How the global food trade drains water from poor communities

Water is on the move every day in the global food trade, as massive shipments cross international borders. Wheat from Kansas ends up in Cairo. Rice from Vietnam fills supermarket shelves in London. Most people only see the final product.

Behind every ton of traded grain is something invisible and critical – water. Where that water goes, or doesn’t go, is changing who has enough and who’s left behind.

There’s a name for this invisible movement: the virtual water trade. It refers to the water used to grow crops that are then shipped elsewhere. It may not be in a bottle, but that water is as real as any lake or reservoir – and its journey has serious consequences.

How the virtual water trade works

Let’s break this down. When a country imports food, it’s saving water. That’s because the crops were grown somewhere else using someone else’s water. Wealthier countries can afford to do this a lot. By buying food, they ease pressure on their own water supplies.

On the flip side, countries that export food lose water. It’s baked into every ton of corn, soy, or sugar they send abroad. For many of these countries, water is already scarce. And when it’s gone, it’s not coming back.

It’s easy to think this system is win-win, but it’s not that simple. A new report from the UN Institute for Water, Environment and Health shows that while food trade can reduce water stress in many places, it can also make things worse for others – especially people living in poorer areas.

Inequalities in the virtual water trade

According to the report, virtual water transfers through food trades generally reduce water scarcity for much of the global population, while at the same time deepening shortages for millions of others, particularly those in low-income communities.

That’s a sharp contrast. On one hand, 75% of people in high-income countries and 62% in low-income countries benefit from lower water scarcity due to food imports. But the same system increases water stress for 22% of the population in wealthy countries and a much larger 37% in poorer nations.

The biggest concern? Those who lose out often have the fewest resources to deal with it. Even within rich countries, low-income groups feel the pressure the most.

Who’s gaining, who’s losing

Some regions come out ahead. Northern China, parts of Europe, and Northern Africa see real gains in savings thanks to global trade. But places like India, Pakistan, eastern Australia, and the central U.S. aren’t so lucky. They’re either treading water or sinking deeper into scarcity.

“This form of ‘virtual water trade’ reflects a broader pattern of environmental injustice around the world, where the environmental costs and risks are increasingly shifted from those who can afford to absorb them to those who cannot,” said Professor Kaveh Madani, Director of UNU-INWEH and co-author of the report.

The problem isn’t just about geography. It’s also about income. Wealthier countries can adjust, adapt, or buy their way out of trouble. Poorer ones often can’t.

No clear winners in a complex system

International food trade doesn’t create clear good or bad outcomes. Instead, it creates trade-offs. Some countries benefit, others suffer. Even within a single country, some communities get help while others face harm.

“International agricultural trade almost never produces outcomes that are purely positive or negative,” said Dr. Yue Qin, lead author of the report.

“This reality calls for more targeted and equity-oriented water and trade policies that support vulnerable populations with limited adaptive capacity and promote fair and sustainable global water governance.”

Shaping fairer water policies

The report pushes for smarter, fairer policies. It urges countries to stop focusing only on national water totals and start looking at how different groups within those countries are affected.

National governments can step up by helping lower-income communities directly. That could mean subsidies, price caps, or better infrastructure for things like wells, pumps, and pipes. On farms, switching to drip irrigation or growing less water-hungry crops can go a long way.

Trade policy matters too. Instead of relying on a few big export partners or crop types, countries can mix it up. China, for example, has shifted how it imports rice and wheat to balance demand better.

Unequal burdens of trade

Agricultural trade has made the world more connected than ever, but that interdependence comes with responsibility.

“The existing global food trade system continues to make the world’s most vulnerable people and nations more vulnerable,” said Professor Madani.

It’s a tough reality. But ignoring it won’t make it go away. Only by facing the facts – and rethinking how we move both food and water – can we start to create a system that works for everyone.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–