![\"CGIAR-IWMI](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fgraphics%2Fcgiar_iwmi.png?alt=media&token=6b60cd12-4505-440a-a468-ba7ac2b06c59\")
AQUASTAT is one of the largest global repositories of wastewater data, something increasingly important in view of the SDG 6.3 baselines, targets and monitoring. It collects, analyses and validates the best available data on municipal wastewater production, collection, treatment, discharge and direct use for irrigation purposes. While other existing wastewater databases often focus on percentage of sanitation coverage or pollution loads, AQUASTAT focuses on annual volumes at national level. The reason for choosing volume as the parameter to report is to facilitate the integration of these data in the water resources and use accounts in the different countries. At the end of 2013, AQUASTAT also started collaborating with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) to collect, analyze and validate the best available data on municipal wastewater production, collection, treatment, discharge and direct use for irrigation purposes. The results of this collaboration are available in AQUASTAT, also announced on IWMI's website.
\nAs of October 2016, about 2 300 municipal wastewater-related data points and 1 300 metadata are available in the Main Database.
\nAQUASTAT does not have a wastewater section per se in the country profiles and not for all countries information on wastewater is available. If information is available, it can be found in either the \"Water resources\" or the \"Water use\" section of the profile.
\nAs is the case with the country profiles, AQUASTAT also does not have a wastewater section per se in the regional analyses. If information is available, it can be found in either the \"Water resources\" or the \"Water use\" section of the analysis, for example using the expression \"Other sources of water\" or \"Non-conventional sources of water\".
\nWhile other existing wastewater databases often focus on percentage of sanitation coverage or pollution loads, AQUASTAT focuses on annual volumes at national level. The reason for choosing volume as the parameter is to facilitate the integration of these data in the water resources and use accounts in the different countries.
\nThe diagram put further below illustrates the flow of wastewater from production to use. The variables squared in blue in that diagram are available by opening the wastewater category in the AQUASTAT Main Database, shown below.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FdbLoc.png?alt=media&token=d5ace3f4-582f-4f21-8dc0-4371d4a7f2e6\")
The variables [1]-[11] can be accessed under the category \"Wastewater\" and have the unit km3/year or 10^9 m3/year, except for variable [4], which refers to the number of treatment facilities. The variables [12]-[13] can be accessed both under the category \"Wastewater\" and under the category \"Irrigation and drainage development\", sub-category \"Area equipped for irrigation by source of water\", and have the unit 1000 ha. Information on the level of treatment is, if available, provided in the metadata of the variable \"Treated municipal wastewater\" [3].
\nClick on the chart to magnify
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fflowchart_eng.png?alt=media&token=6f92b7e1-6d75-45ab-8265-1db8ec0aedb7\")
Data collection takes place through review of country briefs and national reports, databases, technical reports, peer-reviewed publications, information provided by national experts, presentations from national authorities in seminars, Internet search, etc.
\nSince data come from many different sources, inconsistencies may occur over the course of time. Therefore, each time new data become available a detailed review and validation of all data, both new ones obtained and the ones already available in the database, is essential.
\nData is validated in relation to a time span from 1958 to 2012, based on the assumption that mainly the annual volume of wastewater produced, but probably also the annual volume collected, treated, discharged or directly used should - unless justified, such as for example due to contraction in the municipal population growth - show incremental increase as water use would rise over time.
\nData is also validated in relation to various stages of the wastewater cycle, i.e. wastewater production (assumed to be the highest volume), wastewater collection, treatment and direct use (lowest volume of water).
\nA list of all publications is available on the Publications page. A non-exhaustive selection of some publications more specifically related to this page is given below:
\n\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/methodology/wastewater","title":"Wastewater","englishTitle":null,"doNotPublishMap":null,"pdfLink":null,"year":null,"lang":null,"bannerUrl":null}},"allMarkdownRemark":{"edges":[{"node":{"id":"9e0edf51-d28e-5ec2-979f-d004f1570f0c","html":"
This section contains documents and databases from projects and actions already completed and which will no longer be updated.
\nSome of the products in this archive were the result of a one-time exercise (as the case of the water-related investments, the database on investment costs in irrigation and the global river sediment yields database) but may still be reckoned useful.
\nTherefore, this information is kept in this archive at users' disposal although outdated.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/archive","title":"أرشيف","menuOrder":"11"}}},{"node":{"id":"92c7d2bd-44b3-5f4a-8a27-8d5178430f56","html":"This asset was last updated in 2000 and is therefore extraordinarily outdated, but is kept online at users' requests.
\nThis database contains data on annual sediment yields in worldwide rivers and reservoirs (560), counts around 850 points in 78 countries, and it is searchable by river, country and continent. The database was compiled from different sources by HR Wallingford, UK, on behalf of the FAO Land and Water Development Division.
\nWith regard to data quality, a validation was performed at the time of the study, but the information is now outdated.
\nThe update frequency was a one-time exercise done in 2000. It is therefore extraordinarily outdated, but is kept online at users' requests.
\nAdditional resources: See additional tabs with notes and references provided in the Excel file.
\nQuote as: FAO. 2016. AQUASTAT, FAO's global water information system. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Website accessed on [yyyy/mm/dd].
\nNote: The asset used to be an ASP database while it was live. Now, the asset is no longer updated, and so the entire contents are only available as an Excel spreadsheet.
\nWhile AQUASTAT is a key player in the world's understanding of water resources and uses, the work done is subject to quite some challenges.
\nLack of complete time-series for the variables AQUASTAT holds makes it difficult to develop trends and increase the understanding of water in a socio-economic context. Data gaps in AQUASTAT are mainly attributable to the lack of information and capacity at national level and the lack of resources at all levels. While AQUASTAT performs some careful modelling to supplement country-level data, the team feels that it is important that most data continue to be directly reported by the country itself.
\nThis lack of complete time series limits the interpretation possible from the AQUASTAT data holdings but—more maliciously—also leads to the recycling of data by other parties, sometimes attributing that same data to more recent years than the years the data is attributed to as reported by AQUASTAT. This often increases confusion, especially for national entities who think that this is a statistic modelled by AQUASTAT.
\nAQUASTAT prides itself in reporting the highest quality data possible. Unfortunately the best-quality data are frequently not satisfactory. AQUASTAT rejects a substantial amount of incoming data, and only accepts data that have passed several rounds of automated and manual quality assurance checks. And yet, regularly data updates invalidate prior series due to a methodology correction at a national level or due to the acknowledgement of a prior error, amongst others, thus reducing rather than increasing the amount of data available. This constant struggle requires endless revisiting of data and methodologies, of validation and calculation rules, of whatever knowledge has been inferred by data. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that countries use inconsistent terminology and different from international organizations, which in turn also have differences amongst them.
\nThe problems of insufficient data and data of dubious accuracy paint a picture that, if interpreted as a final product, lead to incorrect assumptions, which is of course unacceptable. This is exacerbated by the impatience of those that rely on data updates in order to generate content, with apparent disregard as to the quality of the data itself. The perception of understanding is a malicious and pervasive situation that ultimately does substantial damage to the goal of all data dissemination exercises: clarification. Of course everybody has pressures and deadlines, which explains the behaviour of data-dependant entities. Since this situation is irresolvable, the only way to improve matters is to provide as good information as possible, and to be transparent about the limitations of how data can be interpreted. This is, of course, expensive. But while the cost of data gathering is substantial, the cost of policy derived from incorrect data is surely higher. This is why AQUASTAT always supports the intensification of data-strengthening initiatives within countries, even though it remains a drop in the ocean considering the data-related improvements needed globally.
\nPolicy-makers need disagregated information to make scientifically justified decisions. However, the financial cost to provide substantially more information at disaggregated levels is something that requires investments of a different order of magnitude than what AQUASTAT currently counts on, and therefore national statistics continue to be the main focus. Unfortunately the national picture often hides problems occurring at sub-national units, and do not allow river-basin planning commissions to optimize the use of the resources available within their river basin. Therefore, AQUASTAT data remains a nesessary and important, but insufficient first step in the quantification of water management information.
\nFinancial constraints are due to the global perception that \"data are easy… just get them\". This problem is shared by AQUASTAT's colleagues across the world, in national centres as well as other international agencies.
\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/challenges","title":"التحديات","menuOrder":"2"}}},{"node":{"id":"a15ba46d-782b-57f4-90f0-f4576292c940","html":"The problems associated with data collection and dissemination are systematic, no country is perfect, and neither is any international agency. It is only through frequent, honest, and timely two-way communication that data inaccuracies can be continuously identified and eliminated.
\n
Achieving food security for all is at the heart of FAO's efforts—to make sure people have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives. FAO's three main goals are: (i) the eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition; (ii) the elimination of poverty and the driving forward of economic and social progress for all; and (iii) the sustainable management and utilization of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources for the benefit of present and future generations. To support these goals, Article 1 of its constitution requires FAO to \"collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information related to nutrition, food and agriculture\". Information on natural resources, especially land and water, is central to this respect.
\nBy 1980, FAO had developed a geo-referenced information system on land resources based on the FAO/UNESCO world map of soils, but a global geographically-based water resources database did not exist.
\nIn 1992, FAO's Land and Water Division proposed to establish a global water information system to provide high-quality information on water resources and uses, mainly for agriculture, as a basis for analysis and planning at national and international levels. At national level, such data would help the country devise appropriate policies and strategies for the development and management of its water resources. It would also allow the country to compare its situation and achievements with other countries. At the international level, the data provides the basis for studying the evolution of water resources development, relative levels of water scarcity, potentials and trends. The system was also expected to provide the necessary data for forecasts, and the study of phenomena such as the impact of global warming on water and agriculture.
\nIn 1993, the Global Water Information System (GWIS) was initiated. Country statistics and specific country studies were collected and processed to extract the required information and to develop regional and continental data, in addition to national data.\nThe approach had two implications. First, there was a need to develop very detailed standards to compute different indicators which best represented the state of water resources and use in agriculture. Definitions of terms related to water resources, irrigation, water withdrawal, etc. are anything but trivial and can be interpreted in very different ways in different countries. A set of well-described variables and indicators was thus developed at the beginning of the programme and is being continuously improved, based on experience gained in progressively collecting country information. Second, water is frequently a transboundary resource. In fact, not only can water resources be computed in different ways by different countries, but also the computation of transboundary flows is often performed in different ways on both sides of the border. A consistent physical approach, based on a hydrological division of the land, needed to be superimposed on the division in countries and administrative units to ensure the integrity of water resources data and analysis at the global level.
\nGWIS thus developed as two complementary programmes:
\nIn 1994, the first of these two programmes became known as AQUASTAT, FAO's global information system on water and agriculture, comprising the most reliable national information on water resources and uses and making it available, in a standard format, to users interested in global or regional prospects. While the basis of AQUASTAT was—and remains—the collection and publishing of statistical information, the programme has evolved tremendously over the last 20 years and has also addressed and incorporated the second programme, i.e. the transboundary, hydrological perspective.
\nWhile agriculture is by far the largest water withdrawal sector, in times of increasing water scarcity it is the first one to suffer, long before the municipal and industrial sectors. Although the mandate of AQUASTAT was primarily linked to water and agriculture, it soon became evident that it could not limit itself to agricultural water only in view of the absence of sufficient country-level information on the other sectors elsewhere. Information on the other water withdrawal sectors as well as on water resources is indispensible in order to be able to provide a more complete picture of the water situation in the world, in view of increasing competition between different sectors, and to estimate the pressure on water resources. Since then, AQUASTAT has been the global leader in reporting national-level data on renewable water resources and water withdrawals.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/history","title":"التاريخ","menuOrder":"1"}}},{"node":{"id":"247def25-d34a-5607-96a8-5cf55911abb9","html":"During the AQUASTAT country updates, in addition to quantitative information, qualitative information is gathered on a number of different issues.
\nReferring to the profile sections on \"Water management, policies and legislation to water use in agriculture\" and \"Legislative and institutional framework of water management\", qualitative information is collected on:
\nReferring to \"Prospects for agricultural water management\", qualitative information is collected on the long-term trends and prospects (future total water demands, future agricultural water demands) and factors that may influence future agricultural water use and irrigation in the country or region, such as: free trade on agricultural products, reallocation of water due to the competition with other sectors, decrease of agricultural irrigated product prices, change in consumer diets, disengagement of the state, strengthening of environmental protection:
\nA list of all publications is available on the Publications page. A non-exhaustive selection of some publications more specifically related to water management is given below:
\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/methodology/institutional-framework","title":"Institutional framework","menuOrder":"5"}}},{"node":{"id":"0c930c8a-0aef-52c3-8d58-ea75d1211c5c","html":"\n
\n- The role of women in agricultural water management - Results of a pilot\nproject to develop gender-sensitive indicators (french)
\n- The state of the world's land and water resources for food and agriculture:\nManaging systems at risk
\n- Agriculture, food and water
\n- Trends in water and agricultural development\n(Chapter 2 of the publication: Water for Food, Water for Life - A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture)
\n
AQUASTAT has adopted the following irrigation typology:
\nFull control irrigation technologies are: surface irrigation, sprinkler irrigation and localized irrigation.
\nSources of water used for irrigation are: primary and secondary surface water, primary and secondary groundwater (renewable and fossil), mixed primary and secondary surface water and groundwater, directly used wastewater (treated or not-treated), directly used agricultural drainage water, and in a few exceptional case desalinated water. Secondary water refers to water that was previously withdrawn for agricultural, municipal and industrial purposes and then returned to the system.
\nThe above classifications according to typology, technology and source of water are schematically presented in the following diagram or irrigation area sheet:
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/PDF%2FTABLES%2FIrrigationMatrix.v2.png?alt=media&token=c9b308f4-fd29-442c-a279-51a38782dff7\")
Irrigation areas sheets filled in for each country are available from the dropdown menu under \"Information sheet\" at the top of this page. These sheets are automatically generated from the Main Database and thus always contain the latest information available in the database. Definitions of all terms can be found in the glossary.
\nData for the variable \"Area equipped for irrigation\" is collected by and available in both AQUASTAT and FAOSTAT and harmonization between AQUASTAT and FAOSTAT takes place on a regular basis to ensure consistency between the two.
\nIn AQUASTAT, the irrigation area variables related to source of water refer to the \"Area equipped for irrigation\". The global map of irrigation areas, which includes sub-national data as well as areas by source of water, also refers to the area equipped for irrigation and that part of the area equipped for irrigation that is actually irrigated.
\nHowever, the harvested irrigated crops area and irrigated crop calendars refer to the \"Area equipped for full control irrigation\" (see also the above Irrigation Areas sheet) and, if information is available, to the part of the area equipped for full control that is actually irrigated. The reason is that most of the time spate irrigation areas and equipped lowlands have irrigated crops just once a year, while the aim of \"full control\" irrigation is to be able to have two (or three even in a few cases) crops on the same area in a year thanks to irrigation and thus increasing the cropping intensity, which is the harvested crop area divided by the physical irrigated area. Adding spate irrigation and equipped lowlands would reduce the irrigated cropping intensity and therefore not correctly show the possible merits of irrigation.
\nA special effort is being made to collect quantitative and qualitative information on women in irrigated agriculture. If information is available a special sub-section on \"Women and irrigation\" is created in the section \"Irrigation and drainage development\" of the country profile.
\nA list of all publications is available on the Publications page. A non-exhaustive selection of some publications more specifically related to irrigation is given below:
\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/methodology/irrig-drainage","title":"Irrigation and drainage","menuOrder":"3"}}},{"node":{"id":"8bbddefb-e9d2-5b07-ab96-5f565d3aadce","html":"\n
\n- Irrigated areas - Atlas of African agriculture research & development
\n- The role of women in agricultural water management - Results of a pilot\nproject to develop gender-sensitive indicators (in French)
\n- Update of the Digital Global Map of Irrigation Areas (GMIA) to Version 5\n
\n- Groundwater use for irrigation - a global inventory
\n- The resource outlook to 2050: By how much do land, water and crop yields\nneed to increase by 2050?
\n- Irrigation Manual - Planning, development, monitoring and evaluation of\nirrigated agriculture with farmer participation
\n- Irrigation potential in Africa - A basin approach
\n- Assessment of irrigation potential in Africa - Arc-Info: a tool for the\ncomputation of the irrigation water requirements at continental level
\n
The Federated Water Monitoring System (FWMS) and Key Water Indicator Portal (KWIP), implemented by AQUASTAT on behalf of UN-Water, aims to improve the clarity of water statistics:
\n| \n |
|---|
![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fkwip.png?alt=media&token=52347ace-3cb6-43d0-9f6e-4430a03e391b\") | \n
The KWIP is a portal through which data can be represented in graphs, charts, and tables. Selected indicators are displayed, although more indicators or variables can be added in the future. The main purpose of the KWIP is to provide information in a simple format in order to maximize its widespread use. For more advanced users that would like to know about inter-agency harmonization efforts, additional data reported by several agencies is available only one click away.
\nThis portal is backed by the FWMS, a federated custodian database containing data from the different organizations generating data relevant to the UN-Water indicators. Inter-agency harmonization can be managed via a complex mapping of variables, and can port data to the various widgets displayed on the KWIP dynamically. This means that as soon as the database is furnished with new information, the KWIP will automatically update.
\nThis FWMS&KWIP improves UN Water's \"Body of Knowledge\", and provides a more consistent and transparent front to statistics.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/archive/kwip","title":"Key Water Indicator Portal (project closed)","menuOrder":"4"}}},{"node":{"id":"2f1bd2af-f822-530e-8365-0d293661f7c6","html":"تجمع AQUASTAT وتحلل وتنشر البيانات والمعلومات حول موارد المياه واستخداماتها وإدارة المياه الزراعية لكل دولة، مع التركيز على الزراعة المروية في إفريقيا وآسيا وأمريكا اللاتينية ومنطقة البحر الكاريبي. هدفها هو دعم التنمية الزراعية والريفية من خلال الاستخدام المستدام للمياه والأراضي وذلك من خلال توفير أدق المعلومات المقدمة بطريقة متسقة وموحدة.
\nالبيانات والمعلومات الموحدة: لتزويدك بالأدلة لقياس التقدم الذي تم إحرازه والتأكد من قراراتك
\nالأدوات: للسماح لك بإنشاء التحليل الخاصة بك والاستنتاجات والمقالات والعروض التقديمية\nتنمية القدرات: لتحسين فهمك ومراقبة موارد المياه واستخداماتها وإدارة الري.
\nوهذا يعني بشكل ملموس أننا نقدم البيانات والبيانات الوصفية والتقارير والملفات التعريفية القطرية وملفات حوض النهر والتحليلات الإقليمية والخرائط والجداول والبيانات المكانية والإرشادات وأدوات أخرى حول:
\n• موارد المياه: الداخلية ، العابرة للحدود ، المجموع
\n• استخدامات المياه: حسب القطاع ، حسب المصدر ، مياه الصرف
\n• الري: الموقع والمساحة والتصنيف والتكنولوجيا والمحاصيل
\n• السدود: الموقع ، الطول ، السعة ، مساحة السطح
\n• المؤسسات والسياسات والتشريعات المتعلقة بالمياه.
\nAQUASTAT هو مصدر مهم للبيانات للعديد من المنظمات الدولية التي تتراوح من وكالات الأمم المتحدة إلى المنظمات غير الحكومية، من الشركات الخاصة إلى الهيئات الحكومية، والتي تنتج جميعها معلومات متعلقة بالمياه والزراعة، لا سيما موارد المياه وإدارة المياه.
\nفيما يلي مجموعة غير شاملة من الكيانات التي تستند منشوراتها وقواعد بياناتها ونماذجها ومواقعها المتعلقة بالمياه إلى نظام AQUASTAT:
\n• إحصاءات الأمم المتحدة للمياه\n• مؤشر الأهداف الإنمائية للألفية\n• بيانات البنك الدولي\n• أطلس معهد الموارد العالمية للمياه AQUADUCT\n• مؤشرات تقارير تنمية المياه في العالم\n• أطلس الأمم المتحدة للمياه في أفريقيا\n• أطلس المنطقة العربية لبرنامج الأمم المتحدة لبيئتنا المتغيرة\n• توقعات البيئة العالمية لبرنامج الأمم المتحدة للبيئة\n• صحائف الوقائع القطرية لمشروع نظام المياه العالمي لوكالة المخابرات المركزية\n• أدوات موقع Growing Blue\n• الموارد المائية لمعهد المحيط الهادئ في العالم\n• الماء من أجل الغذاء ، الماء من أجل الحياة
","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/index","title":"نظرة عامة","menuOrder":"0"}}},{"node":{"id":"1cdf3210-01da-5f63-b76b-b24db82d58a1","html":"The UN-Water Country Briefs (WCB), implemented by AQUASTAT on behalf of UN-Water with financial support from the United States Department of State, aim to better visualize the critical importance of \"investments in water\" for human and economic development. The intention is to foster increased political momentum for stronger interventions on water-related issues by policy makers, dealing with peace and security, infrastructure investments, agricultural, health, education and environmental issues, as well as macro- and micro-economic perspectives. The ultimate goals are to mobilize increased financial and institutional investments directed to water-related interventions, to serve as a tool for advocacy on water issues in more general terms and as decision support tools in policy processes. The primary target group is national governments, but major civil society organizations, private sector actors, and the media are also key stakeholders. During the pilot phase briefs have been prepared for thirteen countries, which are: The Gambia, Ghana, United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia in Africa; Chile, Guyana and Mexico in the Americas; Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Oman, Philippines and Viet Nam in Asia.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fpublications%2Fwcb.png?alt=media&token=2b9ae9d7-011d-41e2-976a-4adccbf51421\")
AQUASTAT is one of the largest global repositories of wastewater data, something increasingly important in view of the SDG 6.3 baselines, targets and monitoring. It collects, analyses and validates the best available data on municipal wastewater production, collection, treatment, discharge and direct use for irrigation purposes. While other existing wastewater databases often focus on percentage of sanitation coverage or pollution loads, AQUASTAT focuses on annual volumes at national level. The reason for choosing volume as the parameter to report is to facilitate the integration of these data in the water resources and use accounts in the different countries. At the end of 2013, AQUASTAT also started collaborating with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) to collect, analyze and validate the best available data on municipal wastewater production, collection, treatment, discharge and direct use for irrigation purposes. The results of this collaboration are available in AQUASTAT, also announced on IWMI's website.
\nAs of October 2016, about 2 300 municipal wastewater-related data points and 1 300 metadata are available in the Main Database.
\nAQUASTAT does not have a wastewater section per se in the country profiles and not for all countries information on wastewater is available. If information is available, it can be found in either the \"Water resources\" or the \"Water use\" section of the profile.
\nAs is the case with the country profiles, AQUASTAT also does not have a wastewater section per se in the regional analyses. If information is available, it can be found in either the \"Water resources\" or the \"Water use\" section of the analysis, for example using the expression \"Other sources of water\" or \"Non-conventional sources of water\".
\nWhile other existing wastewater databases often focus on percentage of sanitation coverage or pollution loads, AQUASTAT focuses on annual volumes at national level. The reason for choosing volume as the parameter is to facilitate the integration of these data in the water resources and use accounts in the different countries.
\nThe diagram put further below illustrates the flow of wastewater from production to use. The variables squared in blue in that diagram are available by opening the wastewater category in the AQUASTAT Main Database, shown below.
\n
The variables [1]-[11] can be accessed under the category \"Wastewater\" and have the unit km3/year or 10^9 m3/year, except for variable [4], which refers to the number of treatment facilities. The variables [12]-[13] can be accessed both under the category \"Wastewater\" and under the category \"Irrigation and drainage development\", sub-category \"Area equipped for irrigation by source of water\", and have the unit 1000 ha. Information on the level of treatment is, if available, provided in the metadata of the variable \"Treated municipal wastewater\" [3].
\nClick on the chart to magnify
\n
Data collection takes place through review of country briefs and national reports, databases, technical reports, peer-reviewed publications, information provided by national experts, presentations from national authorities in seminars, Internet search, etc.
\nSince data come from many different sources, inconsistencies may occur over the course of time. Therefore, each time new data become available a detailed review and validation of all data, both new ones obtained and the ones already available in the database, is essential.
\nData is validated in relation to a time span from 1958 to 2012, based on the assumption that mainly the annual volume of wastewater produced, but probably also the annual volume collected, treated, discharged or directly used should - unless justified, such as for example due to contraction in the municipal population growth - show incremental increase as water use would rise over time.
\nData is also validated in relation to various stages of the wastewater cycle, i.e. wastewater production (assumed to be the highest volume), wastewater collection, treatment and direct use (lowest volume of water).
\nA list of all publications is available on the Publications page. A non-exhaustive selection of some publications more specifically related to this page is given below:
\n\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/methodology/wastewater","title":"Wastewater","menuOrder":"4"}}},{"node":{"id":"2149f712-313d-57db-ad08-6aec9ab12483","html":"
This asset was last updated in 2003 and is therefore extraordinarily outdated, but is kept online at users' requests.
\nSince the second half of the 20th century, investments in irrigation have represented a considerable share of agriculture-related investments in developing countries. The recently renewed interest for water management in agriculture in support to rural development, agriculture modernization and rural poverty alleviation calls for further investments in irrigation infrastructure modernization, rehabilitation and expansion. Regional investment plans and strategies require a good assessment of costs and benefits related to irrigation infrastructure investments.
\nUnderstanding the factors influencing irrigation development costs helps shaping irrigation investment programmes. Costs vary with local conditions (including topography, soils, water resources, etc.), institutional and macroeconomic environment, scheme size, technology, or level of prior investments. These conditions determine regional trends and allow for the estimation of average regional unit costs, of particular interest to regional planning.
\nIn 2003, FAO conducted a desk study collecting data on irrigation projects from various sources, with the FAO Investment Centre and the World Bank as the major data sources. Project appraisal reports, i.e. ex-ante cost estimates, represent the bulk of the sources of information of the study. Several hundreds of projects were studied and of these 248 projects were screened more in detail and investment costs were analysed and presented in a standard format.
\nIn this database, a number of terminologies are used to describe different forms of irrigation investments and associated factors. These terminologies and related methodologies are described and defined below.
\nThe following five regions are used: Eastern Asia (EA); Southern Asia (SA); sub-Saharan Africa (SSA); Near East & North Africa (NENA); Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The database focuses on the developing regions of the world only.
\nDominant type of irrigation system governance. Private: schemes are managed by private entrepreneurs, including smallholders. Public: irrigation scheme management is mostly controlled by a public authority.
\nDominant type of water supply to the scheme: either by gravity from dams or river diversion, or through pumping from rivers or groundwater sources.
\nThe AQUASTAT definitions of irrigation technologies are used. Surface irrigation: Surface irrigation systems are based on the principle of moving water over the land by simple gravity in order to wet it, either partially or completely, before infiltrating. They can be subdivided into furrow, borderstrip and basin irrigation (including submersion irrigation of rice). Sprinkler irrigation: A sprinkler irrigation system consists of a pipe network, through which water moves under pressure before being delivered to the crop via sprinkler nozzles. The system basically simulates rainfall in that water is applied through overhead spraying. These systems are also known as overhead irrigation systems. Localized irrigation: Localized irrigation is a system where the water is distributed under low pressure through a piped network, in a pre-determined pattern, and applied water as a small discharge to each plant or adjacent to it. There are three main categories: drip irrigation (where drip emitters are used to apply water slowly to the soil surface), spray or micro-sprinkler irrigation (where water is sprayed to the soil near individual plants or trees) and bubbler irrigation (where a small stream is applied to flood small basins or the soil adjacent to individual trees). The following other terms are also sometimes used to refer to localized irrigation: micro-irrigation, trickle irrigation, daily flow irrigation, drop-irrigation, sip irrigation, diurnal irrigation. Spate irrigation: Spate irrigation, also sometimes referred to as floodwater harvesting, is a method of random irrigation using the floodwaters of a normally dry water course or riverbed (wadi). These systems are in general characterized by a very large catchment upstream (200 ha - 50 km²) with a \"catchment area : cultivated area\" ratio of 100 : 1 to 10 000 : 1. There are two types of spate irrigation: 1) floodwater harvesting within streambeds, where turbulent channel flow is collected and spread through the wadi in which the crops are planted; cross-wadi dams are constructed with stones, earth, or both, often reinforced with gabions; 2) floodwater diversion, where the floods - or spates - from the seasonal rivers are diverted into adjacent embanked fields for direct application. A stone or concrete structure raises the water level within the wadi to be diverted to the nearby cropping areas.
\nThe project year is defined as the year of appraisal or as the completion year in the case of completion reports.
\nIrrigation investment costs are defined here as the costs specifically related to the irrigation project. This means that costs related to roads, bridges, dams, new agricultural technology, fertilizer, seeds, operation and maintenance, etc. are not included in the investment costs. However costs related to \"irrigation software\" - directly related to the specific irrigation project - are included. Irrigation software includes irrigation training for farmers, training for operation and maintenance people, organizational structure building, study tours, etc. Many irrigation projects are a combination of new development components as well as rehabilitation and/or modernization components, in these cases it is the largest component that defines the type of investment. New development: Development of areas that have not previously been irrigated. It should be noted, that in many cases the new development areas have previously been used for agricultural purposes, which means that preparatory measures such as land levelling and land clearing have already been taken care of. Rehabilitation: Restoration of an existing irrigation system into good/working condition. Modernization: Upgrading the system with more modern technologies and management. Note: In view of the difficulties in distinguishing between rehabilitation and modernization in the projects, the two categories have been merged as one under the heading \"Rehabilitation/modernization\".
\nTo be able to compare the investment costs of projects carried out in various countries and various years, all cost data have first been converted (when needed) into US dollars (US$) using the official exchange rate effective at the time of the project. Then the US$ figure has been calculated into year 2000 US$ in order to make it possible to compare investment costs over time. The idea behind calculating the investment costs into current prices (in this case year 2000 US$) is to make prices comparable over time by removing the effect of inflation. In this database the inflation effect has been removed by using the American Consumer Price Index.
\nThe Excel file containing the projects can be downloaded from here:
\n\nSeveral hundred appraisal documents, project completion reports, working papers and articles have been reviewed during the research process, and a total of 248 irrigation projects have been recorded in this database. These projects where carried out in 33 different countries covering a total area of about 7.3 million hectares. Almost 40 percent of the data in the database (equal to 102 projects) is based on reports, documents and articles written after the project had been completed, the rest of the data is based on material written either while the project was being planned or while it was in its early stages. Data have been collected for the period from 1980 to 2003.
\nData on a total of 57 irrigation projects in this database come from 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. These projects represent a total of 107 762 hectares of irrigated land only, which is less than 1.5 percent of the total area of 7.3 million ha. However, these 57 projects represent more than 22 percent of the total number of 248 projects studied and the 13 sub-Saharan countries represent more than 38 percent of all the 33 countries in this database.
\nThe data used in this database come from various sources. The two by far most important sources of data are the FAO Investment Centre and the World Bank documentation unit. But besides these two sources data have also been collected from IFAD, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, AFD, articles written by FAO staff and research conducted by FAO staff.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/archive/investment-costs","title":"Database on investment costs in irrigation","menuOrder":"2"}}},{"node":{"id":"e815697e-9bad-54e3-ba01-33f3e21c8e96","html":"For acquiring reliable data and information, the importance of cooperating with national resource persons working in the field of water and agriculture, with good networking capabilities and a sense of responsibility, has been shown to be vital since AQUASTAT was created. Experience and lessons learned in global water information management show the importance of national capacities on which the SDG process is drawing.
\nA network of national correspondents was considered the best answer to increase country ownership over water data, as well as to overcome the previous AQUASTAT challenges (see The previous AQUASTAT methodology section below). The FAO Global Forestry Assessment indeed successfully collects forestry statistics through such network and on which rely another SDG indicator under FAO custody. FAO fisheries statistics also relies on a similar network for years.
\nHence, the network of AQUASTAT National Correspondents was launched in 2018. FAO Land and Water Division sent out to 187 countries in April-May 2018, the invitation for National Statistics Offices to nominate National Correspondents and alternates, in consultation with the water and agriculture authorities. National Correspondents are in charge of coordinating the provision of official national data and play a role in supporting FAO's effort to further harmonize water-related reporting. As of January 2019, 107 countries have nominated national correspondents.
\nWhile data collection is an important function of the correspondent, there is also value in the process itself. In some countries water resources are not inventoried or data are not kept up to date. This limits management options and the ability to respond to major changes in water resources. Having national correspondents and alternates, especially from various agencies, allows a forum for collecting/assembling data that often co-exists in different agencies. Moreover, the official nomination of the AQUASTAT National Correspondents makes the validation step implicit with the data being officially sent.
\nThe annual “Water and Agriculture” questionnaire, cleared by the FAO Office of the Chief Statistician (OCS), compiles the water and irrigation statistics collected by the National Correspondents is sent out the first semester of each year\n.
\nThe primary scope of the questionnaire is to obtain a comprehensive picture of water resources and uses at the national level, along with the description of their major characteristics, trends, constraints and perspectives, with particular focus on the agricultural sector, through systematic data collection, harmonized definitions and metadata. The questionnaire is also designed to collect on an annual basis a selection of SDG-related data on water resources, water use and irrigation in standardized manner. Reporting burden of the countries was kept in mind throughout the design of this questionnaire, which is purposefully short (35 variables).
\nThe questionnaire is composed of:
\nThe questionnaire is available in three languages: English, French and Spanish.
\nIn addition, to the annual data collection, a more complete questionnaire will be sent every 5 years to populate other AQUASTAT databases.
\nIn parallel and to support the change of data collection methodology, the AQUASTAT team organized workshops for the National Correspondents to develop the national capacities on water monitoring.
\nOnce the questionnaire is compiled by the National Correspondents starts the data validation process, when exchanges between the National Correspondents and the AQUASTAT team clarify the collected data (Figure 1). The critical analysis of the compiled data gives preference to national sources and expert knowledge. Five types of check and validation are first carried out manually by the AQUASTAT team:
\nAfter manual verification, the AQUASTAT database management system supports the data validation and processing thanks to almost 200 validation rules.
\n![\"The](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fcountry-update-methodology_new.png?alt=media&token=c4e5fd39-3919-4157-af32-fe50f18cff5b\")
74 countries compiled a questionnaire during the first exercise with National Correspondents held in 2018. This first exercise was successful for the three main objectives the new methodology was attempting to reach in order to overcome the challenges of the previous methodology (see below):
\nMoreover, the number of countries with updated data within a single year is unprecedented.
\nFinally, collaborations with other international organizations are also developed to reduce the report burden of the countries.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fquality-control.png?alt=media&token=4f040828-05f7-47c5-a1bf-afc3035aeb27\")
Up to 2014, the data collection process relied mostly with national consultant hired by AQUASTAT, but required still long and heavy validation by the AQUASTAT Team for quality check (Figure 3).
\nAQUASTAT's information management process comprised:
\n![\"The](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fcountry-update-methodology.png?alt=media&token=87453c84-289d-4d1e-9619-8358c0848c57\")
The result of the long process of data collection, analysis and quality control, was that approximately 80-90 percent of the received data did not pass AQUASTAT's first round of quality control. The first manual quality checking included: coherence in the time-series, simple calculations, variables cross-checking, comparisons with neighbouring/similar countries, verification in the original sources. The second automated cross-checking was operated during data upload in the database, using around 300 validation rules.
\nData was discarded for a variety of reasons, such as:
\nEspecially situations 3 and 4 occured more frequently, which is symptomatic of two phenomena: an absence of substantial amounts of new water data and pressure to show \"new\" data no matter what. While it is true that through the use of different technologies in the field (often the example of mobile phones is given), more and more data become available, this is not really yet the case so far for data and statistical information related to water resources and their use. Most likely this is due to the fact that there is a lag between raw data collection, analysis and conclusions.
\nDue to these challenges, a reflection on the AQUASTAT data collection methodology and country update process started in 2013. The first step was to objectively document for a sample of five countries the timeframe and outcomes of the country update process made with national consultants by comparing the resources involved and the resulting updated data.
\nFigure 4 below is the outcome of this exercise carried out in 2014. The update process lasted over one year before new data could be published online and only 9 percent of the data points requested in the questionnaire passed the quality check controls and were effectively uploaded in the database. Despite this long and costly update strategy, in some cases almost no new data were accessed. This strategy required too much time under the staffing conditions to maintain the data quality standard, resulting in relatively old data even for the latest updated country—which is the most common criticism reported on AQUASTAT, together with the limited number of data points in a time-series (not a full database).
\n![\"The](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fquality-control_old-data.png?alt=media&token=62f5c8ca-77f5-4f6d-8e82-216912e0e8bc\")
In 2015 and in 2016, a second step in the methodological renewal attempted to update country data through desk studies, using literature and data available online. It limited the cost to time of AQUASTAT team only, and reduced the timeline but lacked then field data country ownerships, even though most of the collected data were from Ministries reports. In addition, a continuous watch of national statistics available online was also performed, although not as systematically as desired due to staffing constraints. This strategy is still considered valid, since it only takes advantage of free available data without adding reporting constraints to the countries. However, this methodology was not fully in line with the then newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals, of which FAO is the custodian agency for 21 indicators and in particular SDG indicator 6.4.1 on water use efficiency and 6.4.2 on water stress, relying heavily on AQUASTAT data. The SDG requires a country-driven process for data collection. The new AQUASTAT data collection methodology presented above below was designed to increase country ownership of water data and the number of data uploaded in the database, as well as to reduce the timeline of the update process.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/methodology","title":"منهجية أكواستات","menuOrder":"4"}}},{"node":{"id":"b78aec99-5a39-5556-b033-d9734c3a094e","html":"AQUASTAT collects statistics on water resources from national sources. These are systematically reviewed to ensure consistency in definitions and consistency between countries sharing the same river basin. A methodology has been developed and rules have been established to compute the different elements of national water resources. The calculation rules are provided in the country water resources sheets, which can be accessed through the country profile page, and which are dynamically generated by the database such that a simple up-to-date product can be provided without requiring database navigation skills. Recently, the methodology used to accommodate transboundary flows has been thoroughly reworked to accommodate some particularly complex river country border crossings. The new system tracks individual river flows across each border, then aggregates all the country to country flows into a global matrix, and then finally these results are aggregated at a national level. This approach allows for a significant increase in data quality as well as providing previously unreleased specific details explaining the transboundary flows.
\nThe term \"Water resources\" used in AQUASTAT for total water flow statistics (internal or external, surface water or groundwater, measured or calculated) does not mean that these flows are fully exploitable and available.
\nRenewable water resources, which are inland waters renewed by the global water cycle, are the main source of water available to humankind. But only a part of these flows is exploitable and effectively usable because:
\nBecause of all these complications, the concept of exploitable or available water resources cannot be the subject of one single or universal definition, although it is the most important part of renewable water resources analyses.
\nEven though explained in their definitions, it is worthwhile to emphasize here also that the Renewable Water Resources statistics provided in AQUASTAT are long-term annual averages (typically 1961-1990, although specific Period of Reference information is provided where known). This means that for each Renewable Water Resources variable the value is the same in all years. This does not mean that AQUASTAT does not acknowledge climate change, just that the statistics reported here assume a steady state. However, due to climate change renewable water resources patterns will change significantly and AQUASTAT encourages countries to report information on said changing conditions. Based on available data, the only study that AQUASTAT was able to conduct so far to attempt to quantify the effect of climate change refers to rolling averages of annual precipitation (1961-1990, 1971-2000, 1981-2010), which was inconclusive. For the results, a note is being prepared by AQUASTAT and will be soon available here.
\nMethodology changed in March 2015 to include two important changes:
\nA detailed description of the changes is available in the document below:
\n\n\n\n
AQUASTAT collects statistics on water resources. Data on water resources obtained from national sources are systematically reviewed to ensure consistency in definitions and between countries sharing the same river basin. A methodology has been developed and rules have been established to compute the different elements of a country's water resources. The methodology is described in the article Key Water Resources Statistics in AQUASTAT. The calculation rules are provided in the country \"Water resources sheets\", which can be accessed through the first drop-down menu above.
\nWith the assistance of Mr. Jean Margat, expert in global water resources assessment, a comparative analysis of available country water resources data is carried out at regular intervals. On that basis, AQUASTAT compiles and updates its best estimates of the main elements of the water resources for each country.
\nThe methodology selected leads to the following variable arrangement:
\nClick the image to magnify
\n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FWater%20Resources%20Flowchart.v0.4.jpg?alt=media&token=f943f1f1-f3d8-4818-9b0b-7c4f85b8264f\")
Note 1: Click on the chart above to magnify.\nNote 2: The overlap between surface water and groundwater should be deducted from the sum of surface water and groundwater.\nNote 3: The \"Surface water: outflow secured to treaties\" is deducted in order to obtain the total external renewable water resources.\nNote 4: See the glossary for definitions and calculation rules of the variables and terminology used in AQUASTAT.
\nFor the past few years, AQUASTAT has been improving the way that information on water resources is treated. The methodology being used now introduces several new steps that allow for more meticulous note taking and error checking. At its heart, the change can be explained by tracking individual river points of international significance. Flows at these points are kept in a specific database, along with relevant metadata, comparison with data of the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC) data, location information, etc. From there, data can be automatically compiled into a global matrix of international flows. At the matrix level, data and metadata can be better evaluated and compared to national sources. After an acceptable level of quality has been accomplished, the data are transmitted to the Main AQUASTAT Country database, where they can be displayed online in the database results page, as well as in the automatically generated Water Resources Sheet PDF files (see first dropdown at the top of this page).
\nVisually, the process looks something like this, where black arrows denote the flow of information, and blue arrows denote the iterative quality control steps:
\n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/PDF%2FTABLES%2FWR%20process.jpg?alt=media&token=d1712cea-1147-466c-8f04-f75e9600169c\")
In the above, the Point database and the Matrix are the centerpoints that ultimately drive the entire process. Explaining further:
\nPoint database (1)
\nData
\nMetadata
\nMatrix (2)
\nData
\nMetadata
\nWhile at a first glance this approach looks unnecessarily complex, it is important to consider that countries report data at varying levels of aggregation, from river-level to full national-level values. More than any other variables, having a system that allows AQUASTAT to keep all data and notes in the correct \"box\" ultimately results in increased data quality, more metadata being revealed, and ultimately reduces the workload to process new data.
\nIn addition, more substantial changes to the way water resources are reported by AQUASTAT are currently under discussion with experts. When these discussions have concluded, a report documenting the rationale will be released.
\nA list of all publications is available on the Publications page. A non-exhaustive selection of some publications more specifically related to water resources is given below:
\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/methodology/water-resources","title":"Water resources","menuOrder":"1"}}},{"node":{"id":"96ed077b-b260-54bf-b72b-98d261192e42","html":"\n
\n- Renewable water resources assessment - 2015 methodology review
\n- Proceedings of expert workshop in Latin America
\n- Dams and agriculture in Africa
\n- Key water resources statistics in AQUASTAT
\n- Review of world water resources by country
\n- Water resources of the Near East region: a review
\n- Water resources of African countries: a review
\n
In AQUASTAT, three types of water withdrawals are distinguished: self-abstracted agricultural, self-abstracted industrial and municipal (including domestic) water withdrawal. A fourth type of anthropogenic water use is the water that evaporates from artificial lakes or reservoirs associated with dams. Information on evaporation from artificial lakes is being processed to also become available in the AQUASTAT database.
\nFor Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, AQUASTAT obtains water withdrawal values from national ministries or other governmental agencies, although some data gaps are filled from other UN agencies. For Europe and for Northern America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Eurostat and OECD are valuable additional sources of information, and are also used to fill data gaps.
\nTo further fill data gaps, AQUASTAT has done some limited modeling for certain unavailable water withdrawal data using GIS, water balance models and regression analysis.
\nInformation on water use by source involves surface water, groundwater and direct use of non-conventional sources of water, i.e. municipal wastewater and agricultural drainage water for irrigation purposes and desalinated water.
\nThe amount of precipitation falling on land is almost 110 000 km3 per year. About 56 percent of this amount is evapotranspired by forests and natural landscapes and 5 percent by rainfed agriculture. The remaining 39 percent or 43 000 km3 per year is converted to surface runoff (feeding rivers and lakes) and groundwater (feeding aquifers). These are called renewable freshwater resources. Part of this water is being removed from these rivers or aquifers by installing infrastructure. This removal of water is called water withdrawal. Most of the withdrawn water is returned to the environment some period of time later, after it has been used. The quality of the returned water may be less than the quality when it was originally removed.
\nIn AQUASTAT, three types of water withdrawal are distinguished: agricultural (including irrigation, livestock and aquaculture), municipal (including domestic) and industrial water withdrawal. A fourth type of anthropogenic water use is the water that evaporates from artificial lakes or reservoirs associated with dams. Information on evaporation from artificial lakes will be available in the AQUASTAT database in the near future.
\nAt global level, the withdrawal ratios are 69 percent agricultural, 12 percent municipal and 19 percent industrial. These numbers, however, are biased strongly by the few countries which have very high water withdrawals. Averaging the ratios of each individual country, we find that \"for any given country\" these ratios are 59, 23 and 18 percent respectively.
\n| \n | \n |
|---|---|
![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fpie1.png?alt=media&token=9b1b6645-de61-4dde-a340-05803183f946\") | \n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2Fpie2.png?alt=media&token=da2ab757-5a22-4edc-bc86-6f220ed84b33\") | \n
The water withdrawal ratios also vary much between regions, going from 91, 7 and 2 percent for agricultural, municipal and industrial water withdrawal respectively in South Asia to 5, 23 and 73 percent respectively in Western Europe. For more details about water withdrawal by region, please see this table.
\nThe importance of agricultural water withdrawal is highly dependent on both climate and the place of agriculture in the economy. The chart below shows the water withdrawal ratios by continent, where the agricultural part varies from more than 80 percent in Africa and Asia to just over 20 percent in Europe.
\nClick the chart to magnify
\n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FWithRatio_eng.png?alt=media&token=f6f383c3-d0b6-462e-9f95-501461999f55\")
The chart below shows global water withdrawal over time by by the three major sectors: agriculture (including irrigation, livestock watering and cleaning, aquaculture), industries, municipalities.
\nClick the chart to magnify
\n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FWithTimeNoEvap_eng.png?alt=media&token=86b82689-526e-4303-b37f-121696e5580c\")
The chart below shows global water withdrawal over time with in addition to the water withdrawal by the three major sectors – agriculture (including irrigation, livestock watering and cleaning, aquaculture), industries, municipalities – the evaporation from reservoirs, which are artificial lakes created when a dam is built and where water evaporates from their surface area. While this is not a water withdrawal per se, it should be considered as an anthropogenic consumptive water use, since this evaporation would not take place without the human intervention of building a dam to store freshwater resources for different purposes, such as for withdrawal by one of the above sectors, for generating electricity (hydropower), etc.
\nClick the chart to magnify
\n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FWithTime_eng.png?alt=media&token=ee762810-d673-445a-8cf5-fbe0414d3db3\")
The graphs below combine global water withdrawal and world population over time. World population increased 4.4 times over the last century while water withdrawal increased 7.3 times over the same period. Thus, global water withdrawal increased 1.7 times faster than world population. However, it can also be seen from the graph that, while world population is still growing exponentially, increase in water withdrawal has slowed down over the last decades.
\nDifferently said, between 1900 and 2010, world population increased 340 percent or 1.3 percent per year, varying from 1 percent per year during the period 1900-1940 to almost 1.6 percent per year during the period 1970-2010. Between 1900 and 2010, water withdrawal increased 630 percent or 1.8 percent per year, varying from 1.5 percent per year during the period 1900-1940 to 1.1 percent per year during the period 1970-2010. The largest increase in water withdrawal took place between 1950 and 1960, 4.2 percent per year, while it was only just 0.5 percent per year during the period 2000-2010.
\nClick the chart to magnify
\n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FWithTimePop_eng.png?alt=media&token=e093a1ef-6882-4295-a61a-37597bb32e56\")
Another way of presentation, using different axes for population and water withdrawal, and also showing water withdrawal by sector, is given in the graph below.
\nClick the chart to magnify
\n![\"image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FWithTimePopAxis_eng.png?alt=media&token=64a65cfa-9a5c-4778-a4c5-55ca491bc0d2\")
A list of all publications is available on the Publications page. A non-exhaustive selection of some publications more specifically related to water uses is given below:
\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/methodology/water-use","title":"Water use","menuOrder":"2"}}},{"node":{"id":"14d183a2-945a-54d6-a5e3-c3cd10cf31b6","html":"\n
\n- Monitoring agricultural water use at country level: experiences of a pilot\nproject in Benin and Ethiopia (Annex 1, Annex 2, Annex 3, Annex 4)
\n- Proceedings of expert workshop in Latin America
\n- Cooling water for energy generation and its impact on national-level water\nstatistics
\n- Municipal and industrial water withdrawal modelling for the years 2000 and\n2005 using statistical methods
\n- Disambiguation of waters statistics
\n
The first phase of GEMI implementation (2015–2018) focused on the development of methodologies and other support tools for monitoring SDG 6, the global rollout of SDG 6 monitoring and associated capacity building efforts, as well as the establishment of a global baseline for SDG targets 6.3 to 6.6.
\nBetween April and November 2016, the draft monitoring methodologies for SDG 6 global indicators were pilot tested in six countries, with the objective to collect feedback on technical feasibility, usefulness of resultant data for policy making, possible institutional models for implementation, and capacity requirements. The final output was to improve and revise the methodologies as necessary based on lessons learned, and to inform the process of global implementation of the methodologies starting in 2017.
\nThe so-called \"proof-of-concept\" countries selected were: Senegal and Uganda in Africa, Jordan in the Middle East, Bangladesh in Southern and Eastern Asia, Peru in Latin America and The Netherlands in Europe.\nOne of the first tasks was to organize inception workshops in these countries, as follows: Senegal 25-26 April 2016, Jordan 22-23 May 2016, Peru 30-31 May 2016, Uganda 15-16 June 2016, Bangladesh mid-July 2016. FAO-AQUASTAT was responsible for the organization of these workshops in Senegal and Peru.\nThe main objectives of the national inception workshops were to:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Introduce the SDG-water work at high policy level and collect the relevant political support to its activity
\n- Establish the national teams that will work on the preparation of each indicator and discuss with them the relevant steps to be taken
\n- Define a common framework at national level for the harmonized and synergetic achievement of all the water-related indicators
\n- Review available options and identify capacity gaps>* Outline possibilities for a regional approach
\n
The two-day inception workshop with five main objectives was organized in coordination with the Ministry of Water and Sanitation and with the essential support of the FAO Representation. Almost sixty persons attended the event, ten of whom were women.
\nSession 1
\nThe workshop was opened by the FAO Representative in Senegal and the Technical Advisor of the Ministry of Water and Sanitation. Both stressed the importance of a proper use of water resources in Senegal, and how improved data collection and management would be useful to support the relevant decision-making processes, with the objective of sustainable development.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fprojects%2FSEN_Workshop.png?alt=media&token=02628bfa-32fd-47a8-ba35-edea9cad08f0\")
Policies, data and instruments available in Senegal to undertake the monitoring of water resources have been illustrated by the representatives of key national institutions, such as the Ministry of Water and Sanitation and the Millennium Programme of Drinking Water and Sanitation. The AQUASTAT programme manager gave an Introductory presentation on the GEMI project.\nIn the discussions that followed, it became clear that Senegal has several sets of data on water and sanitation, but that there are two major areas of concern: the quality of the data available and the poor coordination and harmonization of procedures among the various institutions which deal with this subject.
\nSession 2
\nThe participants from FAO, WHO and UNEP gave introductory presentations on each of the four targets, which are the subject of the project: target 6.3 related to wastewater treatment and water quality, target 6.4 related to water use efficiency and water stress, target 6.5 related to integrated water resources management and transboundary basins, and target 6.6 related to water-related ecosystems. All indicators of each target were described. The work continued in four working groups, one per each GEMI target, aimed at understanding the main characteristics of the situation of the country in relation to the availability of data.
\nSession 3
\nRapporteurs from each group illustrated the conclusions of each working group. During the discussion that followed, the main issues for each target were identified and the institutional interest to work on one or another of the targets and indicators clarified. A draft work plan, including the provisional distribution of work, was prepared.
\nSession 4
\nThe last half day was reserved for the GEMI target focal points to hold more specific technical sessions by target. FAO, being the custodian agency for Target 6.4, held this extra session to discuss some of the technical details of the computation of indicators 6.4.1 on water use efficiency and 6.4.2 on water stress. The meaning of each variable needed was discussed and the main issues for the collection of the relevant data were put forward. Issues related to the coordination among the different national institutions were noted as one of the main potential obstacles, but at the same time it was noted also that an increased collaboration, as fostered by the project, could reveal a higher data availability than initially expected.
\nNo objection was put forward to the overall proposed methodology for the computation of the indicators. The participants only remarked the need to ensure that the methodology would not be heavily changed after the piloting exercise. Although the reason of the proof-of-concept (POC) phase is precisely to check the soundness of the methodology, the FAO team replied that the modularity of the methodology should ensure that the final output will be usable for the final indicator, even in the case of the foreseeable possible modification that could still occur.
\nThe GEMI workshop in Senegal was the first of all country inception workshops to be held in the POC phase and marked the actual start of the project activities in the countries. It can be considered successful, showing large and active participation by a varied range of national and international actors.
\nThe commitment shown by the government, represented by the national focal point, was excellent. He and his staff share a large part of the merit of the success of the initiative. Also remarkable was the support of the FAO Representation, and the linkage and collaboration between the FAO Representation and the government.
\nThe actual output of the workshop was positive. An initial work plan has been drafted, including a preliminary division of tasks on the various targets among the different institutions. The national partners have committed to meet again by the end of May, to produce a more defined work plan and timeline.
\nThe data collection and the computation of the indicators is supposed to begin just after the national meeting. Each target team will follow up.
\nJe voudrais tout d'abord, au nom du M. Jose Graziano da Silva, Directeur général de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO), partager le réel plaisir de me retrouver, ce matin, avec vous, dans le cadre de la tenue de l'atelier technique sur l'Objectif de Développement durable (ODD) 6, relatif à l'eau et à l'assainissement et à l'initiative GEMI \"Suivi Intégré des cibles des ODD 6 relatives à l'eau et à l'assainissement\".
\nVous me permettrez aussi d'exprimer la profonde gratitude de l'Institution au Gouvernement du Sénégal à travers Son Excellence Monsieur Mansour FAYE, Ministre de l'hydraulique et de l'assainissement, pour toute la mobilisation de son équipe dans le cadre de l'organisation du présent atelier technique.
\nAdoptés en septembre 2015 par les États membres de l'Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) lors de son Assemblée générale de septembre 2015, les ODD sont un nouvel ensemble d'objectifs, de cibles et d'indicateurs que les États membres se sont engagés à utiliser pour encadrer leurs agendas et leurs politiques au cours des 15 prochaines années. Les ODD suivent et élargissent les objectifs du millénaire pour le développement (OMD), approuvés par les gouvernements en 2001 pour une période de 15 ans, finissant en fin 2015.
\nLes OMD ont fourni aux gouvernements un cadre d'élaboration de politiques et de programmes visant à éliminer la pauvreté et à améliorer la vie des personnes pauvres ainsi qu'un point de ralliement aux Organisations non gouvernementales (ONG). Néanmoins, selon un large consensus, ils paraissent trop limités. Les 8 OMD: (i) n'ont pas réussi à adresser les causes profondes de la pauvreté; (ii) ont négligé les inégalités de genre et la nature holistique du développement; (iii) n'ont fait aucune mention des droits humains; (iv) n'ont spécifiquement pas traité de développement économique. Si, en théorie, les OMD étaient applicables à tous les pays, en réalité, ils ont surtout été considérés comme des cibles à réaliser pour les pays pauvres avec le financement des États riches.
\nA l'inverse, aujourd'hui, tous les pays doivent s'impliquer dans la mise en œuvre et la réalisation des ODD. Contrairement aux OMD, développés d'une façon \"top down\" au sein de l'ONU, les ODD ont été élaborés avec les États membres. L'ONU a, en effet, mené le programme de consultation le plus grand de son histoire, pour jauger l'opinion sur ce que les ODD devraient inclure. En conséquence, 17 objectifs, 169 cibles et environ 250 indicateurs ont été identifiés. L'objectif 6 est entièrement consacré aux aspects divers de l'eau douce.
\nL'eau salubre et accessible à tous est un objectif essentiel du monde où nous voulons bien vivre. Il y a de l'eau douce, à suffisance, sur la planète pour y parvenir. Cependant, la pénurie d'eau, la mauvaise qualité de l'eau et un assainissement inadéquat impactent négativement sur la santé, la sécurité alimentaire, les choix de moyens de subsistance et les possibilités d'éducation pour les familles pauvres. Cette problématique globale provient soit d'un mauvais usage de cette ressource, non assez rationalisé ni durable, soit d'insuffisance d'infrastructures. La sécheresse affecte aussi certains des pays les plus pauvres de la planète, y aggravant ainsi la faim et la malnutrition.
\nDes données fiables sur le secteur de l'eau devraient contribuer à: (i) appuyer une stratégie réelle et active de sensibilisation; (ii) stimuler l'engagement politique et les investissements publics et privés; (iii) éclairer la prise de décision à tous les niveaux; (iv) entraîner des investissements bien placés, favorisant des gains optimums dans les secteurs de la santé, de l'environnement et de l'économie.
\nAu fil du temps, le suivi des avancées de l'ODD 6 peut devenir une source d'information sur les meilleures pratiques et soutenir l'intégration productive dans tous les secteurs concernés par des ODD. En outre, des investissements éclairés permettront une utilisation efficace des ressources financières, humaines et naturelles.
\nL'initiative de suivi Intégré des cibles de l'ODD lié à l'eau, appelé GEMI, a été créée en 2014 comme une initiative inter-agence opérant dans le cadre des activités de ONU-Eau. Les agences concernées sont: le Programme des Nations Unies pour l'Environnement (PNUE), l'ONU-Habitat, le Fonds des Nations Unies pour l'Enfance (UNICEF), l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO), l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Education, la Science et la Culture (UNESCO), l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) et l'Organisation Météorologique Mondiale (OMM). GEMI est principalement financée par la Coopération suisse, avec l'apport supplémentaire de la Coopération allemande.
\nLes objectifs de GEMI, à long terme, sont: (i) de mettre en place et de gérer, d'ici 2030, un cadre cohérent de suivi pour l'eau et l'assainissement afin d'informer la période post-2015 ; (ii) de contribuer aux progrès des pays à par une prise de décision bien motivée sur l'eau, sur la base d'une information harmonisée, globale, rapide et précise. Ce sont là des objectifs ambitieux.
\nGEMI permet aux États membres de poursuivre leurs intérêts nationaux de suivi avec flexibilité, d'aborder les problèmes nationaux et régionaux, tout en maintenant la compatibilité avec les efforts globaux de suivi. La collecte de données combinera par ailleurs des méthodologies traditionnelles et innovantes.
\nNotre engagement commun est de travailler ensemble pour atteindre ces objectifs, en collaboration avec nos partenaires dans les États membres et de contribuer, par le biais d'un meilleur système de suivi de l'eau, à un développement soutenu et durable. Je reste convaincu que les acteurs présents, ici, contribueront à l'essor de cette belle et noble entreprise.
\nJe souhaite plein succès à l'initiative GEMI et aux présents travaux.
\nThe two-day inception workshop was organized by UN-Habitat and UNESCO, in coordination with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. About forty persons attended the event, eleven of whom were women.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fprojects%2FJOR_Workshop.jpg?alt=media&token=1cbb2fa8-b23e-40af-b5a4-0bc69a7244c5\")
At the opening session, the FAO Representative of Jordan gave an opening speech, together with the representatives of UN-Habitat, UNESCO, WHO, and the Swiss Cooperation.
\nThe acting Secretary General of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation gave a welcome address, highlighting the importance of water monitoring, both at global and at national level, as well as of a multisectoral approach to water resources management. He stressed the importance of such approach and knowledge for Jordan, a country with limited water resources and facing several issues, including a serious and extended refugees crisis. For this, a water knowledge management system is planned to be established.
\nSession 1
\nPolicies, data and instruments available in Jordan to support the monitoring of water resources and the plans to increase water availability have been illustrated by the representatives of key institutions, such as the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and the MDG+ Initiative. The GEMI project was introduced by UN-Habitat.
\nSession 2
\nFAO, WHO, UNESCO, UN-Habitat and UNEP gave introductory presentations on each of the four targets (6.3-6.6), which are the subject of the project, and all the relevant indicators. Also targets 6.1 and 6.2 were introduced by WHO. FAO introduced the proposed methodology for the assessment of the two indicators under Target 6.4, for which FAO is the custodian agency: Indicator 6.4.1 \"Change in water-use efficiency over time\" and Indicator 6.4.2 \"Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources\".
\nThe work continued in four working groups, one for each GEMI target. The discussion in the group on Target 6.4 focused mainly on the relevance of the indicators for Jordan. In particular, the discussion was on the water stress indicator 6.4.2. The participants argued that, given the extremely scarce water resources of the country, the indicator would systematically exceed 100 percent, making little sense in terms of policy-making. However, it remains important to keep this indicator, since every decrease would mean that increasingly alternative sources of water are used, such as desalinated water or direct use of wastewater, rather than depleting renewable groundwater resources and/or using non-renewable fossil groundwater, which would contribute to improving sustainability. After discussion, it was proposed that in addition to the standard indicator one supplementary indicator would be prepared, focusing on the sources of water and of the water withdrawal with an emphasis on getting water to the people.
\nSession 3
\nThis session consisted of a panel discussion, which was organized to debate the regional implications and perspectives of the GEMI project. The panel was composed of a representative of WHO, UNEP and the MDG+ regional initiative. A discussion followed, highlighting the potentiality for the dissemination of the project initiative in the Near East sub-region, although its actual implementation should be postponed till results of the present initiative are available.
\nSession 4
\nIn the final session the outcome of the working groups was reported. The discussion that followed led to confirm the role of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation as overall coordinator of the GEMI activity in Jordan.
\nThe workshop was organized in coordination with the GEMI focal point in the country and with the essential support of the FAO Representation. About eighty-five persons attended the event, twenty of whom were women.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fprojects%2FPER_Workshop.png?alt=media&token=6f972738-4dec-48cc-9a0a-8b5f7be046a1\")
Day 1
\nThe workshop was opened by the Chief of the National Water Authority (ANA), the FAO Representative in Peru and the Representative of WHO/Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). They stressed the importance of a proper use of water resources in Peru in the context of the SDG process, and how improved data collection and management would be useful to support the relevant decision-making processes, with the objective of sustainable development of the country.
\nPolicies, data and instruments available in Peru to undertake the monitoring of water resources were illustrated by the representatives of key national institutions, such as the Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Institute of Statistics and Information and ANA.
\nAll the main topics of the SDG 6 were touched upon in the national presentations. Particular focus was given to the connections between the SDG and the national policies related to the water sector, in terms of management of water resources, ecosystem protection and sanitation.
\nThe issues of the quality of water resources and their utilization for irrigation were specifically analysed by the presenters, showing the efforts and programmes that Peru is putting in place to improve the management of its resources. Also, the start of the implementation of a national information system on water resources was described, highlighting the importance of more and better data for the preparation and implementation of strategies for natural resources management and sustainable development.
\nFAO, WHO, UNESCO and UNEP gave introductory presentations on each of the four targets (6.3-6.6), which are the subject of the project. Also targets 6.1 and 6.2 were introduced by WHO. All indicators of each target were described. FAO presented the proposed methodology for the assessment of the two indicators under Target 6.4, for which FAO is the custodian agency: 6.4.1 - Change in water-use efficiency over time and 6.4.2 - Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources.
\nThe work continued in four working groups, one per each GEMI target. The discussion in the group on Target 6.4 focused on the availability of data and on the methodology proposed for the indicators, particularly on water stress. The need to refine the national methodology for the assessment of the water resources in the country was highlighted, in order to take into consideration the particular climatic conditions of the upper part of the river basins.
\nDay 2
\nOn the second day, rapporteurs from each group illustrated the conclusions of their working group, and a discussion followed leading to the preparation of a provisional work plan. The discussion was led by the FAO facilitator and the national GEMI focal point from ANA. The work plan includes the identification of the national focal points for each target, the list of expected outcomes and a timeline for their achievement by the end of October 2016.
\nThe workshop was closed by final remarks by the FAO Representative and by the national GEMI focal point for the government.
\nExternal links
\nANA informed about the workshop through its official media, with an article and a video (both in Spanish).
\nThe workshop was organized by UNEP, GEMI coordinating agency for Uganda. About 60 people participated.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fprojects%2FUGA_Workshop.png?alt=media&token=8e39460c-7951-40ee-a132-97d78859b0d6\")
After a general introduction and welcome addresses, a session on the situation of water resources and relevant policies in Uganda was held. Also the availability and relevance of the existing data and data collection process was discussed. Finally, a general presentation on the GEMI project was given by the GEMI Global Monitoring Officer, who also introduced the SDG targets and indicators under Goal 6.\nIn the next session, working groups were formed for each target. The main objectives of the workshop for the FAO-led target 6.4 were to:
\n\n\n\n
\n- identify a national team and a coordinator, within the national institutions participating in the workshop, who will carry out the work on the preparation of the SDG indicators on water use efficiency and water stress
\n- start a discussion on the feasibility and suitability of the proposed indicators for Uganda
\n
The 6.4 Target Team discussed the technical aspects of the computation of indicators 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 and the availability of capacity and information to carry out the task. In particular, parameters such as the gross value added produced by rainfed agriculture, the external renewable water resources and the environmental water requirements will require specific attention and adaptation of methodology.
\nAn Action Plan for target 6.4 was prepared. A follow-up technical meeting is planned for 5-7 July 2016.
\nThe outcome of the working groups were discussed in the plenary in the last session.
\nThe main outcomes of the workshop have been formulated as follows:
\n\n\n\n
\n- The meeting generally agreed that the indicators are suitable and relevant to Uganda
\n- There is need to refine the definitions of the indicators and agree on the terminology in line with what is already tracked in the country and region
\n- Identification of the relevant sources of data at national level must start immediately
\n- Strengthened capacity (phased for the entire process of data collection) is key for the success of the pilot phase
\n- The Ministry of Water and Environment will have the coordination role of GEMI in Uganda
\n- A stronger linkage with sectoral stakeholders will be sought to increase the awareness and ownership of the project results
\n- The Global Water Partnership Eastern Africa will coordinate GEMI activities under the supervision of UNEP
\n
The national GEMI focal point and the national GEMI coordinator organized a meeting on 5 July 2016, in which about 20 people participated. The main purpose was to explain the project to the four national target teams (6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6) and to illustrate the relevant indicators for each target. During the initial session, the GEMI national focal point and the GEMI national coordinator illustrated the project, including a quick review of each indicator's methodology. A work plan for each target team was prepared in order to be able to fulfil the deadline of mid-September 2016 for the preparation of the preliminary baseline for the indicators, as planned at the inception workshop held in Kampala on 15-16 June 2016 (see above).
\nThe FAO coordinator of the GEMI project participated in the meeting, providing inputs on the overall SDG process and the role of Uganda as a POC country.
\nTechnical workshop on SDG target 6.4
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fprojects%2FUGA_Workshop2.png?alt=media&token=510fa5ad-8b30-4464-a965-e2e586dd02e5\")
On 5-7 July 2016 a technical workshop was held in Kampala to introduce the team for target 6.4 to the proposed methodology for the compilation of the two indicators and to prepare a work plan for the POC phase.
\nThe workshop started with a discussion on the metadata of the indicators, followed by an introduction on data collection, including data availability in the country. Following mostly AQUASTAT as an example, the FAO GEMI coordinator discussed with the participants the meaning and availability of each of the parameters needed to compute the two indicators. A questionnaire for data collection, derived from the AQUASTAT questionnaire, was illustrated.
\nThe second part of the workshop included a test on the computation of the indicators. The participants were divided in two groups, one for each indicator. Following the metadata as discussed previously, each group computed the indicator using both national data and data available in international databases. Following the exercise, the FAO GEMI coordinator gave a presentation on AQUASTAT, including a live-on-internet show of its main features.
\nThe workshop concluded with the preparation of the work plan and timeline for the POC phase in Uganda, aiming for a completion of the activity by mid-September 2016, as indicated during the GEMI inception workshop.
\nThe workshop was organized over two and half days at UNESCO-IHE in Delft as the first activity of the Netherlands as GEMI Proof of Concept (POC) country.\nThe aim of the workshop was: to discuss whether the POC process of the Netherlands is on track, to share feedback, to discuss the proposed methods and indicators, and to identify whether any additional actions need to be undertaken in the context of the POC activities.
\nThe Dutch indicator coordinators, representatives from the GEMI-Target Teams from UN organizations, key representatives of the other POC countries and international experts were invited. In total 70 people participated, 27 of whom were women.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fprojects%2FNLD_Workshop.png?alt=media&token=7eeb397a-ffd2-4f60-9d83-45be0cfeacbc\")
The workshop began with welcome addresses by representatives of the Dutch Government and UNESCO. They highlighted the importance of a proper SDG monitoring system and the continuity between the MDG and the SDG processes. They underlined the importance of exchanging experiences as well as the worldwide occurrence of problems linked to water scarcity and management. They stressed the need to integrate all water related targets, i.e. the entire goal 6 plus target 11.5.
\nIn his intervention, the GEMI Coordinator identified four principles for the establishment of a monitoring system:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Integration between different sources of data and various disciplines, like hydrology, economy, ecology, etc.
\n- Harmonization between various pre-existing standards and concepts>* Progressive monitoring, from simple to more complex approaches according to the monitoring capacity available in any country
\n- Inclusion to ensure that no one is left behind, to be achieved through disaggregation of the data according to various parameters, both geographical and socio-economic.
\n
The representative of the Netherlands presented the Dutch approach in monitoring the SDGs as POC country. A coordinator has been appointed for each indicator and the national institutions that should be involved in the monitoring have been identified. They are checking which information is already gathered in the Netherlands and at European level, which additional information can be measured, what feedback can be provided on the set indicator and the proposed monitoring method, in terms of feasibility and efficacy.
\nIn the following session, the representatives of the other POC countries present - Jordan, Peru, Senegal and Uganda - gave a brief presentation on the status of the project in their countries. They highlighted the steps already undertaken to implement the monitoring system, as well as peculiarities that may need country-specific adaptation of the indicator framework.
\nWorking group discussions were held on each individual indicator. The participants were able to discuss the technicalities, the interpretation and the policy implication of each indicator.
\nFor the FAO-led indicators (6.4.1 and 6.4.2), a thorough discussion took place on the meaning and interpretation of indicator 6.4.1 on water use efficiency. The importance of having disaggregation by economic sector was highlighted, as well as the need for a better clarification of water use efficiency in the services sector. The issue of using water consumption instead of water withdrawal in computing the indicator was considered. A discussion on the relevance of the indicator for policy decision followed, focusing on the linkage between water use efficiency and economic growth.
\nIn the group on indicator 6.4.2 on water stress, an important issue was raised by Jordan on its applicability in hyper-arid regions, arguing that where it indicates more than 100 percent stress there are problems in defining the meaning of it. In the following discussion, it was proposed that Jordan develops a supplementary indicator, based not only on renewable water resources, but including also non-conventional sources such as desalinated water or wastewater. A comparison between the main and the supplementary indicator should provide a better insight into the situation of water resources of an arid country. FAO clarified that desalinated water and direct use of wastewater and of agricultural drainage water are considered in the definition of the indicators (i.e. deducted from total water withdrawal to obtain freshwater withdrawal), but a distinction between the use of primary freshwater and secondary freshwater (wastewater and agricultural drainage water discharged to system and mixed with primary freshwater) is in most cases still very difficult or impossible, as can be the case also for over-abstraction of renewable groundwater or extraction of fossil groundwater.
\nAnother important subject of discussion was the need for disaggregation of the indicator, in spatial, temporal and socio-economic terms. Disaggregation would also be needed to address the pending request by the IAEG-SDG to define an indicator on the impact of water scarcity on people livelihood which, if accepted, would then be a third indicator for target 6.4. Finally, the linkage between this indicator and 6.3.1 on water quality was highlighted.
\nAll the POC countries confirmed their capability to report on these indicators. However, the need for professional translation of the metadata and guidelines in each country communication languages was stressed by the participants.
\nThe second day started with a session dedicated to the summary of the group work of the previous day. The main issues illustrated were:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Ownership of the data, particularly in case an online system is to be used, should be clear. Ownership is to remain with the countries, and this should be reflected in the setup of any implementation tool.
\n- New opportunities of data collection should be explored, particularly those provided by the development of mobile communication and computing.
\n- In the context of the monitoring ladder concept, a proposal of adding parameters over time to a certain indicator (6.3.2) in order to make it more accurate was presented. The issues related to the backward comparability were also discussed.
\n- The criteria for scoring indicator 6.5.2 were discussed, with the proposal of a less rigid scoring system, which however seems not to be compatible with the general definition of the indicator.
\n- Which ecosystems should be included in the scope of indicator 6.6.1 was discussed.
\n- A proposal to include the DPSIR framework in the guidelines for indicator-based policy-making was discussed and generally appreciated.
\n
In a following session, country representatives were asked to comment on the Review Framework for the POC phase which was prepared by GEMI. The main points emerged were already discussed in earlier sessions. One specific issue was the need for economic incentives for supporting SDG monitoring, which was defined in the sense of highlighting the usefulness of the monitoring in the development process.
\nFinally, a panel session on the disaggregation of data was held, focusing on data collection tools and the various types of disaggregation as an important source of information for decision-making processes.
\nThe third day, morning only, was dedicated to operational issues on the implementation of the project and the establishment of country monitoring systems.
\nUNESCO-IHE prepared a video with impressions from some participants and a summary of the event.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/archive/proof-of-concept","title":"Pilot countries of the SDG6 Monitoring Project (GEMI)","menuOrder":"6"}}},{"node":{"id":"fab1bb6d-fa41-5041-a31e-65cde92ecd36","html":"This asset was last updated in 2008 and is therefore extraordinarily outdated, but is kept online at users' requests.
\nThe Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), acting as chair of the United Nations inter-agency mechanism UN-Water from 2006-2009, in close collaboration with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the African Union (AU), the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW), the African Development Bank (AfDB), and the Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) organized a Ministerial Conference on water for agriculture and energy in Africa: the challenges of climate change. This conference was held in Sirte, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from 15 to 17 December 2008.
\nThe principal aim of the conference was to examine the issue of water resources in Africa in the context of higher demand from the agriculture and energy sectors and climate change. The increase in energy costs provides further justification for the development of alternative sources of energy, in particular hydropower. The development of African agriculture, which is essentially rainfed, will also depend on expanding and improving irrigation in the face of a growing population.
\nThe conference also examined investment needs and management problems for harnessing water and irrigation at village level, for the rehabilitation of large-scale hydro-agricultural works and for the development of major river basins. The focus was on concrete programmes and the assessment of their financing costs, both in terms of feasibility studies and implementation of works.
\nThe conference adopted a dynamic visionary framework that primarily considered the actions/outputs stated in the Declaration of the Sirte 2004 Conference as its entry point. Since new pressing challenges have emerged, and need to be robustly tackled, a renewed strength has been added to the commitments agreed upon in 2004. In particular, there was a need to address the linkages between water and energy at an accelerated pace focusing on the impacts of climate change on the use of these resources.
\nOne of the main outcomes of the conference was the production of national investment briefs (NIBs) for all African countries with estimated investment needs in water for agriculture and energy based on a review and updating of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and other investment projections at both country and river basin levels.
\n\n Algeria\nAngola\nBenin\nBotswana\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCameroon\nCabo Verde\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nComoros\nCongo\nCôte d'Ivoire\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDjibouti\nEgypt\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEthiopia\nGabon\nGambia\nGhana\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nKenya\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMali\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMorocco\nMozambique\nNamibia\nNiger\nNigeria\nRwanda\nSao Tome and Principe\nSenegal\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSudan\nSwaziland\nTogo\nTunisia\nUganda\nUnited Republic of Tanzania\nZambia\nZimbabwe\n\nWater-related investment envelopes by country
\n\n\n
\n\nWater-related investment envelopes by region
\n\n
\n Algeria (F)\nAngola (E)\nBenin (F)\nBotswana (E)\nBurkina Faso (F)\nBurundi (F)\nCameroon (F)\nCabo Verde (F)\nCentral African Republic (F)\nChad (F)\nComoros (F)\nCongo (F)\nCôte d'Ivoire (F)\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo (F)\nDjibouti (F)\nEgypt (E)\nEquatorial Guinea (S)\nEritrea (E)\nEthiopia (E)\nGabon (F)\nGambia (E)\nGhana (E)\nGuinea (F)\nGuinea-Bissau (F)\nKenya (E)\nLesotho (E)\nLiberia (E)\nLibya (E)\nMadagascar (F)\nMalawi (E)\nMali (F)\nMauritania (F)\nMauritius (E)\nMorocco (F)\nMozambique (E)\nNamibia (E)\nNiger (F)\nNigeria (E)\nRwanda (F)\nSao Tome and Principe (F)\nSenegal (F)\nSeychelles (E)\nSierra Leone (E)\nSomalia (E)\nSouth Africa (E)\nSudan (E)\nSwaziland (E)\nTogo (F)\nTunisia (F)\nUganda (E)\nUnited Republic of Tanzania (E)\nZambia (E)\nZimbabwe (E)\nWater-related project portfolios by country
\n\n\n
The NIBs contain information about national investment needs, trade, climate change and polices for water, agriculture and energy in each of the 53 African countries.
\nInvestment needs have been assessed based on the NEPAD-CAADP and other investment projections, including NEPAD National Medium Term Investment Programmes (NMTIP) and National Programmes for Food Security (NPFS). Recently implemented, on-going and pipeline projects as well as Bankable Investment Project Profiles (BIPPs) are presented in the NIBs.
\nThe highly participatory approach that led to the compilation of the NIBs consisted in a series of consultations in order to achieve an updated and reliable insight on the water resources and uses for agriculture and energy in each African country.
\nA Draft 0 of the NIBs was prepared by for each country the Conference Secretariat which, for reasons of data coherence and uniformity of sources, included a chart exhibiting the trade balance, a map of water control, and an annex reporting the main data on irrigation and energy resources in the country. The Drafts 0, together with profound guidelines for the compilation of the NIB, were used by national consultants who had been recruited to complete their country NIB, in close collaboration with the national authorities.
\nThe work of the national consultants, revised by the Conference Secretariat and a larger team including FAO regional and sub-regional officers, resulted in Draft 1 of the NIBs and was submitted to the relevant ministries (agriculture, energy, and water resources) before a consultation process took place to validate information and finalize content in each of the five regions:
\nThe five regional workshops took place between October and December 2008 and saw the participation of representatives from the relevant ministries of each African country. One of the main objectives of the workshops was the revision of the NIBs, with a particular focus on the Investment Envelope and the Projects Portfolio. The consultations led to some immediate results where representatives of different ministries amended and updated the content of the NIBs during the workshop, and some delayed results, where various revisions have been received after the workshops – both providing a more updated list of projects or more precise country information.
\nModifications and amendments were incorporated and Draft 2 of the NIBs was produced and sent to the national governments for final revision and endorsement before the Sirte Conference.
\nAll NIBs have then been amended and completed following the directions received.
\nThe NIBs have been prepared in a standard format so as to allow for regional aggregation and analysis.
\nEach NIB starts with an executive summary, which includes paragraphs on: i) poverty and food security; ii) agriculture, irrigation, and climate change; iii) water resources and hydropower; iv) national development agenda; v) financial envelop for investment programmes and projects at short, medium and long terms.
\nChapter 1 contains a description of the agriculture and food security, water resources and hydropower, and climate change situation in the country. Section 1.1 on agriculture and food security include information on: i) gross domestic product (GDP), role of agriculture in the economy, rural employment; ii) typology of agricultural holdings (small scale, emerging, commercial, etc.); iii) irrigation potential, extent of irrigation area, typology of irrigation and water control holdings, statistics, main crops, state of infrastructure; iv) undernourishment, trends, time to achieve Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 and World Food Summit (WFS) targets; v) food and agriculture trade and import balance, which describes the trends of agricultural import and export, food commercial bills and major food commodities imported. The trade of agricultural products of the country over the last 35 years is shown and explained in figures, with short analysis about the reasons behind the trends and sharp changes of values over the years. Section 1.2 on water resources and hydropower contains information on the river network, water resources, dams and their capacity, groundwater, intensity of use and percentage water resources originating outside the country, and hydropower (installed capacity, potential). Section 1.3 on climate change addresses the different climate change issues in the country such as: i) different evidences of climatic change and their different impacts and significance; ii) the future scenarios, challenges and expected impacts of climate change on agriculture natural resources; iii) the adaptation to climate change and the required major shifts in policies and practices aimed at protecting natural resources from further degradation; iv) the country policies and framework for actions to mitigate climate change effects.
\nChapter 2 contains information on national strategies for water, agriculture and energy and an estimate of the national investment envelope and the project portfolio. Section 2.1 on the policy context describes the different strategies, programmes, polices of the country and its action plans: i) the national development agenda, poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSP), national food security programme; ii) agricultural policy, strategy and programmes; iii) irrigation policy, strategy and programmes; iv) water development policy, strategy and programmes; v) energy policy, strategy and programmes. The investment envelope in chapter 2.2 represents the country’s estimated investment needs in water for agriculture and energy in the short term (year 1-4), medium term (year 5-8) and long term (beyond year 8). Investments were divided into small-scale water control, rehabilitation of large irrigation schemes, and large scale hydraulic projects, including new large irrigation schemes, dams, and river basin transfer works. The table was pre-filled with NEPAD-CAADP estimates for water management and land improvement. In the project portfolio in chapter 2.3 projects larger than US$1 million are reported. They are organized in three categories: projects recently achieved (less than 5 years ago); on-going projects; pipeline projects. A short description of each is provided, indicating expected outputs. The main sources for the table are: NEPAD national mid-term project profiles; NEPAD bankable investment project profiles; World Bank, IFAD, AfDB, national governments.
\nAs a result of the undertaken process, the programmatic framework for investment can be synthetically presented as follows:
\nThe investment framework specifies and distinguishes: a) the size of project infrastructure: small-scale irrigation, rehabilitation of irrigation, large hydraulic projects; b) the time frame: short term (< 4 years), medium term (4-8 years) and long term (> 8 years).
\nThe highest proportion of the cost is noticeably allocated to large-scale projects including large-scale irrigation schemes development and hydropower projects. Similarly, 56 percent of the total investment envelope is expected to be exhausted in the medium term, showing a clear need to enhance the planning for investments in the long term to ensure sustained and permanent growth in the agriculture and energy sector to meet the food and energy security goals (Table 1.
\nAs demonstrated by the results of the preparatory work for the Sirte Conference, West Africa, with the great hydropower potential to be exploited, accounts for 32 percent of the continental investment envelope. Southern Africa, East Africa and North Africa have a share of 26, 24, and 15 percent respectively, while the residual 3 percent is for Central Africa, indicating that more effort should be made in that region to undertake project formulation and feasibility studies in the water sector, particularly considering the enormous hydropower potential not yet exploited (Table 2).
\nAt the end of the conference the Declaration of Sirte 2008 Conference was presented and adopted.
\nThe following is a list of the primary web links from which most information was derived to prepare the National Investment Briefs, in addition to specific information made available by the country.
\n\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/overview/archive/investments","title":"Water-related investment envelopes and project portfolios for Africa","menuOrder":"1"}}}]}},"pageContext":{"categoryRegexp":"/^/overview/i"}},"staticQueryHashes":["1815093829","2361256228","46855301"]}\n
\n- African Development Bank country information
\n- African Development Bank project database
\n- AQUASTAT, FAO’s global information system on water and agriculture
\n- AQUASTAT country profiles
\n- FAO Statistics. Trends in hunger reduction for the monitoring of the WFS and MDG targets
\n- FAO 2003. Technical Cooperation Department. Field programme activities. Country project database
\n- IFAD operations by country
\n- NEPAD Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)
\n- UNDP Human Development Report 2006 – Background papers
\n- World Bank country information
\n- World Bank country water resources assistance strategy
\n- World Bank project database
\n- World Bank and AfDB climate change consultations
\n