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