Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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