2011

ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMANDS IN THE MAIPO BASIN TECHNICAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Total agricultural area in the metropolitan region ............................................................................................. 4 Agricultural structure ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Irrigated area and Relation between kind of irrigation and size of agricultural holdings ................................ 11 Area covered by natural vegetation ................................................................................................................. 16 Share of different crops in the total agricultural area ...................................................................................... 16 Share of different crops in the irrigated agricultural area................................................................................ 17 General TRends since 1960 .............................................................................................................................. 18 Prognosis for future scenarios.......................................................................................................................... 21 Vegetation periods for rm main crops ............................................................................................................. 29 Evapotranspiration of the mian crops in rm..................................................................................................... 32 Economic benefits in terms of water consumption ......................................................................................... 37 Virtual water exchange .................................................................................................................................... 39 Water Use rights ............................................................................................................................................... 39 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 43

INTRODUCTION

In this document, the Centro de Cambio Global (CCG-UC) of the Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, is a technical report whose aim is to synthesize information regarding the Agricultural water demands of the Maipo basin. The main objectives of this work were document and characterize the impact of agriculture on water demands in the Maipo basin, and establish some indices that allow researchers to make recommendation about suitable adaptation strategies that improve water use efficiency under climate change scenarios. Chile is divided into 15 administrative regions. One of them is the Metropolitan Region (RM) who hosts the capital of the Chilean Republic, Santiago of Chile. The RM concentrates 40.1% of the national population with almost 6 millions of inhabitants and covers nearly 15.500 km2, representing the 2% of the national territory. According to the Central Bank (Banco Central, 2006) almost 42.5% of the total Gross Domestic Product of the country is generated within the RM, being the most important sectors financial services, manufacturing industry, commerce and touristic services. This region is characterized by a Mediterranean climate with a long dry season. Mean annual temperature is around 14 C, with the warmest values observed in January (22.1 C) and the coldest in July (7.7 C). Total annual precipitation reaches 356.0 mm on average. The presence of the Andes in the east of the region allows the storage of snow during the winter which is responsible of the nival regime of the main rivers in the region (Maipo and Mapocho) and ensures water supply for the population and for irrigation during the dry season. Only close to 1.2 % of the regional GDP of the RM corresponds directly to agriculture, but the exportation goods, like quality fruits, contributes to the financial and merchandise GDP of the region.

TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AREA IN THE METROPOLITAN REGION

According to the latest agricultural census (INE, 2007), the RM accounts for a total of 1136259.97 Ha classified as agricultural lands. Nevertheless, 982867.93 Ha correspond to shrub land, natural forests, improved and natural pastures and non profitable lands. Figure 1 presents the distribution amongst these different categories.

Total Agricultural Area in RM

3% 13% Crops (153392.04 Ha) Pastures (158468 Ha) 36% 14% Natural Forest (142222 Ha) Shrub Land (224796 Ha) Non Profitable Lands (412653 Ha)

14%
Others (29095 Ha) 20%

Figure 1: Distribution of Total Agricultural Area in the RM (INE, 2007). The 153392.04 destined to crops are divided in three principal categories, annual crop and fruit orchards, permanent and rotation fodders and fallow lands. The distribution amongst the different categories is shown in Figure 2.

Distribution of Total Agricultural Area in RM

15%
Annual Crops and Fruit Orchards (113270.29 Ha) Permanent and Rotation Fodders (16678.20 Ha)

11%

74%

Fallow Lands (23443.55 Ha)

Figure 2: Distribution of Crop surface in the RM.

AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE

Figure 3 shows the distribution of the Total Agricultural area in the RM with respect to different holding sizes.

Size of the Different Holdings in RM

0% 1% 1% 4% 3% 5% 7% 5% 6% 2% Less than 1 Ha (813.99 Ha) From 1 to 5 Ha (8400.61 Ha)

From 5 to 10 Ha (14414.23 Ha)

From 10 to 20 Ha (22181.62 Ha) From 20 to 50 Ha (43281.67 Ha) From 50 to 100 Ha (41674.57 Ha) From 100 to 200 Ha (53419.21 Ha) From 200 to 500 Ha (76419.89 Ha) From 500 to 1000 Ha (57974.64 Ha) From 1000 to 2000 Ha (69179.40 Ha)

66%

More than 2000 Ha (748499.14 Ha)

Figure 3: Size of the Different Holdings in RM.

In Figure 3 we can appreciate the distribution of holdings by size including total agricultural lands, plus natural end improved pastures, shrub lands and natural forests. It is possible that holdings of 1000 Ha and more include also natural pastures and high mountain lands without any agricultural use since they are non profitable lands. On the other hand, Figure 4 shows how this 1136259.67 Ha are distributed by holdings size.

Number of Holdings by size in RM

4,000 3,500

Number of Holdings

3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Less than From 1 to From 5 to From 10 to From 20 to From 50 to From 100 From 200 From 500 From 1000 More than 1 Ha 5 Ha 10 Ha 20 Ha 50 Ha 100 Ha to 200 Ha to 500 Ha to 1000 Ha to 2000 Ha 2000 Ha (1512) (3581) (2027) (1594) (1390) (606) (385) (253) (85) (52) (70)

Holdings grouped by size

Figure 4: Number of Holdings by size (INE, 2007). In Figure 4 is shown that the largest amounts of holdings are grouped between 1 and 50 Ha. Yet, as shown in Figure 3 it is possible to conclude that a big part of the agricultural area of RM, including pastures and shrub land and non profitable lands, are owned by few farmers. Each kind of holding, arranged by size, has a different agricultural structure. In table 1, it is possible to observe the different kind of crops grouped by holding size. The relative area occupied by each crop (%) is organized as a function of the total cultivated area for each category.

Table 1: Distribution of main crops by holding size

Less than 10 Ha Crop Alfalfa Potato Corn Sweet Corn Avocado Lettuce Walnut Tomato Lemon Bean Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) 1920.7 1071.9 876.4 781.4 753.7 639.3 380.5 325.1 318.9 301.4 7369.3 (%) 13.30 7.42 6.07 5.41 5.22 4.43 2.64 2.25 2.21 2.09 51.0 Crop Alfalfa Potato Corn Lettuce Sweet Corn Walnut Table Grapes Avocado Pumpkin Fescue Total Total Cultivated Area 10-20 Ha Area (Ha) 1442.2 744.1 707.2 642.7 570.7 460.4 418 391.1 292.8 278.1 5947.3 12599.5 (%) 11.45 5.91 5.61 5.10 4.53 3.65 3.32 3.10 2.32 2.21 47.2 100.00

14441.665 100.00

20-50 Ha Crop Alfalfa Table Grapes Corn Vineyards Potato Lettuce Walnut Eruropean Plum Avocado Sweet Corn Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) 2173.7 1294.2 1202.4 1193.2 1064.3 1040.5 933.6 784.4 647.8 611.6 10945.7 23974.63 (%) 9.07 5.40 5.02 4.98 4.44 4.34 3.89 3.27 2.70 2.55 45.7 100.00

50-100 Ha Crop Alfalfa Corn Table Grapes Vineyards Walnut Potato Seed Corn Pumkin European Plum Walnut Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) 2186.4 1599.7 1581.1 1426.7 1188.8 1170.6 579.2 561.2 450.7 448.7 11193.1 (%) 9.77 7.15 7.06 6.38 5.31 5.23 2.59 2.51 2.01 2.00 50.0

22382.58 100.00

Table 2: Distribution of main crops by holding size (Continued)

100-200 Ha Crop Table Grapes Alfalfa Corn Vineyard Pumkin Walnut Fescue Avocado Seed Corn Almond Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) 2516.4 2074.2 1376.9 1214.41 618.9 526.3 515 486.4 478.1 372.5 10179.1 19313.8 (%) 13.03 10.74 7.13 6.29 3.20 2.73 2.67 2.52 2.48 1.93 52.7 100.00 200-500 Ha Crop Vineyard Table Grapes Corn Avocado Alfalfa Others Fruit Crops Corn Peach Avocado Potato Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) (%) 3611.7 14.62 2211.1 8.95 2066 8.37 2016.4 8.16 1951.6 7.90 1804.6 7.31 593 2.40 576.5 2.33 533.9 2.16 476.7 1.93 15841.5 64.1 24695.7 100.00

500-1000 Ha Crop Avocado Corn Vineyard Alfalfa Table Grapes Lemon Orange Corn Almond Olive Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) 1534.7 1188.9 1119.6 765.6 705.5 410.6 343.3 238.0 238.0 155.5 6699.7 9512.32 (%) 16.13 12.50 11.77 8.05 7.42 4.32 3.61 2.50 2.50 1.63 70.4 100.00

1000-2000 Ha Crop Vineyard Table Grapes Avocado Almond Japanese Plum Corn Alfalfa European Plum Falaris Corn Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) (%) 968.9 16.24 950.2 15.93 363.7 6.10 327.8 5.50 312.2 5.23 290.3 4.87 287.1 4.81 177 2.97 152 2.55 151.5 2.54 3980.7 66.7 5965.2 100.00

Table 3: Distribution of main crops by holding size (Continued)

More than 2000 Ha Crop Corn Vineyard Alfalfa Table Grapes Avocado Oat Forage Mix Potato European Plum Wheat Total Total Cultivated Area Area (Ha) 2579.0 2028.4 695.0 422.3 322.1 280.0 201.0 197.0 164.3 163.0 7052.1 9584.11 (%) 26.91 21.16 7.25 4.41 3.36 2.92 2.10 2.06 1.71 1.70 73.6 100.00

Table 1 shows many important aspects of the RM agricultural organization. In the first place, we can observe that no crop by it by its one explains most of the cultivated area arranged by holding size. An important aspect is that in smaller holdings the mayor crop corresponds to Alfalfa with cattle feeding purposes. Also, fruit orchards dont represent a large area in this kind of holdings. Nevertheless, in largest holdings we start to see the strong presence of Table Grapes, Vineyards and Avocado plantations since the largest holdings are related to more significant investments and the possibility of exportation.

10

IRRIGATED AREA AND RELATION BETWEEN KIND OF IRRIGATION AND SIZE OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS

According to the 2007 agricultural census they are a total of 136144.2 Ha irrigated by different systems. Figure 5 shows the distribution of the different kind of irrigation in the RM total irrigated area.

Distribution of RM total irrigated Area by kind of irrigation

2% 1% 4% Flood Irrigation (32691.82 Ha) Drip Irrigation (37442.52 Ha) 27% 41% Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (4783.77 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (3022.7 Ha) Other (1093.72 Ha) 24% Sprinklers Irrigation (881.53 Ha) 1% Furrow Irrigation (56228.18 Ha)

Figure 5: Total RM irrigated area by kind of irrigation. The total irrigated area from RM is dominated principally by furrow and flood irrigation, particularly for corn and alfalfa, meanwhile, drip and micro sprinkler irrigation are supposed to be more present in the fruit orchards of the region. The next sequence of figures shows the distribution of kind of irrigation by holding size.

11

Distribution of irrigated area in Holdings with less than 10 Ha

2% 0% 7% 1% 0% Furrow Irrigation (8324.19Ha) Flood Irrigation (3980.51 Ha) Drip Irrigation (868.67 Ha) 29% 61% Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (224.07 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (3.7 Ha) Other (118.27 Ha) Sprinklers Irrigation (39.33 Ha)

Figure 6: Distribution of irrigated area in Holdings with less than 10 Ha.

Distribution of irrigated area in 10-20 Ha Holdings

2% 0% 9% Flood Irrigation (3883.11 Ha) Drip Irrigation (1085.8 Ha) 32% Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (213.5 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (4.5 Ha) Other (95.9 Ha) 1% 0% Furrow Irrigation (6869.35 Ha)

56%

Figure 7: Distribution of irrigated area in 10 to 20 Ha Holdings.

12

Distribution of irrigated area in 20-50 Ha Holdings

0% 1% 0% Furrow Irrigation (11388.97 Ha) Flood Irrigation (5494.9 Ha) 19% Drip Irrigation (4199.26 Ha) Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (992.2 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (16 Ha) 25% Other (144.35 Ha) Sprinklers Irrigation (114.3 Ha) 4%

51%

Figure 8: Distribution of irrigated area in 20 to 50 Ha Holdings.

Distribution of irrigated area in 50-100 Ha Holdings

0% 1% 3% Flood Irrigation (5074.1 Ha) 24% 47% Drip Irrigation (4988.86 Ha) Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (651.6 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (0 Ha) Other (155.9 Ha) Sprinklers Irrigation (56.4 Ha) 0% Furrow Irrigation (9819.20 Ha)

25%

Figure 9: Distribution of irrigated area in 50 to 100 Ha Holdings.

13

Distribution of irrigated area in 100-200 Ha Holdings

3% 1% 2% 1% Furrow Irrigation (6532.7 Ha) Flood Irrigation (4589 Ha) 35% 33% Drip Irrigation (6109.59 Ha) Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (580.5 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (255.5 Ha) Other (410.3 Ha) 25% Sprinklers Irrigation (103.9 Ha)

Figure 10: Distribution of irrigated area in 100 to 200 Ha Holdings.

Distribution of irrigated area in 200-500 Ha Holdings

0% 1% 4% 4% Flood Irrigation (5116.8 Ha) 32% Drip Irrigation (8558.1 Ha) Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (1007.5 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (952 Ha) Other (68 Ha) 22% Sprinklers Irrigation (189.2 Ha) Furrow Irrigation (7458.3 Ha)

37%

Figure 11: Distribution of irrigated area in 200 to 500 Ha Holdings.

14

Distribution of irrigated area in 500-1000 Ha Holdings

1% 3% 9% 8% 19% Flood Irrigation (1140.5 Ha) Drip Irrigation (4250.8 Ha) Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (738.5 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (823 Ha) Other (37.5 Ha) 47% Sprinklers Irrigation (263.2 Ha) Furrow Irrigation (1722.9 Ha)

13%

Figure 12: Distribution of irrigated area in 500 to 1000 Ha Holdings.

Distribution of irrigated area in 1000-2000 Ha Holdings

2% 2% 0% 0% 12% Furrow Irrigation (710.9 Ha) Flood Irrigation (1269.5 Ha) Drip Irrigation (3803 Ha) 21% Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (131 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (125 Ha) 63% Other (0.5 Ha) Sprinklers Irrigation (25 Ha)

Figure 13: Distribution of irrigated area in 1000 to 2000 Ha Holdings.

15

Distribution of irrigated area in Holdings with more tha 2000 Ha

1% 2% 8% Flood Irrigation (2143.4 Ha) 33% Drip Irrigation (3578.44 Ha) Micro Sprinklers Irrigation (244.9 Ha) Irrigation by Drag Hoses (843 Ha) 21% Other (63 Ha) 1% Furrow Irrigation (3401.67 Ha)

34%

Figure 14: Distribution of irrigated area in Holdings with more than 2000 Ha.

AREA COVERED BY NATURAL VEGETATION

According to the latest agricultural census (INE, 2007), the RM accounts for a total of 1136259.97 Ha classified as agricultural lands. Shown in figure 1, 982867.93 Ha correspond to shrub land, natural forests, improved and natural pastures and non profitable lands. The sum of shrub lands and native forests accounts for 367018 Ha. SHARE OF DIFFERENT CROPS IN THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AREA

Table 2 shows the distribution of different crops in the RM. The percentage is given in function of the total cultivated area of 142469.5 Ha.

16

Table 2: Distribution of main crops in Metropolitan Region Crop 1 Corn 2 Alfalfa 3 Table Grapes 4 Vineyard 5 Avocado 6 Potato 7 Walnut 8 Sweet Corn 9 Lettuce 10 Lemon 11 European Plum 12 Almond 13 Pumpkin 14 Japanese Plum 15 Orange TOTAL Area (Ha) 13948.4 13496.5 10247.7 10161.02 5841.5 5171.3 4058 3260.1 3040.542 2689.8 2588.9 2574.8 2391.3 2050.1 1978.2 83498.162 (%) 9.68 9.36 7.11 7.05 4.05 3.59 2.82 2.26 2.11 1.87 1.80 1.79 1.66 1.42 1.37 57.94

SHARE OF DIFFERENT CROPS IN THE IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL AREA

Because of strong seasonality in precipitation, all crops showed in table 2 are regarded as irrigated crops in the RM. Although some minor annual crops are grown in rain fed conditions (Only 579 Ha of wheat and 640.3 Ha of oat for forage, representing only the

17

0.8% of the total agricultural area), it is virtually impossible to get commercial yields under these conditions. GENERAL TRENDS SINCE 1960

Evaluating the IV (1965), V (1978), VI (1997) and VI (2007) agricultural census it is possible to observe the general evolution since 1960 to nowadays regarding total agricultural area, agricultural structure, total irrigated area and natural vegetation for the RM.

a) Total RM Agricultural Area.

Total Agricultural Area (Ha)

1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 Hectares 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 1965 1978 Year 1997 2007

Figure 15: General trend for Total Agricultural Area.

We can observe a trend concerning a constant reduction of the total agricultural area. However, since 1997 to 2007 it is possible to see a little augmentation. This could be referred to a change in census classification for the Agricultural Area item. It seems that

18

during the last decade (1997-2007) there is a change in the general trend pointing to a stabilization in the total agricultural area in RM.

b) Agricultural Structure.

Agricultural Area by Holding size

1200000

1000000

800000 Hectares

600000

1965 1978

400000

1997 2007

200000

0 Less From 10 From 20 From 50 From From From From More Than 10 to 20 Ha to 50 Ha to 100 100 to 200 to 500 to 1000 to than Ha Ha 200 Ha 500 Ha 1000 Ha 2000 Ha 2000 Ha Different kind of Holding

Figure 16: General trend for agricultural area arranged by holding size.

For the agricultural area arranged by holding size we can expect a very little reduction in the smallest holdings (less than 10 Ha) and a strong decrease in the biggest holdings (more than 1000 Ha). Again, a little augmentation from 1997 to 2007 could be explained by changes in the census agricultural area classification and a slight tendency towards the consolidation of medium size agriculture to achieve a reasonable scale of production.

19

Trend in number of Holdings

25000 20000 15000 10000 1965 5000 0 1978 1997 2007

Number of Holdings

Different kind of Holding

Figure 17: General trend for number of holding arranged by size.

The most important change concerning number of holdings arranged by their size is in holdings with less than 10 Ha. For holdings within 10 and 50 Ha we can appreciate a little augmentation in the number of holdings, but in bigger holdings the number of holdings seems not to change a lot. Due to the information available in the last census is not possible to separate the different kind of irrigation by holding size. Only trend in the general irrigated area is shown.

20

Irrigated area by Holding size

200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 1965 1978 1997 2007

Figure 18: General Trend for Irrigated area arranged by holding size. It is possible to see a general reduction in the irrigated area, as it was observed in agricultural area.

PROGNOSIS FOR FUTURE SCENARIOS

Land use change is a complex, multifactorial process, which can only be represented with models that allow for non linear factors and learn from past experiences (examples are artificial neural networks). These models are not available for the agricultural sector. We can however provide some projections based on observed trends. Taken the information of the latest four agricultural censuses we could get a general trend for the agricultural area, agricultural structure, irrigation area and natural vegetation. From these

21

data new could model the future scenarios for year 2030, 2060 and 2100. The best fit was with an exponential model given by:

Where Y represents the surface value of the variable of interest, X is the year since 1960, and a and b represent the parameters of the equations. The different factors (ln(a) and b) and the respective R2 are given in table 3 for all the regression used for the construction of the future scenarios. Each regression was made from the respective data of the IV, V, VI and VII agricultural census, only four observations. When the fit of the model was not good, we try with a linear fit improving the approximation.

Table 3: Coefficient used for the Modeling of different Future Scenarios

Agricultural Area by Holding Size Ln(a) b Less Than 10 Ha From 10 to 20 Ha From 20 to 50 Ha From 50 to 100 Ha From 100 to 200 Ha From 200 to 500 Ha From 500 to 1000 Ha 10.81 9.30 10.01 10.07 10.54 11.30 11.37 -0.16 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.07 -0.04 -0.12

R^2 0.55 0.85 0.82 0.70 0.31 0.17 0.86

22

From 1000 to 2000 Ha More than 2000 Ha Total Less Than 10 Ha

12.50 14.22 14.51 10.81

-0.35 -0.19 -0.16 -0.16

0.97 0.96 0.96 0.55

Number of Holdings arranged by their Size Ln(a) b Less Than 10 Ha From 10 to 20 Ha From 20 to 50 Ha From 50 to 100 Ha From 100 to 200 Ha From 200 to 500 Ha From 500 to 1000 Ha From 1000 to 2000 Ha More than 2000 Ha Total 10.71 6.69 6.56 5.81 5.56 5.52 4.79 5.18 5.36 10.61 -0.42 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.08 -0.02 -0.10 -0.32 -0.29 -0.29

R^2 0.80 0.86 0.83 0.74 0.36 0.05 0.82 0.97 1.00 0.83

23

Table 3: Coefficient used for the Modeling of different Future Scenarios (Continued)

Irrigated Area by Holding Size Ln(a) Less Than 10 Ha From 10 to 20 Ha From 20 to 50 Ha From 50 to 100 Ha From 100 to 200 Ha From 200 to 500 Ha From 500 to 1000 Ha From 1000 to 2000 Ha More than 2000 Ha Total 10.55 8.56 8.97 9.25 10.19 10.71 10.62 10.75 10.62 12.30

b -0.21 0.27 0.31 0.20 -0.08 -0.20 -0.47 -0.60 -0.40 -0.12

R^2 0.36 0.75 0.82 0.77 0.80 0.67 0.81 0.84 0.90 0.98

Natural Vegetation Area Ln(a) b Natural Vegetation Area -290.746392 39.9087507

R^2 0.73

24

Figure 19 shows the prognosis for total agricultural area.

1200000 1000000 800000 Surface (Ha) 600000 400000 200000 0 2007 2030 Year 2060 2100

Figure 19: Estimated surface of total agricultural area by year. The future decrease in agricultural area could be explained by changes in land use change and the expansion of Santiago city. The prognosis for agricultural structure arranged by agricultural area by holdings size is shown above.

25

Prognosis for Agricultural Area by Holding Size

1200000 1000000 Surface (Ha) 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 2007 2030 2060 2100

Holding Size

Figure 20: Estimated surface by holding size. We can observe an important decrease in the agricultural area in holdings with more than 1000 Ha. Nevertheless there is an increase in the agricultural area in holdings ranged between 10 and 200 Ha. Figure 21 shows the number of farms arranged by holding size.

26

Number of Holdings by their Size

14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2007 2030 2060 2100

Figure 21: Estimated number of farms by Holding Size

There is a clear reduction in the number of holdings with less than 10 Ha, on the contrary the number of holdings ranged between 10 and 100 Ha seems to increase. According to the model, a change in the number of holdings between 200 and 2000 Ha is not expected. Total irrigated area follows a similar trend that the agricultural area. Next figure shows the estimated value for total irrigated area in RM.

27

Prognosis of RM Irrigated Area

160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 2007 2030 2060 2100

Figure 22: Estimated value of irrigated area and Irrigated area by holding size.

28

Prognosis for Natural Vegetation Area

2500000 2000000 Hectares 1500000 1000000 500000 0 2007 2030 Year 2060 2100

Figures 23 shows the evolution of natural vegetation expected in the future. Again, a change in natural vegetation classification in the census could undermine the future changes in the forest and shrub land areas.

VEGETATION PERIODS FOR RM MAIN CROPS

According to table 2 the main crops in RM are: alfalfa, corn, table grapes, vineyards and avocados. The central valleys of Chile are well known by their good condition for the production of quality fruits for exportation to USA, Europe and Asia. In the case of alfalfa and corn, it is expected that this two goods in RM are produce for animal feeding. In table 3 it is possible to appreciate the difference between the phenology of RM main crops. Periods of vegetation growth will be associated with an increase on water demand by the crop.

29

a) Alfalfa For the specific case of alfalfa in RM it is important to note that typically the farmers are use to make for cuts of the plant during the season thanks to capacity to growth again during the warmest part of the year.

Table 4: Vegetation Periods for Alfalfa

Crop Alfalfa Sept Shoot Growth Oct First Cut Nov Shoot Growth Dec Jan Feb Third Cut Mar Shoot Growth Apr Fourth Cut May Jun Jul Ago

Second Shoot Cut Growth

Dormancy

After each cut the alfalfa starts to grow up again, changing its leaf area index and increasing its water demand.

b) Corn: They are different kinds of corn with differences in planting and haversting dates. However in RM the most used corn is it an intermediate variety which is planted at September and harvested during March, when the grain reaches 14% oh humidity. Table 4 shows the most important events regarding the vegetation periods for corn.

Table 5: Vegetation Periods for Corn

Crop Corn Sept Planting Oct Nov Leaf development Dec Flowering Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul Ago Grain Senescense Harvest Feb

c) Table Grapes and Vineyards: The most important crops in RM are the one related with grapes either for fresh consumption or for the elaboration of quality wines. Nevertheless the phenology for both is very similar, changing only for harvesting date depending on the variety of table grapes or in the case of the wine if they are white or red grapes. Red grapes trends to be harvested in March-April meanwhile white grapes are harvested during February and

30

March. In RM the most important kind of grapes corresponds to the ones for red wine elaboration. Table 4 shows the corresponding phenology for grapes.

Table 6: Vegetation Periods for Table Grapes and Vineyards

Crop Sept Oct Nov Dec Shoot Growth Flowering Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Ago Dormancy

Vineyards Bud Breack

Cane Maturation Leaf Fall Fruit Harvest

d) Avocado: The avocado tree corresponds to an evergreen, so at any time of the year their leaves fall, causing a permanent evapotranspiration during all the season. Spite of its evergreen nature avocado has two flushes of vegetative growth and a little leaf fall next to autumn. In table 6 it is possible to appreciate the vegetation periods of the avocado.

Table 7: Vegetation Periods for Avocadoes

Crop Avocado Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Ago First Shoot Second Shoot Growth Growth Small Leaf Fall Flowering/ Harvest Harvest Harvest Harvest %%%%%%%%%%%% Fruit Maturation %%%%%%%%

31

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF THE MIAN CROPS IN RM

For the determination of the evapotranspiration of RM main crops a reference evapotranspiration (ET0) was taken for the region made from Penmann-Monteiths equation. The evolution of ET0 for the RM is show in figure 24.

Seasonal ET0 in RM
8 7 6 ET0 (mm day -1) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 24: Evolution of the Seasonal ET0 in RM

As expected the ET0 for the summer months were higher than the ones during the winter. Adjusting the different crops coefficient given by FAO (Allen et al., 1998) for each crop and vegetation period it is possible to get the seasonal and total water demand for alfalfa, corn, table grapes, vineyards and avocadoes.

32

Taking the ET0 average by day for each month and multiplying it by the numbers of day of each month it is possible to obtain the water demand by hectare express as m3 Ha-1 month-1. The sum of all months will give the total demand for each crop by year in terms of cubic meters of water by hectare. This is indeed a proxy for irrigation water demands since most of precipitation falls in winter and the use of irrigation is mandatory between October and March in order to obtain economically feasible yields. In figure 25 it is possible to see the variation of the water demand for alfalfa during the all season.

Water Demand (m3 Ha -1) by Month for Alfalfa

3000 2500 m3 Ha -1 month -1 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 25: Water demand for Alfalfa during the year. The different picks correspond to changes in the crop coefficient driving mainly by the cuts of the alfalfa. The yearly water demand of the alfalfa corresponds to an average of 13083 m3 of water by Ha. For the case of the corn we start with an initial Kc at the planting date. In comparison to alfalfa there is not winter water demand for corn, only from September to late February it

33

is necessary the irrigation of the crop. Figure 26 shows the variation of the corns water demand through the year.

Water Demand (m3 Ha -1) by Month for Corn

3000 2500 m3 Ha -1 month -1 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 26: Water demand for Corn during the year. During the season an Hectare of corn in the RM consumes an average of 10000 m3 of water. The seasonal change in water consumption for table grapes is shown in figure 27. During winter the water demand by vines drop to zero, however, ones the bud break arrives the water consumption begin to increase.

34

Water Demand (m3 Ha -1) by Month for Table Grapes

1800 1600 m3 Ha -1 month -1 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 27: Water demand for Table Grapes during the year. The total water demand for table grapes corresponds to an average of 8024 m3 of water by Ha by year. Water demand for vineyards was also obtained with FAOs Kc. Nevertheless the quantity of water irrigated could vary greatly depending on the type and quality of wine that is expected by each holding. Figure 28 shows the seasonal variation in water vineyards water demand.

35

Water Demand (m3 Ha -1) by Month for Vineyards

1600 1400 m3 Ha -1 month -1 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 28: Water demand for Vineyards during the year. The total water demand of vineyards corresponds to 7045 m3 of water by Ha by year. Avocado, as an evergreen specie has a water demand during all the year. After the little leaf fall during autumn it Kc drops until spring were a new flash of growth increases the water demand with respect to ET0. Figure 29 shows the variation of the water demand by avocadoes trees during the year.

36

Water Demand (m3 Ha -1) by Month for Avocado

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 29: Water demand for Avocadoes during the year. The total water demand for an hectare of avocado corresponds to 11152 m3 of water by year.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS IN TERMS OF WATER CONSUMPTION

For the determination of the economic benefits derived from the use of water by each crop it was necessary to estimate an average irrigation efficiency ones the total water demand of plants, in terms of water cubic meters by hectare was determined. For each kind of irrigation a given efficiency was taken from FAO. Then it was possible to calculate an average of irrigation efficiency for the different holdings that cultivate one of our crops of interest: alfalfa, corn, table grapes, vineyards and avocadoes. Information about commercial prices for alfalfa, corn and wine grapes and FOB (Free On Board) values by tons for table grapes and avocadoes were taken from the National Bureau of Agricultural Policies (ODEPA, 2011). It is important to remember that the fruit

m3 Ha -1 month -1

37

production in RM centers in an exportation market. However alfalfa and corn are cultivated for animal feeding. For the specific case of wine grapes it is very difficult to determine a specific price, since it will vary greatly depending on its quality. We have expressed net benefits for table grapes for internal market as well as for export. Table 4 shows the different factors used in the estimation of economic performance in terms of water consumed by each crop. Note that cost expressed here are operational cost only. The irrigation efficiency varies within each irrigation method. Drip irrigation presents a high efficiency rate, close to 90%. That means that closely 90% of the water given by drip irrigation rest available for the plant. Next table shows the different irrigation efficiencies for each irrigation technology. This table was obtain from Allen et al. 1998.

Table 8: Irrigation efficiencies for each Irrigation System

Irrigation System Surface irrigation (border, furrow, basin) Sprinkler irrigation Drip irrigation Field application efficiency 60% 75% 90%

In RM typically, fruit orchards, as Table Grapes and Avocadoes, and vineyards counts with drip irrigation systems with an efficiency close to 90%. Nevertheless minor orchards present sprinkler irrigation and surface irrigation. For the assessment of the irrigation efficiency for each crop raw data from national agricultural census was obtained from Windows Access. It is impossible to determine the specific irrigation efficiency for each crop, but it is possible to determine a weighted average irrigation efficiency for each holding that has one of the five main crops. However, alfalfa is normally irrigated by flood irrigation, corn by furrow and Table Grapes, avocadoes and vineyards are irrigated by drip irrigation. The weighted average irrigation efficiencies expressed in Table 9 do not differ very much from the traditional irrigation technologies used for each crop (Flood, Furrow and Drip Irrigation, expressed before).

38

Table 9: Water Demand and Economical Profit for each Crop

Water demand (m3 y-1 Ha-1) Alfalfa Corn Table Grapes Vineyards Avocado
1

Irrigation efficiency 0.6 0.62 0.88 0.86 0.89

Irrigation (m3 Ha-1) 21813.33 16288.71 9117.05 8191.86 12531.46

Yield (Ton Ha-1) 17 13 32 15 10

Crop Value (US$ Ton-1) 143.14 270.59 2500 352.94 1423.1

Mean Cost (US$/Ha) 1200 1900 60000 3800 3500

Net Benefit (US$ Ha-1) 1233.38 1617.67 20000 1494.1 10731

Water Profit (US$ m-3) 0.056 0.099 2.193 0.182 0.856

13088 10099 8023 7045 11153

VIRTUAL WATER EXCHANGE

As mentioned before the fruit production in RM is meanly thought as exportation good. No data is available to determine the water virtual exchange from RM. However it is supposed that most part of table grapes and avocadoes are produce for exportation. For wine grapes, depending on its quality, the pattern is the same. For the case of alfalfa and corn, both with animal feeding purposes, it is supposed that all the production stays in the RM. Again information is not available.

1.

We have not considered here the possibility of wine making. We have assumed that

farmers produce grapes that are sold to wine making companies

39

WATER USE RIGHTS Detailed information about water use rights in the Maipo basin is difficult to obtain. Some general reports allow us to determine that there are, for instance, approximately 8100 shares distributed in the first section of Maipo. As a general statement we can say that almost 75% of water use rights are allocated to irrigated agriculture in the Maipo area. A study of DGA (2003), whose objective was to determine the availability of water rights, concluded that there are no more permanent rights to be allocated in the basin. If we assume as the 15% percentile as the level for the distinction between permanent and contingent water use rights we can estimate the flow allocated for different purposes as showed in Table 10.

40

Table 10: Allocated Flow m3 s-1

Section Maipo Las Hualtatas Maipo Las Melozas Maipo San Alfonso Maipo Manzano Rio Volcan Rio Yeso Rio Colorado Maipo Angostura Maipo Naltahua Mapocho Almendros Mapocho Rinconada Maipo Puangue Maipo Cabimbao 15 24 24 24 24 19 22 20 18 18 46 39 50.5 97.9 103. 119.6 111.2 55.4 46.4 50.5 51.3 52.4 50.1 51.1 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 42.98 5.77 6.33 5.87 5.87 5.96 5.87 6.03 5.87 6.02 5.87 5.91 6.36 5.56 6.82 6.9 7.35 5.93 7.96 5.76 7.52 5.76 7.42 6.03 6.75 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 3.26 2.27 2.06 1.98 2.04 2.07 3.02 4.81 7.81 9.91 10.34 6.58 178.4 2.93 3.24 178.4 2.93 2.75 178.4 2.93 2.55 178.4 2.93 2.36 178.4 2.93 2.37 178.4 2.93 2.41 178.4 2.93 3.11 178.4 2.93 4.86 178.4 2.93 5.32 178.4 2.93 5.22 178.4 2.93 4.58 178.4 2.93 3.92 3.68 6.97 6.11 7.86 8.69 9.58 12.6 15.9 11.1 8.2 10.2 4.38 24.78 19.56 18.44 17.83 16.93 18.85 29.29 60.11 78.5 64.56 47.81 35.82 18.15 14.41 12.92 12.65 12.22 12.8 18.56 36.08 36.29 36.26 32.84 25.59 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

41

Total agricultural demands in the Maipo area can be estimated as

Month April May June July August September October November December January February March Average

Demand (m3/s) 83.9 70.4 65.9 66.1 64.9 82.7 113.6 135.95 150.2 148.0 141.4 99.05 101

42

REFERENCES

ALLEN R.G., PEREIRA L.S., RAES D., SMITH M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage No. 56, FAO, Rome 300 pp. Banco Central, 2006. Estadsticas Econmicas. Santiago de Chile. www.bcentral.cl (Consulted: March 3th, 2011). INE, IV Censo Nacional Agrcola, 1965. Santiago of Chile. INE, V Censo Nacional Agrcola, 1978. Santiago of Chile. INE, VI Censo Agropecuario Nacional, 1997. Santiago de Chile. INE, VI Censo Agropecuario Nacional, 2007. Santiago de Chile ODEPA, Estadsticas por rubros, 2011. Santiiago de Chile. www.odepa.gob.cl (Consulted: April 5th, 2011)

43