08.04.2011 EGU General Assembly 2011 3-8, April 2011 Vienna Marek Giełczewski , Mateusz Stelmaszczyk, Mikołaj Piniewski, Tomasz Okruszko Warsaw University of Life Sciences Department of Hydraulic Engineering Stakeholders’ participation in the water scenarios development process Narew River Basin case study
Stakeholders’ participation in the water scenarios development process Narew River Basin case study. EGU General Assembly 2011 3-8, April 2011 Vienna Marek Giełczewski , Mateusz Stelmaszczyk, Mikołaj Piniewski, Tomasz Okruszko Warsaw University of Life Sciences - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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)
C4; Spatial (town and country) planning
C3; Natural valuable areas
C10; Water retention (technical methods)
C2; Water quality
C1; Flood protection
C11; Sewerage systems
and sewage treatment
plants
C13; Local food
processingC8; Role of forests
C7; Tourism
C6; Agriculture
C12; Legal and formal issues
+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)
C4; Spatial (town and country) planning
C3; Natural valuable areas
C10; Water retention (technical methods)
C2; Water quality
C1; Flood protection
C11; Sewerage systems
and sewage treatment
plants
C13; Local food
processing
C8; Role of forests
C7; Tourism
C6; Agriculture
C12; Legal and formal issues
-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!!!