Recherches récentes Mes recherches
Vous consultezChapter 8. Natural resources and food in the Mediterranean
AuteursRoberto Capone du même auteurCIHEAM-MAI Bari, Italy
Roberto Capone is an agronomist, who graduated from the University of Bologna (Italy) in 1987. He has been Chief Administrator of the MAI-Bari (CIHEAM-MAIB) since 2008, where he is also head of the Sustainable Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Department dealing in particular with sustainable Mediterranean Diets and traditional/typical products. He was formerly adviser to the Italian minister of agriculture for research in the Mediterranean Basin, Secretary-General of the Italian Committee for Liaison with UN organisations dealing with food and agriculture and Principal Administrator of the CIHEAM General Secretariat. He was also a member of the Italian technical committee dealing with the nomination of the Mediterranean Diet for inclusion on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list.
When one considers the exhaustion of fossil energy reserves, limited soil capacities, the degradation of ecosystems, climate change and global warming, unbalanced diets, and population increase, the current food system cannot be regarded as sustainable. Action to implement a strategy that promotes the concept of sustainable diets is thus a matter of urgency. Diets are a significant factor in a number of critical sustainability issues such as climate change, public health, social inequalities, biodiversity, the use of energy, land and water, and so on (Reddy et al., 2009).
2 The FAO (2010) defines a sustainable diet as one that ensures food for future generations, while generating minimum negative impact on the environment. It consists of food that is produced locally and is thus available, accessible and affordable for all as well as being safe and nutritious; it furthermore protects the incomes of farmers and other workers as well as the cultures of consumers and communities. A sustainable diet places nutrition, food and biodiversity at the core of sustainable development and people’s right to food. In order to be considered sustainable, Mediterranean Diets should thus, inter alia, have low environmental impact, protect and respect biodiversity and eco -systems, and optimise the use of natural resources.
3 Diets affect various factors ? agricultural, nutritional, environmental, social, cultural, economic ? which interact with one another. From this point of view, the Mediterranean is a region where many issues (biodiversity loss, soil erosion, water scarcity, etc.) that are directly or indirectly related to Mediterranean food consumption patterns should be addressed as priorities (Lacirignola and Capone, 2010).
4 The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of natural resources in the Mediterranean region and to analyse the main environmental impacts of Mediterranean food consumption patterns on land and water resources and biodiversity.
5 In the Mediterranean region, water resources are limited, fragile and unevenly distributed over space and time. Southern-rim countries are endowed with only 13% of the total resources (Blue Plan, 2006). Irrigation accounts for almost 65% of anthropogenic abstraction and can even exceed 80% in the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries (Thivet and Blinda, 2007). The seasonal nature of rainfall plays a crucial role in water stress, since the water demand of certain Mediterranean crops coincides with the periods of lowest rainfall and water availability (Fernandez and Mouliérac, 2010).
6 According to the projections of the Blue Plan, which takes the year 2000 as the base year, water demands could increase by a further 15% by 2025, especially in the southern and eastern countries, where an increase of 25% is expected. Furthermore, Mariotti et al. (2008) have predicted an average decrease of 20% in surface water availability by 2070-2099, with a decrease in soil moisture and river runoff, and a 24% increase in the loss of fresh water over the Mediterranean region due to precipitation reduction and warming-enhanced evaporation. In fact, the impact of climate change on the Mediterranean environment is already noticeable (Blue Plan, 2008). Measures to improve water demand management, water saving and the rational use of water, especially in agriculture, are thus of paramount importance in the region. In fact, the estimated overall water use efficiency for the Mediterranean countries ranges from 50% to 85% (Thivet and Blinda, 2007). Water demand management measures can free up significant amounts of water. They are economically worthwhile if they provide a means of maintaining the water supply where it is a limiting factor. Although the market can create a preference for crops that consume smaller amounts of water, incentives and regulatory measures must also be explored (Fernandez and Mouliérac, 2010).
7 The various forms of land degradation, particularly erosion, are as old as the region (Blue Plan, 2003), and new threats have appeared in modern times in connection with the social and economic upheavals of recent years, poor farming intensification in certain sectors, encroachment on space by urbanisation and infrastructures, urban and industrial waste pollution, and so on.
8 The current era is one of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. Fifteen out of 24 ecosystem services are assessed as being in decline (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The genetic diversification of food crops and animal breeds is diminishing rapidly. In fact, at the beginning of the 21st century it is estimated that only 10% of the variety of crops that have been cultivated in the past are still being farmed, many local varieties being replaced by a small number of improved non-native varieties (Millstone and Lang, 2008). Only some 30 crop species provide 95% of food energy in the world, whereas 7000 partly or fully domesticated species are known to have been be used for food; these include many of the so-called underutilised, neglected or minor crops (Williams and Haq, 2002).
9 The Mediterranean basin Biodiversity Hotspot (MBH) is the second largest hotspot in the world. It covers more than 2 million square kilometres and stretches west to east from Portugal to Jordan and north to south from northern Italy to Cape Verde. It is one of the greatest areas for endemic plants on earth and includes several epicentres of plant diversity. Three main circumstances have contributed to the high diversity of the MBH: (i) its location at the intersection of two major landmasses (Eurasia and Africa) and (ii) tremendous topographical diversity and huge differences in altitude. Its climate is unique, but rainfall ranges from 100 mm to 3,000 mm, resulting in high vegetation diversity within the region.
10 These combined factors make the MBH the third richest hotspot in the world in terms of plant biodiversity (Mittermeier et al., 2004). Approximately 30,000 plant species occur there, and more than 13,000 species are endemic to the hotspot; yet many more are being discovered every year (Radford et al., 2011). The MBH is a centre of plant endemism, with 10% of the world’s plants found in about 1.6% of the earth’s surface. The hotspot, a surface area one-fourth the size of sub-Saharan Africa, has roughly the same plant diversity as the entire area of tropical Africa (CEPF, 2010).
11 The forests of the Mediterranean are diverse, harbouring up to 100 different tree species. Moreover, it is estimated that the Mediterranean Sea contains 8% to 9% of all marine species in the world (Sundseth, 2009). In the Mediterranean basin, there is tremendous topographic, climatic and geographic variability resulting in an astounding array of species and habitat diversity. The World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has listed 32 eco-regions occurring in the Mediterranean hotspot. There are three broad types of vegetation: maquis, forests, and garrigue (CEPF, 2010), the maquis being nowadays the most widespread. Many of the endemic and restricted-range plant species depend on this habitat, and several are thus threatened (Tucker and Evans, 1997).
12 Changes in diet, especially an increase in meat consumption, have generated an increase in diet-related diseases but are also having an impact on biodiversity. The livestock sector is considered to be one of the major players in the reduction of biodiversity since it is one of the primary drivers of, inter alia, deforestation, land degradation, pollution, climate change, the erosion and sedimentation of coastal areas and the facilitation of alien species invasion (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Some 306 of the 825 terrestrial eco-regions identified by the WWF reported livestock as one of the current threats; 23 of 35 global hotspots for biodiversity identified by Conservation International are reported to be affected by livestock production. And an analysis of the Red List of Threatened Species issued by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature formerly World Conservation Union) shows that most of the world’s threatened species are suffering habitat loss where livestock is a factor (Baillie et al., 2004).
13 The importance of the Mediterranean in terms of crop diversity, is illustrated by the fact that about one-third of the foodstuffs used by humankind comes from the Mediterranean climatic region, if not strictly from the topographic basin proper (Harlan, 1995). Barley, wheat, oats, olives, grapes, almonds, figs, dates, peas and other innumerable fruits and vegetables as well as medicinal or aromatic herbs are derived from wild plants found in the Mediterranean region (Sundseth, 2009).
14 The Mediterranean basin was one of the eight centres of cultivated plant origin and diversity identified by Vavilov (1951), who listed over 80 crops, the most important, however, being cereals, pulses, fruit trees and vegetables. There were also many herbs, spice-producing plants, horticultural crops, and ornamentals (Heywood, 1998). Several socio-political, agro-climatic, ecological and genetic factors have contributed to this remarkable crop diversity in the Mediterranean (Jana, 1995).
15 Agricultural lands and grasslands occupy 40% of the Mediterranean region, ranging from large intensive olive or citrus groves to more mixed farming systems. With some 17 million farms, the Mediterranean region has an agricultural labour force of millions of people (Elloumi and Jouve, 2010). The low intensity and localised nature of thousands of years of subsistence farming has had a profound effect on the landscape, creating a complex mosaic of alternating semi-natural habitats rich in wildlife. Vineyards and ancient olive groves are also still a characteristic feature of the Mediterranean landscape. On flatter land and in the plains various forms of sustainable agro-sylvo-pastoral farming systems have evolved that make best use of natural resources (Sundseth, 2009).
16 However, whilst small-scale farming is still practised in many parts of the region, the last 50 years have seen a massive change in agricultural practices. Ancient vineyards, orchards and olive groves have been ripped out to make way for industrial-scale fruit or olive plantations, and mixed rotational farming has been replaced by intensive monocultures. This has caused the loss of wildlife-rich habitats (Sundseth, 2009).
17 Due to their high demand for pesticides, fertilisers and irrigation water, modern farming practices put excessive pressure on the environment. More than 26 million hectares (ha) of farmland are now under irrigation in the Mediterranean basin and in some areas up to 80% of the available water is used for irrigation. The rapid growth in tourism and urban development in coastal areas combined with the abandonment of small-scale farming practices is putting tremendous pressure on the Mediterranean region’s rich biodiversity (Sundseth, 2009).
18 Analysis of Mediterranean farm structures reveals that there are a large number of small farms (less than 5 ha) on both the southern and the northern shores, especially in Greece (76% of farms on 27% of the agricultural area), Italy (77% of farms on 17% of farmland), Morocco (71% of farms on 24% of farmland) and Turkey (67% of farms on 22% of farmland) (Elloumi and Jouve, 2010).
19 Mediterranean food consumption cultures use different types of cultivated and spontaneous plants, thus promoting the use and conservation of biodiversity. Mediterranean Diets are far from homogeneous; they involve a wealth of typical products and are extremely varied. It is that diversity which provides a certain level of nutritional and social well-being for the various populations (Padilla, 2008). The general term “Mediterranean diet” inevitably implies a common dietary pattern in Mediterranean countries. This is not the case, however, since there are obvious differences in the dietary patterns of the Mediterranean populations (Trichopoulou and Lagiou, 1997). This “dietary polymorphism” partially reflects religious and cultural differences (Manios et al., 2006). It is interesting to note that significant dietary differences can be observed even within the same country. In Italy, for instance, the consumption of cereals, fruit and vegetables is higher in the southern part of the country (Lupo, 1997).
20 In many rural regions, especially in southern and eastern Europe, non-cultivated food plants are still gathered (Heinrich et al., 2005). Local foods represent a type of mutual interaction between the availability of edible plants that grow locally and the nutritional requirements and needs of populations. In general, wild varieties tend to be richer in micronutrients and bioactive secondary metabolites than those which are cultivated. These secondary plant metabolites are produced in adaptation to local environmental conditions (Heinrich et al., 2006). The diversity of local Mediterranean food elements is not well known. Edible wild plants and weeds are interesting local elements in Mediterranean food cultures. Ethnobotanical research has identified about 2,300 different plant and fungi taxa that are gathered and consumed in the Mediterranean. The percentage of local Gathered Food Plant (GFP) taxa is higher in the main diversity centres on the periphery of the Mediterranean (Sahara, Alps, Caucasus, Canary Islands, the Levant) and islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Crete, Cyprus). In an ethnobotanical survey carried out in the Montseny mountain range (in Catalonia, Spain), Bonet and Vallès (2002) recorded the consumption of 132 GFP taxa. As for North Africa, Gast (2000) reported exhaustively on 80 species of wild vegetables and grain food plants used by Berber groups during the famine season (December to March) in the Ahaggar region (Algeria). Wild and spontaneous food plants are also widely used and consumed in Italy.
A flora of 11,000 plant species
Although Italy covers only one-thirtieth of the European continent, it has a flora of 11,000 plant species, that is to say, half of those that exist in Europe. There are areas in southern Italy which could be considered the geographical origin of 542 taxa (Hammer et al., 1992). There are 880 food plants that are gathered and consumed in Italy (Bianco et al., 2009). Sardinia has the highest proportion of GFPs ? 257 taxa out of some 2,100 in the vascular plant flora category (Atzei, 2003).
The domestication of wild species
A recent research study showed that 532 plant species are currently consumed in the Apulia region (south-eastern Italy) out of 2,500 representing the flora of the region. Of these 532 species, 104 belong to the Asteraceae family and there are 44 Lamiaceae, 40 Brassicaceae, 38 Fabaceae, and 29 Amaranthaceae and Apiaceae. There are 304 genera, the most important being Allium (12), Chenopodium (10), Vicia and Rumex (9), Amaranthus, Plantago and Crepis (7), and Salvia and Valerianella (6).
The domestication of wild species has never stopped in Italy. In fact, for 122 that have been identified in the Apulia region there have been attempts to grow species of wild edible plants in open fields and/or in greenhouses. One of the most successful examples of domestication that can be mentioned is that of Diplotaxis tenuifolia: domestication started 20 years ago and the plant is now grown on more than 1000 ha of greenhouses in Italy (Bianco et al., 2009).
21 Diets vary widely around the world and have co-evolved over thousands of years due mainly to the influence of environmental, social and economic conditions (such as climate, ecology, biodiversity, etc.) (Millstone and Lang, 2008). There is growing evidence of the impact of diet on health, including a higher risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease and cancer, and also of its role as a social indicator (Reddy et al., 2009; Hawkesworth et al., 2010). The sustainability of the food system and of food consumption is not only a question of health concerns; it is also about environmental impact. According to one large-scale European study, food and drink accounts for an estimated 20% to 30% of the environmental impact of all consumption (Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003).
Healthy eating habits
Healthy eating habits reduce the risk of diabetes and major coronary events. They also offer considerable health benefits to individuals and contribute to public health in general (Esposito and Giugliano, 2006; Brunner et al., 2008). In particular, the food pyramid illustrating Mediterranean dietary traditions has been associated historically with good health (Willet et al., 1995). Many other studies have provided strong evidence that higher conformity with the Mediterranean dietary pattern has a beneficial effect on the risk of death from all causes, including cardiovascular disease and cancer (Sofi et al., 2008; Esposito and Giugliano, 2008).
Food that respects the environment
The recommended food pyramids, such as the Mediterranean pyramid, not only offer considerable health benefits but also respect the environment. In fact, the various food groups can be evaluated in terms of their environmental impact. Reclassifying foods on the basis of their negative effect on the environment rather than in terms of their positive impact on health produces an inverted pyramid where the foods with greater environmental impact are at the top and those with lower impact at the bottom. When this new Environmental Pyramid is brought alongside the Food Pyramid it creates an Environmental Food Pyramid known as the “Double Pyramid”. It shows that foods with higher recommended consumption levels are also those with lower environmental impact. This unified model shows that if the diet suggested in the traditional Food Pyramid is followed, not only do people live better (longer and in better health), but the impact or better, footprint left on the environment is also decidedly reduced (Barilla Center, 2010).
The environmental Pyramid illustrates the environmental impacts of diets. Its design is based on the precise evaluation of the impact of the various foods using the Life Cycle Assessment method. By eating responsibly, humans can definitely reconcile their personal well-being (personal ecology) with the environment (ecological context) (Barilla Center, 2010).
22 Taken as a whole, agriculture is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the food chain (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998), meat and meat products being the largest contributor (Sinha et al., 2009). In addition, food production has major implications for biodiversity at the global level, including habitat loss and pollution as well as an impact on water and land use (Reddy et al., 2009). Furthermore, disruptions of environmental integrity can affect patterns of human health and disease as well as nutritional status. However, acknowledging that the loss of biodiversity and other environmental changes affect diet and health is usually limited to general considerations of food security, and little attention is paid to the complexity of nutrition-health relationships (Johns & Eyzaguirre, 2002). The footprint concept is a method for addressing environmental impact; it comprises the Ecological Footprint (EF), the Carbon Footprint (CF) and the Water Footprint (WF).
Environmental impacts include the Carbon Footprint (generation of greenhouse gas), the Water Footprint (use of water resources) and the Ecological Footprint (use of land resources).
The Ecological Footprint
According to Ewing et al. (2010a), the Ecological Footprint=Population × Consumption per person × Resource and waste intensity. The Ecological footprint is a method for answering the question of how much of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere is taken up by human activities (Schaefer et al., 2006). Biocapacity refers to the capacity of ecosystems to produce useful biological materials and to absorb waste materials generated by humans, using current management schemes and extraction technologies (GFN, 2011). Biocapacity is a method for answering the question of how much of the renewable resources have been made by the biosphere’s regenerative capacity (Schaefer et al., 2006). According to Schaefer et al. (2006), the EF is a renewable resources accounting tool that is used to address the underlying issue of sustainable consumption. In fact, the EF has emerged as the world’s foremost measure of humanity’s demands on nature (GFN, 2011). It measures how much land and water area a human population requires in order to produce the resource it consumes and to absorb its carbon dioxide emissions, using the prevailing technology (Schaefer et al., 2006).
The Carbon Footprint
The CF - which is a measure of the exclusive total amount of CO2 emission that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity or is accumulated over the life stages of a product (Wiedmann and Minx, 2008) represents 54% of humanity’s overall EF and humanity’s CF has increased more than 10-fold since 1961 (GFN, 2011).
The Water Footprint
The last dimension of the environmental impact is the WF, i.e. the demand of freshwater resources required to produce goods and services. The WF is a measure of man’s appropriation of freshwater resources: freshwater appropriation is measured in terms of water volumes consumed (evaporated or incorporated into a product) or polluted per unit of time (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011).
23 The EF calculation methodology on the national scale has been explained in full by Ewing et al. (2010a, 2010b). The EF measures appropriated biocapacity, expressed in global average bioproductive hectares, across six major land use types (i.e. cropland, grazing land, fishing grounds, forestland, carbon footprint, and built-up land). With the exception of built-up land and forest for carbon dioxide uptake, the EF of each major land use type is calculated by totalling the contributions of a variety of specific products. The EF of built-up land reflects its bioproductivity compromised by infrastructure and hydropower. And the EF for forestland for carbon dioxide uptake represents the waste absorption of a world-average hectare of forest needed to absorb human-induced carbon dioxide emissions, after having considered the sequestration capacity of the ocean.
24 In order to keep track of both the direct and indirect biocapacity needed to support people’s consumption patterns, the EF methodology uses a consumer-based approach; for each land use type, the EF of consumption (EFC) is thus calculated as: EFC=EFP+EFIEFE, where EFP is the EF of production and EFI and EFE are the footprints embodied in imported and exported commodity flows respectively. EF assessments aim to measure demand for biocapacity by final demand, but the EF is tallied at the point of primary harvest or carbon emission. Thus, tracking the embodied EF in derived products is central to the task of assigning the EF of production to the end uses it serves. Primary and derived goods are related by product-specific extraction rates.
25 Data elaborated from the 2007 national footprint accounts statistics presented by Ewing et al. (2010a) show that the Mediterranean EF of consumption is always higher than the EF of production (Chart 1), except in the case of Serbia. Furthermore, the CF alone is generally higher than the biocapacity value, except in the case of Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Turkey, Bosnia, Croatia and France. In general, the results show that the northern Mediterranean countries have a high EF, while the impact of countries in North Africa and the Middle East is the lowest.
26 With regard to the EF of production, the period needed to regenerate the resources used in 2007 by Mediterranean countries ranged from 5 years and 5 months to 1 year and 3 months in Libya and Albania respectively. As regards the EF of consumption, the period needed to regenerate the resources consumed ranged from 8 years and 6 months to 1 year and 6 months in Jordan and Croatia respectively. Thus, the Mediterranean countries have a net demand on the planet greater than their respective biocapacity: expressed in average values, 2 years and 3 months are needed to regenerate the resources used for production, while 3 years and 4 months are needed to regenerate the resources effectively consumed.
27 Chart 2 shows that North America has the highest EF, whilst Asia has an EF similar to North Africa and the Middle East. The European countries, including the Mediterranean States, have a higher EF compared to Asia, Oceania, and Latin America.
28 Taking land use types (i.e. cropland, grazing land, forestland, fishing grounds, and built-up land) into consideration, the results show that the EF of cropland is highest in Mediterranean countries, while the EF of grazing land and forestland is highest in Oceania (Chart 3). The average EF in the Balkans and northern Mediterranean countries is at least 1.5 times the EF of North Africa and the Middle East.
29 Chart 4 shows that the EF per capita in the Mediterranean region increased in the 1961-2007 period except in Morocco, Jordan and Albania, while the biocapacity decreased. The ecological deficit is therefore going to increase. The EF has increased on average by 47.4% whilst the biocapacity has decreased by 36.4%.
30 Meat production has a higher environmental impact than the production of fruit and vegetables. According to the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation, on both the local and the global scale, contributing to deforestation, air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change, the overuse of resources including oil and water, and loss of biodiversity (Steinfeld et al., 2006). According to studies carried out in the EU’s Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) project, the production and consumption of food accounts for 22% to 31% of the EU countries’ total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the so-called food carbon footprint. The consumption of meat and dairy products is estimated to be responsible for approximately 14% of Europe’s overall impact on global warming (EC, 2006).
31 As matter of fact, EIPRO showed that food and drink are responsible for 20% to 30% of the various environmental impacts of total consumption (abiotic depletion, acidification, ecotoxicity, global warming, eutrophication, human toxicity, ozone layer depletion and photochemical oxidation), and in the case of eutrophication for even more than 50%. Within this area of consumption, meat and meat products (including meat, poultry, sausages, etc.) have the greatest environmental impact and their estimated contribution to global warming is in the range of 4% to 12% of all products. The second important product group in terms of environmental impact is that of dairy products (EC, 2006). A recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang (2009) finds that livestock and their by-products actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51% of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
32 The global freshwater resources are subject to increasing pressure in the form of consumptive water use and pollution (Postel, 2000; WWAP, 2009). Given the growing water scarcity and environmental problems, the increase in the volume of water needed to meet the demand for food is a major concern. Already 1.4 billion people live in places where water is physically scarce (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture CA 2007). The CA 2007 estimated that with the present production practices water demands could double by 2050. The kind of food in demand and the quantity required determine to a large extent how water for agriculture is allocated and used (Lundqvist et al., 2008).
33 Food supply directly translates into consumptive water use, that is, the amount of water that is transpired and evaporates from the field during the production of a specific amount of food (e.g. Molden, 2007). Water requirements for plant and animal products vary widely. Higher-value crops (e.g. horticultural crops) typically require more water per calorie than staple cereal crops. Meat and dairy production is more water-intensive than crop production. In fact, 500-4,000 litres of water are evaporated in the production of one kilogram of wheat, depending on many factors (such as climate, agricultural practices, variety, lenght of growing season, yield), whereas it takes 5,000-20,000 litres to produce one kilogram of meat, mainly to grow animal feed. In terms of food energy content, approximately 0.5 m3 of water is needed to produce 1,000 kcal of plant-based food, while for animal-based food, some 4 m3 of water are required. Assuming a projected high level of average food supply of 3,000 kcal/capita/day, with 20% animal and 80% plant food, the consumptive water use will be over 3 m3/capita/day 1,300 m3/capita/year (Falkenmark and Rockström, 2004).
34 The methodology of the global standard for water footprint assessment developed by the Water Footprint Network is set out by Hoekstra et al. (2011) in The Water Footprint Assessment Manual. The study quantifies and maps the water footprints of nations from both the production and the consumption perspective and also estimates international virtual water flows and national and global water savings resulting from trade. The estimate included a breakdown of water footprints, virtual water flows and water savings into their green, blue and grey components.
The water footprint concept is closely related to the virtual water concept (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). The water footprint of a product is similar to what has been called alternatively the ‘virtual-water content’ of the product (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).
The terms virtual-water content and embedded water, however, refer to the water volume embodied in the product alone (Allan, 1998), while the term ‘water footprint’ refers not only to the volume, but also to the sort of water that was used (green, blue, grey) and to when and where the water was used. The water footprint of a product is thus a multidimensional indicator, whereas ‘virtual-water content’ or ‘embedded water’ refer to volume alone. The use of the term ‘water footprint’ is recommended because of its broader scope. Besides, the term ‘water footprint’ can also be used in a context where we speak about the water footprint of a consumer or a producer (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
The term ‘virtual water’ is used in particular in the context of international (or inter -regional) virtual-water flows (Hoekstra et al., 2011). If a nation (region) exports/imports a product, it exports/imports water in virtual form. The concept of virtual water is very important in the field of freshwater management. In fact, for water-scarce countries it could be attractive to achieve water security by importing water-intensive products instead of producing all water-demanding products domestically (WWC-CME, 1998).
The water footprint includes the use of blue water (ground and surface water), the use of green water (rain water or moisture stored in soil strata), and grey water. The grey water footprint refers to pollution and is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants given natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards (Hoekstra et al., 2011)
35 The water footprint is a geographically explicit indicator, showing not only volumes of water consumption and pollution, but also the locations. The framework for national water footprint accounting is shown in Figure 1.
36 According to Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011), the global water footprint was 9087 Gm3/yr (74% green, 11% blue, 15% grey) in the 1996-2005 period, and agricultural production contributed 92% to this total footprint. The total volume of international virtual water flows related to trade in agricultural and industrial products was 2320 Gm3/yr (68% green, 13% blue, 19% grey), 76% of which was related to trade in crop products (trade in animal products contributes 12%). Moreover, the water footprint of the global average consumer was 1385 m3/yr in the same period, 92% of which was related to the consumption of agricultural products.
37 Data from the 1996-2005 period show that the WF of consumption varied widely amongst Mediterranean countries (Chart 5), especially in terms of internal and external WF of consumption. In fact, the percentage of the external WF of consumption ranged from 7.3% to 85.8%, in Palestinian Territories and Jordan respectively. Northern Mediterranean countries had the highest water footprint of consumption per year and per capita (2279 m3) compared to North Africa (1892 m3), the Balkans (1708 m3) and the Middle East (1656 m3).
Table 1 - The virtual water balance by country (Mm3/year)
38 Most of the WF of consumption is in fact due to the consumption of agricultural products, as shown in Chart 6. The average value observed is approx. 91% of the total WF of consumption: 96% in North Africa, 93% in the Middle East, 82% in the Balkans, and 91% in northern Mediterranean countries.
39 Mekonnen and Hoekstra’s study (2011) also evaluated the virtual water balance in the period from 1995 to 2005 (Table 1) as an indicator of the water saved as a result of trade in agricultural products. Only Tunisia, Syria and Serbia present a negative virtual water balance. The other Mediterranean countries show water savings ranging from 340 Mm3 to 62,157 Mm3, in FYROM and Italy respectively. Total water savings of 177,168 Mm3 (including the three forms of virtual water) are observed in the Mediterranean region.
40 The distribution of food clearly poses a problem. Losses of food between the farmer’s field and the dinner table are huge. Tremendous quantities of food are discarded in processing, transport, supermarkets and people’s kitchens (Lundqvist et al., 2008). An estimated 50% of the food produced is lost and wasted between field and fork with considerable variations from one country and season to another (Lundqvist, 2010). According to a recent study commissioned by the FAO from the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), roughly one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year ? circa 1.3 billion tonnes ? gets lost or wasted. The amount of food lost or wasted every year is equivalent to more than half of the world’s annual cereals crop (2.3 billion tonnes in 2009/10) (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Food wastage and loss amount to loss of water and other natural resources. Reducing food loss and wastage reduces water needs in agriculture (Lundqvist et al., 2008) as well as environmental impacts.
According to Parfitt et al. (2010), the term “food losses” refers to the decrease in edible food mass throughout the part of the supply chain leading specifically to edible food for human consumption. Food losses take place at the production, post-harvest and processing stages in the food supply chain. Losses occurring at the end of the food chain ? retail and consumption ? are referred to as “food waste”. Food waste or loss is measured only for products that are intended for human consumption, i.e. feed and non-edible product parts are excluded. Food that was originally meant for human consumption but which is accidentally eliminated from the human food chain is regarded as food loss or waste even if it is then directed to a non-food use (feed, bioenergy, etc.) (Gustavsson et al., 2011).
41 Food loss and waste vary, depending on type of food, country and season, inter alia. Inefficient harvesting, transport, storage and packaging make a considerable dent in food availability. Additional and significant losses and wastage occur in food processing, in the wholesale and retail trade, and where food is consumed. Food losses in rich countries are different to those in the developing world (Lundqvist et al., 2008); they are greatest in developing countries due to poor infrastructure, low levels of technology and low investment in food production systems (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Relatively speaking, losses in the first part of the food chain, which are due to poor harvesting techniques, lack of transport and poor storage in combination with climate conditions, are more important in developing countries (Lundqvist et al., 2008), where 40% of food losses occur at the post-harvest and processing level while in industrialised countries more than 40% of the losses occur at the retail and consumer level (i.e. food is wasted).
42 Per capita waste by consumers is between 95 kg and 115 kg a year in Europe and North America, while consumers in sub-Saharan Africa throw away only 6 kg-11 kg a year (Gustavsson et al., 2011). There are several differences in terms of food wastage even amongst industrialised countries and amongst households in the same country. In Italy, some 20 million tonnes of food waste are formed every year throughout the supply chain. Every French citizen throws away 7 kg of food every year that is still in the original package (ADEME, 2010).
43 Trends in diet composition towards a higher proportion of animal food items, fruit and vegetables tend to shorten the durability of food and could increase the risk of losses and wastage (Lundqvist et al., 2008). Fruit and vegetables as well as roots and tubers have the highest wastage rates of any food (Gustavsson et al., 2011). According to Jones (2004), losses at farm level in the US probably amount to about 15%-35%, depending on the industry: 20%-25% for the fresh vegetable industry, 10%-40% for fruits such as apples and citrus, 26% for the retail industry; 1% in supermarkets. In the US, the average overall loss of fresh fruit and vegetables between production and consumption sites is around 12% (Kader, 2005). Distance to market, a more complex food chain and changes in composition and variety of food supply provide opportunities for more food and water wastage (Lundqvist et al., 2008).
44 Food and drink wastage involve major global environmental consequences. Food loss and wastage amount to major squandering of resources, including water, land, energy, labour and capital, and needlessly produce greenhouse gas emissions (Gustavsson et al., 2011). They account for more than one quarter of the total consumptive use of finite and vulnerable freshwater and more than 300 million barrels of oil per year (Hall et al., 2009). Reducing not only the consumption of food, especially meat and animal products, and drink but also household waste can help to reduce the environmental impact of diets.
45 UNESCO’s awarding of the Immaterial Human Heritage title to the Mediterranean diet gives it a strong geographical connotation and provides an opportunity to promote a variety of Mediterranean products, environments and cultures. From this point of view it is important to highlight their association with sustainable agro-food systems conserving biodiversity and using natural resources (such as water and soil) rationally. The Mediterranean diet should also be associated with food security, food sovereignty and dependence on local and indigenous traditions and knowledge as well as with the conservation of natural resources and reduction of the use of non-renewable external inputs.
46 Mediterranean food consumption patterns contribute to biodiversity conservation for at least two main reasons. First of all because they promote the use of a wide range of cereals, fruit and vegetables, not only cultivated products but also spontaneous and wild species, thus enabling them to be conserved along with the local, indigenous and traditional knowledge relating to these species. Moreover, by using less meat and fewer animal products, Mediterranean diets reduce the impacts of the livestock sector on biodiversity and natural resources. In fact, meat-based diets, such as those typical of northern countries, have higher environmental impacts (such as water footprint, ecological footprint, carbon footprint) than plant-based eating patterns such as the Mediterranean diets. Moreover, promoting the use of local and typical products can help to reduce environmental impacts (food miles and carbon footprint). However, further studies on the environmental impacts and sustainability of Mediterranean food consumption patterns need to be conducted that take account of food origins and production and distribution systems and methods as well as the wastage of food and drink.
47 It is important furthermore to reduce the amount of food wasted throughout the food chain (i.e. from farm to fork). To do so, it is crucial to alert consumers to the environ - mental implications of their diets and of overeating and wasting food. Reducing losses and wastage will ease pressure on water and other resources and free up land and water for purposes other than food production.
48 Cereal imports and high prices are calling the socio-economic and environmental sustainability of the Mediterranean diet in question (in terms of purchasing power and food miles), particularly in certain southern and eastern Mediterranean countries. In fact, the FAO Food Price Index averaged 236 points in February 2011, which is the highest figure (in real and nominal terms) since 1990. The steepest rise was in cereal prices. In the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, per capita cereal consumption is also high (265 kg/year in Egypt, for example) and the ratio of imports to total cereal consumption is also high (87% in Libya, for instance). High prices of cereals, and especially of fruit and vegetables, are likely to transform the traditional Mediterranean diet into a diet for the rich. Moreover, population increase, especially in the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries, will increase pressure on the region’s limited and scarce natural resources, particularly water. In fact, almost 65% of water resources in the Mediterranean are used in irrigation. This also calls in question the sustainability of a diet that is based, inter alia, on irrigated crops such as vegetables and fruit. The per capita EF in the region rose on the whole in the 1961-2007 period (+47.4%) while biocapacity dropped (-36.4%) resulting in an increase in the ecological deficit. Further - more, the carbon footprint is generally higher than biocapacity, particularly in northern Mediterranean countries. Agriculture particularly intensive irrigated agriculture also has a negative impact on biodiversity.
49 What is more, not only food production but also the transport, distribution and consumption of foodstuffs and waste management are all issues that must be addressed appropriately if the sustainability of Mediterranean food consumption patterns is to be enhanced.
50 All in all, measures to promote Mediterranean diets can contribute to sustainable land and water resources management and to the conservation of biodiversity, but they will not suffice alone. Strategies and policies should be designed and implemented with the active involvement and participation of all relevant stakeholders, particularly small - holders, who are the main custodians of biodiversity, since it is they who manage natural resources directly and who possess the local knowledge pertaining to biodiversity and water and land resources.
Table 2 - Countries and geographical areas
ADEME, Le Gaspillage alimentaire au cœur de la campagne nationale grand public sur la réduction des déchets, Paris, ADEME, November 15, 2010.
Allan (John A.), “Virtual Water: A Strategic Resource. Global Solutions to Regional Deficits”, Groundwater, 36 (4), 1998, pp. 545-546.
Atzei (Aldo D.), Le piante nella tradizione popolare della Sardegna, Sassari, Carlo Delfino, 2003.
Baillie (Johnatan E. M.), Hilton-Taylor (Craig) and Stuart (Simon N.) (eds), 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment, Gland, IUCN-World Conservation Union, 2004.
Barilla Center, Double Pyramid: Healthy Food for People, Sustainable Food for the Planet, Parma, Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition, 2010(http://www.barillacfn.com /uploads /file /72 /1277731651_ PositionPaper-BarillaCFN_Doppia-Piramide.pdf ).
Bianco (Vito V.), Mariani (Rocco) and Santamaria (Pietro), Piante spontanee nella cucina tradizionale molese, Bari, Levante editori, 2009.
Blue Plan, The Blue Plan’s Sustainable Development Outlook for the Mediterranean, Valbonne, Sophia Antipolis, UNEP, Blue Plan-Regional Activity Centre, 2008.
Blue Plan, “Improving Water Use Efficiency for Facing Water Stress and Shortage in the Mediterranean”, Blue Plan Notes, n° 4, “Environment and Development in the Mediterranean”, 2006.
Blue Plan, Threats to Soils in Mediterranean Countries. Document Review, Valbonne, Sophia Antipolis, Blue Plan, coll. “Les Cahiers du Plan bleu”, n° 2, 2003.
Bonet (Angels M.) and Vallès (Joan), “Use of Non-Crop Food Vascular Plants in Montseny Biosphere Reserve (Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula)”, International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 53 (3), 2002, pp. 225-248.
Brunner (Eric J.), Mosdol (Annhild), Witte (Daniel R.) et al., “Dietary Patterns and 15-y Risks of Major Coronary Events, Diabetes and Mortality”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87 (5), 2008, pp. 1414-1421.
Carlsson-Kanyama (Annika), “Climate Change and Dietary Choices How Can Emissions of Greenhouse Gases From Food Consumption Be Reduced?”, Food Policy, 23 (3-4), 1998, pp. 277-293.
Carlsson-Kanyama (Annika), Pipping Ekstrom (Marianne) and Shanahan (Helena), “Food and Life Cycle Energy Inputs: Consequences of Diet and Ways to Increase Efficiency”, Ecological Economics, 44 (2-3), 2003, pp. 293-307.
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), Ecosystem Profile. Mediterranean Basin Biodiversity Hotspot, profile for submission to the CEPF donor council, 2010.
Elloumi (Mohamed) and Jouve (Anne-Marie), “Extraordinary Farm Diversity”, in CIHEAM (ed), Atlas Mediterra. Mediterranean Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and the Rural World, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po-CIHEAM, 2010, pp. 58-63.
Esposito (Katherine) and Giugliano (Dario), “Diet and Inflammation: A Link to Metabolic and Cardiovascular Diseases”, European Heart Journal, 27, 2006, pp. 15-20.
Esposito (Katherine) and Giugliano (Dario), “Mediterranean Diet and Metabolic Diseases”, Current Opinion in Lipidology, 19 (1), 2008, pp. 63-68.
European Commission (EC), Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO): Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts Related to the Final Consumption of the EU-25, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (DG JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) and European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO), Technical Report EUR 22284 EN, 2006.
Ewing (Brad), Goldfinger (Steven), Moore (David), Oursler (Anna), Reed (Anders) and Wackernagel (Mathis), The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010, Oakland (Calif.), Global Footprint Network, 2010a.
Ewing (Brad), Galli (Alessandro), Kitzes (Justin), Reed (Anders) and Wackernagel (Mathis), Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition, Oakland (Calif.), Global Footprint Network, 2010b.
Falkenmark (Malin) and Rockström (Johan), Balancing Water for Humans and Nature: The New Approach in Ecohydrology, London, Taylor & Francis, 2004.
FAO, Biodiversity in Sustainable Diets, Report of a Technical Workshop, Rome, FAO, 2010.
Fernandez (Sara) and Mouliérac (Audrey), Economic Evaluation of Water Demand Management in the Mediterranean. Study report, Valbonne, Sophia Antipolis, Blue Plan, Regional Activity Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), 2010.
Gast (Marceau), Moissons du désert. Utilisation des ressources naturelles en période de famine au Sahara central, Paris, Ibis Press, 2000.
Global Footprint Network, (GFN), 2011(http://www.footprintnetwork.org /en /index.php /GFN /page /footprint_ basics_overview / ).
Goodland (Robert) and Anhang (Jeff ), “Livestock and Climate Change”, World Watch Magazine, November-December 2009, pp. 10-19.
Gustavsson (Jeny), Cederberg (Christel), Meybeck (Alexandre), Van Otterdijk (Robert) and Sonesson (Ulf), Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention, Rome, FAO, 2011.
Hall (Kevin D.), Chow (Carson C.), Dore (Michael) and Guo (Juen), The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and its Environmental Impact, Laboratory of Biological Modeling, Bethesda (Md.), Public Library of Science, 2009.
Hammer (Karl), Knüpffer (Helmut), Laghetti (Gaetano) and Perrino (Pietro), Seeds From The Past. A Catalogue of Crop Germplasm in South Italy and Sicily, Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung, Gatersleben, Istituto del Germoplasma, Bari, 1992.
Harlan (Jack R.), “Agricultural Origins and Crop Domestication in the Mediterranean Region”, Diversity, 11 (1-2), 1995, pp. 14-16.
Hawkesworth (Sophie), Dangour (Alan D.), Johnston (Deborah), Lock (Karen), Poole (Nigel), Rushton (Jonathan), Uauy (Ricardo) and Waage (Jeff), “Feeding the World Healthily: The Challenge of Measuring the Effects of Agriculture on Health”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B-Biological sciences, 365 (1554), 2010, pp. 3083-3097.
Heinrich (Michael), Leonti (Marco), Nebel (Sabine) and Peschel (Wieland), “Local Food Nutraceuticals: An Example of a Multidisciplinary Research Project on Local Knowledge”, Journal of Pharmacology and Physiology, 56, 2005, pp. 5-22.
Heinrich (Michael), Galli (Carlo) and Müller (Walter E.) (eds), Local Mediterranean Food Plants and Nutraceuticals, Basel, Karger Publishers, 59, 2006, pp. 18-74.
Heywood (Vernon H.), “The Mediterranean Region. A Major Centre of Plant Diversity”, in Vernon H. Heywood and Melpo Skoula (eds), Wild Food and Non-Food Plants: Information Networking, Paris, CIHEAM, coll. “Options méditerranéennes”, n° 38, 1998, pp. 5-15.
Hoekstra (Arjen Y.) and Chapagain (Ashok K.), “Water Footprints of Nations: Water Use by People as a Function of their Consumption Pattern”, Water Resources Management, 21, 2006, pp. 35-48.
Hoekstra (Arjen Y.) and Chapagain, (A. K.), Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
Hoekstra (Arjen Y.), Aldaya (Maite M.), Chapagain (Ashok K.) and Mekonnen (Mesfin M.), The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard, Water Footprint Network, London, Earthscan Publications, 2011.
Jana (Sakti), “Factors Contributing to Crop Diversity in the Mediterranean”, Diversity, 11 (1), 1995.
Johns (Timothy) and Eyzaguirre (Pablo B.), “Nutrition and the Environment”, Nutrition: A Foundation for Development, Brief 5 ACC/SCN, Geneva, 2002.
Jones (Timothy), “What a Waste !”, interview between Robyn Williams and Tim Jones in The Science Show, December 4, 2004 (http://www.abc.net.au /rn /scienceshow /stories /2004 /1256017.htm).
Kader (A. A.), “Increasing Food Availability by Reducing Postharvest Losses of Fresh Produce”, in Fabio Mencarelli and Pietro Tonutti (eds), Proceedings of the 5th International Postharvest Symposium, Acta Horticulturae, Louvain, ISHS, 682, 2005.
Lacirignola (Cosimo) and Capone (Roberto), “Mediterranean Diet: Territorial Identity and Food Safety”, New Medit, 1, March 2010.
Lundqvist (Jan), “Producing More or Wasting Less? Bracing the Food Security Challenge of Unpredictable Rainfall”, in Alberto Garrido, Elena López-Gunn and Luis Martínez-Cortina (eds), Re-thinking Water and Food Security, Fourth Marcelino Botín Foundation Water Workshop, London, Taylor and Francis Group, 2010.
Lundqvist (Jan), Fraiture (Charlotte de) and Molden (David), Saving Water: From Field to Fork Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief, Stockholm, International Water Management Institute (SIWI), 2008.
Lupo (Aldo), “Nutrition in General Practice in Italy”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 65, 1997, pp. 1963-1966.
Manios (Yannis), Detopoulou (Vivian), Galli (Claudio) and Visioli (Francesco), “Mediterranean Diet as a Nutrition Education and Dietary Guide: Misconceptions and the Neglected Role of Locally Consumed Foods and Wild Green Plants”, in Claudio Galli, Michael Heinrich and Walter E. Müller (eds), Local Mediterranean Food Plants and Nutraceuticals, Basel, Karger Publishers, 2006, pp. 154-170.
Mariotti (Annarita), Zeng (Ning), Yoon (Jin-Ho), Artale (Vincenzo), Navarra (Antonio), Alpert (Pinhas) and Li (Laurent Z. X.), “Mediterranean Water Cycle Changes: Transition to Drier 21st Century Conditions in Observations and CMIP3 Simulations”, Environmental Research Letters, 3, 2008.
Mekonnen (Mesfin M.) and Hoekstra (Arjen Y.), National Water Footprint Accounts: The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Production and Consumption, Value of Water Research Report (50), Paris, Unesco, Delft, Institute for Water Education (IHE), 2011.
Millstone (Eric) and Lang (Tim), The Atlas of Food, London, Earthscan Publications, 2008 [2nd ed.].
Mittermeier (Russell A.), Brooks (Thomas), Da Fonseca (Gustavo A.B.), Gil (Patricio R.), Hoffmann (Michael), Lamoreux (John), Mittermeier (Cristina G.) and Pilgrim (John), Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions, Chicago (Ill.), University of Chicago Press for Conservation International, 2004.
Molden (David) (ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, IWMI, London, Earthscan Publications, 2007.
Padilla (Martine), “Dietary Patterns and Trends in Consumption”, in CIHEAM (ed.), Mediterra 2008. The Future of Agriculture and Food in Mediterranean Countries, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2008, pp. 149-170.
Parfitt (Julian), Barthel (Mark) and Macnaughton (Sarah), “Food Waste Within Food Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B-Biological Sciences, 365 (1554), 2010, pp. 3065-3081.
Postel (Sandra L.), “Entering an Era of Water Scarcity: The Challenges Ahead”, Ecological Applications, 10 (4), 2000, pp. 941-948.
Radford (Elizabeth A.), Catullo (Gianluca) and Montmollin (Bertrand de) (eds), Important Plant Areas of the South and East Mediterranean Region: Priority Sites for Conservation, Gland, IUCN, 2011.
Reddy (Shivani), Dibb (Sue) and Lang (Tim), Setting The Table. Advice to Government on Priority Elements of Sustainable Diets, London, Sustainable Development Commission, 2009.
Schaefer (Florian), Cabeça (Julio), Hanauer (Jörg), Luksch (Ute) and Steinbach (Nancy), Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity: The World’s Ability to Regenerate Resources and Absorb Waste in a Limited Time Period, Working Papers and Studies, Luxembourg, European Commission, 2006.
Sinha (Rashmi), Cross (Amanda J.), Graubard (Barry I.), Leitzmann (Michael F.) and Schatzkin (Arthur), “Meat Intake and Mortality: A Prospective Study of Over Half a Million People”, Archive of Internal Medicine, 169 (6), 2009, pp. 562-571.
Sofi (Francesco), Abbate (Rosanna), Casini (Alessandro), Cesari (Francesca) and Gensini (Gian F.), “Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Health Status: Meta-Analysis”, British Medical Journal, 337:a1344, 2008.
Steinfeld (Henning), Castel (Vincent), Gerber (Pierre), de Haan (Cees), Rosales (Mauricio) and Wassenaar (Tom), Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, Rome, FAO, 2006.
Sundseth (Kerstin), Natura 2000 in The Macaronesian Region, Luxembourg, Directorate General for the Environment (European Commission), 2009.
Thivet (Gaëlle) and Blinda (Mohammed), Améliorer l’efficience d’utilisation de l’eau pour faire face aux crises et pénuries d’eau en Méditerranée, Valbonne, Sophia Antipolis, Blue Plan, 2007.
Trichopoulou (Antonia) and Lagiou (Pagona), “Healthy Traditional Mediterranean Diet: An Expression of Culture, History, and Lifestyle”, Nutrition Reviews, 55 (11), 1997, pp. 383-389.
Tucker (Graham M.) and Evans (Michael I.), “Habitats for Birds in Europe: A Conservation Strategy for the Wider Environment”, BirdLife Conservation Series, 6, 1997.
Vavilov (Nikolai J.), “The Origin, Variation, Immunity and Breeding of Cultivated Plants: Selected Writings”, Chronica Botanica, 13 (1-6), 1951, pp. 364.
Wiedmann (Thomas) and Minx (Jan), A Definition of “Carbon Footprint”, in Carolyn C. Pertsova (ed.), Ecological Economics Research Trends, New York (N. Y.), Nova Science Publishers, 2008, pp. 1-11.
Willett (Walter C.), Drescher (G.), Ferro-Luzzi (A.), Helsing (E.), Sacks (Franck), Trichopoulou (Antonia) and Trichopoulos (Dimitrios), “Mediterranean Diet Pyramid: A Cultural Model for Healthy Eating”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61 (6), juin 1995, pp. 1402-1406.
Williams (J. T.) and Haq (N.), Global Research on Underutilised Crops An Assessment of Current Activities and Proposals for Enhanced Cooperation, Southampton, International Centre for Underutilised Crops, 2002.
World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP), United Nations World Water Development Report 2:Water: A Shared Responsibility, Paris, Unesco Publishing, 2009.
WWC-CME, Water in the 21st Century, document presented by the World Water Council for the conference in Paris, March 1998.
PLAN DE L'ARTICLE
- Water and land resources in Mediterranean countries
- Diversity of plants, crops and farming systems in the Mediterranean
- The main environmental impacts of food consumption in the Mediterranean
POUR CITER CET ARTICLE
Roberto Capone et al. « Chapter 8. Natural resources and food in the Mediterranean », in MediTERRA 2012 (english), Presses de Sciences Po, 2012, p. 171-193.
URL : www.cairn.info/mediterra-2012-english--9782724612486-page-171.htm.