egu general assembly 2011 3-8, april 2011 vienna

08.04.2011

EGU General Assembly 20113-8, April 2011Vienna

Marek Giełczewski, Mateusz Stelmaszczyk, Mikołaj Piniewski, Tomasz OkruszkoWarsaw University of Life Sciences Department of Hydraulic Engineering

Stakeholders’ participation in the water scenarios development processNarew River Basin case study

08.04.2011

Outline of the presentation

• Introduction to research settings and to study area

• Methods

• Results

Main driversPresent and future state of water systemBackcasting – how to reach future state?Quantification for modelling purposes

• Conclusions

08.04.2011

Introduction – research settings

• Part of research of the 6 EU Framework IP project SCENES „Water Scenarios for Europe and for Neighbouring States”

• Similar methodology applied for three levels: pan-European, regional and local (pilot areas)

• 10 Pilot Areas located in the different regions

• Narew River Basin, one of the Pilot Areas

08.04.2011

Introduction - Narew River Basin

08.04.2011

Methods - general

• Five steps: 1. Characterising present and near future; 2. Looking at the future (developing visions); 3 Critical review of developed visions; 4. Playing it back; 5. Quantification for modelling purposes

• Scenario development workshops: four workshops were organized in the NRB during 2008-2011.

• Stakeholders participation: more than 40 people representing various sectors participated in the workshops

• Combination of different methods: qualitative methods (card-technique, discussion groups and collages), semi-quantitative methods (Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping, spidergrams and time trends) and method to link qualitative storylines with quantified scenarios were used

08.04.2011

Methods – applied

• card-technique - defining present drivers playing the most important role

• spidergrams - setting up the importance of the drivers• Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) - recognition of

present and future situation • collages - drawing the future visions• storylines - elaborating the future visions to give a new

insight and understanding of such a complex system as the NRB

• backcasting procedure – finding out the possible ways to reach selected objective (a desired future state) to be reached by 2050 by casting back from this end point

• time trends – determining potential magnitude of changes in values of the selected characteristics

• questionnaire – translating the selected issues from the storylines into quantified drivers to be used for hydrological modelling with the SWAT model

08.04.2011

Results – main drivers and their importance

0,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,0

10,0C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

Present state Future state

Driver 2008 2025

C1; Flood protection 4,9 4,7

C2; Water quality in lakes 6,4 7,4

C3; Water-sewage management 8,4 7,9

C4; Nature valuable areas 7,4 8,4

C5; Spatial planning 6,9 8,3

C6; Melioration systems 6,4 4,8

C7; Agriculture influence on water status

7,8 6,9

C8; Agriculture 5,3 6,9

C9; Tourism 6,1 8,1

C10; Role of forest 5,3 6,2

C11; Transboundary co-operation 4,4 5,4

C12; Water retention 7,3 7,1

08.04.2011

Results – main drivers and their importance

• The most important drivers according to the stakeholders, concerning the present state of the NRB were: C7: Impact of agriculture on water resources, C3: Water-sewage management, C4: Natural valuable areas and C12: Water retention.

• In the future situation driver C7: Impact of agriculture on water resources is losing its strength, when the factors such as C2: Water quality in lakes, C5: Spatial planning and C9: Tourism become more important.

08.04.2011

Results - Present state of water system - FCM

• The most often related drivers: C8: Agriculture, C9: Tourism, and C4: Nature valuable areas, but also C5: Spatial planning and C12: Water retention

• Relatively large number of relationships between drivers

• Many relationships also have feedback.

• Defined relationships were relatively strong

C11; Transboundary

co-operation

C6; Land amelioration

systems

C5; Spatial (town and country) planning

C4; Natural valuable areas

C3; Water-sewage

management (amount of sevages)

C2; Water quality

C1; Flood protection

C13; Sewerage systems

and sewage treatment

plants

C12; Water retention

C10; Role of forests

C9; Tourism

C8; Agriculture

C7; Impact of agriculture on

water resources

C14; Legal and formal issues

-0,5

-0,6-0,8

-0,5

+0,6

+1

-0,8

+0,8+0,6

+0,4

+0,6 +0,6

+0,6

+0,2

+0,3

-0,5

+0,1

+0,9 +1

+1

+1

+1

+0,5

+1

+0,5

+0,5

+0,4

+0,2

+0,5

+1

+0,2

-0,5

+0,2

-1 +1

+0,6

+0,8

+0,5

+0,5

PRESENT SITUATION

08.04.2011

”Fast track” scenarios - Global scenarios

Solidarity/Pro-activeSelf-interest/Reactive

Regional

Global

Markets

First

Policy

First

Security

First

Sustainability

First

08.04.2011

Results - Sustainability First scenario –collages, FCM, storylines

• The crucial driver is: C4: Spatial planning, that will, in a combination with C12: Legal and formal issues, set up a frame for this scenario

• Many elements associated with Policy First scenario

• Most plausible and desirable scenario

• Agriculture and Tourism will stay as most important sectors

C9; Transboundary

co-operationC5; Land

amelioration systems

(irrigation)



C10; Water retention (technical methods)

C2; Water quality




plants

C13; Local food

processingC8; Role of forests

C7; Tourism

C6; Agriculture


+0,6

+0,9

+0,8+0,3

+0,8

+0,4+0,5

+0,8

+1-0,2

+0,4 +0,8

+1

+1

+0,8+0,2

+1-0,2

+0,8+0,4

+0,3

-0,2

+0,2

+0,3

+1

+0,2

+0,3-0,2

+0,6

-0,2

+0,4

+0,8

SUSTAINABILITY FIRST

08.04.2011

Results - Markets First scenario – FCM, storylines

• Not likely to happen. Will require a push by an external factor to go this direction

• The same drivers Agriculture, Tourism and Spatial Planning are important but different, economical driven, directions of development

• Takes into account the later second phase when there will be turn into more pro-environmental direction

C9; Transboundary

co-operation

C5; Land amelioration

systems (irrigation)



C10; Water retention (technical methods)

C2; Water quality




plants

C13; Local food

processing

C8; Role of forests

C7; Tourism

C6; Agriculture


-0,5

+0,6

+0,8

+1-0,9

+1

+1

+1-0,9

+0,4

+0,3

-0,9

+0,1

+0,1

+0,1

+0,2

+0,3-0,9

+0,9-0,2

+0,8

C14; Amount of sewages

+0,5+0,4

+0,4

+0,2

+0,9 +0,3

+0,9+0,9

+0,4

+0,4

-0,9

-1

+0,6

-0,9MARKET FIRST

08.04.2011

Results – Sustainability First scenario - backcasting

LACK OF GOOD

WATER STATUS

Planning of restoration

actions (conceptions)

Subsidizing of actions from EU

foundsNFEPWM, CCEP

(examples)

Creation of easy terms for water

economical technologies

(agriculture, industry) Ministry of Economy

Founds raising from EU

Increase of water

efficiency

Buying out of lands on a mass scale

Wide ecological education

Voivodeship office +Park boards

Local level

2015

Implementation of underground waters quantity

protection methods NWMA

Elaboration of repair

programsNWMA

End of EU direct

agriculture subsidies

Change of subsidies type from direct to

structural fundsEC

Sustainable agriculture and environment-

friendly management

Effective law

Spatial planning with

ecological priority

Effective environment monitoring

Restoration actions

RWMB, Park boards

Increase of water price

Verification of quality

standards

Control of a pressure on ecological

status of river basin

Environment protection

programme

GOOD WATER STATUS

GOOD WATER STATUS

+

205020402030

SUSTAINABILITYFIRST

(The National Fund for

Environmental Protection and

Water Management)

(Coordination Center for

Environmental Projects)

(National Water

Management Authority)

(Regional Water

Management Board)

Actors

Milestones

Actions

Legend:

08.04.2011

Results – Markets First scenario - backcasting

LACK OF GOOD

WATER STATUS

Elaborate environment monitoring

system

Financial support for innovative

technologies improving water

statusEU

Buying out of lands on a mass scale

2015

Effective control of industrial plants and agricultureInspectorate for Environmental

Protection

Elaboration of repair

programs NWMA

End of EU direct

agriculture subsidies

Water basin diversification according to

accessibility for industry and agriculture

Restrictive and effective law

Spatial planning with

ecological priority

Effective environment monitoring

Increase of costs of

maintaining good water

status

Increase of fees/taxes

regarding use of environment

GOOD WATER STATUS

205020402030

MARKET FIRST

GOOD WATER STATUS

Elaborate control system

of industrial plants and agricultureImplementation

of water tax Polish

parliament, Ministry of Finance

(National Water

Management Authority)

Actors

Milestones

Actions

Legend:

08.04.2011

Results – Backcasting

• The same issue selected – good water status – for both scenarios, extra indication that this is the main issue in the Narew River Basin;

• in SF the goal is reached by 2035 than even improvement, in MF is just reached in 2050 – optimistic approach;

• large importance of education, societal awareness, legal and monitoring issues – importance of ‘soft’ development;

• need for a leading force to perform changes, especially in SF scenario.

08.04.2011

Results – Quantification for modelling

• During the last workshop stakeholders were asked about qualitative trends in selected drivers of the SWAT model (as group work) and about the quantitative meaning of previously elaborated linguistic terms (in individual questionnaires).

• The questions focused on the future changes in: (1) land use (especially agricultural and built-up areas); (2) amount of mineral/organic fertilisers applied in agriculture; (3) percent of irrigated grasslands and drained arable land; (4) amount and treatment level of municipal and industrial wastewater.

08.04.2011

Results – Quantification for modellingWhat will be the future change in forested area?

Upper Narew

0

100

200

300

400

2000 2025 2050

Are

a (

thous. ha)

Biebrza

0

100

200

300

400

2000 2025 2050A

rea (

thous. ha)

Masurian Lakes

0

100

200

300

400

2000 2025 2050

Are

a (

thous. ha)

SF MF No scen.

Lower Narew

0

200

400

600

2000 2025 2050

Are

a (

thous. ha)

SF MF No scen.

Scenario

SF MF "No scen."

2025 2050 2025 2050 2025 2050

Regions

Upper Narew + + 0 - - - - - + +

Biebrza + 0 - - 0 +

Masurian Lakes ++ 0 - - - - 0 0

Lower Narew + 0 - - - - - 0 0

08.04.2011

Conclusions (1)

• The participatory scenario development process seems to be an efficient tool for formulating possible future visions for water management related issues.

• This process was accepted by the stakeholders, since it stimulates thinking in a systematic way and helps to structure all the elements of scenario development process. The stakeholders were involved in the scenario development process.

• It also gives an opportunity to share and discuss opinions with the stakeholders coming from different institutions and fields.

08.04.2011

Conclusions (2)

• The similarity of the results achieved by different stakeholders’ groups shows that the proposed methodology works well for the situation when all involved groups have the same starting point (set of the main drivers) and represent similar level of expertise.

• However, there is a question how much the results would have differed if parallel groups of the stakeholders had been working fully independently.

• Scenarios quantification for modelling purposes is feasible but only limited number of elements can be parameterized.

08.04.2011

Conclusions (3)

• In the case of the Sustainability First scenario the elaborated results represent very well the present and future situation of the Pilot Area in a general sense. Combination of aiming for sustainable development with relatively strong impact of the policy regulations is regarded by many stakeholders (including policy and decision makers) as the most plausible and desired future development for the NRB since many years already.

• The Market First based results well represented the opinion of the stakeholders if this scenario were to happen. However, in the opinion of the participants it is very unlikely that it will happen. Such future development seems to be not plausible at the moment and as it was stressed by the participants, only a strong external factor could push the development of the NRB in that direction.

08.04.2011

Conclusions (4)

• Climate change appears to be a minor factor shaping the future of water in the Narew River Basin in the view of the stakeholders. However, a robust information on impact of climate change at the local scale is not sufficient. Bringing such information and combining it with developed water scenarios is necessary to achieve a comprehensive future vision for the region.

08.04.2011

Thank you for your attention!!!Thank you for your attention!!!

egu general assembly 2011 3-8, april 2011 vienna

Documents