Download Slide 1

Reducing water use and water
pollution through innovative
technologies: an ecosystems
perspective
Prof. Dr. Patrick Meire
Chair of Integrated Water Management
and
Ecosystem Management Research Group
1
2
Faculty of Science
Department of Biology
Ecosystem
Management
Research Group
What are we doing?
Ecological, ecohydrological and
biogeochemical research in marshes,
brooks, rivers and estuaries 3
3
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 Science
Department 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
Benefit to company
Energy
recuperation
Treatment
Source
Benefit to environment
use
Waste water
treatment
Discharge
River
Reduce amount of
Water per unit product
Improve
Waste treatment
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
waterstress
< 1700 m3 / person / year
waterschortage
< 1000 m3 / person / year
Beschikbaarheid van zoet water in Europa (Thyssen 1998), bron gegevens: Shiklomanov 1991
11
12
 More than 4 billion people are expected
to face water stress by 2050
13
Climate change
14
Relative 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]
Milly, Betancourt, Falkenmark, Hirsch, Kundzewicz, Lettenmaier & Stouffer
15
Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science. 1 Feb. 2008
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).
Changement des débits
bassins de la Somme et de la Seine
Seine à Pose, Scénarios A1B et A2:
 Réduction des débits d’étiage et de crue
 Partiellement expliqué par une baisse du débit de base
Débit de base (m3/s)
Débit (m3/s)
-20%
- 30%
-50%
Débits mensuels moyens; Modèle hydrogéologique MODCOU
Changement des débits
bassins de la Somme et de la Seine
Seine à Pose, Scénario A1B:
 Baisse du niveau piézométrique : -5 m en 150 ans
 Déficits annuels de recharge des nappes: 3000 Mm3
: déficits comparables aux prélévements totaux actuels (nappes + surface)
DEFICIT GLOBAL ANNUEL : 2488 Millions de m3
Mean Annual Av. Aquif Level : Arp_A1B
SCENARIO A1B
Niv_Moy_Arp_A1B
Linear (Niv_Moy_Arp_A1B)
68
DEFICIT MOYEN
D'ALIMENTATION ANNUELLE
PAR MASSE D'EAU
(millions de m3)
2400000
66
64
0.0 - 20.0
20.1 - 40.0
40.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 140.0
140.1 - 160.0
160.1 - 180.0
180.1 - 200.0
60
2300000
62
60
58
1950
1975
2000
2025
Year
2050
2075
.
200
2100
2200000
Aquif Level (m NGF)
70
2500000
72
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
Période 2070-2100 – Période 1950-2010; 54 piézomètres; Modèle hydrogéologique MODCOU
800000
Impact
Low scenarioon low water discharges
LOW FLOW PEAKS
Scheldebekken
Low scenario, Runoff peaks
(-88%)
(-87%)
(-67%)
(-62%)
(-54%)
Low
scenario,
Runoff peaks
Low-scenario
Low
scenario
Mean
scenario
Mean
scenario,
Runoff peaks
- (-68%)
- (-63%)
- (-55%)
- (-48%)
LOW FLOW PEAKS
(-88%)
(-56%) - (-55%)
(-87%)
(-68%)
(-54%) -- (-52%)
(-51%) -- (-47%)
(-67%)
(-63%)
(-46%) -- (-40%)
(-62%)
(-55%)
(-39%) -- (-30%)
(-54%)
(-48%)
Mean
scenario
Mean
scenario,
Runoffpeaks
peaks
High
scenario,
Runoff
High-scenario
High
scenario
(-35%)- -(-55%)
(-32%)
(-56%)
(-31%)- -(-52%)
(-24%)
(-54%)
(-23%)- -(-47%)
(-21%)
(-51%)
(-20%) - (-15%)
(-46%) - (-40%)
(-14%) - (-10%)
(-39%) - (-30%)
Climate 2100, Flanders
Low water discharges decrease in all
scenario’s (20 tot 70%)
High scenario
High scenario, Runoff peaks
-43 - -34
 Data Prof. Willems, KUL
(-35%) - (-32%)
-33 - -19
(-31%) - (-24%)
Demer.shp
(-23%) - (-21%)
- -71
(-20%) -74
- (-15%)
-70
- -56
(-14%) - (-10%)
-55 - -44
Climate 2100, Flanders
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
Ecological functioning
versus Economy
22
“Goods and services”
(Costanza et al., Nature 1997)
HUMAN
Indirect USES
Ecosystem services
•Buffering dynamics
•Storage capacity
•Self-purifying
•Detoxification
•Productivity
•Security
•health
“NATURAL”
WATER CYCLE
23
HUMAN
direct USES
SOURCE
WATER CHAIN
Ecosystem goods
•Harvest
•Water supply
•Economy
WATER SYSTEM
Ecosystem
Structure and
processes
SINK
SOURCE
Impact
Human activities
24
Treatment
Source
Groundwater
Storage
Treatment
distribution
use
Waste water
treatment
River
Discharge
Landscape/landuse
River
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
• New
Catskill/Delaware
filtration plant
- $ 6 – 8 billion
- $ 300 million/ year
operating
expenses
- Consequencc =
doubling of the
water rates for the
citizens
Costs balance
• 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
UNESCO Flanders FRIEND/NILE project
28
Infiltration:
2.5 million m³/y
Pumping:
1 million m³/y
World
Economic
Forum
30
World Business Council for
Sustainable Development
31
Reduce
Treatment
costs
Benefit to company
Energy
recuperation
Treatment
Source
Benefit to environment
use
Waste water
treatment
Discharge
River
Reduce amount of
Water per unit product
Improve
Waste treatment
Reduce risk of shortage
In supply
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 your
attention