1 / 51

Adding a green-blue dimension to water evaluation and planning

Adding a green-blue dimension to water evaluation and planning. SEI WEAP Training Workshop 14th Dec 2004 Johan Rockström. 110,000 km 3 /yr. LAND. SEA. Q & Q. The water sector approach. 40,000 km 3 /yr. Three decades of knowledge for Policy. KNOWLEDGE BUILDING L’vovich 1974,79

ellema
Download Presentation

Adding a green-blue dimension to water evaluation and planning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adding a green-blue dimension to water evaluation and planning SEI WEAP Training Workshop 14th Dec 2004 Johan Rockström

  2. 110,000 km3/yr LAND SEA Q & Q The water sector approach 40,000 km3/yr

  3. Three decades of knowledge for Policy KNOWLEDGE BUILDING L’vovich 1974,79 Falkenmark, 1976 Bodyko, 1984 Shiklomanov, 1993, 1997, 2000 Gleick, 1993 UN CFWA, 1997 (SEI) WWV, 2000 WWAP, ongoing INTERNATIONAL AGENDA Mar del Plata 1977 Drinking water decade 1981-1990 WCED 1987 Dublin 1992 UNCED 1992 2nd WWF 2000 WSSD 2002 WCD 2002 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Water for Society Sector approach to water (Dom, Ind, Irri) Water Econ good IWRM  GWP WSSD  IWRM plans Water for Environment Water and Society

  4. Sector focus • Resource: Focus on Stable Runoff in perennial rivers, accessible groundwater and lakes • Withdrawal: (Still not focus on use) Focus on Sectors – industry, municipal and “agriculture” (de facto large scale conventional irrigation schemes)

  5. Freshwater assessment – the human link

  6. Humans and Water Resources“the looming global freshwater crisis” 110,000 km3 yr-1 40,000 km3 yr-1 Ceiling: 12,500 km3 yr-1 Agriculture: 69 % Industry 23 % Municipalities 8 %

  7. World “freshwater” resources

  8. Projected Blue Water Scarcity 2025 IWMI Podium analysis (de Fraiture, et al, 2000)

  9. Water resource advancements • Advancements in realistic withdrawals (Postel, stable and storm runoff) • Advancements in Actual use of water – Withdrawals, Consumptive use, Efficiency (irrigation “use” goes down from over 2500 km3/yr to 1800 km3/yr) (Seckler, Shiklomanov, and others) • Advancement of IWRM concept, planning tools (GWP Toolbox, WaterNet, CapNet….) • Water Security, Transboundary waters – Water wars (Aaron Wolf, world map of transboundary waters – no war has started due to water….) • Water demand management (GWP, Think tanks, NGOs) • Hydrosolidarity (Upstream/downstream sharing of finite water (Jan Lundqvist) • Water and Sanitation

  10. Environmental Water FlowsGetting water for nature into the water for food and people picture Jackie King Smakhtin

  11. Virtual water and Virtual water trading Allan, 1995 Oki Taikan, 2000 Arjen Hoekstra, 2002 …

  12. Open, closing, closed basins

  13. Virtual water trading (25% driven by water scarcity) Water conflicts So, where are we in understanding water for life support in mainstream water policy? IWRM principle for River Basin Management EWF, Storm flows, riparian zones, estuaries Water Consumption WDM, Q&Q Urban Water and Megacities

  14. Green water enters the scene… Malin Falkenmark, 1995

  15. The Terrestrial hydrological cycle (L’vovich data) As is frequently done in hydrology, the losses [referring to the difference between rainfall and observed surface runoff] include the water that goes to infiltration, evaporation from the soil, and the feeding of groundwater; this conforms with the conception that regards only river water as useful. In actuality, if we assess the importance of all the elements of the water balance and do not regard river water as the most important link in the water cycle, though indeed an important one, the losses should consist of surface runoff, which represents a loss of water for the given area. At the same time, soil moisture, as one of the components of soil fertility from the standpoint of human interest, is a more important element than river water. (L'vovich, 1974, p 36) The water consumed in the production of vegetation on fields, which are not irrigated, is not given attention in practical water management at the present time. There is no basis whatsoever for such an approach except perhaps that this expenditure of water takes place imperceptibly (water is not actually pumped from streams and aquifers, as is the case in irrigated agriculture) (L'vovich 1974, p 316)

  16. Rainfall partitioningsemi-arid rainfed farm land in sub-Saharan Africa • Advancements in SWAP interface research • ET to E + T (Sapflow) • The role of Vapour always known…..

  17. Understanding of water for life support develops • 1st green water ecological footprint (Jansson,Å, Folke, C, Rockström, J & Gordon, L (1999) Linking freshwater flows and ecosystem services appropriated by people: The case of the Baltic Sea drainage basin. Ecosystems, 2:351-366) • Stockholm Water Symposia (SIWI, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)

  18. Human Water Dependence The eco-hydrological perspective

  19. Water Flow Domain Use Domain GREEN BLUE DIRECT ECONOMIC BIOMASS GROWTH Rainfed food, timber, fibres, fuelwood, pastures, etc. ECONOMIC USE IN SOCIETY Irrigation, Industry and Domestic uses ECOSYSTEM BIOMASS GROWTH Plants and trees in wetlands, grasslands, forests and other biotopes Biodiversity, resilience ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS Aquatic freshwater habitats Biodiversity, Resilience INDIRECT Eco-hydrological approach to water resource

  20. 80,000 70,000 60,000 Forest 50,000 -1 yr Grasslands 40,000 3 km 30,000 Agriculture 20,000 Wetlands 10,000 0 Low Mean High Human Dependence on Vapoura bottom-up estimate Rockstrom, J., Gordon, L., Folke, C., Falkenmark, M., and Engwall, M., 1999. Linkages among water vapor flows, food production and terrestrial ecosystem services. Conservation Ecology, 3(2) : 5 [online] URL: http:\\www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art5

  21. The blue concern 40,000 km3/yr 27,500 km3/yr indirect Blue 12,500 km3/yr 5,000 km3/yr (40%), Environmental Flow and Navigation 7,500 km3/yr 2,250 km3/yr (30 %), Flushing of nutrients 5,250 km3/yr

  22. Indirect Blue 35 % Direct Green 22 % The global Water Foot Print Direct Blue 2 % Indirect Green 41 %

  23. World map of Green and Blue water dependence in food production

  24. Quantifying the challenge

  25. Water for food in 2050

  26. Where will the water come from? Water Dev 600 km3/yr Water Productivity 200 km3/yr

  27. Water for dietsProjection 2050

  28. Freshwater Predicament 2025 and 2050 for the Tropical hotspots At present Globally 7,000 km3/yr North Africa/Middle East x 1.8 Central America x 0.8 North America x1.6 South America x1.7 Europe x0.9 2300 km3/yr Sub-Saharan Africa 1500 km3/yr Asia 450 km3/yr 6400 km3/yr 5700 km3/yr 2800 km3/yr

  29. Addressing Trade-offs

  30. Recent advances in Green water estimates • Charles Vörösmarty, global freshwater assessment at finer resolution – (Vörösmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., and Lammers, R.B., 2000. Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science, 289 : 284 – 288) • Green water estimates at system scale (irrigation schemes, watersheds) (Bastianssen, Droogers, Jos van Dam) • SEI – SSI research – Scintillometer, remote sensing, sap flow – from farmer field to catchment scale

  31. The 1st integrated water resource assessment

  32. Water Trade-offs and the UN MDGs

  33. Taking on vulnerability and climate change • Going from blue to green-blue • Incorporating surprise, shock and the vulnerability dimension of freshwater • Incorporating climate change as a driver of vulnerability

  34. Managing the manageable part of inherent climatic variability Untapped potential of managing inherent climatic variability Upgrading rainfed agriculture in regions subject to high climatic variability Adapting to climate change induced variability Climatic Variability – The entry point Rural Livelihoods Local Water and Food security

  35. Implications for Evaluation and planning • Multiple scale interactions • Spatial landscape mosaic as a key to resilience • The role of green water flow in sustaining ecosystem functions • The dynamics of green water flows for biomass production • Feedback loops

  36. Australia – Golden Broken Tanzania - Pangani Multiple scale interactions

  37. Multiple scale interactions – the partitioning dilemma Mzingwane Oliphants Chokwe

  38. Management innovations A Nested Scale Approach ”100 % yield increase potential in rainfed farming systems compared to a 10 – 15 % increase potential in irrigated systems” Pretty and Hine, 2001

  39. Spatial Landscape Mosaic – its role for resilience building

  40. The role of green and blue water flows in sustaining resilience The Pangani Basin, Tanzania – The SSI program

  41. Dynamics of Green water flows WP~1500 – 3000 m3/ton

  42. Dynamic relation between yield and water productivity

  43. Implications for WEAP modelling • Quantifying multiple functions of water in supporting ecosystem services and resilience (green/blue, direct/indirect) • Incorporate scale dynamics – nested scales, scaling in-out, landscape mosaic, spatial flow distribution) • Represent soil moisture, vapour shifts, green water flows for different systems and management • Enable the model to analyse options and effects of innovations in water management at the small scale • Incorporate elements of risk, vulnerability, ecological resilience and feedback loops !... • ..in essence – how to develop a distributed and dynamic hydrological model, representing the water balance at local scale and its relation to larger scales, while still maintaining a simple tool for policy and planning – i.e., using a simple approach to capture complexity without being simplistic. • Albert Einstein’s famous dictum “Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler”

  44. Consequence? The dynamic relationship between Y and WP suggests that every change in management, changes the green water relationship… …i.e., to know your virtual water you need to know the yield and management practices used by the farmer… 1500 km3/yr, or 30% reduction of consumptive use…. 3,300 km3/yr remains…

  45. But, the linear relationship between productive green water flow and yield should hold (resulting in constant WPT for given agro-ecological conditions)

  46. Productive green water productivity APSIM Modelling Maize, Mwala, Kenya (20 years)

  47. Productive Green cont… APSIM Modelling Maize systems in Zimbabwe

  48. Implications for balancing Management Dynamics of Green water productivity Dynamics of Productive Green water productivity Balancing water for ecosystem functions

  49. Management innovations A Nested Scale Approach ”100 % yield increase potential in rainfed farming systems compared to a 10 – 15 % increase potential in irrigated systems” Pretty and Hine, 2001

  50. Green water momentum • ISRIC Green water initiative • FAWPIO Forest and green water • IFAD – green water trading, green water services • WB – green water management for livelihoods • GWSP – regional and global functions of green water flows • VIEWS – wider links between GEC, Vulnerabilty and water system services

More Related