Water management, droughts and climate change in South East Europe

Transcription

1 Water management, droughts and climate change in South East Europe Prof. Dr. Milan Dimkić, Civ. Eng. Dejan Dimkić, Civ. Eng. Miodrag Milovanović, Civ. Eng. JAROSLAV ČERNI INSTITUTE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, BELGRADE, SERBIA WATER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE, BELGRADE, SERBIA

2

3

4

5

6

7 EUROPE South-East European Countries Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Greece Macedonia Romania Serbia Turkey Croatia Moldova Montenegro Slovenia SOUTH-EAST EUROPE

8 DANUBE

9 DANUBE RIVER BASIN Yearly average renewable water resources 2300 m 3 /capita per year Monthly 95% low water resources l/s per capita RIVER BASINS IN SOUTH-EAST EUROPE

10 LEGEND: SUB-BASIN Yearly average renewable water resources (m 3 /capita per year) Monthly 95% low water resources (10-3 l/s per capita) SAVA TISZA DRINA MORAVA

11 Correlation between economic power and water abundance Authors: Milan Dimkic, Miodrag Milovanovic Data: GDP (World Bank), Renewable water resources (FAO database) SEE COUNTRIES MEDITERANIAN COUNTRIES

12 I GDP in excess of 10K US$ per capita and modest-to-abundant water resources (more than 1000 m 3 per capita per year). These countries have largely resolved the numerous water sector issues. Countries not yet rich (10-20K US$ per capita) have already undertaken substantial activities to enter the stage of sustainable water management. Rich countries (more than 20K US$ per capita), but with modest water resources, need to save water and accelerate their transition to sustainable water management. II GDP 4-10K US$ per capita and modest-to-abundant water resources (more than 1000 m 3 per capita per year). These countries are generally preparing for economic progress and the transition from the water depletion phase to the sustainable water management phase. Additionally, a considerable number of such countries are politically undergoing systemic adjustments. III GDP less than 4K US$ per capita and modest-to-abundant water resources (more than 1000 m 3 per capita per year). These countries are generally seeking to improve their economic circumstances and the status of water management. IV GDP in excess of 10K US$ per capita, arid and desert conditions (less than 1000 m 3 per capita per year). These countries need to adopt cutting-edge technologies to provide water and develop water management. V GDP 4-10K US$ per capita, arid and desert conditions (less than 1000 m 3 per capita per year). The countries that belong to this group are faced with major issues and need to make a considerable effort to implement adequate water management. VI GDP less than 4K US$ per capita, arid and desert conditions (less than1000 m 3 per capita per year). The water sector problems of these countries are enormous. 12

13 Characteristics of South East European countries In general, moderately rich in water resources, undergoing transition to sustainable water management as well as socioeconomic transition Heavy investment and considerable water sector adjustments needed Uneven distribution of well-watered and dry areas Upward temperature gradient, expected to increase As temperature increases, runoff and river discharges will very likely decrease; certain regions expected to become semi-arid and experience considerable water deficits Water awareness needs to be raised and the overall socioeconomic system related to water improved through capacity and efficiency enhancements The influence of global institutions needs to be adjusted to specific needs

14 EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Framework for the protection of all kinds of waters The main goal: to achieve good status of all waters until 2015 Way to the goal: development of the River Basin Management Plan & Programme of Measures Milestones defined: Characterisation Report 2007 Monitoring Report 2009 first River Basin Management Plan development 6 years cycle WFD managing unit: River Basin District Danube RBD: covers both EU and non EU Member States 14

15 Water Framework Directive: key elements Protecting all waters, surface and ground waters in a holistic way Covering all impacts on water Good quality ( good status ) to be achieved, as a rule, by 2015 Surface water status is defined in terms of biology, chemistry and morphology, and groundwater in terms of quantitative and chemical status. Combined approach of emission controls and water quality standards, plus phasing out of 15 particularly hazardous substances

16 Water Framework Directive: key elements Management of the River Basin: integrated water management The challenge of shared river basins River Basin Management Plans Economic instruments: Cost recovery and equitable charging to promote prudent use of water Public participation: getting citizens and stakeholders involved 16

17 WFD - Integrating EU Water policy Measures under Water Framework Directive Coordination of all other measures drinking water bathing water urban waste water Nitrates Ground water IPPC & other industry discharges chemicals pesticides biocides landfills sewage sludge

18 Danube River Protection Convention Signed on 29 June 1994 in Sofia - Bulgaria DRPC is a legal frame for cooperation to assure the protection of water and ecological resources and their sustainable use in the Danube River Basin. 18

19 Contracting Parties Germany Austria Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Slovenia Croatia 19 Bosnia & Herzegovina Serbia Montenegro Romania Bulgaria Rep. of Moldova Ukraine European Union

20 ICPDR - International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River The ICPDR, established by the DRPC: has the mandate to ensure conservation, improvement and rational use of surface waters and groundwater reduce inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances control floods and ice hazards reduce pollution loads to the Black Sea 20

21 Roof Report

22 Significant Water Management Issues Nutrients Organic pollution Hazardous substances Hydromorphological alterations Groundwater Organic Pollution Hazardous Substances Pollution 22 Groundwater Nutrient Pollution

23 Structure of Danube RBM Plan Part A Part B Part C Sub-basin Approach National Approach A: Danube level B: Sub-basin level C: Sub-unit level A: Danube level B: National level C: Sub-unit level Sub-basins Plans National Plans 23

24 Danube River Basin District Management Plan,

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 Nutrients a SWMI in the Danube River Basin 28 Credit Provided by the SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and ORBIMAGE

29 Variation in Total Phosphorous concentrations for the Danube River and selected tributaries during JDS1 and JDS2 29 danubs, 2005

30 GW in the DRB Groundwater is of major importance in the Danube River Basin (at least 50 Mio of 81 Mio inhabitants in the Danube River Basin are served by drinking water from groundwater). Share of groundwater used for drinking water purposes in the DRB part of the single Danube countries varies and ranges from 30% (DRB part of Bulgaria) to 100% (DRB part of Austria). Apart from the drinking water aspect, groundwater is an important resource for industry (cooling purposes, food etc.), agriculture (e.g. irrigation) and thermal water supply (balneology, heating purposes). Furthermore, it plays an essential role in the hydrological cycle, being critical for the maintenance of wetlands and feeding river flows. It acts as an important buffer during dry periods and it provides base flow to many surface water systems. Source: ICPDR, 2012 IWA World Water Congress&Exhibition September 2012, Busan, Korea

31 Drinking water abstraction by source in the Danube River Basin Source: ICPDR, 2012 IWA World Water Congress&Exhibition September 2012, Busan, Korea

32 Expected Global Change: Runoff Large-scale relative changes in annual runoff (water availability, %) at the end of the 21 st century relative to Values represent the median of 12 climate models using SRES Scenario A1B [IPCC, 2007]. 32

33 Recorded annual Temperature and Precipitation trends in Serbia ( ) 33

34 Correlation between average annual river discharges (or precipitation) and temperatures in Serbia (14 monitoring sites, period ) In relative values, at the annual level, with data grouped into categories of 0.5 C depending on deviations of average annual temperatures. Average values were calculated for each class and the obtained points were used to construct a graph. Each graph shows the obtained linear trend and the coefficient of determination R². Relative values represent the number obtained by dividing a given data point with its average value for the entire series (for river discharge and precipitation). For temperature, instead of a quotient, the given value and the average value of the entire series are differentiated. River hydrological station Coeffic. R² 1 Drina Bajina Basta Great Morava - Varvarin South Morava- Aleksinac Western Morava Jasika Nisava Nis South Morava - Grdelica Timok - Tamnic White Timok - Knjazevac Pek - Kusici Rasina - Bivolje Veternica - Leskovac Toplica Donja Selova Crnica - Paracin Kamenica - Prijevor 0.82 This graph represents the correlation result for the first hydrological and the nearest temperature station, and the table shows the values of the coefficient of determination R²of each of the 14 monitoring sites. The same methodology was used to construct graphs of relative annual precipitation levels and temperatures. Temperature deviation from average ( Δ C ) Average multi-annual streamflow as a function of temperature deviation from average (river Drina, mon. site B.Basta) ( ) y = x R 2 = Deviation of relative Qav,year from average ( ) by category 34

35 Correlation between average annual river discharges (or precipitation) and temperatures in Serbia (for 14 monitoring sites) Even though each of the 14 studied watersheds exhibits specific features, there is no dramatic difference between them (all show the expected trend of an average decline in stream flow with increasing temperature and viceversa). It was, therefore, fully justifiable to synthesize all relevant data into a single data series. This enlarged the data series by 58 members, of each of the analyzed series, to more than 800, and decreased the effect of random, non-standard years, especially in classes which otherwise had few data points. It should be noted that the coefficient of determination is very high in both graphs, leading to the conclusion that a deviation of the average annual temperature by +1 C has an inversely proportional effect on the average annual precipitation level of about 7%, and on the average annual river discharge of about 20%. Average relative river discharge and precipitation levels based on linear and 3 rd degree polynomial trends for different increases in average annual temperatures Relative river discharge (Q rel ) Relative precipitation (P rel ) ΔT av ( C ) Linear trend rd degree polynomial trend Linear trend rd degree polynomial trend Qrel 1,60 1,50 1,40 1,30 1,20 1,10 1,00 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 y = -0,1997x + 1,0033 R 2 = 0,9809 y = -0,0508x 3 + 0,0141x 2-0,1313x + 0,9981 R 2 = 0,9986-2,0-1,5-1,0-0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 ΔT av ( C ) Prel 1,60 1,50 1,40 1,30 1,20 1,10 1,00 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 y = -0,0728x + 1,0015 R 2 = 0,9032 y = -0,0348x 3-0,0021x 2-0,0243x + 1,0055 R 2 = 0,9703 0,40-2,0-1,5-1,0-0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 ΔT av ( C ) 35

36 Correlation between annual cereal yield and precipitation during the growing season, and annual cereal yield and temperature during the growing season (relative values, 10 years period ) in Serbia Total Precipitation Apr-Avg y = x R 2 = Total yield Average Temperature Apr-Avg y = x R 2 = Total yield Conclusion: If we want that food production stay on the same level or have some increase in Serbia, the percent of irrigated area (now less than 3%) must increase significantly 36

37 Conclusions what can be done regarding adaptation measures in Serbia (local level) Related to support global effort to reduce CO 2 and to improve Water Management in Serbia, Forest planning become very important. Related to adaption measures against water shortage, in addition to very important water rationalization, some of existing RWS must be upgraded, and some new RWS must be built. In that case, Serbia will have enough water for water supplying in any climate change scenario, for at least next 50 years.

38 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FUNDING IN SERBIA OPERATING EXPENSES Water supply, urban wastewater evacuation, and protection of water quality Irrigation and drainage Flood protection, etc. 520 M /year 430 M /year 60 M /year 30 M /year DEVELOPMENT (25-YEAR PERIOD) Total 8-10 BN (1/4-1/3 of GDP of Serbia!) Annual ~ 350 M Water supply, urban wastewater evacuation, and protection of water quality 300 M Irrigation and drainage 25 M Flood protection, etc. 25 M Total per year: ~ M Current investments per year ~ 100 M future investment per year~ 350 M Transition of State Water Management system capacity is needed

39 Conclusion: Estimation of Water Management in future under the Correlation between economic power and water abundance Authors: Milan Dimkic, Miodrag Milovanovic Data: GDP (World Bank), Renewable Water Resources (FAO database) SEE COUNTRIES MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES

40 Desirable UNESCO Strategy for Transitional Countries Popularization of thematic consideration of water sector issues (thematic conferences, enhancing local scientific capacities, contact with governments, etc.) Networking of research organizations and institutions of higher learning Networking of organizations engaged in monitoring of changes (standardization of methods, exchange of data and experience, regional, etc.) Advising advancement of national water funds and finding ways of ensuring their cooperation with international financial institutions Influence of global and regional institutions on local capacity building in the water sector 40

41 WATER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE, BELGRADE, SERBIA THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION 41