keynote presentation: jac van der gun, senior consultant, unesco-international hydrological...

GEF International Waters Science Conference 2012 Bangkok, Thailand – 24 to 26 September 2012

Transboundary aquifer resources management: How can science become more helpful?

Jac van der GunIW:Science Groundwater Working Group

1. Science and management:

two different worlds or synergy?

Theory and concepts,hypothesis,exploration,assessment,modelling, validation,uncertainty

Political realities, transparency,

economic development, sustainability, equity,

implementation, progress, accountability, governance,

stakeholders, ...

t

hS=h)k( si

SCIENTIST

RESOURCESMANAGER/DECISION-MAKER

t

p=

z

p(p)c 2

2

v

t

c=c)v(-c)D( ii

bla-bla

abacadabra

Do they understand each other?Are they willing to communicate?

RESOURCESMANAGER/DECISION-MAKER

SCIENTIST

What do I need to know for informed decisions?

What can I tell you about the world around us?

Communication produces synergy

LOCAL STAKEHOLDERSInfo, perceptions In

fo, p

refe

renc

es,

coop

erati

on

GOVERNANCE

2. The IW:Science project:

Some of the main findings of the Groundwater Working Group

General – trivial but crucial

• The reviewed projects have produced valuable scientific outputs

• Reports on scientific project findings are often hard to find or perhaps even non-existent (obstacle to learning and to informed decision-making)

• Special provisions should be made (procedures, protocols, databases,...) to ensure good and permanent accessibility of technical and scientific project outputs

Conclusions Recommendations

On ‘critical science issues’

• Although not an isolated policy field, much compartmentalisation in TBA management

• Few projects pay sufficient attention to relevant drivers and their interrelations (e.g. CC)

• Imbalance between natural and social science components

• (Limited attention for reliability and accuracy of scientific results)

Conclusions Recommendations

• Adopt holistic perspective for new projects, interlinking policy fields (e.g. water and land use)

• Include identification/analysis of drivers in projects that investigate possible futures (causal chains)

• Improve balance between natural and social sciences (‘social ecosystem approach’)

• Model studies need proper calibration and should be alert on uncertainties

On ‘science for underpinning policy’

• Adaptive management is convenient to deal with uncertainty, but has limitations for TBA management

• Good balance between local science and ‘wider science’ in the majority of the projects

• Communication is crucial in TBA projects – different forms

Conclusions Recommendations

• RBM rather than AM is to be preferred for the short-term and should be supported by a set of indicators

• Define properly responsibilities of and relations between local and international scientific project staff

• Project design and inception has to include effective science communication

On ‘transition from science to management’

• Make arrangements for post-project activities

• Use science throughout the entire project cycle

• Develop indicators to improve understanding, analysis and policy on TBAs (in preparation by TWAP)

• Generally, little attention for post-project activities

• TDA may help focus the use of science, but proper balance of disciplines is required

• Apparently there is not yet a comprehensive methodology or guideline on indicators for IW projects

Conclusions Recommendations

3. Comparison between the overall findings of the IW:Science project

and those of the Groundwater Working Group

• GEF’s investment into shared waters: largest of its kind in human history

• Social and ecological systems in jeopardy or already collapsed

• Science is meant primarily for informing policy choices

• TDA most successful, but underlying science often not in key reports

• Investment in targeted research has paid rich dividend for GEF

• GEF IW programmes provide good examples of practical application of adaptive management

• Potential for added value by focusing on quality and content of science and on consistency in reporting

Final Report versus GWG Findings

Key conclusions Groundwater

Comparatively small investment

Does apply to some aquifers systems

Agreed

Insufficient TBA projects to verify

Not yet verifiable

Not yet verifiable, scope may be more restricted

Certainly also true for TBA projects

• Scientific evidence panel (SEP) for all IW projects

• Scientific information gap analysis during project proposal preparation

• SEP should carry out a horizon scanning exercise as part of every TDA

• GEF should evaluate impacts of interventions on the medium/long term

• GEF’s STAB should be empowered to examine basic scientific principles of projects and contribute to greater uniformity in terminology and methodology

• Proactive approach for improving storage and dissemination of scientific project outputs (reports, data, information)

Final Report versus GWG Findings

Specific high-level recommendations GroundwaterUse science throughout the entire project cycle

Coincides with first GWG recommendation

• Holistic view – integrating water systems and policy sectors

• Social-ecosystems approach - balancing physical and social science

• Importance of communication – bridge between science and management

• Post-project activities – for sustainable results

Elements from GWG that seem underexposed in the Final Report of IW: Science

4. Other important science issues,

not yet addressed by the Groundwater Working Group of

IW:Science

(1) Data for comparison and analysis: do we know what is included, how data was

obtained/processed and are data sets comparable?

• A diversity of potential components: Abstraction from pumped wells Outflow from artesian wells or qanats Spring flow discharge Discharge from artificial land drainage Mine dewatering discharge, etc.

• Statistics based on measurements or rough estimates?

• Abstraction not confused with use or reduced to ‘net’ abstraction?

• Which reference year?

Example: Groundwater abstraction

(1b) Data for comparison and analysis: do we know what is included, how data was

obtained/processed and are data sets comparable?

These questions are relevant for many more variables, e.g.: • Groundwater recharge

• Groundwater abstraction

• Groundwater use (total and by sector)

• Fresh versus brackish/saline groundwater

• Exploitable groundwater resources (including or excluding overlap with surface water resources)

• Renewable versus non-renewable groundwater

• Overexploitation, etc.Proper scientific practice requires clear definitions and a careful analysis of what the data sets really represent

(2) Differences in exploitation and protection strategies at either side of the border

Germany (Nordrhein-Westfalen): Huge open-pits for mining lignite require around 1.2 km3 of groundwater to be drained annually

The Netherlands (Limburg and Brabant): Interference of drainage will on the longer term change groundwater regimes drastically and cause huge damages

Science may help incorporating conflicting interests into a joint strategy and assessing the transboundary impacts as a basis for mitigation and

compensation

(3) Which part of a large aquifer system is relevant for TBA management?

Amazonas aquifer system:Only a minor part of it is within hundred kilometres of distance from any international border

Focus on zones relatively close to the boundaries: how to delineate these zones?

5. Recapitulation:

Promising options for making science more effective

in GEF’s IW groundwater projects

• Clear definitions of variables and concepts

• Proper model calibration/validation and assessment of uncertainty

• Improved accessibility of science results

• Adopting a holistic view (which includes: understanding decision-makers and local stakeholders)

• Natural and social science in good balance

• Identification and analysis of drivers of change

• Clever use of indicators

• Effective science communication

• Attention for post-project activities

Main options for improving the science component

www.iwlearn.net/iwsc2012

Thank you