The author talks about a massive increase of 2.5 billion people by 2050. He mentions potential solutions to feeding these people: storing more water and more economical use of water, even though it is more than likely that there will be less and less water to store for many years to come.

Surely the best solution is to head off population growth.

“we will not be able to produce all the food, feed and fibre required in 2050 unless we improve the way we manage water.”

“When we examine the causes of the food crisis, growing population, changes in trade patterns, urbanisation, dietary changes, biofuel production, and climate change and regional droughts are all responsible.”

“there are potential solutions. These include more water storage, improved management of irrigation systems and increasing water productivity (e.g., more kg of crop per 1,000 litres of water) in irrigated and rainfed farming systems. All of these will require investment in knowledge, infrastructure and human capacity.”

The “solutions” listed will provide a buffer of sorts for the undernourished 840 million presently quoted for developing countries. (Forget the affluent,they can go back to bathing in a tub once a week).

The “solutions” will have varying degrees of positive impact: against climate change and regional droughts; and perhaps biofuel production; maybe dietary changes, urbanization,trade patterns.

On the other hand they will have a contrary effect upon growing population. Current projections has the world on track for 9 billion for 2050. The least developed, where the 840 million are, is scheduled to increase by about a billion. Undoubtedly they are presently doing it tough; so if their survival rate is to be improved by good works, how many more than a billion?

In a sane world served by sane science advisers, the causes of crises would be flagged for attention. We can address that great multiplier of them all – population pressure: Either continue doing everything to foster its continuation until natural desiccation and malnutrition does its eventual winnowing; or stand up and insist that human fertility be addressed concurrently with other “solutions”.

It is not that nothing can be done – the ability for women to control their own fertility is a starting point: A first step was taken in 1994, with world agreement. It is a great sadness that fundamentalist religions blocked its momentum - when the least developed world, presently growing at 2.4%, was less stressed by numbers.

Population increase in less-developed countries is an often recognised and voiced concern amongst many living in countries with access to universal water/sanitation coverage and spare money to purchase available birth control. There appears to be, however, less concern expressed about the developed countries' taken-for-granted daily eating, drinking, clothing, work and leisure habits that place unnecessary demands on an increasingly scarce resource - clean freshwater.

In the interest of furthering increasing market opportunities and active consumerism, we, in developed countries, have tended to lead by example, fostering expectations that similar lifestyles were desirable and achievable for developing countries. Hence,the scramble to get countries with relatively sustainable life-styles to adopt our patterns of water-intensive, often wasteful, urbanised living, industrialisation, agro-industry farming practices, eating habits, and lifestyles may be coming back to haunt us.

Many developing countries have been, or are becoming successful in emulating our wasteful ways. This behaviour has been aided by raising the expectations of 'improved' life-styles amongst an unprecedented increasing middle income and elite membership.

So, back to controlling population numbers. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves which members of populations are directly related to, and responsible for freshwater-stress. If we intend to remain as leaders and not followers then surely we need to set an example to other countries by controlling our own water-intensive bad habits first, so that these can be seen as desirable and worthy of emulation by others

The author has made no mention of the consequences of building more dams in the never ending quest to get more water. In our own country, this has led to the probably irreversible damage that has happened to the Murray River. In South-East Asia, the dams which China has built on the Mekong have led to the detriment of the downstream population in neighboring countries and so it goes on. We need to restrict our use of available water to that which the various sources can continuously supply, otherwise the environment will suffer irreversibly. On top of that we need to do much more in our cities to embrace the use of recycling such as is done in places like Singapore where all water is recycled.

Others have commented on the concurrent need to control population growth. All I can say is bring it on.

David

The Government and opposition are so out of touch- way behind on what is the real crisis. Carbon trading policy is controlling their outdated agenda when they should be looking at a Water Crisis. Carbon Trading is a furphy that ignores the environment and the community.

I heard Maude Barlow at UWA recently. Politicians should read her book Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.

WTO wants to control water, some water operations are already in public private ownership in WA. It is in a mess with sewerage overflows, contaminated rivers and rising cost to consumers. There is no future policy for food producers or consumers right to water. We must all cut down on our waste and governments must give grants to low income families to install devices to save water consumption. Industry must also cut back their waste and overuse of water immediately. I see no water tanks on all these industrial roofs! This should be compulsory for every industry. There are no state planning regulations to impose water saving. Will they ever get around to it?

Like Sybil I too was at Maude Barlow's seminar at UWS and fully support her recommendation that our politicians should be required to read both of Barlow's books on water (the former was, from memory, entitled 'Blue Gold'). Unfortunately, and I base this suspicion on the poor showing of people at her seminar, I suspect that Barlow's work tends to attract those already prepared to admit we have a water problem and who realise that we can not depend or rely on politicians, the private sector, science and/or technology to 'rescue' us from ourselves here in Australia.

After witnessing Maude Barlow's impassioned talk in the downstairs theatre venue of the Seymour Centre, surrounded by the stark and darkly foreboding set of 'The Crucible', one of the strongest messages that I took away was that despite our huge water scarcity problems we, the Australian public, do not have an Australian water justice movement to mobilise in defence of this most precious resource.

Government and media is gagging the real devastated state of the ocean environment. Scientists capable of developing solutions to causes of marine ecosystem damage are being denied insight into key ecosystem collapse indicators.

Government seems busy developing aquaculture policy to grow fish on land in spite of water and arable land shortages and feed production cost to consumers.

Marine animals are starving. Seafood dependent Pacific island people are suffering malnutrition and unrest. There is no ocean management policy.

The whole world ocean full of water with free feed to grow fish at no cost is being ignored. Vital ocean food web ecosystems are being allowed to die.

Can anyone provide reference to data proving the land and aquaculture can supply world protein food demand in place of once abundant ocean protein food supplies?

JF,
At the Crawford Conference of 2004, escalating inability of ocean fisheries to supply world needs was highlighted. Aquaculture was discussed.
Dr. Meryl Williams stated present world fish stocks were 70% open water, 30% aquaculture; 40% of fish caught is traded.
Dr. Sylvia Earle emphasized that, for humanity, fish were more important in the wild than on the plate; though it didn't negate eating of fish. Fish were regarded as birds of the sea – performing functions useful to humankind, and being the “canaries” for approaching problems for ecosystems upon which we depend.
Dr Geoff Allan noted that one tonne of aquaculture Tuna requires somewhere about 20 tonnes of fishmeal. From a world perspective, carp are better species – 10 million tonnes of Carp require 7 million tonnes of feed, not necessarily fish; and that Catfish are similar. Aquaculture fish-feed needs scientific work- eg. protein for appropriate species can be adequately provided via grain from which the bulk of starch has been removed.
Dr Peter Walker noted that caution was needed in relation to the aquaculture industry. Diseases are certain to develop, and utter disaster will be the result for impoverished farmers who have become totally dependent for income from aquaculture.

At the 2006 Crawford Conference, Dr Frank Rijsberman noted that rivers are drying up, groundwater levels are falling dramatically, and water pollution is rampant near most Asian cities. All water that falls as rain serves a purpose in nature. Ecosystems need water to provide ecosystem services.
Dr Mark Rosegrant stated that feeding the world’s growing population will depend to a large extent on irrigation, but the future of irrigation water supplies are increasingly constrained by growth in other sectors.
Dr Tushaar Shah said the Indo-Gangetic basin – indeed the whole of South Asia – has experienced a groundwater boom accounting for over 70% of irrigated areas, a response, essentially, to rapid increase in population pressure on farm lands. At 400 million, Indo-Gangetic basin is home to more poor people dependent on farming than all of Africa.

Population stabilization worth noting Mr Chartres?

Colinsett, you clearly have very considerable understanding of relevant expertise. At Sydney in the early 1980's I briefed Sylvia Earle about the world fishery depletion situation.

Who exactly possesses overall knowledge to prove aquaculture is capable in producing adequate fish protein supply at viable and affordable cost to replace world food supply no longer abundant and virtually free from the ocean? Is anybody managinging the overall situation?

In other words, what scientific evidence exists to justify apparent government and media policy to boycott or shun or ignore debate and urgent solutions to devastation of the marine environment and collapse of natural ocean protein food supplies on this planet? Why hide a cancer when there are viable and sustainable solutions?

Why does fresh water science apparently stop where river estuaries meet the coastline?

Why does the Australian CSIRO not understand the biology of alongshore current that I find is transporting fresher water and bonded nutrients that feed or pollute the Great Barrier Reef? How can river flow into coastal alongshore current be justifiably excluded from ocean ecosystem science?

Has any authority condoned destruction of the world ocean environment in the economic push to develop and expand aquaculture, pork and chicken industrial food production?

Why is there aquaculture policy but no ocean management policy? Why is nutrient pollution dumped from river and ocean outfalls unmeasured, and, unmanaged?

Solutions do not have to impact on aquaculture. The aquaculture industry could virtually abandon ponds and expand in free range unfenced marine culture regeneration of wild fish stocks in what remains of the world’s natural ocean environment. Legislation can protect investment. There is no alternative. Fertile breeding numbers of fish are at an all time low. Exponential decline of fish stocks and food web ecosystem damage is already serious and general. See:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.htm