a catchment increases with growing overall water consumption in the catchment, multiplication of the consumptive water use of a specific process or activity with water scarcity implies that the resultant weighted WF of a process or activity will be affected by the WFs of other processes or activities, which cannot be the purpose of an environmental performance indicator; (4) the LCA treatment of the WF is inconsistent with how other environmental footprints are defined; and (5) the Water Stress Index, the most cited water scarcity metric in the LCA community, lacks meaningful physical interpretation. It is proposed to incorporate the topic of freshwater scarcity in LCA as a “natural resource depletion” category, considering depletion from a global perspective. Since global freshwater demand is growing while global freshwater availability is limited, it is key to measure the comparative claim of different products on the globe's limited accessible and usable freshwater flows.
Scarcity and competition for water are becoming matters of increasing concern around the world. The interdisciplinary nature of the problem requires that the technical, economic, environmental and social aspects of water usage are integrated into a coherent analytical framework. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of agricultural water use during crop production is a necessary prerequisite for agricultural water management. The present study provides an overview of water-accounting and water footprint assessment methods by analysing the performance, efficiency, economic profitability and environmental impact of the Hetao Irrigation District, China. The performance and efficiency results showed that the total volume of water consumed in the Hetao Irrigation District, during wheat production, was 872 Mm3, of which 116 Mm3 was green water and 756 Mm3 was blue water. Furthermore, 443 Mm3 of the blue water was used effectively, while 313 Mm3 was non-beneficial due to an inefficient irrigation system. The grey water footprint was 152 Mm3 during wheat production, which accounted for 15.42% of the total available water in the district. The results indicated that the economic profit is higher relative to the national average due to the high yields in wheat production in the Hetao Irrigation District. However, efficient use of resources and environmental sustainability were relatively low due to high water consumption and pollution. This study highlighted the need for a comprehensive evaluation of water use in agricultural production and it provides insights by using water footprint and water accounting in water use assessment and is a reference for other related studies.
Abstract In recent years, numerous efforts have been made to include water-related issues in life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. This study provides an overview of existing methods that address green water use in LCA. In this overview, we analyse the main features of existing LCA methods used to examine changes in long-term blue water availability caused by variations in green water flows, particularly with respect to inventory, the characterisation model and characterisation factors. Moreover, we propose a method of assessing impacts on terrestrial green water flows (TGWI) and addressing reductions in surface blue water production (RBWP) caused by reductions in surface runoff due to land-use production systems. Both TGWI and RBWP are analysed, taking into account the green water use/atmosphere and green water use/soil interfaces. In this proposed method, the life cycle inventory (LCI) phase considers the net green water flow that leaves the land-use production system, allowing the study of two alternative reference land uses: 1) quasi-natural forest and 2) grasslands/shrublands. In the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, regional- and species-specific characterisation factors (CFs) for the amount of green water evaporated or transpired are also proposed. To illustrate the applicability of the proposed method, we employed a case study on Eucalyptus globulus stands (first rotation), located in Portugal. The results show that different impacts on terrestrial green water flows and on surface blue water production are obtained depending on the alternative reference land use. Moreover, the case study shows that the method developed can be a useful tool assisting in improved national E. globulus forest planning.
A methodology is demonstrated to account for the use and productivity of water resources. This water accounting methodology presents useful information to water resource stakeholders and decision makers to better understand the present use of water and to formulate actions for improvements in integrated water resources management systems. Based on a water balance approach, it classifies outflows from a water balance domain into various categories to provide information on the quantity of water depleted by various uses, and the amount available for further use. The methodology is applicable to different levels of analysis ranging from a micro level such as a household, to a macro level such as a complete water basin. Indicators are defined to give information on the productivity of the water resource. Examples from Egypt's Nile River and a cascade of tanks in Sri Lanka are presented to demonstrate the methodology.
In sub-Saharan Africa problems associated with water scarcity are aggravated by increasing demands for food and water, climate change and environmental degradation. Livestock keeping, an important livelihood strategy for smallholder farmers in Africa, is a major consumer of water, and its water consumption is increasing with increasing demands for livestock products. At the same time, current low returns from livestock keeping limit its contribution to livelihoods, threaten environmental health and aggravate local conflicts. The objectives of this review are to: (1) synthesize available knowledge in the various components of the livestock and water sectors in sub-Saharan Africa, (2) analyze livestock–water interactions and (3) identify promising strategies and technological interventions for improved livestock water productivity (LWP) using a framework for mixed crop–livestock systems. The interventions are grouped in three categories related to feed, water, and animal management. Feed related strategies for improving LWP include choosing feed types carefully, improving feed quality, increasing feed water productivity, and implementing grazing management practices. Water management for higher LWP comprises water conservation, watering point management, and integration of livestock production in irrigation schemes. Animal management strategies include improving animal health and careful animal husbandry. Evidence indicates that successful uptake of interventions can be achieved if institutions, policies, and gender are considered. Critical research and development gaps are identified in terms of methodologies for quantifying water productivity at different scales and improving integration between agricultural sectors.
A method for assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption was developed. This method considers damages to three areas of protection: human health, ecosystem quality, and resources. The method can be used within most existing life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods. The relative importance of water consumption was analyzed by integrating the method into the Eco-indicator-99 LCIA method. The relative impact of water consumption in LCIA was analyzed with a case study on worldwide cotton production. The importance of regionalized characterization factors for water use was also examined in the case study. In arid regions, water consumption may dominate the aggregated life-cycle impacts of cotton-textile production. Therefore, the consideration of water consumption is crucial in life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies that include water-intensive products, such as agricultural goods. A regionalized assessment is necessary, since the impacts of water use vary greatly as a function of location. The presented method is useful for environmental decision-support in the production of water-intensive products as well as for environmentally responsible value-chain management.
Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chain: Guidelines for assessment
- Fao
FAO, 2016a. Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chain: Guidelines for
assessment, in: Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership.
FAO, Rome, Italy. (Ed.).
Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply chains Guidelines for assessment
- Fao
FAO, 2016b. Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from small ruminant supply
chains Guidelines for assessment. In: Livestock Environmental Assessment and
Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome. (Ed.).
Greenhouse gas emission and fossil energy demand from poultry supply chain: Guidelines for assessment
- Fao
FAO, 2016c. Greenhouse gas emission and fossil energy demand from poultry supply
chain: Guidelines for assessment, in: Livestock Environmental Assessment and
Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy. (Ed.).
Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for quantification
- Fao
FAO, 2016d. Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: Guidelines for
quantification, in: Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance
Partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy. (Ed.).
Environmental performance of pig supply chain: Guidelines for assessment
- Fao
FAO, 2018. Environmental performance of pig supply chain: Guidelines for assessment,
in: Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome,
Italy. (Ed.).
LEAP guidelines for water use assessment of livestock production systems and supply chains. Draft for public review. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership
- Fao
FAO, 2019. LEAP guidelines for water use assessment of livestock production systems
and supply chains. Draft for public review. Livestock Environmental Assessment and
Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy. (Ed.).
European Commission -Joint Research Centre -Institute for Environment and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook -Specific guide for Life Cycle Inventory data sets
- Ilcd
ILCD, 2010. European Commission -Joint Research Centre -Institute for Environment
and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook
-Specific guide for Life Cycle Inventory data sets. EUR 24709 EN, first ed.
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Environmental management -Life cycle assessment -Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization
ISO, 2006a. ISO14040, Environmental management -Life cycle assessment -Principles
and framework. International Organization for Standardization, ISO, Geneva, p. 20.
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044: Environmental management-Life cycle assessment
-Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standard, Geneva, p.
46.
ISO 14045: Environmental management -Eco-efficiency assessment of product systems -Principles, requirements and guidelines
ISO, 2012. ISO 14045: Environmental management -Eco-efficiency assessment of
product systems -Principles, requirements and guidelines. International
Organization for Standard, ISO, Geneva, p. 46.
ISO 14046: Environmental management Water footprint Principles, requirements and guidelines
ISO, 2014. ISO 14046: Environmental management Water footprint Principles,
requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standard, ISO, Geneva,
p. 72.
Environmental labels and declarations -communication of footprint information
ISO, 2017. ISO 14026:2017 Environmental labels and declarations -communication of
footprint information. International Organization for Standardization, ISO, Geneva,
p. 24.
Water scarcity assessments in the past, present, and future
- J Liu
- H Yang
- S N Gosling
- M Kummu
- M Flörke
- S Pfister
- N Hanasaki
- Y Wada
- X Zhang
- C Zheng
- J Alcamo
- T Oki
Liu, J., Yang, H., Gosling, S.N., Kummu, M., Flörke, M., Pfister, S., Hanasaki, N.,
Wada, Y., Zhang, X., Zheng, C., Alcamo, J., Oki, T., 2017. Water scarcity assessments
in the past, present, and future. Earth's Future 5 (6), 545-559. https://doi.org/
10.1002/eft2.2017.5.issue-610.1002/2016EF000518.
Nutrient requirements of beef cattle
NAS, 2016. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academies of Sciences,
Division on Earth and Life Studies. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources;
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) Leather pilot Fontanella
- A Nucci
- B Ioannidis
- I De Rosa-Giglio
PEFCR, 2015a Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) Leather pilot
Fontanella, A., Nucci,B, Ioannidis, I., De Rosa-Giglio P., Technical Secretariat for the
Leather Pilot 2015, 89p.
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) Red Meat, Version 1.0 Draft, Technical Secretariat
PEFCR, 2015b Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) Red Meat,
Version 1.0 Draft, Technical Secretariat, 58 p.
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for Dairy Products, DRAFT for approval of the EF Steering Committee
PEFCR, 2015c, Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for Dairy
Products, DRAFT for approval of the EF Steering Committee, Technical Secretariat,
81 p.