Thank you for your thoughts regarding the water footprint discussion. I appreciate your interest in the topic.
You are correct, of course, in suggesting that international trade is complex. Indeed, the decisions of firms and countries regarding trade involve quite a bit of economics, politics, and cultural considerations. Yet they do not include much - if any - consideration by importers of the inputs used to produce goods and services in the countries of origin. Importing countries do not import the water used to produce the goods they purchase. Depicting international trade as if it involves the movement of "virtual water flows" has no basis in theory or in empirical observations.
Countries in the Middle East import substantial amounts of grain because they lack the resources to produce sufficient grain on their own. The importing countries likely care quite a bit about the price, quality, and availability of grain in international markets. Yet they have little reason to care about the inputs used to produce the grain in any of the exporting countries. Importers need to find reliable exporters who provide commodities of suitable quality at reasonable prices. They do not need to know how much water, energy, or labor is used to produce the commodities.
Many observers have proposed the perspective that countries somehow import the "virtual water embedded" in grains obtained through international trade. Yet that is simply not the case. There is no such thing as water embedded in traded commodities. It might be interesting to consider that large volumes of water are required to produce the wheat that Egypt imports or the cotton that Central Asia exports. Large amounts of energy, labor, chemicals, and machinery also are involved in crop production. Yet none of those inputs moves across an international border when countries trade in wheat and cotton. There is no such thing as "virtual water trade" or the virtual trade in any productive input.
I suppose the notions of virtual water and water footprints are appealing to many observers because they generate compelling images of large volumes of water moving across the globe on the wings and in the shipping lanes of international trade. When the colors of green and blue are added to the picture, the images become even more compelling. Yet the notions of virtual water and water footprints are just that - notions. They are not concepts or established facts. They are not the outcome of scientific inquiry. They cannot explain international trade and they have no place in policies or agreements pertaining to international trade.
Quite a bit of time and effort have been invested in recent years in calculating water footprints and estimating virtual water flows. Yet most of the published reports and journal articles provide no insight regarding why or how countries engage in trade. The sooner we leave behind the notions of virtual water and water footprints, the sooner we can return to conducting science-based studies that truly enhance understanding of the complex subjects that require and deserve our very best scholarly efforts.
Hello Martin,
Thank you for your thoughts regarding the water footprint discussion. I appreciate your interest in the topic.
You are correct, of course, in suggesting that international trade is complex. Indeed, the decisions of firms and countries regarding trade involve quite a bit of economics, politics, and cultural considerations. Yet they do not include much - if any - consideration by importers of the inputs used to produce goods and services in the countries of origin. Importing countries do not import the water used to produce the goods they purchase. Depicting international trade as if it involves the movement of "virtual water flows" has no basis in theory or in empirical observations.
Countries in the Middle East import substantial amounts of grain because they lack the resources to produce sufficient grain on their own. The importing countries likely care quite a bit about the price, quality, and availability of grain in international markets. Yet they have little reason to care about the inputs used to produce the grain in any of the exporting countries. Importers need to find reliable exporters who provide commodities of suitable quality at reasonable prices. They do not need to know how much water, energy, or labor is used to produce the commodities.
Many observers have proposed the perspective that countries somehow import the "virtual water embedded" in grains obtained through international trade. Yet that is simply not the case. There is no such thing as water embedded in traded commodities. It might be interesting to consider that large volumes of water are required to produce the wheat that Egypt imports or the cotton that Central Asia exports. Large amounts of energy, labor, chemicals, and machinery also are involved in crop production. Yet none of those inputs moves across an international border when countries trade in wheat and cotton. There is no such thing as "virtual water trade" or the virtual trade in any productive input.
I suppose the notions of virtual water and water footprints are appealing to many observers because they generate compelling images of large volumes of water moving across the globe on the wings and in the shipping lanes of international trade. When the colors of green and blue are added to the picture, the images become even more compelling. Yet the notions of virtual water and water footprints are just that - notions. They are not concepts or established facts. They are not the outcome of scientific inquiry. They cannot explain international trade and they have no place in policies or agreements pertaining to international trade.
Quite a bit of time and effort have been invested in recent years in calculating water footprints and estimating virtual water flows. Yet most of the published reports and journal articles provide no insight regarding why or how countries engage in trade. The sooner we leave behind the notions of virtual water and water footprints, the sooner we can return to conducting science-based studies that truly enhance understanding of the complex subjects that require and deserve our very best scholarly efforts.
Best regards,
Dennis Wichelns