1 review of the methods forwater resources prospective: what can we learn for the water framework...

1

EC O LE N AT IO N ALE D U G EN IE R U R AL D ES EAU X ET D ES FO R ÊT S

ENGREF

REVIEW OF THE METHODS FORWATER RESOURCES PROSPECTIVE:

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE?

Ruud Van der Helm (ENGREF, France)[email protected]

andAdeline Kroll (IPTS, JRC-EC, Spain)

[email protected]

Lille III Conference18-19/03/02

2


ENGREF

•20th century, water planning focused on projections using variables such as e.g., populations, per-capita water demand, agricultural production, levels of economic productivity etc.

•However, these projections on water demand typically ignored any analysis of human needs, water required for ecosystems or actual regional water availability

•Next step to this approach (still) is to identify projects able to bridge the gap between projected water demand and estimated available water supply

•Basic assumption is in this approach that building more physical infrastructures could meet projected shortfalls

Water Projections at the Global Level

3


ENGREF

…lies between those who believe that the problem is primarily technical (e.g., more efficient technology) and those who believe that reorganisation and co-ordination of water policy process will rationalise decisions toward a water-demand planning.

Today’s debate...

4


ENGREF

30 Years of Global Water Projections•Early models (e.g., Nikitopoulos 1962) broke down water withdrawals per sector (agriculture, domestic, industrial) and by regions. Basic assumption was to estimate water needs using average annual per capita water withdrawals per sector based on population estimates;

•Alternative models (“business-as-usual” with alternative model) introduced by L’vovich (1974) who first considered water-reuse;

•In view of Mar de Plata (Argentina, UN Water Conf, 1977), De Mare (1976) used works by Russians Kalinin and Shiklomanov (1974) who first considered reservoir losses by evaporation;

5


ENGREF

•Sustainability criteria and limits introduced by Gleick (1997);•Policy drivers introduced by Raskin et al. (1997) with their “Reference” BAU and “Policy” models (socioeconomic conditions considered)•“WaterGap:” model (Alcamo et al. 1997) evaluated water use for nearly the entire land surface of the world;•Recently, models have increasingly gained in complexity (sub and sub-sub models…)

30 Years of Global Water Projections

6


ENGREF

Global Water Projections: What’s Next?

•Early global water projections turned out to be wrong: greatly overestimated water demand by about 50% of what was expected 30 years ago;

•Depended on straightforward extrapolations of existing trends;

•Ignored environmental, ecological and social variables now considered the most recent global water projections.

7


ENGREF

4 Cases• World Water Vision (World Water Council)

•Participatory Vision Development based on reference scenarios

•Globesight (Global Foresight) (CWRU Ohio USA)

•Systems Dynamics with ‘Human in the loop’

•WaterGAP (Water Global Assessment and Prognosis) (CESR University of Kassel)

•Simulation of Resources Dynamics

•WEAP (Water Evaluation and Planning System) (SEI Boston)

•Policy Analysis Decision Support System

8


ENGREF

Scenarios

Model

Type of scenario

World Water Vision Globesight WaterGAP WEAP

Baseline vs.policy scenario*

Base-line scenarios Policy scenarios Baseline scenarios;policy scenarios

Policy scenarios

Quantitative vs.qualitative*

Qualitative(quantification added)

Quantitative Quantitative Semi-quantitative

Exploratory vs.anticipatory*

Exploratory Exploratory Exploratory Exploratory

Main approach Narrative (storylines) Human-in-the-loop 3 water intensityscenarios

2 climate scenarios

Policy alternatives

Place in theprocess

Scenario developmentat the start and duringthe process; part of thecore debate.

Scenariodevelopment duringthe process

Scenariodevelopmentupstream of theprocess

Scenariodevelopmentupstream of theprocess

9


ENGREF

Socio-economic driving forces


Socio-economicdriving forces

Demography

Technology

Society

Governance

Economy

Environment

Demography

Energy

Economy (GDP)

Agriculture

Population

Income

Electricity

Water Intensity

Agricultural intensity

Water use efficiency

Policies

Costs

Demand factors

Pollution

Supply

10


ENGREF

Participation


Participation Large scaleconsultations amongstakeholders throughcontributions andfeedback tointermediate versionsof documents andthrough workshops.Decentralisation of theexercise in order tofoster appropriationand legitimation.

Cybernetical viewof participation.

Human beings areseen as submodel.The goal-seekingbehaviour ofalgorithms isreplaced by thegoal-seekingbehaviour of human'models'.

Scientists-basedmodel which doesnot includeparticipation.However,WaterGAP canhandle participationupstream (indefining socio-economicscenarios) anddownstream,through discussionof the results.

Decision supportsystem in which the(individual) usercan assessdifferent scenariopossibilities.

No citizenparticipation isincluded in theconcept.

11


ENGREF

Lessons for the FDW

•There are more valid answers to foresights

•Data remains a problem.

•Interaction between scenarios and modelling

•Refinement of driving forces

•Foresights become valuable during their evolution

•The demand for participation can be answered in different ways ( towards participatory scenario development?)

12


ENGREF

Recommendations

• Strive towards continuous foresights per river basin

• Combine scenario Development with arithmetic (modelling)

• Strive for participation in scenario development

• Explore to a larger extent existing experiences

1 review of the methods forwater resources prospective: what can we learn for the water framework...

Documents