Are there alternatives to transboundary sharing?

Today's blog will divert a little from previous posts and focus slightly less on the actual sharing of transboundary water resources and focus on the concept of virtual water.

John Allan, the founder of the term 'virtual water' describes it as water embedded in commodities such as grain (Allan 2003). However, virtual water is more than just the actual water content of a product, but rather how much water was needed to make that particular product (Mauser 2009).

In this post I will briefly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of virtual water and then give my opinion on the idea of virtual water.

Advantages:

One major benefit of virtual water is that it has the potential to be a better alternative to resolving conflict in water scarce regions such as the Nile Basin than water scarce countries sharing a transboundary water resource (Mauser 2009). Conflict and tension may arise over the arrangements of how much water is shared out between the countries, whereas if water was imported, such disagreements may not arise. Another possible way that virtual water may be able to lower the risk of conflict over water is that importing virtual water lowers the pressure on water scarce countries to produce food. For example, Egypt imports a substantial amount amount of wheat and in doing so saves the country 7% of the water it is entitled to as agreed by the 1959 Nile treaty (Chapagain 2005).

A further advantage of virtual water is an increase in efficiency of water resource management. The increase in the trading of virtual water among water rich and water scarce countries in the year 2000, meant that over 4% of water which would have been used in agriculture was saved. The saving was accounted for by the fact that less water efficient countries were importing from the more efficient countries (Dalin 2011). The international trade of water does not only improve efficiency but also the fair distribution of water worldwide

Disadvantages:

It would be foolish, however, to assume that virtual water did not have its drawbacks. One such drawback is that countries with the highest net export of water including the United States, Canada and Australia may suffer environmental problems and a depletion of their own water resources in the future (Dalin 2011).  This highlight issues relating to the long term sustainability of virtual water.

Another disadvantage of the virtual water trade is that it could cause a dependence of water scarce countries on water rich countries, who are also often economically rich. If this occurred it could mean that countries with less water availability such as Egypt and Sudan may become less self sufficient in term of foo production, which would leave them at the hands of exporting countries. This over reliance could cause conflict, not between neighbouring countries but with the ones holding them politically hostage (Dalin 2011).

Concluding Remarks: 

As an undergraduate student and having only quickly breezed through the topic of virtual water, my opinion may not be the most reliable of opinions, however I will give it anyway. I believe the trading of virtual water has some merit, especially given its potential to distribute water more evenly across the world, as well as to improve efficiency. I do however acknowledge some issues with the concept including those related to dependency and possible political leverage. I think that the trading of virtual water should be implemented simultaneously with the cooperative sharing of transboundary water resources and not as an alternative.

Mauser,W. (2009) Water Resources: Efficient, Sustainable and Equitable Use, London: Haus Publishing Ltd