Muhammad Asad Ghu!

rah
Muhammad AIIique 8uII
WaIer FoooIprinI o! 5ome
5eIecIed Crops o! PakisIan
A Comparisoh o! Ihe CohsumpIive use o! WaIer
1his book primarily !ocuses Ihe cohsumpIive alohg wiIh Ihe hoh-
cohsumpIive uses o! waIer !or some selecIed crops o! SouIh Asiah regioh
cohcerhihg Io PakisIah. 1he sIudy ihcluded some o! Ihe ma|or cereals, also
Iakihg ihIo Ihe accouhI Ihe mihor crops ahd cash crops. WaIer !ooIprihIs
!or Ihe ihdividual crops have beeh well calculaIed. 1he sIudy ehables us Io
assess Ihe use o! waIer hoI ih a cohvehIiohal way o! waIer wiIhdrawal buI
ih Ierms o! Ihe waIer !ooIprihI which characIerizes Ihe use o! waIer IhaI
does hoI reIurh Io iIs origih ih a khowh Iime scale. 1he sIudy compares Ihe
waIer !ooIprihI values obIaihed !or Ihe selecIed crops oh regiohal basis,
ahd Ihe ohes averaged globally !or Ihe same group o! crops.
Muhammad Asad Ghu!ran
Acquired exIehsive Iraihihg oh various ecological
aspecIs. Publishihg research arIicles sihce Iwo
decades ih peer-reviewed |ourhals. Experiehced ih
workihg wiIh diverse ecological problems wiIh
haIiohal & ihIerhaIiohal repuIed orgahizaIiohs.
Earhed haIiohal recoghiIioh as uhiversiIy Ieacher &
supervisor o! research pro|ecIs oh ehvirohmehIal
issues.
978-3-659-44466-1
Muhammad Asad Ghufran
Muhammad Attique Butt
Water Foootprint of Some SeIected Crops of Pakistan
Muhammad Asad Ghufran
Muhammad Attique Butt
Water Foootprint of Some SeIected
Crops of Pakistan
A Comparison of the Consumptive use of Water
LAP LAMBERT Academic PubIishing
LAP LAMBERT Academic PubIishing
Impressum / ImprinI
8ibliogra!ische lh!ormaIioh der DeuIscheh NaIiohalbiblioIhek: Die DeuIsche
NaIiohalbiblioIhek verzeichheI diese PublikaIioh ih der DeuIscheh NaIiohalbibliogra!ie,
deIaillierIe bibliogra!ische DaIeh sihd im lhIerheI ber hIIp://dhb.d-hb.de abru!bar.
Alle ih diesem 8uch gehahhIeh Markeh uhd ProdukIhameh uhIerliegeh warehzeicheh-,
markeh- oder paIehIrechIlichem SchuIz bzw. sihd Warehzeicheh oder eihgeIragehe
Warehzeicheh der |eweiligeh lhhaber. Die Wiedergabe voh Markeh, ProdukIhameh,
Cebrauchshameh, Hahdelshameh, Warehbezeichhuhgeh u.s.w. ih diesem Werk berechIigI
auch ohhe besohdere Kehhzeichhuhg hichI zu der Ahhahme, dass solche Nameh im Sihhe
der Warehzeicheh- uhd MarkehschuIzgeseIzgebuhg als !rei zu beIrachIeh wareh uhd
daher voh |edermahh behuIzI werdeh dr!Ieh.
8ibliographic ih!ormaIioh published by Ihe DeuIsche NaIiohalbiblioIhek: 1he DeuIsche
NaIiohalbiblioIhek lisIs Ihis publicaIioh ih Ihe DeuIsche NaIiohalbibliogra!ie, deIailed
bibliographic daIa are available ih Ihe lhIerheI aI hIIp://dhb.d-hb.de.
Ahy brahd hames ahd producI hames mehIiohed ih Ihis book are sub|ecI Io Irademark,
brahd or paIehI proIecIioh ahd are Irademarks or regisIered Irademarks o! Iheir respecIive
holders. 1he use o! brahd hames, producI hames, commoh hames, Irade hames, producI
descripIiohs eIc. eveh wiIhouI a parIicular markihg ih Ihis works is ih ho way Io be
cohsIrued Io meah IhaI such hames may be regarded as uhresIricIed ih respecI o!
Irademark ahd brahd proIecIioh legislaIioh ahd could Ihus be used by ahyohe.
Coverbild / Cover image: www.ihgimage.com
Verlag / Publisher:
LAP LAM8ER1 Academic Publishihg
isI eih lmprihI der / is a Irademark o!
AV Akademikerverlag CmbH & Co. KC
Heihrich-8ckihg-SIr. 6-8, 66121 Saarbrckeh, DeuIschlahd / Cermahy
Email: ih!o@lap-publishihg.com
HersIelluhg: siehe leIzIe SeiIe /
PrihIed aI: see lasI page
I5N: 978-3-659-44466-1
Zugl. / Approved by: lhIerhaIiohal lslamic UhiversiIy, lslamabad, Diss., 2013
CopyrighI 2013 AV Akademikerverlag CmbH & Co. KC
Alle RechIe vorbehalIeh. / All righIs reserved. Saarbrckeh 2013
Project Mentor:
Dr. Muhammad Asad Ghufran
Project report accomplished by:
Muhammad Attique Butt
(BS. Environmental Science Student)
PREFACE
Working with a relatively new topic of water footprint (the concept of WF started in 2002) has
been fascinating for me as a Environmental Science Student. Besides the involvement of two
softwares, that this work draws heavily upon gave the project a new dimension which is less
frequent specially in the field of environmental science. The idea of working on water footprint
did not come to my mind in the first place rather I owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr
Muhammad Asad Ghufran who proposed the idea primarily as a topic for a research paper but it
took the form of my degree project later. It was him who did not allow me to swerve from this
topic.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr No Title Page No
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Internal and external water footprint 3
1.2 Examples of water footprint 4
1.2.1 Crop water footprint 4
1.2.2 Product water footprint 5
1.2.3 Water footprint of a geographically delineated area 6
1.2.4 Water footprint of a business 6
1.3 Virtual water chain 6
1.4 Virtual water flows 6
1.5 Why to calculate water footprint 7
1.6 Objective of the study 8
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 Truncation issue in water footprint accounting 10
2.2 Process step- a starting point of accounting water footprint 11
2.3 Critical aspects of the WF concept 12
2.4 A global picture of water footprint of agricultural products 13
2.5 Relation between virtual water and water footprint 16
2.6 Water neutrality and water footprint offsetting 17
2.6.1 Water neutrality water footprint reduction 17
2.6.2 Water footprint offsetting 17
2.7 Exemplary water footprint reduction measures 18
2.8 Exemplary water footprint offsetting measures 18
2.9 CROPWAT 8.0 calculating water footprint of a crop 19
2.10 Limitations of the concept of water footprint 21
2.11 An overview of the studies undertaken in the field of water
footprint 22
2.11.1 Global & supranational WF & virtual water trade studies 22
2.11.2 National water footprint and virtual water trade studies 22
2.11.3 Sub-national water footprint and virtual water trade studies 22
2.11.4 Product water footprint studies 23
2.11.5 Business water footprint studies 25
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 26
3.1 The Penman-Monteith equation 26
3.2 CLIMWAT 2.0 for CROPWAT 28
3.3 Seven climatic parameters provided by CLIMWAT 2.0 28
3.4 Pictoral description of CROPWAT 8.0 30
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 33
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 37
CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATION 39
REFERENCES 41

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Allah be thanked Who gave me enough strength, determination and resources to complete this
project.
I feel it due on me to thank the Chairman of Dept. of Environmental Science Prof Dr Muhammad
Irfan Khan who being head of the department provided me with enough resources to accomplish
the task of undertaking a research project.
I owe a great deal of thanks to Dr Muhammad Asad Ghufran, who besides propounding the idea
of selecting water footprint as topic of my project guided me through each and every step to the
accomplishment of the task.
I feel a heavy debt of gratitude to Dr Syed Shahid Ali who has been a source of inspiration to me
during the course of studies at International Islamic University and who as an instructor played a
pivotal role of giving me an impetus to work industriously and up-to-the mark.
Dr Zafeer Saqib is another personality that I draw inspiration from and who helped me to get
through various problems related to the softwares in the line of working with water footprint and
whose dexterity in such tasks kept me working without hurdles.
The staff of the Department of Environmental Science notably Mr Mohsin Ali and Iftikhar
Hussain also helped me a lot in day to day managerial and administrative affairs.
Muhammad Attique Butt
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig No Title Page No
1 Contribution of different crops to the total water footprint 13
of crop production: 1996-2005
2 Variation of crop coefficient according to crop growth stage 27
3 The GUI of CLIMWAT 2.0 showing the loaded stations for which
data is extracted for the use in CROPWAT 8.0 29
4 The GUI of CROPWAT 8.0 30
5 Output window of CROPWAT 8.0 for wheat showing ET
c
value
for wheat near Islamabad Airport Meteorology Station 31
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
1 Characteristic of ten ethanol and seven biodiesel providing crops 15
2 Comparison of global water footprint and water footprint of Pakistan 33-34

ABSTRACT
The current study looks at the consumptive water use of some selected crops of Pakistan,
including some major crops, such as cereals and oil crops and minor such as tea and fiber crops.
Water footprints have been calculated using a software, CROPWAT 8.0, developed by Land and
Water Division of FAO. The software bases its calculations on Penman Monteith equation. The
study enables us to assess the use of water not in a conventional way of water withdrawal but in
terms of water footprint which characterizes the use of water that does not return to origin in a
small time scale. The study compares the water footprint values obtained and the ones averaged
globally for the same crops. Cereals notably sorghum, barley, and millet and oil crops such as
ground nut, soybean and sunflower seem to use high quantities of water in Pakistan. They are
estimated at as much as double of the global averages. Most of the crops in Pakistan indicate
water footprint either equal to or greater than the global averages which can be attributed to
various factors such as subtropical climate, poor irrigation and water management systems and
low yields. There have been observed only three crops, viz. wheat, potato and tobacco whose
water footprint is lower than their global averages. Tobacco has a water footprint smaller than
the global average because of the fact that in Pakistan tobacco is the only crop whose yield
exceeds the global average yield of tobacco so its high yield translates into low water footprint.
A reduced water footprint is a recommended condition wherein the entity under question uses the
least possible amount of water thus demonstrating sustainable use of water.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The concept of water footprint was developed by Argen Y. Hoekstra in 2002 and latterly
elaborated by A. K. Chapagain and A. Y. Hoekstra. The concept of water footprint actually
emerges from the concept of ecological footprint developed by William Rees in 1992, which is
useful for the measurement of the sustainable level of social and economic development (H. R.
Wang & Y. Wang, 2009).
Water footprint is the amount of water used directly or indirectly by a consumer or producer
during a specified time period. Water footprint could be calculated for nations, areas, products,
services, etc. (Hoekstra, et. al., 2011).
Water footprint divides the consumption of water into three distinctive parts viz green water, blue
water and grey water. Green water is the rain water consumed; blue water is the freshwater from
surface and ground water resources and grey water is the part of freshwater used to dilute
pollutants produced to such limits as are prescribed in domestic or international laws. Grey part
was not included in Chapagian and Hoekstra (2004), but later it was included in Chapagain and
Hoekstra (2007). Green and blue uses of water actually represent the consumptive uses while
grey water is non-consumptive use of water. Grey water use is not the measure of use of water
but of its quality.
The use of dividing the total water footprint into its green, blue and grey constituents is relevant
because the environmental and economic costs of using the three types of waters is different
from one another. For example opportunity cost (the value of the next best alternative forgone
for a choice) of blue water use is high. The cost of using blue water is high because infrastructure

like tube wells, pipelines, canals, aqueducts, etc needs to be established but that of the green
water it is very low because relatively small infrastructure or almost no infrastructure is required
to use green water.
But this study does not divide the water footprint into its constituent types instead total water
footprint of the crops is calculated by using CROPWAT 8.0 software which is developed by
FAO and bases its calculations of reference evapotranspiration (ET
o
) on Penman Monteith
method (Al-Najar, 2011).
Water use may take two forms: water withdrawal and water consumption. Water withdrawal is
the removal of water from a source of water some part of which returns back to the source
unused as opposed to water consumption which accounts for the use of water which does not
return back to the source because it trapped in the products, plants transpired it or people used it
disallowing it to return to the source in a time period of interest.
Water footprint is consumptive use of water which differs from conventional measure of water
use in three ways:
(i) First, water footprint is consumptive use of water while water withdrawal includes non-
consumptive uses of water as well.
(ii) Second, water footprint also accounts for green (rain water) and grey (use of freshwater
to dilute pollutants to or above agreed limits) use of water as opposed to its counterpart
which looks at only the blue (surface and ground water sources) part of used water.
(iii) Third, water footprint considers the total appropriation of fresh water, both consumptive
and non-consumptive, over the complete production and supply chain.

1.1 Internal and external water footprints

Consumption of water at national scale identifies the need to divide the water footprint into two
categories: internal water footprint and external water footprint. Internal water footprint is the
volume of water used in a country over a specified time period to produce goods and services
used by the inhabitants of the country. Normally there are three principle sectors where water
consumption takes place: agricultural, industrial and domestic. The water used to produce or
contained in the products that are exported from a country is excluded from the total water
footprint to calculate the water footprint of a country.
TWF = AWU + IWW + DWW - VWE
domestic
TWF = Total Water Footprint
AWU = Agricultural Water Use
IWW = Industrial Water Withdrawal
DWW = Domestic Water Withdrawal
VWE
dom
= Virtual Water Export
domestic
(Hoekstra et al., 2011)
External water footprint is the water used to produce goods and services for inhabitants of a
country outside that country of use i.e. water used to produce imports. The water used to produce
imports Ior a country has been termed virtual water`, i.e. the water that is not real and is used to
produce the product or service imported. The idea of virtual water was introduced by Allen
(1998) when he was studying virtual water imports to Middle East as partial solution to water
scarcity there.

EWF = VWI VWE

re-exp
EWF = External Water Footprint
VWI = Virtual Water Import
VWE
re-exp
= Virtual Water
re-export
(re-export of imported water)
(Hoekstra et al., 2011)
1.2 Examples of water footprints
Water footprint can be calculated for almost anything. Hereunder are a few examples:
1.2.1 Crop water footprint
Water footprint of a crop is the amount of fresh water evaporated or transpired from a crop
divided by its yield. It is actually the sum of the green, blue and grey water uses during the
process of growing crop which can be broken down as under ( Hoekstra et al., 2011):
WF
proc
= WF
proc, green
+ WF
proc, blue
+ WF
proc, grey
WF
proc, green
= CWU
green
/ Yield
It doesn`t take into account the water incorporated into a crop. Calculation oI crop water
footprint is critical to evaluate various irrigation management practices.

1.2.2 Product water footprint

Product water footprint is the sum of water footprints during each step in the production
process oI the product. It is sometimes also known as virtual water content` but this term has
a narrower meaning.
WF
product
_
N
i=1
WF
process, i
/ p [quantity]
1.2.3 Water footprint of a geographically delineated area
It can be calculated by summing up all the water consuming and polluting
processes over a specified period of time in the area under question.
WF
area
_WF
proc
q
Where q is the water footprint of a process.
1.2.4 Water footprint of a business
Water footprint of a business can subdivided into two parts/types:
1.2.4.1 Operational water footprint
It is the direct use of water by a producer to produce, manufacture or use water for
supporting activities.
1.2.4.2 Supply-chain water footprint
It is the indirect use of water during the supply-chain operations to convey the product to
the end consumer.

1.3 Virtual water chain

Business water footprint can be understood by virtual water chain which places farmer at one
end and end consumer at the other and the intermediate steps cover various chain members to
convey the product to the consumer which vary depending on the product. Each step of the
virtual water chain involves the use of one, two or all of the three types of waters in various
amounts.
)DUPHU)RRGSURFHVVRU5HWDLOHU&RQVXPHU
1.4 Virtual water flows
Virtual water is the amount of water used to produce a commodity or service. It is closely linked
to water footprint but has a rather narrower meaning. The term was coined by Allen in the early
1990s (Allen 1993; 1994) when he was studying virtual water flows as partial solution to the
problem of water scarcity in Middle East.
While calculating the water footprints of the nations virtual water flows are accounted for by
subtracting the virtual water imported and adding the virtual water trapped in the products
exported. It is important to account for virtual water flows among countries because they are not
negligible rather substantial (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2004).
A number of studies have revealed that global virtual water flows exceed 1000 billion cubic
metres of water. (Hoekstra & Hung, 2002; Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2003a; Zimmer & Renault,
2003; Oki et al., 2003). Virtual water flow into Pakistan in a study conducted by Hoekstra and
Chapagain in 2004 was 0.67 Gm
3
/yr.

1.5 Why to calculate water footprint?

Water is an important resource. It is to a great extent synonymous with life. Barren lands and
deserts are not inhabited by humans because of the very fact that these land features lack the
most important pre-requisite of life - water. Humans use water in three of their principle sectors:
(1) Agriculture (70%), (2) Industry (20%) and (3) Domestic (10%) (UNESCO). Currently, the
agriculture sector accounts for about 85% of global blue water consumption (Shiklomanov,
2000). Global freshwater withdrawal has increased nearly sevenfold in the past century (Gleick,
2010).
In view of such startling statistics quantifying the stress on this important resource by humanity
is imperative to ensure its sustainable use. Water footprint in this regard provides us with a
numerical value that reflects our water management practices and allows us to compare it with
that of other parts of the world. Water footprint intensity, which is the ratio of per capita water
footprint to per capita GDP. A low water footprint intensity means better management practices
and vice versa.
Water footprint allows us to have a detailed breakup of the use of water in any sector up to the
end product used by the end user. Specially the incorporation of grey water addresses the issue of
water pollution comprehensively by quantifying the freshwater appropriation against each unit of
product of interest. As stressed in UNDP`s Human Development Report 2006, which was
devoted to water, water consumption is not the only factor causing water scarcity; pollution plays
an important role as well (UNDP, 2006).
Many studies have been conducted on international levels to calculate water footprints of various
nations including Pakistan notably Hoekstra and Hung (2002) were the first to make a global
estimate of consumptive water use for a number of crops per country, but they did not explicitly

distinguish consumptive water use into green and blue component. Chapagain and Hoekstra
(2004) and Hoekstra and Chapagain (2007, 2008) gave a figure of 8.55 Gm
3
/yr Ior Pakistan`s
agricultural water footprint during 1997 to 2001. The present study focuses on calculating water
footprint of 20 crops viz wheat, maize, barley, sorghum, millet, potato, sunflower, sugarbeat,
cabbage, tomato, sugarrcan, citrus, banana, grapes, soybean, groundnut, rapeseed , cotton, tea
and tobacco, belonging to eight crop categories that have major share in the use of water in
Pakistan, with updated data on various parameters specially yield.
Objectives of the study
The evaluation of the water footprint of some selected crops of Pakistan belonging to eight
different crop categories for the year 2012. Reasons of deviation of water footprint values in
Pakistan from global average counterparts will also be analyzed.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
An enormous amount of water is used in the sector of agriculture by mankind but industrial and
domestic sectors too are not small users of water (WWAP, 2009). This is the case because an
estimated 86 per cent of the water footprint of humanity is within the agricultural sector
(Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008). The resource of water has ever been taken for granted but it can
be foreseen that this practice will not last long. Water will have to be valued. To our utmost
disregard to the sanctity of water, until recent past there have been few studies on the use of
water along the whole production and supply chains (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
Hoekstra and Chapagain (2008) have elaborated the concept of virtual water and virtual water
flows which help to understand the stress water resources are faced with due to their extensive
use in manufacturing and their trade from one to another part of the world. This can be well
understood by the example of Malaysia which does not produce cotton but imports it from
China, India and Pakistan processes it in its textile industries and exports it to European markets
(Chapagain et al, 2006b). The use of water along different stages of production-supply chain is
different and this difference becomes more pronounced when we take into account the three
different types of waters: green, blue and grey.
Water footprint assessment is a comprehensive process of evaluating the use of water of a
product from its production to the end use. It also includes locating the source of water in use,

stress on it, environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of water, formulation of
strategy to curb the negative impacts of the extensive use of water.
The uses of green, blue and grey water have different dynamics from one another so division of
water use into its constituent parts helps us to understand in detail the concept of water footprint.
Blue water resources are generally scarcer and have higher opportunity costs than green water,
so that may be a reason to focus on accounting the blue water footprint only. However, green
water resources are also limited and thus scarce, which gives an argument to account the green
water footprint as well (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
Besides, green water can be substituted by blue water and in agriculture the other way around
as well so that a complete picture can be obtained only by accounting for both. The argument
for including green water use is that the historical engineering focus on blue water has led to the
undervaluation of green water as an important factor of production (Falkenmark, 2003;
Rockstrm, 2001).
The idea of the grey water footprint was introduced in order to express water
pollution in terms of a volume polluted, so that it can be compared with water
consumption, which is also expressed as a volume (Chapagain et al, 2006b; Hoekstra and
Chapagain, 2008).

2.1 Truncation issue in water footprint accounting

Water footprint accounting is not an easy task to do due to an associated problem of truncation,
i.e., experts disagree widely on the last point of use of water while following production-supply
chain of a product. The chains are often complex with inputs of both major and minor types from
various sources making things complex. Another thing under debate is whether we should
include transport costs in water footprint accounting or not. These cost are substantially high in
some parts of the world as opposed to their low counterparts in other parts. Some experts
recommend the inclusion of transport use of water in case the source of energy in transport are
biofuels because they have relatively higher costs per unit of energy as compared to conventional
fuels (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
3URFHVVVWHS- a starting point of accounting water footprint
The water Iootprint oI one single process step` is the basic building block oI all water Iootprint
accounts. The water footprint of an intermediate or Iinal product` (good or service) is the
aggregate of the water footprints of the various process steps relevant in the production of the
product. The water footprint of an individual consumer is a function of the water footprints of the
various products consumed by the consumer. The water footprint of a community of consumers
for example, the inhabitants of a municipality, province, state or nation is equal to the sum of
the individual water footprints of the members of the community. The water footprint of a
producer or whatever sort of business is equal to the sum of the water footprints of the products
that the producer or business delivers. The water footprint within a geographically delineated
area be it a province, nation, catchment area or river basin is equal to the sum of the water
footprints of all processes taking place in that area. The total water footprint of humanity is equal
to the sum of the water footprints of all consumers of the world, which is equal to the sum of the

water footprints of all final consumer goods and services consumed annually and also equal to
the sum of all water-consuming or polluting processes in the world (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
2.3 Critical aspects of the WF concept
The WF concept is primarily intended to illustrate the hidden links between human consumption
and water use and between global trade and water resource management (Galli et al., 2012).
With this respect it is a powerful communication tool. The WF concept also has some limitations
and challenges. Practical complexities with data (availability of and inconsistencies in the
underlying databases) are a first concern. Completing a WF assessment in practice can be
difficult due to data availability and reliability.
A critical issue is also that the grey WF methodology needs to be further standardized (Thaler et
al., 2012). Some authors criticize that representing the impacts of water pollution by
transforming water quality into water quantity gives loss to important information. It does not
consider factors such as ecotoxicity, biodegradability or water treatment (Hastings and Pegram,
2012).
Water footprint accounting does not give any weightage to flooding, lack of infrastructure to
harvest green and blue water.
Another important issue that impacts the use of water and hence water footprint is that land is the
ultimate source of production which is limited in some places and barren in others. This is not

included in the concept of water footprint. So water footprint concept does not accurately paint
the picture of the use of water in different parts of the world.
Water footprint does not touch sea food which is a substantial part of food across many parts of
the world.
The above-mentioned issues limit the reliability of the indicator of water footprint for policy and
decision making and require other complementary indicators to make it applicable in the process
of decision making.
2.4 A global picture of water footprint of agricultural products
The global average water footprint per ton of crop increases from sugar crops (roughly 200
m
3
ton
-1
), vegetables (300 m
3
ton
-1
), roots and tubers (400 m
3
ton
-1
), fruits (1000 m
3
ton
-1
), cereals
(1600m
3
ton
-1
), oil crops (2400m
3
ton
-1
) to pulses (4000m
3
ton
-1
). However, water footprints vary
as a function of geographical area, climate, land quality, etc.
(Source: Mekonen &Hoekstra, 2011)

Water footprint accounting per calorie gives an entirely different picture. Coffee, tea, cocoa,
tobacco, spices, nuts, rubber and fibres have higher water footprints. Bioethanol has a lower
water footprint than biodiesel. The average global water footprint of bio-ethanol based on sugar
beet amount to 51 m
3
GJ
-1
while this is 121 m
3
GJ
-1
for maize.
The global water footprint related to crop production in the period 1996-2005 was 7404 billion
cubic metres per year (78% green, 12% blue, 10% grey) (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011).
A large total water footprint was calculated for wheat (1087 Gm
3
yr
-1
), rice (992 Gm
3
yr
-1
) and
maize (770 Gm
3
yr
-1
). Wheat and rice have the largest blue water footprints, together accounting
45% of the global blue water footprint. At country level, the total water footprint was the largest
for India (1047 Gm
3
yr
-1
), China (967 Gm
3
yr
-1
) and the USA (826 Gm
3
yr
-1
) (Mekkonen &
Hoekstra, 2011).
A relatively large total blue water footprint as a result of crop production is observed in the Indus
river basin (117 Gm
3
yr
-1
) and the Ganges river basin (108 Gm
3
yr
-1
). The two basins together
account for 25% of the blue water footprint related to global crop production. Globally, rain-fed
agriculture has a water footprint of 5173 Gm
3
yr
-1
(91% green, 9 % grey); irrigated agriculture
has a water footprint of 2230 Gm
3
yr
-1
(48% green, 40 % blue, 12% grey) (Mekonnen &
Hoekstra, 2011).
The global average green water footprint related to crop production was 5771 Gm3yr-1, of which
rain-fed crops use 4701 Gm3yr-1 and irrigated crops use 1017 Gm3yr-1. For most of the crops,

the contribution of green water footprint toward the total consumptive water footprint (green and
blue) is more than 80%. Among the major crops, the contribution of green water toward the total
consumptive water footprint is lowest for date palm (43%) and cotton (64%).
The global average blue water footprint related to crop production was 899 Gm3yr-1. Wheat
(204 Gm
3
yr
-1
) and rice 202 Gm
3
yr
-1
) have large blue water footprint together accounting for 45%
of the global blue water footprint.

The grey water footprint related to the use of nitrogen fertilizer in crops cultivation was 733
Gm
3
yr
-1
. Wheat (123 Gm
3
yr
-1
), maize 122 Gm
3
yr
-1
) and rice (111 Gm
3
yr
-1
) have large grey water
footprint together accounting for about 56% of the global grey water footprint (Mekonnen &
Hoekstra, 2011).
Globally, 86.5% of the water consumed in crop production is green water. Even in irrigated
agriculture, green water often has a very significant contribution to total water consumption. The
share of the blue water footprint is largest I arid and semi-arid regions. Regions with a large blue
water proportion are located, for example, in the western part of the USA in a relatively narrow
strip of land along the west coast of South America (Peru - Chile) in southern Europe, North
Africa, the Arabian peninsula, Central Asia, Pakistan and northern India, northeast China and
parts of Australia (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011).
2.5 Relation between virtual water and water footprint
Man uses 2-4 L of water per day to meet body requirements but the volume of virtual water
consumed to satisfy food consumption is 1,000 times more, while consuming virtual water
contained n products is the form of water used principally. This draws our attention to the
concept of virtual water flows in the context of water footprint, i.e., water used to produce
products to be used somewhere else normally in some other country. The theoretical bases of this
concept find their roots in the resource flow theory, resource replacement theory and
comparative advantage theory (Liu et al., 2008).

Agricultural products are the necessities of life and they have a large quantity of water stored up
in them and they are the main part of human consumption in this way virtual water will certainly
have an impact on the water footprint of the area under question.
In China for example, in 2007, virtual water content in grains was 1.05 m
3
kg
-1
and in the USA it
was 0.79 m
3
and 0.63 m
3
in 15 countries of the EU (De Fraiture et al., 2004). The difference is
mainly due to water use efficiency, agricultural production technologies and management in
China. So China should invest in the agriculture management technologies so that virtual water
content in grains in China may fall (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
2.6 Water neutrality and water footprint offsetting
2.6.1 Water neutrality water footprint reduction
It refers to a reduced use of water to the extent that the water footprint of a product or process is
brought down as much as possible by e.g. full water recycling and zero waste. This does not
mean that the impacts on water resources of an operation are completely nullified but reduced to
an appreciable extent and still it has a certain water footprint. This concept was proposed in
analogy to carbon neutrality` at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit Ior Sustainable
Development.
2.6.2 Water footprint offsetting
The reduction of impacts of the footprint remaining of a product or process on the environment
after water neutrality measure have been taken is termed water footprint offsetting e.g. by using
water sustainably, wisely and carefully so that the impact of water footprint is minimal. But
experts could not reach a universal agreement on the utility oI water Iootprint oIIsetting`
because: (i) it does not specify which sort of compensation measures and which level of

compensation are good enough to offset a certain water footprint impact and (ii) it does not
specify which impacts should be compensated precisely and how to measure those impacts
(Hoekstra et al., 2011).
2.7 Exemplary water footprint reduction measures
x Reduction of blue water footprint in general. Make sure to reduce blue water footprint
by reduction of consumption in operations by recycling, adopting water-saving
appliances, replace water-intensive by water-expensive processes.
x Reduction of grey water footprint in general. Reduce wastewater volume; recycle
chemicals. Wastewater treatment before disposal. Recapture heat from waste flows.
x Reduce blue and grey water footprint hotspots. Specially address the areas where the
footprint standards are violated and make sure a sound implementation of water footprint
reduction measures there.
x Benchmarking products or sites. Define best practice and formulate targets to achieve
best practice throughout the business. Can be done I own company or within a sector as a
whole
x Use inherent water requirements in use phase. Reduce expected water use when
product is used (for example, dual flush toilets, dry sanitation equipment, water-saving
showerheads, water-saving washing machines, water-saving irrigation equipment).

2.8 Exemplary water footprint offsetting measures

x Environmental compensation. Invest in improved catchment management and
sustainable water use in the catchment where the company`s (residual) water Iootprint is
located.
x Social compensation. Invest in equitable water use in the catchment where the
company`s (residual) water Iootprint is located, Ior example, by poverty alleviation and
improved access to clean water supply and sanitation.
x Economic compensation. Compensate downstream users that are affected by intensive
upstream water use in the catchment where the company`s (residual) water Iootprint is
located.
2.9 CROPWAT 8.0 calculating water footprint of a crop
CROPWAT is a computer program for irrigation planning and management, developed by the
Land and Water Development Division of FAO (FAO, 1992). Its basic functions include the
calculation of reference evapotranspiration, crop water requirements, and crop and scheme
irrigation. It gives us evapotranspiration that is used to calculate water footprint of a crop.
Through a daily water balance, the user can simulate various water supply conditions and
estimate yield reductions and irrigation and rainfall efficiencies. Typical applications of the
water balance include the development of irrigation schedules for various crops and various
irrigation methods, the evaluation of irrigation practices, as well as rain-fed production and
drought effects.
The calculation of reference evapotranspiration (ET
o
) is based on the FAO Penman-Monteith
method (FAO, 1998). Input data include monthly and ten-daily for temperature (maximum and

minimum), humidity, sunshine, and wind-speed. Crop water requirements (ET

crop
) over the
growing season are determined from ET
o
and estimates of crop evaporation rates, expressed as
crop coefficients (K
c
), based on well-established procedures (FAO, 1977), according to the
following equation:
ET
crop
= K
c
ET
o
FAO (1998) has presented updated values for crop coefficients. Through estimates of effective
rainfall, crop irrigation requirements are calculated assuming optimal water supply. Inputs on the
cropping pattern will allow estimates of scheme irrigation requirements.
With inputs on soil water retention and infiltration characteristics and estimates of rooting depth,
a daily soil water balance is calculated, predicting water content in the rooted soil by means of a
water conservation equation, which takes into account the incoming and outgoing flow of water.
Stress conditions in the root zone are defined by the critical soil water content, expressed as the
fraction of total available soil water between field capacity and wilting point that is readily
available for crop transpiration, and characterizes a soil moisture condition in which crop
transpiration is not limited by any flow restrictions in the root zone.
The critical soil water content varies for different crops and different crop stages and is
determined by the rooting density characteristics of the crop, evaporation rate and, to some
extent, by the soil type. FAO (1998) has updated the estimates of critical soil moisture,
representing onset of stress, previously reported in FAO (1977) and FAO (1979).

The effect of water stress on yield is quantified by relating the relative yield decrease to the
relative evapotranspiration deficit through an empirically derived yield response factor (K
y
)
(FAO, 1979):
where:
1-Y
a
/Y
max
= the fractional yield reduction as a result of the decrease in evaporation rate (1-
_ET
a
/_CWR).
The evapotranspiration of a particular crop obtained from CROPWAT is divided by the yield
(production per unit of land) to get water footprint of the crop under question.
2.10 Limitations of the concept of water footprint
Water footprint is a novice concept that originated in 2002. It did not enter the arena of business,
government and civil society until the second half of 2002. As with any new concept, it yet has
to travel along the way of improvement. It needs complementation by a wide array of models to
get the right results. It needs adjustments. This seems logical because the age of the concept is
not ripe enough to be free of mis-appropriations. Hereunder are mentioned a few limitations to
the concept of water footprint and disagreements propounded by the critics of the concepts:
x It does not address the issues that are water related but are not related to its scarcity such as
flooding and lack of management and infrastructure to adequately harness the available
water.

x Water Iootprint assessment deals with only the Ireshwater; it doesn`t take into account the
use and pollution of sea water, e.g., Saudi Arabia uses sea water, desalinizes it and uses
freshwater from it.
x Companies show an increasing interest in their water risk` (Levinson et al, 2008; Pegram et
al, 2009; Morrison et al, 2009, 2010; Barton, 2010). Assessing the water footprint of a
company helps to understand part oI this risk, by showing which components in a company`s
water footprint are unsustainable, but a water footprint assessment is not the same as a full
risk assessment. Unsustainable components in a company`s water Iootprint assumingly imply
a physical, reputational and regulatory risk Ior a company, aIIecting a company`s social
license to operate, but if water risk is the focus of interest, carrying out a water footprint
assessment is not sufficient.
x In regard to addressing the issues of scarcity of water there are a few approaches already in
place to help develop strategies that allow a decrease in stress on the water resources such as
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and alternatively when there is a specific
catchment focus Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM). IWRM and IRBM are broad
concepts of addressing the issue of water scarcity and water footprint is just an analytical tool
to look at the issue of water scarcity. It is in no way an exact replacement of the broad
approaches of IWRM and IRBM. But it does offer one thing: it broaden the base for IWRM
and IRBM.

2.11An overview of the studies undertaken in field of water footprint (Hoekstra et al., 2011)
2.11.1 Global and supranational water footprint and virtual water trade studies
Global (Hoekstra and Hung, 2002, 2005; Hoekstra, 2003, 2006, 2008b; Chapagain and
Hoekstra, 2004, 2008; Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007a, 2008; Liu et al., 2009; Siebert and Dll,
2010)
CentralAsia (Aldaya et al., 2010c)
2.11.2 National water footprint and virtual water trade studies
China (Ma et al., 2006;Liu and Savenije, 2008;Hubacek et al., 2009; Zhao i 2009)
Germany (Sonnenberg et al., 2009)
India (Kumar and Jain, 2007;Kampman et al., 2008;Verma et al., 2009)
Indonesia (Bulsink et al., 2010)
Morocco (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007b)
Netherlands (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007b;Van Oel et al., 2008, 2009)
Romania (Ene &Teodosiu, 2009)
Spain (Novo et al., 2009;Aldaya et al., 2010b;Garrido et al., 2010)
Tunisia (Chahed et al., 2008)
UK (Chapagain & Orr, 2008;Yu et al., 2010)
2.11.3 Sub-national water footprint and virtual water trade studies
Chinese provinces (Ma et al., 2006)
City oI Beijing (Wang &Wang, 2009)
Indian states (Kampman et al., 2008)

Mancha Occidental Region, Spain (Aldaya et al., 2010d)

Andalusia, Spain (Dietzenbacher &Velazquez, 2007)
West Bank,Palestine (Nazer et al., 2008)
Guadiana basin, Spain (Aldaya & Llamas, 2008)
Lower FraserValley and the Okanagan basins,Canada (Brown et al., 2009)
Nile basin,AIrica (Zeitoun et al., 2010)
2.11.4 Product water footprint studies
Bio-energy(Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009a, 2009b;Gerbens-Leenes & Hoekstra, 2009,
2010;Dominguez-Faus et al., 2009;Yang et al., 2009;Galan-del-Castillo &Velazquez, 2010;Van
Lienden et al., 2010)
coIIee (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2007;Humbert et al., 2009)
cotton (Chapagain et al., 2006b)
Ilowers(Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010b)
jatropha (Jongschaap et al., 2009;Maes et al., 2009;Gerbens-Leenes
et al., 2009c;Hoekstra et al., 2009c)
mango (Ridoutt et al., 2010)
maize (Aldaya et al., 2010a)
meat (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2003;Galloway et al., 2007; Hoekstra, 2010b)
onions (IFC et al., 2010)
paper (Van Oel & Hoekstra, 2010)
pasta (Aldaya & Hoekstra, 2010)
pizza (Aldaya & Hoekstra, 2010)

rice (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2010)

soIt drinks (Ercin et al., 2009)
soybean (Aldaya et al., 2010a)
sugar (Gerbens-Leenes & Hoekstra, 2009)
tea (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2007)
tomatoes (Chapagain & Orr, 2009)
wheat (Liu et al., 2007;Aldaya et al., 2010a;Zwart et al., 2010;Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010a)
Iood in general (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004;Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2008;Hoekstra, 2008c)
2.11.5 Business water footprint studies
beerIrom SABMiller (SAB Miller and WWF-UK, 2009; SAB Miller et al., 2010)
cola and orange juice Irom the Coca-Cola Company (TCCC and TNC, 2010)
breakIast cereal Irom Nestle (Chapagain & Orr, 2010)
candies and pasta sauce Irom Mars (Ridoutt et al., 2009)

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
One of the main focus points of this research is to calculate the water footprint of the selected
crops in Pakistan and compare their respective footprints with the global averages. Calculating
evapotranspiration (ET
c
) is essential to calculate the water footprints of crops. ET
c
of crops has
been calculated using CROPWAT 8.0 software which is developed by FAO, UNO. CROPWAT
8.0 software bases its calculations of ET
c
on Penmann Monteith equation as descrined (Allen et
al., 1998; Al-Najar, 2011).
3.1 The Penman-Monteith Equation
The PenmanMonteith (PM) evapotranspiration (ET) equation predicts the rate of total
evaporation and transpiration Irom the earth`s surIace using commonly measured weather data
(solar radiation, air temperature, vapor content, and wind speed).

.. (Eq. 1)
Where:
ET
o
= daily reference ET [mm/d], for longer periods 900 becomes 37
T = air temperature at 2 m high [C]
VPD = vapor pressure deficit [kPa]
u
2
= wind speed at 2 m height [m/s] = 2 m/s
R
n
= net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m
-2
d
-1
]
slope vapour pressure curve [kPa C
-1
]
psychometric constant |kPa C
-1
]

G = soil heat flux density [MJ m

-2
d
-1
]
ET
o
is reference crop evapotranspiration which is a hypothetical grass crop adequately watered
with minimal or no stress. Evapotranspiration of a particular crop (ET
c
) is determined by the
crop coefficient approach whereby the effect of the various weather conditions are incorporated
into ET
o
and the crop characteristics into the K
c
coefficient:
ET
c
= K
c
ET
o
.. (Eq. 2)

Differences in evaporation and transpiration between field crops and the reference grass surface
can be integrated in a single crop coefficient (K
c
) or separated into two coefficients: a basal crop
(K
cb
) and a soil evaporation coefficient (K
e
), i.e., K
c
= K
cb
+ K
e
. In our study we employed the
values of K
c
to reach ET
c
.
The crop coeIfcient varies in time, as a Iunction oI the plant growth stage. During the
initial and mid-season stages, K
c
is a constant and equals K
c
,
ini
and K
c
,
mid
respectively.

During the crop development stage, K

c
is assumed to linearly increase from K
c
,
ini
to K
c,mid
. In the
late season stage, K
c
is assumed to decrease linearly from K
c
,
mid
to K
c
,
end
.
3.2 CLIMWAT 2.0 for CROPWAT
The CLIMWAT is a climatic database to be used in combination with CROPWAT. It allows the
calculation of crop water requirements, irrigation supply and irrigation scheduling for various
crops for a range of climatological stations worldwide. CLIMWAT 2.0 for CROPWAT is a joint
publication of the Water Development and Management Unit and the Climate Change and
Bioenergy Unit of FAO.
The climatic data for 22 climatological stations (CLIMWAT 2.0 provides data on 22 stations out
of 25 available on its list due to unavailability of data on 3 stations) in Pakistan was taken and
used in CROPWAT to calculate the values of ETc staions whose data is taken from CLIMWAT
2.0 are: Astore, Skardu, Chilas, Dal-Bandin, Gilgit, Gupis Hyderabad, Peshawar, Jacobabad,
Karachi Airport, Karachi Manora, Sargodha, Multan, Nawabshah, Nokkundi, Parachinar, Quetta
(S Manda), Zhob, Chaman, Lyllpur-Risalawal, Islamabad Airport and Kalat.
3.3 Seven Climatic Parameters Provided by CLIMWAT 2.0
CLIMWAT 2.0 provides long-term monthly mean values of seven climatic parameters, namely:
1. Mean daily maximum temperature in C & Mean daily minimum temperature in C
2. Mean relative humidity in %
3. Mean wind speed in km/day
4. Mean sunshine hours per day
5. Mean solar radiation in MJ/m
2
/day
6. Monthly rainfall in mm/month & Monthly effective rainfall in mm/month
7. Reference evapotranspiration calculated with the Penman-Monteith method in mm/day.

The data can be extracted for a single or multiple stations in the format suitable for their use
in CROPWAT. Two files are created for each selected station. The first file contains long-term
monthly rainfall data [mm/month]. Additionally, effective rainfall is also included calculated and
included in the same file. The second file consists of long-term monthly averages for the seven
climatic parameters, mentioned above. This file also contains the coordinates and altitude of the
location.
Fig. 3 The GUI of CLIMWAT 2.0 showing the loaded stations for which data is extracted
for the use in CROPWAT 8.0
CROPWAT 8.0 was entered with the data from files extracted from CLIMWAT 2.0 against the
stations mentioned above for all crops. Data for some crops was also taken from Water Footprint
of Nations, Volume 2: Appendix for K
c
and length of development stages of crops.

3.4 Pictoral description of CROPWAT 8.0

Fig. 4 The GUI window of CROPWAT 8.0
Tabs such as Climate/ET
o
, Rain, Soil, etc can be seen on the left margin of the above picture. In
our study we used only Climate/ET
o
, Rain, Crop and CWR tabs because they were sufficient to
calculate the required ET
c
for all crops.
Below is the figure showing the final output of wheat crop for the sake of an example showing
ET
c
value of the wheat crop.

ET
c
values of all crops were obtained against all stations. Average values of ET
c
s were obtained
by calculating the arithmetic mean and subsequently dividing the value by the average yield of
the specific crops in Pakistan. Most of the data on yields were obtained from official website of
Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC).
WF
crop
= ET in cubic meters per hectare
Yield in kg per hectare

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
A total of 20 crops were considered for the calculation of water footprint. Selected crops in
Pakistan showed the values either comparable to the global average values of the crop or slightly
exceeding in some cases and substantially in others. While most of the numbers exceed the
global averages with only three crops showing results below the global average of their
counterparts. The following table shows global values and values observed in Pakistan for some
selected crops:
Table 2: Comparison of Global Water Footprint and Water Footprint of Pakistan
Crop category FAOSTAT crop code Crop
Global average
water
footprint
(m
3
kg
-1
)
Water
footprint of
Pakistan
(m
3
kg
-1
)
Cereals
15 Wheat 1.79 0.95
56 Maize 1.20 1.23
44 Barley 1.40 2.45
83 Sorghum 2.98 4.80
79 Millet 4.40 4.70
Oil crops
236 Soybean 2.11 5.96
242 Groundnut 2.73 8.30
270 Rapeseed 2.56 3.31
267 Sunflower 3.31 4.30
Sugar crops
157 Sugar beat 0.12 0.50
156 Sugarcane 0.20 0.38
Fruit crops
495 Citrus 0.60 0.90
486 Banana 0.78 3.48
560 Grapes 0.59 2.59
Cotton 328 Cotton 9.31 16.08
116 Potato 0.27 0.23

Vegetables
388 Tomato 0.21 0.86
358 Cabbage 0.27 0.30
Tea 674 Tea 8.71 16.35
Tobacco 826 Tobacco 3.84 1.14
Pakistan`s water Iootprint Ior almost all categories oI crops diIIers Irom global, average water
footprint of the same crops (Table 2).This is mainly due to the yield produced which shows
water productivity of the agriculture management practices where Pakistan lags substantially and
its water productivity is measured at as low as 422 (Hoekstra, 2012).
Second reason attributed to the issue of enhanced WF can be that Pakistan approximately lies
between 23 and 38 north latitude in the sub-tropical region outside the Tropic of Cancer. The
typical feature of this region is drift of the moisture during day with winds carrying it towards
the equator (Brunt, 1934; p. 392). So the area is left with very little moisture to support crop
cultivation except those falling along the Himalayan region most part of the crop cultivation is
highly dependent on the irrigation.
The results indicate that in Pakistan irrigaited lands bears more pressure of water footprint in
terms of crops as compared to their rain-fed counterpart, although this is not a common
phenomenon in many parts of the world e.g. United States of America (Gleik, 2000).
As Iar as the major agricultural product is concerned, Pakistan`s agriculture is dominated by
cereals. Among cereaal crops wheat is the dominating one for Pakistan approximately making
65.3-72.1% (Akhtar, Hussain, Tariq & Nasim, 2010) of the total crop production round the year.
It is intresting to note for wheat crop in Pakistan that the WF value is approximately half of the
global average. It supports the overall scenario oI the water Iootprint oI Pakistan`s crops, as iI the
key crop is low in WF value the other crops with the elevated WF can be neglected being minor

in nature. Maze has almost the equal WF value as world`s average while barley and sorghum
have quite raised WF values mainly based on its small yields. (Shahnaz, Arifwala, Anwar &
Chishti, 2008) whereas millet follows the trend shown by maize.
Pakistan has large water fooprints in the category of oil crops mainly due to the reason that its
domestic yields are small and almost 70% of edible oil is imported (Agricultural Statistics of
Pakistan [ASP], MINFAL, 2008-2009). Domestic production of edible oil during 2000-2001 was
642 thousand tonnes which substantially decreasd to 475 thousand tonnes in 2002-2003 (ASP,
2008-2009). Reduced yield decreases the denominator of the water footprint formula in turn
increasing water footprint.
Sugar beat and sugarcane are cultivated on a small area as compared to cereal crops. The
cultivated area under the two crops has increased in the recent years but even then water
footprint has not reduced substantially.
Pakistan contributes 3.5 % of the total area in the world to the production of orange (FAO,
2009). Hence small contribution in yield world wide translates into higher water footprints of
citrus in Pakistan but even then water footprint of citrus is comparable to global averages.
With more than 349,000 hectares, Pakistan is a key player in the banana industry. 90% of this
land lies in the Sindh province in the south-east of the country. The majority of banana farmers
in this area are small farmers with land less than 20 hectares. However, due to lack of
knowledge, out-dated techniques and the use of planting materials carrying pests and diseases,
yields have been disappointing only a quarter of those obtained by farmers use modern
techniques. Poor farming practices result in loss of water during irrigation from water bodies and
ground water thus increasing water footprints.

The reduced production of tomato from 2004 on (ASP, MINFAL, 2005-06) has resulted in high
waterfootprints of tomato in Pakistan. While cabbage and potato indicate quite comparable
results.
Pakistan does not grow tea herself rather imports most of it from Kenya. Because it requires
almost 50 inch of rain per year to grow and Paksitan has just 7.9 inches so if cultivated if
requires a lot of water from irrigation making footprint quite high.
In pakistan the yield of tobacco is quite high as compared to global average (1900 kgha
-1
)
reducing its water footprint substantially. It is the only crop in Pakistan whose yield is more than
the global average yield.
Poor management practices in case of cotton result in high water footprints of cotton. Better
management practices (BMPs) can ensure a reduced water footprint of cotton in Pakistan
(Makhdum et al., 2012).

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Consumptive water use is different from conventional measures of water withdrawal because in
the former we discuss the use of water that doesn`t return to the source with in our time Irame oI
interest hence it is said to be removed permanently.
Calcualtion of water footprint requries calculation of evapotranspiration (ET) of the area under
question. CROPWAT 8.0 in conjunction with CLIMWAT 2.0 enable us to reach the numeric
values evapotranspiration of crops.
The findings reveal that in Pakistan, which is an agrarian economy, relies heavily on agriculture
for its GDP which in turn depends on water resources of Pakistan. The Indus River is the
ultimate source of water that flows across Pakistan feeding agricultural fields. Mainly Punjab and
an appriciable portion of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are the main producers of Pakistan. Sindh is
notable in case oI some Iruits` production.
The softwares involved are bound to have inaccuracies and inconsistencies because natural
phenomena like climate can`t exactly be simulated by soItwares.
The work contianed herein and on water footprint in general are novice; they have surely
shortcomings that are hoped to be overcome in future by more extensive research with better
calculation procedures and more reliable and up-to-date sources of data.
The incorporation of findings of the concept of water footprint in policy framing on national and
ultimately international levels will certainly make nations stop taking the important souce of

water Ior granted and use it more and more sustainably supplemeting the humanity`s
interanational campaign for sustainable development.

CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
Water footprint concept comprehensively covers the use of water in a new way, which seems
quite appealing because it describes the net loss of water that a source of water faces due to its
consumptive use. This makes our idea of use of water more defined and detailed considering
both major and minor uses and allows us to accurately quantify water use. In the light of the
above, following recommendations are proposed:
1. Governments and NGOs should incorporate the idea of water footprint and evaluate their
use of water in its light of the concept of water footprint;
2. Quantitative assessments of the use of water from water bodies and underground sources
should be made periodically to gauge the pressure being faced by them;
3. The idea of water footprint should be made part of day to day campaign for sustainable
use of resources to aware people about the importance of water resource;
4. Possible lapses or limitations of the concept of water footprint assessment should be
addressed to make it more reliable and accurate, e.g. the use of grey water footprint is
limited only to nitrogen fertilizers, it does not address other parts of fertilizer like
phosphorous making it less precise;
5. All organizations of major and minor scale should be bound to assess their water
footprints and reduce them to release pressure on water resources of environment. This
can be achieved by legislating in this direction;
6. Calculation of water footprint requires substantial amount of data on various factors
related to crops and climate which sometimes lack due to technical infirmities and lack of
research in those areas. An extensive research into such parameters can ensure easy

availability of data for the calculation of water footprint. Governments can engage
universities or any other research institutions to address this issue.

REFERENCES
1. Aldaya, M. M., Munoz, G. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2010c) Water Iootprint oI cotton, wheat
and rice production in Central Asia`, Value oI Water Research Report Series No 41,
UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Netherlands, www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/report41-
WaterFootprintCentralAsia.pdf
2. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration:
Guidelines for Computing Crop Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome
Italy: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
3. Barton, B. (2010) Murky waters? Corporate reporting on water risk, A benchmarking study
oI 100 companies`, Ceres, Boston, MA, www.ceres.org/Document.Doc?id547
4. Chapagain, A. K. and Hoekstra A. Y. (2010). The blue, green and grey water footprint of rice
from production and consumption perspectives, Ecological Economics, 749-758.
Doi:10.1016.j.ecolecon. 2010.11.012
5. Chapagain, A. K. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003) Virtual water Ilows between nations in
relation to trade in livestock and livestock products`, Value oI Water Research Report Series
No. 13, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report13.pdf
6. Chapagain, A. K. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003) Virtual water oI nations`, Value oI Water
Research Report Series No, 16, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Netherlands,
www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf
7. Chapagain, A. K. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2004) Water Iootprints oI nations`, Value oI Water
Research Report Series No. 16, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Netherlands,
www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf

8. Chapagain, A. K., Hoekstra, A. Y., Savenije, H. H. G. and Gautam, R. (2006b) The water
footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of
cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries`. Ecological
Economics, vol 60, no 1, pp 186-203
9. Chapagain, A. K. & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2007) The water Iootprint oI coIIee and tea
consumption in the Netherlands`, Ecological Economics, vol 64, no 1, pp109-118
10. Chapagain, A. K. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2008) The global component oI Ireshwater demand
and supply: An assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result of trade in
agricultural and industrial products`, Water International, vol 33, no 1, pp19-32
11. Chapagain, A. K. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2010) The green, blue and grey water Iootprint oI
rice Irom both a production and consumption perspective`, Value oI Water Research Report
Series No. 40 UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Netherlands, www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report40-
WaterFootprintRice.pdf
12. Falkenmark, M. (2003) Freshwater as shared between society and ecosystems: From divided
approaches to integrated challenges`, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of
London B, vol 358, no 1440, pp2037-2049
13. FAO (2003a) CLIMWAT database`, Food and Agriculture Organization oI the United
Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGL/aglw/climwat.stm
14. FAO (2003b) Review oI global agricultural water use per country, crop water requirements`,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/water_use/index4.stm
15. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2010a). CROPWAT 8.0
model. Accessed Sept. 15, 2012. www.fao.org/nr/water/infores_databases_cropwat.

16. Ge, Liqiang, Xie, Gaodi, Zhang, Caixia, Li, Shimei, Qi, Yue, Gao, Shyan & He, Tingting
(2011). An evaluation oI China`s water Iootprint, Water Resource Management, 2633-2547.
Doi: 10.1007/s11269-011-9830-1
17. Gleik, P. H. (2010) Water conflict chronologv, www.worldwater.org/conflict
18. Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, Ashok K., Aldaya, Maite M. & Mekonnnen, Mestin M. (2011)
The Water Footprint Assessment manual: Setting the Global Standard. London, UK: TJ
International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall.
html.
19. Hoekstra, A. Y., & Hung, P. Q. (2002), Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water
Ilows between nations in relation to international crop trade`, Value oI Water Research
Report Series No 11, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Netherlands,
www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report11.pdf
20. Hoekstra, A. Y. and Hung, P. Q. (2005) Globalization oI water resources: International
virtual water Ilows in relation to crop trade`, , Global Environmental Change, vol 15, no 1,
pp45-56
21. Hoekstra, A. Y. and Chapagain A. K. (2007a) Water Iootprints oI nations: Water use by
people as a Iunction oI their consumption pattern`, Water Resources Management, vol 21, no
1, pp. 35-48
22. Hubacek, K., Guan, D. B., Barrett, J. and Wiedmann, T. (2009) Environmental implications
oI urbanization and liIestyle change in China: Ecological and water Iootprints`, Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol 17, no 14, pp1241-1248
23. Kumar, V. and Jain, S. K. (2007) Status oI virtual water trade Iorm India`, Current Science,
vol 93, pp1093-1099

24. Liu, J. and Savenije, H. H. G. (2008) Food consumption patterns and their eIIects on water
requirement in China`, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, vol 12, no 3, pp887-898
25. Ma, J., Hoekstra, A. Y., Wang, H., Chapagain, A. K. and Wang, D. (2006) Virtual versus
real water transIers within China`, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, vol 361, no 1469, pp835-842
26. Mekonnen, M. Mesfin & Hoekstra Arjen Y. (2012). A global assessment of the water
footprint of farm animal products, Ecosystems, 401-415. Doi: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8
27. Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra A.Y. (2001). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops
and derived crop products, Hydrology and Earth System Science, 1577-1600. Doi:
10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011
28. Morrison, J., Morkawa, M., Murphy, M. and Schulte, P. (2009) Water Scarcity and Climate
Change: Growing Risks for Business and Investors, CERES, Boston, MA,
www.ceres.org/Decument.
29. Morrison, J., Schulte, P, and Schenck, R. (2010) Corporate Water Accounting: An Analysis
of Methods and Tools for Measuring Water Use and Its Impacts, United Nations Global
Compact, New York, NK, www.pacinst.org/reports/corporte_water_accounting
_analysis/corporate_water_accounting_analysis.pdf
30. Nazer Dima W., Siebel, Maarten A., Zaag, Pieter Van der, Mimi, Ziad & Cijzen Huub J.
(2008). Water footprint of the Palestinians in the West Bank, Journal of the American Water
Resourcces Association, 449-458. Doi: 10.1111/j. 1752-1688.2008.00174.x
31. Ridoutt, Bradley G. & Pfister, Stephan (2012). A new water footprint calculatin method
integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted
indicator, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Doi: 10.1007/s1136-012-0458-z

32. Rockstorm, J. (2001) Green water security Ior the Iood makers oI tomorrow: Windows oI
opportunity in drought-prone savannahs`, Water Science and Technology, vol 43, no 4, pp71-
78
33. Siebert, S. and Doll, P. (2010) QuantiIying blue and green virtual water contents in global
crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation`, Journal of
Hydrology, vol 384, no 3-4, pp198-207
34. Sonnenberg, A., Chapagain, A., Geiger, M. and August, D. (2009) Der Wasser-Fubabdruck
Deutschlands: Woher stammt das Wasser, das in unseren Levensmitteln steckt?, WWF
Deutschland, Frankfurt
35. Wang, H. R. and Wang, Y.(2009). An input-output analysis of virtual water uses of the three
economic sectors in Beijing`, Water International, vol 34, no 4, pp.451-467
36. WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme) (2009) The United Nations World Water
Development Report 3: Water in Changing World, WWAP, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, and
Earthscan, London
37. Zhao, X., Chen, B. and Yang, Z. F. (2009) National water Iootprint in an input-output
Iramework: A case study oI China 2002,` Ecological Modelling, vol 220, no 2, pp245-253

Buy your books fast and straightforward online - at one of worlds

fastest growing online book stores! Environmentally sound due to
Print-on-Demand technologies.
Buy your books online at
www.get-morebooks.com
Kaufen Sie Ihre Bcher schnell und unkompliziert online auf einer
der am schnellsten wachsenden Buchhandelsplattformen weltweit!
Dank Print-On-Demand umwelt- und ressourcenschonend produzi-
ert.
Bcher schneller online kaufen
www.morebooks.de
VDM Verlagsservicegesellschaft mbH
Heinrich-Bcking-Str. 6-8 Telefon: +49 681 3720 174 info@vdm-vsg.de
D - 66121 Saarbrcken Telefax: +49 681 3720 1749 www.vdm-vsg.de