SSA 4 Himmerfjärden - SAF approach and stakeholder involvement

SSA 4 Himmerfjärden -SAF approach and stakeholder

involvement

SSA 4 Himmerfjärden -SAF approach and stakeholder

involvement

Frida Franzé[email protected]

Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy Ltd. Oxholmsgränd 3 127 48 Skärholmenwww.enveco.se

SAF meeting Istanbul 4th of February 2010

Gerda [email protected]

SSA research teamSSA research team

ECOLOGY TEAMRagnar ElmgrenUlf LarssonJakob WalveSusanne Kratzer Therese Arredal Harvey

ECOLOGY TEAMRagnar ElmgrenUlf LarssonJakob WalveSusanne Kratzer Therese Arredal Harvey

Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy Ltd. • www.enveco.se 2

SOCIAL ECONOMICS TEAMTore SöderqvistFrida FranzénGerda KinellÅsa Soutukorva

SOCIAL ECONOMICS TEAMTore SöderqvistFrida FranzénGerda KinellÅsa Soutukorva

Working with SAF – limitations and possibilities

Working with SAF – limitations and possibilities

Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy Ltd. • www.enveco.se 3

The coastal zone stakeholders and their interest in participating in SPICOSA – composition and knowledge

The coastal zone stakeholders and their interest in participating in SPICOSA – composition and knowledge

The knowledge, skills and competence of SSA

research team

The knowledge, skills and competence of SSA

research team

Data availablity, time/resource for

collecting new data

Data availablity, time/resource for

collecting new data

4Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy Ltd. • www.enveco.se

Himmerfjärden coastal zone

5

Södertälje cityLake Mälaren outlet

Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy Ltd. • www.enveco.se

HSTP

10 km

The real world- societyThe real world- society

• Institutional mapping– Administrative boundaries – municipalities,

counties – Stakeholder groups– Potential conflicts

• Governance mapping– Legislation, norms (WFD, Nitrate Directive etc)– Collaboration, forum (screening survey)

• Institutional mapping– Administrative boundaries – municipalities,

counties – Stakeholder groups– Potential conflicts

• Governance mapping– Legislation, norms (WFD, Nitrate Directive etc)– Collaboration, forum (screening survey)


7

THE EUROPEAN UNION

Swedish Government

LRF - Farmers organisation

Greppa Näringen – Farmers consulting organisation

2.1.1 The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

2.1.4 SYVAB – Himmerfjärdsverket (HSTP)

2.1.1 County Board in Stockholm 2.1.1 County Board Sörmland

Södertälje municipality

Nynäshamns municipality

2.3.1 Himmerfjärdens nature conserv.

Botkyrka municipality

PUBLIC

Salems municipality

Haninge municipality

TOURISTS

Nykvarns municipality

2.1.1 KOMMUNER (MUNICIPALITIES)

NGO’s AND ASSOCIATIONS

INDUSTRY: AFFECTING

2.2.5 Astra Zeneca

2.2.5 Scania

2.1 GOVERNMENT/NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

INDUSTRY: AFFECTED

2.3.1 Recreational fishery org.

Biodynamic farming org.

2.2.1.4 LANTBRUKARE - FARMERS

2.2.3.1Restaurants etc

2.2.3.1 Tourism – camping etc.

2.3.1 Summer house owners

Landowners

The Swedish Water Authorities

Stakeholder meeting no. 1 Stakeholder meeting no. 1


Stakeholder group is established in Södertälje nov 2007. The meeting was co-organized with the Water Authorities.

- November 2007- November 2007

Policy issue: eutrophicationPolicy issue: eutrophication


10

THE EUROPEAN UNION

Swedish Government


Greppa Näringen – Farmers consulting organisation

2.1.1 Naturvårdsverket – The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency


2.1.1 County Board in Stockholm 2.1.1 County Board Sörmland





PUBLIC

Salems municipality

Haninge municipality

TOURISTS

Nykvarns municipality



INDUSTRY: AFFECTING

2.2.5 Astra Zeneca

2.2.5 Scania


INDUSTRY: AFFECTED

2.3.1 Recreational fishery org.

Biodynamic farming org.


2.2.3.1Restaurants etc

2.2.3.1 Tourism – camping etc.


Landowners


Stakeholder groupStakeholder group

• County Board (environmental analyst)• 4 municipalities officers (planners,

environmental officers)• Former CTO of HSTP• 2 process engineers at Astra Zenecas STP• Chairman of the nature conservation org. • Land owner/farmer • Farmer (was involved until 2009)

• County Board (environmental analyst)• 4 municipalities officers (planners,

environmental officers)• Former CTO of HSTP• 2 process engineers at Astra Zenecas STP• Chairman of the nature conservation org. • Land owner/farmer • Farmer (was involved until 2009)


Institutional contextInstitutional context

• Consultation is institutionalized in Swedish practice

• Old ”reference group” to research at HSTP• All stakeholders agreed on

”eutrophication” as the main policy issue• Different opinions on policy options etc. • But no greater ”conflicts”• The process is not directly linked to

decision-making

• Consultation is institutionalized in Swedish practice

• Old ”reference group” to research at HSTP• All stakeholders agreed on

”eutrophication” as the main policy issue• Different opinions on policy options etc. • But no greater ”conflicts”• The process is not directly linked to

decision-making



STAKEHOLDERS POLICY FORUM

ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC and SOCIAL APPRAISAL

SYSTEM FORMULATION

SYSTEM DESIGN

Return Information

Research Design

POLICY CONSTRAINTS and GOVERNANCE

PUBLIC andEND USERS

SYSTEM OUTPUT

Deliberation

Validation

STAKEHOLDERS POLICY FORUM

ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC and SOCIAL APPRAISAL

SYSTEM FORMULATION

SYSTEM DESIGN

Return Information

Research Design

POLICY CONSTRAINTS and GOVERNANCE

PUBLIC andEND USERS

SYSTEM OUTPUT

Deliberation

Validation

SG establishedPolicy issue

Policy options

Scenarios

Communicating first results of simulation

Stakeholder meeting no. 2- April 2008

Stakeholder meeting no. 2- April 2008


Himmerfjärden STP Agriculture

Private sewers

After stakeholder meeting no. 2After stakeholder meeting no. 2

• Screening survey in stakeholder group – confirming policy issue, how policy issue affect ecology, economy and society in Himmerfjärden, collaboration platforms etc.

• Interviews with stakeholders• First EXTEND models

• Screening survey in stakeholder group – confirming policy issue, how policy issue affect ecology, economy and society in Himmerfjärden, collaboration platforms etc.

• Interviews with stakeholders• First EXTEND models


Conceptual model for EXTEND Conceptual model for EXTEND


ESE linkages and data collectionESE linkages and data collection


Version 2:Version 1:

Sediment

DetritalP

Detrital N

’ Detrital P

Eukaryotic andpico-phytoplankton

N2-fixingcyanobacteria

DIN

DIP

DONDOP

Zoo-plankton

Detrital N

Temp

Grazing

Grazing

Excretion

Surface water

Bottom water

Temp

Externalinputs

Permanent burial

Loss(mainlypredation)

DIP

DIN

SedimentationVertical mixing

Advection

System boundary

Temp

Uptake

Mineralization

Denitrification

Mineralization

AdvectionSed P

Sed N Sedimentation

Himmerfjärden SSA conceptual model – basin levelExternalinputs Sunlight

Sediment

DetritalP

Detrital N

’ Detrital P



DIN

DIP

DONDOP

Zoo-plankton

Detrital N

Temp

Grazing

Grazing

Excretion

Surface water

Bottom water

Temp

Externalinputs

Permanent burial

Loss(mainlypredation)

DIP

DIN

SedimentationVertical mixing

Advection

System boundary

Temp

Uptake

Mineralization

Denitrification

Mineralization

AdvectionSed P

Sed N Sedimentation


Sediment



DINDIP

Annualgrazing cycle

Surface water

Bottom water

Temp

(Permanent burial)

DIP

DIN

Sedimentation

Vertical mixing

Advection

System boundary

Uptake

Mineralization

(Denitrification)

Mineralization

AdvectionSedimentation



Advection

Advection

Annual light cycle

Temperature control

mortality

Annual nutrient release cycle

Mineralization

Sediment



DINDIP

Annualgrazing cycle

Surface water

Bottom water

Temp

(Permanent burial)

DIP

DIN

Sedimentation

Vertical mixing

Advection

System boundary

Uptake

Mineralization

(Denitrification)

Mineralization

AdvectionSedimentation



Advection

Advection

Annual light cycle

Temperature control

mortality

Annual nutrient release cycle

Mineralization

Conceptual Model: Himmerfjärden example, EcologyConceptual Model: Himmerfjärden example, Ecology

This version was the initial ecological conceptual model of the System Design stepThe link to water transparency Secchi depth was not shown, but was planned to be linked by empirical relationship with chlorophyll

This is how the model was actually developed as a first version. The first operational version was however further simplified.

Conceptual Model: Himmerfjärden example,

water exchange

Conceptual Model: Himmerfjärden example,

water exchange

The water exchange conceptual model for the three sub-basins was first divided into only two depth layers, but was later developed into a three-layer model. This gave a more realistic model reflecting the actual sill depths between the basins. Still, of course, it is a simplification of the real world.

The numerical water-exchange model is heavily data-dependent: Salinity data is used to calculate flows according to mass-balance.

0-7 m

7-13 m

13-37 m

0-7 m

7-13 m

RainLocal runoff Local runoff Local runoffSTP

0-10 m

10-20 m

HAs

HAm

HAb

NAs

NAm

NAb

HIs

HIm

HIb

Lake Mälarenrunoff Baltic Sea

Rain Rain

13-38 m

20-43 m

Hallsfjärden Näslandsfjärden Himmerfjärden pr.

4.57

5.51

5.81

5.23

5.77

6.03

6.00

6.35

5.87316

197

4749

54

123

25

17

43

Box name Volume (Mm3)Salinity (avg. for 1997-2000)depth

Legend for model:

Stakeholder meeting no. 3- November 2008

Stakeholder meeting no. 3- November 2008

22

• Policy options• Scenario discussions• Communication of preliminary models

(ecological and socio-economic submodels)

• Policy options• Scenario discussions• Communication of preliminary models

(ecological and socio-economic submodels)


How do we plan the meetings?How do we plan the meetings?• About 3 hours meeting, including free lunch and

”coffee”• Suggested agenda is sent out about 2 weeks ahead• Venue: differs (municipality, STP and Enveco office)• Language/ communication: few model snapshots,

otherwise text, pictures and conceptual models• Presentation/updates of research in Himmerfjärden• Presentation of SPICOSA progress

• About 3 hours meeting, including free lunch and ”coffee”

• Suggested agenda is sent out about 2 weeks ahead• Venue: differs (municipality, STP and Enveco office)• Language/ communication: few model snapshots,

otherwise text, pictures and conceptual models• Presentation/updates of research in Himmerfjärden• Presentation of SPICOSA progress


Stakeholder inputStakeholder input• Prepare discussion topics• Overall suggestions and questions (round table)• Minutes from all meetings are distributed to

stakeholder group• Informal ”coffee talk”• Also following up meetings with screening surveys

and interviews

• Prepare discussion topics• Overall suggestions and questions (round table)• Minutes from all meetings are distributed to

stakeholder group• Informal ”coffee talk”• Also following up meetings with screening surveys

and interviews


(Stakeholder meeting no. 4)- April 2009

(Stakeholder meeting no. 4)- April 2009

26

• ”Extra” meeting to discuss WFD • Submission for comments of the PoMs• Communication of user friendly interface

of model

• ”Extra” meeting to discuss WFD • Submission for comments of the PoMs• Communication of user friendly interface

of model


Between meeting no. 3-5Between meeting no. 3-5

• Questionnare to farmers • Refine model

– Increase flexibility– Sub-basins (spatial fit)– Empirical link between nitrogen loadings

and secchi depth in a further simplified ecological model

– Coupling of ecological and socioeconomic models

– Integrating preliminary questionnaire result

• Questionnare to farmers • Refine model

– Increase flexibility– Sub-basins (spatial fit)– Empirical link between nitrogen loadings

and secchi depth in a further simplified ecological model

– Coupling of ecological and socioeconomic models

– Integrating preliminary questionnaire result


Socioeconomic resultsSocioeconomic results

• Present values of costs and benefits for chosen scenario

• Attempts to include cost-effectiveness measure• Qualitative values

• Additional visitors 26 000-36 000 (30 years)• Effects on local economy

• Present values of costs and benefits for chosen scenario

• Attempts to include cost-effectiveness measure• Qualitative values

• Additional visitors 26 000-36 000 (30 years)• Effects on local economy


Meeting no. 5 ”Stakeholder forum, part A.”

November 2009

Meeting no. 5 ”Stakeholder forum, part A.”

November 2009

31

• Preliminary results from scenario simulations

• Adjustning final scenarios • Suggestion of refining policy options and

improving the applicability of the model• Suggestions for use – Water Authorities• Screening survey

• Preliminary results from scenario simulations

• Adjustning final scenarios • Suggestion of refining policy options and

improving the applicability of the model• Suggestions for use – Water Authorities• Screening survey


Next meeting, ”Stakeholder forum, part B.”

March 2010 -

Next meeting, ”Stakeholder forum, part B.”

March 2010 -• The Water Authorities (responsible for

implementation of the WFD in Sweden) was suggested for using the model/results of the model

• Taking the issue to a higher institutional level, including SEPA, Water Authorities, County Boards etc.

• The aim of the meeting is to discuss future use of the model and further development/collaboration

• The Water Authorities (responsible for implementation of the WFD in Sweden) was suggested for using the model/results of the model

• Taking the issue to a higher institutional level, including SEPA, Water Authorities, County Boards etc.

• The aim of the meeting is to discuss future use of the model and further development/collaboration


33

THE EUROPEAN UNION


2.1.1 The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency


2.1.1 County Board in Stockholm





PUBLIC



INDUSTRY: AFFECTING

2.2.5 Astra Zeneca


INDUSTRY: AFFECTED



Landowners


Important thoughts for Stakeholder forum, part B.

Important thoughts for Stakeholder forum, part B.

• Limitations and approximations of model• Links to other models? What is different?• Applying the model on other areas? What

data is needed?• Highlight that the SAF process of including

stakeholders, correspond to the demand of including local stakeholders and public into water management according to the WFD

• Suggestions from SPICOSA team?

• Limitations and approximations of model• Links to other models? What is different?• Applying the model on other areas? What

data is needed?• Highlight that the SAF process of including

stakeholders, correspond to the demand of including local stakeholders and public into water management according to the WFD

• Suggestions from SPICOSA team?


Lessons learned in research team Lessons learned in research team

• EXTEND – modeling and linking social, economic and ecological variables

• How to involve and communicate with stakeholders

• Working and communicating with stakeholders is as challenging as multidisciplinary work

• Stakeholders truly concerned of policy issue and contiuned involvement in the group

• Simplifications of either ecological, social or economic systems are needed for ESE linkages

• Maintenance of models after SPICOSA?

• EXTEND – modeling and linking social, economic and ecological variables

• How to involve and communicate with stakeholders

• Working and communicating with stakeholders is as challenging as multidisciplinary work

• Stakeholders truly concerned of policy issue and contiuned involvement in the group

• Simplifications of either ecological, social or economic systems are needed for ESE linkages

• Maintenance of models after SPICOSA?


36

The ”pipeline” policy option

Stakeholder impact


Summary of screening surveyNovember 2009

Summary of screening surveyNovember 2009

• What have you gained from participating in the stakeholder group?

“A good network of contacts.”

”Knowledge about the project and what modeling can be used for. ”

”Increased knowledge about coastal waters in Himmerfjärden and the surroundings.”

“Better understanding of the WFD and its implications. “

”Personal contact with experts working in research projects in the area.”

• What have you gained from participating in the stakeholder group?

“A good network of contacts.”

”Knowledge about the project and what modeling can be used for. ”

”Increased knowledge about coastal waters in Himmerfjärden and the surroundings.”

“Better understanding of the WFD and its implications. “

”Personal contact with experts working in research projects in the area.”


Thanks for listening!

Questions?

Thanks for listening!

Questions?


SSA 4 Himmerfjärden - SAF approach and stakeholder involvement

Documents

Transcript of SSA 4 Himmerfjärden - SAF approach and stakeholder involvement