ABSTRACT
Target 6.4 of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deals with the reduction of water scarcity. To monitor progress towards this target, two indicators are used: Indicator 6.4.1 measuring water use efficiency and 6.4.2 measuring the level of water stress (WS). This paper aims to identify whether the currently proposed indicator 6.4.2 considers the different elements that need to be accounted for in a WS indicator. WS indicators compare water use with water availability. We identify seven essential elements: 1) both gross and net water abstraction (or withdrawal) provide important information to understand WS; 2) WS indicators need to incorporate environmental flow requirements (EFR); 3) temporal and 4) spatial disaggregation is required in a WS assessment; 5) both renewable surface water and groundwater resources, including their interaction, need to be accounted for as renewable water availability; 6) alternative available water resources need to be accounted for as well, like fossil groundwater and desalinated water; 7) WS indicators need to account for water storage in reservoirs, water recycling and managed aquifer recharge. Indicator 6.4.2 considers many of these elements, but there is need for improvement. It is recommended that WS is measured based on net abstraction as well, in addition to currently only measuring WS based on gross abstraction. It does incorporate EFR. Temporal and spatial disaggregation is indeed defined as a goal in more advanced monitoring levels, in which it is also called for a differentiation between surface and groundwater resources. However, regarding element 6 and 7 there are some shortcomings for which we provide recommendations. In addition, indicator 6.4.2 is only one indicator, which monitors blue WS, but does not give information on green or green-blue water scarcity or on water quality. Within the SDG indicator framework, some of these topics are covered with other indicators.
ABSTRACT
As aquaculture becomes more important for feeding the growing world population, so too do the required natural resources needed to produce aquaculture feed. While there is potential to replace fish meal and fish oil with terrestrial feed ingredients, it is important to understand both the positive and negative implications of such a development. The use of feed with a large proportion of terrestrial feed may reduce the pressure on fisheries to provide feed for fish, but at the same time it may significantly increase the pressure on freshwater resources, due to water consumption and pollution in crop production for aquafeed. Here the green, blue and gray water footprint of cultured fish and crustaceans related to the production of commercial feed for the year 2008 has been determined for the major farmed species, representing 88% of total fed production. The green, blue and gray production-weighted average feed water footprints of fish and crustaceans fed commercial aquafeed are estimated at 1629 m3/t, 179 m3/t and 166 m3/t, respectively. The estimated global total water footprint of commercial aquafeed was 31-35 km3 in 2008. The top five contributors to the total water footprint of commercial feed are Nile tilapia, Grass carp, Whiteleg shrimp, Common carp and Atlantic salmon, which together have a water footprint of 18.2 km3. An analysis of alternative diets revealed that the replacement of fish meal and fish oil with terrestrial feed ingredients may further increase pressure on freshwater resources. At the same time economic consumptive water productivity may be reduced, especially for carnivorous species. The results of the present study show that, for the aquaculture sector to grow sustainably, freshwater consumption and pollution due to aquafeed need to be taken into account.
