A.K. Chapagain

The water footprint of

A.Y. Hoekstra

cotton consumption

H.H.G. Savenije
R. Gautam
September 2005

Value of Water

Research Report Series No. 18

The water footprint ofcotton consumption
A.K. Chapagain
A.Y. Hoekstra
H.H.G. Savenije
R. Gautam

September 2005
Value of Water Research Report Series No. 18

UNESCO-IHE Delft
P.O. Box 3015
2601 DA Delft
The Netherlands

Contact author:
Arjen Hoekstra
E-mail a.y.hoekstra@utwente.nl

Value of Water Research Report Series(Downloadable from http://www.waterfootprint.org)

1.

Exploring methods to assess the value of water: A case study on the Zambezi basin.
A.K. Chapagain − February 2000

2.

Water value flows: A case study on the Zambezi basin.
A.Y. Hoekstra, H.H.G. Savenije and A.K. Chapagain − March 2000

3.

The water value-flow concept.
I.M. Seyam and A.Y. Hoekstra − December 2000

4.

The value of irrigation water in Nyanyadzi smallholder irrigation scheme, Zimbabwe.
G.T. Pazvakawambwa and P. van der Zaag – January 2001

5.

The economic valuation of water: Principles and methods
J.I. Agudelo – August 2001

6.

The economic valuation of water for agriculture: A simple method applied to the eight Zambezi basin countries
J.I. Agudelo and A.Y. Hoekstra – August 2001

7.

The value of freshwater wetlands in the Zambezi basin
I.M. Seyam, A.Y. Hoekstra, G.S. Ngabirano and H.H.G. Savenije – August 2001

8.

‘Demand management’ and ‘Water as an economic good’: Paradigms with pitfalls
H.H.G. Savenije and P. van der Zaag – October 2001

9.

Why water is not an ordinary economic good
H.H.G. Savenije – October 2001

10. Calculation methods to assess the value of upstream water flows and storage as a function of downstream benefits
I.M. Seyam, A.Y. Hoekstra and H.H.G. Savenije – October 2001
11. Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade
A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung – September 2002
12. Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade
A.Y. Hoekstra (ed.) – February 2003
13. Virtual water flows between nations in relation to trade in livestock and livestock products
A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – July 2003
14. The water needed to have the Dutch drink coffee
A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – August 2003
15. The water needed to have the Dutch drink tea
A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – August 2003
16. Water footprints of nations
Volume 1: Main Report, Volume 2: AppendicesA.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – November 2004
17. Saving water through global trade
A.K. Chapagain, A.Y. Hoekstra and H.H.G. Savenije – September 2005
18. The water footprint of cotton consumption
A.K. Chapagain, A.Y. Hoekstra, H.H.G. Savenije and R. Gautam – September 2005

Contents

Summary................................................................................................................................. 7
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 9
2. Green, blue and dilution water ....................................................................................... 11
3. Virtual water ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.1. General method ....................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2. The virtual water content of seed cotton.................................................................................................. 13
3.3. The virtual water content of cotton products ........................................................................................... 16

4. Impact on the water quality in the cotton producing countries .................................. 19
4.1. Impact due to use of fertilisers in crop production .................................................................................. 19
4.2. Impact due to use of chemicals in the processing stage........................................................................... 20

5. International virtual water flows..................................................................................... 23
6. Water footprints related to consumption of cotton products ..................................... 25
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 31
References............................................................................................................................ 33

SummaryThe consumption of a cotton product is connected to a chain of impacts on the water resources in the countries
where cotton is grown and processed. The aim of this report is to assess the ‘water footprint’ of worldwide
cotton consumption, identifying both the location and the character of the impacts. The study distinguishes
between three types of impact: evaporation of infiltrated rainwater for cotton growth (green water use),
withdrawal of ground- or surface water for irrigation or processing (blue water use) and water pollution during
growth or processing. The latter impact is quantified in terms of the dilution volume necessary to assimilate thepollution. For the period 1997-2001 the study shows that the worldwide consumption of cotton products requires
256 Gm3 of water per year, out of which about 42% is blue water, 39% green water and 19% dilution water.
Impacts are typically cross-border. About 84% of the water footprint of cotton consumption in the EU25 region
is located outside Europe, with major impacts particularly in India and Uzbekistan. Given the general lack ofproper water pricing mechanisms or other ways of transmitting production-information, cotton consumers havelittle incentive to take responsibility for the impacts on remote water systems.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 9

1.

Introduction

Globally, freshwater resources are becoming scarcer due to an increase in population and subsequent increase inwater appropriation and deterioration of water quality. The impact of consumption of people on the global water
resources can be mapped with the concept of the ‘water footprint’, a concept introduced by Hoekstra and Hung
(2002) and subsequently elaborated by Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004). The water footprint of a nation has been
defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the
inhabitants of the nation. It deviates from earlier indicators of water use in the fact that the water footprint showswater demand related to consumption within a nation, while the earlier indicators (e.g. total water withdrawal forthe various sectors of economy) show water demand in relation to production within a nation. The current reportfocuses on the assessment and analysis of the water footprints of nations insofar related to the consumption ofcotton products. The period 1997-2001 has been taken as the period of analysis.

The water footprint concept is an analogue of the ecological footprint concept which was introduced in the
1990s (Rees, 1992; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996; Wackernagel et al., 1997; 1999). Whereas the ecologicalfootprint denotes the area (hectares) needed to sustain a population, the water footprint represents the water
volume (cubic metres per year) required.

Earlier water-footprint studies were limited to the quantification of resource use, i.e. the use of groundwater,
surface water and soil water (Hoekstra and Hung, 2002; Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2003a; 2003b; 2004). The
current study extends the water footprint concept through quantifying the impacts of pollution as well. This has
been done by quantifying the dilution water volumes required to dilute waste flows to such extent that thequality of the water remains below agreed water quality standards. The rationale for including this watercomponent in the definition of the water footprint is similar to the rationale for including the land area needed
for uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the definition of the ecological footprint. Land andwater do not function as resource bases only, but as systems for waste assimilation as well. We realise that themethod to translate the impacts of pollution into water requirements as applied in this study can potentiallyinvoke a similar debate as is being held about the methods applied to translate the impacts of carbon dioxide
emissions into land requirements (see e.g. Van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999; Van Kooten and Bulte, 2000).
We would welcome such a debate, because of the societal need for proper natural resources accounting systems
on the one hand and the difficulties in achieving the required scientific rigour in the accounting procedures on
the other hand. The approach introduced in the current study should be seen as a first step; we will reflect interms of possible improvements in the conclusions.

Some of the earlier studies on the impacts of cotton production were limited to the impacts in the industrial stage
only (e.g. Ren, 2000), leaving out the impacts in the agricultural stage. Other cotton impact studies use themethod of life cycle analysis and thus include all stages of production, but these studies are focussed on
methodology rather than the quantification of the impacts (e.g. Proto et al., 2000; Seuring, 2004). Earlier studies
that go in the direction of what we aim at in this report are the background studies for the cotton initiative of theWorld Wide Fund for Nature (Soth et al., 1999; De Man, 2001). In our study, however, we aim to synthesize the10 / Water footprint of cotton consumption avarious impacts of cotton on water in one comprehensive indicator, the water footprint, and we introduce thespatial dimension by showing how water footprints of some nations particularly press in other parts of the world.

Cotton is the most important natural fibre used in the textile industries worldwide. Today, cotton takes up about
40 percent of textile production, while synthetic fibres take up about 55% (Proto et al., 2000; Soth et al., 1999).
During the period 1997-2001, international trade in cotton products constitutes 2 percent of the global
merchandise trade value.

The impacts of cotton production on the environment are easily visible and have different faces. On the one hand
there are the effects of water depletion, on the other hand the effects on water quality. In many of the major
textile processing areas, downstream riparians can see from the river what was the latest colour applied in the
upstream textile industry. The Aral Sea is the most famous example of the effects of water abstractions for
irrigation. In the period 1960-2000, the Aral Sea in Central Asia lost approximately 60% of its area and 80% of
its volume (Glantz 1998; Hall et al., 2001; Pereira et al., 2002; UNEP, 2002; Loh and Wackernagel, 2004) as aresult of the annual abstractions of water from the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya – the rivers which feed theAral Sea – to grow cotton in the desert.

About 53 percent of the global cotton field is irrigated, producing 73 percent of the global cotton production(Soth et al., 1999). Irrigated cotton is mainly grown in the Mediterranean and other warm climatic regions,where freshwater is already in short supply. Irrigated cotton is mainly located in dry regions: Egypt, Uzbekistan,and Pakistan. The province Xinjiang of China is entirely irrigated whereas in Pakistan and the North of India amajor portion of the crop water requirements of cotton are met by supplementary irrigation. As a result, inPakistan already 31 percent of all irrigation water is drawn from ground water and in China the extensive
freshwater use has caused falling water tables (Soth et al., 1999). Nearly 70 percent of the world’s cotton crop
production is from China, USA, India, Pakistan and Uzbekistan (USDA, 2004). Most of the cotton productions
rely on a furrow irrigation system. Sprinkler and drip systems are also adopted as an irrigated method in water
scarce regions. However, hardly about 0.7 percent of land in the world is irrigated by this method (Postel,1992).

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 11

2.

Green, blue and dilution water

From field to end product, cotton passes through a number of distinct production stages with different impacts
on water resources. These stages of production are often carried out at different locations and consumption cantake place at yet another place. For instance, Malaysia does not grow cotton, but imports raw cotton from China,
India and Pakistan for processing in the textile industry and exports cotton clothes to the European market. For
that reason the impacts of consumption of a final cotton product can only be found by tracing the origins of the
product. The relation between the production stages and their impacts on the environment is shown in Figure
2.1.
Production stages

Resource use
Crop production at
field level

Resources types

Environmental impacts

Green waterBlue water
Fertilizers
Pesticides

Depletion of resources

Return flows

Resource use
Processing of cotton
products

Pollution of resourcesBlue water
Chemicals

Return flows

Depletion of resources

Pollution of resources

Final cotton productFigure 2.1. Impact of cotton production on the natural resources.

Although the chain from cotton growth to final product can take several distinct steps, there are two major
stages: the agricultural stage (cotton production at field level) and the industrial stage (processing of seed cotton
into final cotton products). In the first stage, there are three types of impact: evaporation of infiltrated rainwaterfor cotton growth, withdrawal of ground- or surface water for irrigation, and water pollution due to the leachingof fertilisers and pesticides. Following Falkenmark (1995), we use the term ‘green water use’ for the rainwaterused for plant growth and ‘blue water use’ for the use of ground- and surface water for irrigation. Both green andblue water use can be quantified in terms of volumes used per year. The impact on water quality is quantified
here and made comparable to the impacts of water use by translating the volumes of emitted chemicals into thedilution volume necessary to assimilate the pollution. In the industrial stage, there are two major impacts onwater: abstraction of process water from surface or groundwater (blue water use), and pollution of water as aresult of the waste flows from the cotton processing industries. The latter is again translated into a certain
volume of dilution water requirement.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 13

3.

Virtual water

3.1.

General method

In order to assess the water footprint of cotton consumption in a country we need to know the use of domestic
water resources for domestic cotton growth or processing and we need to know the water use associated with theimport and export of raw cotton or cotton products. The total water footprint of a country includes twocomponents: the part of the footprint that falls inside the country (internal water footprint) and the part of the
footprint that presses on other countries in the world (external water footprint). The distinction refers to use ofdomestic water resources versus the use of foreign water resources (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004).
International trade of commodities brings along international flows of ‘virtual water’ (Hoekstra and Hung,2005). 'Virtual water' is thereby defined as the volume of water used to produce a commodity (Allan, 1997;1998). ‘Virtual water’ has also been called ‘embedded water’ and is a similar concept as ‘embodied energy’,
which has been defined as the direct and indirect energy required to produce a good, service or entity(Herendeen, 2004). In accounting virtual water flows we keep track of which parts of these flows refer to green,
blue and dilution water respectively.

3.2.

The virtual water content of seed cotton

The virtual water content of seed cotton (m3/ton) has been calculated as the ratio of the volume of water (m3/ha)
used during the entire period of crop growth to the corresponding crop yield (ton/ha). The volume of water used
to grow crops in the field has two components: effective rainfall (green water) and irrigation water (blue water).
The CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003a) has been used to estimate the effective rainfall and the irrigation
requirements per country. The climate data have been taken from FAO (2003b; 2003c) for the most appropriate
climatic stations (USDA/NOAA, 2005a) located in the major cotton producing regions of each country. The
actual irrigation water use is taken equal to the irrigation requirements as estimated with the CROPWAT modelfor those countries where the whole harvesting area is reportedly irrigated. In the countries where only a certain
fraction of the harvesting area is irrigated, the actual irrigation water use is taken equal to this fraction times theirrigation water requirements.
The ‘green’ virtual water content of the crop (Vg) has been estimated as the ratio of the effective rainfall (Pe) tothe crop yield (Y) (Equation 1). The ‘blue’ virtual water content of the crop (Vb) has been taken equal to the ratioof the volume of irrigation water used (I) to the crop yield (Y) (Equation 2).

Vg =

Pe
Y

(1)

Vb =

I
Y

(2)

The total virtual water content of seed cotton is the sum of the green and blue components, calculated separately
for the fifteen largest cotton-producing countries. These countries contribute nearly 90% of the global cotton

14 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

production (Table 3.1). For the remaining countries the global average virtual water content of seed cotton has
been assumed. In the fifteen largest cotton-producing countries, the major cotton-producing regions have been
identified (Table 3.2) so that the appropriate climate data could be selected. For regions with more than one
climate station, the data for the relevant stations have been equally weighed assuming that the stations represent
equally sized cotton-producing areas. National average crop water requirements have been calculated on thebasis of the respective share of each region to the national production.
Table 3.1. The top-fifteen of seed cotton producing countries. Period 1997-2001.
Countries

Average production(ton/yr)*% contribution to global
production*

Planting period**

Yield (ton/ha)*

China

13,604,100

25.0

April/MayUSA

9,699,662

17.8

March/May

3.16
1.86

India

5,544,380

10.2

April/May/July

0.62

Pakistan

5,159,839

9.5

May/June

1.73

Uzbekistan

3,342,380

6.1

April

2.24

Turkey2,199,990

4.0

April/May

3.12

Australia

1,777,240

3.3

October/November

3.74

Brazil

1,613,193

3.0

October

2.06

Greece1,253,288

2.3

April

3.02

Syria

1,016,594

1.9

April/May

3.92

Turkmenistan

954,440

1.8

March/April

1.72

Argentina

712,417

1.3

October/December

1.16

Egypt

710,259

1.3

February/April

2.39

Mali

463,043

0.9

May/July

1.03

Mexico453,788

0.8

April

2.98

Others5,939,363

10.9

-

-

World

54,443,977

100

-

-

* Source: FAOSTAT (2004).
** Sources: UNCTAD (2005a); FAO (2005); Cotton Australia (2005).
Table 3.2. Main regions of cotton production within the major cotton producing countries.
Country

Major cotton harvesting regions and their share to the national harvesting area*

Argentina

Chaco (85%)

Australia

Queensland (23%) and New Southwales (77%)

BrazilParana (43%), Sao Paulo (21%), Bahia (8%), Minas Gerais (5%), Mato Grosso (5%), Goias (4%) and Mato
Gross do Sul (4%)

China

Xinjiang (21.5%), Henan (16.6%), Jiangsu (11.5%), Hubei (11.4%), Shandong (10%), Hebei (6.7%), Anhui(6.4%), Hunan (5.2%), Jiangxi (3.3%), Sichuan (2.3%), Shanxi (1.7%), and Zhejiang (1.3%)

Egypt

Cairo (85%)

GreeceC. Macedonia (14%), E. Macedonia (27%), and Thessaly (51%)

India

Punjab (18%), Andhra Pradesh (14%), Gujarat (14%), Maharastha (13%), Haryana (10%), Madhya Pradesh(10%), Rajasthan (8%), Karnataka (8%), and Tamil Nadu (4%)

Mali

Segou (85%)

MexicoBaja California, Chihuahua and Coahuila

PakistanSindh (15%) and Punjab (85%)

Syria

Al Hasakah (33%), Ar Raqqah (33%) and Dayr az Zawr (33%)

TurkeyAegean/Izmir (33.6%), Antalya (1.2%), Cukurova (20.2%) and Southeasten Anotolia (45%)

Turkmenistan Ahal (85%)
USA

North Carolina (5.4%), Missouri, Mississippi, W. Tennessee, E. Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia (Macon) (27.7%),
Georgia (Macon) (9.6%), E. Texas (33.7%) and California, Arizona (14.3%)

Uzbekistan

Fergana (85%)* Source: USDA/NOAA (2005b).

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 15

The calculated national average crop water requirements for the fifteen largest cotton-producing countries arepresented in Table 3.3. Total volumes of water use and the average virtual water content of seed cotton for the
major cotton-producing countries are presented in Table 3.4. The global average virtual water content of seedcotton is 3644 m3/ton. The global volume of water use for cotton crop production is 198 Gm3/yr with nearly anequal share of green and blue water.

Table 3.3. Consumptive water use at field level for cotton production in the major cotton producing countries.
Crop waterrequirement(mm)

Effective
rainfall(mm)Blue waterrequirement(mm)

Irrigated shareof area *(%)

Consumptive water use
Blue water(mm)

Green water
(mm)

Total
(mm)

Argentina

877

615

263

100

263

615

877

Australia

901

322

579

90

521

322

843

Brazil

606

542

65

15

10

542

551

China

718

397

320

75

240

397

638

Egypt

1009

0

1009

100

1009

0

1009

Greece

707

160

547

100

547

160

707

India

810

405

405

33

134

405

538

Mali

993

387

606

25

151

387

538

Mexico

771

253

518

95

492

253

746

Pakistan

850

182

668

100

668

182

850

Syria

1309

34

1275

100

1275

34

1309

Turkey

963

90

874

100

874

90

963

Turkmenistan

1025

69

956

100

956

69

1025

USA

516

311

205

52

107

311

419

Uzbekistan

999

19

981

100

981

19

999

* Sources: Gillham et al. (1995); FAO (1999); Cotton Australia (2005); CCI (2005); WWF (1999).
Table 3.4. Volume of water use and virtual water content of seed cotton. Period: 1997-2001.
Volume of water use
3(Gm /yr)
Blue

Green

Total

Seed cotton
production (ton/yr)

Virtual water content
3(m /ton)
Blue

Green

Total

Argentina

1.6

3.8

5.5

712,417

2,307

5,394

7,700

Australia

2.5

1.5

4

1,777,240

1,408

870

2,278

Brazil

0.1

4.2

4.2

1,613,193

46

2,575

2,621

China

10.3

17.1

27.5

13,604,100

760

1,258

2,018
4,231

Egypt

3

0

3

710,259

4,231

0Greece

2.3

0.7

2.9

1,253,288

1,808

530

2,338

India

11.9

36.1

48

5,544,380

2,150

6,512

8,662

Mali

0.7

1.7

2.4

463,043

1,468

3,750

5,218

Mexico

0.8

0.4

1.1

453,788

1,655

852

2,508

Pakistan

19.9

5.4

25.4

5,159,839

3,860

1,054

4,914

Syria

3.3

0.1

3.4

1,016,594

3,252

88

3,339

Turkey

6.2

0.6

6.8

2,199,990

2,812

288

3,100

Turkmenistan

5.3

0.4

5.7

954,440

5,602

407

6,010

USA

5.6

16.2

21.8

9,699,662

576

1,673

2,249

Uzbekistan

14.6

0.3

14.9

3,342,380

4,377

83

4,460

88.2

88.6

176.8

48,504,613

Sub-total
Average
Other countries
World

-

-

3,644

-

-

-

-

1,818

1,827

10.8

10.8

21.6

5,939,363

-

-

-

99.0

99.4

198.4

54,443,977

-

-

-

16 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

The water use for cotton production differs considerably over the countries. Climatic conditions for cotton
production are least attractive in Syria, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Turkey because evaporative
demand in all these countries is very high (1000-1300 mm) while effective rainfall is very low (0-100 mm). The
shortage of rain in these countries has been solved by irrigating the full harvesting area. Resulting yields varyfrom world-average (Turkmenistan) to very high (Syria, Turkey). Climatic conditions for cotton production are
most attractive in the USA and Brazil. Evaporative demand is low (500-600 mm), so that vast areas can sufficewithout irrigation. Yields are a bit above world-average. India and Mali take a particular position by producing
cotton under high evaporative water demand (800-1000 mm), short-falling effective rainfall (400 mm), andpartial irrigation only (between a quarter and a third of the harvesting area), resulting in relatively low overall
yields.

The average virtual water content of seed cotton in the various countries gives a first rough indication of therelative impacts of the various production systems on water. Cotton from India, Argentina, Turkmenistan, Mali,
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Egypt is most water-intensive. Cotton from China and the USA on the other hand isvery water-extensive. Since blue water generally has a much larger opportunity cost than green water, it makes
sense to particularly look at the blue virtual water content of cotton in the various countries. China and the USAthen still show a positive picture in this comparative analysis. Also Brazil comes in a positive light now, due tothe acceptable yields under largely rain-fed conditions. The blue virtual water content and thus the impact perunit of cotton production are highest in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Pakistan, followed by Syria,
Turkey, Argentina and India.

It is interesting to compare neighbouring countries such as Brazil-Argentina and India-Pakistan. Cotton from
Brazil is preferable over cotton from Argentina from a water resources point of view because growth conditions
are better in Brazil (smaller irrigation requirements) and even despite the fact that the cotton harvesting area inArgentina is fully irrigated (compared to 15% in Brazil), the yields in Argentina are only half the yield in Brazil.
Similarly, cotton from India is to be preferred over cotton from Pakistan – again from a water resources point ofview only – because the effective rainfall in Pakistan’s cotton harvesting area is low compared to that in India
and the harvesting area in Pakistan is fully irrigated. Although India achieves very low cotton yields per hectare,the blue water requirements per ton of product are much lower in India compared to Pakistan.

3.3.

The virtual water content of cotton products

The different processing steps that transform the cotton plant through various intermediate products to some
final products are shown in Figure 3.1. The virtual water content of seed cotton is attributed to its products
following the methodology as introduced and applied by Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004). That means that thevirtual water content of each processed cotton product has been calculated based on the product fraction (ton ofcrop product obtained per ton of primary crop) and the value fraction (the market value of the crop productdivided by the aggregated market value of all crop products derived from one primary crop). The productfractions have been taken from the commodity trees in FAO (2003d) and UNCTAD (2005b). The value fractions
have been calculated based on the market prices of the various products. The global average market prices of thecotton products have been calculated from ITC (2004). In calculating the virtual water content of fabric, theWater footprint of cotton consumption / 17
process water requirements for bleaching, dying and printing have been added (30 m3 per ton for bleaching, 140m3 per ton for dying and 190 m3 per ton for printing). In the step of finishing there is also additional waterrequired (140 m3 per ton). The process water requirements have to be understood as rough average estimates,
because the actual water requirements vary considerably among various techniques used (Ren, 2000).

Hulling/
extraction

Cotton seed

0.63
0.18

Cotton plant

Harvesting

Seed-cotton

0.16
0.47

Cotton seed oil

0.51
0.33

Cotton seed
cake

0.10
0.20

Cotton linters

Cotton seed oil,refined1.07
1.00

Ginning
0.05
0.10

0.35
0.82

Cotton lint

1.00
1.00

Cotton, notcarded or combed

Garnetted stock

Carding/
Spinning
Cotton, carded or
combed (yarn)

0.95
0.99

Knitting/
weaving

0.95
0.99

Grey fabric

0.05
0.10

Yarn waste

Wet processing
1.00
1.00

FabricLegendFinishing

0 . 350 .82

Product fraction
Value fraction

1.00
1.00

Final textile

Figure 3.1. The product tree for cotton, showing the product fraction and value fraction per processing step.

The green and blue virtual water content of different cotton products for the major cotton producing countries ispresented in Table 3.5. These water volumes do not yet include the volume of water necessary to dilute thefertiliser-enriched return flows from the cotton plantations and the polluted return flows from the processing
industries.

18 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

Table 3.5. Virtual water content of cotton products at different stages of production for the major cotton producing
3
countries (m /ton).
Cotton lint

Grey fabric

Blue

Green

Argentina

5,385

Australia

3,287

Brazil

107

China

1,775

Egypt

9,876

GreeceIndia
Mali

FabricFinal textile

Blue

Green

Blue

Green

Blue

Green

Total

12,589

5,611

2,031

3,425

13,118

5,971

2,116

3,785

13,1186,107

13,118

19225

2,116

3,921

2,116

6037

6,010

112

2,935

1,849

6,263

472

6,263

608

6,263

6870

3,059

2,209

3,059

2,345

3,059

5404

0

10,2910

10,6510

10,787

0

10787

4,221

1,237

4,398

1,289

4,758

1,289

4,894

1,289

6183

5,019

15,1985,230

15,837

5,590

15,837

5,726

15,837

21563

3,427

8,752

3,571

9,120

3,931

9,120

4,067

9,120

13188

Mexico

3,863

1,990

4,026

2,073

4,386

2,073

4,522

2,073

6595

Pakistan

9,009

2,460

9,388

2,563

9,748

2,563

9,884

2,563

12447

Syria

7,590

204

7,909

213

8,269

213

8,405

213

8618

Turkey

6,564

672

6,840

701

7,200

701

7,336

701

8037

Turkmenistan

13,077951

13,626991

13,986991

14,122

991

15112

USA

1,345

3,906

1,401

4,070

1,761

4,070

1,897

4,070

5967

Uzbekistan

10,215

195

10,644203

11,004203

11,140203

11343

Global average

4,242

4,264

4,421

4,443

4,781

4,443

4,917

4,443

9359

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 19

4.

Impact on the water quality in the cotton producing countries

4.1.

Impact due to use of fertilisers in crop production

Cotton production affects water quality both in the stage of growing and the stage of processing. The impact in
the first stage depends upon the amount of fertilizers used and the plant fertilizer uptake rate. The latter depends
on the soil type, available quantity of fertilizer and stage of plant growth. The total quantity of pesticides used, inalmost all cases, gets into either ground water or surface water bodies. Only 2.4 percent of the world’s arable
land is planted with cotton yet cotton accounts for 24 percent of the world’s insecticide market and 11 percent of
the sale of global pesticides (WWF, 2003). The nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potash and other minor
nutrients) and pesticides that leach out of the plant root zone can contaminate groundwater and surface water.
The nitrite ions (NO2-) in blood can inactivate haemoglobin, reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of the bloodand the infants under 3 months are at risk. Nitrates in the drinking water can be harmful as the nitrite ions areformed in the gastrointestinal tract by the chemical reduction of the nitrate ions. Hence the target of theregulation is the nitrate intake. In surface waters, fertilizers can stimulate growth of algae and other aquaticplants, which results in a reduction of dissolved oxygen in the water when dead plant material decomposes (aprocess known as eutrophication).

Phosphorus has low mobility in the soil and leaching is generally not a problem. Phosphates can react with otherminerals in the soil forming insoluble compounds and the amount of potassium leached is influenced by thecation exchange capacity of the soil. Instead, mobility to the roots is the prime limitation to uptake. Potassium
mobility in soils is intermediate between nitrogen and phosphorus, but is not easily leached because it has apositive charge (K+) which causes it to be attracted to negatively charged soil colloids.

The main nitrogen processes in the soil are immobilisation/mineralization from organic matter,
adsorption/desorption form cation-anion exchange sites on clay and organic matter and the application fromexternal sources.

The nitrogen is lost in various forms such as seed cotton, de-nitrification, leaching,volatilisation and burning stubble. Nitrogen is most susceptible to leaching because it cannot be retained by thesoil. The nitrate ion, NO3- is not strongly held to clay and organic matter and is subject to movement within thesoil profile. Downward movement of ions (leaching) is a problem in coarse-textured soils (loams and sands). In
clay soils where movement of soil water is slow, nitrate movement is also slow. Greater losses occur frompoorly structured or poorly drained soils compared to well-structured and well drained soils. The loss of
fertilizer N during crop growth is variable and site dependent. Deep drainage and nutrient leaching are
significant under irrigated cotton. During flood irrigation, surface soil high in nitrate is washed into cracks with
the irrigation.

About 60 percent of the total nitrogen applied is removed in the seed cotton (CRC, 2004). Silvertooth et al.
(2001) approximated that out of the total nitrogen applied to 80 percent of it gets recovered in the cotton field.
The residual fraction either goes to the atmosphere by de-nitrification or discharges to the free flowing water
bodies. In the present study, the quantity of N that reaches free flowing water bodies is assumed to be 10 percent

20 / Water footprint of cotton consumption aof the applied rate assuming a steady state balance at root zone in the long run. The effect of use of pesticides
and herbicides in cotton farming to the environment has not been analysed.

The total volume of water required per ton N is calculated considering the volume of nitrogen leached (ton/ton)and the permissible limit (ton/m3) in the free flowing surface water bodies. The standard recommended by EPA(2005) for nitrate in drinking water is 10 milligrams per litre (measured as nitrogen) and has been taken to
calculate the necessary dilution water volume. This is a conservative approach, since natural backgroundconcentration of N in the water used for dilution has been assumed negligible.

We have used the average rate of fertiliser application for the year 1998 as reported by IFA et al. (2002). The
total volume of fertilizer applied is calculated based on the average area of cotton harvesting for the concerned
period (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1. Fertilizer application and the volume of water required to dilute the fertilizers leached to the water
bodies. Period: 1997-2001.

Countries

Average fertilizer
application rate*(kg/ha)Total fertilizer applied(ton/yr)N

K20

N
25,0093,126

58,087

9,601

P2O5

P2O5

Nitrogenleached to thewater bodies

Volume of dilution
water required
6

3(10 m /yr)3

K20

(ton/yr)(m /ton)

2,501

157

351

5,953

5,809

581

327
190

Argentina

40

5Australia

121

20

12.4

Brazil40

50

50

30,67438,342

38,342

3,067

307

China

120

70

25

516,637

301,372

107,633

51,664

5,166

380

Egypt

54

57

57

16,076

16,96916,969

1,608

1,175

226

Greece

127

39

3.5

52,63016,162

1,450

5,263

526

420

India

66

28

6

588,675

249,741

53,51658,868

5,887

1,062

Mali

35

Mexico120

30

15,710

Pakistan180

28

18,3154,579

0.4

536,720

83,490

Syria

50

50

12,964

12,964

Turkey

127

39

3.5

89,927

27,615

Turkmenistan

210

45

1.2

117,495

25,178

USA

120

60

85

625,544

312,772

Uzbekistan

210

45

1.2

313,274

67,130

Average**

91

35

20
3,017,737

1,169,041

Sum

1,571

161

339

1,831

183

404

1,193

53,672

5,367

1,040

1,296

130

128

2,478

8,993

899

409

671

11,750250

1,231

62,554

6,255

645

31,3273,133

937

443,094
1,790

622
673,090

301,774

30,177* Source: IFA et al. (2002). For Uzbekistan, Mali and Turkey, the fertiliser application rate has been taken from
Turkmenistan, Nigeria and Greece respectively.
**The global average fertilizer application rate has been calculated from the country-specific rates, weighted on
the basis of the share of a country in the global area of cotton production.

4.2.

Impact due to use of chemicals in the processing stage

The average volumes of water use in wet processing (bleaching, dying and printing) and finishing stage are 360
m3/ton and 136 m3/ton of cotton textile respectively (USEPA, 1996). The biological oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS) and the total dissolved solids (TDS) in theeffluent from a typical textile industry are given by UNEP IE (1996) and presented in Table 4.2. In this study,
the maximum permissible limits for effluents to discharge into surface and ground water bodies are taken fromthe guidelines set by the World Bank (1999).

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 21

Table 4.2. Waste water characteristics at different stages of processing cotton textiles and permissible limits todischarge into water bodies.
Pollutants**(kg per ton of textile product)

Waste water
volume*3(m /ton)Process

Wet processing

BOD

COD

TSS

TDS

360

32

123

Bleaching

30

5

13

25

243
28

Dying

142

6

24

180

Printing

188

21

86

25

Finishing

136

6

25

12

17

Total

496

38

148

37

260

50

250

50

Permissible limits (milligrams per litre)***35* Source: USEPA (1996)** Source: UNEP IE (1996)*** Source: WB (1999)

As the maximum limits for different pollutants are different, the volume of water required to meet the desired
level of dilution will be different per pollutant category in each production stage. Per production stage, thepollutant category that requires most dilution water has been taken as indicative for the total dilution waterrequirement (Table 4.3). The virtual water content of a few specific consumer products is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.3. Volume of water necessary to dilute pollution per production stage.
Volume of water per pollutant category(m3/ton of cotton textile)

Stage of production

Dilution water volume(applicable)
3(m /ton)

BOD

COD

Wet processing

640

492

500

640

Finishing

120

100

240

240

Wet processing and finishing carried at thesame place

760

592

740

760

-

-

-

880

Wet processing and finishing carried at
different place

TSS

Table 4.4. Global average virtual water content of some selected consumer products.
Standard
weight(gram)
1 pair of Jeans

Virtual water content(litres)Blue water

Green water

Dilution water

Total volume of water

1,000

4,900

4,450

1,500

10,8501 Single bed sheets

900

4,400

4,000

1,350

9,750

1 T-shirt

250

1,230

1,110

380

2,720

1 Diaper

75

370

330

110

810

0.333

1.6

1.5

0.5

3.6

1 Johnson’s cotton bud

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 23

5.

International virtual water flows

Virtual water flows between nations have been calculated by multiplying commodity trade flows by theirassociated total virtual water content:

F [ne , ni , c] = T [ne , ni , c]× Vt [ne , c](3)

in which F denotes the virtual water flow (m3/yr) from exporting country ne to importing country ni as a result oftrade in cotton product c; T the commodity trade (ton/yr) from the exporting to the importing country; and Vt the
total virtual water content (m3/ton) of the commodity in the exporting country. We have taken into account theinternational trade of cotton products for the complete set of countries from the Personal Computer Trade
Analysis System of the International Trade Centre, produced in collaboration with UNCTAD/WTO. It covers
trade data from 146 reporting countries disaggregated by product and partner countries for the period 1997-2001(ITC, 2004).
For the calculation of international virtual water flows, all cotton products are considered as reported in the
database of ITC (2004). It includes the complete set of cotton products from the commodity groups 12, 14, 15,
23, 60, 61, 62 and 63. From group 52, only those products with more than 85 percent of cotton in theircomposition are considered.
The calculated virtual water flows between countries in relation to the international trade in cotton products add
up to 204 Gm3/yr at a global scale (an average for the period 1997-2001). About 43% of this total flow refers toblue water, about 40% to green water and about 17% to dilution water (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). The virtual waterflows in relation to international trade in all crop, livestock and industrial products add up to 1625 Gm3/yr at a
global scale (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004). The global sum of annual gross virtual water flows between
nations related to cotton trade is thus 12 per cent of the total sum of international virtual water flows.
Table 5.1. Gross virtual water export from the major cotton producing countries related to export of cotton
products. Period: 1997-2001.
Green water(Gm3/yr)Blue water(Gm3/yr)

Dilution water(Gm3/yr)

Total(Gm3/yr)

Contribution to theglobal flows

Argentina

1.98

0.85

0.13

2.95

Australia

1.44

2.34

0.55

4.34

1%
2%

Brazil

1.03

0.07

0.17

1.27

1%

China

11.36

9.32

5.43

26.11

13%

Egypt

-

1.72

0.13

1.85

1%

Greece

0.41

1.41

0.36

2.18

1%

India

16.83

5.75

3.08

25.66

13%

Mali

1.17

0.46

0.11

1.73

1%

Mexico

1.04

2.23

0.86

4.13

2%

Pakistan

2.87

10.64

3.05

16.56

8%

Syria

0.04

1.63

0.07

1.75

1%

Turkey

0.40

4.08

0.89

5.37

3%

Turkmenistan

0.10

1.41

0.31

1.83

1%

Uzbekistan

0.15

7.74

1.66

9.55

5%

USA

11.18

4.34

5.18

20.70

10%

Others

31.06

32.73

13.83

77.62

38%

Global flows

81.05

86.72

35.83

203.6

24 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

The countries producing more than 90 percent of seed cotton are responsible for only 62 percent of the global
virtual water exports (Table 5.1). This can be understood from the fact that the countries that import the raw
cotton from the major producing countries export significant volumes again to other countries, often in someprocessed form. Export of cotton products made from imported raw cotton is significant for instance in Japan,
the European Union, and Canada.
Table 5.2. Largest gross virtual water importers (Gm3/yr) related to the international trade of cotton products.
Period: 1997-2001.
Green water3(Gm /yr)Blue water3(Gm /yr)

Dilution water3(Gm /yr)

Total
3(Gm /yr)

Contribution to theglobal flows

Brazil

2

1.5

0.4

3.9

Canada

1.6

1

0.6

3.2

2%
2%

China

15.6

15.9

6.7

38.2

19%

France

2.4

3.2

1.2

6.8

3%

Germany

3.5

5

1.8

10.4

5%

Indonesia

1.9

2

0.7

4.6

2%

Italy

2.9

4.5

1.3

8.7

4%

Japan

3.3

3.3

1.5

8.2

4%

Korea Rep.

2.6

2.8

1

6.4

3%

Mexico

6.4

2.9

3.2

12.5

6%

Netherlands

1.4

1.6

0.7

3.7

2%

Russian federation

0.5

2.5

0.6

3.7

2%

Thailand

1.5

1.4

0.5

3.3

2%

Turkey

1.4

2.6

0.7

4.7

2%

UK

2.9

3.1

1.3

7.3

4%

USA

10

12.2

5.3

27.5

14%
25%

Others

21.2

21.1

8.3

50.6

Global flows

81.05

86.72

35.83

203.6

Pakistan, China, Uzbekistan and India are the largest exporters of blue water. These countries export a lot ofwater in absolute sense, but in relative sense as well: more than half of the blue water used for cotton irrigationenters export products. The USA also appears in the top-list of total virtual water exporters due to its large shareof green water export. The largest gross dilution volume exporters are China, USA and Pakistan, implying thatthe international trade in cotton products are having larger impact on the water quality in these countries.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 25

6.

Water footprints related to consumption of cotton products

In assessing a national water footprint due to domestic cotton consumption we distinguish between the internal
and the external footprint. The internal water footprint is defined as the use of domestic water resources to
produce cotton products consumed by inhabitants of the country. It is the sum of the total volume of water usedfrom the domestic water resources to produce cotton products minus the total volume of virtual water export
related to export of domestically produced cotton products. The external water footprint of a country is definedas the annual volume of water resources used in other countries to produce cotton products consumed by the
inhabitants of the country concerned. The external water footprint is calculated by taking the total virtual water
import into the country and subtracting the volume of virtual water exported to other countries as a result of reexport of imported products.
The global water footprint related to the consumption of cotton products is estimated at 256 Gm3/yr, which is 43
m3/yr per capita in average. About 42% of this footprint is due to the use of blue water, another 39% to the useof green water and about 19% to the dilution water requirements (Table 6.1). About 44% of the global water use
for cotton growth and processing is not for serving the domestic market but for export. If we do not consider thewater requirements for cotton products only, but take into account the water needs for the full scope of
consumed goods and services, the global water footprint is 7450×109 m3/yr (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004).
This includes the use of green and blue water for the full spectrum of the global consumption goods andservices, but it excludes the water requirement for dilution of waste flows. As a proxy for the latter we take here
the rough estimate provided by Postel et al. (1996), who estimate the global dilution water requirement at
2350×109 m3/yr. This means that the full global water footprint is about 9800×109 m3/yr. The global water
footprint related to cotton consumption is 256×109 m3/yr, which means that the consumption of cotton products
takes a share of 2.6 per cent of the full global water footprint.

Table 6.1. The global water footprint due to cotton consumption (Gm3/yr). Period: 1997-2001.
Blue water
footprint

Green water
footprint

Dilution water
footprint

Total water
footprint

Contribution to
the total water
footprint

Internal water footprint*

59.6

54.8

28.5

143

56 %

External water footprint*

48.0

44.7

20.7

113

44 %

Total water footprint

108

99

49

256

Contribution to the total water
footprint

42 %

39 %

19 %

* The internal water footprint at global scale refers to the aggregated internal water footprints of all nations of theworld. The external water footprint refers here to the aggregated external water footprints of all nations

The countries with the largest impact on the foreign water resources are China, USA, Mexico, Germany, UK,
France, and Japan (Appendix I). About half of China’s water footprint due to cotton consumption is within
China (the internal water footprint); the other half (the external footprint) presses in other countries, mainly in
India (dominantly green water use) and Pakistan (dominantly blue water use).

26 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

Per country, the water footprint as a result of domestic cotton consumption can be mapped as has been done for
the USA in Figure 6.1. The arrows show the tele-connections between the area of consumption (the USA) andthe areas of impact (notably India, Pakistan, China, Mexico and Dominican Republic). The total water footprintof an average US citizen due to the consumption of cotton products is 135 m3/yr – more than three times theglobal average – out of which about half is from the use of external water resources. If all world citizens would
consume cotton products at the US rate, other factors remaining equal, the global water use would increase by
five per cent [from 9800 to 10300 Gm3/yr], which is quite substantial given that humanity already uses morethan half of the runoff water that is reasonably accessible (Postel et al., 1996).

For proper understanding of the impact map shown in Figure 6.1, it should be observed here that the map shows
the full internal water footprint of the USA plus the external water footprints in other countries insofar easily
traceable. For instance, USA imports several types of cotton products from the EU, that together contain 430
million m3/yr of virtual water, but these cotton products do not fully originate from the EU25. In fact, the EU25
imports raw cotton, grey fabrics and final products from countries such as India, Uzbekistan and Pakistan, thenpartly or fully processes these products into final products and ultimately exports to the USA. Out of the 430
million m3/yr of virtual water exported from the EU25 to the USA, only 16% is actually water appropriatedwithin the EU25; the other 84% refers to water use in countries from which the EU25 imports (e.g. India,
Uzbekistan, Pakistan). For simplicity, we show in the map only the ‘direct’ external footprints (tracing the originof imported products only one step back), and not the ‘indirect’ external footprints. Adding the latter would
mean adding for instance an arrow from India to EU25, which then is forwarded to the USA. Doing so for all
indirect external water footprints would create an incomprehensible map. For the same reason, we have shown
only arrows for the largest virtual water flows towards the USA.

The water footprint as a result of cotton consumption in Japan is mapped in Figure 6.2. For their cotton theJapanese consumers most importantly rely on the water resources of China, Pakistan, India, Australia and theUSA. Japan does not grow cotton, and also does not have a large cotton processing industry. The Japanese water
footprint due to consumption of cotton products is 4.6 Gm3/yr, of which 95 percent presses in other countries.
The cotton products imported from Pakistan put a large pressure on Pakistan’s scarce blue water resources. In
China and even more so in India, cotton is produced with lower inputs of blue water (in relation to the green
water inputs), so that cotton products from China and India put less stress per unit of cotton product on the
scarce blue water resources than in Pakistan.

Figure 6.3 shows the water footprint due to cotton consumption in the twenty-five countries of the European
Union (EU25). 84% of EU’s cotton-related water footprint lies outside the EU. From the map it can be seen that,for their cotton supply, the European community most heavily depends on the water resources of India. This puts
stress on the water availability for other purposes in India. In India one third of the cotton harvest area is being
irrigated; particularly cotton imports from these irrigated areas have a large opportunity cost, because thecompetition for blue water resources is higher than for the green water resources. If we look at the impacts ofEuropean cotton consumption on blue water resources, the impacts are even higher in Uzbekistan than in India.
Uzbekistan uses 14.6 Gm3/yr of blue water to irrigate cotton fields, out of which it exports 3.0 Gm3/yr in virtualWater footprint of cotton consumption / 27

form to the EU25. The consumers in the EU25 countries thus indirectly (and mostly unconsciously) contributefor about 20 per cent to the desiccation of the Aral Sea. In terms of pollution, cotton consumption in the EU25
has largest impacts in India, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Turkey and China. These impacts are partly due to the use offertiliser in the cotton fields and partly to the use of chemicals in the cotton processing industries. Cotton
consumption in the EU25 also causes pollution in the region itself, mainly from the processing of imported raw
cotton or grey fabrics into final products.

The three components of a water footprint – green water use, blue water use and dilution water requirement –affect water systems in different ways. Use of blue water generally affects the environment more than green
water use. Blue water is lost to the atmosphere where otherwise it would have stayed in the ground or river
system where it was taken from. Green water on the other hand would have been evaporated through anothercrop or through natural vegetation if it would not have been used for cotton growth. Therefore there should
generally be more concern with the ‘blue water footprint’ than with the ‘green water footprint’. The part of thewater footprint that refers to dilution water requirements deserves attention as well, since pollution is a choiceand not necessary. Waste flows from cotton industries can be treated so that no dilution water would be requiredat all. An alternative to treatment of waste flows is reduction of waste flows. With cleaner production
technology, the use of chemicals in cotton industries can be reduced by 30 per cent, with a reduction of the COD
content in the effluent of 60 percent (Visvanathan et al., 2000).

28 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

Figure 6.1. The impact of consumption of cotton products by US citizens on the world’s water resources (Mm3/yr). Period: 1997-2001.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 29

Figure 6.2. The impact of consumption of cotton products by Japanese citizens on the world’s water resources (Mm3/yr). Period: 1997-2001.

30 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

Figure 6.3. The impact of consumption of cotton products by the people in EU25 on the world’s water resources (Mm3/yr). Period: 1997-2001.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 31

7.

Conclusion

The authors believe that a single indicator of sustainability does not exist, because of the variety of facts, values
and uncertainties that play a role in any debate of sustainable development. The water footprint of a nation
should clearly not be seen as the ultimate indicator of sustainability, but rather as a new indicator that can add tothe sustainability debate. It adds to the ecological footprint and the embodied energy concept by taking water asa central viewpoint as alternative to land or energy. It adds to earlier indicators of water use by taking theconsumer’s perspective on water use instead of the producer’s perspective.

After the introduction of the ecological footprint concept in the 1990s, several scholars have expressed doubts
whether the concept is useful in science or policy making. At the same time we see that the concept attracts
attention and evokes scientific debate. We expect that the water footprint concept leads to a similar dual
response. On the one hand the water footprint does not do else than gathering and presenting known data in a
new format and as such does not add new knowledge. On the other hand, the water footprint adds a new fruitfulperspective on issues such as water scarcity, water dependency, sustainable water use, and the implications ofglobal trade for water management.

For water managers, water management is a river basin or catchment issue (see for instance the new South
African National Water Act, 1998, and the new European Water Framework Directive, 2000). The water
footprint, showing the use of water in foreign countries, shows that it is not sufficient to stick to that scale. Water
problems in the major cotton producing areas of the world cannot be solved without addressing the global issue
that consumers are not being held responsible for some of the economic costs and ecological impacts, which
remain in the producing areas. The water footprint shows water use from the consumer’s perspective, while
traditional statistics show water use from the producer’s perspective. This makes it possible to compare thewater demand for North American or European citizens with the water demand for people in Africa, India or
China. In the context of equitability and sustainability, this is a more useful comparison than a comparison
between the actual water use in the USA or Europe with the actual water use in an African or Asian country,
simply because the actual water use tells something about production but not about consumption.

The water footprint shows how dependent many nations are on the water resources in other countries. For its
consumption of cotton products, the EU25 is very much dependent on the water resources in other continents,
particularly water in Asia as this study shows, but also for other products there is a strong dependence on water
resources outside Europe (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004). This means that water in Europe is scarcer thancurrent indicators (showing water abstractions within Europe in relation to the available water resources within
Europe) do suggest.

Cotton consumption is responsible for 2.6 per cent of the global water use. As a global average, 44 per cent of
the water use for cotton growth and processing is not for serving the domestic market but for export. This meansthat – roughly spoken – nearly half of the water problems in the world related to cotton growth and processing32 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

can be attributed to foreign demand for cotton products. By looking at the trade relations, it is possible to trackdown the location of the water footprint of a community or, in other words, to link consumption at one place tothe impacts at another place. The study for instance shows that the consumers in the EU25 countries indirectly
contribute for about 20 per cent to the desiccation of the Aral Sea. Visualizing the actual but hidden link
between cotton consumers and the water impacts of cotton production is a relevant issue in the light of the factthat the economic and environmental externalities of water use are generally not included in the price of thecotton products paid by the foreign consumers. Including information about the water footprint in productinformation, be it in the form of pricing or product labelling, is thus a crucial aspect in policy aimed at the
reduction of negative externalities as water depletion and pollution. Given the global character of the cottonmarket, international cooperation in setting the rules for cotton trade is a precondition.

Since each component of the total water footprint includes a certain economic cost and environmental impact, it
would be useful to see which of the costs and impacts are transferred to the consumer. In this study we have notdone a careful examination of that, but there is quite some evidence that the majority of costs and impacts ofwater use and pollution caused in agriculture and industry is not translated into the price of products. According
to the World Bank, the economic cost recovery in developing countries in the water sector is about 25 per cent(Serageldin, 1995). Social and environmental impacts of water use are generally not translated into the price of
products at all, with sometimes an exception for the costs made for wastewater treatment before disposal. Mostof the global waste flows are not treated however. Although a few industrialised countries achieve a wastewater
treatment coverage of nearly 100 per cent, this coverage remains below five per cent in most developing
countries (Eurostat, 2005; Hoekstra, 1998). Besides, the hundred per cent waste coverage in some of theindustrialised countries refers to treatment of concentrated waste flows from households and industries only, but
excludes the diffuse waste flow in agriculture. Given the general lack of proper water pricing mechanisms orother ways of transmitting production-information, cotton consumers have little incentive to take responsibility
for the impacts on remote water systems.

About one fifth of the global water footprint due to cotton consumption is related to the pollution. This estimate
is based on the assumption that wastewater flows can be translated into a certain water requirement for dilution
based on water quality standards. Implicitly we have assumed here that the majority of waste flows enters
natural water bodies without prior treatment, which is certainly true for leaching of fertilisers in agriculture andlargely true for waste flows from cotton industries. In some of the rich countries, however, there is often
treatment of waste flows from industries before disposal, so that we have got an overestimate of dilution waterrequirements here. In case of treatment of waste flows to the extent that the effluents meet water quality
standards, a better estimate for the water requirement would be to consider the actual water use for the treatment
process. Another issue is that we did not account for natural background concentrations in dilution water, so that
we have got a conservative estimate for the required dilution volume. We also have made a conservative
estimate by looking at the dilution volume required for fertilisers, but not at the volume for diluting pesticides
used.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 33

References

Allan, J.A. (1997) ‘Virtual water: A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies?’ Paper
presented at the 1997 British Association Festival of Science, University of Leeds, 9 September 1997.
Allan, J.A. (1998) ‘Virtual water: A strategic resource, global solutions to regional deficits’, Groundwater 36(4), 545-546.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2003a) ‘Virtual water flows between nations in relation to trade inlivestock and livestock products’, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 13, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, theNetherlands.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2003b) ‘The water needed to have the Dutch drink coffee’, Value of
Water Research Report Series No. 14, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2004) ‘Water footprints of nations’, Value of Water Research Report
Series No. 16, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
Cotton Australia (2005) ‘How to grow a pair of Jeans’, www.cottonaustralia.com.au.
CCI (2005) ‘Regions of US productions’, Cotton Council International.
CRC (2004) ‘NUTRIpak: A practical guide to cotton nutrition’, Australian Cotton Cooperative Research Centre.
De Man, R. (2001) ‘The global cotton and textile chain: Substance flows, actors and co-operation forsustainability’, A study in the framework of WWF's Freshwater and Cotton Programme, Reinier de Man
Publications, Leiden, the Netherlands.
EPA (2005) ‘List of drinking water contaminants: Ground water and drinking water’, US Environmental
Protection Agency.
Eurostat (2005), Web page of EU Statistical Office, Luxembourg, http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int.
Falkenmark, M. (1995) ‘Land-water linkages: a synopsis’ In: Land and Water Integration and River BasinManagement, FAO, Rome, pp. 15-16.
FAO (1999) ‘Irrigation in Asia in Figures’, Water Reports 18, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2003a) ‘CROPWAT model’, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2003b) ‘FAOCLIM: a CD-ROM with world-wide agroclimatic data’, Food and Agriculture Organization,
Rome, Italy.
FAO (2003c) ‘CLIMWAT database’, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2003d) ‘Technical Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities’, Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, Italy.

34 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

FAO (2005) ‘Review of global agricultural water use per country’, crop water requirements, Food andAgriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
FAOSTAT (2004) Web page of Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, http://faostat.fao.org.
Gillham, F.E.M., Bell, T.M., Arin, T., Matthews, T.A., Rumeur, C.L. and Hearn A.B. (1995) ‘Cotton production
prospects for the next decade’, World Bank Technical Paper Number 287, the World Bank, Washington D.C.
Glantz, M. H. (1998) 'Creeping environmental problems in the Aral Sea basin. In: I. Kobori and M. H. Glantz(eds.) Central Eurasian water crisis: Caspian, Aral and dead seas, United Nations University Press, New York.
Hall, M., Dixon, J., Gulliver, A. and Gibbon, D., (eds.) (2001) ‘Farming systems and poverty: Improving
farmer's livelihoods in a changing world’, FAO and World Bank, Rome and Washington.
Herendeen, R.A. (2004) ‘Energy analysis and EMERGY analysis - A comparison’, Ecol. Model., 178, 227-237.
Hoekstra, A.Y. (1998) ‘Perspectives on water: A model-based exploration of the future’, International Books,
Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Hung, P.Q. (2002) ‘Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows between
nations in relation to international crop trade’, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11, UNESCO-IHE,
Delft, the Netherlands
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Hung, P.Q. (2005) ‘Globalisation of water resources: international virtual water flows in
relation to crop trade’, Global Environ. Chang. 15(1), 45-56.
IFA, IFDC, IPI, PPI and FAO (2002) ‘Fertilizer use by crop’, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
ITC (2004) ‘PC-TAS version 1997-2001 in HS or SITC’, CD-ROM, International Trade Centre, Geneva.
Loh, J. and Wackernagel, M. (2004) ‘Living planet report 2004’, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Pereira, L. S., Cordery, I. and Iacovides, I. (2002) ‘Coping with water scarcity’, International Hydrological
Programme, UNESCO, Paris.
Postel, S. (1992) ‘Last oasis: Facing water scarcity’, W.W Norton & Company, New York.
Postel, S.L., Daily, G.C., and Ehrlich, P.R. (1996) ‘Human appropriation of renewable fresh water’, Science
271, 785-788.
Proto, M., Supino, S., and Malandrino, O. (2000) ‘Cotton: a flow cycle to exploit’, Ind. Crop. Prod. 11(2-3),
173-178.
Rees, W.E. (1992) ‘Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out’,
Environ. Urban. 4(2), 121-130.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 35

Ren, X. (2000) ‘Development of environmental performance indicators for textile process and product’, Journalof Cleaner Production, 8(6), 473-481.
Serageldin, I. (1995) ‘Water resources management: a new policy for a sustainable future’, Wat. Int. 20(1), 1521.
Seuring, S. (2004) ‘Integrated chain management and supply chain management: Comparative analysis andillustrative cases’, Journal of Cleaner Production 12: 1059-1071.
Silvertooth, J.C, Navarro, J.C., Norton, E.R. Galadima, A. (2001) ‘Soil and plant recovery of labeled fertilizer
nitrogen in irrigated cotton’, Arizona Cotton Report, University of Arizona.
Soth, J., Grasser, C., and Salerno, R. (1999) ‘The impact of cotton on fresh water resources and ecosystems: A
preliminary analysis’, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
UNCTAD (2005a) ‘Planting and harvesting times for cotton, by producing country’,
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/crop.htm.
UNCTAD, 2005b. Cotton uses, http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/uses.htm
UNEP (2002) ‘Global environment outlook 3: Past, present and future perspectives’, Earthscan Publications,London.
UNEP IE (1996) ‘Cleaner production in textile wet processing: a workbook for trainers’, United Nations
Environment Programme: Industry and Environment, Paris.
USDA (2004) ‘Cotton: World markets and trade’, http://www.fas.usda.gov/cotton/circular/2004/07/CottonWMT.pdf
USDA/NOAA (2005a) ‘Major world crop areas and climatic profiles’, USDA/NOAA Joint Agricultural
Weather Facility, http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/mississippi/MajorWorldCropAreas.pdf.
USDA/NOAA (2005b) ‘Cotton - World supply and demand summary’, USDA/NOAA Joint Agricultural
Weather Facility, http://www.tradefutures.cc/education/cotton/worldsd.htm.
USEPA (1996) ‘Best management practices for pollution prevention in the textile industry’, www.e-textile.org.
Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Verbruggen, H. (1999) ‘Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluationof the 'ecological footprint'’, Ecol. Econ. 29, 61-72.
Van Kooten, G.C. and Bulte, E.H. (2000) ‘The ecological footprint: useful science or politics’, Ecol. Econ. 32,
385-389.
Visvanathan, C., Kumar, S. and Han, S. (2000) ‘Cleaner production in textile sector: Asian scenario’, Paper
presented at the ‘National Workshop on Sustainable Industrial Development through Cleaner Production’, 12-13
November, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

36 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996) ‘Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth’, New
Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada.
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, A.C., Falfan, I.S.L., Garcia, J.M., Guerrero, I.S., and Guerrero, M.G.S.
(1997) ‘Ecological footprints of nations: How much nature do they use? - How much nature do they have?’
Centre for Sustainability Studies, Universidad Anahuac de Xalapa, Mexico.
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linares, A.C., Falfan, I.S.L., Garcia, J.M., Guerrero, A.I.S., andGuerrero, M.G.S. (1999) ‘National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept’, Ecol. Econ.
29, 375-390.
WB (1999) ‘Pollution prevention and abatement handbook 1998: Toward cleaner production’, World Bank,
Washington D.C.
WWF (2003) ‘Thirsty crops: Our food and clothes: Eating up nature and wearing out the environment?’ Living
waters: conserving the source of life, WWF, The Netherlands.

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 37

Appendix I. The composition, per country, of the water footprint related to the consumption of cotton products.
Period: 1997-2001.
3

3

Internal water footprint (Mm /yr)
Dilution

External water footprint (Mm /yr)

Total

Blue

Green

Dilution

Total

Total
(Mm3/yr)

Blue

Green

Albania

1

0

1

3

27

16

10

52

55

Algeria

7

0

13

20

133

63

33

229

249

Angola

21

19

10

51

0

0

0

0

51

Argentina

832

1953

156

2940

22

89

20

131

3071

Australia

755

585

296

1637

234

294

164

691

2328

Austria

6

0

11

17

395

169

133

696

713

Azerbaijan

46

34

30

110

2

1

1

3

113

Bahamas

1

0

1

1

9

20

11

40

41

Bangladesh

4

29

44

77

20

587

79

687

764

Barbados

0

0

0

0

1

3

1

6

6

Belarus

8

0

14

22

144

32

37

213

234

Belgium-Luxembourg

15

0

25

41

1215

763

395

2373

2414

Benin

200

209

85

494

10

19

6

36

530

Bhutan

0

0

0

0

2

6

1

9

9

Bolivia

83

98

45

227

74

502

105

681

908

Botswana
BrazilBrunei

7

5

5

16

25

26

10

60

77

404

3454

804

4662

1451

1643

369

3464

8126

2

0

3

5

58

59

29

146

151

284

258

136

679

0

0

0

0

679

4

4

2

10

1

2

1

3

13

Cameroon

88

85

37

211

1

1

0

2

213

Canada

39

0

86

125

592

1204

478

2274

2399

Burkina Faso
BurundiCentral African Rep.

18

17

8

43

0

0

0

0

43

Chad

123

118

50

291

0

0

0

0

291

Chile

8

0

14

22

134

302

50

486

507

China

8775

11176

6585

26536

10738

10213

4485

25436

51972

Colombia

174

160

115

449

170

357

98

625

1074

Congo, DR

56

50

28

134

0

0

0

0

134

Côte d'Ivoire

189

198

74

462

5

12

2

20

481
125

Croatia

2

0

3

5

59

43

18

120

Cyprus

0

0

1

1

23

21

10

55

55

Czech Republic

15

0

23

38

392

113

104

609

647

Denmark

5

0

9

14

221

207

96

524

538

Ecuador

15

12

15

42

29

60

25

115

157

Egypt

1888

1433

0

177

1610

60

193

25

278

Equatorial Guinea

8

0

14

22

0

0

0

0

22

Estonia

7

0

12

19

307

49

81

437

455

Ethiopia

79

74

35

189

4

3

2

8

197

Finland

0

0

1

1

67

70

31

167

168

France

53

0

93

146

2387

1576

867

4831

4977

Gambia

2

1

2

4

9

14

4

28

32

Germany

47

0

79

126

3525

2049

1220

6794

6920

Ghana

45

41

23

109

9

10

4

24

133

Greece

1199

416

382

1997

278

266

115

660

2657

Guinea

74

69

37

180

17

26

11

54

234

Hungary

8

0

13

21

232

118

74

424

444

Iceland

0

0

0

0

5

5

2

12

12

7015

19462

3965

30441

281

222

81

583

31024

Indonesia

86

18

152

256

773

683

330

1786

2042

Iran

789

731

353

1874

32

4

7

43

1917

India

38 / Water footprint of cotton consumption a3

3Internal water footprint (Mm /yr)
Blue

Green

Dilution

External water footprint (Mm /yr)

Total

Blue

Green

Dilution

Total

Total
(Mm3/yr)

Ireland

5

0

10

15

198

196

86

481

496

Israel

124

124

72

320

452

814

241

1508

1828

Italy

83

0

106

189

2254

644

465

3363

3552

Japan

78

0

165

244

1696

1735

935

4366

4610

Jordan

1

0

2

3

48

19

13

79

82

Kazakhstan

174

169

68

411

0

0

0

1

412

Kenya

26

29

12

67

23

45

11

79

146

Korea, DPR

64

59

30

153

0

0

0

0

153

Korea, Rep.

124

0

224

348

1808

1538

648

3994

4343

Kyrgyzstan

55

54

20

129

0

0

0

0

129

Laos

5

5

1

11

0

0

0

0

11

Lebanon

2

0

3

5

57

60

19

136

141

Lithuania

1

0

2

3

31

22

10

63

66

Malawi

46

45

17

108

0

0

0

0

108

Malaysia

36

0

68

105

609

686

262

1557

1662

Maldives

2

0

4

7

84

229

47

361

368

Mali

241

573

80

894

1

1

1

3

897

Malta

2

0

3

4

56

28

15

99

103

Mauritius

10

0

21

31

117

456

59

632

663

Mexico

460

327

549

1336

1297

5395

2489

9181

10517

Mozambique

50

46

23

119

0

0

0

0

119

Myanmar

228

214

100

542

0

0

0

0

542

Namibia

8

7

4

19

0

0

0

0

19

Nepal

3

1

4

8

39

181

26

245

253

Netherlands

22

0

39

61

1277

1035

539

2850

2912

New Zealand

4

0

7

12

157

147

74

378

389

Niger

12

10

7

29

5

5

2

12

41

Nigeria

658

613

311

1583

93

200

48

341

1924

Norway

2

0

3

5

157

148

73

378

383

Pakistan

9672

2567

3012

15251

0

0

0

0

15251

Papua New Guinea

0

0

0

0

7

6

3

15

16

Paraguay

147

156

55

358

3

10

2

15

373

Peru

138

145

78

361

64

130

32

226

587

Philippines

14

2

25

41

160

222

75

457

498

Poland

34

0

55

88

769

274

215

1258

1347

Portugal

39

0

54

93

449

235

102

787

880

Russian Federation

84

0

143

227

2076

74

496

2646

2874

Saudi Arabia

1

0

2

4

175

99

64

338

342

Senegal

15

21

8

44

5

15

3

23

67

Serbia & Montenegro

1

0

2

3

103

17

23

143

147

Singapore

17

0

31

47

708

857

361

1926

1974

Slovakia

4

0

6

9

81

34

25

140

150

Slovenia

2

0

3

6

87

36

23

146

152

South Africa

80

80

47

207

114

155

46

316

523

Spain

387

325

173

885

693

518

232

1443

2328

Sudan

209

208

75

492

2

1

1

4

496

Swaziland

39

34

20

93

16

16

7

39

132

Sweden

2

0

4

6

306

304

145

755

761

Switzerland

0

0

1

1

70

101

53

224

225

1736

45

166

1947

0

0

0

0

1947

Syria
Tajikistan

349

345

127

821

0

0

0

0

821

Tanzania

138

137

58

333

5

10

3

18

351

Water footprint of cotton consumption / 39

3

3Internal water footprint (Mm /yr)Blue

External water footprint (Mm /yr)Green

Dilution

Total

Blue

Green

Dilution

Total

Total
(Mm3/yr)

Thailand

106

42

136

285

690

766

243

1699

1984

Togo

123

120

54

297

12

15

6

32

330

0

0

0

0

6

8

4

19

19

Turkey

3754

508

1172

5434

1453

1106

482

3042

8476

Turkmenistan

5143

Trinidad & Tobago

3958

287

897

5141

1

0

0

2

Uganda

79

74

31

185

17

8

6

31

216

UK

35

0

62

97

2307

2175

980

5463

5560

Uruguay

0

0

1

1

9

36

4

50

51

USA

5111

9314

4971

19397

9429

5738

3216

18383

37780

Uzbekistan

6956

131

1598

8685

0

0

0

0

8685

Venezuela

75

60

50

185

167

215

88

470

654

Yemen

42

39

19

100

0

0

0

0

100

Zambia

41

38

17

96

4

3

2

8

104

Zimbabwe

158

155

60

374

0

0

0

0

374

59605

54793

28515

142914

48025

44655

20743

113423256336

World

UNESCO-IHE
P.O. Box 3015
2601 DA Delft
The Netherlands

Website www.unesco-ihe.org
Phone +31 15 2151715

Institute for Governance Studies

University of Twente