Report35 WaterFootprint Guadiana

WATER FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS FOR THE
GUADIANA RIVER BASIN
M.M. ALDAYA1
M.R. LLAMAS2
NOVEMBER 2008
VALUE OF WATER RESEARCH REPORT SERIES NO. 35
1
Twente Water Centre, University of Twente, The Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected]
2
Department of Geodynamics, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
The Value of Water Research Report Series is published by

UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands
in collaboration with
University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, and
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
CONTENTS
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................5
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................7
2. Study area....................................................................................................................................................9
3. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................13
4. Data sources and limitations .....................................................................................................................19
5. Results.......................................................................................................................................................21
5.1 Mancha and Don Benito agricultural region analysis.........................................................................21
5.2 Guadiana water footprint ....................................................................................................................31
5.3 Review of crop water consumption estimates ....................................................................................45
6. Conclusions...............................................................................................................................................49
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................................51
References.........................................................................................................................................................53
Symbols.............................................................................................................................................................57
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................59
Appendix I. Mancha and Don Benito agricultural region analysis ...................................................................63

Appendix II. Guadiana river basin analysis......................................................................................................69
Summary
In most arid and semiarid countries, water resources management is an issue as important as controversial.
Today most water resources experts admit that water conflicts are often not caused by physical water scarcity but
poor water management or governance. The virtual-water concept, defined as the volume of water used in the
production of a commodity, good or service, together with the water footprint (water volume used to produce the
goods and services consumed by a person or community), link a large range of sectors and issues, providing an
appropriate framework to find potential solutions and contribute to a better management of water resources,
particularly in arid or semi-arid countries.
As the most arid country in the European Union, water use and management in Spain is a hot political and social
topic. The aim of this study is to analyse the virtual water and water footprint in the semiarid Guadiana basin,
both from a hydrological and economic perspective. The trans-boundary Guadiana river basin located in south-
central Spain and Portugal drains an area of 66,800 km2, of which 17% lies in Portugal. The present analysis is
carried out for the Spanish side of the basin which has been divided into the Upper, Middle and Lower Guadiana
basin and the TOP domain. The TOP domain is a group of three small river basins located near the Guadiana
River mouth. In these regions the main green and blue water consuming sector is agriculture, with about 95% of
total consumptive water use. In the Upper and Middle Guadiana basins, high virtual-water low-economic value
crops are widespread, particularly cereals with low economic productivity of the blue water inputs. In particular,
the Upper Guadiana basin is among the most significant in Spain in terms of conflicts between agriculture, with
almost no food (virtual water) import, and the conservation of rivers and groundwater-dependent wetlands. On
the other hand, in the Lower Guadiana basin and the TOP domain, vegetables and crops under plastic
greenhouses are grown for which the economic productivity of the blue water inputs are much higher, using both
surface and groundwater resources. The Guadiana basin has already moved into the direction of "more crops and
jobs per drop". The aim now is to move towards “more cash and nature per drop”, especially in the Upper and
Middle Guadiana basin.
1. Introduction
In most arid and semiarid countries, water resource management is an issue as important as controversial. Today
most water resources experts admit that water conflicts are often not caused by physical water scarcity but poor
water management. Virtual water and water footprint analysis, linking a large range of sectors and issues,
provides an appropriate framework to find potential solutions and contribute to a better management of water
resources, particularly in water scarce countries.
The water footprint (WF) is a consumption-based indicator of water use defined as the total volume of water that
is used to produce the goods and services consumed by an individual or community (Hoekstra and Chapagain,
2008). Closely linked to the concept of water footprint is the virtual-water concept. The virtual-water content of
a product (a commodity, good or service) refers to the volume of water used in its production (Allan, 1997;
1999; Hoekstra, 2003). Building on this concept, virtual water ‘trade’ represents the amount of water embedded
in traded products (Hoekstra and Hung, 2002). A nation can preserve its domestic water resources by importing
water intensive products instead of producing them domestically (Chapagain et al., 2006a). These ‘water
savings’ can be used to produce alternative, higher-value agricultural crops, to support environmental services,
or to serve growing domestic needs. Thus, virtual water ‘import’ is increasingly perceived as an alternative
source of water for some water-stressed nations and is starting to change the current concepts of water and food
security.
Virtual water and water footprint analysis makes explicit how much water is needed to produce different goods
and services. In semi-arid and arid areas, knowing the virtual-water content of a good or service can be useful
towards determining how best to use the scarce water available. In this sense, it is important to establish whether
the water used proceeds from rainwater evaporated during the production process (green water) or surface water
and/or groundwater evaporated as a result of the production of the product (blue water) (Falkenmark, 2003;
Chapagain et al., 2006b). Traditionally, emphasis has been given to the concept of blue water through the
“miracle” of irrigation systems. However, an increasing number of authors highlight the importance of green
water (Rockström, 2001; Falkenmark and Rockström, 2004; Allan, 2006; Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture, 2007). Virtual water and water footprint assessment could thus inform production
and trade decisions, promoting the production of goods most suited to local environmental conditions and the
development and adoption of water efficient technology. Adopting this approach, however, requires a good
understanding of the impacts of such policies on socio-cultural, economic and environmental conditions.
Besides, water is not the only factor of production and other factors, such as energy, may come to play an
increasingly important role in determining water resources allocation and use.
The present study deals with the economic and hydrological analysis of the virtual water and water footprint of
the Guadiana river basin, considering both green and blue water applied in the different economic sectors. This
could facilitate a more efficient allocation and use of water resources, providing simultaneously a transparent
interdisciplinary framework for policy formulation. The Guadiana river basin is shared by Spain and Portugal,
but this report focuses on the Spanish part of the basin.. This study analyses the water footprint, virtual water and
8 / Water footprint analysis for the Guadiana river basin
economic relevance of each economic sector at different spatial scales in different rainfall years (evaluating an
average - 2001, dry -2005, and humid year -1997). Special emphasis is given to the agricultural sector, which
consumes about 95% of total green and blue water resources. First of all two specific agricultural regions are
analysed: Mancha in the Upper Guadiana basin and Don Benito in the Middle Guadiana. Second, the whole
Guadiana is evaluated, which has been divided in four sections: groundwater based Upper Guadiana basin,
mainly surface water based Middle basin, both groundwater and surface water based Lower Guadiana basin and
the former Lower Guadiana or Guadiana II (henceforth TOP domain) comprising the Tinto, Odiel and Piedras
river basins. At the end of each chapter virtual water ‘trade’ is evaluated. Finally, crop water consumption
estimates are assessed against the results obtained by other national and international studies. A glossary with
key terms is also included at the end of the study. It concludes that a better knowledge of the water footprint and
virtual water ‘trade’ in the semiarid Guadiana basin provides a transparent and multidisciplinary framework for
informing and optimising water policy decisions, contributing at the same time to the implementation of the EU
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). As a whole the Guadiana river basin has already achieved a good
degree of the paradigm “more crops and jobs per drop” but it is still far from achieving “more cash and nature
per drop”. An exception for this is the case of the Lower Guadiana basin and the TOP domain in Andalusia,
where water-extensive high economic value crops adapted to the Mediterranean climate are grown, essentially
vegetables, fruits and olive oil. Most water footprint studies until date have focused on hydrological aspects. One
step towards including economic aspects was made by Kampman et al. (2008). A significant innovation of this
work is to emphasize the imperative challenge of considering hydrologic aspects together with economic and
ecological aspects, with the aim of going towards the new paradigm “more cash and nature per drop” (Aldaya et
al., 2008). Finally, the water footprint analysis is providing new data and perspectives that are enabling to get a
more optimistic outlook of the frequently spread looming «water scarcity crisis». We expect that this new
knowledge makes traditional water and food security concepts change, concepts that have hitherto prevailed in
the minds of most policy makers.
2. Study area
The Guadiana basin has an area of about 67,000 km2 (83% in Spain and 17% in Portugal). The climate is
semiarid, with an average precipitation of about 450 mm/year and average annual temperature of 14-16 ºC
(INAG, 2007; CHG, 2008a).
For practical purposes, the basin has been divided in four areas (Figure 1): a) groundwater based Upper
Guadiana basin (totally located in a part of the Castilla-La Mancha Autonomous region); b) mainly surface water
based Middle Guadiana basin (comprising part of Extremadura but not the small fraction of Cordoba); c) the
Lower Guadiana basin (including the part of the basin in Huelva); and d) TOP domain (comprising the Tinto,
Odiel and Piedras river basins). The TOP domain was the competence of the Guadiana River Basin Authority
before 1 January 2006, but its competence was then transferred to the Government of Andalusia (CHG, 2008a).
CUENCA
CÁCERES TOLEDO
CIUDAD REAL
ALBACETE
BADAJOZ
CÓRDOBA
HUELVA
SEVILLA
GEOGRAPHIC DOMAIN
PROVINCES
CÁDIZ GUADIANA RIVER BASIN
TOP COMPLEMENTARY DOMAIN
0 19.5 39 78 117 156

Kilometres
Figure 1. Guadiana river basin geographic and administrative domain from 1 Jan. 2006 onwards (CHG, 2008a).
According to CHG (2008b) when referring to the Guadiana river basin on the whole (‘Total Guadiana’ in the
present document), it includes the Upper, Middle and Lower basins including the small fraction of Cordoba.
CUENCA
CÁCERES TOLEDO
CIUDAD REAL
BADAJOZ
ALBACETE
CÓRDOBA
Agricultural regions
PROVINCES
HUELVA
GUADIANA RIVER BASIN
SEVILLA
MANCHA OCCIDENTAL AQUIFER
MANCHA AGRICULTURAL REGION
0 25 50 100 150 200

Km
Figure 2. Western Mancha aquifer location within the Upper Guadiana Basin. Modified from CHG (2008b).
The Upper Guadiana basin, located in Castilla-La Mancha, and including the Mancha agricultural region, is one
of the driest river basins in Spain (Hernández-Mora et al., 2003). In this part, UNESCO recognized the collective
ecological importance of 25,000 ha of wetlands in 1980, when it designated the “Mancha Húmeda” Biosphere
Reserve. In a largely arid region, these wetlands provided crucial nesting and feeding grounds for European
migrating bird populations and were home to rare animal and plant species. The Tablas de Daimiel National Park
(2,000 ha), a Ramsar Site, stands out for its significance as a symbol for the Spanish conservation movement.
Today, however, this wetland that used to receive the natural discharge from the Western Mancha aquifer
(Figure 2), survive artificially, in a kind of “ecological coma”, thanks to the water transfers that come from the
Tagus-Segura Aqueduct starting in 1988 (Hernández-Mora et al., 2003) and to the artificial pumpage of
groundwater to maintain flooded about the 5% of the 2,000 hectares of wetlands in the undisturbed National
Park. More recently, some NGOs are claiming that ”La Mancha Humeda, Biophere Reserve” should not be
considered any more by UNESCO as a World Biosphere Reserve. On the other hand, in order to recover these
ecosystems, the Spanish Government, at the proposal of the Ministry of the Environment, approved a Special
Plan for the Upper Guadiana (Plan Especial del Alto Guadiana –PEAG) on 11 January 2008 (CHG, 2008c). The
formal approval of this Plan includes a budget of 5,500 million euro to be spent during the next 20 years.
It is very interesting to analyse the virtual water and water footprint at different scales. In this work we have
started from the small scale and then deal with the whole basin. Thus, we have firstly analysed two agricultural
regions. These two agricultural regions are located in different sections of the Guadiana Basin and have different
characteristics (Figure 3):
1) Mancha agricultural region in the Upper Guadiana basin (Ciudad Real, in the Autonomous region of Castilla-
La Mancha) – is the region with the highest groundwater irrigation proportion in the whole Guadiana basin
(96%) (CHG, 2008b). This development has been done mainly by private farmers.
Water footprint analysis for the Guadiana river basin / 11
2) Don Benito agricultural region in the Middle Guadiana basin (Badajoz, in the Autonomous region of
Extremadura) - is the region with the highest surface water irrigation proportion in the whole Guadiana basin
(94%) (CHG, 2008b). This development has been done mainly by the Government with public funds.
1
2
PROVINCES
Agrarian regions
1 Mancha
2 Don Benito
0 2 5 10 15 20
Km
Figure 3. Mancha (1) and Don Benito (2) agricultural regions within the Guadiana river basin. Modified from CHG
(2008b).
The seven most representative crops in each area have been studied corresponding to about 70% of the total crop
area for Mancha (Appendix I.II) and 50% for Don Benito agrarian region (Appendix I.III). When choosing the
crops, not only the number of hectares has to be taken into account but also their economic productivity and
water consumption.
3. Methodology
The present study estimates the virtual water and water footprint of the Guadiana river basin considering the
green and blue water components for the most representative crops and the blue water component for livestock,
industrial products and domestic (urban) water use. Within the blue water component, the volumes of surface
and groundwater consumption are differentiated. In parallel with these analyses, economic data are studied. This
is done at different spatial and time scales. First of all, two different agricultural regions are studied (Mancha and
Don Benito) and then the whole river basin (Upper, Middle, Lower Guadiana and TOP domain). In every case
this is done for an average (2001), dry (2005) and humid year (1997).
The virtual water and water footprint are calculated using the methodology developed by Hoekstra and Hung
(2002; 2005) and Chapagain and Hoekstra (2003; 2004). For its emphasis on green and blue water, the present
research follows recent works of Chapagain et al. (2006b) and Hoekstra and Chapagain (2008).
Virtual-water content (V)
The virtual-water content of a product (V) is the volume of freshwater used to produce the product, which
depends on the water use in the various steps of the production chain. The virtual-water content of a product
breaks into a green and blue component. These components refer to evapotranspired rainwater and
ground/surface water respectively.
The virtual-water content of primary crops, i.e. crops in the form as they come directly from the land without
having undergone any processing, was estimated in a number of steps following Hoekstra and Chapagain (2008).
First, crop water requirements (CWR, mm/day) were calculated over the period from planting to harvest. The
crop water requirement is the water needed for evapotranspiration under ideal growth conditions. “Ideal
conditions” means that adequate soil water is maintained by rainfall and/or irrigation so that it does not limit
plant growth and crop yield (Y). The crop water requirement of a certain crop under particular climatic
circumstances was estimated with the CROPWAT model developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(Allen et al., 1998; FAO, 2003). Calculations were made with a time step of 5 days. This means that the average
monthly rainfall input is distributed by the program every 5 days. In this model, basically, the crop water
requirement is calculated by multiplying the reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0, mm/day) by the crop
coefficient (Kc):
CWR = Kc x ET0
Effective rainfall
Climatic Crop period Crop yield
available
parameters Yc
Peff [mm/day]
Reference
evaporation
ET0 [mm/day]
Crop Crop water Green water Total crop green Green Virtual
parameters requirement evapotranspiration water use Water Content
ETc [mm/day] ETg [mm/day] CWUg [m3/ha] VWCc
Irrigation
requirement
IR [mm/day]
Effective Irrigation Blue water Total crop blue Blue Virtual Water
Irrigation
water supply evapotranspiration water use Content
efficiency
Ieff [m3] ETb [mm/day] CWUb [m3/ha] VWCb
Total irrigation
Irrigation water Irrigation losses
losses
supply Is [m3] Iloss
WUloss
Figure 4. Diagram to calculate the virtual-water content of a primary crop. Based on Hoekstra and Chapagain
(2008).
The reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) is the evapotranspiration rate from a reference surface, not short of
water. The reference is a hypothetical surface with extensive green grass cover with specific characteristics. The
only factors affecting ET0 are climatic parameters. ET0 expresses the evaporating power of the atmosphere at a
specific location and time of the year and does not consider the crop characteristics and soil factors. The actual
crop evapotranspiration (ETc) under ideal conditions differs distinctly from the ET0, as the ground cover, canopy
properties and aerodynamic resistance of the crop are different from grass. The effects of characteristics that
distinguish field crops from grass are integrated into the crop coefficient (Kc).
With regard to the crop parameters, the crop coefficients in different crop development stages (initial, middle
and late stage), the length of each crop in each development stage and the cropping calendar (planting and
harvest dates) are used as input data to CROPWAT. For perennial crops, the planting dates can be assumed to be
the green-up date, that is, the time when the initiation of new leaves occur, for the calculation of crop water
requirements.
Apart from CWR, the CROPWAT model (Allen et al., 1998; FAO, 2003) was also used to estimate the effective
rainfall (Peff). From the few inbuilt options to estimate effective rainfall in this model, we have chosen the USDA
SCS (USDA Soil Conservation Service), as it is one of the most widely used methods in estimating Peff in
agricultural water management. Effective rainfall is the part of the total amount of rainwater useful for meeting
the water need of the crop, generally slightly less than the total rainfall because not all rainfall can actually be
appropriated by the crop, e.g. due to surface runoff or quick percolation.
Next to effective rainfall, irrigation requirements have to be calculated over the full growing period. The
irrigation requirement (IR, mm/day) is zero if effective rainfall is equal or larger than the crop water requirement
at a certain time step (5 days), but else it is equal to the difference between crop water requirement (CWR,
mm/day) and effective rainfall (Peff, mm/day):
IR = max (0, CWR – Peff)
Green water evapotranspiration (ETg, mm/day), i.e. evapotranspiration of rainfall, will be equal to the minimum
of crop water requirement (CWR, mm/day) and effective rainfall (Peff, mm/day). Similarly, blue water
evapotraspiration (ETb, mm/day), i.e. field-evapotranspiration of irrigated water, will be the minimum of
irrigation requirement (IR, mm/day) and effective irrigation (Ieff, mm/day), which refers to the amount of
irrigation water that is available for plant uptake:
ETg = min (CWR, Peff)

ETb = min (IR, Ieff)
In practice, at the scale at which we work, we generally know little about available effective irrigation water. At
best we can obtain data on ratios of irrigated to non-irrigated cropland areas. We are therefore forced to simply
assume that throughout the growing period the amount of effective irrigation is zero in the case of non-irrigated
or rainfed lands. This implies that ETb is supposed to equal IR for the irrigated areas and assumed to be zero for
the non-irrigated lands. In reality there are lands that are irrigated but not sufficiently to meet irrigation
requirements at times, but this can only be dealt with if more detailed irrigation data are available. In our two
cases we have preliminarily assumed that effective irrigation is equal to IR since in the Upper Guadiana basin
groundwater irrigation the farmers pump practically always the necessary water and in the Middle Guadiana the
buffering capacity of the existing huge reservoirs almost always guarantee the necessary irrigation. In relation to
groundwater irrigation in the Upper Guadiana basin it may not be realistic because, theoretically or legally, the
amount of water that the farmers are allowed to pump may be significantly smaller than the IR. It is difficult to
ascertain the degree of enforcement of the Guadiana Basin pumpage restrictions.
Total evapotranspiration from the crop field is the sum of the two above calculated components (ETg and ETb).
All above-mentioned water flows are expressed in mm/day, but in CROPWAT calculations we actually apply a
time step of 5 days, to account for the possibility of soil moisture storage. Temporary storage of rain or irrigation
water in the soil makes it possible that surplus water in one day can be used by the plants in the next four days,
so that a day-by-day comparison of crop water requirement and effective rainfall or irrigation water would
decrease the ETg and increase the ETb.
The green and blue components in crop water use (CWU, m3/ha) are calculated by accumulation of daily
evapotranspiration over the complete growing period:
lg p
CWUg = 10 ETg
d 1
lg p
CWUb = 10 ETb
d 1
The factor 10 is meant to convert mm into m3/ha. The summation is done over the period from the day of
planting (day 1) to the day of harvest (lgp stands for length of growing period in days). Since different crop
varieties can have substantial differences in the length of the growing period, this factor can significantly
influence the calculated crop consumptive water use (CWU). The “green” crop consumptive water use (CWUg)
represents the total rainwater evapotranspiration from the field during the growing period; the “blue” crop
consumptive water use (CWUb) represents the total irrigation water evapotranspiration from the field. Total crop
consumptive water use – the sum of the above two components – is equal to the crop water requirements
summed over the growing period if rainwater is sufficient throughout the growing period or if shortages are
supplemented through irrigation.
The green component in the virtual-water content of a primary crop (Vg, m3/ton) is calculated as the CWUg
(m3/ha) divided by the crop yield (Y, ton/ha). The blue component (Vb, m3/ton) is calculated in a similar way, but
should also include a component that refers to evaporation losses within the irrigation water storage and
transport system. At this stage, we have not included this component as these data are not easily available. Since
Y is different for rainfed and irrigated lands each of them has been estimated separately: calculating one green
component (Vg) for rainfed areas and other Vg and Vb for irrigated lands:
CWUg
Vg =
Y
CWUb
Vb =
Y
It is highlighted that, in this preliminary study, the IR are always assumed to be met due to the huge reservoirs in
the Middle Guadiana and aquifer in the Upper.
The total virtual-water content of a primary crop (V, m3/ton) is the sum of the green and blue components:
V = Vg + Vb
The green and blue components of virtual-water content of crops were calculated separately for each agricultural
region. Irrigation losses (Iloss) and the dilution volume of water, that is, the theoretical amount of water that
would be required to dilute pollutants emitted during the production process, are not estimated in the present
study.
Crop water supply was estimated by dividing the crop consumptive water use (CWU) by the average global
irrigation efficiency for each crop in the region. Concerning vineyard, olive tree and tomato water consumption,
when irrigated by localized irrigation, dual coefficients were applied following SIAR (2008).
Water footprint
In line with Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004), the water footprint of a country is equal to the total volume of water
used, directly or indirectly, to produce the goods and services consumed by the inhabitants of the country. A
national water footprint has two components, the internal and the external water footprint. First, the internal
water footprint is defined as the volume of water used from domestic water resources to produce the goods and
services consumed by the inhabitants of the region (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008). It is the sum of the total
water volume used from the domestic water resources in the national economy minus the volume of virtual water
export to other countries insofar related to export of domestically produced products. Second, the external water
footprint is the volume of water used in other regions to produce goods and services imported and consumed by
the inhabitants of that region. The present study calculates the water footprint per sub-basin related to
production. Trade data at a provincial level are presented separately.
4. Data sources and limitations
In order to carry out this report, a number of simplifications have been assumed. First of all, the virtual-water
content values obtained with the CROPWAT model should be considered as a first approximation to reality. The
main gaps in this approach are: a) the lack of data on the soils characteristics and their storage capacity for the
effective rain; b) the amount of irrigation water “lost” from the surface reservoirs to the field; c) the amount of
water necessary to abate the pollution; and d) the reduction in crop yield when the irrigation demand cannot be
supplied. Second, the eight most representative crops in each area have been studied corresponding to about 80%
of the total area (Appendix I). In the case of the agricultural regions, the crops analysed represent 70% of the
total crop area in Mancha and 50% in Don Benito. These are extrapolated to 100% of the total cultivated area;
obviously these simplifications mean that the final data obtained should only be considered as preliminary
approximations. Third, with the aim of analysing the impact of climate variability on the use of water resources
three different rainfall years were chosen: a humid (1997), average (2001) and dry year (2005). The average
rainfall in 2001 was about 355 mm in Castilla-La Mancha, 547 in Extremadura and 510 mm in Andalucía. When
available, data for these years were used. This was not possible, however, in every case as shown below in this
chapter. Fourth, and following CHG (2008b) data, when estimating the urban water use, urban water supply and
sanitation data have been taken into account. Fifth, concerning the industrial water use, since energy and
building industry are not considered within the industrial sector, hydroelectric energy was not included (CHG,
2008b). Sixth, with regard to the livestock water consumption, the drinking water and water to clean its housing
is considered, leaving out the water used to grow and process its fodder. This is important when comparing these
data with other analyses of the livestock water footprint. Finally, data have been compiled from different
sources.
Geographic and social data
Data related to human population and employment by agricultural region were taken from the Guadiana River
Basin Authority (CHG, 2008b).
Climatic data
Average monthly rainfall and evapotranspiration data at provincial level, as an input for the CROPWAT model
(FAO, 2003), were obtained from the National Institute of Meteorology (INM, 2007).
Agricultural data
Data related to area (total area, crop area both rainfed and irrigated, irrigated area by irrigation system) by
agricultural region were taken from the Guadiana River Basin Authority (CHG, 2008b) and the Spanish Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1T sheets (MAPA, 1999; 2001b).
Data on average rainfed and irrigated crop yield (Y) (kg/ha) at provincial level were taken from the Agro-
alimentary Statistics Yearbook of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA, 2007).
With regard to the crop parameters, as input data to CROPWAT, the crop coefficients in different crop
development stages (initial, middle and late stage) were taken from FAO (Allen et al., 1998; FAO, 2003). The
length of each crop in each development stage was obtained from FAO (Allen et al., 1998; FAO, 2003) when the
climate region was specified; otherwise it was obtained from the work of Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004). The
crop calendar was taken from the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA, 2001a). These
data are also given at provincial level.
Economic data
Data related to gross value added (GVA) were taken from the Guadiana River Basin Authority (CHG, 2008b).
Gross value added is obtained by deducting intermediate consumption from final agricultural production. Thus
gross value added is equal to net output or benefit to the farmer that can be used for the remuneration of
productive factors. Nevertheless, in this study we will focus on the final economic agricultural production (total
€) as well. Crop economic value (€/ton) for the different years was obtained from the Spanish Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA, 2007). We are aware, however, that prices may change significantly
from one year to the other. These data are an average for the whole Spain. In the present report CAP subsidies
were not included (CHG, 2008b).
Hydrologic data
Data related to water origin (surface and groundwater) by agricultural region were taken from the Guadiana
River Basin Authority (CHG, 2008b), which is based on the 1999 Agrarian Census of the National Statistics
Institute (INE, 2007).
Green and blue crop consumptive water use (CWU, m3/ha) data were estimated using the CROPWAT model
(FAO, 2003) (see Methodology section). Data on blue water withdrawals (surface and ground water) were taken
from the Guadiana River Basin Authority (2007).
Average global irrigation efficiency at provincial level was taken from the CHG (2008b). It depends on the type
of irrigation technique used by the farmer. Localized or drip irrigation is the most efficient system with a 0.9
coefficient, followed by sprinkler irrigation with 0.7 and finally, surface flood irrigation with 0.5.
Dual coefficients for vineyard, olive tree and tomato were estimated following SIAR (2008).
Trade data
Data related to international trade at a provincial level were taken from ICEX (2008).
5. Results
Since irrigated agriculture is the main blue water user in the Guadiana Basin (about 90% according to MIMAM,
2007), the present study mainly focuses on water use by this sector. First of all, two agricultural regions are
studied in detail (Mancha and Don Benito) and then the whole river basin (Upper, Middle and Lower Guadiana
plus TOP domain). Finally, the obtained green and blue crop water consumption values are compared with
national and international studies.
5.1 Mancha and Don Benito agricultural region analysis
5.1.1 Crop area
Mancha agricultural region is more than two times larger in area both total (4,700 km2) and crop area (390,000
ha) than Don Benito (Table 1). Both of them have a significant crop area proportion devoted to irrigated
agriculture (57% in the case of Don Benito and 38% in Mancha region) in comparison with the Spanish average
which just amounts to 22% (MIMAM, 2007).
Table 1. Agricultural general values in Mancha and Don Benito agricultural regions in 2001. Total rainfall of 424
mm in Ciudad Real and 491 mm in Badajoz – average year.
Average
1 2 global
Total Crop area (ha) Irrigated area by irrigation system (ha)
Agricultural Popu- irrigation
1 area efficiency
3
region lation
(km2)
Surface
Total Rainfed Irrigated Sprinkler Localized Total %
flood
65,320 69,828 2,467 137,615
Mancha 208,012 4,676 390,177 240,931 149,246 0.8
(47%) (51%) (2%) (100%)
12,097 12,785 29,706 54,588
Don Benito 89,605 1,957 123,987 53,194 70,793 0.64
(22%) (23%) (54%) (100%)
1 Source: CHG (2008b) for the year 2001.

2 Source: CHG (2008b) from data from 1999 Agricultural Census (National Statistics Institute, INE) and 1T sheets
(Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, MAPA) for the years 1989 and 1999. This may explain the
difference between irrigated crop area (for 2001) and the total irrigated area (for 1989 and 1999).
3 Average global irrigation efficiency, as used here, depends on the type of irrigation technique used by the
farmer. Localized or drip irrigation is the most efficient system with a 0.9 coefficient, followed by sprinkler irrigation
with 0.7 and finally, surface flood irrigation with 0.5. From these efficiencies, an average irrigation efficiency is
given at provincial level by the CHG (2008b).It is significant the great difference in the efficiency between the two
regions. This is due to the predominant use of groundwater in La Mancha.
As shown in Figure 5, in the year 2001 the area dedicated to each crop type varies in each region. Vineyards and
cereals are the most important crops in Mancha, both in rainfed and irrigated agriculture. On the contrary, cereals
and olive trees have to be highlighted in Don Benito and in particular vegetables in irrigated farming. In both
cases it is noteworthy the high proportion of fallow land. After the Common Agricultural Policy reform (2003),
however, vineyard and olive tree irrigated production has increased significantly in Spain (18% y 16%
respectively) (MAPA, 2006). According to Garrido and Varela (2008) this is notable in Castilla- La Mancha
Autonomous Community. It is expected that significant changes in crop distribution will continue to occur in the
near future. This may be driven by diverse factors, some of them unexpected as the recent increase of cereals
price, others due to technological advances such as the growing importance of the irrigation of olive-trees.
MANCHA
Irrigated agriculture Rainfed agriculture
Cereals
Cereals 22%
Vineyard
33%
31%
Vineyard
Grain legumes
51%
6%
Fodder
2%
Grain legumes 5
Olive tree
Industrial crops 3
Fodder 2% 10%
Olive tree Vegetables Fallow land
3 4% 29%
Vineyard
Olive tree
DON BENITO 2%
13% Olive tree
20%
Temperate climate
fruit trees cereals
5%
46%
Cereals
Vegetables
14% 61%
Fallow land
27%
Industrial crops
6% Grain legumes 1%
Fodder
Industrial crops 1%
1%
Figure 5. Crop area percentage of irrigated and rainfed agriculture in Mancha and Don Benito regions (average-
year 2001). Showing crops occupying over 1% of land. Source: CHG (2008b).
5.1.2 Water consumption
Concerning the crop consumptive water use (m3/ha), we have initially considered that all the theoretical
evapotranspirative crop demands are satisfied in irrigation. In the real world, these water demands in Don Benito
agricultural region are probably satisfied. In Mancha agricultural region, however, which is overlying the
Western Mancha Aquifer (Figure 2), this does not probably occur due to heavy political and administrative
restrictions (Martínez-Santos, 2007). In 1987 the aquifer was legally declared overexploited by the Guadiana
River Water Authority. Since then, in the overlying area there is a legal restriction of not using more blue water
than 1200-2640 m3/ha for herbaceous (depending on the planted area) and between 800-1000 m3/ha for woody
plants (mainly vineyards) (according to the rainfall) in 2007 (CHG, 2008b). As seen in Figure 6 these numbers
are lower than the theoretical water demands by the crops, estimated according to the previously explained
method (using CROPWAT program).
Dry Average Humid

(2005) (2001) (1997)
556
854
Vineyard 1452 1670
3619 2890
664
1057
1186
Olive tree 1820
3271 2502
318
1540 1237
Oat, barley 2200 2079
3743
341
1481 1245
Wheat 2277 2058
3759
319 392
1254
Maize
7460 6534 4445
319 298
1156
Tomato
6510 5779 3845
GREEN WATER BLUE GROUNDWATER
Figure 6. Irrigated agriculture green and blue water consumption (m3/ha) per crop and year in Mancha agricultural
region assuming that evapotranspirative demands (using CROPWAT program) are completely satisfied, which is
far away from the reality. Similar figures are obtained for Don Benito region. Source: Own elaboration.
When looking at the theoretical crop water requirements calculated for Mancha and Don Benito agricultural
regions, interesting patterns emerge (Figure 7). It can be seen that the crop water requirements (CWR) are
similar every year (about 800-900 Mm3 in La Mancha and about 450 Mm3 in Don Benito). As it might be
expected, there are remarkable variations in the different types of rainfall years, being the blue water
consumption higher in dry years and lower in humid years. In the case of Mancha agricultural region the dry
year crop blue water requirements almost double the humid year ones.
Dry Average Humid

(2005) (2001) (1997)
186
313
La Mancha 24 460 411
537
631
13
19
22 20 14
78
134
Don Benito 214
230
376 326
GREEN WATER BLUE SURFACE WATER BLUE GROUNDWATER
Figure 7. Theoretical green and blue agricultural water consumption (Mm3/year) in Mancha and Don Benito
agricultural regions in a dry, average and humid year considering rainfed and irrigated agriculture. Source: Own
elaboration.
As shown in Table 2, the theoretical crop water requirements (CWR) of both Mancha and Don Benito regions
are somewhat higher than the numbers given by the Water Authority for the same year (CHG, 2008b). There are,
however, remarkable crop water requirement variations in the different types of rainfall years as mentioned
above.
As shown in Table 2, total crop water requirement figures are closer to the total crop water supply numbers in
Mancha than in Don Benito region. This is probably attributable to the high efficiency of irrigated agriculture in
the former region. Localized and sprinkler irrigation systems predominate in Mancha, versus surface flood in
Don Benito (Table 1).
Theoretical crop groundwater consumption data in Mancha region are compared with groundwater abstractions
from the Upper Guadiana basin since they overlap in space (Table 3). As displayed in Table 3, the water
abstracted from the aquifers in the Upper Guadiana Basin, according to the Water Authority (CHG, 2008b) is not
correlated with our theoretical crop water consumption in the Mancha agricultural region (Figure 7). This is
probably due to the fact that many factors have an influence on the real water withdrawal, such as CAP
payments not to irrigate, land-use changes, uncertainties due to illegal water users, insufficient control by the
River Basin Authority and so on. Furthermore, we have to bear in mind that the area of Mancha region does not
exactly match that of the whole Upper Guadiana basin. However, it is difficult to explain why the Water
Authority considers that in the dry year 2005 the water abstraction (387 Mm3) was smaller than in the humid
year 1997 (417 Mm3). According to our method the theoretical evapotranspirative demand of blue water
(practically all groundwater) was 631 Mm3 (double than in the humid year).
Table 2. Total crop water use in Mancha and Don Benito agricultural regions in 2001.
3 4
Total crop water use (Mm /year) Water origin (%)
Agricultural Supply1
region Use2 (CHG, 3
(CHG, Use (own elaboration) Surface water Ground water
2008b)
2008b)
2001 2001 2001 1997 2005
Year
Average Average Average Humid dry
Mancha 450 360 479 325 656 0.04 0.96
Don Benito 380 243 346 244 398 0.94 0.06
1 Total crop water supply. Source: CHG (2008b)

2 Theoretical blue crop consumptive water use. Source: CHG (2008b) (Thornthwaite method)
3 Theoretical total blue crop consumptive water use in the Mancha agricultural region. It was calculated for 70%
of the area for Mancha and 50% for Don Benito and adjusted to the 100% of the area assuming the same
proportions. Own elaboration (see Methodology Section).
4 Surface and groundwater in volume percentage data, average value by agricultural region according to CHG
(2008b).
Table 3. Water abstractions in the Upper Guadiana basin according to the Water Authority compared with the
theoretical blue crop consumptive groundwater use in the Mancha agricultural region.
Year Water abstractions after CHG1 (Mm3) Theoretical CWUb2 (Mm3)

Humid - 1997 417 313
Average - 2001 387 460
Dry - 2005 387 631
Average 1980-2005 383
1 Total water abstractions from the Upper Guadiana Basin. Source: CHG (2008b)
2 Theoretical blue crop consumptive groundwater use in the Mancha agricultural region. It was calculated for 70%
of the area and adjusted to the 100% of the area assuming the same proportion. Own elaboration following FAO
(2003).
5.1.3 Virtual-water content (m3/ton) in irrigated lands
As shown in Figure 8, it is noteworthy that, among the studied crops, olive trees and cereals show the highest
blue virtual-water contents in irrigated agriculture. Most people consider that maize and vegetables are water-
wasteful since in terms of m3/ha these crops consume large amounts of water. Nevertheless, when looking at the
virtual-water content in m3/kg these crops consume less water than it is generally believed. In fact, among the
studied crops tomatoes exhibit the smallest virtual-water content figures, probably due to the high yields they
have. Furthermore, when looking at food security issues, it could also be interesting to look at the nutritional
value these crops provide (m3/calorie) (Zimmer and Renault, 2003).
When comparing the virtual-water contents of the different crops in Mancha and Don Benito these are quite
similar. There are some differences, however, which may be due to the different evapotranspiration and yields
these regions display.
Dry year (2005) Average year (2001) Humid year (1997)

2400
2000 GREEN WATER
1600 BLUE WATER
Vineyard 1200
800
400
0
2400
2000
1600
Olive tree 1200

800
400
0
2400
2000
1600
Wheat 1200
800
400
0
2400
2000
1600
1200
Maize
800
400
0
2400
2000
1600
1200
Tomato 800
400
0
Mancha Don Benito Mancha Don Benito Mancha Don Benito
Figure 8. Irrigated agriculture green and blue virtual content per crop and year in Mancha and Don Benito
(m3/ton). Source: Own elaboration (see Appendices I.II and I.III).
5.1.4 Agricultural economic productivity (€/ha)
As shown in Table 4, and in accordance with Hernández-Mora et al. (2001) and Berbel (2007), agricultural
economic productivity of irrigated agriculture is higher than that of rainfed agriculture. In our case this is true for
any type of year (average, humid and dry). From a socio-economic perspective, irrigated agriculture not only
provides a higher income, but also a safer income. This is due both, to the higher diversification it allows, and to
the reduction of climate risks derived from rainfall variability (Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture, 2007). In our case, this security is provided by permanent water availability due to
the huge surface water reservoirs in Don Benito and to the aquifer in Mancha (although the administrative
restrictions decrease this security if the regulations are enforced, which is not clear).
On the whole, when comparing Mancha and Don Benito, vineyards have the highest economic productivity
(€/ha) in Mancha both in rainfed and irrigated farming, while wheat, tomatoes and in particular irrigated olive-
trees are more profitable in Don Benito. The olive tree economic productivity values (€/ha) are higher in Don
Benito probably because of their higher yields in this region. It is difficult to discern, however, why this yield is
so different in two regions with similar climate. We consider that it will be appropriate to get more information
on the economic value of olive-trees. In any case, according to Garrido and Varela (2008) many farmers are
changing their crops to irrigated olive-trees.
Table 4. Agricultural economic productivity (thousand €/ha) per crop and year in Mancha and Don Benito. These
values do not include subsidies.
Dry year (2005) Average year (2001) Humid year (1997)

Crops Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated
Vineyard 2.8 6.4 1.8 5.5 2.8 5.0
Olive tree 0.3 1.4 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.2
Oat 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4
Wheat 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5
Mancha
Barley 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4
Maize 0.1 1.9 1.0 1.6 0.2 1.3
Tomato - 23.5 - 15.7 - 11.8
Weighted average 1.6 4.2 1.2 3.6 1.7 3.3
Vineyard 2.7 4.0 2.3 3.6 3.3 4.0
Olive tree 0.6 2.8 0.8 2.5 0.5 1.3
Oat 0.1 - 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4
Don Wheat 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.6

Benito Barley 0.2 - 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.5
Maize - 1.4 - 1.6 - 1.5
Tomato - 33.1 - 19.2 - 15.2
Weighted average 0.4 7.8 0.6 5.2 0.4 4.0
Source: Own elaboration (see Appendices I.II and I.III).
Regarding the tomato economic productivity, the drier the year the higher the productivity (Figure 9). This could
be explained by the higher prices of tomatoes in the market in more arid years, at least in the case of the ones
under study. Figure 9 and Table 4 clearly show the great differences in the economic productivity per hectare of
the different crops in rainfed and irrigated agriculture. It seems that in the near future the main massive crops are
going to be vineyards and olive-trees. Tomato and vegetables are in general more productive but are more
related to the market changes and farmers in the region seem less prepared to cope with these uncertainties.
Perhaps this will change in the future if a better commercial training is acquired by these farmers. The recent and
spectacular increase in the prices of cereals does not seem to change the general outlook.
5.1.5 Economic blue water productivity (€/m3)
The economic water productivity analysis is one of the most important aspects of the present research. In arid or
semiarid industrialized countries, such as the case of Spain, economic and environmental determinants are
becoming more and more important and, either consciously or unconsciously, the old paradigm “more crops and
jobs per drop” is shifting towards “more cash and nature per drop”. Along these lines, groundwater plays a very
relevant role in addressing this paradigm. In order to achieve this motto it is very important to know the
economic water productivity of the different agricultural crops and differentiate the origin of water (groundwater
use predominates in Mancha and surface water in Don Benito).
35
Dry (2005)
30 Average (2001)
Mancha Humid (1997)
25
20
15
10
30
Don Benito
25
20
15
10
0
Vineyard Olive tree Oat Wheat Barley Maize Tomato
Figure 9. Economic productivity of irrigated crops in Mancha and Don Benito Agricultural regions (thousand €/ha).
As it is shown in Figure 10, economic water productivity varies depending on the type of crop. As expected, the
crops with lower virtual-water content and higher economic value present the highest economic water
productivities, such as tomatoes (with around 2-3 €/m3). This can be extended to other high value low water
consumption vegetables in the region. Even with lower figures, vineyards (0.5-2.5 €/m3) and olive trees (0.3-0.8
€/m3) are the second and third most profitable crops in Mancha and Don Benito. This is probably the reason why
vineyard and olive tree irrigated production has increased significantly in Spain (18% y 16% respectively) and in
particular in Castilla- La Mancha Autonomous Community (MAPA, 2006). In the case of the vineyard economic
water productivity in irrigated agriculture is higher in Mancha than in Don Benito. It is the opposite for the olive
tree which is, in general, more productive in Don Benito. In any case, the water economic productivity is quite
similar and rather low in these two continental regions. Low value crops are widespread, with the only exception
of tomato, and other vegetables, which present higher economic values. In other regions with intensive
horticultural production under plastic, probably the case of the former Guadiana TOP domain in Huelva, net
productivities for irrigated agriculture can be as much as 50 times higher than when using surface water and as
high as 12 €/m3, such as the case of greenhouse cultivation using groundwater in Almeria (Vives, 2003).
3,5
Dry (2005)
3 Average (2001)
Mancha Humid (1997)
2,5
Groundwater based
2
1,5
0,5
3
Don Benito
2,5
Surface water based
2
1,5
0,5
0
Vineyard Olive tree Oat Wheat Barley Maize Tomato
Figure 10. Blue water economic productivity (€/m3) concerning agricultural water supply by crop and year in
Mancha and Don Benito. Source: Own elaboration (see Appendices I.II and I.III).
3
Table 5. Blue water economic productivity (€/m ) concerning agricultural water supply by crop and year in Mancha
and Don Benito. Source: Own elaboration (see Appendices I.II and I.III).
3
Economic water supply productivity (€/m )
Agricultural
Crop Dry year (2005) Average year (2001) Humid year (1997)
region
Vineyard 1.4 1.5 2.4
Olive tree 0.3 0.4 0.8
Oat 0.0 0.2 0.2
Mancha Wheat 0.1 0.2 0.2
Barley 0.1 0.2 0.2
Maize 0.2 0.2 0.2
Tomato 2.9 2.2 2.4
Vineyard 0.6 0.6 1.1
Olive tree 0.4 0.4 0.4
Oat - 0.1 0.1
Don Benito Wheat 0.1 0.2 0.1
Barley - 0.1 0.1
Maize 0.1 0.2 0.2
Tomato 2.9 1.9 2.0

Overall, blue water economic productivity is higher in humid years. This is probably due to the fact that during
humid years rainfall is higher and consequently farmers use less blue water (Table 5). The only exception is the
case of tomato production which is essentially based on blue water resources.
Water economic productivity (€/m3) not only depends on the climatic conditions of each region and particularly
on the yields, but also on the efficiency of the water use. Along these lines, as shown in Table 5, during the
humid year (1997), the economic blue water productivity in relation to the crop water supply is higher in la
Mancha region (mainly groundwater-based) than in Don Benito (mainly surface water-based) in all the studied
crops. It is the same for the average (2001) and dry (2005) year, except for olive trees, which are more
productive in Don Benito. Nevertheless, these differences in the economic water productivity are not so relevant
as in other Spanish regions. We think that this is mainly due to the huge capacity of the surface water reservoirs
that guarantee the irrigation water supply for irrigation in Don Benito. For instance, this is not the usual situation
in Andalusia (see Llamas et al., 2001, pp. 151-152; Vives, 2003).
In line with existing data on groundwater use and its associated economic value, groundwater irrigated
agriculture has a higher productivity when compared with irrigation using surface water (Hernández-Mora et al.,
2001). Some of the reasons that explain this higher productivity are the greater control and supply guarantee
groundwater provides, which in turn allows farmers to introduce more efficient irrigation techniques; and the
fact that users bear all private costs, thus paying a higher price per volume of water used than irrigators using
surface water. This motivates them to look for more profitable crops that will allow them to maximize their
return on investments and to use water more efficiently (Hernández-Mora et al., 2007). This difference, in line
with previous studies (Hernández-Mora and Llamas, 2001; Vives, 2003; Hernández-Mora et al., 2007), will
probably be more prominent during severe drought periods since in Mancha region farmers can rely on secure
groundwater sources. Nevertheless, as we have already mentioned, many are the factors that have an influence
on blue water use, such as administrative restrictions or the Common Agricultural Policy support to investments
for improving the state of irrigation infrastructure.
Consequently, and in line with Llamas (Llamas and Garrido, 2007), the estimated data for irrigated agriculture in
Mancha and Don Benito regions show that, groundwater is usually more productive than surface water
resources, even if the Middle Guadiana basin is one of the most regulated river basins in Spain.
5.1.6 Agricultural trade
In most water footprint studies the food trade among the different zones has a great relevance. In our case this
relevance is smaller and the lack of disaggregated data only allows a very preliminary analysis. Data provided in
this section are taken from ICEX (2008), which provides international trade data at a provincial level.
Interprovincial trade, therefore, is not taken into account as we have not been able to find the adequate data.
Concerning trade in tonnes, it is noteworthy that Ciudad Real, comprising Mancha, is a net exporter as a whole,
and in particular of wine (Figure 11). Badajoz, including Don Benito, is a net canned-tomato exporter, while
importing other commodities such as fresh tomatoes or wheat. It is has to be highlighted the increase of tomato
and wheat imports in the analysed dry year in this province (Figure 11). These imported tomatoes are probably
transformed and re-exported. Extremadura, and in particular Badajoz, is the main industrial tomato exporter in
Spain.
Similar patterns can be seen in Figure 12 for international trade in economic terms, being Ciudad Real a net wine
exporter both in tons and euro while Badajoz industrial tomato exporter in both senses. This is in line with crop
production data in both Mancha and Don Benito agricultural regions, where vineyards and fresh tomatoes are
mainly grown respectively.
5.2. Guadiana water footprint
As seen in the methodology chapter, and in order to complete the analysis, the Guadiana river basin has been
divided in four areas (Upper, Middle, Lower Guadiana and TOP domain). When comparing the Guadiana basin
gross value added (GVA) with national figures for the different sectors, the agricultural sector represents a value
of 8.4 % of the national total, having both agriculture and livestock similar shares. Agriculture of the TOP
domain represents 1.6 % of the national GVA, representing the livestock just a small amount (0.3 %).
Concerning the manufacture industrial sector GVA, both in the Guadiana basin and TOP domain, it is not
relevant in comparison with the total national, representing 1.99 % and 0.45 % of the total national respectively.
These figures show the relevance of agriculture in these areas in comparison with other Spanish regions where
industry and tourism are more important.
5.2.1 Crop area
The Spanish Guadiana river basin crop area is 26,000 km2, which is about 47% of the total area. As a whole, in
the basin, 19% of the crop area is devoted to irrigated agriculture. This proportion is similar to the Spanish
average which amounts to 22% (MIMAM, 2007).
As shown in Figure 13, the area dedicated to each crop type varies in each Guadiana section in the year 2001
(average precipitation). When looking at the rainfed agriculture similar crops are grown in the different
Guadiana sections, highlighting cereals, olive trees and vineyards. Concerning irrigated agriculture, in general,
cereals, vineyards and olive trees dominate in the Upper and Middle Guadiana basins, whereas citrus trees and
vegetables in the Lower Guadiana and TOP domain. In all the cases it is noteworthy the high proportion of
fallow land. After the Common Agricultural Policy reform (2003), however, vineyard and olive tree irrigated
production has increased significantly in Spain (18% y 16% respectively) (MAPA, 2006). According to Garrido
and Varela (2008) this is notable in Castilla- La Mancha Autonomous Community. It is expected that significant
changes in crop distribution will continue to occur in the near future due to different causes, such as the increase
in cereal prices.
160
140
Export Import
120
1997 (humid) Ciudad Real 1997 (humid) Badajoz
100
80
60
40
20
0
140
2001 (average) 2001 (average)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
140
2005 (dry) 2005 (dry)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tomato Wheat Barley Oat Maize Olive oil Wine Tomato Juice Tomato Wheat Barley Oat Maize Olive oil Wine Tomato Juice
conserve conserve
Figure 11. Agricultural commodity export and import in thousand tonnes from Ciudad Real and Badajoz during the
years 1997 (humid), 2001 (average) and 2005 (dry). Source: Own elaboration based on ICEX (2008) data
140
Export Import
120
100
1997 (humid) Ciudad Real 1997 (humid) Badajoz
80
60
40
20
0
120
2001 (average) 2001 (average)
100
80
60
40
20
0
120
2005 (dry) 2005 (dry)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tomato Wheat Barley Oat Maize Olive oil Wine Canned Juice Tomato Wheat Barley Oat Maize Olive oil Wine Canned Juice
tomato tomato
Figure 12. Agricultural commodity export and import in thousand euro from Ciudad Real and Badajoz during the
years 1997 (Humid), 2001 (average) and 2005 (dry). Source: Own elaboration based on ICEX (2008) data
Rainfed agriculture Irrigated agriculture
Vineyard Upper Guadiana

15%
Grain cereals
Grain cereals 34%
Olive tree 36%
10% Vineyard
46%
Grain legumes
Fallow land Grain legumes 4%
5% Industrial crops
26%
Industrial crops Fodder 4%
Fodder Olive tree 3%
5% 5% Vegetables
2%
5%
Vineyard
Vineyard Middle Guadiana 6%
8%
Grain cereals Olive tree

37% 23%
Olive tree
25% Grain cereals
46%
Temperate
climate fruit trees
4%
Grain legumes
3% Vegetables
Fallow land Industrial crops 10%
19% Fodder 2% Industrial crops
6% 7%
Greenhouses
Vineyard TOP Olive tree 2% Grain cereals
5%
5% 6%
Olive tree
14% Temperate Industrial crops
Grain cereals climate fruit 13%
34% trees
Dry fruit trees 9%
3%
Vegetables
Fallow land 22%
27% Citrus
Industrial crops 38%
15%
Lower Guadiana
Vineyard Grain cereals
Olive tree 7% 6% Industrial crops
19% Olive tree 4%
Grain cereals 7%
26% Fodder
7%
Temperate
climate fruit Vegetables
Dry fruit trees trees 11%
12% 10%
Fodder
3%
Fallow land Citrus

38% 47%
Figure 13. Percentage of areas of irrigated and rainfed crops in the Upper, Middle, Lower Guadiana and TOP
domain (average-year 2001). Showing crops occupying over 1% of land. Source: CHG (2008b).
5.2.2 Water use and consumption: total and by the agricultural sector
Total Water Use
As in most arid and semiarid regions, in the Guadiana river basin the main green and blue water consuming
sector is agriculture, with about 95% of total water consumption in the basin as a whole (Table 6). The following
main blue water user is urban water supply with less than 5% of the water applied for agriculture. If we consider
that most urban water returns to the system, it can be said that agriculture consumptive uses are more than 95%
of all the uses. However, the security of this supply is extremely relevant from a political and economic point of
view. Concerning the Andalusian part (Lower Guadiana and the so-called TOP domain), agriculture consumes a
lower water proportion, of about 75-80%, which account for the increase of the urban water supply. The
industrial sector, even if it is the smallest water user, represents the highest economic value (GVA). Agriculture
is also a significant economic activity in the Guadiana river basin, being the most important share of the GVA
after the industrial sector (Table 6). Thus, even if urban and industrial uses have an obvious economic and social
relevance, agriculture, as the highest water consumer in the basin, is the key to water resources management in
the area.
Concerning rainfed and irrigated farming in the whole basin excluding TOP domain, total rainfed area is more
than five times the irrigated area (2,100x103 and 400x103 hectares respectively) (Appendix II). Rainfed systems
consume about 55% of the total water consumed by the agricultural sector (Table 6) and use green water (i.e.
rainfall) that has a lower opportunity cost compared to the blue water use (i.e. irrigation) (Chapagain et al.,
2006a). Even if significantly smaller in extension, irrigated agriculture produces more tonnes and euro than
rainfed agriculture (Appendix II).
Table 6. Water footprint related to production for the Guadiana river basin (year 2001).
1
TOTAL GUADIANA
Water footprint related to Green blue total Per capita GVA7 Water economic productivity
Population
production6 Mm3/year 3
m /cap/year million € €/m3
1,417,810 Agricultural 2,212 1,827 4,039 2,849 1,096 0.60
Livestock 22 22 16 286 12.74
8
Urban 130 130 91 128 0.999
Industrial 20 20 14 1,557 77.90
Total 2,212 1,999 4,211 2,970 3,068 1.53
2
UPPER GUADIANA
Population 6
production 3
Mm /year
3
m /cap/year million € €/m
3
636,721 Agricultural 1,286 928 2,214 3,478 599 0.65

Livestock 5 5 8 131 25.05
8 9
Urban 55 55 86 54 0.99
Industrial 12 12 19 929 77.04
Total 1,286 1,000 2,286 3,591 1,714 1.71
Table 6. continued.
3
MIDDLE GUADIANA
Population 6
production 3
Mm /year
3
3
672,534 Agricultural 905 886 1,792 2,664 413 0.47

Livestock 13 13 20 124 9.30
8 9
Urban 65 65 96 64 0.99
Industrial 6 6 9 485 78.82
Total 905 970 1,876 2,789 1,086 1.12
4
TOP
7
Water footprint related Green blue total Per capita GVA Water economic productivity
Population
to production6 3
Mm /year 3
m /cap/year million € €/m3
341,080 Agricultural 74 77 151 444 205 2.66
Livestock 1 1 3 10 8.57
8
Urban 38 38 112 38 0.999
Industrial 8 8 24 554 68.62
Total 74 125 199 583 807 6.47
5
LOWER GUADIANA
Population
production6 3
Mm /year
3
3
62,213 Agricultural 21 13 33 535 45 3.54

Livestock 1 1 20 9 7.42
8 9
Urban 7 7 106 7 0.99
Industrial 1 1 16 82 80.76
Total 21 22 42 677 143 6.63
1 The Total Guadiana region includes the whole Guadiana river basin excluding the TOP domain. It is not the
average of the Upper and Middle Guadiana.
2 The Upper Guadiana includes a fraction of Castilla-La Mancha Autonomous region.
3 The Middle Guadiana includes a fraction of Extremadura (Badajoz and Cáceres).
4 In line with CHG (2008b), TOP region is the Tinto, Odiel and Piedras river basin complementary region.
5. The Lower Guadiana region includes the fraction of the basin in Huelva.
6 Water footprint related to production by economic sectors.
7 Source: CHG (2008b)
3
8 Estimated with data from MIMAM (2007): 0.99 €/m for urban water supply and sanitation in the Guadiana river
basin.
9 Source: MIMAM (2007)
Agricultural water consumption
As shown in Figure 14, when taking into account rainfed and irrigated water consumption, crop water
requirements are somewhat higher in the humid year. As it might be expected, there are remarkable variations in
the green and blue water proportions in years with different rainfall patterns, being the blue water consumption
higher in dry years and lower in humid years. While logically the green water consumption shows the opposite
pattern.
2500
Humid
Average Blue water
Green water
2000 Humid
Average
Dry
Dry
1500
1000
500
Humid Average Dry

Humid Average Dry
0
Upper Guadiana Middle Guadiana TOP Lower Guadiana
Figure 14. Theoretical green and blue agricultural water consumption (Mm3/year) in the Upper, Middle, Lower
Guadiana and TOP domain a dry (2005), average (2001) and humid year (1997). Source: Own elaboration.
The blue water consumption in the Upper Guadiana basin is mainly based on its groundwater resources, whereas
the Middle Guadiana basin uses its surface water resources, mainly coming from large surface water reservoirs
(Figure 15). The Lower Guadiana basin and TOP domain combine both ground and surface water strategies.
5.2.3 Virtual-water content in irrigated lands (m3/ton)
The virtual water analysis establishes the amount of water required by specific crops and it differs considerably
among crop and climate types. For instance, Spain has a comparative advantage over most of the other European
countries in the production of Mediterranean crops (such as vegetables, citrus fruits, vineyards or olive oil). It is
also important to determine whether the water used proceeds from blue (i.e. irrigation) or green water (i.e.
rainfall), and whether the blue water is surface or ground water.
Figure 16 provides an overview of the virtual-water content of irrigated crops (m3/ton) in the different sections of
the Guadiana basin in the different rainfall years. As shown in this figure, it is noteworthy that, among the
studied crops, industrial crops (such as sunflowers), grain legumes, grain cereals (1,000-1,300 m3/ton) and olive
trees (about 1,000-1,500 m3/ton) show the highest virtual-water contents in irrigated agriculture. In humid years,
however, olive trees are mainly based on green water resources. As previously mentioned, until recently, olive
trees (and vineyards) were typical rain-fed crops. However, in last years the irrigated area seems to be
significantly increasing for both crops. It is widely believed that maize and vegetables are water-wasteful since
in terms of m3/ha these crops consume large amounts of water. Nevertheless, when looking at the virtual-water
content in m3/kg these crops consume less water than it is generally believed. In fact, among the studied crops
vegetables (100-200 m3/ton) exhibit the smallest virtual-water content figures, probably due to the high yields
they have. Finally, vineyards have intermediate virtual-water contents, of about 300-600 m3/ton.
Humid (1997) Average (2001) Dry (2005)
564
835 534
Upper Guadiana 63 1286 1084
1713
120
93
107 142 172

Middle Guadiana
506
561
745 905
1280
905
TOP
29 34 35
83 74 51
37 43 45
Lower Guadiana 3 3 3
9
23 10 21 10 15
Green Water Blue surface water Blue groundwater
Figure 15. Theoretical green and blue (surface and ground) agricultural water consumption (Mm3/year) in the
Upper, Middle, Lower Guadiana and TOP domain a dry (2005), average (2001) and humid year (1997). The size
of the circle is proportional to the volume of water. Source: Own elaboration.
Despite the semiarid nature of the Guadiana basin, in the Upper and Middle Guadiana basin irrigated grain cereal
production is widespread in the year 2001. Even if vineyards and olive trees are the most widespread crop in the
basin during the year 2001, aside from cereals. Two reasons may explain this trend. First, vineyards are
significantly water-efficient (in fact, vineyards are traditionally considered dryland crops) and second, irrigated
vineyards provide quite high economic revenue per hectare. In the Lower Guadiana basin and TOP domain, on
the other hand, irrigated citrus trees and vegetables account for most part of the irrigated area and represent the
highest total economic values in this region. What occurs in these two small areas of our study is a general
situation in other coastal areas of Andalusia (Hernández-Mora et al. 2001; Vives, 2003).
The economic value of agricultural commodities is an important aspect. For example, many farmers have moved
from water-intensive and low economic value crops to water-extensive and higher economic value crops. Alfalfa
has been substituted by grapevine or olive trees (Llamas, 2005). According to Llamas (2005) the motto “more
crops and jobs per drop” should be replaced by “more cash and nature per drop”. Nevertheless, there is still a
long way to go to achieve this motto in the Upper and Middle Guadiana basins. In the Lower Guadiana and TOP
domain it has been partly achieved, at least on its first half.
4000
UG Blue water
3500 LG Green water
UG Average (2001)
3000 LG
2500
MG
2000
UG
1500 LG
1000 MG
MG
LG MG
500 LG LG
UG UG UG
UG MG LG
0
Grain Maize Grain Potatoes Industrial Fodder Vegetables Citrus Olive tree Vineyard
cereals legumes crops
4000
3500 LG
UG Humid (1997)
3000
UG
2500
LG
MG
2000
MG
1500
UG MG LG LG
UG
1000 MG
UG MG MG
500 LG LG UG
UG UG
UG MGLG
0
14000
UG
12000
Dry (2005)
10000
8000
UG
6000
MG
LG
4000
LG
MG
2000 UG LG UG
MG LG
MG MG MG
UG LG UG
UG LG UG UG MG LG LG
0
Figure 16. Irrigated agriculture green and blue virtual content per crop and year in the different Guadiana
sections: UG: Upper Guadiana, MG: Middle Guadiana, LG: Lower Guadiana and TOP domain in different rainfall
years (m3/ton). Source: Own elaboration.
5.2.4 Agricultural economic productivity (€/ha)
As it is widely known, agricultural economic productivity of irrigated agriculture is higher than that of rainfed
agriculture (Hernández-Mora et al., 2001; Berbel, 2007; MIMAM, 2007). In the case of the Guadiana basin this
is true for any type of year (average, humid and dry) (Figure 17). Concerning the agricultural economic
productivity per crop of irrigated agriculture, vegetables have the highest revenues per hectare (5,000-50,000
€/ha). Followed by vineyards (about 4,000-6,000 €/ha), citrus in the Andalusian section (3,000-5,000 €/ha),
potatoes (2,000-6,000 €/ha) and olive trees (about 1,000-3,000 €/ha). Finally grain cereals, grain legumes and
industrial crops have productivities of less than 1,000 €/ha.
Irrigated agriculture Rainfed agriculture

50000
Upper Guadiana
Average (2001)
40000 Middle Guadiana
TOP
30000
Lower Guadiana
20000
10000
0
Humid (1997)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Dry (2005)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Grain Grain Potatoes Industrial Vegetables Citrus Olive Vineyard Grain Grain Potatoes Vegetables Olive Vineyard
cereals legumes crops tree cereals legumes tree
Figure 17. Economic productivity of irrigated and rainfed agriculture per hectare by crop type in the different
Guadiana sections in different rainfall years (€/ha). Source: Own elaboration.
5.2.5 Economic blue water productivity (€/m3)
The agricultural total water economic productivity has been calculated in two different ways: using GVA (CHG,
2008b) (Table 6) and using crop economic value (MAPA, 2002) (Figure 18). In both cases the highest value per
cubic meter is obtained in the Andalusian part (including the Lower Guadiana and TOP domain), due to the high
economic value of the vegetables, which are widespread in the region.
According to Llamas and Martínez-Santos (2005), most probably high value crops are watered with groundwater
resources or combining ground and surface water. For instance, Hernández-Mora et al. (2001) show that, in
Andalusia (in a study considering almost one million irrigated hectares), agriculture using groundwater is
economically over five times more productive and generates almost three times the employment than agriculture
using surface water, per unit volume of water used. This difference can be attributed to several causes: the
greater control and supply guarantee that groundwater provides, which in turn allows farmers to introduce more
efficient irrigation techniques and more profitable crops; the greater dynamism that has characterized the farmer
that has sought out his own sources of water and bears the full costs of drilling, pumping and distribution; and
the fact that the higher financial costs farmers bear motivates them to look for more profitable crops that will
allow them to maximize their return on investments (Hernández-Mora et al., 2001). Surface and groundwater
distinction, therefore, should be taken into account in order to achieve an efficient allocation of water resources.
Furthermore, in line with previous studies in arid and semi-arid regions (Hernández Mora et al. 2001; Vives
2003; Garrido et al., 2006), the social (jobs/m3) and economic (€/m3) value of groundwater irrigation generally
exceeds that of surface water irrigation systems. Agricultural water economic productivity was thus expected to
be higher in groundwater based areas.
Along these lines, the Lower Guadiana basin and TOP domain, with a joint surface and groundwater use, have
the highest agricultural water economic productivities because they predominantly grow cash crops. The
groundwater based Upper Guadiana basin has intermediate values, whereas the surface water based Middle
Guadiana shows the lowest water economic productivities. Nevertheless, Upper and Middle Guadiana present
similar values in dry years. Probably, this small difference is due on the one hand, to the water irrigation security
provided by the existing large surface water reservoirs in the Middle Guadiana; and, on the other, because the
use of groundwater in the Upper Guadiana basin has serious legal and political restrictions, at least in theory.
Water economic productivity

3.5
Humid (1997)
Average (2001)
3.0
Dry (2005)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Upper Guadiana Middle Guadiana TOP Lower Guadiana
Figure 18. Total blue water economic productivity (€/m3) concerning agricultural water consumption by year in the
Upper, Middle and Lower Guadiana and TOP domain. Source: Own elaboration.
The water economic productivity analysis can be very useful in order to identify possible water uses not justified
in economic efficiency terms and achieve an efficient allocation of water resources. According to MIMAM
(2007), average productivity of blue water used in irrigated agriculture in Spain is about 0.44 €/m3. When
looking at the productivity per crop type in the Guadiana basin (Figure 19), vegetables (including horticultural
and greenhouse crops) present the highest economic value per water unit (amounting to 15 €/m3 in the
Andalusian part: Lower Guadiana and TOP domain). These numbers are similar to the figures estimated by
Vives (2003) for greenhouse cultivation using groundwater in Almeria, which amount to 12 €/m3. With lower
values vineyards (1-3 €/m3), potatoes (0.5-1.5 €/m3), olive tree (0.5-1 €/m3) and citrus trees (0.3-0.9 €/m3) show
intermediate values. Finally, with remarkably lower values, grain cereals, grain legumes and industrial crops
display an average productivity of less than 0.3 €/m3. These data clearly show that the problem in the Guadiana
basin is not water scarcity but the use of water for low value crops. Once again, the policy in the near future has
to be to more cash per drop.
12
Upper Guadiana
Average (2001) Middle Guadiana
10
TOP
Lower Guadiana
8
2
0
16
Humid (1997)
14
12
10
16
Dry (2005)
14
12
10
0
Grain Grain Potatoes Industrial Vegetables Citrus Olive tree Vineyard
3
Figure 19. Blue water economic productivity (€/m ) concerning agricultural water consumption by crop and year in
the Upper, Middle and Lower Guadiana and TOP domain. Source: Own elaboration.
5.2.6 Agricultural trade
The international trade data provided in this section are given at a provincial level as more disaggregated data
were not found (ICEX, 2008). The main provinces of each river basin section have been analysed: Ciudad Real
for the Upper Guadiana, Badajoz for the Middle Guadiana and Huelva for the Lower Guadiana and TOP domain.
Concerning trade in tonnes, euro and virtual water, it is noteworthy that Ciudad Real is a net exporter, mainly of
wine, and barely imports any commodity (Figure 20). During the studied period this province has relied on its
own food production without depending on global markets. This has been probably at the cost of using its scarce
water resources. In relation to Badajoz, is a net canned-tomato exporter, while importing other commodities such
as cereals. It has to be highlighted the increase in cereal imports in drier years (Figure 21). Huelva also imports
virtual water intense commodities, such as cereals, whereas exports low virtual-water content fruits (Figure 22).
The drier the year the higher the cereal imports. In hydrologic terms, cereal virtual water imports save 1015 Mm3
in Huelva, whereas vegetable exports just uses 100 Mm3. Even if in terms of tonnes and water consumption
cereal imports remarkably surpass fruit exports, in economic terms fruit exports are much more important than
cereal imports.
Virtual water imports, and in particular cereal imports, play a role in compensating for the water deficit and
providing water and food security in the Middle Guadiana and Andalusian part (Lower Guadiana and TOP
domain). For these regions, however, the underlying motivation of importing food (virtual water) is probably
hardly a pursuit of comparative advantage, but to fill the domestic shortfall of food supply and to maintain social
stability. According to Van Hofwegen (2004) one can only speak of virtual water trade if conscious choices are
made in water and environmental management policies whether or not to make water available or to release
pressure on the domestic water resources by importing goods that else would have consumed much of the
domestic water resources available. To make conscious choices, the elements of choice and the players involved
in virtual water trade have to be made visible. Allan (2001) states that virtual water trade is so successful because
it is invisible and is applied beyond the general political debate. However, invisibility may lead to postponement
of necessary reforms by politicians as imports can be regarded as ‘secret reserves’ that might bail out in the short
run (Warner, 2003). Finally, the concept of virtual water trade could be very relevant for this region. Local
planning and regional collaboration incorporating the notion of virtual water trade could result in exchange of
goods, diversification of crops, diet awareness creation or crop replacement actions.
Ciudad Real
180
1997
160 2001
Exports Imports
140 2005
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Flowers Vegetables Fruits Coffee Cereals Seeds Oil Drink Elaborated Flowers Vegetables Fruits Coffee Cereals Seeds Oil Drink Elaborated
Tea Tea
250
200
150
100
50
0
Tea Tea
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Flowers Vegetables Fruits Coffee Cereals Seeds Oil Drink Flowers Vegetables Fruits Coffee Cereals Seeds Oil Drink
Tea Tea
Figure 20. Agricultural commodity export and import in thousand tonnes, million euro and million cubic metres
from Ciudad Real during the years 1997 (Humid), 2001 (average) and 2005 (dry). Source: Own elaboration based
on Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004) and ICEX (2008) data.
Badajoz
180
1997
160 2001
Exports Imports
140 2005
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tea Tea
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tea Tea
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Tea Tea
from Badajoz during the years 1997 (Humid), 2001 (average) and 2005 (dry). Source: Own elaboration based on
Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004) and ICEX (2008) data.
Huelva
800
1997
700 2001
Exports Imports 2005
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Tea Tea
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Tea Tea
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Tea Tea
from Huelva during the years 1997 (Humid), 2001 (average) and 2005 (dry). Source: Own elaboration based on
Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004) and ICEX (2008) data.
5.3. Review of crop water consumption estimates by various experts
The present study should be taken as a very interesting but rough approximation to the reality. In Tables 7 and 8
green and blue water requirements of the analysed crops by various sources are presented.
When comparing the green water consumption data with other sources, there is a remarkable disparity derived
from the methodology in use (Table 7). The present green crop water use numbers, based on FAO Penman-
Monteith equation and CROPWAT model, are higher than figures given by the ITAP (2008), based on the FAO
Penman-Monteith equation and an estimation of effective irrigation as 70% of total rainfall. Furthermore, small
changes in planting and harvest dates entail big changes in crop water use figures (m3/ha). This could explain
these differences. With regard to the different rainfall years, as expected, there are notable differences depending
on the type of year, being lower in dry years (Table 7).
When looking at the theoretical blue water consumption values, the present research results do not seem to differ
significantly from other sources (Table 8). As shown in Table 7, wheat and other cereals as a whole consume
great amounts of blue water whereas their economic value in the markets is very low. Olive tree and vineyard
blue water requirements vary depending on the source but they are generally somewhat lower than those of the
cereals.
In our opinion, even if these data are a first approximation, they clearly show that the water policy in the
Guadiana Basin can and should apply progressively the motto “more cash and nature per drop”.
Table 7. Green water crop consumptive use values (m3/ha) by different sources.
Present study Rodríguez Chapagain and

MANCHA ITAP (2008)3
(Aldaya and Llamas, 2008)1 (2008)2 Orr (2008)4
Humid Average Dry 5
Year 2001 2001 (2003) Not specified
1997 2001 2005
Castilla-La
Location La Mancha Albacete Ciudad Real
Mancha
Water
CWUg6 CWUg6 CWUg6 CWUg6
consumption
7 7 7
Vineyard (1452) (854) (556) 352 237
7 7 7
Olive tree (1820) (1057) (664) 665 231
Oat 1237 1540 318 700
Wheat 1245 1481 341 867 318
Barley 1237 1540 318 799 319
Maize 1254 392 319 594 267
Tomato (1156)7 (298)7 (319)7 880
1 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation using CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) and a time
step of 5 days.
2 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation and a time step of 30 days.
3 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation, effective irrigation estimated as 70% of total
rainfall.
4 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation using CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) and a time
step of 5 days.
5 2001data for wheat, barley and maize, while 2003 data for vineyard and olive tree.
6 Green consumptive water use (m3/ha)
7 Estimated applying a location coefficient for localized irrigation (ET0 * Kc * Kl) following SIAR (2008).
PEAG Chapagain Hoekstra and
G Tarjuelo ITAP SIAR
(CHG, and Orr Chapagain
5)5 (2000)6 (2008)8 (2008)9
2008c)7 (2008)10 (2004)11
1- Not 2001 2001
1974-1998 Not specified 1997-2001
04 specified (2003)12 (2007)13
tern Western La
Ciudad Real Albacete Ciudad Real Spain
cha Mancha Mancha
Ub14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWU15
16 2000-2500 3678 2388 1693 6622
53 2186 7350
2306 2830
42 2842 2583 3902 2403 3070
90 2759 2999 2630 1880 2831
17 5174 7014 7262 7604 6116
5705 3730 3165
d a time step of 5 days.
es. These data may vary with respect to other CHG data calculated according to
yard deficit irrigation recommendations are followed (riego deficitario controlado, RDC).
otal rainfall.
nd a time step of 5 days.
008).
Table 8. Blue water crop consumptive use values (m3/ha) by different sources.
Present study Rodríguez CHG CHG CHG

MANCHA
(Aldaya and Llamas, 2008)1 (2008)2 (2008b)3 (2008b)4 (2005
Humid Average Dry 2001

Year 2001 2001 2001
1997 2001 2005 200
Castilla-La La Ciudad West
Location La Mancha
Mancha Mancha Real Manc
Water
CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWU
consumption
Vineyard (1670)16 (2890)16 (3619)16 3977 2690 3678 151
Olive tree (1186)16 (2502)16 (3271)16 3991 1930 215

17
Oat 2079 2200 3743 3801 (2350) 2306
Wheat 2058 2277 3759 2533 2583 334
Barley 2079 2200 3743 3976 2999 269
Maize 4445 6534 7460 7347 7014 811

16 16 16 18
Tomato (3845) (5779) (6510) (3510)
1 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation using CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) and
2 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation and a time step of 30 days.
3 Calculations based on Thornthwaite method.
4 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation. Do not consider deficit irrigation strategie
Thornwaite method.
5 Calculations following SIAR.
6 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation, and 25 year climate series. For the viney
7 Source: Tragsatec and MIMAM. Do not consider deficit irrigation strategies.
8 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation, effective irrigation estimated as 70% of to
9 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation using deficit irritation for trees.
10 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation using CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) an
11 Calculations based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation using CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003).
12 2001data for wheat, barley and maize, while 2003 data for vineyard and olive tree.
13 2001 data for every crop except3for tomato (industry) in 2007.
14 Blue consumptive water use (m /ha) 3
15 Total consumptive water use (including green and blue) (m /ha)
16 Estimated applying a location coefficient for localized irrigation (ET0 * Kc * Kl) following SIAR (20
17 Value for grain cereals
18 Value for vegetables
6. Conclusions
1. The present study provides an analysis of the virtual water and water footprint for the Guadiana river basin,
both from a hydrological and economic point of view. This analysis, however, is a first approximation. The
calculated theoretical crop water requirements somewhat differ from other authors. There is an outstanding
dispersion of data amounting to 100% in certain cases that may be originated by the different methodologies. On
the whole, our crop water requirements are based on FAO Penman-Monteith equation and CROPWAT model,
whereas figures given by the CHG (2008b) and SIAR (2008) are based on the Thornthwaite and FAO Penman-
Monteith equation respectively. In other cases, the uncertainties on some basic data are related to political issues.
One example of this is the lack of acceptable accuracy on the inventory of water users and rights, and on the
irrigated area by legal and illegal water wells.
2. As in most arid and semiarid regions, in the Guadiana river basin the main green and blue water consuming
sector is agriculture, with about 95% of total water consumption in the basin as a whole. Concerning the blue
water economic productivity, however, urban water supply and industry values are higher than the corresponding
value in agriculture. The multifunctional value of agriculture, however, has to be taken into account. Rainfed
agriculture has a high relevance in the Guadiana basin in terms of total hectares. Agricultural economic
productivity (ton/ha) and total production (ton/year) of rainfed agriculture, however, are notably lower than that
of irrigated agriculture. Thus, even if less in extension, irrigated agriculture produces more tonnes and euro than
rainfed agriculture. This economic and social fact explains the political relevance of groundwater irrigation in
the Upper Guadiana basin.
3. In any case it is noteworthy that the PEAG (Plan Especial del Alto Guadiana, Upper Guadiana Special Plan)
and the Guadiana draft Water Plan (to be sent to the European Commission in 2009 in line with the WFD)
values, which are 350 Mm3 and 290 Mm3, respectively, for all the crops in the Western Mancha (CHG, 2008b),
are significantly lower than the values obtained by the present study for the whole Mancha, 479 Mm3. The cause
of this difference is still to be debated, but it is a crucial issue for the achievement of the PEAG, which has an
official budget of 5,500 million Euro (about 8 US$ billion) in twenty years. This budget is higher than the
cancelled water transfer from the Ebro River to the Mediterranean coastal zones. If the current general difficult
economic atmosphere continues in Spain, many experts are doubtful about its implementation.
4. As a whole, high virtual-water low-economic value crops are widespread in the analysed Upper and Middle
Guadiana regions. For instance, cereals exhibit virtual-water contents of 1,000-1,300 m3/ton or even higher in
dry years. On the other hand, maize and vegetables (mainly tomato and melons) present the smallest values with
around 600 and 100-200 m3/ton respectively, due to their high yields.
5. One of the most important contributions of the present report is the analysis of the economic productivity of
blue water use for the different crops. In the Upper and Middle Guadiana basin, it seems to range between 0.1-
0.2 €/m3 for low cost cereals and 1.5-4.5 €/m3 for vegetables. These values are relatively small in comparison
with the ones obtained in the Andalusian region (Lower Guadiana and TOP domain). In this region, for
vegetables (including horticultural and crops under plastic) using jointly surface and groundwater resources, this
value can amount to 15 €/m3. Even with lower figures, vineyards (1-3 €/m3) and olive trees (0.5-1 €/m3) seem to
be profitable crops. As a matter of fact it is widely known that farmers are currently changing their production to
vineyards and olive trees. It could be interesting to examine these trends in the near future.
6. Nevertheless, we cannot fall into the simplification that all the water that is not used for vegetables or trees is
wasted water. Factors such as risk diversification, labour or other environmental, social, economic and
agronomic reasons have to be taken into account in order to find a balance. The major environmental challenge
of agriculture is the preservation of the environment without damaging the agricultural sector economy. The
Guadiana basin has moved already in the direction of "more crops and jobs per drop". The aim now could be
towards “more cash and nature per drop”. The present results, indicating the low water consumption and high
economic value of vegetables, followed by vineyards, is one of the factors that has to be taken into account in
order to achieve an efficient allocation of water and economic resources.
7. Finally, a first estimation of trade in agricultural products is provided considering the international import-
exports at a provincial level. The different sections of the Guadiana basin have different trade strategies. On the
one hand, the Upper Guadiana basin is a net exporter, mainly of wine, barely importing any food commodity. On
the other, the Lower Guadiana and TOP domain import low-value, high water-consuming cereals, while
exporting high-value, low virtual-water content crops such as fruits. This reduces the demand on local (green and
blue) water resources that can be used to provide ecological services and other more profitable uses.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank all the people and institutions that have made this research possible. First, we would like to
thank Alberto Garrido, Consuelo Varela, Paula Novo and Roberto Rodriguez. We would also like to thank
Professor Arjen Hoekstra for his useful advices. Finally, we cannot forget the EU NeWater project and
Marcelino Botin Foundation who sponsored this research.
References
Aldaya, M.M. , Llamas, M. R., Garrido, A. and Varela, C. (2008) Importancia del conocimiento de la huella
hidrológica para la política española del agua. Encuentros Multidisciplinares 10 (29): 8-20.
Allan, J.A. (1997) ‘Virtual water’: a long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies? Water Issues
Group, School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. London. [online] Available from:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/faculties/lawsocialsciences.cfm?navid=2811 [Accessed 13 August 2007].
Allan, J.A. (1999) Water stress and global mitigation: water food and trade. Aridlands newsletter. [online]
Available from: http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln45/allan.html [Accessed 13 August 2007].
Allan, J.A. (2001) Virtual water -economically invisible and politically silent- a way to solve strategic water
problems. International water and Irrigation 21 (4): 39-41.
Allan, J.A. (2006) Virtual Water, Part of an invisible synergy that ameliorates water scarcity. In Water Crisis:
Myth or Reality? Ed. Rogers, Llamas and Martinez-Cortina. Balkema Publishers.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998) Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing
crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization.
Rome, Italy.
Berbel, J. (2007) Análisis Económico del Uso del Agua en la Agricultura y la Ganadería. Jornadas de debate
sobre El Uso del Agua en la Economía Española. Situación y Perspectivas. Grupo de Análisis Económico
del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Sevilla, marzo de 2.007.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2003) Virtual water flows between nations in relation to trade in livestock
Netherlands.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2004) Water footprints of nations, Value of Water Research Report Series
No. 16, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands. [online] Available from:
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Research%20data [Accessed 10 September 2007]
Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., and Savenije, H.H.G. (2006a) Water saving through international trade of
agricultural products, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 10 (3): 455-468.
Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., Savenije, H.H.G. and Gautam, R. (2006b) The water footprint of cotton
consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water
resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecological Economics 60 (1): 186-203.
Chapagain, A.K. and Orr, S. (2008) An improved water footprint methodology to link global consumption to
local water resources: A case study of Spanish tomato consumption. Journal of Environmental
Management: (In press, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.1006.1006).
CHG (2005) Plan Especial del Alto Guadiana: borrador del documento de directrices. Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente. Guadiana RBA.
CHG (2008a) Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadiana. Guadiana River Basin Authority, Spanish Ministry of
Environment [online] Available from: http://www.chguadiana.es/ [Accessed 5 July 2008].
CHG (2008b) Información del Análisis Económico de la DHG año 2006, datos de base 2.001. Guadiana River
Basin Authority, Spanish Ministry of Environment [online] Available from: http://www.chguadiana.es/
[Accessed 5 July 2008].
CHG (2008c) Plan Especial del Alto Guadiana. Guadiana River Basin Authority, Spanish Ministry of
Environment [online] Available from: http://www.chguadiana.es/ [Accessed 5 July 2008].
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (2007) Water for Food, Water for Life: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan. London.
EEA (2007) EEA multilingual environmental glossary. European Environmental Agency. Copenhagen,
Denmark. [online] Available from: http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/EEAGlossary/ [Accessed 16 October
2007]
Falkenmark, M. (2003) Freshwater as shared between society and ecosystems: from divided approaches to
integrated challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 358 (1440):
2037–2049.
Falkenmark, M. and Rockström, J. (2004) Balancing water for humans and nature: The new approach in
ecohydrology, Earthscan, London, UK.
FAO (2003) CROPWAT Model. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy.
FAO (2008) AQUASTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy. [online] Available from:
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/main/index.stm [Accessed 10 September 2007]
Garrido A., Martínez-Santos P. and Llamas M.R. (2006) Groundwater irrigation and its implications for water
policy in semiarid countries: the Spanish experience. Hydrogeology Journal 14 (3): 340-349.
Garrido, A. and Varela-Ortega, C. (2008) Economía del agua en la agricultura e integración de políticas
sectoriales. Panel de Estudios. Universidad de Sevilla - Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, pp. 1-33
Griffin, R.C. (2006) Water Resource Economics. The analysis of Scarcity, Policies, and Projects. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hernández-Mora N., Llamas M.R., Martínez-Cortina L. (2001) Misconceptions in aquifer over-exploitation.
Implications for water policy in Southern Europe. In: Dosi C. (ed.) Agricultural use of groundwater:
towards integration between agricultural policy and water resources management, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 107–125.
Hernández-Mora, N., Martinez-Cortina, L. and Fornes, J. (2003) Intensive Groundwater Use in Spain. In M.R.
Llamas and E. Custodio, eds, Intensive Use of Groundwater: Challenges and Opportunities. Leiden,
Netherlands: Balkema.
Hernández-Mora, N., Martinez-Cortina, L., Llamas, M. R. and Custodio, E. (2007) Groundwater Issues in
Southern EU Member States. Spain Country Report. [online] Available from:
http://rac.es/2/2_ficha.asp?id=119&idN3=6&idN4=40 [Accessed 15 March 2008]
Hoekstra, A.Y. (2003) Virtual water trade between nations: A global mechanism affecting regional water
systems. IGBP Global Change News Letter, No. 54, pp. 2-4.
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Chapagain, A.K. (2008) Globalization of water: Sharing the planet’s freshwater resources.
Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, UK.
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Hung, P.Q. (2002) Virtual water trade: a quantification of virtual water flows between
nations in relation to international crop trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11. UNESCO-
IHE. Delft, The Netherlands.
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Hung, P.Q. (2005) Globalisation of water resources: international virtual water flows in
relation to crop trade. Global Environmental Change 15 (1): 45-56.
ICEX (2008) Spanish Institute for Foreign Trade [online] Available from:
http://www.icex.es/icex/cda/controller/pageICEX/0,6558,5518394_5518974_5536731_0_0_-1,00.html
[Accessed 10 June 2008].
INAG (2007) Water Institute. Portuguese Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development
[online] Available from: http://www.inag.pt/ [Accessed 5 September 2007].
INE (2007) National statistics institute. [online] Available from: http://www.ine.es/ [Accessed 5 September
2007].
INM (2007) National Institute of Meteorology. Spanish Ministry of Environment [online] Available from:
http://www.inm.es/ [Accessed 8 September 2007].
ITAP (2008) Instituto Técnico Agronómico Provincial. Diputación de Albacete. [online] Available from:
http://www.itap.es/ [Accessed 4 January 2008].
Kampman, D.A., Hoekstra, A.Y. and Krol, M.S. (2008) The water footprint of India. Value of Water Research
Report Series No. 32, UNESCO- IHE. Delft, The Netherlands.
Llamas, M. R. (2005) Los colores del agua, el agua virtual y los conflictos hídricos. Discurso inaugural del año
2005-06. Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Madrid. 30 pp.
Llamas, R., Fornés, J.M., Hernández-Mora, N. and Martínez Cortina, L. (2001) Aguas subterráneas: retos y
oportunidades. Mundi-Prensa. Madrid. 529 pp.
Llamas, M.R. and Garrido, A. (2007) Lessons from Intensive Groundwater Use in Spain: Economic and Social
Benefits and Conflicts, in the Agricultural Groundwater Revolution: Opportunities and Threats to
Development, Giordano and Villholth (eds.), CAB International, Wallingford, U.K., pp. 266-295.
Llamas, M.R. and Martínez-Santos, P. (2005) Intensive Groundwater Use: Silent Revolution and Potential
Source of Social Conflicts, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, American Society of
Civil Engineers, September-October 2005, pp. 337-341.
MAPA (1999) 1T sheets. Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
MAPA (2001a) Calendario de siembra, recolección y comercialización, años 1996-1998. Spanish Ministry of
Agriculture, Madrid, 656 p.
MAPA (2001b) 1T sheets. Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

MAPA (2002) Agro-alimentary Statistics Yearbook. Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
[online] Available from: http://www.mapa.es/es/estadistica/pags/anuario/Anu_02/indice.asp [Accessed 5
September 2007].
[online] Available from:
http://www.mapa.es/es/estadistica/pags/anuario/Anu_06/indice.asp?parte=2&capitulo=16 [Accessed 5
September 2007].
[online] Available from: http://www.mapa.es/es/estadistica/pags/anuario/introduccion.htm [Accessed 5
September 2007].
Martínez-Santos, P. (2007) Hacia la gestión adaptable del acuífero de la Mancha Occidental. Doctoral
dissertation, University Complutense of Madrid, 334 pp.
MIMAM (2007) El agua en la economía española: Situación y perspectivas. Spanish Ministry for the
Environment [online] Available from:
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_documents_1/w
fd_reports/member_states/spain/article_5/completo_nivel1pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d [Accessed 20 May 2008].
Rockström, J. (2001) Green water security for the food makers of tomorrow: windows of opportunity in drought-
prone savannahs Water Science and Technology 43 (4): 71-78.
Rodríguez, R. (2008) Cálculo de la huella hidrológica de la agricultura española, MSc thesis, Polytechnic
University of Madrid, Madrid.
SIAR (2008) Servicio Integral de Asesoramiento al Regante. Consejería de Agricultura, and Universidad de
Castilla-La Mancha. [online] Available from: http://crea.uclm.es/siar/index.php [Accessed 20 July 2008].
Shiklomanov, I. A. (2000) Appraisal and assessment of world water resources, Water International, 25 (1): 11–
32.
Tarjuelo J.M. (2000) Informe sobre el Plan Hidrológico Nacional. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid. 13
pp. [online] Available from:
http://www.mma.es/secciones/agua/pdf/informesphnotr/josem_tarjuelo_martinbenito.pdf [Accessed 7
January 2008].
UN (2007) The 2nd UN World Water Development Report: 'Water, a shared responsibility'. United Nations. 584
pp.
Van Hofwegen, P. (2004) E-Conference Synthesis: Virtual Water Trade - Conscious Choices, March 2004.
Vives R. (2003) Economic and social profitability of water use for irrigation in Andalusia. Water International
28 (3): 326–334.
Warner, J. (2003) Virtual water – virtual benefits. In Hoekstra A.Y. ed. (2003): Virtual Water Trade;
proceedings of the International Expert meeting on Virtual Water Trade; Value of Water - Research
Report Series no 12; IHE Delft the Netherlands.
WFD (2000) The EU Water Framework Directive - integrated river basin management for Europe. European
Commission. [online] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
framework/index_en.html [Accessed 27 September 2007]
Zimmer, D. and Renault, D. (2003) Virtual Water in food production and global trade: Review of
Methodological issues and preliminary results. In Hoekstra A.Y. ed. (2003): Virtual Water Trade:
Proceedings of the International Expert meeting on Virtual Water Trade, Value of Water-Research
Rapport Series, no. 12, IHE-Delft, The Netherlands.
Symbols
Symbol Unit Description

3
CWR[c] m /year Crop water requirement of crop c
3
CWC[c] m /ha/year Crop water consumption to produce a particular crop
c, also called evapotranspirative demand
ET0 mm/day Reference evapotranspiration
ETc mm/day Crop evapotranspiration of a crop c
GVA million € Gross value added
Kc - Crop coefficient
3
V m /ton Virtual-water content
3
Vb m /ton Blue virtual-water content
3
Vg m /ton Green virtual-water content
3
WF m /year Water footprint
3
WFb m /year Blue water footprint
3
WFg m /year Green water footprint
3
WFi m /year Internal water footprint
Glossary
Actual or crop evapotranspiration (ETc) –Evapotranspiración real o del cultivo– represents the actual rate of
water uptake by the plant which is determined by the level of available water in the soil. It is an average value.
Evapotranspiration comprises the simultaneous movement of water from the soil and vegetation into atmosphere
through evaporation (E) and transpiration (T) (mm/time unit) (FAO, 2008).
Average precipitation –Precipitación media– double average over space and time of water falling on a country
or region, referring to a given reference period (mm/time unit) (FAO, 2008).
Blue water –Agua azul– surface and ground water (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Blue water evapotranspiration (ETb) –Evapotranspiración de agua azul– is the field-evapotranspiration of

irrigation water and is equal to the minimum of irrigation requirement (IR, mm/day) or effective irrigation (Ieff,
mm/day) (mm/time period) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Blue virtual-water content (Vb) –Contenido de agua virtual azul– of a product is the volume of surface or
ground water that evaporated as a result of the production of the product. In the case of crop production, the blue
water content of a crop is defined as the evaporation of irrigation water from the field. In the cases of industrial
production and domestic water supply, the blue water content of the product or service is equal to the part of the
water withdrawn from ground or surface water that evaporates and thus does not return to the system where it
came from or is directly out of the system, for instance from the coastal areas to the sea (m3/ton) (Hoekstra and
Chapagain, 2008).
Blue water footprint (WFb) –Huella hidrológica azul– is the volume of freshwater that evaporated from the
global blue water resources (surface and ground water) to produce the goods and services consumed by the
individual or community (km3/year, m3/capita/year (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Crop coefficient (Kc) –Coeficiente del cultivo– is the ratio of the actual or crop evapotranspiration (ETc) to the
o
(crop height, reflectance of the crop-soil surface, canopy resistance and evaporation from soil) that distinguish
the crop from reference grass (Allen et al., 1998).
Crop consumptive water use (CWU) –Uso consuntivo agua del cultivo– is defined as the accumulation of
daily evapotranspiration over de complete growing period. It has two components: Green crop water and blue
crop consumptive water use (m3/ha) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Crop economic value –Valor económico de la cosecha– is defined as the economic value or price of origin
received by the farmer for each commodity sold in the market (€/ton).
Crop water requirements (CWR) –Necesidades hídricas del cultivo– is defined as the total water needed for
evapotranspiration, from planting to harvest for a given crop in a specific climate regime, when adequate soil
water is maintained by rainfall and/or irrigation so that it does not limit plant growth and crop yield (mm/time
period) (Allen et al., 1998).
Crop water supply –Agua aplicada al cultivo– is the quantity of irrigation water, in addition to rainfall, applied
to meet a crop’s evapotranspiration need and normal crop production. It includes soil evaporation and some
unavoidable losses under the given conditions. It is expressed in cubic meters for a crop period (m3/year).
Crop yield (Y) –Rendimiento del cultivo– represents the harvested production per unit of harvested area for crop
products. Yield data can be obtained by dividing production data by harvested area (ton/ha) (FAO, 2008).
Cropping pattern –Plan de cultivo– sequence of different crops grown in regular order on any particular field
or fields (FAO, 2008).
Cultivated land –Superficie cultivable– sum of arable land and land under permanent crops (FAO, 2008).
Economic water productivity –Productividad económica del agua– is the value of goods and services per cubic
meter of water used, valued at the market price (€/m3) (Llamas et al., 2001).
Effective irrigation (Ieff) –Riego efectivo– refers to the portion of total irrigation which is available for crop
production (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008). That is, the irrigation dose excluding irrigation losses (mm/time
period).
Effective rainfall (Peff) –Precipitación efectiva– in irrigation practice, that portion of the total precipitation
which is retained by the soil so that it is available for crop production (mm/time period) (FAO, 2008).
Effective rainfall in hydrology –Precipitación efectiva en hidrología– usually the term effective rainfall in
hydrology means the quantity of water that is not evapotranspired and becomes blue water.
External water footprint (WFe) –Huella hidrológica externa– is defined as the annual volume of water
resources used in other countries or regions to produce goods and services consumed by the inhabitants of the
country or region concerned (km3/year, m3/capita/year) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Green virtual-water content (Vg) –Contenido de agua virtual verde– of a product is the volume of rainwater
that evaporated during the production process. This is mainly relevant for agricultural products, where it refers to
the total rainwater evaporation from the field during the growing period of the crop (including both transpiration
by the plants and other forms of evaporation) (m3/ton) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Green water –Agua verde– rainwater stored in the soil as soil moisture, also called soil water (Hoekstra and
Chapagain, 2008).
Green water evapotranspiration (ETg) –Evapotranspiración de agua verde– is the evapotranspiration of

rainfall and is equal to the minimum of crop water requirements (CWR, mm/day) or effective rainfall (Peff,
mm/day) (mm/ time period) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Green water footprint (WFg) –Huella hidrológica verde– is the volume of water evaporated from green water
resources in a particular region (km3/year, m3/capita/year) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Gross value added (GVA) –Valor agregado bruto o valor añadido bruto– is the value of goods and services
produced in an economy at different stages of the productive process (million €). The gross value added is equal
to net output or benefit that can be used for the remuneration of productive factors.
Internal water footprint (WFi) –Huella hidrológica interna– is defined as the use of domestic water resources
to produce goods and services consumed by inhabitants of a country or region (km3/year, m3/capita/year)
(Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Irrigation dose –Dosis de riego– water artificially applied to soil and confined in time and space (FAO, 2008).
It enables to meet the water requirements of a crop at a given time of its vegetative cycle or to bring the soil to
the desired moisture level outside the vegetative cycle (ibid.). The irrigation of a field includes one or more
watering per season (mm) (ibid.).
Irrigation efficiency –Eficiencia de riego– The ratio or percentage of the irrigation water consumed by crops of
an irrigated farm, field or project to the water diverted from the source of supply. That is, the percentage of water
delivered to the farm, field or project that is consumed by the crop, satisfying crop water requirements. Water
application efficiency gives a general sense of how well an irrigation system performs its primary task of getting
water to the plant roots. It is called farm irrigation efficiency or farm delivery efficiency when measured at the
farm head-gate; field irrigation efficiency when measured at the field or plot; and water conveyance and delivery
efficiency, or overall efficiency when measured at the source of supply (FAO, 2008).
Irrigation requirements (IR) –Necesidad de riego– is the quantity of irrigation water, in addition to rainfall,
that must be applied to meet a crop’s evapotranspiration need and normal crop production. It includes soil
evaporation and some unavoidable losses under the given conditions. It is usually expressed in water-depth units
(millimetres) and may be stated in monthly, seasonal or annual terms, or for a crop period (mm/time period)
(FAO, 2008).
Land area irrigated by groundwater –Superficie regada con aguas subterráneas (pozos)– part of full or partial
control area irrigated from wells (shallow wells and deep tubewells) or springs (ha, %) (FAO, 2008).
Land area irrigated by surface water –Superficie regada con aguas superficiales– part of the full or partial
control area irrigated from rivers or lakes (reservoirs, pumping or diversion) (ha, %) (FAO, 2008).
Opportunity costs –Coste de Oportunidad– the cost of a resource, measured by the value of the next-best,
alternative use of that resource (Griffin, 2006). The concept of opportunity cost is widely used in economics in
identifying the most efficient use of scarce resources.
Rainfed farming –Agricultura de secano– land cultivated benefiting from natural rainfall with no artificial
addition of water (no irrigation) (FAO, 2008).
Reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) –Evapotranspiración de referencia– is the evapotranspiration rate

from a reference surface, not short in water. The reference is a hypothetical surface with extensive green grass
cover with specific characteristics. ETo expresses the evaporating power of the atmosphere at a specific location
and time of year and does not consider crop characteristics and soil factors (mm/time period) (Allen et al., 1998).
River basin –Cuenca hidrográfica– means the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a
sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta (WFD,
2000).
River basin authority –Confederación Hidrográfica u Organismo de cuenca– along the lines of the 1985 Water
Law of Spain, it is the public law institution in charge of surface and ground water management in one or more
intercommunitarian river basins (Llamas et al., 2001).
Total economic agricultural production –Producción económica agrícola total– is defined as the total
economic value received by the agricultural sector of the region for the commodities sold in the market without
taking subsidies into account (total €).
Total economic agricultural productivity –Productividad económica agrícola total– is the total economic
agricultural production per hectare (total €/ha).
Virtual-water content (V) –Contenido de agua virtual– the virtual-water content of a product (a commodity,
good or service) is the volume of freshwater used to produce the product, measured at the place where the
product was actually produced (production-site definition). It refers to the sum of the water use in the various
steps of the production chain. The virtual-water content of a product can also be defined as the volume of water
that would have been required to produce the product at the place where the product is consumed (consumption-
site definition). If not mentioned otherwise, we use the production-site definition. The adjective ‘virtual’ refers to
the fact that most of the water used to produce a product is not contained in the product. The real-water content
of products is generally negligible if compared to the virtual-water content (m3/ton) (Hoekstra and Chapagain,
2008).
Virtual-water export (Ve) –Exportación de agua virtual– the virtual-water export of a country or region is the
volume of virtual water associated with the export of goods or services from the country or region. It is the total
volume of water required to produce the products for export (m3/year) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Virtual-water flow –Flujo de agua virtual– the virtual-water flow between two nations or regions is the volume
of virtual water that is being transferred from one place to another as a result of product trade (m3/year)
(Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Virtual-water import (Vi) –Importación de agua virtual– the virtual-water import of a country or region is the
volume of virtual water associated with the import of goods or services into the country or region. It is the total
volume of water used (in the export countries or regions) to produce the products. Viewed from the perspective
of the importing country or region, this water can be seen as an additional source of water that comes on top of
the domestically available water resources (m3/year) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Virtual-water re-export (Vr,e) –Re-exportación de agua virtual– is the volume of virtual water associated with
the export of goods or services to other countries or regions as a result of re-export of previously imported
products (m3/year) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Water consumption (final) –Consumo final de agua (uso consuntivo)– (consumptive water use) water
abstracted which does not return to the hydrological system and is no longer available for use because it has
evaporated, transpired, been incorporated into products and crops, consumed by man or livestock, been severely
polluted, ejected directly to the sea or into evaporation areas (blind watershed) or otherwise removed from
freshwater resources. Water losses during the transport of water between the point or points of abstraction and
the point or points of use are excluded (m3/year) (Shiklomanov, 2000; FAO, 2008).
Water demand –Demanda de agua– water demand is defined as the volume of water requested by users to
satisfy their needs. In a simplified way it is often considered equal to water abstraction, although conceptually
the two terms do not have the same meaning (EEA, 2007; Llamas et al., 2001).
Water footprint (WF) –Huella hidrológica– the water footprint of an individual or community is defined as the
total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or
community. A water footprint can be calculated for any well-defined group of consumers, including a family,
business, village, city, province, state or nation. A water footprint is generally expressed in terms of the volume
of water use per year (km3/year, m3/capita/year) (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
Water productivity –Productividad del agua– water productivity is an efficiency term quantified as a ratio of
product output (goods and services) over water input. The output could be biological goods or products such as
crop (grain fodder) or livestock (meat, egg, fish) and can be expressed in term of yields, nutritional value or
economic return. The output could also be an environment service or function. Water productivity can be at
different scales and for a mixture of goods and services (FAO, 2008).
Water supply –Abastecimiento de agua– water supply refers to the share of water abstraction which is supplied
to users (excluding losses in storage, conveyance and distribution) (EEA, 2007).
Water use –Uso del agua– the different kinds of water use (agricultural, domestic, industrial), according to their
purpose (Llamas et al., 2001).
Water use by agriculture –Uso de agua en la agricultura– annual quantity of water used for agricultural
purposes including irrigation and livestock watering (billion m3/year) (FAO, 2008).
Water use by agriculture for irrigation –Uso del agua para riego– (Irrigation use) artificial application of
water on lands to assist in the growing of crops (and pastures). Can be done by spraying water under pressure on
the land concerned ("spray irrigation"), by spreading water onto the land concerned ("flood irrigation"), by
bringing it directly to the plant ("localised irrigation or drip irrigation”) (m3/year) (FAO, 2008).
Water use by the domestic sector –Uso del agua para abastecimiento doméstico o urbano– quantity of water
use for domestic (urban) purposes. It is usually computed as the total amount of water supplied by public
distribution networks, and usually includes the withdrawal by those industries connected to public networks
(m3/year) (FAO, 2008).
Water use by the industrial sector –Uso del agua industrial– annual quantity of water use by self-supplied
industries not connected to any distribution network (m3/year) (FAO, 2008).
Water use (irrigation) efficiency –Eficiencia en el uso del agua– ratio between the irrigation water absorbed by
plants and the amount of water actually withdrawn from its source for the purpose of irrigation (UN, 2007).
Appendix I. Mancha and Don Benito agricultural region analysis
Appendix I.I. General values
A. Agricultural general values in Mancha and Don Benito agricultural regions in 2001. Total rainfall of 424 mm in
Ciudad Real and 491 mm in Badajoz – average year.
Average global
Total Crop area (ha)1 Irrigated area by irrigation system (ha)2 irrigation
Agricultural Popu- efficiency3
area
region lation1 2
(km ) Surface
Total Rainfed Irrigated Sprinkler Localized Total %
flood
65320 69828 2467 137615
Mancha 208,01 4,676 390,177 240,931 149,246
2 (47%) (51%) (2%) (100%) 0.8
12097 12785 29706 54588
Don Benito 89,605 1,957 123,987 53,194 70,793 0.64
(22%) (23%) (54%) (100%)
1 Source: CHG (2008b) for the year 2001.

2 Source: CHG (2008b) from data from 1999 Agricultural Census (National Statistics Institute, INE) and 1T sheets
(Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, MAPA) for the years 1989 and 1999. This may explain the
difference between irrigated crop area (for 2001) and the total irrigated area (for 1989 and 1999). In any case, we
should try to clarify this difference.
3 Average global irrigation efficiency, as used here, depends on the type of irrigation technique used by the
farmer. Localized or drip irrigation is the most efficient system with a 0.9 coefficient, followed by sprinkler irrigation
with 0.7 and finally, surface flood irrigation with 0.5. From these efficiencies, an average irrigation efficiency is
given at provincial level by the CHG (2008b).
B. Agricultural general values in Mancha and Don Benito agricultural regions in 2001.
6 3 3 4 5
Total water (10 m /year) Water origin (%) GVA Employment
Agricultural
region Job
Supply1 Total CWUb2 Surface Ground Total 106€ €/ha Job/ha
number
Mancha 450 360 0.04 0.96 259 663 10,373 0.03
Don Benito 380 243 0.94 0.06 89 719 4,945 0.04
1 Total crop water supply. Source: CHG (2008b)

2 Total blue crop consumptive water use. Source: CHG (2008b) (Thornthwaite method)
3 Surface and groundwater in volume percentage data, average value by agricultural region according to CHG
(2008b).
4 Gross Value Added is obtained by deducting intermediate consumption from final economic agricultural
production. Thus gross value added is equal to net benefit for the farmer. Source: CHG (2008b)
5 Agricultural employment without including livestock or fisheries, total and per hectare. Source: CHG (2008b)
Appendix I.II. Mancha agricultural region year 2001 Rainfall 424 mm (Ciudad Real) –average
A. Agricultural data (considering main crops representing 70% of the total crop area)
MANCHA Area (ha) Yield (ton/ha) 3 Production (103 ton/year)4
5
Crop Rainfed Irrigated Total Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Total
1 1 1
Vineyard 75563 75935 151499 4.0 12.1 303 915 1218
1 1 1
Olive tree 23318 3733 27050 1.7 2.4 41 9 49
Cereals: 519751 486431 1006181
2 2 2
Oat 8370 1581 9951 1.1 3.5 9 5 14
2 2 2
Wheat 9996 10279 20275 1.0 3.4 10 34 45
2 2 2
Barley 24213 29990 54203 1.0 3.6 25 107 132
2 2 2
Maize 9 1853 1862 7.1 11.7 0 22 22
Tomato 02 2382 2382 46.6 0 11 11
Total 141469 123609 265078

2 Source: 1T sheets (MAPA, 2001b)
3 Source: “Agro-alimentary Statistics Yearbook” MAPA (2002) average value for the whole Ciudad Real province.
It is noteworthy the small difference between irrigated and rainfed olive tree yield.
4 Calculated multiplying area (CHG, 2008b) and yield (MAPA, 2002)
5 We have covered most of the irrigated crops, considering most part of irrigated surface.
B. Hydrologic data (considering main crops representing 70% of the total crop area)
MANCHA Crop consumptive water use (CWU) (m3/ha) Virtual-water content (V) (m3/ton)
Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Crop CWUg CWUg CWUb Total Vg Vg Vb Total
Vineyard 1118 1118 4437 5555 279 93 368 461
Olive tree 1458 1458 4151 5609 839 619 1763 2382
Cereals:
Oat 1540 1540 2200 3739 1446 446 638 1084
Wheat 1717 1717 3933 5650 1651 513 1174 1687
Barley 1540 1540 2200 3739 1495 430 614 1044
Maize 0 392 6534 6926 0 34 558 592
Tomato 0 320 7013 7333 0 7 150 157
1 CWUg Green crop consumptive water use estimated using the CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) (see
methodology section).
2 CWUb Blue crop consumptive water use estimated using the CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) (see methodology
section). These numbers are slightly different from the ones from the CHG (2005).
3 Vg Green virtual-water content calculated dividing CWUg by rainfed yield.
4 Vg Green virtual-water content calculated dividing CWUg by irrigated yield.
5 Vb Blue virtual-water content calculated dividing CWUb by irrigated yield.
6 Calculated dividing total irrigated CWU by irrigated yield.
C. Hydrologic data (considering main crops representing 70% of the total crop area)
6 3 6 6 3
MANCHA Total crop consumptive water use (CWU) (10 m /year) Total crop water supply (10 m /year)
Rainfed Irrigated Irrigated
1 2 3
Green water Green water Blue water Blue water
4 5
Crop Total Surf. Gr. Total Surface Ground
Vineyard 84 85 337 13 324 421 16 405
Olive tree 34 5 15 1 15 19 1 19
Cereals:
Oat 13 2 3 0 3 4 0 4
Wheat 17 18 40 2 39 51 2 49
Barley 37 46 66 2 63 82 3 79
Maize 0 1 12 0 12 15 1 15
Tomato 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2
7
Total 186 157 476 18 458 595 22 573
1 Total green crop consumptive water use is calculated multiplying CWUg by rainfed area.
2 Total green crop consumptive water use calculated multiplying CWUg by irrigated area.
3 Total blue crop consumptive water use calculated multiplying CWUb by irrigated area.
4 Total blue crop consumptive water use coming from surface water calculated multiplying total blue crop
consumptive water use by surface water percentage.
5 Total blue crop consumptive water use coming from groundwater calculated multiplying total blue crop
consumptive water use by groundwater percentage.
6 Calculated dividing total, surface or groundwater blue crop consumptive water use by irrigation average
efficiency (CHG, 2008b) in the province, which is 0.8 according to Table 1.
7 According to the PEAG total water consumption varies from 450 and 525 Mm3/year in the Upper Guadiana.
Along with the same source, irrigation water withdrawals are to be reduced to 310 Mm3/year in this region (CHG,
2008c).
D. Economic data (considering main crops representing 70% of the total crop area)
Water economic
MANCHA Economic data
productivity
1 Agricultural economic 3 3
Value Total economic agricultural production Irrigated (€/m )
productivity2
4 5
Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Total CWUb Supply
Crop €/ton 103 €/ha 103 €/ha 103€ 103€ 103€ Total Total
Vineyard 455 1,8 5,5 137775 416052 553827 1,2 1,0
Olive tree 498 0,9 1,2 20166 4374 24539 0,3 0,2
Cereals:
Oat 125 0.1 0.4 1112 680 1792 0.2 0.2
Wheat 149 0.2 0.5 1547 5124 6671 0.1 0.1
Barley 127 0.1 0.5 3155 13582 16736 0.2 0.2
Maize 136 1.0 1.6 9 2958 2967 0.2 0.2
Tomato 336 - 15.7 0 3727 3727 2.2 1.8
Total 163763 446497 610260 0.5 0.4
1 Average value for the whole Spain. “Agro-alimentary Statistics Yearbook” MAPA (2002).
2 Calculated by dividing total € by hectare of each crop.
6
3 Calculated by multiplying €/ton 6by tones. Obviously, the total agricultural production value given here (262 10
€) is higher than the GVA (259 10 €) 3
4 Calculated by dividing economic value (€/ton) (Table 6.7) by blue virtual-water
3
content (Vb) (m /ton).
5 Calculated by dividing irrigated total € by blue crop water supply (m /year).
Appendix I.III. Don Benito agricultural region year 2001 Rainfall 491 mm (Badajoz) - average
A. Agricultural data (considering main crops representing 50% of the total crop area)
3 3 4
DON BENITO Area (ha) Yield (ton/ha) Production (10 ton/year)
Crop Rainfed Irrigated Total Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Total
1 1 1
Vineyard 1151 291 1442 5.1 8.0 6 2 8
1 1 1
Olive tree 10871 9133 20004 1.5 5.0 17 46 62
1 1 1
Cereals: 24601 42976 67576
Oat 42342 4512 46852 1.7 3.0 7 1 9
2 2 2
Wheat 12562 2505 15067 3.2 4.2 40 11 51
2 2 2
Barley 7340 939 8279 3.1 4.0 23 4 27
Maize 02 128302 128302 - 12.0 0 154 154
2 2 2
Tomato 50 6321 6371 - 57.1 0 361 361
Total 36208 32470 68678

2 Source: 1T sheets (MAPA, 1999) for the year 1999.
3 Source: “Agro-alimentary Statistics Yearbook” MAPA (2002) average value for the whole Badajoz province
B. Hydrologic data (considering main crops representing 50% of the total crop area)
DON BENITO Crop consumptive water use (CWU) (m3/ha) Virtual-water content (V) (m3/ton)
Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated
Crop CWUg1 CWUg1 CWUb2 Total Vg3 Vg4 Vb5 Total6
Vineyard 1017 1017 4650 5668 201 127 581 708
Olive tree 1179 1179 4572 5751 769 236 914 1150
Cereals:
Oat 1429 1429 2415 3844 841 476 805 1281
Wheat 1530 1530 4268 5797 478 364 1015 1379
Barley 1429 1429 2415 3844 461 357 604 961
Maize - 366 6712 7078 - 30 559 590
Tomato - 326 7179 7505 - 6 126 131
1 CWUg Green crop consumptive water use estimated using the CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) (see
methodology section).
2 CWUb Blue crop consumptive water use estimated using the CROPWAT model (FAO, 2003) (see methodology
section). These numbers are slightly different from the ones from the CHG (2005).
3 Vg Green virtual-water content calculated dividing CWUg by rainfed yield.
4 Vg Green virtual-water content calculated dividing CWUg by irrigated yield.
5 Vb Blue virtual-water content calculated dividing CWUb by irrigated yield.
6 Calculated dividing total irrigated CWU by irrigated yield.
C. Hydrologic data (considering main crops representing 50% of the total crop area)
Total Crop Water Supply6
DON BENITO Total Crop Consumptive Water Use (106m3/year) 6 3
(10 m /year)
Rainfed Irrigated Irrigated
1 2 3
Green water Green water Blue water Blue water
4 5
Crop Total Surf. Gr. Total Surface Ground
Vineyard 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0
Olive tree 13 11 42 39 2 65 61 4
Cereals:
Oat 6 1 1 1 0 2 2 0
Wheat 19 4 11 10 1 17 16 1
Barley 10 1 2 2 0 4 3 0
Maize 0 5 86 81 5 135 127 8
Tomato 0 2 45 43 3 71 67 4
Total 50 24 189 178 11 295 278 16
1 Total green crop consumptive water use is calculated multiplying CWUg by rainfed area
2 Total green crop consumptive water use calculated multiplying CWUg by irrigated area
3 Total blue crop consumptive water use calculated multiplying CWUb by irrigated area
4 Total blue crop consumptive water use coming from surface water calculated multiplying total blue crop
consumptive water use by surface water percentage.
5 Total blue crop consumptive water use coming from groundwater calculated multiplying total blue crop
consumptive water use by groundwater percentage.
6 Calculated dividing total, surface or groundwater blue crop consumptive water use by irrigation average
efficiency in the province which is 0.64 according to Table 1.
D. Economic data (considering main crops representing 50% of the total crop area)
Water economic
DON BENITO Economic data
productivity
1 Agricultural economic 3 3
Value Total economic agricultural production Irrigated (€/m )
productivity2
4 5
Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Total CWUb Supply
Crop €/ton 103 €/ha 103 €/ha 103€ 103€ 103€ Total Total
Vineyard 455 2,3 3,6 2650 1059 3709 0,8 0,5
Olive tree 498 0,8 2,5 8292 22723 31015 0,5 0,3
Cereals:
Oat 125 0.2 0.4 898 169 1066 0.2 0.1
Wheat 149 0.5 0.6 5987 1567 7554 0.1 0.1
Barley 127 0.4 0.5 2878 475 3354 0.2 0.1
Maize 136 - 1.6 - 21000 21000 0.2 0.2
Tomato 336 - 19 - 121251 121251 2.7 1.7
Total 20706 168243 188949 0.6 0.4
1 Average value for the whole Spain. “Agro-alimentary Statistics Yearbook” MAPA (2002).
2 Calculated by dividing total € by hectare.
6
3 Calculated by multiplying €/ton by tones. Obviously, the total agricultural production value given here (178 10
6
€) is higher than the GVA (89 10 €)
4 Calculated by dividing economic value (€/ton) by blue virtual-water content (Vb) (m3/ton).
5 Calculated by dividing irrigated total € by blue crop water supply (m3/year).
Appendix II. Guadiana river basin analysis
A. Crop Area, Production and Yield (2001)
1 2 3 4
A) UPPER GUADIANA Area (ha) Production (ton/year) Yield (kg/ha)
Crops Rainfed Irrigated Total Rainfed Irrigated Total Rainfed Irrigated
5
Grain cereals : 478.572 97.634 576.206 1.959.752 740.309 2.700.061 4095 7583
Cereal - Wheat, barley, oat 1045 3460
Cereal – Maize 7145 11705
Grain legumes – Veza, yeros 68.974 10.567 79.541 17.864 11.835 29.699 259 1120
Potatoes 411 733 1.143 4.986 17.855 22.842 12140 24369
Industrial crops – Sunflower 73.038 10.450 83.488 24.541 16.752 41.293 336 1603
Fodder – Veza, alfalfa 30.312 7.701 38.013 182.784 173.269 356.052 6030 22500
Vegetables – melon 488 13.337 13.826 3.959 369.447 373.406 8110 27700
Flowers and ornamental plants 133 100 234
Seeds and small plants 0 21 21
Other grass crops 59 1.895 1.954
Fallow land 343.142 0 343.142
Vegetable gardens 0 39 39
Citrus 0 10 10 - -
Temperate climate fruit trees 84 210 295
Subtropical climate fruit trees 0 0 0
Dry fruit trees 5.503 293 5.796
Olive tree – for olive oil 134.687 13.213 147.900 234.086 31.116 265.202 1738 2355
Vineyard – for wine production 199.277 131.866 331.143 799.100 1.588.985 2.388.085 4010 12050
Nursery 0 25 25
Other permanent crops 185 6 191
Greenhouse tree crops 0 2 2
Mushrooms 15 15
Greenhouses 86 86
Total 1.334.865 288.205 1.623.070 3.227.072 2.949.568 6.176.640 4590 12410
6
Surface 26.390
7
Groundwater 237.857

4 Source: MAPA (2007)
5 Grain cereals comprise main cereals in the area according to MAPA 1T sheets.
6 Irrigated area with surface water
7 Irrigated area with groundwater
1 2 3 4
B) MIDDLE GUADIANA Area (ha) Production (ton/year) Yield (kg/ha)
Grain cereals5: 281.182 96.161 377.343 750.101 742.533 1.492.634 2668 7722
Cereal - Wheat, barley, oat 2668 3734
Cereal – Maize - 12000
Cereal – Rice - 7431
Grain legumes – Chick peas 19.535 1.532 21.067 14.651 14.651 750 -
Potatoes 6 430 436 - 10.758 10.758 - 25000
Industrial crops - Sunflower 16.372 15.541 31.913 14.964 44.510 59.474 914 2864
Fodder – Clover, veza 46.957 2.558 49.514 469.565 0 469.565 10000 -
Vegetables – Tomato 504 21.597 22.101 0 1.232.619 1.232.619 - 57073
Other grass crops 2 1.859 1.861
Fallow land 143.481 0 143.481
Citrus 0 41 41 0 489 489 - 12000
Temperate climate fruit trees 5.060 7.807 12.867
Dry fruit trees 1.716 1.005 2.721
Olive tree for olive oil and table 190.661 47.778 238.439 328.700 238.891 567.591 1724 5000
Vineyard for wine production 59.116 11.704 70.819 299.362 93.630 392.992 5064 8000
Nursery 0 69 69
Mushrooms 0 0
Greenhouses 77 77
Total 764.664 208.393 973.057 1.877.343 2.363.430 4.240.774 2950 14082
6
Surface 121.291
7
Groundwater 23.061

1 2 3 4
C) TOP Area (ha) Production (ton/year) Yield (kg/ha)
Grain cereals5 – Wheat 23,771 1,221 24,992 58,002 4,188 62,190 2440 3430
Grain legumes – Lupin, veza 477 206 683 324 299 623 679 1450
Potatoes 41 121 162 353 1,667 2,020 8554 13807
Industrial crops – Sunflower 10,659 2,579 13,237 11,192 5,286 16,478 1050 2050
Fodder – Veza 809 234 1,043 12,948 12,948 16000 -
Vegetables – Strawberry 131 4,374 4,505 0 147,600 147,600 0 33741
Other grass crops 0 0 0
Fallow land 18,900 0 18,900
Citrus 0 7,665 7,665 118,337 118,337 - 15,438
Temperate climate fruit trees 292 1,789 2,081
Dry fruit trees 1,787 81 1,868
Olive tree for olive oil and table 10,171 1,059 11,229 8,747 1,673 10,420 860 1,580
Vineyard for wine and grape 3,178 129 3,307 23,549 1,056 24,605 7,410 8,200
Nursery 0 6 6
Mushrooms 0 0
Greenhouses 352 352
Total 70,220 20,073 90,293 115,115 280,106 395,221 5285 9962
6
Surface 11,076
7
Groundwater 8,695
1 2 3 4
D) LOWER GUADIANA Area (ha) Production (ton/year) Yield (kg/ha)
Grain cereals5 – Wheat 7,363 203 7,566 17,965 696 18,661 2,440 3,430
Grain legumes – Lupin, veza 121 11 132 82 16 98 679 1,450
Potatoes 17 5 22 147 64 210 8,554 13,807
Industrial crops – Sunflower 340 127 468 358 261 618 1,050 2,050
Fodder – Veza 779 234 1,012 12,457 12,457 16,000 -
Vegetables – Strawberry 23 380 403 0 12,817 12,817 - 33,741
Other grass crops 0 0 1
Fallow land 10,839 0 10,839
Citrus 0 1,672 1,672 25,817 25,817 - 15,438
Temperate climate fruit trees 104 360 464
Dry fruit trees 3,433 24 3,456
Olive tree for olive oil and table 5,324 246 5,570 4,579 388 4,967 860 1,580
Vineyard for wine and grape 63 251 314 465 2,061 2,526 7,410 8,200
Nursery 0 0 0
Mushrooms 0 0
Greenhouses 7 7
Total 28,406 3,548 31,954 36,053 42,119 78,171 5,285 9,962
6
Surface 2,435
7
Groundwater 780
1 The Lower Guadiana basin comprises the Guadiana basin part in Huelva.
B. Crop water consumption (m3/ha), total water resource consumption (106 m3/year) and virtual-water content
(m3/ton) (2001).
Crop water consumption (m3/ha) Total use of water resources (106m3/year) Virtual-water content (V) (m3/ton)
1
A) UPPER GUADIANA Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated
Crop Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total Vg2*A5 Vg2*A5 Vb3*A5 Vb4*A5 Total*A 5
Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total
6
Grain cereals : 1238 1238 3303 2599 4541 593 121 322 254 443 302 163 436 343 599
Cereal - Wheat, barley,

1520 1520 2225 3746 1455 439 643 1083
oat
Cereal - Maize 392 392 6534 6926 55 34 558 592
Grain legumes Veza,

911 911 2598 2254 3510 63 10 27 24 37 3519 814 2320 2012 3133
yeros
Potatoes 370 370 6035 2864 6404 4 2 5 30 15 248 118 263
Industrial crops –
311 311 5625 3168 5936 23 3 59 0 62 924 194 3509 0 3703
Sunflower
Fodder – Veza, alfalfa 816 816 4177 4079 4993 25 6 32 31 38 135 36 186 181 222
Vegetables – Melon 290 290 5136 3741 5426 0 4 69 50 72 36 10 185 135 196
Flowers, ornamental
4052 0
plants
Seeds and small plants 3400 0
Other grass crops 3880 7
Fallow land 0
Vegetable gardens 3906 0
Citrus 3900 0
Temperate climate fruit

3980 1
trees
Subtropical climate fruit

trees
Dry fruit trees 4915 1
Olive tree for olive oil 1057 1057 2502 1893 3560 142 14 33 25 47 608 449 1063 804 1512
Vineyard for wine

854 854 2890 2692 3744 170 113 381 355 494 213 71 240 223 311
production
Nursery 3400
Other permanent crops 4047
Greenhouse tree crops 3400
Mushrooms 18000
Greenhouses6 4200
Total 731 731 4033 2932 4764 1016 271 928 752 1199 728 223 939 477 1161

2 Vg: Green virtual water. Source: Own elaboration.
3 Vb: Blue virtual water. Source: Own elaboration.
4 Vb: Blue virtual water. Source: CHG (2008b)
5 A: Area in hectares
B) MIDDLE
Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated
GUADIANA1
Crop Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total Vg2*A5 Vg2*A5 Vb3*A5 Vb4*A5 Total*A5 Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total
6
Grain cereals : 1378 1052 4462 4.095 5514 387 101 429 394 530 516 136 578 530 714
Cereal - Wheat, barley,

1378 1378 2473 3851 516 369 662 1031
oat
Cereal - Maize - 366 6712 7078 30 559 590
Cereal - Rice - 760 8178 8938 102 1100 1203
Grain legumes – Chick

325 - - 3.050 6 0 0 5 0 433
peas
Potatoes - 970 3437 2.821 4406 0 0 1 1 2
325 325 5741 6065 5 5 89 0 94 355 113 2004 0 2118
Sunflower
Fodder – Clover, veza 1665 1665 1745 5.346 78 14 0 167
Vegetables – Tomato 317 317 6592 4.043 6909 0 7 142 87 149 - 6 115 71 121
Flowers, ornamental
4.050 0
plants
Seeds and small plants 3.400 0
Other grass crops 4.430 8
Fallow land
Vegetable gardens 3.637 0
Citrus - 2244 6000 3.900 8244 0 0 0 187 500 325 687

3.718 29
trees

4.000 0
trees
Dry fruit trees 5.500 6
Olive tree 1048 1048 3733 1.975 4781 200 50 178 94 228 608 210 747 395 956
Vineyard 912 912 3901 2.683 4814 54 11 46 31 56 180 114 488 335 602
Nursery 3.400
Other permanent crops
Greenhouse tree crops 3.400
Mushrooms
Greenhouses 4.200
Total 853 1067 4451 3758 5819 731 174 886 671 1061 397 141 750 276 891

1
C) TOP Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated
Crop Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total Vg2*A5 Vg2*A5 Vb3*A5 Vb4*A5 Total*A 5
Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total
6
Grain cereals – Wheat 1380 1380 2760 3677 4140 33 2 3 4 5 565 402 805 1072 1207
Grain legumes – Lupin,

752 752 4227 3050 4979 0 0 1 1 1
veza 1108 519 2915 2103 3434
Potatoes 1015 1015 3560 1240 4575 0 0 0 0 1 119 74 258 90 331
0 0 5936 5936 0 0 15 0 15
Sunflower 0 0 2896 0 2896
Fodder – Veza and

1505 1505 3674 5023 5178 1 1
others 94
Vegetables –
1688 1688 2836 3840 4523 0 7 12 17 20
Strawberry - 50 84 114 134
Flowers and
4050 0
ornamental plants
Other grass crops ---
Fallow land
Citrus - 2828 5586 3952 8415 22 43 30 65 183 362 256 545

3765 7
trees

4000 0
trees
Olive tree for oil and

589 589 1601 2282 2189 6 1 2 2 2
table 685 373 1013 1444 1386
Vineyard for wine and
564 564 1902 2888 2466 2 0 0 0 0
grape 76 69 232 352 301
Nursery 3400 0
Other permanent crops ---
Greenhouse tree crops 3400 0
Mushrooms ---
Greenhouses6 4200 1
Total 936 1147 3565 3635 4711 42 32 77 66 109 378 209 1071 679 1279
D) LOWER
Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated
GUADIANA1
Crop Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total Vg2*A5 Vg2*A5 Vb3*A5 Vb4*A5 Total*A5 Vg2 Vg2 Vb3 Vb4 Total
6
Grain cereals – Wheat 1380 1380 2760 3677 4140 10 0 1 1 1 565 402 805 1072 1207
Grain legumes – Lupin,

752 752 4227 3050 4979 0 0 0 0 0 1108 519 2915 2103 3434
veza
Potatoes 1015 1015 3560 1240 4575 0 0 0 0 0 119 74 258 90 331
0 0 5936 5936 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2896 0 2896
Sunflower
Fodder – Veza and

1505 1505 3674 5023 5178 1 1 94
others
Vegetables –
1688 1688 2836 3840 4523 0 1 2 - 50 84 114 134
Strawberry
Flowers and
4050 0
ornamental plants
Other grass crops ---
Fallow land
Citrus - 2828 5586 3952 8415 0 5 9 7 14 183 362 256 545

3765 1
trees

4000 0
trees
Olive tree for oil and

589 589 1601 2282 2189 3 0 0 1 1 685 373 1013 1444 1386
table
Vineyard for wine and

564 564 1902 2888 2466 0 0 0 1 1 76 69 232 352 301
grape
Nursery 3400 0
Other permanent crops ---
Greenhouse tree crops 3400 0
Mushrooms ---
Greenhouses6 4200 0
Total 936 1147 3565 3635 4711 15 6 13 13 19 378 209 1071 679 1279
C. Economic value and economic water productivity (€/m3) (2001)
Water
6 7
Economic value economic GVA Employment
productivity5
1 2 2 3 4 3 million
A) UPPER GUADIANA €/ha €/ha €/ton Total million € €/m job number
€
Crop Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Irrigated
8
Grain cereals : 549 1017 134 263 99 0,3
Cereal - Wheat, barley, oat 133
Cereal - Maize 136
Grain legumes – Veza, yeros 46 197 176 3 2 0,1
Potatoes 2508 5035 207 1 4 0,8
Industrial crops – Sunflower 410 256 4 0,1
Fodder – Veza, alfalfa 101
Vegetables – Melon 2092 7144 258 1 95 1,4
Flowers, ornamental plants
Seeds and small plants
Other grass crops
Fallow land
Vegetable gardens
Citrus 192
Temperate climate fruit trees
Subtropical climate fruit trees
Dry fruit trees
Olive tree for olive oil 865 1172 498 116 15 0,5
Vineyard for wine production 1823 5479 455 363 722 1,9
Nursery
Greenhouse tree crops
Mushrooms
Greenhouses
Total 560 3271 748 943 1,0 599 26818

2 Total economic value (total €) divided by area (ha)
4 Economic value (€/ton) multiplied by production (ton/year). Source: MAPA (2002)
5 Total economic value (total €) divided by the total use of water resources (m3/year)
6 Gross Value Added (GVA). Source: CHG (2008b)
Water
6 7
Economic value economic GVA Employment
5
productivity
million
B) MIDDLE GUADIANA1 €/ha2 €/ha2 €/ton3 Total million €4 €/m3 job number
€
8
Grain cereals : 435 1259 163 122 121 0,3
Cereal - Wheat, barley, oat 133
Cereal - Maize 136
Cereal - Rice 279
Grain legumes – Chick peas 613 817 12
Potatoes 5165 207 2 1,5
Fodder – Clover, veza 0 101
Vegetables – Tomato 0 19182 336 0 414 2,9
Flowers, ornamental plants
Other grass crops
Fallow land
Vegetable gardens
Citrus 2302 192 0 0,4
Dry fruit trees
Olive tree for oil and table 858 2488 498 164 119 0,7
Vineyard for wine production 2303 3638 455 136 43 0,9
Nursery
Mushrooms
Greenhouses
Total 568 3409 434 711 0,8 413 22991

Water
6
Economic value economic GVA Employment7
productivity5
1 2 2 3 4 3 million
C) TOP €/ha €/ha €/ton Total million € €/m job number
€
8
Grain cereals – Wheat 325 457 133 8 1 0,2
Grain legumes – Lupin, veza 129 276 190 0 0 0,1
Potatoes 1767 2852 207 0 0 0,8
Fodder – Veza and others 101
Vegetables - Strawberries 0 28039 831 0 123 9,9
Flowers and ornamental
plants
Other grass crops
Fallow land
Vegetable gardens
Citrus 2961 192 23 0,5
Dry fruit trees
Olive tree 428 786 498 4 1 0,5
Vineyard 3369 3728 455 11 0 2,0
Nursery
Mushrooms
Greenhouses6
Total 327 7422 23 149 1,9 205 9435
Water
Economic value economic GVA6 Employment7
5
productivity
million
D) LOWER GUADIANA1 €/ha2 €/ha2 €/ton3 Total million €4 €/m3 job number
€
8
Grain cereals – Wheat 325 457 133 2 0 0,2
Grain legumes – Lupin, veza 129 276 190 0 0 0,1
Potatoes 1767 2852 207 0 0 0,8
Fodder – Veza and others 101
Vegetables - Strawberries 0 28039 831 0 11 9,9
Flowers and ornamental
plants
Other grass crops
Fallow land
Vegetable gardens
Citrus 2961 192 5 0,5
Dry fruit trees
Olive tree 428 786 498 2 0 0,5
Vineyard 3369 3728 455 0 1 2,0
Nursery
Mushrooms
6
Greenhouses
Total 174 4765 5 17 1,3 45 2206
Value of Water Research Report Series
Editorial board:
Arjen Y. Hoekstra – University of Twente, [email protected]
Hubert H.G. Savenije – Delft University of Technology, [email protected]
Pieter van der Zaag – UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, [email protected]
1. Exploring methods to assess the value of water: A case study on the Zambezi basin.
A.K. Chapagain February 2000
2. Water value flows: A case study on the Zambezi basin.
A.Y. Hoekstra, H.H.G. Savenije and A.K. Chapagain March 2000
3. The water value-flow concept.
I.M. Seyam and A.Y. Hoekstra December 2000
4. The value of irrigation water in Nyanyadzi smallholder irrigation scheme, Zimbabwe.
G.T. Pazvakawambwa and P. van der Zaag – January 2001
5. The economic valuation of water: Principles and methods
J.I. Agudelo – August 2001
6. The economic valuation of water for agriculture: A simple method applied to the eight Zambezi basin countries
J.I. Agudelo and A.Y. Hoekstra – August 2001
7. The value of freshwater wetlands in the Zambezi basin
I.M. Seyam, A.Y. Hoekstra, G.S. Ngabirano and H.H.G. Savenije – August 2001
8. ‘Demand management’ and ‘Water as an economic good’: Paradigms with pitfalls
H.H.G. Savenije and P. van der Zaag – October 2001
9. Why water is not an ordinary economic good
H.H.G. Savenije – October 2001
10. Calculation methods to assess the value of upstream water flows and storage as a function of downstream benefits
I.M. Seyam, A.Y. Hoekstra and H.H.G. Savenije – October 2001
11. Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade
A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung – September 2002
12. Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade
A.Y. Hoekstra (ed.) – February 2003
13. Virtual water flows between nations in relation to trade in livestock and livestock products
A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – July 2003
14. The water needed to have the Dutch drink coffee
A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – August 2003
15. The water needed to have the Dutch drink tea
A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – August 2003
16. Water footprints of nations, Volume 1: Main Report, Volume 2: Appendices
A.K. Chapagain and A.Y. Hoekstra – November 2004
17. Saving water through global trade
A.K. Chapagain, A.Y. Hoekstra and H.H.G. Savenije – September 2005
18. The water footprint of cotton consumption
A.K. Chapagain, A.Y. Hoekstra, H.H.G. Savenije and R. Gautam – September 2005
19. Water as an economic good: the value of pricing and the failure of markets
P. van der Zaag and H.H.G. Savenije – July 2006
20. The global dimension of water governance: Nine reasons for global arrangements in order to cope with local water
problems
A.Y. Hoekstra – July 2006
21. The water footprints of Morocco and the Netherlands
A.Y. Hoekstra and A.K. Chapagain – July 2006
22. Water’s vulnerable value in Africa
P. van der Zaag – July 2006
23. Human appropriation of natural capital: Comparing ecological footprint and water footprint analysis
A.Y. Hoekstra – July 2007
24. A river basin as a common-pool resource: A case study for the Jaguaribe basin in Brazil
P.R. van Oel, M.S. Krol and A.Y. Hoekstra – July 2007
25. Strategic importance of green water in international crop trade
M.M. Aldaya, A.Y. Hoekstra and J.A. Allan – March 2008
26. Global water governance: Conceptual design of global institutional arrangements
M.P. Verkerk, A.Y. Hoekstra and P.W. Gerbens-Leenes – March 2008
27. Business water footprint accounting: A tool to assess how production of goods and services impact on freshwater
resources worldwide
P.W. Gerbens-Leenes and A.Y. Hoekstra – March 2008
28. Water neutral: reducing and offsetting the impacts of water footprints
A.Y. Hoekstra – March 2008
29. Water footprint of bio-energy and other primary energy carriers
P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, A.Y. Hoekstra and Th.H. van der Meer – March 2008
30. Food consumption patterns and their effect on water requirement in China
J. Liu and H.H.G. Savenije – March 2008
31. Going against the flow: A critical analysis of virtual water trade in the context of India’s National River Linking
Programme
S. Verma, D.A. Kampman, P. van der Zaag and A.Y. Hoekstra – March 2008
32. The water footprint of India
D.A. Kampman, A.Y. Hoekstra and M.S. Krol – May 2008
33. The external water footprint of the Netherlands: Quantification and impact assessment
P.R. van Oel, M.M. Mekonnen and A.Y. Hoekstra – May 2008
34. The water footprint of bio-energy: Global water use for bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, heat and electricity
P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, A.Y. Hoekstra and Th.H. van der Meer – August 2008
35. Water footprint analysis for the Guadiana river basin
M.M. Aldaya and M.R. Llamas – November 2008
Reports can be downloaded from:

www.waterfootprint.org
www.unesco-ihe.org/value-of-water-research-report-series

Report35 WaterFootprint Guadiana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report35 WaterFootprint Guadiana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report35 WaterFootprint Guadiana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WATER FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS FOR THE

GUADIANA RIVER BASIN

The Value of Water Research Report Series is published by

Appendix I. Mancha and Don Benito agricultural region analysis ...................................................................63

0 19.5 39 78 117 156

0 25 50 100 150 200

Virtual-water content (V)

IR = max (0, CWR – Peff)

ETg = min (CWR, Peff)

Geographic and social data

5.1 Mancha and Don Benito agricultural region analysis

5.1.1 Crop area

1 Source: CHG (2008b) for the year 2001.

5.1.2 Water consumption

Dry Average Humid

GREEN WATER BLUE GROUNDWATER

Dry Average Humid

GREEN WATER BLUE SURFACE WATER BLUE GROUNDWATER

1 Total crop water supply. Source: CHG (2008b)

Year Water abstractions after CHG1 (Mm3) Theoretical CWUb2 (Mm3)

5.1.3 Virtual-water content (m3/ton) in irrigated lands

Dry year (2005) Average year (2001) Humid year (1997)

1600 BLUE WATER

Olive tree 1200

5.1.4 Agricultural economic productivity (€/ha)

Dry year (2005) Average year (2001) Humid year (1997)

Don Wheat 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.6

5.1.5 Economic blue water productivity (€/m3)

Source: Own elaboration (see Appendices I.II and I.III).

5.1.6 Agricultural trade

5.2. Guadiana water footprint

5.2.1 Crop area

Rainfed agriculture Irrigated agriculture

Vineyard Upper Guadiana

Grain cereals Olive tree

Fallow land Citrus

Total Water Use

636,721 Agricultural 1,286 928 2,214 3,478 599 0.65

672,534 Agricultural 905 886 1,792 2,664 413 0.47

62,213 Agricultural 21 13 33 535 45 3.54

Agricultural water consumption

Humid Average Dry

Humid (1997) Average (2001) Dry (2005)

107 142 172

5.2.4 Agricultural economic productivity (€/ha)

Irrigated agriculture Rainfed agriculture

5.2.5 Economic blue water productivity (€/m3)

Water economic productivity

5.2.6 Agricultural trade

5.3. Review of crop water consumption estimates by various experts

Present study Rodríguez Chapagain and

Ub14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWUb14 CWU15

16 2000-2500 3678 2388 1693 6622

42 2842 2583 3902 2403 3070

90 2759 2999 2630 1880 2831

17 5174 7014 7262 7604 6116

5705 3730 3165

d a time step of 5 days.

Present study Rodríguez CHG CHG CHG