Overview of Results from the

EU-WETwin Project

István Zsuffa

Rose Kaggwa

Anne van Dam

Stefan Liersch

Jan Cools _____________________________________________

9th INTECOL International Wetlands Conference

Objectives of WETwin

“Enhancing the role of wetlands in IWRM for twinned

river basins in EU, Africa and Latin-America in support

of EU Water Initiatives”

Strategies for:

utilizing provisioning

and regulating services,

while maintaining

ecosystem functions

integrating wetlands

into RBM

adapting wetland

management to changing

environmental conditions

The Consortium

EU partners: Non-EU partners:

‘Twinning’

partnership

Prepared under contract from the European

Commission

Working on case studies

Conceptual Framework RIVER BASIN

MGT CYCLE

WETLAND

MGT CYCLE

Characterisation

& problems

Evaluation

of solutions River basin

management plan

Implementation

of plan

Monitoring

Review of plans

Generation of

alternative

mgt. solutions

Best compromise

solution

INTERACTION

& EXCHANGE Review

of plans

Characterisation

& problems

Generation of

alternative

mgt. solutions

Evaluation

of solutions

Best compromise

solution

Wetland

management plan

Implementation

of plan

Monitoring

Scope of WETwin

The Namatala wetland

Characterisation, problems

Driver State

Impact

Response

Cause-effect link

Population

growth

Improve purification

capacity of the wetland:

Sustainable agriculture

Papyrus buffer strips

Regulated papyrus

harvesting Limited

wastewater

treatment

Unsustainable

farming in

catchment

Increasing

nutrient,

sediment and

pollution loads

Improve wastewater

treatment

Enforce discharge standards

Papyrus buffer zones

Deterioration of WQ

Higher nutrient

concentrations in soil

Changes in natural flora

and fauna

Risk of pollution with

toxic chemicals, heavy

metals, pathogens

Impacts on Ecosystem Services

•Loss of habitats and biodiversity

•Reduction of fish catches

•Poor quality of water downstream

and for household purposes

•Health risks for riparian population

Management

Solution 1

Management

Solution 2

Management

Solution 3

Alternative A.1.1 X

Alternative A.1.2 X

Alternative A.1.3 X

Alternative A.2.1 X X

Alternative A.2.2 X

Alternative D.1.1 x XManagement

Response D

Management

Option D.1

Management

Response A

DP

SIR

Management

Option A.1

Management

Option A.2

Management

Response C

Objective Process

Subjective process

DS

IR

Generation of alternative mgt. solutions

Biophysical

indicators

Value

functions

Criteria

scores

(0-1)

ANALYSIS NORMALIZATION

Models

Mgt

solution

Scenario Investment,

operational and

maintenance

costs

Feasibility of

implementation

and operation

Cost

evaluation

Institutional

analysis

Evaluation of solutions

Wetland model of Hes et al.

Seasonally

flooded wetland

Permanently

flooded wetland

Open water

Seepage

Seepage

River

discharge

Hydrological

Model

Permanent Wetland

N Model

Seasonal Wetland

N Model

Seasonal Wetland

C Model

Permanent Wetland

C Model

0% 10%

D

10%

HBD

10%

LBD

20%

D

20%

HBD

20%

LBD

30%

D

30%

HBD

30%

LBD

S 25 26 35 27 26 35 27 27 35 27

P 29 30 49 46 30 56 53 31 56 54

S+P 46 47 65 59 47 69 64 48 70 65

S = Seasonally flooded

P = Permanently flooded

D = Daily harvest

HBD = Batch harvest at High Biomass Density

LBD = Batch harvest at Low Biomass Density

Cooping with data poor conditions

Biophysical

indicators Value

functions

Criteria

scores

(0-1)

Models

Expert

judgements

WET-Health (Macfarlane et al., 2008)

WET-Ecoservices (Kotze et al., 2009)

Evaluation matrix, Namatala

Seepage

Seepage

Value functions

Total rice production in wetland

t/y 0 35000

1

0

Indicator value

Cri

teri

a s

co

re

Analysis matrix, Namatala

Articulation of stakeholders’ preferences

Weight sets for

Namatala

Stakeholder group: Water Managers

Stakeholder group: Resource Users

mDSS (Guipponi, 2007)

Identification of the best compromise solution

Stakeholder group: Political leaders

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists

Stakeholder group: Civil Society

Stakeholder group: Community Services

Best compromise

solution: MS 2a

Papyrus buffer strips

Awareness campaigns

Papyrus buffer zones

Strict enforcement of

wetland and land

ownership policy

Papyrus harvesting

regime

Buffer strips

Buffer zones

Stabilisation

ponds

Mbale

Vulnerability Assessment

EI = State(BAU) – State(current)

EI : external impact

AC : Adaptive capacity

AC = State(mgt) – State(BAU)

ΔV = EI + AC

ΔV = State(mgt) – State(current)

ΔV : change in vulnerability

ΔV>0: the system moves towards a resilient state

ΔV<0 : the system moves towards a more

vulnerable state

Vulnerability of food production in the

Inner Niger Delta

Scenarios

Population growth

scenarios: 0.7%

and 2.6% annual

growth rates

Water management scenarios: 1. Sélingué reservoir;

2. Sélingué and Fomi reservoirs

Management

Additional 65,000 ha of wetland area will gradually

be converted into rice fields with a productivity of

approximately 5 t/ha.

Estimated values of vulnerability components

(rice production)

Thank you!

www.wetwin.net