Fresh water: a review

Having finished studying the ‘Global Environmental Change’ module a conclusion post is in order to summarise what the blog has discussed, although I intend to continue updating it as I believe this is only the beginning of the huge challenge that faces the world regarding water security.

Having covered subjects ranging from conflicts sparked by water and transboundary water disagreements, to the effects on global biodiversity of overuse and contamination of water resources a few things have become obvious.

Firstly, water security, and for that matter many of the other major problems posed to the world, cannot be dealt with in isolation. There are complex trade-offs which exist between the varying needs of the human population, such as water, food and energy, and the need to preserve our environment.

Secondly, the problems that we see today with regards to water scarcity and quality are only going to deteriorate in many regions, especially poorer ones. Climate change, increasing populations and economic growth lead to greater demand for the world’s depleting natural resources meaning careful management of what we have left is required.

Lastly, writing this blog has reinforced my belief that water will remain the most important natural resource on the planet, especially as the world looks to move away from fossil fuels throughout this century. Water is needed to produce food, energy and most other products available and a lack of it can have drastic consequences.

For the world to enjoy growth and development whilst keeping negative environmental effects to a minimum, water resources must be handled carefully. In my opinion further policy changes (ranging from pricing of water to stop overuse, to laws that ensure environmental protection) and cooperation between nations is needed to ensure that the number of people living in water-stressed regions falls, rather than rises.

Water Security and the Global Economy: Why Water Matters

Water resources and economic growth are increasingly understood to be interlinked; water availability has historically been linked to development and growth whilst scarcity in water-stressed regions has been linked with downturn. The global population continues to rise and shift towards water-intensive cities (in 2014, 54% lived in urban areas – this will be 66% in 2050 (UN, 2014)), and along with income increases, demand for freshwater will only increase in the future. However with economic growth and climate change comes a decrease in quality and quantity of fresh water. So will this economic growth be able to continue or will future water scarcity put a stop to it?

It is generally accepted that economic growth is necessary for a flourishing society and facilitates improved standard of living both in individual countries and globally. It means an increase in the productive capacity of an economy which results in more goods and services being produced per capita. Growth therefore increases the standard of living, as this is measured on material prosperity – the amount of goods and services available to a population (Palmer, 2012). This incurs a cost on society, which at a global level involves the depletion of natural resources, of course including water. Another effect is environmental damage, of which there are various examples that can negatively affect the quantity and quality of our fresh water resources. One which we are now seeing is the climate change which has resulted since the unprecedented increase of human activity that is being linked with the start of the Anthropocene around 1950 (Steffen et al., 2004).

A report by GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth found increased runoff had a positive effect on GDP, whilst drought and flood extent had a negative effect. Previous blog posts have suggested this relationship between water availability and economic growth and standard of living. For example, droughts in Syria played a role in the country’s descent into civil war and many of the other poorest countries in the Middle East also suffer from similar water scarcity (or lack of other natural resources). Meanwhile in developing countries greater availability of clean water and sanitation means less money spent on health care, as well as less time spent collecting water, which generates an increase in economic productivity.

The following diagram shows the areas that currently suffer worst from water scarcity.

Source: Mekonnen et al., 2016.

The ‘Climate Change, Water and the Economy’ report by the World Bank , estimates that in the year 2050, water scarcity would impact the GDP of various regions if no changes are made to current water policies. Many of the regions predicted to suffer from the greatest negative effect to GDP are those which are currently most water-stressed. It is worth noting that richer countries that also suffer water scarcity are not predicted to lose out on economic growth as they can afford infrastructure to increase water availability, as well as the cost of transporting it from an area where it is abundant.

Source: World Bank, 2016.

There would be a number of different reasons for this fall in GDP which would vary by region. Countries for which agriculture makes up a greater proportion of GDP (>20%), most of which exist in sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia, would suffer due to water scarcity limiting production and causing a spike in food prices (Sadoff et al., 2016). The irrigation-fed agriculture of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) would also place these already water-stressed regions under even further threat. Lelieveld et al. predicted in a 2016 study that climate change could have a stronger effect in the summer, further intensifying their hot desert climate. This would decrease economic productivity but also increase demand on groundwater supplies, whilst potentially increasing their salinity due to greater evaporation of the water before it reaches depths for groundwater storage (World Bank, 2016). In other parts of the world climate change could increase flood risk, with threat levels high India, China and Vietnam. It is also rising in the USA and Europe as climate change affects river patterns and economic growth and expanding cities place more people and infrastructure at risk (Winsemius et al., 2015).

So how can this global downturn be avoided and what benefits would this bring nations who are at the forefront of improving water security?

As previously discussed water supplies will be in higher demand whilst at the same time being more variable. The nexus between water, food and energy promotes the idea of interdependency between the three sectors. Management with the nexus in mind could help steer policy to ensure sustainable provision of all three to a growing global population. The growth of bioenergy crops to increase energy security is a good example of the three forces in this nexus. Using irrigation whilst growing will increase water withdrawals (possibly counter-productively reducing hydropower potential) and use land space which could have been utilised for growing crops, thus compromising water and food security (WWAP (UN World Water Assessment Programme), 2014) Managing these trade-offs to ensure optimal water, food and energy security is achieved is central to the nexus approach, and should be a cornerstone of governmental policy.

Although hard to fit on a diagram, the following one displays some of the trade-offs which exist between the three sectors.

Source: The CCC Blog

Changes to water policy will be needed to avoid the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario that the world is headed for and which results in a loss in GDP as the first diagram shows. Widely hailed as the most effective of these is pricing water as it reduces the wasteful mentality that causes overuse in countries where water is free or very cheap. Saudi Arabia raised water tariffs for businesses by 50% in 2015 as they attempt to decrease their water usage (around twice the EU average) which is incredibly high for a highly water-stressed country. Water subsidies (the difference between price and the total supply cost) accounted for 0.6% of global GDP in 2012, whilst also furthering inequality (Kochhar et al., 2015). Subsidies allow excessive use in agriculture, which accounts for a very small proportion of GDP in most countries compared to the amount of water it uses. Wasteful use will need to be curbed for a more sustainable future and proper pricing is the best way to do this.

Better and more efficient management of resources is also necessary. Singapore is able to provide widespread, affordable, high quality water due to dams, desalination and reclamation plants, despite having negligible freshwater reserves themselves. However whether all these strategies could be implemented in much poorer countries is doubtful.

The following diagram predicts the effects on GDP in 2050 of efficient water policies, which paints a brighter picture than the first diagram.

 If successful policy changes can be made then there could be a more positive outcome. The regions which still are predicted to suffer a fall in GDP are the previously mentioned MENA, so greater efforts to negate climate change could help these areas be optimistic about their chances of seeing economic growth continue.

On a global level, appropriate pricing and better allocation of resources is needed to accompany technology and infrastructure improvements.  This needs to be pushed to the top of the agenda worldwide to ensure that the future does not hold a world in which more than half the population is at risk of water scarcity.

A fresh water mass extinction: is it on the horizon?

In this blog I have spoken a lot about how fresh water issues such as scarcity and contamination have affected humans, but with the recent release of WWF’s Living Planet Report it seems like a good time to discuss the effect these problems have on fauna and freshwater ecosystems.

Despite covering less than 1% of the Earth’s surface, freshwater contains a disproportionate amount of species, almost 6% in fact (at least 100,000), including around a third of all vertebrates. However there is no doubt that they are under threat, largely, if not entirely, down to human activity. Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010 state habitat degradation, pollution, flow regulation and water extraction, fisheries over exploitation and alien species introduction as the primary causes of this, and there is an increasingly overwhelming case for adding climate change to this list. The Living Planet Index revealed that global populations of vertebrate species had decreased by 58% between 1970 and 2012 with the decline being much more severe in the freshwater ecosystem (81% - as shown in the following diagram) compared to terrestrial (38%) and marine (36%).  

Source: Living Planet Report, WWF.

The fact that 1970 is the starting point of this study makes it likely that significant reductions in population of freshwater species had already occurred. After the Second World War, the building of dams proliferated peaking at around 5500 large dams being constructed per year in the 1970s (Jones, 2014) and although the effects of these are hard to predict, flow interruption can have negative effects on the ecological integrity of flood plain rivers due to changes to patterns of flooding and degradation of downstream channels (Ward and Stanford, 1995) as well as blocking migratory species, and creating calm bodies of water with different temperatures to rivers that may favour different species whilst encumbering others. Dams also block sediment transport which can prevent vital nutrients reaching floodplain soils (Holland, 2016). There were also fewer regulations on industry back then which allowed the likely increased contamination of waterways and in turn habitat degradation.

Since 1970, dam building has remained a driver of this diminution as although construction has reached somewhat of a standstill in Europe and USA, it is still prevalent in developing nations such as China, Brazil and India and there is now 10,000km³ of freshwater stored in dam reservoirs, a staggering five times the amount in surface rivers. The reason for this vast amount of water being needed is of course the increasing consumption of freshwater by humans that has occurred in line with population increases (although these increases were also taking place pre-1970). The following image shows dams being planned and in construction: 

Another side effect of this population rise is the over exploitation of fisheries that has taken place due to an ever-increasing demand for food. This mainly refers to the unsustainable harvest of fish from freshwater, but indirect over exploitation can occur as other species are inadvertently caught in fisheries. Studies have concluded that inland waterways and ecosystems have been poorly managed, and that fish stocking has been prioritised over habitat management (Aps, Sharp, and Kutonova, 2004) which in the long term has resulted in declined numbers.

In terms of how pollution can affect fresh water ecosystems, it is similar to as mentioned in the previous blog post on water contamination. Pollutants can include chemicals and pesticides, raw sewage, petroleum and even thermal discharge. Toxic chemicals, such as PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl) released from industry, and pesticides can have a range of life-threatening effects on aquatic creatures. Depletion of oxygen levels can be triggered by nutrients from agricultural runoff causing eutrophication, as well as the decomposition of faecal matter (WWAP, 2006).

In 1970 when data collection for the LPI started, climate change would not have been considered one of the primary threats to global populations of wildlife. But as carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase and global temperatures exceed 1°C above pre-industrial levels, it can no longer be ignored. Fresh water ecosystems are especially vulnerable to climate change because the species which inhabit them are largely unable to move to a different environment as theirs changes. On top of this, fresh water temperature and abundance are both climate dependent – increased global temperatures can lead to droughts and additional strain being placed on rivers and wetlands with unsustainable extraction levels in order to irrigate crops. This can result in these areas drying up with obvious loss of habitat.

So is there is a solution to this worrying problem of population and species decline?

First of all, it makes sense to protect river and lake ecosystems which are currently untouched. As for those regions which have already been affected by human activity, reconciliation ecology is a term that has been used to ‘encourage biodiversity in human-dominated ecosystems’. It is a recognition that destruction of habitat takes its toll on species. Although it generally applies to smaller, novel ecosystems, this concept is important in changing mind sets towards preservation.

The LPI notes an increase in migratory fish species since 2006, which it puts down to improving water quality in regions such as Europe, and fish passes being added to man-made obstructions to allow migrating fish to move through. If these could be applied globally, especially in the previously mentioned nations where dam construction is still widespread and water quality is generally lower, then it could have a huge effect. Restoration of ecosystems to the condition they were in before humans interacted with them is largely unrealistic, but dam removal projects are the closest thing to this. A number of these have taken place in the USA, where outdated structures are removed often leading to environmental restoration, although due to the huge demand for freshwater from humans it is impossible to make dam removal a widespread process.

There are definite steps forward but the danger is that they are being overwhelmed by the setbacks which could lead to a mass extinction of freshwater species.

Bottled water… a scam or a real threat?

With a global market value of over $150 billion, it is the world’s best-selling soft drink, with a staggering 1 million bottles produced per minute, worldwide. So why has something that is no better than the liquid which comes out of our taps, but can cost 300-1000 times more, become so popular and what are the effects of this on our planet and society?

Tap water in developed countries such as the UK is cheap with the average daily use of 150 litres costing around 21 pence, and regulated to make sure it is of the requisite quality. So why would anyone choose to pay a premium for a small amount of bottled water? The answer lies in how it has been marketed. Companies promote the idea that their product tastes better than tap water, even though blind taste tests have often shown there is no difference. A quick google search shows there is an abundance of different products, with varying claims about what their water can offer (even going as far as claiming to be ‘Earth’s Finest Water’). In reality, they may have differing mineral contents but the differences in taste would be subtle. Between 25-30% of bottled water products are actually just standard municipal water that has been treated, reminiscent of a certain Only Fool's and Horses episode...

Its popularity may also be in part due to a recent push towards healthier lifestyles as people replace sugary soft drinks such as Coca-Cola with bottled water. This is positive in that it cuts the amount of calories in people’s diets (an estimated 74 a day on average in the USA) which has obvious health benefits, but the point remains that the sugary drinks could be replaced with tap water, rather than bottled water. Many of the purchases may also be based upon buying the actual bottle, rather than the water itself, as convenience and cost were shown to be two of the primary factors in decision making when buying bottled water (Ward et al., 2009).

There are negative environmental effects stemming from the bottled water industry too. The single-use bottles which are a regular component of many people’s lunch are made of the plastic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which requires a large amount of oil to produce. This of course produces the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, with 6kg of CO2 released for every 1kg of plastic (enough for around 50 water bottles) made as well as the extra released during everything from transportation to chilling the water for consumption. In contrast, Thames water estimate that to produce a litre of their water 0.0003kg of CO2 is released. Water is also used in the production process of bottled water, with estimates of up to 3 litres of water used to produce 1 litre of bottled water. On top of this, only about 25% of plastics are recycled with the remainder entering landfill (taking hundreds of years to decompose), being incinerated (producing yet more CO2) or ending up littering the world’s oceans posing a hazard to many marine life forms. The Great Pacific garbage patch - a gyre of marine debris that comes from both North America and Asia and consists of mostly plastics – has been estimated to be twice the size of Texas, and will only keep growing as more and more plastic bottles are used and thrown away.

Source: Marine Debris

A recent study by Jamieson et al., 2017 also highlighted the dangers of microplastics, which includes the plastics manufactured to be tiny and that are included in various cosmetic products, and those that result from degradation of larger pieces of plastic. These microplastics have been shown to infiltrate even the deepest parts of the ocean, with levels of 'persistent organic pollutants' in some amphipods in the Mariana Trench exceeding levels commonly found in highly polluted industrial areas.

As discussed in previous posts, around 10% of the world’s population does not have access to clean drinking water. One of the UN’s sustainable development goals was to ensure everyone has access to clean and safe water source by 2030, and surely some of the amount unnecessarily spent on bottled water annually would go a long way towards delivering this.

Filling reusable bottles with tap water would be an obvious step forward in reducing the purchasing that we see today. The recent 5p charge on plastic carrier bags in England has seen reductions in use of around 70% and there are also schemes in other EU countries to reduce waste such as a deposit being placed upon bottles meaning they can be returned to the producer and refilled. Similar arrangements could go a long way to reducing plastic bottle use in the UK, as well as other developed nations.

Water contamination: Can we stop the world’s biggest killer?

It may be surprising to some, but water-borne diseases are the leading cause of death in the world. There are an estimated 3.4 million deaths a year according to the World Health Organisation (99% of which occur in developing countries (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2008)), whilst four-fifths of illnesses in developing countries are caused by contaminated water (Fonyuy, 2014). Clearly the problem of water pollution and contamination is now one of the most pressing issues for developing countries.

So how does water get polluted? Surface water is more commonly contaminated, and this can pose a high risk as many public waterways are used for drinking and cooking water as well as sanitation. However, a lack of infrastructure in towns and cities can lead to sewage and garbage being dumped straight into these waterways. Groundwater is usually safer as it gets filtered as it passes through underground layers of sand, clay and rock (Kjellstrom et al., 2006). Nevertheless, industry and mining can affect the mineral and pH levels of both ground and surface water. Arsenic (especially a problem in southern Asia, including Bangladesh) and fluoride, can leech through the soil into groundwater from both natural and anthropogenic sources, and are seen as the most dangerous inorganic contaminants in the world (Farooqi, 2015). 

The overriding contamination of freshwater comes from nitrogen and phosphurus, which are carried into the water from agricultural runoff. This leads to eutrophication of water bodies, and enhanced productivity of algae to form toxic algae blooms. A consequence of the increased respiration rates is that it depletes the water of oxygen, which can create 'dead zones' with devastating effects on local fauna.

It is not just freshwater reserves which are being increasingly contaminated. Go to any beach in Britain and it’s easy to see the amount of waste and debris washed up onto our shores. There are billions of pieces of plastic floating around are oceans, right down to microscale which can have a devastating effect on wildlife. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a well-known example of water pollution, where 780,000 cubic metres of oil were released into the ocean, causing havoc to marine wildlife as well as the local fishing and tourism industries. Meanwhile, Diaz and Rosenburg, 2008 report more than 400 marine dead zones, caused by toxic algae blooms and oxygen depletion. 

 Why is freshwater contamination such an issue in developing countries, whilst in general richer ones are able to get around the problem? The answer, inevitably, focuses around money. Many developing countries lack the finances to build the necessary infrastructure, such as pipes, treatment plants and wells. The problem is being exacerbated in many African countries by high population growth rates, meaning increased use of unsafe water for drinking, cooking and sanitation.

However the developed world has its problems as well. Recently in the USA there have been reports of contaminated groundwater due to deposition of waste water from the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, process of extracting natural gas. Although natural gas has been hailed as a cleaner alternative to coal, and a transition fuel whilst the world switches to a future which utilises renewable energy sources, it brings its own environmental impacts. Methane concentration has been found to rise with proximity to fracking sites (Holzman, 2011). This video shows an example of how methane levels are so high in some US drinking water supplies that they are actually flammable: 

This has led to a backlash against fracking in regions which are experiencing water pollution. Developed nations have higher expectations with regard to their water supply and are typically willing to take steps to protect the quality of that water.  

How realistic is it though, to expect to radically reduce water contamination in developing countries? Historically poorer agricultural countries are often the ones experiencing the most rapid economic growth, driven by increased globalisation and growing demand for minerals and other commodities.  This typically involves rapid expansion of cities, including the building of new factories and roads, but often without the infrastructure to support dealing with contaminated water.  

However preserving water quality and improving accessibility brings significant potential economic benefits due to a decreased spend on health and less time spent on collecting water, thereby increasing economic productivity. For a developing country to prosper, it is in their interest for economic growth and improvements to the water supply to go hand-in-hand.

In the news this week…

Just a short one. Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States of America. This divisive result will have numerous effects worldwide, but what does it mean for the future well being of the planet?

In 2012, he wrote on his twitter account, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”. Essentially, we now have a climate change denier as the leader of the second most polluting country on Earth. More recently he claimed that he would “cancel all wasteful climate change spending”. As far as our efforts to decrease carbon dioxide emissions in order to slow global warming go, this is not good news.

Just over a week ago, National Geographic released their documentary ‘Before the Flood’. This film explores the real issues threatening the planet such as melting ice caps, massive deforestation and rising sea levels and all in all paints a rather forbidding picture, as well as stressing how the USA is one of the biggest culprits. It ends on an optimistic note, with Johan Rockström, a professor of Environmental Science at Stockholm University, saying he thinks ‘we have tipped the world towards a sustainable future, the fear is are we doing it too slowly?’. Four years of Trump in power will be a stumbling block to any progress that has been made. Not only is he proposing a move back to coal-fired power stations (although the low price and abundance of natural gas due to fracking may end up making this an empty promise), but he has vowed to renegotiate the Paris agreement (there is nothing to stop him just ignoring it anyway) and wants to eradicate the Clean Power Plan which aims to reduce emissions from existing power plants by 30% by 2030.

This will have consequences that reach far beyond the US, as it effectively rules out any remaining hope of limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees above pre-Industrial levels. 20% of the carbon emission reduction agreed to in the Paris agreement is set to come from the US, so them dropping out may set a precedent for the other most polluting nations.

This blog is focussing on water, and it is worth pointing out that Earth is not the only planet in the solar system with water on. There might not be as much liquid water on Mars as there used to be (de Haas, 2014) but actually there is an abundance of water ice below the surface as the following video explains:

Only time will tell whether we damage our planet so irrepairably that many parts of it are uninhabitable, but with 2016 set to be the hottest year on record (breaking the previous record set in 2015) maybe we shouldn’t be too hasty in ruling out a trip over to our red neighbour! And if we’re still in need of water we could consider this:

http://www.trump.com/merchandise/trump-natural-spring-water/

An update in Central Asia

Just an update to my second blog post. I spoke about tensions in central Asia between five countries, some of which were lacking in water, others in the means to generate electricity.

Well, Tajikistan has officially begun construction on what is set to be the world’s largest dam (a whopping 335 metres tall). More information about the Rogun hydropower project can be found in this BBC article.

The proposed dam had drawn criticism from downstream neighbouring Uzbekistan. However, since the recent death of its President Islam Karimov, relations between the countries seem to be improving.

It will take over a decade to complete, but progress means an end to freezing cold winters is in sight for many Tajikistan residents.

The trucks are rolling in to begin construction on the world's tallest dam.