Upload
annabella-elliott
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reducing water use and water pollution through innovative technologies: an ecosystems
perspective
Prof. Dr. Patrick MeireChair of Integrated Water Management
andEcosystem Management Research Group
1
2
Faculty of ScienceDepartment of Biology
Ecosystem Management Research Group
3
3
What are we doing?
Ecological, ecohydrological and biogeochemical research in marshes,
brooks, rivers and estuaries
4
Why are doing this?
To get a better insight in the ecologiscal functioning, biogeochemical cycles and the ecosystem services
Translate these scientific insights into concepts for for conservation, management and restoration of ecosystems, as a contribution to sustainable development
5
Faculty of ScienceDepartment of Biology
Ecosystem Management Research Group
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences
Chair of Integrated Water management
6
Chair of Integrated Water Management
• Stimulates multidisciplinary research on IWRMForum for discussion about the concept of IWRM- Organisation of conferences, workshops on
specific topics- Lecture series: Water in the world
• IWRM course for students/professionals• NEW: Advanced Master
ADVANCED MASTER OF
TECHNOLOGY FOR INTEGRATED WATERMANAGEMENT
8
• Innovative solutions- Where are we?- Where should we be?
8
9
Source use
Treatment
Waste watertreatment Discharge
River
Reduce amount ofWater per unit product
ImproveWaste treatment
Energyrecuperation
Benefit to company Benefit to environment
10
But
• Water use is increasing dramatically:- 1900-2000:
• World population x 3• Water consumption x 6
• Water resources are declining due to- Pollution- Overexploitation
Water shortage is widespread
11
Beschikbaarheid van zoet water in Europa (Thyssen 1998), bron gegevens: Shiklomanov 1991
waterstress < 1700 m3 / person / year
waterschortage< 1000 m3 / person / year
12
More than 4 billion people are expected to face water stress by 2050
13
Climate change
14Relative changes in precipitation (in percent) for the period 2090–2099, relative to 1980–1999. Values are
multi-model averages based on the SRES A1B scenario for Dec.-Feb. (left) and Jun.-Aug. (right). White areas: less than 66% of the models agree in the sign of the change; stippled areas: more than 90% of the models agree in the sign of the change. [IPCC AR4 WGI
SPM]
15
Projection of changes in annual runoff (2041-2060 vs 1900-1970), for SRES A1B. Colour represents a median from 12 models. Presence of
colour means that 8 or more models agree as to the direction of change (hatching: agreement of 11 or 12 models).
Milly, Betancourt, Falkenmark, Hirsch, Kundzewicz, Lettenmaier & Stouffer Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science. 1 Feb. 2008
Changement des débitsChangement des débitsbassins de la Somme et de la Seinebassins de la Somme et de la Seine
Seine à Pose, Scénarios A1B et A2:
Débit de base (m3/s)Débit (m3/s)
Débits mensuels moyens; Modèle hydrogéologique MODCOU
-50%
-20%
- 30%
Réduction des débits d’étiage et de crue Partiellement expliqué par une baisse du débit de base
Changement des débitsChangement des débitsbassins de la Somme et de la Seinebassins de la Somme et de la Seine
Seine à Pose, Scénario A1B:
Mean Annual Av. Aquif Level : Arp_A1B
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year
Aq
uif
Lev
el (
m N
GF
)
Niv_Moy_Arp_A1B
Linear (Niv_Moy_Arp_A1B)
300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
220
00
00
230
00
00
240
00
00
250
00
00
DEFICIT MOYEND'ALIMENTATION ANNUELLE
PAR MASSE D'EAU(millions de m3)
SCENARIO A1B
.
DEFICIT GLOBAL ANNUEL : 2488 Millions de m3
0.0 - 20.020.1 - 40.040.1 - 60.060.1 - 80.080.1 - 100.0100.1 - 120.0120.1 - 140.0140.1 - 160.0160.1 - 180.0180.1 - 200.0
60
200
Baisse du niveau piézométrique : -5 m en 150 ans
Période 2070-2100 – Période 1950-2010; 54 piézomètres; Modèle hydrogéologique MODCOU
Déficits annuels de recharge des nappes: 3000 Mm3 : déficits comparables aux prélévements totaux actuels (nappes + surface)
Demer.shp-74 - -71-70 - -56-55 - -44
-43 - -34-33 - -19
Low scenario, Runoff peaks
Mean scenario, Runoff peaks
High scenario, Runoff peaks
Climate 2100, Flanders
LOW FLOW PEAKS
(-88%)(-87%) - (-68%)(-67%) - (-63%)(-62%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-48%)
(-56%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-52%)(-51%) - (-47%)(-46%) - (-40%)(-39%) - (-30%)
(-35%) - (-32%)(-31%) - (-24%)(-23%) - (-21%)(-20%) - (-15%)(-14%) - (-10%)
Low scenario
Mean scenario
High scenario
Demer.shp-74 - -71-70 - -56-55 - -44
-43 - -34-33 - -19
Low scenario, Runoff peaks
Mean scenario, Runoff peaks
High scenario, Runoff peaks
Climate 2100, Flanders
LOW FLOW PEAKS
(-88%)(-87%) - (-68%)(-67%) - (-63%)(-62%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-48%)
(-56%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-52%)(-51%) - (-47%)(-46%) - (-40%)(-39%) - (-30%)
(-35%) - (-32%)(-31%) - (-24%)(-23%) - (-21%)(-20%) - (-15%)(-14%) - (-10%)
Low scenario
Mean scenario
High scenario
Impact on low water discharges Impact on low water discharges ScheldebekkenScheldebekken
Low water discharges decrease in all scenario’s (20 tot 70%)
Data Prof. Willems, KUL
Demer.shp-74 - -71-70 - -56-55 - -44
-43 - -34-33 - -19
Low scenario, Runoff peaks
Mean scenario, Runoff peaks
High scenario, Runoff peaks
Climate 2100, Flanders
LOW FLOW PEAKS
(-88%)(-87%) - (-68%)(-67%) - (-63%)(-62%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-48%)
(-56%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-52%)(-51%) - (-47%)(-46%) - (-40%)(-39%) - (-30%)
(-35%) - (-32%)(-31%) - (-24%)(-23%) - (-21%)(-20%) - (-15%)(-14%) - (-10%)
Low scenario
Mean scenario
High scenario
Demer.shp-74 - -71-70 - -56-55 - -44
-43 - -34-33 - -19
Low scenario, Runoff peaks
Mean scenario, Runoff peaks
High scenario, Runoff peaks
Climate 2100, Flanders
LOW FLOW PEAKS
(-88%)(-87%) - (-68%)(-67%) - (-63%)(-62%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-48%)
(-56%) - (-55%)(-54%) - (-52%)(-51%) - (-47%)(-46%) - (-40%)(-39%) - (-30%)
(-35%) - (-32%)(-31%) - (-24%)(-23%) - (-21%)(-20%) - (-15%)(-14%) - (-10%)
Low scenario
Mean scenario
High scenario
Low-scenario
High-scenario
19
Climate change
• Water availability will likely decrease in many places
• Water quality is likely to deteriorate as the more water from treatment plants will be discharged in rivers with lower discharges, so less dilution
• Rivers and wetlands, as important ecosystems, are at risk
A more integrated approach is necessary
20
Ecosystem services: a new paradigm
21
22
Ecological functioning versus Economy
“Goods and services”
(Costanza et al., Nature 1997)
23“NATURAL”
WATER CYCLE
WATER SYSTEM Ecosystem
Structure and
processes
Human activitiesImpact
SINK
SOURCE
WATER CHAIN
HUMAN direct USES
HUMAN Indirect USES
Ecosystem services •Buffering dynamics•Storage capacity
•Self-purifying•Detoxification•Productivity
•Security•health
SOURCE
Ecosystem goods•Harvest
•Water supply •Economy
24
Source
Treatment
Storage distribution use
Treatment
Waste watertreatment
Discharge
River
Groundwater River
Landscape/landuse
25
Water supply New York
• 9 million users• 4 - 5 billion l / day
• 90 % from Catskill and Delaware systems: 5200 square kilometers
Source: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/watershed
26
27
UNESCO Flanders FRIEND/NILE project
Costs balance• New
Catskill/Delaware filtration plant - $ 6 – 8 billion - $ 300 million/ year
operating expenses
- Consequencc = doubling of the water rates for the citizens
• Land acquisition- $ 1.2 billion / 10
year for improvemnet of the watersheds (355000 acres)
- $ 270 million to bring water from existing treatment plants watershed up for tertiary treatment
28
Infiltration:2.5 million m³/y
Pumping:1 million m³/y
WorldEconomicForum
30
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
31
Source use
Treatment
Waste watertreatment Discharge
River
Reduce amount ofWater per unit product
ImproveWaste treatment
Energyrecuperation
Benefit to company Benefit to environment
Reduce risk of shortage In supply
ReduceTreatmentcosts
Sustainablility
32
• Instead of viewing the preservation of nature as something for which we have to sacrifice our well-being, we now perceive the environment as natural capital, one of society’s important assets.
33
Conclusion
• Integrated water resources management is THE challenge for the 21st century and is a matter of ALL water users.
• Private companies can play a crucial role in stimulating IWRM and Payment for Ecosystem Services is a promising way towards integration and sustainability
• Closing the water cycle as much as possible is the starting point
34
• Using as much as possible ecosystem services to:- Improve the quality of the water- Enhance the availability of the water- Reduce the environmental impact of a business
• IWRM requires a good balance between- Hard engineering/technology- Eco engineering/technology- Human behaviour
35
Thanks for yourattention