Blog Posts

I see the problem that the assessment of the water footprint (WF) is being only looked from one side (the number), not taking into account the whole picture, like this miscommunicating. If you look at the global standards defined in “The Water Footprint Assessment Manual” https://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterFootprintAssessmentManual, you will see that for a WF assessment also a sustainability assessment (from an environmental, social and economic point of view) has to be conducted, as well as responses formulated.
Why should a product be produced with more water than actually necessary? Would it be not reasonable to allocate the super flus water consumption to other uses?
Are any countries considering the WF as a policy tool? Spain has already implemented WF assessment in their river basin legislation and beside India, the Netherlands is also taking it into consideration.
One of the big benefits from the WF is that it takes the water balance into account, which in previous water use measures was not considered.
In my opinion, people should first inform themselves properly, before discussing!!!!