Benlouali Hajar*, Redouane Choukr-Allah, Harrouni …globaqua-project.eu/files/Implications2.pdfThe performance of such compounds must be tested under field conditions. Meyer et al

1st GLOBAQUA CONFERENCE: Managing The Effects Of Multiple Stressors On Aquatic Ecosystems Under Water Scarcity

11–12 January 2016, Freising, Germany.

*Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine,

Morocco

Benlouali Hajar*, Redouane Choukr-Allah, Harrouni Moulay Cherif,

Mohamed Fallah

Water resources and scarcity in Morocco

81%29% total

area

19%71% total

area

Alternative Water resources

National Plan for

Sanitation(NSP)

• Treatment of 40% of sewage in 2016, 80% in 2020 and 100% in 2030.

• Reduction of pollution by 60%.

• Production of (338 million m3 / year) in 2030.

• Use of 35% of reclaimed wastewater in irrigation of green spaces and golf courses

Water resources and scarcity in Souss Massa

Total available surface water and groundwater resources : 816 Million m3

Water demand : 1076 Million m3 (90 to 95% Irrigation needs)

Water deficit 260 Million m3

Potential of wastewater in the Souss Massa

Treated wastewater in Souss Massa

50 Mm3/year

Treated wastewaterin Agadir

35 000 m3/day

Potential of Wastewater reuse for landscaping and golf courses in Souss Massa

Total

area

(ha)

Average

requirements

(m3/day)

Peak

requirements

(m3/day)

Golf courses 568 18,958 31,281

Parks and public

gardens536 11,833 19,523

Total 1,104 30,791 50,804

Table 1: Green spaces and golf courses water requirements in the Greater Agadir

STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS

• Arid climate

• Average Annual rainfall less than 250 mm.

• 3000 hours of sunshine per year

Climatic Conditions

• 27 holes

• Area : 90 ha

• Soil : sandy and coarse-textured

• Turf grass varieties : Agrostis stolonifera and Paspalumvaginatum

The OceanGolf course

• Step 1 : Storage in 30 000 m3 artificial lake equipped by two surface aerators

• Step 2 : Storage in 27m3 covered tank

• Step 3 : Pumping station (8.5 bars) and filtration station (4 self cleaning 200μm screen filters and 400 m3/hour of flow rate each

Reclaimedwastewater

routing

Water Quality of the treated wastewater-

Primary treatment : decantation sand Secondary treatment : filtration-percolationTertiary treatment : ultraviolet radiation

Parameters Units

Delivery

pipeline

Sprinkler

Limit values for

irrigation with

reclaimed water

(WHO standards)

Fecal coliforms CFU/100 ml 111 60 < 200

Vibrio cholerae CFU/100 ml Absence Absence Absence

Salmonella sp. CFU/5L Absence Absence Absence

Helminth eggs Eggs/L 0.2 0.15 1

Table : Microbiological characteristics of reclaimed wastewater used in the Ocean Golf course

Water Quality of treated wastewater -

Parameters UnitsDelivery pipeline

Recommended limits

(FAO regulations)

pH 7,94 6,5 – 8

Conductivity mS/cm at 25°C 3,35 3

Suspended Matter mg/l 12

Bicarbonates mg/l 813 518

Sodium mg/l 460 -

Calcium mg/l 200,4 -

Magnesium mg/l 67 -

Potassium mg/l 41 -

Phosphate mg/l 0,74 -

Nitrates mg/l 410 30

Chloride mg/l 680 -

Sulfates mg/l 122 -

Soduim Adsorption

Ratio (SAR)7.09

Soluble Sodium

Percentage (SSP)% 54.30

Physicochemical characteristics of reclaimed wastewater used in the Ocean Golf course

Major Problems issues faced by using treated wastewater-

Forming of brown deposits in storage ponds and delivery pipelines.

Clogging of sprinklers

Non uniformity of watering that causes yellow spots in the turf grass.

Results

Table 7 : Chemical analysis of clogging matter

Component Percentage

Organic Matter 16.66

CaCO3 8.56

CO2 3.76

Ca 6.84

Mg 0.34

N 0.15

Na 0.01

P 0.735

K 0.01

Cu 0

Fe 0

Zn 0

Mn 0

Chemical reaction of high Bicarbonate water

When waters having appreciable concentrations of calcium and/or

bicarbonates are used for irrigation, a variable fraction of these

constituents may precipitate as CaCO3 according to the equation

(Lesch et al., 2009):

Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- → CaCO3 ↓ + H2O + CO2 ↑

Solutions to the constraints of reuse of reclaimed wastewater

in the Ocean Golf course - Clogging issues -

Adapted filtration : Screening alone is not adequate to prevent clogging in all

cases, as small particles may still get through the screens. Filtration is more

reliable when there is a passage of irrigation water through sand filtration.

Chemical treatment : Lime precipitation can be treated by acid. However,

acidification of water using acid injection is a specialized procedure requiring

special equipment and may be costly. Theoretically any compound in sufficient

quantity that will complex other ions with low solubility will keep them in the

soluble state. The performance of such compounds must be tested under field

conditions. Meyer et al. (1991) used the homopolymer maleic anhydride

compound to complex calcium and magnesium cations so that the calcium and

magnesium carbonates would not precipitate.

Water storage facilities: Construction of covered tanks rather than lakes.

Solutions to the constraints of reuse of reclaimed wastewater

in the Ocean Golf course – Management of Salinity -

Drainage and irrigation monitoring

Irrigation monitoring :Frequent irrigations

Additional leaching

Blending

Amendments (Sulfur)

Sulfur Amendments

Acido amin and enracineurs

Adequate turf grass varieties

Paspalum vaginatum

cultivars

Aloha

Seadwarf

Seaspray

Thanks for your attention !

1st GLOBAQUA CONFERENCE: Managing The Effects Of Multiple Stressors On Aquatic Ecosystems Under Water Scarcity

11–12 January 2016, Freising, Germany.

Globaqua Conference Freising , 11-12 Jan 2016

Participative valuation of

ecosystem services

Philippe Ker Rault, Joke Luttik (WP10)

How do stakeholders perceive

ecosystem services and functioning

at the river basin level?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg


Globaqua Conference 11-12 Jan 2016

Participative Valuation of Ecosystem Services

Valuation of ecosystem services, taking into

account users’ perspective

The user perspective involvement follows two

tracks: upward to elicit perspectives and

understandings; downward with

demonstration and validation of findings.

1st Stakeholders workshop to identify, rank and

discuss values of ecosystems and to comment

on scenarios

Greek and Dutch partners to prepare the

Stakeholder workshop (Sparta, February 2015)




Planning

Time Activity Details

09:00 - 09:15

09:15 - 9:45 Workshop process - 1. Co-construction of Ecosystem Services 1.1 Introduction of the concept

09:45 - 10:00 Workshop process - 2. Co-construction of Ecosystem Services 2.1. Description of the current situation.

10:00 - 10:30

10:30 - 11:30 2.2. Identification of ES - Small group work

11:30 - 12.302.3 Shared understanding of ES - Restitution in plenary and

discussion about the ES

12:30 - 13:30

13:30 - 14:00 Workshop process - 2. Co-construction of Ecosystem Services Summary of previous work and ranking

14:00 - 14:30 Presentation and validation of preliminary valuation of ES

14:30 - 15:00 Presentation of IPCC scenarii

15:00 - 15:30

15:30 - 16:00 Stakeholders comment on Scenarii

16:00 - 16:30Shared unsderstanding of ES evolution - restitution in plenary and

discussion

16:30 - 17:00 Wrap up, conclusion and validation

Water Framework Community Stakeholders & RBA Workshop Elicitation

Introduction: Who's who ground rules, review of method, timetable & expected outcomes

Coffee Break

Workshop process - 2. Co-construction of Ecosystem Services

Lunch

Workshop process - 3. Comments & validation of research out-put on

Climate change scenarii

Coffee Break

Workshop process - 3. Comments & validation of research out-put on

Climate change scenarii




Introduction of the concept




Provisioning goods and services

• Water (e.g. for drinking, irrigation)

• Raw materials (e.g. fiber, timber)

• Food (e.g. fish, fruit)




Regulating services

• Climate regulation – global and local level

• Moderation of extreme events (floods & droughts)

• Regulation of water flows

• Waste treatment

• Soil erosion prevention

• Many more....

• Climate regulation

• Moderation of extreme events

• Regulation of water flows

• Waste treatment

• Erosion prevention

• Maintenance of soil fertility

• Pollination




Cultural services

• Aesthetic information

• Opportunities for recreation

• Inspiration for culture, art & design

• Spiritual experience

• Information for cognitive development (education)







Monetary valuation

• Builds on biophysical information on the services provided by

ecosystems to derive values

• E.g. a change in carbon storage in wetland (t CO2/km2) can be

converted to values by multiplying it by the carbon price in

international markets

• Prices from other studies (benefit transfers), where possible refined

with data collected in case study areas (in a participatory approach)




Socio cultural valuation

• Qualitative analysis based on non-numerical information,

which describes values and benefits that are not easily

translated into quantitative information

e.g. landscape beauty, impacts on security and

wellbeing, cultural and spiritual values




Stakeholders & ecosystem services valuation

• Identification of important ecosystem services in case

study areas by key stakeholders

• The outcome of the valuation process depends on what

the various stakeholders value, whose values count,

who benefits ...

• Valuation reveals multiple benefits and reveals

opportunities for co-operation between stakeholders

• Communication tool




Workshop activity 1. Construction of a livelihood vision.

What are the characteristics of the case study area in general?

How do people make a living?

What is the area famous for ?




Workshop activity 2. Identification of Ecosystem services




Which ecosystem services are important in the

region?

Provisioning services we can live

without them

not that

important

I do not know/ no

opinion

Should be

protected

Must be

protected

Food

Timber and other raw materials

Fresh water

Natural medicines, aromatic plants etc

Regulating services

Climate regulation

Pest regulation

Purification (water)

Pollination

Cultural ecosystem services

Recreation and tourism

Cultural heritage, religious values

....




Opportunities. Which ecosystem services have

potential to contribute to local prosperity in the region? I do not know medium potential strong potential

0 + + +

Provisioning services

Economic

prosperity

Cultural

identity

Quality of living

environment

Biodiversity Social cohesion

Food


Fresh water

Natural medicines, aromatic plants etc…

Regulating services

Climate regulation

Pest regulation


Pollination







Threats: Which ecosystem services are threatened by a

decrease in the quality of the natural environment?

Provisioning services Degree of threat

Food


Fresh water

Natural medicines, aromatic plants etc…

Regulating services

Climate regulation

Pest regulation


Pollination




....




Workshop process - 3. Comments & validation of research

out-put:

Storyline 1 – MYOPIC (Extreme scenario with high CO2

emission)

Storyline 2 – SUSTAINABLE (scenario with low C02

emission)




THANK YOU



1st GLOBAQUA International Conference

Change in terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in South-European river basins

under future irrigation scenarios

Marta Terrado, Laura Vergoñós, Sergi Sabater, Leonidas Vardakas, Momir Paunović and Vicenç Acuña

Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), Girona, SpainHellenic Center for Marine Research, Attica, GreeceUniversity of Belgrade, Serbia


OUTLINE

1. INTRODUCTIONHabitat degradation as the leading cause of biodiversity decline

2. OBJECTIVES

3. METHODCharacteristics of the study basinsHabitat quality model

4. RESULTSCurrent habitat quality in the study basinsChange of habitat quality under future scenarios of irrigation

5. CONCLUSIONS


IntroductionGlobal biodiversity decline – Living Planet Index


Main drivers of biodiversity decline

Introduction

Alkemade et al. (2009) Ecosystems

non-natural habitat types (lower HQ)natural habitat

Sala et al. (2000) Science


Threats to human water security and freshwater biodiversity

Introduction

Vörösmarty et al. (2010) Nature

Regions with high threat to biodiversity coincide with regions with high threat to human water security


Threats to human water security

Introduction

Gleick (2003) Science


Objectives

1. Assess the current habitat quality in river basins affected by different levels of threats

2. Identify which type of regions are expected to be more vulnerable to habitat degradation under future scenarios (i.e. level of water scarcity, irrigated areas…), and therefore, more prone to biodiversity loss


MethodsHabitat types in the 4 study basins


MethodsWater balance vs irrigated area per sub-watershed (water body)

• Irrigation: Ebro - 14%Adige - 5%Evrotas - 7%Sava - 17%

• Number of sub-basins (WFD): Ebro - 715

Adige - 306Evrotas - 46Sava - 39

• P/ETo ratio: Ebro - 1.1Adige - 3.3Evrotas - 1.3Sava - 2.7


Methods

1. Currenthabitat quality

(HQ)

% change in habitat qualityper sub-basin

2. Change of habitat qualityunder future

scenarios

- Habitat type: irrigation agriculture- Threat: agriculture- Threat: water abstraction

Irrigation scenarios for the 4 study basins

FutureHQ


MethodsHabitat quality model : approach followed

Habitat quality / habitat for species: Assessed as an indicator of the status of biodiversity

Depends on:

- Suitability of the habitat for species• Do species prefer forest, or grassland, or

cropland…?

- Proximity & intensity of threats (pressures)

• How far away the threat is?

• How severe the threat is?Aquatic: Terrado et al. (2016)


Methods

• Habitat suitability • Threats (habitat degradation)

Relative weight

Threat intensity at the source

Threat adjusted by

distance

Relative sensitivity of the habitat to a threat

HABITAT QUALITY

Habitat suitability

Habitat degradation due to threats

Habitat quality model : approach followed


MethodsHabitat quality model: threats considered

Ebro Sava Adige Evrotas

Terrestrial threats

agriculture

urbanization

mining

roads

Ebro Sava Adige Evrotas

Aquatic threats

abstraction

urban discharge

dams

channeling

invasive species (finally not included)


MethodsHabitat quality model: expert opinion

1. Threat weights

2. Maximumdistance of threataffectation

• Survey: a link to theonline survey sent toexperts

• 42 answers obtained

• Information from a previous study : Terrado et al (2016)


Methods

Maximum distance of affectationThreat weights

mean values per basin incorporating the confidence level of experts

Habitat quality model: expert opinion


Results

Terrestrial habitat quality

Aquatic habitat quality

Habitat quality model

• For Adige, lower HQ in the north and close to the outlet of the basin

• Aquatic HQ lower than terrestrial

• Lower HQ in the main river course for Ebro, Sava and Evrotas


ResultsChange in habitat quality under future irrigation scenarios

Terrestrial habitat quality

• Highest HQ changes in the Ebro (by -19% per SW)

• Highest losses in the “dry” scenario

• Sava: general HQ losses/ Adige: general HQ gains

HQ gains/ losses correspond to irrigation gains/ losses

“dry” scenario

“wet” scenario


ResultsChange in habitat quality under future irrigation scenarios

Aquatic habitat quality

• Highest HQ changes in the Ebro (by -28% per SW)

• Highest losses still in the “dry” scenario. More accused than terrestrial HQ

“dry” scenario

“wet” scenario


Conclusions

-Regions with low water balance and important areas devoted to irrigation are among the most threatened under future scenarios of global change

-Regions with higher water balances are identified to be vulnerable to habitat degradation when their percentage of irrigation is high, although in a lower extent

-Aquatic habitat quality is lower than terrestrial habitat quality and is predicted to experience higher decreases in the future

-In all cases, the loss of habitat quality is exacerbated under dry climate scenarios as a result of a higher water stress, especially in regions where irrigated areas are expected to increase


Thanks!!

Documents

Benlouali Hajar*, Redouane Choukr-Allah, Harrouni …globaqua-project.eu/files/Implications2.pdfThe performance of such compounds must be tested under field conditions. Meyer et al