Table 2 Agricultural impacts through water conservation and management.

From: Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for Sustainable Development Goals implementation

Scenario

Total kcal production

Irrigated kcal production

Total area affected (kcal loss≥10%)

Irrigated area affected (kcal loss≥10%)

Irrigation water withdrawal

Irrigation water consumption

 

(% change)

(% change)

(%)

(%)

(% change)

(% change)

1. No irrigation

−14.7

−44.4

32.5

81.3

−100.0

−100.0

2. Respect EFR

−4.6 (±0.8)

−13.9 (±2.5)

16.1 (±1.8)

52.2 (±3.9)

−41.4 (±5.8)

−35.1 (±5.6)

3. Respect EFR with irrigation upgrade

−0.1 (±1.0)

5.6 (±2.9)

12.0 (±2.4)

33.6 (±7.4)

−54.4 (±4.3)

−34.8 (±5.2)

4. Respect EFR with integrated water management

9.9 (±1.0)

6.8 (±2.9)

8.2 (±2.0)

30.5 (±7.5)

−55.7 (±4.3)

−36.8 (±5.2)

  1. Change in global kcal production and the proportion of affected area (kcal loss ≥ 10%) is shown for the total absence of irrigation (1.), irrigation constrained by environmental flow requirements (EFRs) (2.), upgraded irrigation constrained by EFRs (3.) and integrated water management constrained by EFRs (4.)—all compared to the current situation (1980–2009). Scenario setups are detailed in Table 1. Also listed are associated changes in irrigation water withdrawal (IWD) and consumption (IWC). Note that kcal production and area affected refer to cropland area, while IWD and IWC refer to the total irrigated area (incl. cash crops, cotton and so on). Precipitation still partly sustains production on irrigated land in 1. 2–4. refer to the mean of three EFR methods (with s.d. in parentheses), Supplementary Table 1 presents respective absolute values.
Back to article page