A policy brief for central governments in developed and developing countries, sub-sovereign
national bodies, universities and research
institutes, community organisations, banks
and private investors, aid donors, multilateralfinancial institutions, UN agencies and otherinternational organisations.

Saving Water:
From Field to Fork
Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain

Photo: Andrew Clayton, SXC

How to Cite
Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden. Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the
Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI, 2008.
Copyright © 2008, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)
Design and production by Britt-Louise Andersson, SIWI. Cover photos: Jose Assenco and Getty Images.
Printed by Litografia, Huddinge, Sweden. The printing process has been certified according to the Nordic Swanlabel for environmental quality. For electronic versions of this and other SIWI publications, visit www.siwi.org.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork2

Note to the Reader:This report and the Side Event at CSD 16, May 5–16, 2008,
are following up reports that have been prepared for two
previous CSD meetings, “Water – More Nutrition per Drop”(2004*) and “Let it Reign: The New Water Paradigm for
Global Food Security” (2005**). The topics addressed in theprevious reports, and also in this report, are the links between
water, food and development, which are high on the agenda
for Swedish international development collaboration. This
report highlights the magnitude of losses and wastage in thefood chain, i.e. from field to fork. It is shown that a reduction of losses and wastage would save water and facilitate theachievement of multiple development objectives.
The views put forward in this report are expressed solely onbehalf of International Water Management Institute, Chalmers

University, Stockholm Environmental Institute and StockholmInternational Water Institute.
Lead authors: Jan Lundqvist, Stockholm International Water
Institute; Charlotte de Fraiture, International Water Management Institute and David Molden, International Water Management Institute. Contributing authors: Göran Berndes, Chalmers
University of Technology, Sweden; Anders Berntell, StockholmInternational Water Institute; Malin Falkenmark, StockholmInternational Water Institute; Hans Holmen, Linköping University; Louise Karlberg, Stockholm Environment Institute andMats Lannerstad, Linköping University.
Generous financial support for preparing this report and forparticipation in the CSD 16 meeting has been provided by Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).

Table of Contents
Executive SummaryFood Wastage is Water Wastage
A New Era for Water and Food ManagementKey Issues for Policy Debate
A Strategy for Action
1. Drivers of Food Demand
1.1 Water Costs of Past Achievements
1.2 Income Improvements and Changing Diets
1.3 Diets and Water
2. A New Type of Water Scarcity
2.1 Climate Change Amplifies Water Scarcity
2.2 Variability in Water More Pronounced
2.3 Water Scarcity: Competition and Environmental Concerns
2.4 Land and Water for Bioenergy and other Non-food Produce
2.5 Under Nourishment and Over Eating: Changing Perspectives on Food Security
3. Taking a Food Chain Perspective: From Field to Fork
3.1 Stages and Actors in the Food Chain
3.2 Losses, Spoilage, Conversions and Wastage
3.3 Significant Losses and Spoilage in Less Developing Countries
3.4 High Rates of Losses and Wastage in Developed Societies
3.5 Implications and Dimensions of Losses and Wastage of Food
4. The Smart Approach to Water Saving
4.1 The Need to Act on a Broad Scale
4.2 More Food with Less Water: Reducing Unproductive Losses of Rainwater
4.3 Water Savings Potential Throughout the Food Chain
4.4 Involve Stakeholders
5. Conclusion
References

4
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
11
13
13
14
15
15
18
20
20
22
23
24
26
27
27
27
30
31
32
33

* http://www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Policy_Briefs/CSD_More_nutrition_per_drop_2004.pdf** http://www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Policy_Briefs/CSD_Let_it_Reign_2005.pdf

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

3

Photo: Getty Images

Executive Summary
Food Wastage is Water Wastage
We need to use our water prudently – no one will argue withthis statement. But in fact we are wasteful. This need will
become more pronounced, and the cost of bad water management will get higher in the future with increasing water
demands from increasing population, cities, agriculture, andthe environment. Moreover water management will become
more difficult with climate change. New solutions and fastactions are required now.
Agriculture is the largest human use of water. Clearly, agricultural practices need to be targeted to reduce wastage of water.
This has been the center of attention for water saving practices
for years. But there are additional ways to save water.
Food consumers and businesses have a key role. Losses offood between the farmers’ field to our dinner table – in foodstorage, transport, food processing, retail and in our kitchens– are huge. This loss of food is equivalent to a loss in water.
Reducing food loss and wastage lessens water needs in agriculture. We need to pay more attention to this fact.
Our Key Message: Make the Food Chain More Efficient to Save
Water to Facilitate the Achievement of Multiple Development
Objectives

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

4

Making the food chain more efficient means saving waterthat would have been used to produce that food. More thanthat, a reduction of losses and wastage can serve the interestsof farmers, consumers and society at large.
The amount of food produced on farmers’ fields is much
more than is necessary for a healthy, productive and active
life for the global population. Clearly, distribution of food is
a problem – many are hungry, while at the same time many
over eat. A hidden problem is that farmers have to supply
food to take care of both our necessary consumption andour wasteful habits. This problem can be turned into an opportunity. Targeting losses and wasteful habits may generate
multiple gains, including the saving of water. In addition tosaving water by a reduction of losses and wastage in the foodchain, agricultural water management practices could bemuch more productive.
As indicated in Figure 1, losses and wastage may be in
the order of 50 percent between field and fork. Inefficient
harvesting, transport, storage and packaging make a considerable dent in the potential availability of food. Additional andsignificant losses and wastage occur in food processing, wholesale, retail and in households and other parts of society wherefood is consumed. The estimate is dependent upon how theconversion of food in terms of grains used for feed to produce
animal foods is interpreted.
It is important to recognise that agricultural products thatare harvested but that do not reach our dinner plates are notnecessarily wasted. Agricultural produce and residues are usedfor various purposes at farm level or within the agricultural
system – for feed, bioenergy and soil amelioration. This isa typical situation among small holder agriculturalists indeveloping countries.
Situations differ from industrialised countries to those withweak economies and a strong agricultural base, and between
rich and poor producers and consumers. Generally, the losses
in the first part of the food chain, which result of poor harvesting technologies, lack of transport and poor storage incombination with climatic circumstances, are relatively more
important in developing countries. In industrialised countries,
where a high percentage of the population live in urban centres,
wastage is quite high. Trends in diet composition, towards ahigher fraction of animal food items, fruits and vegetables
tend to shorten the durability of food and could increase therisk of losses and wastage.
In fact, the entire picture is complex, and the knowledge to
guide policy pertaining to various parts of the food chain needs
to be improved. However, there is enough evidence that themagnitude of food and water losses are large enough and that wemust pay close attention. Strategies that focus on reducing losses

5000

from field to fork can facilitate the achievement of multiple development objectives: food security, improvement of livelihoodsof farmers, meet the growing demand for non-food agricultural
products and safeguarding environmental resilience.

A New Era for Water and FoodManagement
Warnings about severe water scarcity come at the dawn of a
new era for agriculture. For an increasingly affluent world
population the demand for a range of agricultural products
is rapidly increasing, while the poor have to bear the brunt ofprice hikes and lack of access to food and water supplies. An
estimated 1.4 billion people already live in areas where there
is not enough water available to meet all needs from sectorsof society, let alone the need of aquatic ecosystems.
Over the past 50 years, food supply has increased more
rapidly than populations have, and under nourishment, alingering threat throughout history, has been reduced. Untilvery recently, the real price of food has been fairly stable ordeclined, benefiting both national and household economies
although it has been detrimental to farmers. The situation
now is characterised by rapidly increasing prices on food withdramatic repercussions for the poor, rates of inflation and,generally, for the stability of society.
Several coinciding circumstances contribute to this quite
serious situation, which may increase the number of people

Edible crop harvest: + 4,600kcal/cap/day

Postharvest losses: - 600
4000
Animal feed: - 1,700
3000
2800
Meat anddairy: + 500

2000

Losses and waste in distribution
and households: - 800

Net availability for
consumption: + 2000

1000

Field

Fork

Figure 1. A schematical summary of the amount of food produced, globally, at field level and estimates of the losses, conversions
and wastage in the food chain. Source: Smil (2000). Illustration: Britt-Louise Andersson, SIWI.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

5

Photo: Mats Lannerstad

who are under nourished. Faced with this threat and with theescalating water scarcity and increased competition for land
and water resources for a range of uses, increases in waterproductivity are necessary especially in areas where production and productivity are low and where there is a need formore food and improved livelihood for the producers. But
it also makes sense to ensure that as much as possible of thefood produced is accessible for consumption across socialgroups of society.
Access to food is very much conditioned by socioeconomic
circumstances in society. Under nourishment is largely perpetuated by poverty and conflict. However, with losses andwastage in different stages of the food chain, the overall foodsecurity in society is compromised One reason for losses in
the food chain is an increasing distance between the places
where food is produced and where it is consumed. Whereas in
the past, many people produced their own food, now various
parts of our meal come from food grown in many places in
the world. Parallel and closely associated with this trend, isthe involvement of a growing number of actors and interests
along the food chain. Apart from farmers, transporters, store
keepers, food processing industry, shopkeepers, supermarkets,among others, are involved. We therefore need to look at the
stakeholders and drivers in various segments of the food chain
and to what extent interests either coincide or are at odds acrossmajor groups. Enhancing efficiency in one part of the chain,e.g. in production, can be nullified if losses and wastage occur,or increase, in other parts of the chain.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

6

All of these changes have implications on water resources.
More food is likely to come at a cost of more water use inagriculture. Further, distance to market, and a more complicated food chain and changes in composition and variety
of food supply, open the possibility of more food and water
wastage. Water will be a key constraint to food security, unless
we change the way we think and act about the whole chain,from production to consumption.

Key Issues for Policy Debate
Support to Farmers

Actions are needed to support farmers, especially small farmers, to curb losses of water and food and to facilitate that
their produce meets the growing demands for food as well asother agricultural commodities. Growing expectations on the
agricultural sector is an opportunity that needs to be properly
harnessed through:• Improved seeds, harvesting technologies, better transport and storage.
• Innovative ways to capture and beneficially use the rain
falling on farmers’ fields to increase the fraction of therains that can be productively used and to lessen stresses
on rivers and groundwater. With current practices andstrategies, a large fraction of the rainfall is lost in termsof unproductive evaporation in many parts of the world.
• Financial and institutional arrangements to realise productivity improvements.

• Co-management of land and water management, preferably in a basin context is much needed. In many cases,
government institutions do not integrate these two sectors.
Food Processing and Supply

The business community should take action to minimise water
wastage through reducing food wastage in their processing
and transport:• Benchmarking standards should be set by industry toindicate water use, including water use in the entire foodchain, not just in their factory.
• The business community should take action to minimisewater wastage through food wastage in their processing
and transport systems.
• Businesses can raise publicity about their water use, andthe need to save water.
Sensitise Consumers

We lack factual information about different types, size andimplications of losses and wastage of food. An important stepis therefore to improve knowledge:• International organisations, businesses and agencies
for research at national and international levels should
initiate studies that will reveal the different types andmagnitude of losses and wastage in the food chain in
different parts of the world, and identify steps that canbe taken to minimise these.
• Quantify information on the costs of losses and wastage
as well as what are the benefits and who will benefit witha reduction in losses and wastage. Costs and benefits
should be estimated in monetary terms but also in termsof water savings, environmental aspects and other suitable parameters.

A Strategy for Action
Governments, international organisations and NGOs have
major roles to play to drive the policy agenda and its implementation. Following the call from World Economic
Forum in January 2008 , it is appropriate that the resources
represented by the businesses are part of a coordinated action.
A suitable next step is the forming of a broad collaboration
across the business community and between the researchcommunity, the private sectors, NGOs, civil society andgovernment.
A consortium of policy makers, representatives from industry, academia and civil society could lead the way to design
effective, acceptable and practical actions to reduce losses andwastage by half by 2025.

Photo: Jan Lundqvist, SIWI

Raise awareness amongst consumers about the water implicationsof their diets, overeating and food wastage. We as consumers
need to be careful about food wastage in our homes. Over eating
and throwing food away is like leaving the tap running:• Raise awareness amongst consumers about the water
implications of their diets, overeating, and food wastage.
• Incentives and practical guidance and well designed
campaigns may be required to reduce food wastage in
our homes and how to combine home economics withsound food habits. Concrete examples of how to avoid or
reduce the throwing away of food need to be used.
• Explore the opportunities to include information oflosses and wastage as part of a labelling system or as
information on strategic consumer food items.

Basic Data and Information

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork7

1.1 Water Costs of Past Achievements
Remarkable improvements in food security have been one of
the most positive characteristics of development in large partsof the world over the last half a century. At the dawn of theGreen Revolution, at the beginning of the 1960s, the average
global crop yield was about 1.4 tonnes/hectare. Thirty years
later, in the mid-1990s, it had doubled to about 2.8 tonnes/
hectare (Molden et al, 2007 a). In the mid-1960s, total global
cereal production was about 0.9 billion tonnes, and in 1995
about 1.7 billion tonnes. The 2 billion tonne mark was passed
in 2004, when total cereal production was estimated at 2254.9
million tonnes (FAO, 2005).
Largely as a result of these developments, the number of under nourished people in the world has been reduced, in relative
and absolute terms, although there are signs of setbacks (FAO,
2006; von Braun, 2007). One reason for a slight increase in foodinsecurity recently is persistent and extreme poverty in combination with conflicts notably in parts of sub-Saharan Africa(Ahmed et al., 2007, cited in von Braun, 2007). Food insecurity
and hunger is, however, also experienced in rich countries.
Achievements in terms of an augmented food production
have come at a cost. Increased pressure on freshwater resources,
due in large part to the rapid expansion of irrigation systems,
has had repercussions on aquatic ecosystems (Falkenmark, etal., 2007) and for people in downstream areas. River basinsaround the world are closing, that is, there is no more water
for additional water allocations, because water has alreadybeen fully allocated, or even over-allocated (Falkenmark andMolden, 2008). But demand and competition for water continues to increase unabated, and concerns are being heard
from key people and organisations, including from the UN
Secretary-General and representatives of industry.1

1.2 Income Improvements andChanging Diets
Poverty reduction remains the number one development goal.
Economic development promotes poverty reduction and theprospects for this today are very bright. In the year 2000, 800
million people lived in regions with a mean annual GDP per
capita above USD 10,000. Economic growth projections basedon so called demographic dividend projections, where economic
behaviour is linked to age composition, foresee about 7 billion
people, or about 80 percent of the world’s population, living
in such regions by 2050 (Malmberg, 2007; Lind & Malmberg,2007). If the envisaged massive economic growth will unfold,a significant reduction of poverty is possible. It will makeconsiderable public and private investments in infrastructure,research and human development conceivable. It is an opportunity to build a better future for broad groups of people. A
vital question, however, here is how can the associated growthin demand be met and still reconciled with the concomitant
increased pressure on natural resources and the environment
during the coming decades? And how will the poor, who may
still be counted in hundreds of millions, be faring in a context

1
Water scarcity was a major issue at the World Economic Forum, Davos, January 2008, with no less than nine events addressing various consequences of worsening water stress. UN
Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, told the meeting: “What we did for climate change last year, we want to do for water and development this year” Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, Financial
Times, 25 January 2008 http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/jCoccSoRcsixtWCiaKqZvlHE?format=standard

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

8

Photo: Michael Moore, SIWI

1. Drivers of Food Demandof increasing resource pressure and competition? Experiencetells us that even at higher levels of income and consumption,
people tend to want more, knowingly or unknowingly about the
implications for natural resources and the environment. Apartfrom poverty alleviation, sustainable lifestyles are increasingly
an issue. Changes in diets towards an increasing demand formeat and seafood is one of the vital issues in such discussions(Jackson, 2008, Halweil and Nierenberg, 2008).
Even if rates of poverty are reduced, a very large segment of
the world’s population is still poor or extremely poor. Recent
price hikes on food is a most serious change for them. For thebillion plus of people who are forced to survive on the equivalentof an average per capita income of a dollar per day, a very largepart of their disposable money and resources are spent on foodand other basic necessities of life. For them, even comparatively
small increases in the price of food are causing extreme hardship.
On the other hand, a growing middle class in various parts of
the world contribute to increasing the demand for a range ofgoods, including food and other agricultural products. Pricesof commodities are naturally affected and what food items areproduced. People who are well off are comparatively less affectedby price hikes on food. To avoid widespread social unrest andnegative repercussions on inflation and the economy it is vitalfor Governments and international organisations to consider
the interests and concern of the population as a whole. At the
recent National People’s Congress in Beijing, Premier Wen
Jiabao promised that the government would boost productionof daily necessities such as grain, vegetable oil and meat and/or increase imports of consumer products that are in short supply (Wang 2008), with the twin objective to reduce threats ofinflation and dam up against social grievances.

With rising incomes and urbanisation, demand for foodwill increase. Furthermore, consumers’ tastes are changing
towards more nutritious and more diversified diets, which tend
to boost the consumptive use of water. A shift in consumption
patterns among cereal crops and away from cereals toward
animal products and high-value crops can be anticipated (CA ,2007) For example, in South East Asia rice supply peaked ataround 120 kg/capita/year during the 1980s while per capita
wheat demand more than tripled between 1961 and 2002 andis still increasing. Meat demand grew by a factor of 7, from 6
to 40 kg/capita/year. Demand for high-value crops – such as
fruit, sugar and edible oils – also increased substantially andprojected increases in demand vary from 70 percent to over
100 percent (Fraiture et al., 2007).
Changes in food habits as incomes rise are illustrated
in Figure 2 . The general trend is in favor of more nutritious and more diversified diets with a higher proportionof animal products and high-value crops and away from“traditional” cereals, e.g. various varieties of sorghum. There
are pronounced regional and cultural differences. Whilechanges in diets as a result of income growth follow similar
patterns, regional and cultural differences are pronounced –and may remain so for some time (Lundqvist et al., 2007).
For example, meat demand in (mostly vegetarian) India
rose much slower than in China, for comparable income
increases, but demand for milk products increased more
rapidly (Figure 2). Per capita supply of meat in India seems
to remain relatively low, projected at 15 kg/capita/year by
2050, while China is projected to supply six times more.
China’s meat demand is projected to be 83 kg/capita/yearby 2050 (de Fraiture et al., 2007).

China
India
USA

China
India
USA

Figure 2. Trends in meat and milk demands and GDP per capita in China, India and the USA (1961–2000). Source: GDP data from WorldBank WDI online; consumption data from FAOSTAT.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork9a large part of the livestock is typically fed on crop residues,
grazing lands and by-products from local sources, with lessthan 10 percent of grain supply is used for feed. This kindof integration between the cropping system and animal rearing, which is a characteristic feature in many small holder
systems, contributes to diversity of social and natural resource
use systems and can therefore be benign both with regards
to resilience and efficiency. These kinds of aspects must be
considered in discussions of how livestock will be fed in the
future (Peden et al, 2007).
In addition to uncertainties and opportunities on the supply
side, projections about the drivers of demand, like the growth
in GDP and income vary widely. The four emission scenariosof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,
2000), use estimates of GDP growth during the 21st century
that vary from a tenfold to a massive twenty-six-fold increase
compared to 2000 – a staggering multiplication in size of
the world economy. Similarly, there is a 2.5 times difference
between the most optimistic and most pessimistic income
projections for 2050 in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005). On a per capita basis, world real incomes may rise by
4.5 times by 2050 (Sachs, 2008).
Admitting that the pace and magnitude of economic growthcannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty, there is
still a widespread view that the world economy, including
most economies in Asia, Latin America and large parts ofAfrica, will continue to expand (Lind and Malmberg, 2007).
Even if GDP projections are based on purchasing power parity
calculations, the future effective demand for food and the mix
of food items is extremely difficult to assess. It is, however,plausible that the economic factor is potentially a more forcefuldriver than population growth per se.

Photo: Getty Images

Cereal demand projections are in the range of 2,800–3,200
million tonnes by 2050, an increase of 55–80 percent comparedwith today. Much of the future increase will be fed to animals
to satisfy the demand for meat (Fraiture et al., 2007). Today
some 650 million tonnes of grain – nearly 40 percent of global
production – is fed to livestock, and this may reach 1100 million tonnes by 2050.
Although general trends toward more diversified and meatbased diets are well documented (e.g. Molden et al, 2007
a; Steinfeld et al., 2007), considerable uncertainties remain
regarding some of the major factors driving future food composition and feed requirements. Projections for world meat
demand are uncertain, varying from 375 to 570 million tonnes
by 2050, that is, an increase of 70 –160 percent compared to2000 (Fraiture et al., 2007). Environmental concerns andemerging health problems related to obesity may promote
counter trends, particularly in high-income countries. But
the problem of overweight and obesity is increasing in otherparts of the world, too.2 Outbreaks of diseases such as madcow disease and avian flu, together with the industrial natureof meat production, may deter some people from increasing
meat consumption.
Much uncertainty surrounds the feed grain requirements
per kg of meat, milk and eggs. In many parts of the world
there is the potential to increase the efficiency of feed systems(Peden et al, 2007; Wirsenius et al., forthcoming). Livestock are
fed by a combination of grazing, crop residues, and feedstuffs(primarily grains). In OECD countries, where cattle are raisedlargely on feed grains, two-thirds of average grain production isdevoted to cattle feed, some of which is imported. In contrast
to an industrial character of agriculture that is expanding inmany parts of the world, in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia

2
Reliable statistics are hard to find about the situation and trends of overweight and obesity and their causes. In a newspaper article in 2007, almost 40% of the population of Malaysia are obese
according to the Health Minister Mr Chua Soi Lek. In an effort to deal with the epidemic, the Government is considering a “sin tax” on junk food in line with the tax on alcohol. International Herald
Tribune, 16 February 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/17/asia/AS-GEN-Malaysia-Fast-Food-Ban.php

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

10

Photo: Mats Lannerstad

1.3 Diets and Water
What kind of food is demanded and how much, determine
to a large extent how water for agriculture is allocated andused. As elaborated in chapter 3, it is most relevant to also
make a distinction between the amount of food demanded
and bought, or otherwise acquired, on the one hand, and theamount of food actually eaten, on the other. Food supply
directly translates into consumptive water use, that is, howmuch water is transpired and evaporated from the field during the production of a specific amount of food (see Molden
et al, 2007b for a discussion). Unlike water use in industry,
the high proportion of consumptive use in agriculture meansthat this water is effectively lost for re-use or re-circulation
in society, that is, until it returns as precipitation. Consumptive use means that the ability to respond to water demandfor other activities is inevitably reduced. Generally, water
resources in areas located downstream of a consumptive use
area are negatively affected.
What do the envisaged changes in diet mean for water
demand? While estimates of water requirements for cropand livestock products vary widely, most studies agree on themain points. Higher value crops, such as sugar and vegetables,
typically require more water per calorie than staple cereal
crops. Meat and dairy production is more water-intensive
than crop production. For example, 500–4,000 liters of water
are evaporated in producing one kilogram of wheat, depending on climate, agricultural practices, variety, length of thegrowing season and yield. However, to produce one kilogramof meat takes 5,000–20,000 liters, mainly to grow animal feed.
In terms of the energy content of food, approximately 0.5 m3
of water is needed to produce 1,000 kcal of plant-based food,3

while for animal-based food, some 4 m3 of water is required(Falkenmark and Rockström, 2004).
The production of meat from animals fed on irrigatedcrops has a direct impact on water resources, much more sothan if the meat is derived from grazing animals and animals
fed on residues. Irrigation water, withdrawn from rivers orother water bodies and returned back to the atmosphere bycrop consumptive use, will not be available for cities, industry or the environment. As noted above, projections suggest
a doubling in the amount of grain used for feed upto 2050
from rainfed and irrigated systems. The amount of cereals
used today for feed varies between regions, ranging from 20
percent in sub-Saharan Africa to 70 percent in OECD countries(FAOSTAT, 2000).
Food preferences, such as the ratio between plant- and animalbased products, vary greatly between countries at the same levelof GDP/capita (Figure 3). This means that there are very different
implications for water demand in different countries.

1.4 A Bleak Water Future?
If diet continues to be correlated with income, as in Figure 3,
water requirements will increase significantly in the future asa result of GDP growth. Researchers agree that per capita foodsupply and the share of animal-based food items in the foodbasket are both increasing (e.g. Bruinsma, 2003; Fraiture etal, 2007; Steinfeld et al., 2007, McMichael et al., 2006). In richcountries, food supply is currently well above 3,000 kcal/capita/
day with an animal food fraction of about a third, whereas
the global average food supply is about 2,800 kcal. In poor
countries, both food supply and the fraction of animal-based
foods are significantly lower (FAO, Food Balance Sheets ).3

http://faostat.fao.org/site/502/default.aspx

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

11

Figure 3. Consumptive use of water for food supply as a function of GDP (Lundqvist et al., 2007). PPP: purchasing power parity. Source:
GDP data from the World Bank (2006); food supply data from FAOSTAT (2006).
Regional groups: DEVD =transition countries Europe, EA=East Asia, EURA=transition and developing former USSR, LEC=Latin America
and Caribbean, NAF=North Africa, OECD =Members of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, SA=South Asia,
SEA=South-East Asia, SSAF=Sub-Sahara Africa, WA=West Asia, Sislands=Small Islands.

It takes enormous amounts of water to produce our food.
Yearly some 7,000 km3 of water4 are evaporated and transpiredin connection with the production of crops to meet the global
food demand at the beginning of this century. Assuming a
projected high level of average food supply of 3,000 kcal/capita/
day, with 20 percent animal and 80 percent plant food, theconsumptive water use will be above 3 m3/capita/day – 1,300
m3/capita/year, (Falkenmark and Rockström (2004). Similarly,
the Comprehensive Assessment (CA , 2007) estimated that
cereal and water demands could both double with present
production practices by the year 2050. Considering water
scarcity constraints, it’s vitally important to consider what are
realistic levels of food production and the desirable levels andcomposition of food consumption. Depending on how foodis produced, and assumptions on population and diet, futurewater requirements to meet food demand by 2050 have been
estimated at between 10,000 to 13,500 km3/year (de Fraiture
et al., 2007; Lundqvist et al., 2007).
The increase in water needed to meet the demand forfood is a major concern given the growing water scarcity
and related environmental problems in many parts of theworld. Already 1.4 billion people live in places where water isphysically scarce (CA , 2007). Another 1.5 billion people livein places where water is available in nature but infrastructure
to access it is lacking.
It’s probable that if today’s food production and consumption and environmental trends continue, crises will occur inmany parts of the world (CA , 2007). The challenges become
even greater when we include newly emerging issues such as
climate change and its implications for water variability andscarcity, and the demand for agricultural produce for bioenergy and industry.
Improvements of water productivity and agricultural
productivity in general, are therefore urgent and necessary.
Similarly, reductions of losses and wastage in the food chain
could significantly contribute to ensure a reasonable diet fora growing population over the next 50 years. It is not possible
to tell how much more food can be produced from our land
and water resources, but the cost and effort has to enhance
production will have to be inceased. As discussed under 2.4,
below, land and water will be demanded also for other purposes than food.

4
Each year, on average about 110,000 km3 of rain falls on the earth’s surface. A large part of this infiltrates and forms the green water resource (see Box 4) and another part results in about 40,000
km3of streamflow, which is a major part of the blue water resource, Geographic and temporal variation is considerable. The fraction of streamflow that can be withdrawn depends on a number ofcircumstances and development objectives. Currently some 4,500 km3 are withdrawn with about 2,700 km3 for irrigation systems. This can be compared with an estimated 7,000 km3 or slightly
more that are evapotranspired in the process of total food production, i.e. from irrigated and rainfed land.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork12

2. A New Type of Water Scarcity
2.1 Climate Change Amplifies Water
Scarcity

Photo: Mats Lannerstad

Climate change will radically change conditions for cultivation. In the context of rising populations and fast-growing
economies, these changes need to be considered in the quest
for food and water security.
Agricultural production will be significantly affected by a
combination of changes in the pattern of rainfall and higher
temperatures (IPCC, 2007). Even small temperature increases(1–2°C), will reduce potential yields and overall food production in the tropics and sub-tropics. IPCC scenarios suggest thatclimate change will affect 75–250 million people in Africa,
where potential yields in rainfed systems in some areas may
decline by up to 50 percent by 2020 (IPCC, 2007). Agriculture
in countries in Central, South and South East Asia, which
are largely dependent on river water for irrigation will be hit
by a projected drop in river levels (IPCC, 2007).
Scenarios do, however, vary in the literature and in official statements. For densely-populated areas in South Asiaand southern Africa, Lobell et al. (2008), estimated thatsizeable reductions in potential yields of major crops arelikely. Effective mitigation or adaptation measures need
to be implemented to counter the likely effects of climatechange. For instance, if agricultural practices do not drastically change, potential reductions in maize production may
be in the order of about a third by 2030. In areas that are
already susceptible to food insecurity and where population
will continue to grow, this is a drastic scenario. Dr Jacques
Diouf, Director-General of FAO5, has recently warned of a
5 percent decline in cereal production in many developing
countries by 2020, and that some countries may lose a muchhigher percentage of their cereal harvest. According to Dr
Diouf, 65 countries, representing about half of the world’s
population, will experience falls in cereal production. Amongthe most severely hit will be India, losing 18 percent of its
current cereal harvest.
At the same time, yields are far below their potential inmany areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The figures
just quoted should therefore not be interpreted as a predictionof a real reduction in yields. A major climate change adaptation measure is to harness this potential through improved
integrated land and water management practices and to regain
the momentum of support to agricultural research and activities. In this manner the predicted negative effects of climatechange could be countered.

On the other hand, in temperate zones, a temperature
increase of 1–3°C may improve conditions for agriculture(IPCC, 2007). Climate change is therefore likely to accentuateregional differences in preconditions for agricultural production and food security.
Food security can be achieved through a combination of
local and domestic production and imports in combination
with a more efficient food chain management. Given the above
scenarios, local and national food self-sufficiency will be increasingly difficult unless effective measures are implemented.
The possibility to produce food for a growing population
will be significantly curtailed. Rockström et al. (2008) haveassessed how many countries will be able to produce food fortheir populations at 3,000 kcal/capita/day (20 percent animal
and 80 percent plant food) by 2050. The assessment was basedon a dynamic global vegetation and water model (Gerten etal. 2004) and the IPCC ’s A2 scenario6 (IPCC, 2000). About

5
Statement by Dr Jacques Diouf at a conference organised by the Swedish International Development Agency “Climate change, food security and poverty reduction. Ensuring food security
by adapting to climate change” (http://www.fao.org/english/dg/2007/sida.htm).
6
The underlying theme of the A2 storyline is self-reliance, a continuously increasing global population and relatively slow per capita economic growth (IPCC, 2000).

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

13

one-third of the projected population of 10.5 billion will beliving in water-abundant countries where such productionlevels would be possible. But most will be in countries suffering various degrees of water constraint. More than half the
population could be in countries with severe water constraints(too dry and with difficulties of expanding irrigation). Thesewater-constrained countries include China, India, Ethiopia,
Egypt, Iran, Jordan and Pakistan (Rockström et al., 2008).
We therefore need to consider realistic levels of future foodsupply with regard to production constraints, on the one hand,and consumption requirements, on the other.

2.2 Variability in Water More Pronounced
Climate change will increase risk and unpredictability forthe farmer. Extreme events will occur more often and hightemperatures will speed up the flow of water back to theatmosphere, disrupting the water balance. But variability is
nothing new to farmers. Throughout history, the monsoon in
Asia has had devastating effects and the climate has dictatedlivelihoods in the tropics and sub-tropics. Box 1 gives an account of serious water scarcity in two districts of Tamil Nadu,
southern India that resulted in famine, sickness and death 17
times over 100 years from 1804.

Box 1. In the Farmer’s Field, There is No Such Thing As an Average
At the global, regional, and local level, water availability and rain
is usually given as an average value. However, the average isn’t
usually the real water availability that the farmer has to deal
with. In tropical monsoon climates, in particular, the average
often conceals considerable annual or seasonal variations; an
example being agriculture in Coimbatore and Erode Districts,
in Tamil Nadu, southern India. The area relies mainly on theunpredictable and erratic northeastern monsoon of October–
December, characterised by cyclones, and short and heavy
downpours. In historical records the area is described as “of
exceptional dryness” where the marked variation in rainfall
resulted in a situation where “not less than two-thirds of theseasons” were “unfavourable” (Madras Presidency, 1902).
During the years 1804–05, 1806, 1808, 1812, 1813, 1823,
1831, 1832, 1834, 1836, 1861, 1866, 1876–78, 1891–92,
1892–93, 1894–95, 1904–05 and 1905–06 the area experienced serious water scarcity and these years were describedas times of “scarcity, desolation and disease” or “famine, sickness and death”. In 1808 failure of both monsoons caused afamine “that carried off half the population”, while the “TheGreat Famine” in 1876–78 is described as “more disastrous in
effect than any of its predecessors” (Madras Presidency, 1902;

Balinga, 1966 p. 17). Famines continued to occur during thefirst half of the 20 th century.
Immediately after independence in 1947 the new National
Government sanctioned the construction of the Lower Bhavani
Reservoir (capacity 900 Mm3) across the Bhavani River. The
river is the only reliable, perennial surface water resource in thearea and the dam is supposed to even out variation in flow andhold sufficient water for one year. But as shown in Figure 4, theriver flow and thus the inflow to the reservoir vary greatly. Overtime, there is a tendency of reduction in average flow/inflow.
Despite the reservoir, a large part of the farmers in the Lower
Bhavani Project Command Area (84,000 ha) do therefore notreceive the amounts of irrigation water they were supposedto get. In fact, they regularly receive less water than they hadplanned (or hoped) for. Over the last 90 years (before andafter dam construction), the flow at the reservoir site showsthat there is no such a thing as an average in terms of river
flow for an individual year. Even during years with the sameannual flow, monthly and daily variations can result in peakinflows that overflow the reservoir, with less water available
to distribute over the cropping year than the average would
seem to imply.

Figure 4. Flow at the site of Lower Bhavani Reservoir, Tamil Nadu, India (1917–2005). Sources: pers. comm. Executive Engineer, PWD(Public Works Department), Bhavanisagar, Tamil Nadu, India, 2004-2006; Government of Madras (1965).

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

14

Photo: Getty Images

2.3 Water Scarcity: Competition andEnvironmental Concerns
Present production patterns are unsustainable in many places:
for instance, they involve overexploitation of groundwater,
and appropriation of stream flow resulting in widespreadriver depletion and damage to aquatic ecosystems, fisheries
and biodiversity (CA , 2007, Postel, 1999). About 1.4 billion
people live in closed basins, that is, where all water flow (for an
average year) is already committed and where environmental
flow is not considered. In addition, pollution from agriculturalchemicals and hormones, water logging and salinisation posethreats both to the environment and to crop production.
Reduction in water bodies and changes in water flow
affect aquatic ecosystems in several ways (Smakhtin et al.,
2004; Smakhtin and Anputhas, 2006; Falkenmark et al.,2007; Molle et al., 2007). River depletion and changes inhydrologic regimes by dam building disrupt downstream
aquatic ecosystems. Groundwater over-exploitation damages
groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Overuse or unwise use ofnutrients and agricultural chemicals affect both aquatic andterrestrial ecosystems due to polluted return flow from crop
lands. Drainage of wetlands for agricultural use leads to loss ofhabitat and affects ecosystem characteristics such as fisheries,
flood retention and groundwater recharge. Changes in thesecharacteristics can have severe consequences for the poor who
depend on ecosystems for their livelihoods.
Growing demand for water increases competition and/or
the cost to supply water. With rapid urbanisation, the agricultural sector will increasingly compete for water with theurban sector. Substantial trans-basin diversion schemes havebeen planned or are being constructed (e.g. Three Gorgesin China, or the Linking Rivers project in India). Competition for water from the urban sector means increasing water
stress for farmers and the rural sector since economic, socialand political arguments for increasing supply to urban areas

will be hard to counter. At the same time, urban expansion
intensifies demand for food and other agricultural produce.
Growing numbers of urban dwellers enjoy increased disposable incomes, part of which will be spent on food and otheragricultural produce. The demand for agricultural products
will not only accelerate but will also be more varied. Apartfrom food, the urban sector demands raw materials for industry, commercial products and bioenergy. All of thesedemands present the receptive farmer with new opportunities. Some of these new products fetch a higher price thanstaple food crops, so these new opportunities may stimulate
investments in rural areas, including investments in the watersector. Even if these efforts and investments will improve
performance in the agricultural sector, food production will
have to compete with other agricultural products. Improved
food security for a growing world population will remain atremendous challenge.

2.4 Land and Water for Bioenergy
and other Non-food Produce
Although we think of food as the most important agricultural product, there is a marked increase in demand for otherproducts, which will compete for land and water resources,
investments, manpower, etc. (Rosegrant et al. 2008). With
the price of oil currently (mid 2008) close to the 140 dollar
per barrel level, the “peak oil” discussion, and geopoliticaland climate change concerns attached to a reliance on fossil
fuels, an increased demand for bioenergy is expected (Berndes
2002). For farmers, a more diversified and increasing demand
is an opportunity after of a long period of falling prices paid
for staple food items.
Biomass is an important source of energy in developing
countries, mainly combustion of wood and agricultural residues, with severe negative impacts. The combustion in confined spaces leads to indoor air pollution to which women

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

15

and children are primarily exposed with severe health consequences, including respiratory illnesses and premature death(WHO 2002). There is a strong motive to substantially improveand increase the supply of energy services in developing countries (Takada and Porcaro 2005, UNDP 2005).
One of the consequences of an expansion of bioenergy
is a significant increase in the pressure on land and water

resources (see Box 2). During the coming decades, the waterrequirements for bioenergy may add substantially to the total
water requirements. Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa
are among the regions commonly suggested to become major
biofuel suppliers on a prospective global biofuel market. It is
well motivated to investigate the consequences of large biofuel
production levels in these regions (Figure 5).

Box 2. Bioenergy, Food and Water Pressure
The present global energy system is dominated by the useof fossil fuels with environmental effects such as eutrophication, acidification and climate change. Around the world, foodproduction also relies to various degrees on fossil fuels andpetroleum-based chemicals, including synthetic fertilisers.
Concerns about human-induced climate change and oil/gas import dependency drive the search for radical changes
in the global energy system. There are compelling argumentsfor keeping atmospheric CO2 concentrations below 400 ppm.
Assuming a global population of 10 billion people in 2100, average global emissions would need to drop to about 0.2 tonnesof carbon per capita per year. This is below the prevailing level
in India today. At the same time, global energy consumption

is expected to more than double during the 21st century.
Possible future energy sources include solar and windenergy, bioenergy, nuclear fission and fusion, and fossil fuelswith carbon capture and sequestration. Bioenergy ranks as oneof the few technological options capable of tackling climatechange today. However, it is not the panacea for solving futureenergy systems.
Biofuels for transport (mainly ethanol and biodiesel) atpresent use traditional starch, sugar and oil crops. Second
generation biofuels (e.g. Fischer Tropsch fuels, dimethyl ether
and lignocellulose-based ethanol) will become increasinglycompetitive when more abundant and cheaper lignocellulosic
feedstocks can be used..

Figure 5. Estimated water requirements for food today and hypothetical water requirements for food and bioenergy around year
2050. The vertical axis is crop evapotranspiration in km3/year. It is assumed that lignocellulosic crops will mainly be used forbioenergy with an average water use efficiency (WUE) of 2.5 kg biomass per m3 of evapotranspiration. This is a high average WUE
compared to that presently achieved for agricultural crops. However, calculations are based on a possible situation almost 50 years
ahead, when WUE will likely be higher than today as a result of plant breeding and improved agronomic practices. See Lundqvist
et al. (2007) for further information.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

16

Photo: Getty Images

It is relevant to note that although bioenergy may becomea major component in the future pressure on land and water
resources there are other important drivers as well. As discussed above, the demand for animal based food products issignificantly adding to overall water pressure. Concerning thebioenergy sector, there are considerable uncertainties about
its role in the future. The biomass use for energy7 assumed in
Figure 5 is not very high compared to the supply potentials
reported in various resource assessments focusing on landrather than water as the constraining factor.
An important question is also where the production of
biomass for energy purposes can and will expand. Dependingon the type of feedstock, it is possible to cultivate biomass forenergy purposes in areas where conventional food production
is not feasible, for instance, due to water constraints. Such a
strategy is, for example, being attempted in parts of India
where about 13 million hectares of wasteland are being earmarked for cultivation of feedstocks that can grow in areas
with a low rainfall, e.g. Jatropha and sweat sorghum (Wani,pers. Com. 2008). Another important option is efforts topromote multi-functional production and social systems. In
Brazil, for instance, efforts are made to combine crops forbioenergy, sugarcane, and other agricultural produce, e.g. milk
production through arrangements for small farmers (Sparovek

et al., 2007). For farmers and rural communities, an enhanced
demand for their produce provides an opportunity and could
stimulate investments in rural development. Tenure, access tocredits and markets to cater for social development objectives
will be very important.
Social and environmental challenges and opportunities
must be continuously identified and evaluated. For example,
analysing the water implications of increased production of
biofuels for transport for selected countries/regions (de Fraiture
et al., 2008) found that globally, irrigation is not likely to bea major water source for biofuel production (at the assumed
production levels, which varied among regions and globallyreached 7.5 percent of transport fuel use by 2030). But locally,
it could cause severe water stress. Using irrigation for biofuel
production would add significantly to the water stress incontexts where water availability is constrained but where
food cultivation is possible.
Other non-food crops (such as cotton) occupy only 3 percent of the cropped area, and 9 percent of the irrigated area
(Molden et al. 2007 a). Even if the importance of cotton andother non-food crops were to increase in the future, whichmight be good for the farmer, in terms of resource pressure
these crops are comparatively much less significant than food,feed and biomass for energy purposes.

7
About 86 EJ per year (EJ, or exajoule, is equal to 1018 joules), which can be compared to the 390 EJ (60 GJ/capita) of fossil fuels that were commercially traded globally in 2005 (BP 2007)..
Projections about energy demand in the future vary substantially: for 2050 ranging from about 800 EJ to 2,000 EJ. Modelling studies of long range energy system development commonly
see biomass use for energy reaching several hundred EJ per year (BP 2007. Statistical review of world energy 2007. (http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview)

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

17

Photo: Frida Lanshammar

2.5 Under Nourishment and Over
Eating: Changing Perspectives on
Food Security
Discussions about food security refer either to the amountof food supply, usually at national level, or the nutritional
requirements. The common denominator is the objective tominimise the risk of under nourishment. According to the 1996
Rome Declaration: “Food security exists when all people, at
all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safeand nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” (FAO, 1996). Naturally,
the food requirements vary depending age, physical activity
etc. The most commonly used international norm for foodsecurity refers to a food supply where the energy requirementsof the national populations are supposed to be met. In addition to the energy requirements, a proper diet must containessential proteins and micro-nutrients. Figures about dietaryenergy requirements vary in literature, but a common reference is to a national average food supply of 2,700 kcal/capita/
day. Slightly higher figures have also been used, 2,800 (CA ,2007) and 3,000 (Bruinsma, 2003).
An analysis of food supply data8 and the incidence of under
nourishment in the world reveal a direct and linear reductionin the number of under nourished people with increased foodsupply. The risk that some of the population may be under
nourished is very low if food supply is approaching 3,000 kcal/
capita/day (SEI, 2005); this comparatively high level of foodsupply corresponds to projections in FAO reports (Bruinsma,
2003).
While the risk of under nourishment is reduced with increasing supply of food – provided that access is ensured – therisk for over eating and wastage is likely to increase when foodbecomes more abundant in society. With the very high levelsof food wastage in society and the large number of people whoare suffering from being overweight or obese, it is time to pay
attention to not only under nourishment but also overeating
and wastage. It is important to differentiate between figuresthat refer to food supply and figures that refer to intake orconsumption of food. Generally, the amount of food produced
must be higher than the amount of food supplied, which inturn must be higher than food consumed. From a nutritional
point of view, the energy intake should be about 1,900 –2,200kcal/capita/day (FAO, 1996; Schäfer-Elinder, 2005; Smil, 2000;
MSSRF, 2002). A sound diet must, of course, also contain othernutritional components. If energy intake is lower, the risk ofunder nourishment increases9 and if it is higher, the risk ofoverweight and obesity increases. Consequently, level of foodsupply and composition of diets have direct consequences
for water pressure and the environment as well as for public

8
The most comprehensive database for such calculations is FAO’s Food Balance Sheets (see note 3), which provide information for individual countries on production, net exports or imports
and non-food use of food. Quality of data depends on reports from the individual country. These sets of data can be used to estimate the supply of food on a country basis. They do not,however, show how much food is lost, wasted or eaten.
9
For the poor and under nourished, the need of increased access to and intake of food up to a certain basic level is an overriding issue. Attempts have been made to estimate what is the Minimum Dietary Energy Requirement. According to FAO, for instance, these estimates vary from 1,730 to about 2000 kcal/capita/day for various countries (http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/Files/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls). In MSSRF (2002) it is mentioned that an average food intake that is 70% of the international norm for food security, i.e. 0.7 x2700 = 1890 kcal/capita, day may be acceptable. What is generally acceptable must be related to nutritional and medical criteria. It is also related to the age and occupational structure of the
population, among other things. Smil (2000) provides examples showing that food intake at levels below 2000 kcal/capita/day have not resulted in documented signs of under nourishment.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork18

is currently a problem managing a food surplus rather than ashortage, while at the same time there are large numbers ofunder nourished people (Gaikwad et al., 2004).
At the other end of the spectrum, the number of overweight
and obese people is an increasing problem, not only in developed
countries but also in developing countries. The reasons foroverweight and obesity are complex. A high intake of energy
dense foods is, however, one of the factors. Globally, there areroughly 50 percent more people who are overweight and obese(1.2 billion) than there are malnourished (860 million). Overeating together with wastage of food contribute to natural
resource depletion and has environmental implications, forinstance, in terms of green house gas emissions. As discussed
in sections 3.2 to 3.5 below, it is important to recognise that
all food that is produced, whether it is consumed, wasted ornot, has consumed water and contributed to pressure on othernatural resources. Overeating leads to poor health and increased
costs to individuals, family and society. Food security is thus
not only a matter of food production or food supply.
Discussions about food security must rightly focus onaccess to food. It is relevant to address the problems related
to the proportion of the food from cereals and other plant
based foods and food derived from animals. While livestock
products and fish are important in a nutritious diet, in many
countries the consumption of livestock products, sugar andoil is significantly higher than what is required for humanhealth. In other countries, this part of the diet is quite low(McMichael et al., 2007; cf. Figure 2 above). Apart from thehigh consumptive use of water for livestock products, they also
contribute significantly to the generation of greenhouse gas
emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2007; McMichael et al., 2007).
Emerging challenges related to sustainable resource management and changing perspectives on food security mean thata narrow focus on production and food supply is no longer
valid. A broader view incorporating the full chain from foodproduction to consumption is warranted.

Photo: lker, SXC

health. It is therefore very important to look at the critical link
between production and supply and the actual food intake(please see chapter 3).
Food supply refers to the amount of food available on themarket, and also to food supplied through other channels,
including schools, hospitals and other public distribution
systems. Socioeconomic factors mean that access can varysignificantly between groups of people, also within a household. Even if there is sufficient food available in society, formany people access is restricted mainly because of poverty
and conflicts in society. In countries or regions where lackof water or other factors prevent food production, access canbe secured through imports, i.e. if the means and conditions
make imports possible. Poverty implies that purchasing andbargaining power is limited.
An estimated 830 – 850 million people in the world are under
nourished (FAO, 2006) primarily because members of the household do not have the means to buy food or are unable to growthe food they need. There is a striking correlation between areas
with a high proportion of under nourished people and a highproportion of the population who are extremely poor, indicatingthat poverty means that people do not have the means to produce
for themselves nor can they afford to purchase the food theyneed (Lundqvist 2008). Similarly, there is a correlation between
areas with a dry climate and water scarcity and the level of under
nourishment (Falkenmark and Rockström, 2004).
Surprisingly, food insecurity is most prevalent among rural
populations (von Braun, 2007), that is, in areas where food is,or could be, produced. A relatively large percentage of the foodproducers are net buyers of food. Recent increases in the priceof food as well as inputs that are necessary for food production
will therefore hit a wide spectrum of people. Even with a publicdistribution system in place and food available in stores, there
may be people who are food insecure. This is the case in India
where food grains have accumulated in the godowns of the Food
Corporation of India. In the Public Distribution System, there

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork19

3. Taking a Food Chain Perspective:
From Field to Fork
The emerging challenges facing the food sector include growing water scarcity, unacceptably high levels of under nourishment, and at the same time the proliferation of people who
are overweight or obese and of food that is lost or wasted insociety. All these challenges mean that a narrow perspective onfood security in terms of production and supply is no longer
sufficient. It’s time to take a broader perspective incorporating
the steps from growing crops in the field to consuming a mealat home, that is, a field to fork perspective.

3.1 Stages and Actors in the Food Chain
There are many stages and actors in the chain from producing crops in the field to consuming a meal at home or in a
restaurant (Figure 6).
At the beginning of the chain are the farmers producing
the crops. Crop production takes place under many different
climatic and socioeconomic regimes, so the efficiency of wateruse (irrigation and rainwater) varies enormously. At the nextstage the crops are harvested, where a range of harvesting
techniques are used, from manual to highly mechanised. In
rural areas of poor countries, typically households themselves process food for immediate or later consumption. But
generally, the links between production and consumption
have become quite complex with many actors and interests

Tpe of Loss

Activities

6a

Key Issue for Policy

6b

Food Production
Crop
cultivation

Water
lossesHarvestCrop
LossesFood Production
Waterand landmanagement
practices

Technical andmanagement
issuesinvolved. A significant stage in the food chain dynamics consists of converting vegetal feed items into livestock products.
The production of animal-based produce, such as meat andmilk, requires different amounts of water depending on theparticular animal and the feeding strategy. Different animal
species have different conversion rates. Producing 1 kg of beefmeat requires roughly 8 kgs of feed, while 1 kg of chicken
meat requires only a couple of kgs of feed. As a global average, about 40 percent of total global cereal production is fed
to animals to produce meat, milk, cheese and other foods
derived from animals. Converting vegetal to animal foods
means a substantial ‘loss’ of energy.
Storage is necessary to balance supply and demand over time
and to withstand the climate and other factors, such as pests
and trade limitations, which can influence food availability
in a country or region. A characteristic feature of economic
development and urbanisation is that, increasingly, food is notconsumed in same place as it is produced. A decreasing fraction of the world’s population is involved in the primary foodproduction, i.e. at farm level (SIWI et al. 2005). In developing
countries, food is typically transported over relatively shortdistances. With globalisation and with decreasing transport
costs, food is increasingly transported around the world, involving different transport companies using different modes oftransport. Another trend is the development of food industries,

Processing and Distibution
Vegetal foods

Storage, transport,
processing, packing

Feed animal foods

Storage, transport,
processing, packing

Conversion losses

Distribution losses
and spoilage
during storage andprocessing

Processing and Distibution
Choice of productionof animal foods orvegetarian foods

Technical
infrastructure

Food Supply

Consumption Unit

Access:Food exposure,
Food purchase;
Food outlets andsuper- markets

Storage,
Cooking,
Consumption,
Throwing food away

Spoilage andWastage

Wastage,
Overeating

Food Supply

Consumption Unit

Business marketing,Food regulation,
Consumer behaviour

Individual andcollective consumer
behaviour

Figure 6. Schematical overview of losses and wastage in the main stages of the food chain (6a), and factors contributing to theselosses and wastage (6b).

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

20

Photo: Stephanie Blenckner, SIWI

meaning that food often goes through several processing steps
in different factories before being marketed. Supermarkets play
an increasing role in this regard. In this new context, the difficulties of the small producer to get access to market channels
tend to increase (Reardon et al. 2003; Dugger, 2004).
Rising incomes, urbanisation and the felt need for convenience in food preparation and the quest for variety, havepromoted the role of food-processing industries, and increased
the importance of packaging. With an increasing distancefrom sites of production to where food is marketed, it becomes
rational to prolong the life span of perishable products andensure that the quality and appearance of food items willcorrespond that what consumers have come to expect. Once
food is processed and packaged, it is marketed in local shops
and supermarkets. Big supermarkets offer the consumer awide range of foods, but not all perishable products can besold before their expiry date. With consumers increasingly
concerned about food safety and demanding high quality
fresh produce, this inevitably leads to food being thrown awayeven before it’s sold and often while it is still perfectly fit foreating. This is a bigger problem in developed than in developing countries. However, with improved living standards andchanges in attitudes, habits and living conditions, and withmore food outlets like supermarkets, the problem is increasing
in developing countries, too.
The final stage in the food chain is a combination of consumption at home, in restaurants and in institutions (suchas schools, offices and hospitals) and a discard of part of thefood in terms of through aways.
Because more and more of the world’s population are moving out of agriculture and into urban centers, the food chain
is becoming longer and more complex. The increasing com-

plexity in distribution and supply systems and the increasing
geographical distances between production and consumption
are natural and driven by consumers’ expectations of variety
and convenience. At the same time, the increasing demand
for animal products, fruits, vegetables and other sensitiveand perishable food items, leads to an increased risk of loss,
in both quality and quantity. For many food items that are inincreasingly high demand, it may be a matter of days before
quality declines and they become less attractive. Apart frombeing less attractive, other concerns, such as public health,environmental and ethical issues, are becoming increasingly
important in the food chain. Stricter rules and labelling offood in combination with consumers’ increasingly exacting
standards mean that part of the food supply will remain unsold
or be withdrawn (Box 3).
Production by farmers will, of course, continue to be a vital
precondition for food supply to meet increasing demand, but
due to resource constraints and the demand for land and waterfor other types of agricultural products, it is essential that thefield to fork chain is as efficient as possible.
For a proper analysis of food security, the complexity of thefood chain may be reduced to four important levels:• the amount of food produced, that is, at the field level• the amount of food available on the market, that is, theproduce “at the field level” minus losses before the foodreaches the shop or supermarket, losses during conversion from vegetal to animal foods, plus/minus changes instocks, that is, the food supply• the amount demanded or bought by households, public
institutions and other buyers• the actual intake of food, that is, the amount of foodeaten.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

21

The first level refers to the amount of food in terms ofedible crops. Since about 40 percent of the crops are used for
feed, and some are lost through poor harvesting technologies, transport and storage deficiencies, the supply of food tothe market is much less than the food at the field level, but
it is typically more varied than the produce at the field level.
Because of wastage in the retail chain, and in restaurants andhouseholds, the amount of food that people actually eat ismuch less than that produced.
Many food demand projections and major food databases
such as FAOSTAT does not distinguish between these fourphases. Consumption or “national average apparent foodconsumption” are often-used concepts when, in fact, foodsupply would be the appropriate term. The figures used areusually derived from Food Balance Sheets and refer to foodsupply rather than actual food intake (e.g. in Bruinsma, 2003).
Yet, because of the losses along the food chain, quantities
coming from the field are very different from quantities supplied, which, in turn, are different from the amount of foodactually consumed.

3.2 Losses, Spoilage, Conversions andWastage
Reductions in the amount of food between the field to the fork
are of quite different kinds. In the literature, various concepts
are used for these kinds of reductions.
Losses generally refer both to quantitative and qualitative reductions in the amount of and the value of the food.

5000

At the field level, part of the crop is lost due to rodents, pest
and diseases. Similarly, a part of the produce is lost duringtransport and storage due to the same type of problems. Poor
water and land management will increase the risk for water
losses. The lack of effective harvesting, transport and storage
technologies will augment the losses at the farm level andduring latter stages in the food chain.
In this report, we have also argued that part of the rainwater resource that is potentially available for food production
is lost in terms of unproductive evaporation.
Spoilage is another term used to highlight problems withthe harvested crops and other food items during transport,
storage, processing and packaging.
Conversion refers to the use of cereals and other plant based
products as feed to produce animal foods.
Wastage generally refers to the deliberate discarding andthrough away of food that is “fit for purpose and perfectly
good to eat” (Knight & Davis, 2007). This occurs in the latter part of the food chain, in food companies, wholesaling,retailing and households.
Generally, a hot and humid climate will increase the risk
for these types of losses. Vulnerability of food increases withthe trend towards high-value food items and greater transportdistances.
Figure 7 depicts a gross estimate of the global picture oflosses, conversion and wastage at different stages of the foodchain. As a global average, farmers produced the equivalentof 4,600 kcal/capita/day in the late 1990s (Smil, 2000), i.e.
before conversion of food to feed. Counting down the losses,

Edible crop harvest: + 4,600kcal/cap/day

Postharvest losses: - 600
4000
Animal feed: - 1,700
3000
2800
Meat anddairy: + 500

2000

Losses and waste in distribution
and households: - 800

Net availability for
consumption: + 2000

1000

Field

Fork

Figure 7. Energy losses, conversions and wastage in the food chain. Source: Smil (2000). Illustration: Britt-Louise Andersson, SIWI.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

22

Producer

Losses and Wastage: Quantity and Quality/ Value
Rich countries

Field losses

Developing countries(e.g. pests, diseases, rodents)

Pre-Processing(e.g. inefficient harvesting, drying, milling)

Transport

Moderate at firststages of food chain
depending on typeof food

Relativly high at firststages of food chain
especiallly for perishable food items

Losses and wastage
relativly high in latterpart of food chain

Losses and wastage
relativly low in latter partof food chain; food notconsumed in households
and other consumption
units is often used forfeed and/or distributed insociety(e.g. spillage, leakage)

Storage(e.g. technical deficiencies)

Processing & Packaging(e.g. excessive peeling, washing)MarketingConsumer(e.g. spoilage, rotting in stores)

Wastage by Consumer(e.g. overeating, food wastage)

Field

Fork

Figure 8. Main types of food losses and wastage. Illustration: Britt-Louise Andersson, SIWI.

conversions and wastage at the various stages, roughly 2,800kcal is available for supply (mixture of animal and vegetal
foods) and, at the end of the chain, 2,000 kcal on average isavailable for consumption.
The orders of magnitude of losses, wastage and spoilage
differ by location and stage of the food-chain. Very broadly
speaking, in developing countries most losses occur at the
beginning of the food chain: in the field due to poor harvesting technologies, and as a result of poor storage and transportfacilities. In hot and humid regions especially, losses of food,including a deterioration in quality, are most pronounced
during the first part of the food chain.
In developed countries, harvesting, transport and processing are often comparatively efficient, but with significant
variations between different crops. However, towards the endof the food chain significant amounts of food are wasted inwholesaling, retailing and among consumers – who tend to
throw away a significant fraction of the food they have paid
for and taken home. As incomes in middle-income and lessdeveloped countries continue to rise, and the distance fromthe site of production to places where food is prepared andeaten increase, the energy losses associated with converting
grains into livestock products will become more important
as diets shift from vegetal to animal foods.
According to Kader (2005) losses in the field (between
planting and harvest) could be as high as 20–40 percent of

the potential harvest in developing countries due to pests
and pathogens (Figure 8). Losses in processing, transportand storage are conservatively estimated at 10–15 percent inquantity terms, but could amount to 25–50 percent of thetotal economic value because of reduced quality (Kader, 2005).
Lastly, substantial losses and wastage occur during retail andconsumption, due to discarding excess perishable products,
product deterioration and food not consumed.

3.3 Significant Losses and Spoilage inLess Developing Countries
Many factors contribute to substantial losses and wastage offood. In many of the less developed countries, the adverse
climate, with high humidity and high temperatures, and attacks from rodents, insects, mold and other agents constitutea significant problem. Many poor farmers have to rely on
inefficient harvesting, transport and storage facilities, with
substantial losses. Swaminathan (2006) mentions that the
post-harvest infrastructure is weak in large parts of India“… even now, paddy is spread on the roads drying in many
places. The spoilage can be as high as 30 percent in the case ofvegetables and fruits”. Losses for grains and oil seeds are lower,
about 10–12 percent, according to the Food Corporation ofIndia. Some 23 million tonnes of food grains, 12 of fruits and
21 of vegetables are lost each year, with a total estimated value

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

23

Photo: Mats Lannerstadof 240 billion Rupees. A recent estimate by the Ministry ofFood Processing is that agricultural produce worth 580 billion
Rupees is wasted in India each year (Rediff News, 2007).
Inferior and inefficient technologies do, of course, present
difficulties when planning the supply chain. The challenge
is greatly compounded by poverty, both at the level of thesmall producer as well as the consumer. In India, the Public
Distribution System has been organised to ensure food supply to the needy outside ordinary market channels. Recent
reports show that food grains have been accumulating in thegodowns of the Food Corporation of India, far beyond theprescribed buffer stocks, with the result that a considerable
proportion is lost.
Available figures from Africa reveal similar problems andrelative losses. In many countries the post-harvest losses of foodgrains are estimated at 25 percent of the total crop harvested.
For some crops such as fruits, vegetables and root crops, being less hardy than grains, post-harvest losses can reach 50
percent (Voices Newsletter, 2006). Economic losses in thedairy sector in East Africa and the Near East due to spoilage
and waste could average as much as USD 90 million per year
(FAO, 2004). In Kenya, each year around 95 million liters ofmilk, worth around USD 22.4 million are lost. Cumulative
losses in Tanzania amount to about 59.5 million liters of milkeach year, over 16 percent of total dairy production during thedry season and 25 percent in the wet season. In Uganda, approximately 27 percent of all milk produced is lost, equivalent
to USD 23 million per year (FAO, 2004). In Ghana post-harvest
losses can account for 35 percent of total agricultural output(Ghana Business News, 2003).

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

24

Without proper storage and transport facilities, perishable food items are particularly vulnerable in hot and humid
climates. The high losses in developing countries are mainly
due to a lack of technology and infrastructure as well as otherintrinsic and extrinsic factors such as high insect infestations,
unwanted microbial growth, injuries and blemishes due toimproper handling or transportation and prevailing hightemperatures and humidity during growth and harvesting(Buys and Nortje, 1997).

3.4 High Rates of Losses and Wastagein Developed Societies
Food losses in rich countries are different to those in thedeveloping parts of the world. Generally, the kinds of losses
in developed countries are referred to as wastage, i.e. food is
discarded even if it’s “perfectly good to eat.”
But there are also significant losses in the first segmentsof the food chain in the rich countries depending upon what
food is being produced. For instance, quite significant volumes of food are lost and wasted in the US. According toJones (2004), losses at the farm level are probably about 15–35
percent, depending on the industry. For the fresh vegetableindustry, losses are naturally higher at 20–25 percent. For fruits
like apples and citrus losses vary around 10–40 percent. The
retail industry has comparatively high rates of loss at about
26 percent, while supermarkets, surprisingly, only lose about
1 percent. “Overall losses amount to somewhere around USD
90 to USD 100 billion a year” (Jones, 2004) and “…households
alone, in the US alone, throw away USD 48.3 billion worth of

Box 3. Water Costs of Beef Recall
Earlier this year, the Hallmark/Wetland Meat Packing Company, California, voluntarily recalled approximately 143,383,823
pounds or about 65 million kgs, of raw and frozen beef
products, following an investigation by USDA’s Food Safety
and Inspection Service (Rano 2008).
What reached the headlines were stories of the undercoverinvestigation by the Humane Society of the United States, andthe resulting footage of plant employees mistreating cattle.
The video led to fears that the use of crippled cattle could
increase the risk of human exposure to mad cow disease orpathogens such as E. coli.
The news has spurred fiery debate amongst industry
and consumer safety groups, with the latter claiming thatthe incident supports growing consumer fears that the US
government is not properly regulating meat safety.
The unreported side of the story is about the water wastageof this and similar incidents. As mentioned in chapter 1 of thisreport, the consumptive use of water to produce beef varies
significantly between countries and production systems, but aconservative average is about 5 to 10 tonnes of water per kilo
beef. To produce the 65 million kgs of beef, will thus require
an estimated of 650 billion liters of water that is evaporated
and transpired, mainly to grow the fodder for the animals. Thisis enough water to irrigate about 100,000 ha of dry land for ayear, or supply more than enough for Las Vegas annual supply(the present demand is 870 liters per capita per day, BBC news,
Vegas heading for ‘dry future’, July 29, 2005) which extracts
about 350 billion liters from Lake Mead (from Wekpedia).

Photo: Jelmer Rozendal, SXC

food each year” (Jones, 2006). According to a recent article in
New York Times, an average family of four persons in the US,
throw away 112 pounds of food per month (Martin, 2008).
Losses and wastage vary, depending on type of food, among
other things. Kantor et al. (1997) estimated the US total retail,foodservice, and consumer food losses in 1995 to be 23 percent for fruits and 25 percent for vegetables. Fresh fruits andvegetables accounted for nearly 20 percent of consumer andfoodservice losses, from product deterioration, excess perishable products that are discarded, and food not consumed by
the purchaser (Kader, 2005). In the US, losses of fresh fruits
and vegetables are estimated at 2–23 percent, depending on thecommodity, with an overall average loss of about 12 percent
between production and consumption sites (Kader, 2005).
According to a guide presented by the Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with Department of Agriculture,“… more than a quarter of all food produced for humanconsumption in America is currently discarded” (USDA and
US-EPA, n.d).
Similar levels of food losses and wastage are reported from
Europe. In the UK , for instance, Knight and Davis (2007)
estimate that “…about 5 million tonnes of food goes into
household waste”. Other UK studies estimated “...total consumer and industrial food waste reaching 17 million tonnes[annually]”. A part of this, or about 4 million tonnes, is still“fit for purpose and perfectly good to eat”. An assessment madein 1997 of the monetary value, or annual cost of food wasted
by supermarkets and catering outlets in the UK was GBP 386
million (Knight and Davis, 2007 p.4). Findings in a recently
launched detailed study in the UK confirm the magnitude of
the wastage and provide a number of details. For instance, one
third of the food bought is thrown away. An amazingly highpercentage of the food thrown away is untouched and often in
its original packaging. The value of this part of the discarded
food is about GBP 2.3 billion, which can be compared with thevalue of the food waste in UK as a whole, GBP 10.2 billion, or
GBP 420 for an average household (WRAP, 2008).
Reports on food waste in Sweden suggest that families
with small children throw away about 25 percent of the foodthey have bought and carried home and that total losses andwastage in the food chain are close to 50 percent (KSLA , 2007;
Ennart, 2007). Figures are, however, uncertain. Other studies
suggest lower wastage in households, whereas wastage in units
for collective food consumption, such as schools and hospitals,
is comparatively large (Naturvårdsverket, 2007).
The figures quoted here give an indication of the averageannual losses and wastage of food. In addition to the generallyhigh levels of losses and wastage, incidents involving huge
losses or wastage regularly occur. Due to strict safety standards,
animal food items are especially vulnerable. The recall in the
US of about 65 million kg of raw and frozen beef products atthe beginning of February 2008 (see Box 3) highlights several
important characteristics of the food sector (Rano, 2008).

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

25

Photo: Julio Silveira, SXC

Even with a recall of such magnitude, there were no reported
shortages in society. This shows that a tremendous volume
of food is available in rich countries. Since the recall was toensure the safety of the meat supply, the example also showsthat the fear of the transmission of mad cow disease or otherpathogens harmful to human health, may significantly affectboth supply and, as in this case, demand.

3.5 Implications and Dimensions ofLosses and Wastage of Food
Losses and wastage are important in other respects than from apure food security perspective. It is important to recognise thatlosses and wastage look quite different depending upon socioeconomic and other conditions (Figure 9). For the farmer,
shop owner and consumer, the economic implications are
significant. For the producer, income is reduced, while for the
consumer it means higher than necessary spending on food.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

26

From a natural resources and environmental perspective, it’s
important to recognise that food production is resource intensive and has significant environmental consequences. Few
people seem to be aware of the fact that agriculture is associatedwith a high proportion, about 22 percent, of all greenhousegas emissions. This is at about the same level as industry but
higher than the transport sector. Livestock production alone
accounts for about 18 percent of total global greenhouse gas
emissions (McMichael et al., 2007; Steinfeldt et al., 2007), so
the beef recall was also a loss in terms of the added cost ofgreenhouse gas emissions (Box 3).
These figures refer to the environmental consequences of
production. In addition, there are substantial environmental
costs associated with subsequent stages of the food chain.
Transport, storage, processing, packaging and improper disposal of discarded food must also be considered for a proper
understanding of the total food bill. If discarded food isused for landfills rather than being properly disposed of, forinstance, in composts or for biogas production, the organic
content will generate gases, including methane, which is avery potent greenhouse gas (Knight and Davis, 2006; WRAP,
2008; Martin, 2008). Importantly, the public understandingof the magnitude and the consequences of the food waste
is poor. According to studies done by wrap (2008), the very
majority of people in the UK describe the amount of foodthey throw away as “some, a little, hardly any or none” ascompared to the actual through aways that are equivalent toabout a third of the food bought, most of which could havebeen eaten. The worth of this wasted food is more than 10
billion pounds retail value (about 14 billion USD). Similarly,
the consumers do not recognise the green house gas emissions that are generated both in connection with growing,transport, processing and storage. Most of the food wasted
by UK households, or close to 6 million tonnes, are used for
landfill. The environmental impact of this disposal is high:every kilo or tonne of food generates the equivalent of about
4.5 times that amount of carbon dioxide. Altogether, it isestimated that some 18 million tonnes of CO2 are generated
in the UK from food that could have been eaten but that isthrown away (WRAP, 2008).
It’s time we move beyond thinking how we meet quantities,
and start looking at the type of foods we produce and how webenefit from them. As food consumers, we all play a role.

Developing countries: relatively highfraction of losses and spoilage in firstpart of food chainRich countries: relatively highlosses and wastage in latter partof food chain

Figure 9. A schmatical presentation of the combination of losses andwastage in different contexts. Illustration: Britt-Louise Andersson, SIWI.

Photo: Dan Shirle, SXC

4. The Smart Approach to Water Saving

4.1 The Need to Act on a Broad Scale
Recent global price spiral on food and repeated reports about
palpable social unrest in a large number of countries andfears of an ‘agflation’ (Economist, 2007) reveal the strategic
and basic importance of the agricultural sector for social andeconomic stability and for environmental sustainability. Given
its fundamental role in society, prime importance should beplaced on taking all necessary steps to ensure sustainable useof water resources. Challenges now are different from a few
decades ago. Climate change will make water availability
more variable and scarce. Environmental concerns become
increasingly more urgent and costly (The Economist of 15
March 2008 estimates that environmental damage in China
may be as much as 10 percent of its GDP). The need for reducing pressure on water resources is real. On the other handdemand for biomass and agricultural products is increasing
because of increased income and demand for a range of foodas well as non-food products.
So far, the discussion on reducing water demand has centered on how to produce more food with less water, without
questioning if the food produced can be used more efficiently.
Expressed in kilocalories, global food production at the fieldlevel is about double that required to meet the “… dietaryneeds and food preferences for an active and healthy life of
all people at all times” (FAO, 1996). A promising pathway to
reduce the need for an increase in gross food production – andtherefore water – is minimising losses and wastage along thefood chain. Together with measures to produce food with lesswater, enormous amounts of water can be saved for other uses
and the environment. Less waste in the food chain saves water,
money and increases consumers’ disposable incomes. It’s time
to take a broad perspective on water savings and to explore
the scope for improvements along the entire food chain, fromfield to fork. We propose a two-pronged approach combining

water savings in the field by producing more food with thesame or even less water with measures to reduce losses andwastage of food produced in the various stages of the foodchain, and thus ease pressure on water resources.

4.2 More Food with Less Water: Reducing Unproductive Losses of Rainwater
Large quantities of water are lost in the field. Roughly there
are two ways of capturing this water. First, capturing a larger
share of the rainfall and make it accessible for productive transpiration. This strategy might however impact negatively on
downstream water users. Upstream runoff generation is only aloss to the upstream farmer, while it may be used beneficiallyby downstream ecosystems or water users. Second, changing
the way water is used in crop production by maximising thebenefits per unit of water consumed in rainfed and in irrigatedagriculture (Molden et al 2007 b). For example, rapid rates of
evaporation mean that a considerable fraction of rainfall islost as return flow to atmosphere without being beneficially
utilised. Several strategies to improve the water productivity,
or “crop per drop”, are available. Related to this option, it will
be increasingly important to have a strategy for where food isbest produced. Climate change and the associated escalated
water scarcity will make agricultural production very difficult
or very costly in large parts of the world whereas opportunities
will be improved in areas blessed with a water abundance ofdependable water availability.
It is, however, very important to increase food production
also in areas where needs and demands may increase the most.
For large parts of Africa, prevailing levels of production andproductivity are low and quite uneven, indicating that there
is a potential to increase production with the right incentives
and supportive measures (Box 5). Trade can help mitigate

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

27

water scarcity if water-short countries can afford to importfood from water-abundant countries. Cereal trade from rainfed
areas in the temperate zones (USA , EU, Argentina) to arid
areas (Middle East) reduces current global irrigation water
demand by 11–13 percent. But political and economic factors
are stronger drivers and barriers than water.
Generally, only 30 percent of rainfall that hits the groundis converted into productive transpiration, necessary for crop

growth and food production. By shifting non-productive evaporation to productive transpiration through an integration of cropand soil management, more food can be produced with the sameamount of rainfall (Falkenmark and Rockström, 2004). Thisis an important opportunity to improve agriculture throughbetter utilisation of local rainfall. The crucial challenge is to
reduce unproductive evaporation losses so that the impact on
downstream water users is as small as possible (Box 4).

Box 4. Reducing Unproductive Losses of Rainwater
The renewable potential freshwater resource is equal to thetotal amount of precipitation over land. As precipitation reaches
the ground, it is split into a number of flows (Figure 10). One
fraction is aboveground and groundwater flows; these contribute to the blue water in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and the acquifer.
Another fraction of the precipitation infiltrates the soil and isstored in the soil profile, forming the green water resource.
In all agricultural systems, some of the potential water resource is inevitably lost as non-productive evaporation. The
fraction of rainfall available for productive transpiration is generally less than 30 percent, but varies between agroecologicalsystems and climatic zones (Rockström, 2003). In arid regionswith little rainfall, only some 10 percent of the total rainfall is consumed as productive transpiration, while most of the precious
drops are lost as non-productive flows (Oweis and Hachum,2001). In semi-arid parts of sub-Saharan Africa, this may be in
the order of 15–30 percent. In temperate regions, productive
transpiration is around 45–55 percent of rainfall (Rockström,
2003). An overriding challenge in sub-Saharan Africa and otherareas suffering from water scarcity is to increase the fraction of

rainwater available for productive transpiration.
Non-productive water losses can be minimised by mulching,weed and pest management, early plant vigor, optimal planting
density and no-tillage systems. Crop choice can also influenceplant water uptake capacity and thus water productivity.
It’s important to recognise that cropping under pure rainfed
systems is fairly risky and yields tend to be low. In many of theseareas, conventional irrigation is not feasible, either because it is
too costly or simply because water availability is a constraint. In
these situations it can, however, be done with some kind of supplementary irrigation, such as from water harvesting systems, forinstance a small hand-dug dam. Such systems have been successfully used in small-scale agricultural systems to bridge dry-spells.
If local run-off is applied to the plants during dry periods, the riskof crop failure is substantially reduced. The aim of supplementary
irrigation is not to meet the plant’s full water demand, but to ensurethat the plant gets enough water during critical growth stages. In
combination with fertilisers, small amounts of additional water
can lead to high yields and water productivity, particularly where
yields are low (Rockström et al., 2007).

Figure 10. Green and blue water resources and flows in the landscape. Illustration: Britt-Louise Andersson, SIWI.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

28

Photo: Diana Myrndorff, SXC

Box 5: The Need for a Green Revolution in Africa
The Green Revolution is a much misunderstood and maligned
process of agricultural intensification. It has, for example, enabled India to feed its population which grew from some 450
million people in the 1960s to more than a billion today, andit has allowed a number of previously food-deficient Asian
countries to become net exporters of food. Asian cereal production doubled between 1970 and 1995 while the total
area under cereals only increased by 4 percent (Evensen and
Gollin, 2003). Yield improvements are important. They have,for example, had a dramatic conservation effect in that they
have limited agriculture’s intrusion into marginal lands andhence preserved wildlife and biodiversity.
This has been partly due to new technologies – high-yielding
crop varieties, inorganic fertiliser and irrigation – and the green
revolution has commonly been seen as ‘merely’ a technology
package. In reality it went far beyond technology. The Asian
green revolution was a state-driven, market-mediated andsmallholder-based strategy to increase national self-sufficiency
in food grains. Supported by international crop research, governments took the lead but (unlike in China and North Korea) did
not eliminate private traders. The technologies offered weresuitable for smallholders and were backed by massive support
systems including credit, subsidies, price policies, extension
services and infrastructural investments, e.g. in schools, roads
and canals (Djurfeldt et al., 2005).

Initially based on high-yielding, semi-dwarf varieties of rice
and wheat, the Green Revolution is sometimes described as a
one-shot-intervention. Since the 1960s, the Green Revolution
has evolved to encompass a wide variety of staple crops (e.g.
maize, beans, bananas, cassava) and the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has released
more than 8000 improved crop varieties during the last 40
years. Improvements are not limited to yield increases but
also include characteristics such as drought tolerance, pest
resistance, and fast maturation – innovations that make varieties suitable for other regions, too, notably sub-Saharan Africa
where agricultural productivity is still low (Holmén, 2006).
Gaps between potential and actual yields are considerable
among African smallholders even within the same local area,that is, within a similar land and water context, indicating that
there is the potential to increase yields, even with the effects
of climate change. Actually, output could double if poor farmers
were given incentives and opportunity to adopt technologies,
including improved seeds, fertilisers and better water management, already used by their better-off neighbours. Hence,an African Green Revolution would need to concentrate on
the supportive measures. Implementing a Green Revolution
in Africa would also, in theory, make room for considerable
acreage to be devoted to bioenergy crops without jeopardisingfood security or marginal lands.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

29

Photo: Frida Lanshammar

4.3 Water Savings Potential Throughout the Food Chain
The sheer magnitude of losses, wastage and over-consumptionmeans that we have the ability and options to reduce gross fooddemand and agricultural water supply without affecting foodsecurity. Most losses occur after food is produced in the field.
As water has already been evaporated, successive losses down
the food chain add up to considerable unproductive water use.
Globally, the amount of water withdrawn to produce lost andwasted food is quite substantial. It is reasonable to focus on
the problems related to the expansion of irrigation facilities,
since the abstraction of water from rivers, lakes and aquifers
has repercussions for downstream communities and for instream functions. Losses of food produced in rainfed systems
do not have the same negative effect on the water resources. A
conservative estimate of the water losses caused by food losses
and wastage could therefore be that about half of the water
withdrawn for irrigation is lost. With a total withdrawal for
irrigation in the order of 2,700 km3, this means about 1,350
km3 is lost: equivalent to about half the water volume of Lake
Victoria. In the US, food production consumes about 120 km3
of irrigation water. Presuming people throw away an estimated
30 percent of this food, that corresponds to 40 trillion liters of
irrigation water, enough water to meet the household needsof 500 million people. The amount of water that can be saved
by reducing food waste is much larger than that saved by lowflush toilets and water-saving washing machines. It’s time for
us to move beyond thinking about how we meet quantities,
and to start looking at the type of foods we produce and how
we benefit from them.
This is by no means easy. There are many stages and many
actors from field to fork, such as farmers, agricultural workers,
truck drivers, shopkeepers, government officials and consumers. Individually, some actors have little or no incentive to

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

30

improve efficiency when the waste in their segment of thechain is relatively small and the costs or efforts of improvement outweigh the benefits. Other actors, like small farmers,
would benefit from a reduction in post-harvest losses, as it
could increase their income and food security. Too often,
however, they lack the financial and other resources to makethe necessary investments in improved technology.
With increasing disposable income, urban lifestyles and theinfluence of the food industry and supermarkets, the stages in
the food chain beyond production are evermore important.
Yet measures and policies to influence consumer behaviour arecontroversial and notoriously difficult to implement. Despite
recent rises in world market prices, food is still a relative cheap
commodity except for the very poor, and many consumers havelittle incentive to change their wasteful behaviour.
Studies carried out at the University of Arizona revealed
that people living in cities in the US display an alarming levelof ignorance with regard to food-related issues. Most urban
consumers who were interviewed did not realise that meat, dairy
and fruit come from living things that use natural resources togrow (Jones, 2004 and 2006). With increased distance between
farms and food consumption sites and commoditisation of food,the level of ignorance may only increase, and unaware consumers
are less likely to question and change their behaviour.
A combination of policy measures will be necessary: investment support in post-harvest technologies, scrutiny of therole of the food-processing industry and supermarkets, as wellas pricing mechanisms and strategic efforts to visualise andeducate the public on practically contributing to reducing
food wastage. Schools and public institutions could be focusedentry points for such a strategic effort, as general awarenesscampaigns have proved to be rather ineffective.
To successfully address losses in the food chain it will benecessary to involve various sectors and actors in the efforts todevelop measures to adapt to the new type of water scarcity.

4.4 Involve Stakeholders
The Business Community

The business community increasingly sees the need to protect
water resources to safeguard future production. Earlier thisyear, serious concerns about water scarcity affecting the industrial sector were expressed at the World Economic Forum.
Attention was drawn to its potential negative ramifications on
future economic wealth and political security. Special concern
was raised to limits of sustainable water use being reached or
breached in many world breadbasket regions. The meetingconcluded with a “call for action” (Box 6). Several businessleaders see a triangle of related issues critical to the sustainability of their businesses: climate change–water–food.
Consumers

Policymakers

A first step is getting inefficiencies in the food chain onto
the political agenda. In the 1970 s and 1980 s there were several studies conducted on global and regional post-harvest
losses (Pariser, 1978) but the topic now seems to be off
the agenda. There are relatively few people who deal withthese issues. Recent studies are scarce and often refer backto older works, but sketchy evidence shows huge losses. To
effectively reduce food losses, information on where, howmuch and why losses occur is essential. Without awareness backed up by good estimates, policy design will bedifficult.

Photo: Getty Images

With an increasing distance between field and fork, consumers are losing touch with farm practices, and often do notrealise that food production comes from living things that
require natural resources to grow. Food is undervalued as acommodity, and waste seems harmless. Awareness-raising andenvironmental education are crucial, with target groups suchas schools, hospitals and offices a good point to start.

Price incentives also have a role to play. Recent hikes in foodprices (due to, among other things, increased demand fromstrong growing economies such as China, growing demandfor bioenergy, rising prices on energy etc.) raise concerns
related to food security, particularly for poor consumers who
buy food in the market. On the other hand, price increases
are beneficial to farmers and send a clear signal to consumers
that food is valuable and should not be unnecessarily wasted.
It’s time to curb wasteful behaviour, and as consumers we all
have a role.

Box 6. Call to Action from Davos
Significant business disruptions due to water scarcity – across all
sectors and geographies, and with all the associated technical,
economic, political, environmental and social implications – area reality today, and are projected to worsen in the future, as aresult of changes in climate and demographics. Governments
play an important role in helping to mitigate and adapt to thechallenge, but so does the private sector, through individualcompany actions and through innovative public–private andmultistakeholder partnerships. CEOs are called to catalyze holistic water management actions up and down their respective
supply chains and throughout the existing and new networksof which they are a part.
The focus of actions should include:• Water governance for transparent/fair allocation to users
and sound incentives for efficient water use• Water for agricultural use (“more crop per drop”; 70 percent

of water withdrawn worldwide)• Water for industry (water efficiency within operations)• Water for energy (the deepening link between water resources and climate change)• Water for human purposes (sustainable and affordable
access to safe drinking water and sanitation)• Water for the environment (to ensure sustained ecosystemsecurity).
To assist the development of this set of actions, the signatoriesof this paper encouraged the Davos community to establish a wide coalition of businesses across different sectors.
This coalition should create and collaborate with innovative
partnerships on water management involving the research,development, farming, international non-governmental organisations (INGO) and government communities (World
Economic Forum 2008).

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

31

Photo: Jorc Navarro, SXC

5. Conclusion
For an integrated and innovative strategy for saving water, a
reduction of losses and wastage of food from field to fork issound and rational. Reducing losses and wastage will ease pressure on water and other resources and free up land and waterfor other purposes than food production. A number of benefits
are within reach for a cross section of people and interests insociety. Livelihoods of producers could be enhanced, supplies
to industry could be improved and consumers could benefit.
Reducing losses of water and produce in the field and on theroad to the market, presents tangible opportunities for farmers
and their customers. Multiple gains across many sectors andat low cost are conceivable.
We need to set a target to reduce food losses and wastage. With reference to the targets for MDGs and with due
consideration to the magnitude of losses and the potential
gains, a reduction by 50 percent of losses and wastage in theentire food chain from field to fork – including agriculturaland post harvest practices – seems realistic. As outlined in
the policy suggestions, a number of actions will be necessary
to achieve such a goal.

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

32

At this point in time, we are lacking the factual information about different types, size and implications of losses andwastage of food. We also need to better understand what is atrue loss and what may appear to be losses: This is importantin order to distinguish losses from the use and reuse of part of
the food and farm residues. Informed decisions and effective
policies will require a better terminology and more figures andfacts. A major step to start the process for an effective strategy
is to put the issue of losses and wastage on the political andresearch agenda. New and systematic knowledge about the
food chain in academic curriculum and training programmes
for people in, for example, food industry and trade are needed.
With more and more people living far away from sites where
food is produced, with food being processed and packed invarious types of wrappings, and with growing affluence, thisinformation becomes essential to the public at large.
By improving knowledge and through political initiatives,
the necessary resources and driving forces for food and water
security in a world of increasing water stress and competitionneed to be mobilised and set in motion.

References
Ahmed, A., Hill, R., Smith, L., Wiesmann, D. and Frakenberger, T. 2007. The

FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations]. 2004. The

world’s poorest and hungry: trends, characteristics and causes. 2020

State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2004. Monitoring Progress Towards

Working Paper. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington

the World Food Summit and Millennium Development Goals. Rome.

D.C. Draft.
Baliga, B. S. 1966. Madras District Gazetteers. Coimbatore, Government of
Madras, Madras, India
Berndes, G. 2002. Bioenergy and water – the implications of large-scalebioenergy production for water use and supply. Global Environmental
Change. 12(4), pp. 7-25.

FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations]. 2005. World
Cereal Production. Food Outlook. June 2. Statistical Appendix. http://www.
fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file= docrep/008/j5667e00.htm
FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations]. 2006. The
state of food insecurity in the world 2006. Rome.
Fraiture, C. de, Wichelns, D., Rockström, J., Kemp-Benedict, E., Eriyagama,

Bruinsma, J. (ed.). 2003. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. A FAO Per-N., Gordon, L. Hanjra, J., Hoogeveen, M. A., Huber-Lee, J., and Karlberg,

spective. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/Earthscan Publications,L. 2007. Looking ahead to 2050: Scenarios of alternative investment ap-

Rome/London.

proaches. In: Molden, D. (Ed.). Water for food, water for life: A compre-

Buys, E. M. and Nortje, G. L. 1997. HACCP and its impact on processing andhandling of fresh red meats. Food Industries of South Africa, October Issue.
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007. Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture: Summary. London, UK, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Earthscan
Publications, IWMI.
Djurfeldt, G., Holmén, H., Jirström, M., and Larsson, R. 2005. The African
Food Crisis: Lessons from the Asian Green Revolution. CABI Publishing,
Wallingford.
Dugger, C.W. 2004. Supermarket Giants Crush Central American Farmers.
New York Times. December 28.
The Economist. 2007. Cheap No More. December 8. Pgs 77-79.
Ennart, H. 2007. Var fjärde matkasse slängs (“Every fourth bag of food is

hensive assessment of water management in agriculture. London, UK:
Earthscan Publications Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. pp.91-145.
Fraiture, C. de, Giordano, M., and Liao, Y.S. 2008. Biofuels and implications
for agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy, 10(Suppl.1): 67-81.
Gaikwaid, V. R., Sambrani, R., Prakash.,S., Kulkarni, S. D. and Murari, P. 2004.
Post-Harvest Management. Volume 16. State of the Indian Farmer. Department of Agriculture and cooperation. Ministry of Agriculture, Governmentof India.
Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Haberlandt, U., Lucht, W. and Sitch, S. 2004. Terrestrial vegetation and water balance: hydrological evaluation of a dynamic
global vegetation model. Journal of Hydrology, 286, 249-270.
Ghana Business News. 2003. Bolton firm’s system will boost economy ofthrown away”, in Swedish). Svenska Dagbladet. April 25. http:// svd.se/

Ghana. http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/economy/artikel.

nyheter/inrikes/artikel_221563.svd

php?ID = 45751

Evenson, R.E. and Gollin, D. 2003. Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, Vol. 300. no. 5620, pp. 758-762.
Falkenmark, M. and Molden, D. 2008. Wake up to Realities of River Basin
Closure. Water Resources Development. 24 (2): 201-215. June
Falkenmark M. and Rockström J. 2004. Balancing water for humans and na-

GoM (Government of Madras), 1965, History of the Lower Bhavani Project,
Volume I-Head Works, Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department,
Madras State, India
Halweil, B. and Nierenberg D. 2008. Meat and seafood: The global diet’s most
costly ingredients. In: 2008 State of the world: Innovations for a sustain-

ture: The new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan Publications. London.

able economy. The Worldwide Institute, Washington D.C. pp. 61-74.

Falkenmark, M., Finlayson, M., Gordon, L. J., Bennett, E.M., Chiuta, T. M., Coates,

Holmén, H. 2006. Myths about agriculture, obstacles to solving the AfricanD., Ghosh, N., Gopalakrishnan, M., de Groot, R. S., Jacks, G., Kendy, E., Oye-food crisis. The European Journal of Development Research, 18(3)bande, L., Moore, M., Peterson, G. D., Portuguez, J. M., Seesink, K., Tharme,
R., and Wasson, R. 2007. Agriculture, water and ecosystems: Avoiding thecosts of going too far. In: Molden, D (Ed.). Water for food, water for life: A
comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan
Publications, London. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. pp. 233-277.
FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations]. 1995. Landand water integration and river basin management. Proceedings of an
informal workshop 31 Jan – 2 Feb, 1993. Land and Water Bulletin. Rome.
FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations]. 1996. Rome
Declaration on World Food Security. World Food Summit, 13 – 17 November. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm

453–480.
IPCC. 2000. IPCC Special Report. Summary for Policymakers. WMO & UNEP.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/special-reports.htm
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report. Summary for policymakers. Fourth assessment report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/
ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Jackson, T. 2008. The challenge of sustainable lifestyles. Chapter 4 in 2008
State of the world: Innovations for a sustainable economy. The Worldwatch
Institute, Washington, D.C. pp. 45-59.
Jones, T. 2004. What a waste! Interview: The Science Show, 4 December.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2004/1256017.htm

FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations]. 1997. FoodJones, T. 2006. Addressing food wastage in the US. Interview: The

production: the critical role of water. World Food Summit. Technical Back-

Science Show, 8 April. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/

ground Document 7, Rome.

stories/2006/1608131.htm

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

33

Kader, A. A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses

off, C., Finlayson, M., Atapattu, S., Giordano, M., Inocencio, A., Lannerstad,of fresh produce. Proceedings of the 5th International Postharvest Sympo-

M., Manning, N., Molle, F., Smedema, B., and Vallee, D. 2007a. Trends in

sium, Mencarelli, F. (Eds.) and Tonutti P. Acta Horticulturae, 682, ISHS.

water and agricultural development. In: Molden, D. (Ed.). Water for food,Kantor, L., Lipton, K., Manchester, A., and Oliveira, V. 1997. Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. Food Review. Jan.-Apr., pp. 2-12.
Knight A. and Davis, C. 2007. What a waste! Surplus fresh foods research
project, S.C.R.A.T.C.H. http://www.veoliatrust.org/docs/Surplus_Food_Research.pdf

agriculture. Earthscan Publications, London. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
pp.57-89.
Molden, D., Oweis, T. Y., Pasquale, S., Kijne, J. W., Hanjra, M. A., Bindraban,
P. S., Bouman, B. A. M., Cook, S., Erenstein, O., Farahani, H., Hachum, A.,

KSLA [Kungl. Skogs-och Lantbruksakademien – Royal Swedish Academy of Agri-

Hoogeveen, J., Mahoo, H., Nangia, V., Peden, D., Sikka, A., Silva, P., Tur-

culture and Forestry]. 2007. Den beresta maten – matens kvalitet i ett globalt

ral, Hugh, Upadhyaya, A., and Zwart, S. 2007b. Pathways for increasing

perspektiv. KSLAs TIDSKRIFT, No 10 (”The well-travelled food” – in Swedish).

agricultural water productivity. In Molden, D. (Ed.). Water for food, water

Lind, T. and Malmberg, B. 2007. Demographically based global income forecasts

for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture.

up to year 2050. International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 23 pp: 553-567
Lobell, D., Burke, M., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandera, M., Falcon, W., and Naylor, R. 2008

Earthscan Publications, London. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. pp.279-310.
Molle, F., Wester, P. and Hirsch, P. 2007. River basin development andPrioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science,

management. In: Molden D. (Ed). Water for food, water for life: A Com-

Vol. 319. no. 5863, pp. 607-610.

prehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan

Lundqvist, J., Barron, J., Berndes, G., Berntell, A., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L.

Publications, London. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. pp. 585-624.

and Rockström, J. 2007. Water pressure and increases in food and bioener-

MSSRF [M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation]. 2002. Food insecurity atlas

gy demand. Implications of economic growth and options for decoupling.

of urban India. M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and World Food

In: Scenarios on economic growth and research development: Backgroundreport to the Swedish Environmental Advisory Council Memorandum
2007:1. pp. 55-152. http://www.sou.gov.se/mvb/pdf/WEBB-%20PDF.pdf

Programme. Project Leader: Dr. S.S. Vepa. Chennai.
Naturvårdsverket. 2007. Åtgärder för minskat svinn i livsmedelskedjan [inSwedish] (mimeo).

Lundqvist, J. 2008. Food chain dynamics and consumption trends: Implica-

NWDA (National Water Development Agency), 1993, Technical Study No. WBtions for freshwater resources. Chapter 17 in: Ashwanatarayana, U. (Ed.)

51, Water Balance study of Bhavani sub-basin of Cauvery Basin, (Index No.

2007. Food and water security, Taylor and Francis Group/Balkema. Leiden,63), National Water Development Agency, Society under Ministry of Water

The Netherlands.
Madras Presidency (1902) Preliminary Report on the Investigation of Protective Irrigation Works in the Madras Presidency, Madras, India
Malmberg, B. 2007. Global income growth in the 21st Century – A com-

Resources, Government of India, New Delhi, India
Oweis, T. and Hachum, A. 2001. Reducing peak supplemental irrigation
demand by extending sowing dates. Agricultural Water Management
50:109–123.

parison of IPCC, solow, and dividend models. In: Scenarios on economic

Pariser, E. R. 1987. Post-harvest food losses in developing countries. In: Nevingrowth and research development: background report to the Swedish

S. Scrimshaw and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, eds. Nutrition Policy Implementa-

Environmental Advisory Council Memorandum 2007:1. pp. 9-32. http://
www.sou.gov.se/mvb/pdf/WEBB-%20PDF.pdf

tion: Issues and Expenience (New York: Plenum Press). pp. 309-325.
Peden, D., Tadesse, G., Misra, A.K., Ahmed, F. A., Astatke, A., Ayalneh, W.,

Martin, A. 2008. One Country’s Table Scrap, Another Country’s Meal.

Herrero, M., Kiwuwa, G., Kumsa, T., Mati, B., Mpairwe, D., Wassenaar, T.,

New York Times, May 18. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/

and Yimegnuhal, A. 2007. Water and livestock for human development. In

weekinreview/18martin.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&partner=MOREOVER

Molden, D. (Ed.). Water for food, water for life: A Comprehensive assess-

NEWS&oref=slogin

ment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan Publications, London.

McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C.D. and Uauy, R. 2007. Food, livestock
production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet. Vol 370. Issue
9594, 6 Oct 2007 – 12 Oct 2007. Pp. 1253-1263.

IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. pp.485-514.
Postel, S. 1999. Pillars of Sand. Can the irrigation miracle last? New York:
Norton & Co.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:

Rano, L. 2008. Industry concerns follow massive beef recall. Food Produc-

Wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.

tion Daily, February 19. http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/

Molden, D., Frenken, K., Barker, R., Fraiture, C. de, Mati, B., Svendsen, M., Sad-

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

34

water for life: A Comprehensive assessment of water management in

ng.asp?id=83362

Photo: Getty Images

Reardon, T., Timmer, P., Barrett C., and Berdegue, J. 2003. The rise of super-son, S. and Hansson, J. (2007). Sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: An

markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. American Journal of Agricultural

expansion model sensitive to socioeconomic and environmental concerns.

Economics. 85 (5) pp. 1140-1146.
Rediff. Com. 2007. How much food does India waste? March 17. www.rediff.
com/cms/print/jsp?docpath=money//2007/mar/16food.htm

Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 1: 270-282.
Swaminathan, M.S. 2006. 2006-07: Year of agricultural renewal. 93 Indian
Science Congress in Hyderabad, Public Lecture, January 4.

Rockström, J. and Jonsson, L-O. 1995. Conservation tillage systems for dryland

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and De Haan, C.,farming: On-farm research and extension experiences. East African Agricul-

2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO

tural Forestry Journal. 65 (1): 101-114.
Rockström J. 2003. Water for food and nature in drought-prone tropics:
Vapour shift in rain-fed agriculture. Royal Society Transactions B Biological
Sciences. 358 (1440): 1997–2009.
Rockström, J., Hatibu, N., Oweis, TY., Wani, S., Barron, J., Bruggeman, A.,
Farahani, J., Karlberg, L., and Qiang, Z. 2007. Managing water in rainfed agriculture. In: Water for food, water for life: A Comprehensive assessment ofwater management in agriculture. Earthscan Publications, London. IWMI,
Colombo, Sri Lanka. pp. 315-352.
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Hoff, H., Rost, S. and Gerten, D.
2008. Future water availability for global food production: the potential ofgreen water for increasing resilience to global change. Water Resources
Research (Forthcoming).
Rosegrant, M., Zhu, T., Msangi, S., and Sulser, T. 2008. Global scenarios forbiofuels: Impact for food security. Forthcoming in Review of Agricultural
Economics. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington D.C.
Sachs, J. 2008. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. The
Penguin Press, New York.
SEI, 2005. Sustainable pathways to attain the millennium development goals– assessing the role of water, energy and sanitation. Document prepared

Publishing. Rome.
Takada, M. and Porcaro, J. 2005. Achieving the Millennium Development
Goals: The role of energy services – case studies from Brazil, Mali and thePhilippines. UNDP/BDP Energy and Environment Group.
UNDP. 2005. Energizing the Millennium Development Goals: A Guide to Energy’s Role in Reducing Poverty. UNDP/BDP Energy and Environment Group.
USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] and US-EPA [U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency]. N.d. Waste Not, Want Not. Feeding the Hungry andReducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery.
Von Braun., J. 2007. When food makes fuel: The promises and challengesof biofuels. Keynote Address at the Crawford Fund Annual Conference,
Australia, August, 2007.
Wang, Xu. 2008. Price Stability a Priority: Wen. China Daily. March 6.
WHO. 2002. The World Health Report 2002. World Health Organization,
Geneva.
Wirsenius, S., Berndes, G., Azar, C. (Forthcoming). How much land canlivestock productivity increases and dietary changes spare for nature? Scenarios of agricultural land use in 2030. Submitted: Agriculture, Ecosystems& Environment.
World Bank. 2006. 2006 World Development Indicators Online. Washington

for the UN World Summit, Sept 14, New York. Stockholm Environment

DC: The World Bank (Development Data Group). http://publications.world-

Institute, Stockholm http://www.sei.se/mdg.htm

bank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_id= 631625

Schäfer-Elinder, L. 2005. Obesity, Hunger, and Agriculture: The Damaging Roleof Subsidies. BMJ (British Medical Journal), 331, 1333-1336.
SIWI, IFPRI, IUCN and IWMI. 2005. Let it Reign: The New Water Paradigm for
Global Water Security. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm.
Smakhtin, V., Revenga, C., and Döll, P. 2004. Taking into account environmental requirements in global scale water resources assessments. Comphrehensive assessment of water resources management in agriculture.
Research report 2. International Water Management Institute, Colombo.

World Economic Forum. 2008. Managing our future water needs for agriculture, industry, human health and environment. Discussion Document for
the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2008. Geneva.
WRAP (Waste, Resources and Action Program). 2007. Understanding Food
Waste. Research Summary. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/FoodWasteResearchSummaryFINALADP29_3__07_25a4c08b.1c0b0945.pdf
WRAP [Waste, Resources and Action Programme]. 2008. The Food We Waste.
http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf.

Smakhtin V., and Anputhas, M. 2006. An assessment of environmental flow
requirements of Indian river basins. Research report 107. International

Personal Communication:

Water Management Institute, Colombo.

PWD (Public Works Department). 2004-2006, Executive Engineer, Bhavanisa-

Smil, V. 2000. Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Sparovek, G., Berndes, G., Egeskog, A., Luiz Mazzaro de Freitas, F., Gustafs-

gar, Tamil Nadu, India
Wani, Suhas (Principle scientist agroecosystems). 2008. ICRISAT (International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics), Hyderabad, India

SIWI Policy Brief: Saving Water: From Field to Fork

35

Saving Water: From Field to Fork
As governments struggle with a sudden crisis caused by significant and rapid increases in the price of food, a companion
crisis in availability of water also threatens billions of people. A
hidden problem behind the food crisis is that as much as halfof all food grown is lost or wasted before and after it reaches
the consumer. And this wasted food is wasted water too. To
meet the challenge of feeding growing populations and theglobal hungry, massive reductions in the amount of food wasted
after production are needed. This policy brief, “Saving Water:
From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food
Chain” calls on governments, businesses, consumers andother important actors in society to reduce by half, by 2025,
the amount of food that is wasted and outlines concrete steps
to achieve this goal.

S I W I, SIWI
Drottninggatan 33, -1 5 S, S
P +     • F +     • siwi@siwi.org • www.siwi.org