Water Footprint Assessment Banana and Lettuce

Transcription

Water Footprint Assessment
Banana and Lettuce Products
Produced by Chiquita
Prepared for:
World Wildlife Fund International
Chiquita Brands International
Confidential
September 12, 2012
Ann Arbor, Michigan
www.limno.com
This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.
Banana and Lettuce Products Produced by Chiquita
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...................................................................................SF-1
KEY FINDINGS: BANANAS ............................................................................... 1
KEY FINDINGS: LETTUCE ................................................................................. 1
IMPLICATIONS: ................................................................................................... 2
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFINEMENTS: ................................................. 2
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
WATER FOOTPRINT CONCEPT ........................................................................ 1
STUDY BOUNDARIES ........................................................................................ 1
2. WATER FOOTPRINT OF BANANAS ................................................................... 3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................... 3
OVERVIEW OF APPROACH ............................................................................... 4
BANANA WATER FOOTPRINT FINDINGS...................................................... 4
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 21
3. WATER FOOTPRINT OF LETTUCE .................................................................. 23
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................. 23
OVERVIEW OF APPROACH ............................................................................. 24
LETTUCE WATER FOOTPRINT FINDINGS ................................................... 25
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 37
4. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX A.
Map of Water Footprint for Bananas by Provinces of Mexico and Central and
South America
LimnoTech
Page iii
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Crop and Process Water Footprints of Processed Bananas .........................4
Figure 2-2. Steps in Banana Production Chain ..............................................................5
Figure 2-3.Typical Banana Packing Plant Layout .........................................................6
Figure 2-4. Intake Channel from (left) Montagua River in Guatemala and (right) Ulua
River in Honduras ..................................................................................8
Figure 2-5. Map of Honduras Growing Region Showing Source (Ulua River) and
Receiving (Chamelecon River) Waters .................................................8
Figure 2-6. Map of Guatemala Growing Region Showing Source (Rio Montagua
River) and Receiving (San Francisco River) Waters .............................9
Figure 2-7. Pumping Station in Honduras (Omonita) ..................................................10
Figure 2-8. Timing and Magnitude of Irrigation Compared to Precipitation:
Guatemala, 2008-2012 .........................................................................11
Figure 2-9. Timing and Magnitude of Irrigation Compared to Precipitation: Honduras,
2008-2012 ............................................................................................11
Figure 2-10. Banana Bunches are Sprayed in the Plant Before Dehanding ................12
Figure 2-11. Groundwater Treatment System and Delatexing Tanks .........................13
Figure 2-12. Removal of Solids from Wastewater Before Discharge to Drainage
Canal ....................................................................................................13
Figure 2-13. Green and Blue Water Footprints of Banana Bunches ...........................16
Figure 2-14. Process Blue Water Footprints ................................................................17
Figure 2-15. Grey Water Footprints of Bananas ..........................................................19
Figure 2-16. Mulching Between Trees and Drainage Canal with Natural Ground
Cover ....................................................................................................20
Figure 3-1. Comparison of Supply Chain and Operational Water Footprints .............24
Figure 3-2. Steps in Lettuce Production Chain ............................................................25
Figure 3-3. Map of Lettuce Growing Regions .............................................................25
Figure 3-4. Locations of Fresh Express Plants in the U.S. ..........................................26
Figure 3-5. Different Irrigation Technologies used in the Growing of Lettuce Crop..28
Figure 3-6. Water Flowing in Drainage Ditch, with Sprinklers Running in the
Distance................................................................................................29
Figure 3-7. Green and Blue Water Footprints of Iceberg Lettuce ...............................33
Figure 3-8. Green and Blue Water Footprints of Romaine Lettuce .............................34
Figure 3-9. Grey Footprint Associated with Growing Lettuce ....................................36
LimnoTech
Page iv
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Characteristics of Packing Plants and Associated Farms .............................3
Table 2-2. Estimated Water Footprints for Processed Bananas .....................................3
Table 2-3. Water Uses Associated with the Production of Bananas..............................7
Table 2-4. Data for Farms and Packing Plants by Location ........................................14
Table 2-5. Crop and Process Water Footprints of Processed Bananas ........................18
Table 2-6. Comparison of Water Footprint for Growing Bananas to Values in WFN
Database ...............................................................................................21
Table 3-1. Estimated Water Footprints for Processed Lettuce ....................................23
Table 3-2. Water Uses Associated with the Production of Lettuce .............................27
Table 3-3. Characteristics of Lettuce Growing Regions ..............................................27
Table 3-4. Summary of Water Use and Production at the Salinas Plant .....................30
Table 3-5. Sources of Reference Evapotranspiration Data used in the Study .............31
Table 3-6.Summary of Typical Crop Yields of Iceberg and Romaine Lettuce Across
the Entire Growing Region ..................................................................32
Table 3-7. Summary of Green and Blue Water for Growing Iceberg in Different
Growing Regions .................................................................................32
Table 3-8. Summary of Green and Blue Water for Growing Romaine in Different
Growing Regions .................................................................................33
Table 3-9. Crop and Process Water Footprints ............................................................35
Table 3-10. Nitrogen Application Rates and Leaching Loss Used in Grey Water
Footprint Evaluation ............................................................................36
LimnoTech
Page v
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
LimnoTech
Page vi
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Water footprints were calculated for two product types produced by Chiquita:
•
•
Bananas produced at farms located in Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica and
Panama
Bagged lettuce produced by Fresh Express in the U.S.
KEY FINDINGS: BANANAS
• The (green plus blue) water footprint of a kilogram of processed bananas
produced in the selected regions ranges from 440 to 632 liters.
• The largest contributor to the total water footprint of processed bananas is
water consumed by the crop, which comprises approximately 94% to 99% of
the total water footprint.
• Bananas grown in Honduras and Guatemala are irrigated and have the largest
water footprint, and rainfed bananas grown in Costa Rica and Panama have
the smallest water footprint.
• The volume of blue water consumed in the packing plants varies by location
and type of plant; recirculation significantly reduces the blue water footprint
for processing.
• The high cost of irrigation due to energy and maintenance expenses and the
adverse impacts of over-irrigation help minimize the blue crop water
footprint. Heavy mulching practiced at the farms also helps reduce the green
and blue water footprints.
• The grey water footprint was calculated but it was found to have limited value
and an in-depth water quality study was beyond the resources of the study.
Chiquita employs numerous measures at its farms to reduce pollutant loadings
to receiving waters.
KEY FINDINGS: LETTUCE
• The (green plus blue) water footprint of a 12 ounce bag of iceberg lettuce
ranges from 2.9 to 5.5 gallons and the water footprint of a 12 ounce bag of
romaine lettuce ranges from 4.6 to 8.7 gallons.
• The water footprint for lettuce crops differs between the five growing regions,
primarily due to differences in climate, growing season and crop yield.
• Approximately 98% of the total water footprint is associated with crop
production in the supply chain.
• Fertilizer application combined with excessive application of irrigation water
is the primary source of nitrate pollution in groundwater in the Salinas
growing region.
• The benefits of improved management of fertilizer and irrigation application
are reflected in the results of a grey water footprint calculation.
LimnoTech
Page SF-1
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
IMPLICATIONS:
• For bananas, water footprint results suggest opportunities for improvements in
water consumption at the packing plants, which are dependent on local
aquifers. The findings indicate there may be opportunities for improvements
in one-pass processes as well as through conversion from one-pass to
recirculation.
• For lettuce, water footprint results validate the continued need for Fresh
Express to support farmers in implementing best management practices.
Fertilization combined with over-irrigation of salad greens by suppliers in the
Salinas growing region contributes to significant nitrate contamination issues,
and is leading to increased regulation and potential increased supplier costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFINEMENTS:
• The water footprint of bananas may be refined by using long-term data rather
than 2011. Specifically, using long-term climate and yield information will
result in more representative estimates of baseline water footprints.
• The water footprint of lettuce crops may be refined by using yield information
for individual growing regions.
• Water footprints may be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of various
response measures in regions identified as high risk through the Water Risk
Filter Tool.
LimnoTech
Page SF-2
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
1. INTRODUCTION
Chiquita is interested in gaining an improved understanding of water use and
associated risks related to production of bananas and salad greens. To help
accomplish this, water footprints were calculated for bananas produced in four
countries and bagged lettuce produced by Fresh Express in the U.S. The results will
inform an ongoing water risk assessment led by World Wildlife Fund International.
Together the studies will compile critical baseline water data and related information
to help validate the importance of further engagement on water issues, identify key
priority areas, and provide a high-level indication of best practices.
WATER FOOTPRINT CONCEPT
The water footprint assessment method is detailed in the Water Footprint Assessment
Manual published by the Water Footprint Network (Hoekstra, et al., 2011). The water
footprint of a product is the total volume of freshwater used to produce the product,
summed over the various steps of the production chain. It is made up of three
components, defined as follows:
•
•
•
The green water footprint refers to rainwater stored in the soil that is
consumed through evaporation and transpiration by crops;
The blue water footprint refers to consumption of surface and ground water;
and
The grey water footprint reflects pollution and is defined as the volume of
freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on
ambient water quality standards.
The total water footprint (WF) of an agriculturally-derived product is calculated as
the sum of the crop water footprint and the water footprint of the process that
converts the crop into a product. The results for the crop and process water footprints
are presented separately in this report.
STUDY BOUNDARIES
The focus of the study was on processes that contribute significantly to the total water
footprint, and that the company may be able to influence. The following sources of
water consumption were excluded from the accounting:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water consumed in the production of packaging materials (e.g., plastic bags,
cardboard boxes, pallets)
Water required to produce energy used at farms and plants and for
transportation, storage and refrigeration
Water required to produce materials in buildings and equipment
Water contained in the products, recognized as negligible compared to total
water footprint
Domestic water use for drinking, kitchens and baths
Water used by retailers and consumers
LimnoTech
Page 1
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
LimnoTech
Page 2
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
2. WATER FOOTPRINT OF BANANAS
Water footprints were calculated for processed bananas produced by Chiquita at
farms in Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Panama. Key characteristics of the
selected packing plants and associated farms that were analyzed are listed in
Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Characteristics of Packing Plants and Associated Farms
Packing Plant
Omonita
Omagua
Tropico
Finca 43
Location
Honduras
Guatemala
Costa Rica
Panama
Type of Plant
One pass
Recirculating
One pass
Recirculating
Farm Ownership
Chiquita
Chiquita
Chiquita
Chiquita
Irrigation Type
Sprinkler
Micro-irrigation
None
None
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The water footprint results illustrate the differences between growing regions in terms
of water requirements at the farms and also show the benefits of recirculation in the
packing plants. The estimated green and blue water footprints for a kilogram of
processed bananas are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Estimated Water Footprints for Processed Bananas
Water Footprint (liters water/kg bananas)
Packing Plant
Country
Green
Blue
Total Green + Blue
Omonita
Honduras
292.5
339.2
631.6
Omagua
Guatemala
337.8
206.4
544.2
Tropico
Costa Rica
433.6
6.4
440.0
Finca 43
Panama
439.5
1.6
441.1
The largest contributor to the total water footprint of processed bananas is water
consumed by the crop, which comprises approximately 94% - 99% of the water
footprint. The process water footprint, associated with water consumed in the packing
plants, varies by location and type of plant and represents approximately 1%- 6% of
the total consumptive water footprint (Figure 2-1).
The grey water footprint associated with growing bananas was also calculated. The
results are presented in Section 4. The grey water footprint is an indicator of pollution
and is not combined with the green and blue water footprints.
LimnoTech
Page 3
CONFIDENTIAL
Omonita, Hondurus
Omagua,Guatemala
2 L/kg,
0.34%
September 12, 2012
Crop WF
Process WF
36 L/kg,
5.64%
596 L/kg,
94.36%
542 L/kg,
99.66%
Tropico, Costa Rica
Finca 43, Panama
6 L/kg,
1.45%
434 L/kg,
98.55%
2 L/kg,
0.36%
440 L/kg,
99.64%
Figure 2-1. Crop and Process Water Footprints of Processed Bananas
OVERVIEW OF APPROACH
The analysis was accomplished through the following five steps:
1.
Identify processes in production chain;
2.
Determine water uses associated with each process;
3.
Identify data needs and collect required data
4.
Calculate water footprints for one kilogram of processed bananas; and
5.
Compare results to other published water footprint values
BANANA WATER FOOTPRINT FINDINGS
This section describes the findings of the analyses, organized by the five steps listed
above.
LimnoTech
Page 4
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
1. Processes In Production Chain
This study addressed the first three steps in the production chain: growing bananas
and transporting and processing them in the packing plant. After banana bunches are
cut off the trees, they are transported into the packing plants using a pulley system. In
the packing plants the banana bunches are de-handed, processed and loaded onto
trucks (Figure 2-2). The processes in a typical banana packing plant are shown in
Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-2. Steps in Banana Production Chain
LimnoTech
Page 5
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Figure 2-3.Typical Banana Packing Plant Layout
2. Water Use In Production Chain
Table 2-3 presents water uses associated with production of bananas. Water footprint
accounting for this study focused on those processes that are believed to contribute
most significantly to the total water footprint: growing and processing bananas.
These processes are described separately below. Water consumed indirectly in the
production of packing materials and energy was not accounted for in this study, and
they are assumed to be small compared to the water footprint of bananas.
LimnoTech
Page 6
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Table 2-3. Water Uses Associated with the Production of Bananas
Component
Crop
Water Footprint
Processes
Growing
bananas
Process
Water Footprint
Transporting
bunches to
packing facility
Processing
bunches into
product
Water Uses
(Color of Water)
Rain (green) water and
irrigation (blue) water to
grow bananas
Pollutants in runoff or
infiltration to groundwater
(grey)
Water used for cooling,
washing, hydrotransportation and
delatexing (blue)
*Pollutants in wastewater
(grey)
Water Footprint
Units
Volume
water/mass
banana bunches
Volume
water/mass
processed
bananas
Other Water Uses*
Water used in the
production of plastic
bags, foam and other
packaging materials
(blue, grey)
Water used for building
materials, energy, fuel,
transportation (blue,
grey)
Water used for hand
washing, toilet
flushing, drinking,
landscaping
(blue, grey)
*Water use associated with these processes was not included in the calculations
Water used to grow bananas
The main source of water for crop production in the growing regions is rainfall and
irrigation. Irrigation water is supplied in Honduras and Guatemala farms. Bananas are
grown under rainfed condition in Panama and Costa Rica farms and therefore no
irrigation is supplied.
Water used for irrigation of bananas processed at the Omonita Plant in Honduras is
drawn from the Ulua River, and water used for irrigation of bananas processed at the
Omagua Plant in Guatemala is drawn from the Montagua River. The intake canals
from the Ulua and Montagua Rivers are located where the rivers are wide and deep,
flowing through coastal plains near the confluence with the sea (Figure 2-4).
LimnoTech
Page 7
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Figure 2-4. Intake Channel from (left) Montagua River in Guatemala and (right)
Ulua River in Honduras
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 depict the locations of the intakes on maps. The maps also show
the ultimate fate of water that flows through drainage ditches from the farms in
Guatemala and Honduras. In both locations, water is not returned to the source rivers
due to downstream flooding concerns.
Figure 2-5. Map of Honduras Growing Region Showing Source (Ulua River) and
Receiving (Chamelecon River) Waters
LimnoTech
Page 8
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Figure 2-6. Map of Guatemala Growing Region Showing Source (Rio Montagua
River) and Receiving (San Francisco River) Waters
Large pumps move the water from the canals to the farms and the river water is
filtered at the pump house. Figure 2-7 depicts the pump house for farms that provide
bananas to the Omonita plant in Honduras. Irrigation water is pumped via
underground pipes to a sprinkler irrigation system in the Omonita growing region and
to a micro-irrigation system in the Omagua growing region.
LimnoTech
Page 9
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Figure 2-7. Pumping Station in Honduras (Omonita)
Most of the applied irrigation water is used for beneficial crop production, and
Chiquita personnel estimate that roughly 2-5% of the applied water runs off into
drainage canals. The decision on when and how much irrigation water is applied is
based on careful analysis by Chiquita personnel using pan evaporation measurements,
soil moisture monitoring, and meteorological data. Only essential water is applied to
the trees because irrigation is very costly due to high energy and maintenance
expenses. Furthermore, over-irrigation can have adverse impacts on the trees. The
growing period for bananas is approximately 32 weeks. However, bananas are grown
and harvested throughout the year.
Banana trees in Honduras and Guatemala are typically irrigated from approximately
February through July. Figure 2-8 (provided by Chiquita) depicts the volume of
irrigation water (lines) compared to precipitation (bars) in the Omagua irrigation
region in Guatemala.
LimnoTech
Page 10
CONFIDENTIAL
Lluvia 2,008
Riego 2,008
Lluvia 2,009
Riego 2,009
September 12, 2012
Lluvia 2,010
Riego 2,010
Lluvia 2,012
Riego 2,012
Lluvia 2,011
Riego 2,011
25
900
Comparativo Lluvia y Ciclos de Riego 2,008 - 2,012
800
20
700
15
500
400
10
Ciclos de Riego
Milímetros de Lluvia
600
300
200
5
100
-
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Meses
8
9
10
11
12
Guatemala, 2008-2012
In recent years as rainfall has become more unpredictable and variable, irrigation has
been required at some farms later in the year. According to Chiquita personnel,
irrigation management is becoming more challenging in some farms under this
changing climate condition. Figure 2-9 provided by Chiquita depicts the volume of
irrigation water (bars) compared to precipitation (lines) in the Omonita irrigation
region in Honduras. The figure shows that some irrigation was required in JulyJanuary in most years, and rainfall was highly variable during this time.
Comparativo ciclos de riego y lluvia 2008 al 2012-Honduras
600
30
550
24.7
25
500
23
19
Ciclos
18.9
15
14
13
450
21
20
20
23.0
22
21
19
20
400
19.1
18
17
350
300
13.5
12
12
250
10.6
8.6
10
8
200
7.9
7.8
7
5
150
7
6.6 6
5
4.6
3.7
4
2.7
1.7
0
6
0
Enero
Febrero
Ciclos Real-Prom 2008
Ciclos 2012
lluvia-2011
100
5.7
2.9
2.7
2.83.2
0
0
0.04
2
1
2
1.4
0
0
0
50
0
0
Marzo
Abril
Mayo
lluvia-2008
LLuvia 2012
Junio
Julio
lluvia-2009
Agosto Septiembre Octubre Noviembre Diciembre
lluvia-2010
Honduras, 2008-2012
LimnoTech
Page 11
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Water used in transport from farms to packing plants
Water is used to cool bananas as they are transported on the pulley system. In the
farms, an automated sprayer is triggered as the banana bunches pass through a
shower, and in the receiving area the banana bunches on the pulleys are sprayed with
water upon arrival (Figure 2-10). The source of this water is a local aquifer and the
water is pumped using Chiquita-owned wells. The groundwater is treated before use.
The same source provides water for the tanks inside the packing plants, as described
below.
Figure 2-10. Banana Bunches are Sprayed in the Plant Before Dehanding
Water used in packing plant
The source of water in the tanks in the packing plants (Figure 2-11) is groundwater
that is pumped from a local aquifer using Chiquita-owned wells and treated before
use (Figure 2-12). Water flows continuously through the tanks to remove latex. Two
types of systems were evaluated; one-pass and recirculation. In the one-pass tanks
(Omonita and Tropico), the water flows continuously through the tanks once and it
not reused. Water recirculates for 15 days in the Omagua Plant and 20 days in the
Finca 43 plant before the water is discharged.
LimnoTech
Page 12
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Figure 2-11. Groundwater Treatment System and Delatexing Tanks
At all packing plants, wastewater undergoes treatment to remove solids before it is
discharged to a drainage canal (Figure 2-12). The drainage canal flows to nearby
surface water (see Figures 2-5 and 2-6). The hydrologic relationship between the
source groundwater and receiving water body at the four study plants is unknown.
Figure 2-12. Removal of Solids from Wastewater Before Discharge to
Drainage Canal
3. Data Collection
Questionnaires were provided to personnel at the farms and plants in each of the four
locations. In addition, a site visit to several farms and plants in Honduras and
Guatemala was conducted in June 2012. Basic data for each of the four locations is
provided in Table 2-4.
LimnoTech
Page 13
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Table 2-4. Data for Farms and Packing Plants by Location
Farm
Latitude/longitude
Area of Plantation (ha)
Irrigation water source
Crop ET* (mm/yr)
Annual rainfall* (mm/yr)
Annual yield*
(metric tons/ha)
Packing Plant
Type
Source of freshwater
Volume of freshwater
inflow* (m3/yr)
Fate of discharge water
Banana production*
(metric tons/yr)
Omonita,
(Honduras)
Omagua
(Guatemala)
Tropico
(Costa Rica)
Finca 43
(Panama)
15.4089/-88.5746
15.5600/-88.5746
10,1532/-83,4715
9.49367/-82.6517
261
Ulua River
2,157
1,748
44
205
Montagua
2,088
2,778
47
211
193
1,804
3,359
51
1,768
2,272
49
One pass
Groundwater
(Chiquita’s well)
409,556
Recirculation
Groundwater
(Chiquita’s well)
18,069
One pass
Groundwater
(Chiquita’s well)
68,339
Recirculation
Groundwater
(Chiquita’s well)
15,040
Drainage to
Camelecon River
11,494
Drainage to San
Francisco River
9,712
Drainage to
Siquirres River
10,678
Drainage to Rio
Sixaola River
9,460
*Based on data collected in 2011
4. Calculation of the Water Footprint of One Kilogram of Bananas
The water footprint of processed bananas is calculated as the sum of the crop and
process water footprints according to the following equation:
WF prod [banana] = (WF proc + WF crop [banana bunches]/f p ) * f v
[Eq. 2-1]
WF prod [banana] = water footprint of processed bananas, liters water/kg
WF proc = water footprint of processing steps that transform the input product
(banana bunches) into output product (processed bananas), liters water/kg
WF crop [banana bunches] = water footprint of input product (banana
bunches), liters/kg bunches
f p = product fraction = quantity of processed bananas obtained per quantity
of input product (banana bunches), unitless
f v = value fraction = ratio of the market value of the processed bananas to
the aggregated market value of any output products obtained from the
inputs, unitless
This calculation was completed separately for the green and blue water footprints.
The crop and process water footprints are calculated separately, as described below.
LimnoTech
Page 14
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Crop Water Footprint Calculation
The blue and green crop water footprints account for water consumed in the growing
of bananas at the farms. They are calculated as crop water use divided by crop yield:
𝑊𝐹(𝑚3 �𝑡𝑜𝑛) =
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑈𝑠𝑒 �𝑚3 ⁄ℎ𝑎�
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 (𝑡𝑜𝑛⁄ℎ𝑎 )
[Eq. 2-2]
Crop water use is the volume of water consumed through evapotranspiration by the
banana trees as they grow and produce fruit. Because bananas are grown and
harvested throughout the year, a growing period of one complete year (52 weeks) is
considered in this study. Data collection was conducted for the year 2011. Therefore,
the estimated water footprint corresponds to the year 2011.
For all four banana farms evaluated, crop evapotranspiration estimates for the year
2011 was provided directly by the individual Chiquita farms. Evapotranspiration was
estimated by Chiquita by applying the following empirical model
𝐸𝑇0 = (0.023 ∗ (𝐴𝑣𝑔𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 + 17.8) ∗ 𝑆𝑄𝑅𝑇�(𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 )� ∗ 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)/2.45
[Eq. 2-3]
𝐸𝑇𝐶 = 𝐸𝑇0 ∗ 𝐾𝐶
[Eq. 2-4]
Where:
ET 0 is the reference evapotranspiration (mm/period)
AvgTemp is the daily mean air temperature (oC)
Tmax and Tmin are the daily maximum and minimum air temperature (oC)
Radiation is the solar radiation MJ m-2 day-1
ET c is the crop evapotranspiration (mm/period)
K c is the crop coefficient (unitless)
A single crop coefficient value of 1.1 was used to relate reference evapotranspiration
to crop evapotranspiration. Estimated crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) on a weekly
basis was provided by Chiquita for all four farms for the year 2011 (see Table 2-4).
For farms where irrigation is practiced (Omagua and Omonita), the blue (irrigation)
and green (rainfall) components of ET c were estimated by following the effective
rainfall approach described in the Water Footprint Network Manual. Weekly rainfall
data was obtained for the Omagua and Omonita farms for 2011. It was assumed that a
fixed percentage (80%) of the weekly rainfall was effective rainfall, utilized by the
crop. Blue and green components of ET c were estimated for the Omagua (Guatemala)
and Omonita (Honduras) farms. For Tropico (Costa Rica) and Finca 43 (Panama)
farms, ET c was assumed to be entirely green because bananas are grown under
rainfed conditions.
Annual crop evapotranspiration in mm/year was multiplied by a factor of 10 to obtain
crop water use in m3/ha (Hoekstra, et al., 2011). Annual crop yields of banana
bunches were obtained from the respective farms for the year 2011 (Table 2-4). Water
LimnoTech
Page 15
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
footprint was then calculated as crop water use divided by crop yield as shown in
Equation 2. The green and blue water footprints by region are shown in Figure 2-13.
liters/kg of harvested bunches
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Omagua,
Guatemala
Omonita,
Honduras
Tropico, Costa
Rica
Finca 43,
Panama
Figure 2-13. Green and Blue Water Footprints of Banana Bunches
Process Water Footprint Calculation
The process water footprint accounts for groundwater (blue) used for cooling as the
banana bunches are transported, and in the packing plants for washing, dehanding,
delatexing and hydrotransportation. Groundwater is treated and pumped into the plant
and at all four plants it is discharged into a drainage canal where it flows to a surface
water body and ultimately to the sea. For this study, it was assumed that all water
pumped from the aquifer is consumed, because it is not returned to the source aquifer.
This is a conservative assumption because is it possible that some of the discharged
water infiltrates back to the source aquifer, but hydrologic studies to confirm this are
not available.
Figure 2-14 presents the process water footprint results. All process water is blue
(groundwater). The water footprint for the one-pass plants is shown to be
considerably larger than the recirculating plants. The reason for the large difference in
process water footprint between the Omonita and Tropico one-pass plants should be
investigated, and suggests opportunity for improvement. The difference in water
footprint between the recirculating plants is due to the difference in the number of
days of recirculation. Water recirculates for 15 days in the Omagua Plant and 20 days
in the Finca 43 plant before the water is discharged.
LimnoTech
Page 16
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
liters/kg of banana product
40
35
30
Recirculating
Omagua,
Guatemala
One pass Honduras
Omonita,
25
20
15
10
5
0
Omagua,
Guatemala
Omonita,
Honduras
Tropico, Costa
Rica
Finca 43,
Panama
Figure 2-14. Process Blue Water Footprints
Total Water Footprint Calculation (Processed Bananas)
The total water footprint was estimated as the sum of the crop water footprint and
process water footprint as shown in Equation 2-1. The crop water footprint includes a
product fraction to account for any loss in mass of the input raw materials. The
product fraction was estimated as the ratio of the mass of banana bunches received at
the packing stations to the mass of processed bananas for the year 2011. The
estimated product fractions are shown in Table 2-5. Equation 2-1 also contains a
value fraction to account for the market value of by-products, if any. Since most of
the economic value resides primarily in premium bananas, a value fraction of 1.0 was
assumed. The water footprint results are shown in Table 2-5.
LimnoTech
Page 17
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Table 2-5. Crop and Process Water Footprints of Processed Bananas
Crop Water
Footprint*
(liters/kg)
Plant
Country
Process Water
Footprint
(liters/kg)
Green
Blue
Green
Blue
Fractions
Product
Value
fraction
fraction
Omonita
Honduras
292.2
303.5
0.0
35.6
0.82
1.0
Omagua
Guatemala
337.8
204.5
0.0
1.9
0.81
1.0
Tropico
Costa Rica
433.6
0.0
0.0
6.4
0.82
1.0
Finca 43
Panama
439.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.82
1.0
* The crop water footprint reflects values after accounting for product fraction.
Grey Water Footprint
The concept of grey water footprint was introduced in order to express the degree of
water pollution in terms of volume of water polluted. It is defined as the volume of
freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based in natural
concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards. The grey water footprint
is calculated by dividing the pollutant load (in mass/time) by the difference between
the ambient water quality standards for that pollutant (in mass/volume) and its natural
concentration (in mass/volume) in the receiving water body. Then crop yield is taken
into account to calculate grey water footprint in units of liters/kg of product.
Fertilizers including nitrogen and fungicides are applied to banana trees. According to
the Water Footprint Manual (Hoekstra et al., 2011), it is sufficient to account for the
most critical pollutant that is associated with the largest pollutant-specific grey water
footprint (Hoekstra et al., 2011). In this study nitrogen is considered as the most
critical pollutant. Fertilizer application rates of nitrogen were obtained from the
Chiquita farms. The grey water footprint is calculated according to the following
equation:
𝑊𝐹𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑦 =
(𝛼∗𝐴𝑅)/(𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐶𝑛𝑎𝑡 )
𝑌
[Eq. 2-5]
AR = the application rate of fertilizer (kg/ha);
α = the leaching fraction pollutant entering the water system;
C max = ambient water quality for the pollutant (mg/liter);
C nat = natural concentration of pollutant in the receiving water body (mg/liter); and
Y = the annual crop yield (ton/ha)
The natural concentration of pollutant in the receiving water body (C nat ) is assumed to
be zero. As provided in the questionnaire, the drinking water quality standard adopted
LimnoTech
Page 18
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
by the World Health Organization of 10 ppm NO 3 -N was used for C max . In the
absence of site-specific information for leaching rates and pollutant loads in runoff, a
10% leaching rate was assumed, as recommended by Hoekstra et al. (2011). The
estimated grey water footprint associated with fertilizer application is shown in
Figure 2-15.
liters/kg of banana bunches
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Omagua,
Guatemala
Omonita,
Honduras
Tropico, Costa
Rica
Finca 43,
Panama
Figure 2-15. Grey Water Footprints of Bananas
The grey water footprint calculation assumes a 10% loss rate as site-specific data are
not available. While a water quality study was beyond the study resources, it is
recognized that Chiquita employs numerous measures at its farms to reduce pollutant
loadings to receiving waters. In particular, Chiquita collaborates with the Rainforest
Alliance, an independent nongovernmental organization (NGO), to establish
certification standards and conduct annual independent inspections of all of Chiquita's
banana farms. The Rainforest Alliance certification aims to promote good farm
management practices for natural resource conservation, improve worker conditions
and community relations, and environmental management. The environmental
requirements of the standard include: conservation of forests, streams, and wildlife;
soil and water management; storage, transport and application of agrochemicals;
integrated pest management; criteria for waste management; and a farm management
plan. As part of the certification program, Chiquita mulches heavily and has planted
cover crops and buffer zones along streams and drainage canals (Figure 2-16), which
will serve to reduce runoff and increase infiltration, promote riparian habitat and filter
pollutants in runoff. Annual water quality monitoring includes microbiological and
pesticide residue analysis to ensure that discharge water is free of contamination.
LimnoTech
Page 19
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Figure 2-16. Mulching Between Trees and Drainage Canal with Natural Ground
Cover
5. Comparison of Study Results to Water Footprint Network’s Database
The Water Footprint Network has published a database of water footprints of major
crops grown across the world (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010). These values are
mapped at the sub-national level for Chiquita’s source countries and provided as
Appendix A. The maps also compare water footprints to global average water
footprints for bananas. Note that variability across the growing regions is due to
differences in the crop water requirement and crop yields (i.e., lower yields can
increase crop water footprint and higher yields can decrease it).
The WFN’s water footprint values are based on a model and data from sources
including Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) that take into account climate
and other factors. The maps do not indicate the specific locations where Chiquita is
sourcing bananas, or reflect site-specific conditions at particular plantations. Table 26 provides a comparison of the results from this study to the results in the WFN
database for the states where the four plants are located. Note that the values
presented below correspond to water footprint of banana bunches (see Figure 2-13)
and not that of processed bananas. The water footprint network values correspond to
the departments of Izabel, Cortes, Limon and Boca del Toro in Guatemala, Honduras,
Costa Rica and Panama, respectively.
LimnoTech
Page 20
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Table 2-6. Comparison of Water Footprint for Growing Bananas to Values in
WFN Database
Green + Blue Water Footprint (L/Kg of Banana Bunches)
Source
Honduras
Guatemala
Costa Rica
Panama
This study
490
442
356
361
WFN (2010)
322
270
311
322
The differences between the two studies can primarily be explained by the differences
in the method used to calculate reference evapotranspiration and crop
evapotranspiration. The Mekonnen and Hoekstra study utilized a global coverage of
reference evapotranspiration data developed by FAO, which used the PenmanMonteith method to estimate reference evapotranspiration. The reference
evapotranspiration used in the current study was estimated based on Hargreave’s
method using site specific climate inputs. In addition, for this study a single crop
coefficient was used throughout the growing season, whereas a variable crop
coefficient approach was used Mekonnen and Hoekstra study. Finally, results from
Mekonnen and Hoekstra represent average water footprints for the entire province or
department, whereas the results presented in this study are specific to the location of
the Chiquita farms.
DISCUSSION
The analysis provides an approximation of the water footprint of bananas produced in
four regions. Results are specific to those farms and facilities evaluated and do not
represent all of Chiquita’s operations. The results indicate that the largest component
of the water footprint is associated with the crop water footprint. The water footprint
of crops varies across the growing regions. Bananas grown in Honduras and
Guatemala are irrigated and have the largest water footprint, and rainfed bananas
grown in Costa Rica and Panama have the smallest water footprint. Climate and crop
yields account for differences in water footprint between the growing regions. The
crop water footprints of Costa Rica and Panama farms are similar, due to the
similarity in crop evapotranspiration and crop yield. Because the Costa Rica and
Panama farms are grown under rainfed condition, the crop water footprint is entirely
green. The resulting blue water footprint for Honduras and Guatemala farms are
indicative of the irrigation requirements in these growing regions. The blue water
footprint is relatively higher in Honduras compared to Guatemala. This is because the
crop evapotranspiration was the highest and the crop yield was the lowest at the
Omonita farm at Honduras, relative to other farms evaluated. These results also
highlight that uncertainties in crop evapotranspiration and crop yield can affect the
water footprint results. The baseline year for water footprint evaluation in this study is
2011. If the crop yield in another year was significantly higher for the Honduras
farms, the results can vary.
The process water footprint is typically a small component (0.3 to 6%) of the total
water footprint of bananas. However, the water for plant operations is abstracted from
LimnoTech
Page 21
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
local ground water reserves, and despite being small, the process water footprint may
have local water quantity and/or quality impacts. In Panama and Guatemala, where
recirculation is implemented, the process water footprints are the lowest. The process
water footprints are higher in Honduras and Costa Rica where there is no
recirculation (one pass). For the ‘one-pass’ packing stations, there are also substantial
differences in process water footprints between Honduras and Costa Rica despite
similarity in banana product volume. The results suggest an opportunity to improve
water management in one-pass systems. It was assumed that the entire volume of
water abstracted at the packing stations is lost from its source. This is a conservative
assumption that enables a demonstration of the benefits of recirculation. This
assumption is also reasonable since it is evident that the ground water abstracted from
the local aquifer is retuned to a surface water body that is located either farther
downstream (and ultimately drains to the sea) from the source aquifer or in the
neighboring watershed. It is possible that some of discharge water may be returned to
the same watershed, but there are no hydrologic studies to confirm this.
Chiquita has taken measures to reduce its water footprint at the farms and packing
stations. Recirculating helps reduce water abstraction and water footprint at the
packing stations. Several practices are in place to use water responsibly at the farm
level to grow bananas. There are many constraints on the volume of water applied for
irrigation. Irrigation is expensive due to the costs associated with energy and
maintenance. Excess irrigation can cause waterlogging and can have detrimental
effect on the plantation. Therefore, irrigation scheduling is planned carefully by
experts using reliable methods. Heavy mulching in the farms helps retain water and
reduce evaporation losses. Extensive native ground cover along drainage canals and
in the farms reduces runoff, prevents soil erosion and filters pollutants.
LimnoTech
Page 22
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
3. WATER FOOTPRINT OF LETTUCE
Water footprints were calculated for bagged iceberg and bagged romaine lettuce
produced by Fresh Express in the United States. The lettuce is grown by suppliers in
six growing regions, and processed at five Fresh Express plants.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The crop water footprint results illustrate the differences between growing regions in
terms of crop water requirements at the farms. The processing plants receive lettuce
from different growing regions and the water footprint of lettuce differs depending on
the source regions. To account for this variability, upper and lower bound water
footprints were estimated by assuming 100% sourcing from the regions with the
largest and smallest water footprints for lettuce growing. The estimated green and
blue water footprints for a 12 ounce bag of processed lettuce are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Estimated Water Footprints for Processed Lettuce
Water Footprint
(gallons/12 ounce bag)
Salad
Green
Blue
Total Green + Blue
Iceberg
0.1 – 0.2
2.9 – 5.4
2.9 – 5.5
Romaine
0.2 – 0.4
4.2 – 8.5
4.6 – 8.7
The largest contributor to the total water footprint of processed lettuce is the supply
chain, which is the water consumed by the lettuce crop. The supply chain comprises
more than 98% of the total water footprint. The operations water footprint, which is
associated with water consumed in the packing plants, typically represents less than
2% of the total water footprint. The water footprint associated with the supply chain
and operations are show in the pie charts below (Figure 3-1).
LimnoTech
Page 23
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
100% of Iceberg Sourced from Belle Glade, FL
100% of Iceberg Sourced from Salinas, CA
Supply Chain
0.8%
1.5%
Operations
99.2%
98.5%
Supply Chain - 5.5 gal/12 oz bag
Operations - 0.04 gal/12 oz bag
100% of Romaine Sourced from Salinas, CA
100% of Romaine Sourced from Belle Glade, FL
0.5%
0.9%
99.5%
99.1%
Figure 3-1. Comparison of Supply Chain and Operational Water Footprints
The grey water footprint associated with growing lettuce was calculated for the
Salinas region. The grey water footprint is an indicator of pollution and is not
combined with the green and blue water footprints which are a measure of
consumptive water use.
OVERVIEW OF APPROACH
The analysis was accomplished through the following five steps:
1.
Identify processes in production chain;
2.
Determine water uses associated with each process;
3.
Identify data needs and collect required data; and
4.
Calculate water footprints for a 12 ounce bag of lettuce product.
LimnoTech
Page 24
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
LETTUCE WATER FOOTPRINT FINDINGS
This section describes the findings of the analyses, organized by the four steps listed
above.
1. Processes In Production Chain
This study addressed water use associated with growing lettuce and processing it in
the packing plants (Figure 3-2).
Figure 3-2. Steps in Lettuce Production Chain
Figure 3-3 depicts the locations of growing regions in the U.S. and Mexico. Lettuce is
supplied by contract growers in all regions.
Figure 3-3. Map of Lettuce Growing Regions
LimnoTech
Page 25
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
There are five Fresh Express plants in the U.S., as shown in Figure 3-4. Each plant
may receive and process lettuce from any growing region and the distribution is
complex and dependent on season and availability.
Figure 3-4. Locations of Fresh Express Plants in the U.S.
2. Water Use In Production Chain
Table 3-2 presents water uses associated with production of lettuce product. Water
footprint accounting for this study focused on those processes that are believed to
contribute most significantly to the total water footprint: growing lettuce in the supply
chain and processing lettuce. These processes are described separately below. Water
consumed indirectly in the production of packing materials and energy was not
accounted for in this study, and this is assumed to be small compared to the water
footprint of lettuce.
LimnoTech
Page 26
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Table 3-2. Water Uses Associated with the Production of Lettuce
Component
Supply chain (crop)
Water Footprint
Processes
Growing
lettuce
Operational
Water Footprint
Washing and
bagging
lettuce
Water Uses
(Color of Water)
Rain (green) water and
irrigation (blue) water to
grow lettuce
Pollutants in runoff or
infiltration to
groundwater (grey)
Water used for washing
(blue)
*Pollutants in
wastewater (grey)
Water Footprint
Units
Volume water/mass
lettuce input
Volume water/mass
bagged lettuce
Other Water Uses*
Water used in the
production of plastic
bags and other
packaging materials
(blue, grey)
Water used for
building materials,
energy, fuel,
transportation (blue,
grey)
Water used for hand
washing, toilet
flushing, drinking,
landscaping
(blue, grey)
*Water use associated with these processes was not included in calculations
Water used to grow lettuce
Irrigation is the main source of water to grow lettuce in all growing regions. Key
characteristics of the six growing regions are listed in Table 3-3. The Mexico growing
region was not analyzed as part of this study due to the unavailability of data.
Table 3-3. Characteristics of Lettuce Growing Regions
Growing
Region
Location
Growing
Cycles
Salinas
California
Spring,
Summer, Fall
Huron
California
Fall, Spring
Imperial/Yuma
California
and Arizona
Winter
Florida
Florida
Colorado
Colorado
Fall and
Spring
Fall
Mexico
Mexico
Winter
LimnoTech
Irrigation
Type
Primarily drip
& sprinkler,
some furrow
Primarily drip
& sprinkler,
some furrow
Primarily
sprinkler and
Furrow
Categories of
Leafy Greens
Total Cultivated
Area (acres)
9
12,249
5
1,018
9
7,874
Seepage
2
514
Center Pivot
Primarily drip
& sprinkler
1
201
4
2,741
Page 27
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Water used for irrigation of lettuce in all growing regions is groundwater or surface
water. Irrigation type is dependent on crop type and available infrastructure. Sprinkler
and drip irrigation is most commonly used, as well as some furrow, center pivot and
seepage irrigation (Figure 3-5).
Figure 3-5. Different Irrigation Technologies used in the Growing of Lettuce
Crop
Typically farmers germ up with sprinkler irrigation, then some farmers switch to drip
or furrow irrigation, and others continue to use sprinklers. Over-application of water
is common in some regions, and runoff can be significant. Water is inexpensive, and
the risk of low yields can be a significant driver for overwatering. Runoff from excess
irrigation can be significant (Figure 3-6).
LimnoTech
Page 28
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Figure 3-6. Water Flowing in Drainage Ditch, with
Sprinklers Running in the Distance
In the Yuma growing region, water is used to cool the crops so they don’t burn.
Uneven irrigation can be a problem in all regions when sprinkler irrigation is used
under windy conditions. In Mexico, lettuce is grown in the state of Guanajuato, a dry
region. The irrigation method is “mud in” for planting (government subsidizing drip).
The fields are flooded when plants are transplanted and then drip irrigation is used for
the remainder of the growing period. At times, particularly in the Salinas region, the
crop is watered right before harvest. This can increase yields by 10-20% but dry mass
does not change.
Water used in tanks in packing plants
Water use in the packing plants involves washing lettuce and cleaning equipment.
Efforts were made to evaluate water use at five packing stations. However, due to
lack of complete data on water intake/discharge and the difficulty of estimating the
proportion of lettuce received from different source regions for a given plant, a
decision was made to focus on only the Salinas plant.
Water usage was obtained for the Salinas plant from 2007 - 2010. The Salinas facility
includes both fruit and salad processing units. Although discharge was metered
separately for fruit and salad units, freshwater intake was metered for both fruit and
salad plant combined. The difference in discharge between the fruit and salad units
was calculated and this difference was applied to the total intake to estimate the
intake associated with the salad unit. The difference between the freshwater intake
and discharge was assumed to be the volume of water consumed. The water use
LimnoTech
Page 29
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
information, along with the quantity of lettuce produced at the Salinas plant is
provided in Table 3- 4.
Table 3-4. Summary of Water Use and Production at the Salinas Plant
Fresh water
intake (gal)
Discharge (gal)
Consumption
(gal)
Production (lbs)
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average
187,677,532
220,342,421
149,125,096
137,970,891
173,778,985
148,140,000
210,670,000
145,810,000
134,840,000
159,865,000
39,537,532
9,672,421
3,315,096
3,130,891
13,913,985
259,276,846
236,981,318
217,019,000
183,599,975
224,219,285
The source of water in the Salinas packing plant is municipal water and it is treated
before use.
3. Data Collection
Requested data were provided by Fresh Express personnel. In addition, a site visit to
the Salinas growing regions and Salinas plant was conducted on March 26, 2012.
4. Calculation of the Water Footprint of Lettuce Product
The water footprint of a kg of processed lettuce is calculated as the sum of the crop
and operational water footprints according to the following equation:
WF prod [lettuce] = (WF proc + WF crop [lettuce crop]/f p ) * f v
[Eq. 3-1]
WF prod [lettuce] = water footprint of lettuce product, liters water/kg
WF proc = water footprint of processing steps that transform the input product
(lettuce crop) into output product (lettuce product), liters water/kg
WF crop [lettuce] = water footprint of input product (lettuce), liters/kg bunches
f p = product fraction = quantity of processed lettuce obtained per quantity of
input product (lettuce), unitless
f v = value fraction = ratio of the market value of the processed lettuce to the
aggregated market value of any output products obtained from the
inputs, unitless
This calculation was completed separately for the green and blue water footprints.
The calculations related to the water footprint are presented in Table 3-5. The steps
involved in calculating crop and process water footprints are described below.
Crop Water Footprint Calculation
There are six growing regions where lettuce crop is cultivated (Table 3-3). Water
footprints for growing lettuce were calculated for all but one growing region, Mexico.
Mexico was excluded from the evaluation due to lack of data. Two lettuce crops,
iceberg and romaine, were included in the evaluation of water footprints.
The blue and green crop water footprints account for water consumed in the growing
of lettuce at the farms. They are calculated as crop water use divided by crop yield
LimnoTech
Page 30
CONFIDENTIAL
𝑊𝐹(𝑚3 �𝑡𝑜𝑛) =
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑈𝑠𝑒 �𝑚3 ⁄ℎ𝑎�
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 (𝑡𝑜𝑛⁄ℎ𝑎 )
September 12, 2012
[Eq. 3-2]
Crop water use is the volume of water consumed through evapotranspiration by the
lettuce crop. Crop evapotranspiration was estimated using a spreadsheet tool provided
by the Fresh Express personnel. The spreadsheet tool was constructed based on
empirical model developed by Gallardo et al. (1996) to estimate evapotranspiration
for lettuce. The model predicts the rate of development of lettuce crops for the
different growing seasons. Crop evapotranspiration is predicted as a function of crop
development. The only required input parameter to the model is the reference
evapotranspiration (ET 0 ). Long-term estimates of ET 0 for the different growing
regions were obtained from the local agencies (Table 3-5).
Table 3-5. Sources of Reference Evapotranspiration Data used in the Study
Growing Region
Salinas, California
Huron, California
Imperial, California
Yuma, Arizona
Center, Colorado
Belle Glade, Florida
Source of ETo data
California Irrigation Management Information System
The Arizona Meteorological Network
The Colorado Agricultural Meteorological Network
Florida Automated Weather Network
The number of crop cycles per year varies by regions based on climate and growing
conditions. For example, the Salinas region in California has three growing cycles
with lettuce crops grown during spring, summer and fall. During winter lettuce
cultivation is moved farther south to Yuma and imperial growing regions. The
spreadsheet tool was applied to estimate crop evapotranspiration corresponding to
individual growing cycles within a region. Next, the green and blue components of
the crop evapotranspiration corresponding to evapotranspiration fulfilled by rainfall
and irrigation needs to be identified. The green component of total evapotranspiration
was estimated using effective rainfall approach (SAI, 2010; MAFF, 2004). Using
average daily rainfall data, effective rainfall was estimated as below:
During the dry season:
Peff = (Rain – 5 mm) x 0.75
where Peff is the effective rainfall in mm/day
During the dry season, it was assumed that rainfall less than 5mm does not add any
moisture to the soil reservoir (i.e., Peff = 0).
During the wet season:
Peff = 0, if Rain < 3 mm
Peff = rain, if Rain ≥ 3 mm
Using effective rainfall, the green and blue components of crop evapotranspiration
were estimated using the approach described by Hoekstra et al. (2011). Crop
evapotranspiration in mm/season was multiplied by a factor of 10 to obtain crop
LimnoTech
Page 31
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
water use in m3/ha (Hoekstra et al., 2011). Typical crop yields of iceberg and
romaine were provided by Fresh Express. Water footprint was calculated as crop
water use divided by crop yield as shown in Equation 3-2.
Table 3-6.Summary of Typical Crop Yields of Iceberg and Romaine Lettuce
Across the Entire Growing Region
Typical yield
Average
(lbs/acre)*
Range
(lbs/acre)
Crop
Average
(tons/ha)
Iceberg
30,000 - 35,000
32,500
36
Romaine
19,000 - 22,000
20,500
23
*Average yield calculated from the range
The crop water footprints of growing iceberg and romaine in different growing
regions are provided in Tables 3-7 and 3- 8. The crop water requirements were
assumed to be the same for iceberg and romaine. The relatively higher water footprint
calculated for romaine lettuce is due to the lower yield.
Table 3-7. Summary of Green and Blue Water for Growing Iceberg in Different
Growing Regions
Region
Salinas, CA
Growing Season
Dec - Apr
WF Green
WF Blue
WF Total
Average WF
m3/ton
m3/ton
m3/ton
m3/ton
3.8
40.8
44.6
Apr - June
0.0
67.8
67.8
Jul - Sep
1.0
65.4
66.4
Aug - Oct
0.0
57.7
57.7
Nov - March
0.3
30.3
30.6
Imperial, CA
Nov - Feb
0.0
48.1
48.1
48.1
Yuma, AZ
Nov - Feb
0.2
59.4
59.6
59.6
Center, CO
Sep - Nov
0.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
Belle Glade, FL
Oct - Feb
2.6
28.6
31.2
31.2
Huron, CA
LimnoTech
59.6
44.2
Page 32
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Table 3-8. Summary of Green and Blue Water for Growing Romaine in
Different Growing Regions
WF Green
WF Blue
WF Total
Average WF
m3/ton
m3/ton
m3/ton
m3/ton
6.0
64.7
70.7
Apr - June
0.0
107.5
107.5
Jul - Sep
1.6
103.7
105.3
Aug - Oct
0.0
91.5
91.5
Nov - March
0.5
48.0
48.6
Imperial, CA
Nov - Feb
0.0
76.3
76.3
76.3
Yuma, AZ
Nov - Feb
0.3
94.1
94.4
94.4
Center, CO
Sep - Nov
0.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
Belle Glade, FL
Oct - Feb
4.2
45.3
49.5
49.5
Region
Salinas, CA
Huron, CA
Growing Season
Dec - Apr
94.5
70.0
The average blue and green water footprints for growing iceberg and romaine in
different regions are shown in the Figures 3-7 and 3-8.
70
Green WF
WF in liters/kg
60
Blue WF
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 3-7. Green and Blue Water Footprints of Iceberg Lettuce
LimnoTech
Page 33
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
WF in liters/kg
100
90
Green WF
80
Blue WF
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 3-8. Green and Blue Water Footprints of Romaine Lettuce
Operational Water Footprint Calculation
The operational water footprint accounts for blue water used for washing in the
packing plant. Based on the water consumption data for the Salinas plant (Table 3-4),
the operational water footprint was estimated to be 0.04 gallons/12 ounce bag of
product. It was assumed that the operational water footprint of 0.04 gallons/12 ounce
bag is the same for processing iceberg and romaine.
Total Water Footprint Calculation (Lettuce Product)
The total water footprint was calculated as the sum of supply chain and operational
water footprint. Among the growing regions, the water footprint for growing lettuce
(both iceberg and romaine) was highest at Salinas, California and the lowest at Belle
Glade, Florida. Therefore, to account for the upper and lower bound water footprint in
the supply chain, two scenarios assuming 100% sourcing from Salinas and Belle
Glade were evaluated for iceberg and romaine. The product fractions were estimated
as the ratio of mass product output over the mass of input material. The typical
product fraction for lettuce was estimated as 0.98. Equation 3-1 also includes a value
fraction to account for market value, if any, for by-products. Since all of the
economic value resides in the primary product (bagged lettuce), a value fraction of
1.0 was assumed.
The total water footprint was estimated using Equation 3-1. The water footprint
results, converted to gallons/12 ounce bag of product are shown in Table 3-9.
LimnoTech
Page 34
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
Table 3-9. Crop and Process Water Footprints
Crop Water Footprint
Crop
Source Region
Romaine
Fractions
Product
Value
Fraction Fraction
0.98
1.0
Green
0.1
Blue
5.3
Green
0.0
Blue
0.04
100% Belle Glade
0.2
2.6
0.0
0.04
0.98
1.0
100% Salinas
0.2
8.4
0.0
0.04
0.98
1.0
100% Belle Glade
0.4
4.2
0.0
0.04
0.98
1.0
100% Salinas
Iceberg
Crop Water Footprint
Grey Water Footprint
The concept of grey water footprint was introduced in order to express the degree of
water pollution in terms of volume of water polluted. It is defined as the volume of
freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based in natural
concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards. The grey water footprint
is calculated by dividing the pollutant load (in mass/time) by the difference between
the ambient water quality standards for that pollutant (in mass/volume) and its natural
concentration (in mass/volume) in the receiving water body. Then crop yield is taken
into account to calculate grey water footprint in units of liters/kg of product. The
grey water footprint is calculated according to the following equation:
𝑊𝐹𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑦 =
(𝛼∗𝐴𝑅)/(𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐶𝑛𝑎𝑡 )
𝑌
[Eq. 3-5]
AR = the application rate of fertilizer (kg/ha);
α = the leaching fraction pollutant entering the water system;
C max = ambient water quality for the pollutant (mg/liter);
C nat = natural concentration of pollutant in the receiving water body (mg/liter); and
Y = the annual crop yield (ton/ha)
Nitrogen is applied as an essential nutrient to grow lettuce. According to the Water
Footprint Manual, it is sufficient to account for the most critical pollutant that is
associated with the largest pollutant-specific grey water footprint (Hoekstra et al.,
2011). In this study nitrogen is considered as the most critical pollutant due to
widespread nitrate contamination in ground water in the Salinas region. (Moran et al.,
2011). Fertilizer application combined with excessive application of irrigation water
is the primary source of nitrate pollution.
The grey water footprint assessment was conducted for the Salinas region only. The
grey water footprint of lettuce produced according to grower standards was compared
to the grey water footprint of lettuce produced using best management practices.
Nitrogen application rates were obtained from fertilizer trial studies conducted by The
University of California (UC) Cooperative Extension on nitrogen management of
lettuce (Cahn et al, 2010), as fertilizer application rates practiced by Fresh Express
supply chain farmers are not available. The UC study conducted fertilizer trials by
applying nitrogen at the rate grower standard and also at a lower ‘best management
practice’ (BMP) rate that resulted in comparable crop yield. The nitrogen application
LimnoTech
Page 35
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
rates and leaching fraction reported from this study are shown in Table 3-10. These
grower and the BMP rates and leaching fractions were used in the evaluation of grey
water footprint.
Table 3-10. Nitrogen Application Rates and Leaching Loss Used in
Grey Water Footprint Evaluation
N Application (kg N/Ha)
Leaching loss
284
9.5%
142
3%
Grower Standard
Best Management
Practices
The natural concentration of pollutant in the receiving water body (C nat ) is assumed to
be zero. The drinking water quality standard of 10 ppm NO 3 -N was used for C max .
The estimated grey water footprint associated with fertilizer application is shown in
Figure 3-9. The resulting grey water footprint associated with fertilizer application
was substantially lower for the BMP scenario compared to the grower standard.
80
70
Liters/Kg
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Grower Std.
BMP
Figure 3-9. Grey Footprint Associated with Growing Lettuce
The grey water footprint results from both excessive application of fertilizer and
irrigation water. As such, improved management of fertilizer and irrigation
application will benefit crop production and reduce pollution. The following
strategies were recommended in Cahn et al. (2010).
•
•
•
•
Match irrigation schedule with crop ET to minimize nitrate leaching
Assure that irrigation system has high distribution uniformity
Minimize irrigation water for germination (<3 inches)
Avoid applying high amounts of water during a single irrigation (>0.5 inch
during pre-thinning, >1 inch during post thinning)
LimnoTech
Page 36
CONFIDENTIAL
•
September 12, 2012
Avoid heavy irrigations after fertilizing
Fresh Express works closely with the supply chain and encourages growers to adopt
best management practices. In addition, the Central Coast Water Board regulates
discharges from irrigated agricultural lands to protect surface water and groundwater,
using a permit called a Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements that
applies to owners and operators of irrigated land used for commercial crop
production. The 2012 agricultural conditional waiver requires extensive and costly
monitoring of water quality. Fresh Express growers typically belong to the tier 2 and
3 grower category, and are required to report nitrogen usage annually and estimate
loading risk to ground water. Buffer strips, management plans and best management
practices have to “show progress” (but buffers are also discouraged by the USDA due
to food safety concerns).
DISCUSSION
The water footprint of a 12 ounce bag of iceberg lettuce ranges from 2.9 to 5.5
gallons and the water footprint of a 12 ounce bag of romaine lettuce ranges from 4.6
to 8.7 gallons. The results indicate that the largest component of the water footprint is
associated with the supply chain (98.5 – 99.5%); specifically water consumed in the
growing of lettuce. The water consumed in operations is typically a small component
of the total water footprint (less than 2%).
The magnitude of the water footprint is dependent upon the location where lettuce is
grown. The water footprint for lettuce crop differs between the five growing regions,
primarily due to differences in climate, growing season and crop yield. The variability
of climate and growing seasons were captured in this study. Differences in crop yield
also can affect the water footprint, but data on site-specific yields are not available, so
yields were assumed to be uniform across the growing regions.
LimnoTech
Page 37
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
LimnoTech
Page 38
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
4. REFERENCES
Cahn, M., Smith, R., Farrara, B., Heinrich, A., Hartz, T., Bottoms, T. 2010. Irrigation
Effects on Nitrogen Management of Lettuce. URL:
http://cesantabarbara.ucdavis.edu/files/109469.pdf
Gallardo, M., Snyder, R.L., Schulback, K., and Jackson, L.E. 1996. Crop growth and
water use model for lettuce. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 122
(6): 354 – 359.
Hoekstra, A.Y.,Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2011). The
Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard, Earthscan,
London, UK. URL: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Publications
Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2010) The green, blue and grey water footprint
of crops and derived crop products, Value of Water Research Report Series No.
47, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF), British Colombia. 2004. Water
Conservation Factsheet: Sprinkler Irrigation Scheduling Using a Water Budget
Method.
Moran, J. E., B. K. Esser, D. Hillegonds, M. Holtz, S. K. Roberts, M. J. Singleton,
and A. Visser. 2011. California GAMA Special Study: Nitrate Fate and
Transport in the Salinas Valley. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
LLNL‐TR‐484186.
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), 2010. Water Conservation Technical Briefs.
TB6 – Irrigation Scheduling.
LimnoTech
Page 39
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
LimnoTech
Page 40
CONFIDENTIAL
September 12, 2012
APPENDIX A
MAP OF WATER FOOTPRINT FOR BANANAS BY PROVINCES
OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA
Based on the Water Footprint Network’s Database
LimnoTech
CONFIDENTIAL
LimnoTech
September 12, 2012
GREEN WATER FOOTPRINT FOR BANANAS
BY PROVINCES OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA
Quintana
Roo
HAITI DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
CAYMAN
IS.
MEXICO
Campeche
JAMAICA
Tabasco
BE LI Z E
Petén
Chiapas
Islas de
la Bahía
Alta
Verapaz
Huehuetenango
Izabal
GUATEMALA
Baja
QuichéVerapaz
San
Marcos
THE
BAHAMAS
CUBA
Zacapa
El Progreso
Cortés
Santa
Bárbara
Guatemala
Colón
Atlántida
Yoro
HONDURAS
Totonicapán
Quezaltenango
Chimaltenango
Francisco
Sololá Guatemala Chiquimula Copán
Morazán
Suchitepéquez
Jalapa
Ocotepeque Comayagua
Retalhuleu Sacatepéquez
!
[
(
Escuintla Santa
Rosa
Jutiapa
Lempira
Intibucá
La Paz
EL
SALVADOR
Gracias
a Dios
Olancho
Tegucigalpa
!
[
(
El
Paraíso
Jinotega
Nueva
Valle
Segovia
Choluteca Madriz
Matagalpa
Estelí
Atlántico
Norte
NICARAGUA
Chinandega
León
Managua
Managua
Atlántico
!
[
(
Masaya
Carazo
Caribbean
Sea
San Andrés y
Providencia
Boaco
Chontales
Granada
Nicaragua Río
San
Rivas
Juan
Guanacaste
ARUBA
NETHERLANDS
ANTILLES
Sur
La
Guajira
Alajuela
COSTA San
RICA !
[ José
(
Heredia
Atlántico
Magdalena
San Cartago
José
Limón
Puntarenas
Cesar
Kuna
Yala
Bocas
del
Toro
Colón
Ngöbe
Buglé
Chiriquí
Panamá
Panamá
!
[
(
Coclé
PANAMA
Sucre
Emberá
Córdoba
Veraguas
Pacific
Ocean
Bolívar
Darién
Herrera
Los
Santos
Antioquia
VENEZUELA
Norte de
Santander
Arauca
Santander
Chocó
Caldas
Risaralda
Quindío
Tolima
Valle del
Cauca
Cauca
Huila
Boyacá
Cundinamarca
!
[
(
Casanare
Bogotá
Vichada
COLOMBIA
Meta
Guainía
Guaviare
Nariño
Esmeraldas
GLOBAL AVERAGE GREEN
WATER FOOTPRINT FOR
BANANAS = 660 m3/ ton
[
(
Quito !
Galápagos
Galápagos
Galápagos
Galápagos
Putumayo
Carchi
Caquetá
Vaupés
Imbabura
Pichincha
EQUATOR
Los Cotopaxi
Rios Tungurahua
Galápagos
Manabi
Sucumbios
Orellana
ECUADOR
Bolivar
Amazonas
Pastaza
G R E E N WAT E R
FO OT P R I N T
Guayas
Chimborazo
Morona
Cañar
Santiago
Azuay
cubic meter/ ton
El Oro
162.8 - 250
250.1 - 300
300.1 - 350
350.1 - 400
400.1 - 500
500.1 - 753
Loja
Zamora
Chinchipe
Data Source: Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2010) The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops
and derived crop products, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 47, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
PERU
BRAZIL
BLUE WATER FOOTPRINT FOR BANANAS
THE
BAHAMAS
CUBA
Quintana
Roo
HAITI DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
CAYMAN
IS.
MEXICO
Campeche
Tabasco
JAMAICA
BE LI Z E
Petén
Chiapas
Islas de
la Bahía
Alta
Verapaz
Huehuetenango
Izabal
GUATEMALA
Baja
QuichéVerapaz
San
Marcos
Zacapa
El Progreso
Cortés
Santa
Bárbara
Guatemala
Colón
Atlántida
Yoro
HONDURAS
Totonicapán
Quezaltenango
Chimaltenango
Francisco
Morazán
Suchitepéquez
Jalapa
!
[
(
Escuintla Santa
Rosa
Jutiapa
Lempira
Intibucá
La Paz
EL
SALVADOR
Gracias
a Dios
Olancho
Tegucigalpa
!
[
(
El
Paraíso
Jinotega
Nueva
Valle
Segovia
Choluteca Madriz
Matagalpa
Estelí
Atlántico
Norte
NICARAGUA
Chinandega
León
Managua
Managua
Atlántico
!
[
(
Masaya
Carazo
Caribbean
Sea
San Andrés y
Providencia
Boaco
Chontales
Granada
Nicaragua Río
San
Rivas
Juan
Guanacaste
ARUBA
NETHERLANDS
ANTILLES
Sur
La
Guajira
Alajuela
COSTA San
RICA !
[ José
(
Heredia
Atlántico
Magdalena
San Cartago
José
Limón
Puntarenas
Cesar
Kuna
Yala
Bocas
del
Toro
Colón
Ngöbe
Buglé
Chiriquí
Panamá
Panamá
!
[
(
Coclé
PANAMA
Sucre
Emberá
Córdoba
Veraguas
Pacific
Ocean
Bolívar
Darién
Herrera
Los
Santos
Antioquia
VENEZUELA
Norte de
Santander
Arauca
Santander
Chocó
Caldas
Risaralda
Quindío
Tolima
Valle del
Cauca
Cauca
Huila
Boyacá
Cundinamarca
!
[
(
Casanare
Bogotá
Vichada
COLOMBIA
Meta
Guainía
Guaviare
Nariño
GLOBAL AVERAGE BLUE
WATER FOOTPRINT FOR
Esmeraldas
[
(
Quito !
Galápagos
Galápagos
Galápagos
Galápagos
Los Cotopaxi
Rios Tungurahua
Galápagos
Manabi
B LU E WAT E R
FO OT P R I N T
Caquetá
Vaupés
Sucumbios
Orellana
ECUADOR
Bolivar
Amazonas
Pastaza
Guayas
cubic meter/ ton
0
0.01 - 10
10.1 - 40
40.1 - 80
80.1 - 140
140.1 - 200
200.1 - 395
Putumayo
Carchi
Imbabura
Pichincha
EQUATOR
Chimborazo
Morona
Cañar
Santiago
Azuay
El Oro
Loja
Zamora
Chinchipe
PERU
BRAZIL
BLUE + GREEN WATER FOOTPRINT FOR BANANAS
CUBA
THE
BAHAMAS
Quintana
Roo
HAITI DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
CAYMAN
IS.
MEXICO
Campeche
Tabasco
JAMAICA
BE LI Z E
Petén
Chiapas
Islas de
la Bahía
Alta
Verapaz
Huehuetenango
Izabal
GUATEMALA
Baja
QuichéVerapaz
San
Marcos
Zacapa
El Progreso
Cortés
Santa
Bárbara
Guatemala
Colón
Atlántida
Yoro
HONDURAS
Totonicapán
Quezaltenango
Chimaltenango
Francisco
Morazán
Suchitepéquez
Jalapa
!
[
(
Escuintla Santa
Rosa
Jutiapa
Lempira
Intibucá
La Paz
EL
SALVADOR
Gracias
a Dios
Olancho
Tegucigalpa
!
[
(
El
Paraíso
Jinotega
Nueva
Valle
Segovia
Choluteca Madriz
Matagalpa
Estelí
Atlántico
Norte
NICARAGUA
Chinandega
León
Managua
Managua
Atlántico
!
[
(
Masaya
Carazo
Caribbean
Sea
San Andrés y
Providencia
Boaco
Chontales
Granada
Nicaragua Río
San
Rivas
Juan
Guanacaste
ARUBA
NETHERLANDS
ANTILLES
Sur
La
Guajira
Alajuela
COSTA San
RICA !
[ José
(
Heredia
Atlántico
Magdalena
San Cartago
José
Limón
Puntarenas
Cesar
Kuna
Yala
Bocas
del
Toro
Colón
Ngöbe
Buglé
Chiriquí
Panamá
Panamá
!
[
(
Coclé
PANAMA
Sucre
Emberá
Córdoba
Veraguas
Pacific
Ocean
Bolívar
Darién
Herrera
Los
Santos
Antioquia
VENEZUELA
Norte de
Santander
Arauca
Santander
Chocó
Caldas
Risaralda
Quindío
Tolima
Valle del
Cauca
Cauca
Huila
Boyacá
Cundinamarca
!
[
(
Casanare
Bogotá
Vichada
COLOMBIA
Meta
Guainía
Guaviare
Nariño
Esmeraldas
GLOBAL AVERAGE BLUE +
GREEN WATER FOOTPRINT
FOR BANANAS = 757 m3/ ton
[
(
Quito !
Galápagos
Galápagos
Galápagos
Galápagos
Putumayo
Carchi
Caquetá
Vaupés
Imbabura
Pichincha
EQUATOR
Los Cotopaxi
Rios Tungurahua
Galápagos
Manabi
Sucumbios
Orellana
ECUADOR
Bolivar
Amazonas
Pastaza
Guayas
B LU E + G R E E N WATE R
FO OT P R I N T
cubic meter/ ton
Chimborazo
Morona
Cañar
Santiago
Azuay
El Oro
Loja
Zamora
Chinchipe
253.0 - 300
300.1 - 350
350.1 - 400
400.1 - 450
450.1 - 600
600.1 -753
PERU
BRAZIL
GREEN WATER FOOTPRINT FOR BANANAS
BY PROVINCES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA
U N I T E D S TAT E S
OF AMERICA
Baja
California
Sonora
Chihuahua
Gu
lf
Coahuila
of
Baja
California
Sur
Ca
lif
or
Sinaloa
Nuevo
León
ni
MEXICO
a
Durango
Pacific
Ocean
Aguascalientes
Nayarit
Gulf of
Mexico
Tamaulipas
Zacatecas
San Luis
Potosí
Carribean
Sea
Querétaro
Jalisco
Guanajuato
Yucatán
Hidalgo
México
Colima
Mexico City !
[
(
Michoacán
Quintana
Roo
Tlaxcala
Distrito
Federal Puebla
Morelos
Veracruz
Tabasco
Campeche
Guerrero
Oaxaca
BELIZE
Petén
Chiapas
Islas de
la Bahía
Huehuetenango
Alta
Verapaz
Izabal
GUATEMALA
Gulf of
Te h u a n t e p e c
San
Marcos
Baja
QuichéVerapaz
Cortés
Guatemala
!
[
(
Jutiapa
Olancho
HONDURAS
Lempira
Intibucá
La Paz
EL
SALVADOR
Tegucigalpa
El
!
[ Paraíso
(
Nueva
Valle
Segovia
Choluteca Madriz Jinotega
Estelí Matagalpa
NICARAGUA
Chinandega
León
Boaco
Managua
[
(
Managua !
MasayaChontales
Carazo
G R E E N WAT E R
FO OT P R I N T
Granada
Nicaragua
Rivas
Guanacaste
cubic meter/ ton
162.8 - 250
250.1 - 300
300.1 - 350
350.1 - 400
400.1 - 500
500.1 - 753
Colón
Atlántida
Yoro
Santa
El Progreso
Francisco
Bárbara
Totonicapán
Morazán
Quezaltenango
Chimaltenango
Suchitepéquez
Jalapa
Ocotepeque
Comayagua
Escuintla Santa
Rosa
GLOBAL AVERAGE GREEN
WATER FOOTPRINT FOR
Zacapa
Pacific
Ocean
BLUE WATER FOOTPRINT FOR BANANAS
OF AMERICA
Baja
California
Sonora
Chihuahua
Gu
lf
Coahuila
of
Baja
California
Sur
Ca
lif
or
Sinaloa
Nuevo
León
ni
MEXICO
a
Durango
Pacific
Ocean
Aguascalientes
Nayarit
Gulf of
Mexico
Tamaulipas
Zacatecas
San Luis
Potosí
Carribean
Sea
Querétaro
Jalisco
Guanajuato
Yucatán
Hidalgo
México
Colima
Mexico City !
[
(
Michoacán
Quintana
Roo
Tlaxcala
Distrito
Federal Puebla
Morelos
Veracruz
Tabasco
Campeche
Guerrero
Oaxaca
BELIZE
Petén
Chiapas
Islas de
la Bahía
Huehuetenango
Alta
Verapaz
Izabal
GUATEMALA
Gulf of
San
Marcos
Baja
QuichéVerapaz
Cortés
Guatemala
!
[
(
Jutiapa
Colón
Atlántida
Yoro
Santa
El Progreso
Francisco
Bárbara
Totonicapán
Morazán
Quezaltenango
Chimaltenango
Suchitepéquez
Jalapa
Ocotepeque
Comayagua
Escuintla Santa
Rosa
GLOBAL AVERAGE BLUE
WATER FOOTPRINT FOR
Zacapa
Olancho
HONDURAS
Lempira
Intibucá
La Paz
EL
SALVADOR
Tegucigalpa
El
!
[ Paraíso
(
Nueva
Valle
Segovia
Estelí Matagalpa
NICARAGUA
Chinandega
León
Boaco
Managua
[
(
Managua !
MasayaChontales
B LU E WAT E R
FO OT P R I N T
Carazo
Guanacaste
cubic meter/ ton
0
0.01 - 10
10.1 - 40
40.1 - 80
80.1 - 140
140.1 - 200
200.1 - 395
Granada
Nicaragua
Rivas
Pacific
Ocean
BLUE + GREEN WATER FOOTPRINT FOR BANANAS
OF AMERICA
Baja
California
Sonora
Chihuahua
Gu
lf
Coahuila
of
Baja
California
Sur
Ca
lif
or
Sinaloa
Nuevo
León
ni
MEXICO
a
Durango
Pacific
Ocean
Aguascalientes
Nayarit
Gulf of
Mexico
Tamaulipas
Zacatecas
San Luis
Potosí
Carribean
Sea
Querétaro
Jalisco
Guanajuato
Yucatán
Hidalgo
México
Colima
Mexico City !
[
(
Michoacán
Quintana
Roo
Tlaxcala
Distrito
Federal Puebla
Morelos
Veracruz
Tabasco
Campeche
Guerrero
Oaxaca
BELIZE
Petén
Chiapas
Islas de
la Bahía
Huehuetenango
Alta
Verapaz
Izabal
GUATEMALA
Gulf of
San
Marcos
Baja
QuichéVerapaz
Cortés
Guatemala
!
[
(
Jutiapa
Olancho
HONDURAS
Lempira
Intibucá
La Paz
EL
SALVADOR
Tegucigalpa
El
!
[ Paraíso
(
Nueva
Valle
Segovia
Estelí Matagalpa
NICARAGUA
Chinandega
León
Boaco
Managua
[
(
Managua !
MasayaChontales
Carazo
B LU E + G R E E N WATE R
FO OT P R I N T
Granada
Nicaragua
Rivas
Guanacaste
cubic meter/ ton
253.0 - 300
300.1 - 350
350.1 - 400
400.1 - 450
450.1 - 600
600.1 -753
Colón
Atlántida
Yoro
Santa
El Progreso
Francisco
Bárbara
Totonicapán
Morazán
Quezaltenango
Chimaltenango
Suchitepéquez
Jalapa
Ocotepeque
Comayagua
Escuintla Santa
Rosa
GLOBAL AVERAGE BLUE +
GREEN WATER FOOTPRINT
FOR BANANAS = 757 m3/ ton
Zacapa
Pacific
Ocean

Water Footprint Assessment Banana and Lettuce

Transcription

Similar documents

The Dinosaur`s Giant Footprint

The Sustainability Crisis

banana bread - Weston Milling

Bababerry Red Raspberry L.E. COOKE CO

Banana Republic

and print

HERE - Tropical Fruit Society of Sarasota

Guatemala

HYDROCYCLE AQUAPONICS SYSTEMS PRODUCE

dancers - The Footprint Trust