Essay Groundwater Governance (Smidt / Satijn)

Transcription

Groundwater governance:
a decisive factor in
resilience strategies
Ebel Smidt
Bert Satijn
Groundwater governance:
a decisive factor in
resilience strategies
Ebel Smidt
Bert Satijn
COLOFON
Copyright
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be duplicated, saved in any data system or published, or in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, provided the source is clearly given, together with the name of WGC and
the author, if mentioned.
Liability
Water Governance Centre and those who have contributed to this publication, have taken the greatest possible care in compiling this
publication. However, the possibility cannot be excluded that there are still errors or omissions in this publication. Any use of this
document and the information in it is at your own risk. WGC, including those who have contributed to this publication, is not liable for
damage that may result from the use of this publication and its data, unless the damage could result from wilful misconduct or gross
negligence on WGC and / or those who have contributed to this publication. If you find deficiencies, we ask you to contact us.
Author(s)
:
Ebel Smidt and Bert Satijn, commissioned by Water Governance Centre
Date
Reference
:
:
April 24, 2013
FINAL / P019-13-001
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................4
1.1
1.2
1.3
2
CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND WATER GOVERNANCE ................................................9
2.1
2.2
3
Background and aim ...............................................................................................................4
Global trends and contexts ....................................................................................................6
Content reflection ..................................................................................................................8
Importance of groundwater ...................................................................................................9
Challenges to groundwater management and governance .................................................11
CASE STUDIES............................................................................................................ 15
3.1
3.2
3.3
Groundwater governance in the Netherlands .....................................................................15
Groundwater governance in other countries ......................................................................18
Groundwater governance classification – relevance of Dutch experience..........................18
4
CHALLENGES ............................................................................................................. 20
5
ROLE OF THE NETHERLANDS WATER SECTOR – FRAMEWORK FOR OPTIMIZATION ..... 22
6
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 25
APPENDIX 1: THEMATIC PAPERS IN PREPARATION OR PUBLISHED (BOLD) UNDER THE
GEF GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE PROJECT ............................................................ 26
APPENDIX 2. THE WORLD GROUNDWATER RESERVOIRS AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
AND COMPARISON WITH ECONOMIC ‘RESERVOIRS’ .................................................. 27
APPENDIX 3. BUFFERING FUNCTION OF GROUNDWATER ................................................. 29
APPENDIX 4. WATER GOVERNANCE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION.......... 31
APPENDIX 5. BACKGROUND OF RELEVANT CONCEPTS ..................................................... 34
APPENDIX 6. LONG TERM PLANNING HORIZON – OVERCOMING THE NEED FOR
SUSTAINABILITY AS GOVERNING PRINCIPLE AND THE NEED FOR USING FOSSIL
GROUNDWATER RESERVES IN THE (SEM-) ARID ZONES OF THE WORLD ..................... 35
APPENDIX 7. PRESENTATION 5TH REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GROUNDWATER
GOVERNANCE IN THE HAGUE, 19-21 MARCH 2013 ..................................................... 37
Groundwater governance: a decisive factor in resilience strategies
Page 3 of 47
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and aim
Water as a natural resource has an extremely important function in the interconnected ecological
and socio-economic systems. Groundwater forms the largest fresh water buffer besides the icecaps
and therefore deserves special attention related to its unique value for the total system, not in an
isolated manner but within concepts as Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). The
IWRM concept has been developed over the last 30 years and successfully applied in many cases. But
for the overall approach in improving the interaction between natural resources and societies the
wider concept of governance is emerging.
Water governance is the art of coordinating administrative actions and decision making between and
among different actors which success depends on a number of capacities of these actors to apply a
wide variety of social and technical sciences. Water governance is worldwide related to three issues:
food security, climate change and energy. The interrelations between these issues are tackled in the
water-food-energy nexus. Five main capacities can be distinguished: institutional, economic and
financial, management, communication and participation of actors and legal and regulatory
capacities (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Water Governance Framework used by the Water Governance Centre
Groundwater has another position compared to surface water due to other time and space scales
than surface water. The perception of groundwater due to its relative invisibility and diffuse reservoir
characteristics also differs from how rivers and lakes are perceived by the public and institutions.
Surface water irrigation systems create a visible network connecting organizations and people.
Page 4 of 47
Farmers pumping from the same groundwater reservoir share little at first sight and will not realize
easily that increased pumping costs due to overpumping is a common problem. Due to its invisibility
and therefore a more complex process of awareness and knowledge sharing and management
acceptance, groundwater is therefore considered more a common pool resource than surface water
and more earmarked by its related heritage of the ‘tragedy of the commons’: each user aims at
individual maximization of benefits leading to the deterioration of the resource unless a strong
(governmental) agency takes control 1. Recent theoretical analysis and fieldwork shows that ‘shared
interests management of commons’ exists under certain conditions. Stake-owners and –holders can
be motivated to cooperate under conditions of trust and shared understanding that depletion of the
resource by non-cooperation is worse than taking the risk of common management and accepting
limitations in the use of the resource. Situation specific understanding of social and natural system
dynamics in combination with the acceptation of co-existence of cooperation and conflict belong to
success factors. Further development of insights in the complexity of groundwater governance issues
takes place amongst others in the current global GEF project 2. In line with this global work the
Netherlands Water Governance Centre (WGC) has posed three questions as guidance for this essay:
1. Why should groundwater governance deserve special attention in the field of water governance?
Isn’t such an approach an anachronism given the tendency to IWRM, the food-energy-water
nexus and other holistic approaches?
2. Is it possible to formulate a framework for the WGC to set priorities with respect to its
contribution to groundwater governance issues?
3. Which are the possibilities for the Dutch water sector to contribute to international
developments on groundwater governance? Do windows of needs and opportunities exist for
the input and development of specific Dutch knowledge?
In answering these questions this essay aims at clarifying the concepts of groundwater governance,
sketching the international playfield and developing a framework and practical proposals for
contributions of the Water Governance Centre to these developments. The background of this search
is the impression that developments in the Netherlands on groundwater governance can benefit
from global developments and are also worth to be shared worldwide.
1
2
The Lakewood Water Replenishment District saluted Nobel Laureate Dr. Elinor Ostrom in 2009 for her keen analysis of
groundwater producer activities in West Basin that culminated with formation of the Water Replenishment District in
1959. Her 1965 UCLA dissertation (Public Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Groundwater Basin Management) was the
first field test of the theory of “governing the commons” that led to her historic award in Economics.
(http://www.wrd.org/news/pdf/WRD_Ostrom_Press_Release.pdf).
See http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/
Page 5 of 47
1.2 Global trends and contexts
At global and national scale the following trends and contexts are worth to be mentioned:
1. The attention for groundwater as a means to cope with climatic change impacts, to support
resilience policies and to safeguard water supply has increased tremendously and was clearly
tangible and visible in the increased number of groundwater related sessions at the Sixth 2012
World Water Forum at Marseille as compared to those on the Fifth 2009 WWF at Istanbul.
2. There is worldwide agreement on the need for proper international legal frameworks and
instruments for the management of aquifers and the water it contains. Good examples are the
compilation of the Draft Articles on Transboundary Aquifers and the implementation of the
European Groundwater Directive.
3. There is worldwide agreement that proper use of groundwater reservoirs requires insights and
investments in the non-technical aspects of the management of these reservoirs. The GEF project
on Groundwater Governance which has started in 2011 and will last till 2013 is an important
milestone in that respect. WGC initiatives on groundwater governance cannot be isolated from
developments in this project.
4. Changes in groundwater use and management in the Netherlands over the last hundred and fifty
years show a tendency towards considering groundwater as an important multi-functional buffer
for public water supply, agricultural and industrial water use and ecological services. The process
of finding appropriate governance means to optimize all the functions of the buffer making use
of the long history of successful water management by a unique set of institutions. The
adaptation capacity of these institutions to requirements imposed by European guidelines on the
one hand and active participation of citizens or other end-users is enhanced by proper
governance instruments.
5. With hundreds of transboundary aquifers and the increasing pressure on these water resources
the risk of conflicts might increase. Programs like Unesco’s PCCP (From Potential Conflict to
Potential Cooperation) focus on the prevention of conflicts over water. The Netherlands
government is considering to launch a niche Water Diplomacy Programme. The WGC is one of
the members in the consortium and will guarantee an optimal exchange of knowledge between
its groundwater governance activities and the Water Diplomacy Programme.
The challenge of good groundwater governance is to use the inputs of the right people in the right
institutions to improve the short and long term benefits of the aquifers in an economically,
ecologically and socially acceptable manner (see also Box 1).
Page 6 of 47
Box 1. Citation from Groundwater and Global Change: Trends, Opportunities and Challenges (Unesco - J. van
der Gun, 2012)
Hydrogeologists and other scientists have made remarkable progress over the last few decades in collecting
information on the world’s groundwater systems, in understanding their role and functions, in observing
changes over time and in identifying options for enhancing benefits from groundwater as well as threats that
need to be addressed to safeguard the resource’s sustainability. Gradually it has become clear to them how
strongly the development and state of groundwater systems are interrelated with other systems and external
drivers. It has also become clear that the value of groundwater is not limited to its abstraction for multiple uses
(provisioning services), but includes a range of valuable in situ services (regulatory services), such as supporting
wetlands, springs, base-flows and the stability of the land surface. As a result, the management of groundwater
resources has evolved into a multidisciplinary activity that addresses multiple objectives. It does not focus solely
on physical systems and technical measures, but pays also significant attention to demography, socioeconomics and governance.
The authors of this essay acknowledge the importance of the process and outcomes of the GEF
Groundwater Governance project. Parts of the planned and already available outputs are listed in
appendix 1. Awareness rising at political levels, decision makers and the international society of
groundwater scientist and managers of the complex road to good governance is a role for
organizations like the Netherlands Water Governance Centre in cooperation with other institutions
like the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH).
An important event in the project is the fifth and last Regional Consultation for Europe, Central Asia
and North America to be organized in the Netherlands in March 2013 which will also include the
participation of private sector institutions. The event is a unique possibility for the Netherlands water
sector to present its strength in practical groundwater governance and innovative and relevant
research. Box 2 contains useful remarks from the IAH’s Secretary General on practical issues related
to groundwater governance.
Box 2. Statement from the Secretary General of the International Association of Hydrogeologists on the
status of groundwater governance.
The Secretary General of the IAH, Dr. Shammy Puri commented on the publication of the 2012 Status Report on
the Application of Integrated Approaches to Water Resources Management in Africa, stating: “Several things
struck me as being of interest in the Report; firstly almost all countries report that there is insufficient cadres of
qualified personnel - this is a key issue, obviously, because implementation of policies is all dependent on
converting them to action on the ground, which is only possible through trained people. The second issue is
that of the 'flow of finance' in water sector - it seems to me quite clear that we do not fully understand this
'flow' - mainly as we are unable to finance the public good versus the private good aspects of water
management - on the public good side, it should be government driven - but governments find it complicated
to monetize the benefits; on the private side, again the water user is understandably only interested in
investing where goods and services are privately owned and yield direct measurable benefits…..The GEF
project is focusing specifically on groundwater. Here the question for hydrogeologists is, 'are the lessons from
'water resource' assessments (of the sort we see in this Report) applicable specifically to aquifer management?
This is one of the driving factors in the project, because there are differences when we are dealing with
aquifers and their management, and these special aspects are lost in the too broad assessment of the issues.
Hopefully the final outcome of the GEF project (which has forthcoming consultations in Amman (for the MENA
countries), in Beijing (for Asian Countries) and The Hague (for Europe, Central Asia & North America) will
provide some such insights.” (LinkedIn IAH group, 18-05-2012).
Page 7 of 47
1.3 Content reflection
In this essay we try to navigate between the overall need for issue integration on the one hand and
the notion that the importance of the groundwater buffers needs special attention on the other
hand. Secondly we aim to apply the overall concepts of (water) governance and Integrated Water
Resources Management to groundwater governance and link these issues to the present state of the
art on international projects dealing with groundwater governance. And thirdly we aim at answering
the practical questions of the WGC. The style of an essay gives some freedom than an article or a
study report, nevertheless we choose to structure our findings and thoughts for the convenience of
the reader. In chapter 2 the importance of groundwater and groundwater governance will be further
elaborated. In chapter 3 the case of Netherlands groundwater governance is elaborated in more
detail as it can be considered an example of a learning and solution curve also for the Dutch water
sector itself. The lessons learned in the Netherlands are compared to the situation of other countries
with a focus on countries that have a special relationship with the Netherlands concerning water
management. In chapter 4 a short description is given of the main challenges which the world is
facing concerning groundwater governance. In chapter 5 these challenges are translated in practical
actions for the Netherlands (groundwater) governance community united in the WGC. This essay is
an attempt to open discussions and requesting for contributions in the development process towards
local solutions for the governance of the precious groundwater reservoirs.
Page 8 of 47
2
CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND WATER GOVERNANCE
2.1 Importance of groundwater
Integrated river basin management is a key to the development of sustainable use of water
resources in the world. Since 98% of the fluid fresh water is contained in groundwater, the proper
strategic and long term use of the reservoir and buffering characteristics of groundwater systems is a
key to successful water resources management 3. In humid zones with sufficient average recharge of
the groundwater buffers over periods of some to tens of years the water governance issues can be
complex especially due to climate change. In arid or semi-arid zones where fossil groundwater
buffers are the main water resources and natural recharge is limited governance issues include
questions of valuing the natural reservoirs and evaluating manmade recharge mechanisms and
finding future alternatives for the water resource. In these cases close resemblances exist with
governance and transition issues being debated over the use of scarce natural resources as oil and
gas and some minerals.
Key data on fresh water distribution in the world and groundwater reservoirs are provided in Figure 2
and Figure 3 showing its huge volume, large contribution to annual flow of fresh water and long
residence time.
Figure 2 - Earth’s water distribution (Earth's_water_distribution.svg )
Note that the total fresh groundwater amount is about 100 times as large as the total surface water. However surface
water is renewed within 10 years while groundwater reservoirs need hundreds till thousands of years to be replenished.
This requires specific managerial framing for each type of natural water flow and reservoir with the factor time as dominant
difference
3
Appendix 1 presents some rough indications on the importance of groundwater stocks in terms of global economy. For
communication reasons one can state that the blue gold represents about 140 years of the present monetary value of
the global economy. Appendix 2 contains a draft article (in Dutch) dealing with the importance of the buffering
functions of groundwater reservoirs. The article indicates the need of combining the technical aspects of the buffering
function with governance aspects in the framework of resilience strategies to climatic change.
Page 9 of 47
Fresh groundwater storage and flow
After data compiled by J.Margat (2008) from various sources (mainly Russian authors)
See www.igrac.nl
Total fresh groundwater stock
Total groundwater stock
= 23.4 million km3
(=fresh+brackish+saline)
in million km3
in m of water depth
North & Central America
1.9
South America
1.2
Africa
Total fresh groundwater flux
Mean
residence time
in km3/a
in mm/a
in years
78
2160
104
880
67
4120
231
291
2.5
83
1600
52
1563
Europe
0.5
48
1120
115
446
Asia
3.4
78
3750
84
907
Australia & Oceania
0.3
34
757
88
396
TOTAL WORLD
9.8
72
13325
101
735
Approximately 98%
of all liquid fresh
water stored on earth
Approximately 30%
of total terrestrial flux
of fresh water
5
Figure 3 - Fresh groundwater storage and flow
As the total average world river discharge is about 38,000 km3, the estimate of the groundwater flux
contribution is rather 25% than the 30%. Cumulatively the European rivers discharge some 2.800
km3/year, i.e. for Europe the groundwater contribution to the total fresh water flow is 29%. More
important than a discussion over 25 or 30% is the fact that groundwater flow is considerable in
average years and very important in dry years.
The ten largest manmade surface water reservoirs have a capacity of 1.250 km3 (see Table 1) while
the total capacity of manmade reservoirs reaches almost 7.000 km3 (Foundation for Water Research,
2010). In other words, mankind has been able to create with enormous investments water reservoirs
which count to some 7% of the total fresh groundwater reservoir.
Table 1 - List of largest manmade water reservoirs in the world
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lake Kariba - 180 km³ in Zambia and Zimbabwe
Bratsk Reservoir - 169 km³ in Russia
Lake Nasser - 157 km³ in Egypt and Sudan
Lake Volta - 150 km³ in Ghana
Manicouagan Reservoir - 142 km³ in Canada
Lake Guri - 135 km³ in Venezuela
Williston Lake - 74 km³ in Canada
Krasnoyarsk Reservoir - 73 km³ in Russia
Zeya Reservoir - 68 km³ in Russia
Kuybyshev Reservoir - 58 km³ in Russia
(source: http://geography.about.com/od/waterandice/a/damsreservoirs_3.htm)
Page 10 of 47
The largest fresh surface water reservoir in the Netherlands, the IJsselmeer, has a capacity of 5,5
km3. The volume of fresh groundwater in the Netherlands is 800 km3.
2.2 Challenges to groundwater management and governance
In the development of the groundwater resources of the Iranian and later Moslem and Spanish
Empires the massive introduction of the ‘qanats’, a system of underground water tunnels and wells,
has been crucial (Issar, 2008). More recently 150 years of experience of groundwater exploitation at
the Dutch dune systems has been essential for the water supply in the western parts of the country
(see chapter 3). The case of balanced groundwater and policy development in the Netherlands even
under climatic change conditions can be regarded as a rather luxurious situation in terms of
availability of fresh water and financial means. Reality in large parts of the world shows rapid
depletion of aquifers because of economic exploitation and already serious societal effects of
climatic change. In the 20th century about 700-800 km3 has been depleted from the American
aquifers (Konikow and Kendy, 2005). Rapid aquifer depletion is also reported from India where in the
period 2002-2008 109 km3 of storage water has been pumped from the Northern India’s aquifers
mainly for irrigation purposes (NASA, 2009).
The stress on the use of the aquifer systems can be expected to be increased further due to
population growth, overexploitation of the land and deforestation. In addition climatic change will
affect groundwater resources use especially in many arid and semi-arid zones with already critically
low rainfall. For the Middle East 20 – 30% reduction in rainfall is expected during the coming 20 – 50
years as reported amongst others at the Cairo conference ‘Towards the new Long Term Strategy for
Water in the Mediterranean, held 2-3 November 2009’. At the conference reallocation of about
300.000 people in Northern Syria due to lack of water was reported. According to other sources the
combination of climate change, man-made desertification and lack of irrigation affect up to 60% of
Syria's land and 1.3 million people (of a population of 22 million). Just over 800,000 people have lost
their entire livelihood, according to the UN and IFRC (IRIN Humanitarian News and Analysis,
Damascus, Sept. 2, 2009). Recent reports indicate a relationship between the current civil war in
Syria, drought and poor land and water governance (NRC, 2012). In Northern Iraq 100.000 people
have been evacuated from their homes since 2005 due to drought and overpumping that caused the
disruption of 40% of the qanat systems (UNESCO, 2009).
Daring and challenging strategies to manage, meaning using and recharging groundwater in times of
global climatic change are urgently needed at all levels of scale. A good example is provided by a
regional analysis of buffering capacities of aquifers in the Middle East (Issar, 2008). The work of Issar
is pioneering in the sense that historical geological information and information on the rise and fall of
civilization is combined to predict the effect of global warming and that non-traditional or out-of-thebox approaches to groundwater use are advocated. For the Middle East relatively cold and humid
periods brought flourishing societies, relatively warm and dry periods put the societies under stress
and led eventually to its decline if there was not enough organized adaptive capacity.
Page 11 of 47
The authors of this essay have dedicated the largest parts of their professional careers nationally and
internationally to increase the societal adaptive capacity towards water abundance or water
shortage or combinations. Central issues in their assignments always concerned the combination of
new scientific and technical methods with organisational changes, policy development and
communication strategies in the broad field of water management. By working and living in different
cultures and experiencing different geographical systems the conviction has grown that only a
holistic system orientated approach will provide the necessary answers to the energy and water food
challenges for the 21st century. The authors are also convinced that the way the global society will
use the buffering capacities of groundwater reservoirs is a key-example for progressively applying
sustainable development. The behaviour of large aquifer systems can be compared to the breathing
pattern of climatic changes, as stated orally by late prof. Abdu Shata from Egypt. Humanity can and
may influence the behaviour of aquifer systems as long as mankind respects the essential buffering
functions of these systems.
In systems analysis the concept of critical transitions gains attentions especially in relationship to
climate change and its effects on ecosystems and societies. Scheffer (2009) states that systems in
which critical transitions would have the most impact on humans are also the ones in which
uncertainty of the models needed for prediction such change is largest (see Figure 4). Groundwater
systems are reasonably well understood, however its linkages by governance to human societies and
other natural systems is still characterized by poor knowledge systems. Improvement of access to
knowledge by users and actors in the governance domain is a governance issue of utmost
importance of the same weight as developing appropriate regulation systems.
Figure 4 - Relation between impact of critical transition on society and uncertainty of models (based on Scheffer, 2009.
Groundwater systems and groundwater governance domains added by authors).
Page 12 of 47
The complexity of groundwater governance as shown in Figure 4 is found in the relationship with
societal processes. This complexity is aggravated by a very rapid modernization which even requires
new words for its characterization:. glocalisation – combining the enlargement of scale and decrease
of scale- and fragmegration (Rosenau) – combining fragmentation and integration- belong to the
world around us (Teisman and in ‘t Veld, 2012). To deal with this complexity Teisman and in ‘t Veld
propose a quick scan water governance methodology that takes into account the multi-actor, multilevel and multi-scale nature of the processes at stake. In this methodology the quality of governance
is expressed in terms of juridical, knowledge, economic and institutional quality and it’s (inter)acting
capacities. By defining specific aspects of each quality an assessment matrix is created (see Appendix
4). In detailed country profiles or cases studies at a lower level this system can be applied. The
analysis can help to justify the position in a classification system based on level and type of
institutionalization and needs for improvement in governance (see also Appendix 4 and Chapter 3 for
a first application).
As many of the larger groundwater reservoirs underlie more than one country international
cooperation is a prerequisite. It would be utopian to expect that international, but also national or
regional water resources management goes without disputes and conflicts. Reliable water
management structures are in fact constantly reshaped by stakeholder that use a continuum of
conflict and cooperation potentialities (Zawahri and Gerlak, 2009; Zeitoun and Mirumachi, 2008;
Zeitoun, Mirumachi and Warner, 2009). The challenge to the water managers and politicians remain
to use the conflicts or potential conflicts to stimulate the cooperation.
At the fifth 2009 World Water Forum held in Istanbul much attention has been given to resolution of
transboundary water disputes. Groundwater has been mentioned as a focus area. The climatic
change process increases the risks of tensions because of the access to fresh water. Risks increases
from two sides. The natural systems are changing, resulting in less or less predictable fresh water in
areas where it is needed and too much water where it harms societies. On the other hand economies
are reacting by allocating financial means to mitigate or adapt to the changes.
At the sixth 2012 World Water Forum in Marseille attention for groundwater management and
governance was even much higher than three years earlier. One might even get the impression that
groundwater has been rediscovered as a panacea for all global water problems. It is the task of the
groundwater community to grasp the present possibilities for fully integrating groundwater
management in water cycle management and water governance.
In this essay we clarify why groundwater governance deserves special attention. The definition of
groundwater governance as used in the GEF project (see Box 3) is followed taking into consideration
the practical approach of mapping governance capacities (appendix 4) and the water governance
framework (Figure 1) as proposed by the Water Governance Centre. Efficient governance processes
will be action and result orientated with feedback loops between inputs, process and results as
shown in Figure 5.
Page 13 of 47
Box 3. A working definition of groundwater governance (GEF project)
The GEF Groundwater Governance project needs to formulate a working definition of ‘groundwater governance’. From a review of existing definitions a possible wording is suggested below. This definition can serve as
a starting point for discussion in the Regional Consultations.
Groundwater governance is the process by which groundwater is managed through the application of
responsibility, participation, information availability, transparency, custom, and rule of law. It is the art of
coordinating administrative actions and decision making between and among different jurisdictional levels‐–
one of which may be global.
(Adapted after Saunier and Meganck. 2007. Dictionary and Introduction to Global Environmental Governance).
Accordingly, ‘ groundwater governance’ could be interpreted as the set of policies or decisions that moderates
groundwater use and promotes aquifer protection. Governance can be distinguished from ‘government’ (who
decides) and ‘management’ (what is done to implement decisions). In this sense groundwater governance is
not ‘fuzzy’ but has to frame specific (and non‐trivial) decisions about whether to turn on a pump, apply
pesticides or manage waste etc. These are decisions that can be made day after day by hundreds of millions of
groundwater users and land use managers. But there may be many decisions, public and private, that fall
outside ‘groundwater governance’ but which still impact groundwater use and groundwater protection. The
distinction between management and governance is important. Broadly, groundwater management is the set
actions to implement decisions that derive from the process of governance.
Assuming that a definition can be agreed, the project is predicated on the assumption that the state of
groundwater and groundwater governance is not necessarily ‘good’ and needs improvement – i.e. that there is
a governance gap. However, this presumes that we can distinguish ‘good’ governance from ‘bad’ or
‘indifferent’ groundwater governance. While criteria for making such a distinction may be available for water
governance as a whole, the formulation of specific criteria for groundwater will need advice from the project’s
Regional Consultations.
Figure 5 - Groundwater governance process and feedback (Igrac, 2012)
Page 14 of 47
3
CASE STUDIES
In this chapter a short analysis is made of the Dutch history and position concerning groundwater
governance, concluded by a positioning in the Teisman-in ‘t Veld water governance matrix. The
Dutch situation in which scarcity of good groundwater has compelled decision makers over the last
150 years to innovate and come up with local solutions is compared with different situations both in
Northern and Southern countries using the same methodology. Some general issues are formulated
based on the case-study analysis which assists the formulation of challenges concerning groundwater
governance and the role for the Dutch water sector in the next chapters.
3.1 Groundwater governance in the Netherlands
Water supply and groundwater management in coastal zones
About 4 million people in the western part of the Netherland are supplied by drinking water
originating from a mixture of rainwater and infiltrated river water (see Figure 6 and Figure 7 for the
Amsterdam water supply example). The water supply systems started to operate in the mid of the
19th century by digging canals in the dunes. At the beginning of the 20th century these canals had
been replaced by wells but by overexploitation salinization of the pumped water threatened the
operational lifetime of the systems. The solution realized in the 50-ties of the last century was to
pretreat and transport river water and infiltrate it in the dunes. Additional advantages were the
creation of strategic water storages, bringing back the groundwater levels at original levels giving rise
to restoration of ecological and recreational functions. The water companies have been transformed
into land and water managing companies. In the area of Amsterdam and surroundings one
organization has been formed which manages both the natural water system and the water supply
and sewerage systems. Comparable infiltration systems are operating all over the world.
The next phase for the Dutch dune system is characterized by the search for an appropriate balance
between at the one side measures needed because of adaptation to climatic change and at the other
side measures needed because of integrated ecological system approaches embedded in European
and national policies and regulations (Olsthoorn, 2009). The search for this balance is facilitated by a
political decision of the Dutch government in 2009 to appoint a Delta commissioner who is
responsible for climatic change adaptation measures. It has been decided by the government that
the organization of the commissioner will have financial means of about 1 billion Euros per year. This
budget can be regarded as an insurance premium for preventing the loss of an estimated economic
value of 200 billion Euros in case of a major flood.
Page 15 of 47
Figure 6 - Drinking water supply system for Amsterdam and surroundings
Figure 7 - Historical contribution between the years 1850 till 2000 of different sources of water for the water supply of
Amsterdam and surroundings (ASR = Aquifer Storage and Recovery).
Page 16 of 47
Role of groundwater storage in flood damage prevention and drought
In the Netherlands the concept of retaining rain where it falls, storage and controlled discharge is
being applied as principle in watershed management also in agreement with European guidelines.
Estimates indicate that this principle results in 5-45% reduction in flood discharges in specific
condition of the Southern part of the Netherlands (Alterra, 2007). Figures on the role of improved
groundwater management in increasing base flows of rivers during droughts are not yet known but
are equally important.
Other developments in the Netherlands
Involvement of Waterboards in the actual management of groundwater bodies has been made
possible by institutional and legal system changes over the last ten years. An example of a major legal
change has been the replacement of a large number of specific laws, amongst others the
Groundwater Law, by one Water Law.
The autonomous Dutch institutional and legal developments into more integrative approaches have
been stimulated by the developments at the European level with respect to the Water Framework
Directive and the Groundwater Directive in the 90ties of the last century and first year of the present
century. Region and groundwater system specific approaches for remediation of polluted sites were
developed and the responsibilities for the cleaning up processes are fairly well determined at
present. The process towards this situation which involved the soil and water sectors in the
Netherlands and Europe is a very good example of the evolution of groundwater governance in
which the scientific community, policy makers and practitioners participated effectively. The process
and outcome have been extensively described by Quevauviller (2008).
Dutch groundwater governance in summary and issues which still need attention
The Dutch groundwater governance can be characterized by cooperation at all levels and by
stakeholders from the public and private sector with a dominating role for the public sector (class 7
in the Teisman – in ‘t Veld classification, see Table 2). Specific governance issues that need further
development in the near future are:
1. Full integration of management of strategic fresh surface and groundwater reservoirs in terms of
water quantity and quality (mainly financial, technical and institutional issues);
2. Full integration of water storage management and heat storage management (technical,
institutional and legal issues);
3. Brackish groundwater management (technical and legal issues);
4. Groundwater levels and damage claims (financial, technical and legal issues);
5. Combining these issues in operational packages of public-private partnerships suited for the
modernized Dutch Poldermodel;
6. Adaptation strategies for urban areas including creating resilience while using the groundwater
capacities.
Page 17 of 47
3.2 Groundwater governance in other countries
A thorough analysis of national groundwater governance arrangements in India, Kenya, Morocco,
South Africa and Tanzania has been presented recently (Wijnen et al., 2012) (see citation in Box 4).
Box 4. Conclusions on national groundwater governance arrangements in India, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa and
Tanzania (Wijnen et al., 2012)
“In all countries studied, groundwater development and abstraction have taken place ahead of governance arrangements,
leading to depletion and quality deterioration.
The case studies provided a rich variety of lessons, many of which were common to all the countries. All countries studied
were suffering depletion and quality deterioration of the aquifers to a greater or lesser degree. All five countries had policy
frameworks in place, but groundwater policies were generally poorly articulated with those of the water-using sectors,
particularly agriculture. Formal governance arrangements were largely top down, although there were some cases of
decentralization to the basin level as well as some moves towards creating partnerships with local collective management
organizations. However, in every case the rights and regulation approach to governance was proving to be not well-adapted
to the fast changing realities of the “groundwater revolution”, and everywhere implementation capacity fell far short of the
ambitious regulatory provisions.
Information, knowledge sharing and communications were insufficient to support management or to foster good
governance.
Public agencies were also underfinanced and lacked the capacity to do an adequate job.
At the local level, there was generally a big disconnect between the regulatory regime and facts on the ground, and in some
cases local collective management was substituting for more formal governance.
For example, rules on drilling and abstraction, on pollution and on protection of recharge zones were not always applied on
the ground. Some initiatives to delegate management to the basin level appeared more promising. At the local level, there
were a number of interesting examples of collective management and self-regulation, but these were weakly embedded
and little linked to public sector support structures. “
Identical findings are reported in the ongoing Dutch research project Groundwater in the Political
Domain which focuses on case studies in Ethiopia, Palestine and Yemen (Smidt et al, 2013; Ter Horst,
2012). The cases are chosen because of dominance of rapid economic developments using
groundwater as a relatively new resource (Ethiopia), strong competition over depleted groundwater
reservoirs in a distributed power environment (Yemen) and a conflict situation with asymmetric
power distribution dominance (Palestine). The project aims at defining strategies to improve
groundwater governance under different contexts. The overall aim of the CoCoon program is to
support Dutch policy development with respect to donor involvement in situations of conflicts over
natural resources.
3.3 Groundwater governance classification – relevance of Dutch experience
The Dutch case of groundwater governance shows a typical case of resilience needing time and
adaptation at all levels of governance: technical innovation, economical aspects, managerial and
institutional capacity, social and legal aspects. Time spams of tens of years for the full
implementation of new technologies and governance are normal. The actual groundwater
governance in the Netherlands is positioned in the middle of the Teisman - In ‘t Veld diagram (see
Table 2). This position fits into the overall ‘polder’ model of Dutch governance. Especially for
countries where governance improvement is needed with identical governance contexts the Dutch
Page 18 of 47
experience can be useful. For other countries alliances with other sufficient capacity countries can be
instrumental.
Table 2 - Classification of groundwater governance capacity based on the Teisman – In ‘Veld methodology (2013). (See
appendix 4 for more details of the methodology).
Less
institutionnalized
societies in
terms of
governments
Sufficiently
increasing
capacity
Improvements
needed
1
Parts of USA
2
Yemen
Fully institutionalized societies with strong governments, including water authorities
Mainly located on national
Combination of levels of
Mainly located on a local
level
governance
or regional level
Publicly
Public,
Publicly
Public,
Publicly
Public,
dominated
private and
dominated
private
dominated
private and
not-forand notnot-forprofit
for-profit
profit
3
5
7
9
11
13
Israel
The NetherAustralia
Parts
of
lands
USA
4
6
8
10
12
14
China,
Palestine,
Egypt,
Kenya,
South Africa India
Ethiopia,
Tanzania
Mozambiqu South
Morocco,
e, Romania
Sudan
Benin, Mali
Many of the countries listed in Table 2 face rapid groundwater drawdowns (see Figure 8 for an
example from China). Mining of groundwater reserves by meters per year is common all over the
world. Solutions have to be found in a combination of socio-economic and technical measures as has
been done in the Netherlands in the last 150 years. With a number of countries mentioned in table 4
a special relationship exists with the Netherlands concerning development programs on water issues
(Benin, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Palestine, South Sudan, Yemen). For these countries the WGC
programme can have an added value.
Overexploitation
Figure 8 - Groundwater drawdowns in China of about 1 m per year (Ref. to be added).
Page 19 of 47
4
CHALLENGES
Increase in population and consumption per capita in combination with climate change will enlarge
the pressure on land and water resources in general. Groundwater use is rapidly increasing
worldwide often without appropriate governance structures in place. Prevention of depletion or
pollution of groundwater resources is a global challenge. This overall challenge can be specified in
seven main specific challenges.
1. Stimulation of knowledge of the functioning and exploration of groundwater reservoirs.
2. Underlining the importance of setting in place appropriate governance structures before starting
exploitation of groundwater resources.
3. Enhancing the resilience characteristics of groundwater bodies by techniques like artificial
recharge, also called 3R methodologies (Recharge, Retain and Recover) or MAR(S) (Managed
Aquifer Recharge (and Storage)) (see www.bebuffered.com and www.thewaterchannel.com).
The appropriate linking of surface water and groundwater reservoirs is crucial for successful
resilience strategies.
4. Combining resilience characteristics and techniques at different space and time scales to an
optimal governance strategy per groundwater body and upscale successful local examples into
global strategies.
5. Addressing the transboundary nature of many groundwater reservoirs and its special
consequences for a variety of issues ranging from practical management to global legal issues.
6. Addressing the need for the input of hydrodiplomacy as a curative and preventive instrument for
improved international groundwater management and governance.
7. Developing a common understanding and language concerning the conceptual frameworks on
groundwater governance suited for regimes of both renewable groundwater resources and fossil
groundwater resources. Recharge governance as linking pin between surface water and
groundwater governance seems inevitable.
Coping in practice with these challenges seems an enormous task, but worldwide many initiatives are
already going on. A line of doing and learning by trial and error can be summarized as five families of
actions (Wijnen et al., 2012) (see Box 5).
Page 20 of 47
Box 5. Practical families of actions concerning groundwater governance. (Wijnen et al., 2012).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Engage with the policy makers to understand their concerns and constraints. Go outside the water ministry to seek
harmonization and support from agriculture, planning, finance, and municipal development agencies. Carry out an
economic analysis of key issues and present it persuasively. A multitude of tools exist including natural capital
accounting, assessment of the opportunity cost of groundwater or wealth accounting of groundwater services. Recruit
champions and try to come up with win-win agendas. Link governance reform to investment, if relevant.
Agree with policy makers on investment in groundwater knowledge, and offer technical and financial support if
needed. Focus not only on resources but on uses and users to identify hot spots. Draw on the results to persuade
policy makers of the need for action. Link the results to an analysis of governance needs.
Help government to chart a reform path towards better groundwater governance. Assess the needs and constraints
to good governance, following the methodologies in this report. Identify what approaches are best indicated (rules and
regulation, incentives, subsidiarity) and work out a reform path over time, as well as an actions and investment plan.
Help build strong groundwater organizations/departments/agencies to ensure groundwater’s place in IWRM
planning and to strengthen their support to the governance approaches chosen. Match their capacity to the tasks
decided upon. Dialogue with government to ensure that the organizations have adequate resources, including skills
and budgets.
Identify the scope for collective management, and devise ways to support it. Work at the project and local level, in
tandem with agriculture colleagues and those involved in decentralization or local level government.
At the analytical levels conceptual frameworks need to be compared and improved. The framework
of Teisman and In ’t Veld (appendix 4) used in this essay and the GPP/IRBD-WB framework (see
Figure 9) and those based on the work of Ostrom and her co-workers need further integration.
Figure 9 - A Framework for Analyzing and Assessing Groundwater Governance (Wijnen et al., 2012).
Page 21 of 47
5
ROLE OF THE NETHERLANDS WATER SECTOR – FRAMEWORK FOR
OPTIMIZATION
The previous chapters described the importance of groundwater reservoir management and
governance for the realization of resilience strategies concerning water and soil systems and listed
the international challenges on groundwater governance. In short these challenges can be
summarized as (i) a need for framework and tools development, (ii) analyzing practical situations and
(iii) develop optimal exchange mechanism between these two processes to accelerate the
international learning curve on groundwater governance to ensure the worldwide resilience function
of this resource. The urgency of the matter should not be underestimated. Therefore the question
what the WGC and its partners can contribute to these processes by supporting international
capacity building is also most relevant. In this chapter this question will be addressed by first
describing the core strategy of the WGC and describing the strength of the Dutch knowledge sector
concerning groundwater governance. A quick scan approach is presented to identify possible actions
by partners of the WGC and to describe the role of the WGC itself. The reader is reminded that
particularly this part is still in a draft and preliminary status. Inputs from the readers are requested
either directly to the authors or by contributions to WGC broader consultations in the beginning of
February 2013.
For the Water Governance Centre the integrative challenge concerning water and soil governance is
presented in Figure 10. Increasing the resilience capacities of the systems plays a key role.
Figure 10 - The integrative water governance challenge for the WGC.
Page 22 of 47
The strongest selling point of the Dutch ‘groundwater-plus’ experience is the proven technical and
governance resilience over the last 150 years with a unique form of cooperation between water
operators, all government levels, and the scientific and commercial sectors (see chapter 3). The
weakest point is the fragmentation in international broadcasting of this message despite a favorable
position towards the growing international demand for a variety of groundwater related services.
Box 6. Practical examples
Cooperation between Romania and the Netherlands on specific groundwater issues started the last ten years because of
common interest in proper application of the European Groundwater Directive and practical groundwater issues like
exfiltration problems south of Bucharest. A number of cooperation projects have been finalized including more and more
governance aspects. A new Partners for Water project concerns the application of MARS. During the Inception mission in
September 2012 Romanian water authorities and Water Operator Partnerships (WOPs) and the Dutch Consortium (Dunea,
TUD, Acacia and Eijkelkamp) concluded that climate change and needed resilience strategies require an integrated
approach of technical aspects and governance issues. The joint Netherland’s – Romanian water panel will address the
governance issues of new drought and flood risk management strategies. The WGC can assist the optimization of the
inclusion of governance aspects in the cooperation programs.
The successful Water Panel formula stems from the Egyptian – Dutch Water Panel. Groundwater issues have been
addressed in this bilateral cooperation since the eighties of last century. At present PPP-consortia are formed to manage
brackish groundwater resources and assist the Egyptian Water Companies and water authorities. A positive side effect of
this cooperation has been the strategic contacts in Arab countries like the United Arab Emirates. Dutch parties have been
invited repeatedly to assist UAE’s authorities in the large scale projects of groundwater recharge with desalinated water.
Competitive weakness caused by fragmentation and governmental reluctance to recognize underground water and energy
buffer management as a prioritized top-sector product did hamper the realization of this cooperation. The WGC can assist
to formulate competitive models for the Dutch (ground)water sector.
The international favorable position of the Dutch ‘groundwater-plus’ sector is illustrated by (amongst
others):
1. Hosting (and co-financing) international institutions like the International Groundwater
Reference and Assessment Center (IGRAC) and Unesco - IHE;
2. Creation of Deltares as integrated knowledge institution on water and land resources
development in deltaic environments;
3. A good representation in the groundwater programmes of the Worldbank;
4. A good representation of groundwater related projects in the Partners voor Water programme;
5. Hosting the secretariat of the 3R initiative and good connections with NGO initiatives like A4A;
6. The hosting and co-organization of the fifth regional groundwater governance consultation of the
GEF project in 2013;
7. The hosting and co-financing of climate change adaptation programmes, the Water Diplomacy
program, the CoCoon research programme etc; and
8. The hosting of IWA.
Matching the strengths of the Dutch groundwater and governance sectors by making use of the
favorable current international environment and helping to overcome fragmentation is a logical and
temporarily role for the WGC. In Table 3 a proposal is formulated for a combination of initiatives
based on a quick-scan approach that combines international needs and strengths of the Netherlands
groundwater sector.
Page 23 of 47
Table 3 - Quick scan approach in determining possible projects within the WGC-frameworks concerning
groundwater governance.
International demands related to
groundwater governance
Examples of innovative integrative
approaches on resilience strategies
focusing on groundwater buffers as
part of climate change adaptive
capacity
Integration of food-energy-water
nexus with focus on groundwater
Guidelines for combining resilience
techniques with management tools
Development of governance
frameworks for the use of (fossil and
renewable) groundwater reservoirs
Improved groundwater management
Acceptation of draft Articles on the
International Law of Transboundary
Aquifers
Netherlands strength
+++
(MARS in the Dune area, IWRM by
Waterboards, etc)
+++
Integrated approach in the
Netherlands and strong position
on food security
++ tot +/Good international exposure
++
Good international exposure, links
with other relevant sectors like
the oil and gas sector, renewable
energy sector, food sector and
planning sector
+
(not exceptional in comparison
with other countries)
+
Role of Neth. Institutions limited
so far. This might change
Possible consortium
Combination of technical expertise and
governance expertise. Initiatives
expected from the partners in WGC
University consortium (viz. WUR – TU
Twente – TUD – VU – UU, or a smaller
group)
3R consortium –consultancy companies
in combination with research institutes
There might be a role for organizations
like Deltares and TNO to take the lead in
such a developments in cooperation with
international organizations as IGRAC,
UNESCO and others working within the
4
GEF Groundwater Governance project
Consultancy companies in combination
with research institutes
In combination with initiatives like the
Water Diplomacy programme and The
Hague International Capital of Justice
Discussion on these suggestions have been held at national and international level at the National
Water Governance Network Day, 7th of February 2013 and during the 5th Regional Consultation on
Groundwater Governance in The Hague, 19-21 March 2013 (see Appendix 7 for the presentation
given at the latter event). Follow-up initiatives from interested consortiums are welcomed by WGC.
In more generic terms related to the overall WGC framework the actions can be described as
presented in Table 4.
Table 4 - Groundwater governance actions by WGC related to the general framework.
Aspect of Groundwater Governance
Institutional capacities
Financial and economic capacities
Legal and regulative capacities
Management capacities
Communication and stakeholder involvement
Soil and environmental sciences
4
Specific actions for partners of the WGC
Assessment and stimulation of good practices
Stimulaton of innovative concepts
Support for the implementation of international (ground)water
laws/conventions
Development of training and masterclasses
Integration of lessons learned in Living with water, Room for River
and Delta Plan etc.
Stimulation of resilience studies
See also appendix 3 for preliminary but more elaborated thoughts.
Page 24 of 47
6
REFERENCES 5
1. Alterra, 2007. Water retention in the Province of Noord-Brabant – in Dutch.
2. Issar, A.S., 2008. The impact of global warming on the water resources of the Middle East. Past,
Present, and Future, Fathi Zereini,; Heinz Hötzl, (Eds.) Climatic Changes and Water Resources in
the Middle East and North Africa, Springer Heidelberg.
3. Konikow, L.F. and E. Kendy, 2005. Groundwater depletion, a global problem. Hydrogeology
Journal, Vol. 13, nr.1 , 317-320.
4. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio, 2009. Groundwater Depletion
in India Revealed by GRACE. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003623/index.html
5. NRC, 10th of September 2012 and http://www.nrc.nl/klimaat/2012/09/10/droogte-is-de-lont-ineen-kruitvat-van-wanbeleid/).
6. Olsthoorn, T.N., 2009. Challenges for groundwater research. TUD-Presentation.
7. Quevauviller, P. 2008. Groundwater Science and Policy. An international overview. RSC.
8. Scheffer, M. 2009. Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton University Press.
9. Smidt, E., R. ter Horst, F. van Steenbergen, T. Alemayehu, K. Assaf, A. Babaqi, 2013. Politics and
Conflict, Cooperation and Void in Groundwater Management, CoCoon theoretical framework
(under publication).
10. Teisman, G.R. and R. J. in ’t Veld, 2013. Quick Scan Water Governance Capacity/Quality (in
preparation).
11. Ter Horst, R.H., 2012. Facing Barriers – An analysis of water governance in the West Bank –
Palestinian Territory. University of Amsterdam – Technical University of Amsterdam.
12. UNESCO, Dale Lightfoot, 2009. Survey of Infiltration Karez in Northern Iraq: History and Current
Status of Underground Aqueducts. Rep. IQ/2009/SC/RP/1.
13. UNESCO - J. van der Gun, 2012. Groundwater and Global Change: Trends, Opportunities and
Challenges.
14. Wijnen, M., et al., 2012. Managing the invisible. Understanding and improving groundwater
governance. The World Bank.
15. Zawahri, N. A. and A. K. Gerlak (Ed.), 2009. International Negotation. Vol. 14, No.2. Negotiating
International River Disputes to Avert Conflict and Facilitate Cooperation.
16. Zeitoun, Mark, Naho Mirumachi, 2008. Transboundary water interaction I: reconsidering conflict
and cooperation. Inv. Environ Agreements 8: 297-316.
17. Zeitoun, Mark, Naho Miumachi and Jeroen Warner, 2009. Transboundary water interaction II.
Soft power underlying conflict and cooperation. Stockholm Water Week 2009.
5
See also Appendix 1 for the full list of publications within the GEF project on Groundwater Governance.
Page 25 of 47
APPENDIX 1: THEMATIC PAPERS IN PREPARATION OR PUBLISHED (BOLD)
UNDER THE GEF GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE PROJECT
(www.groundwatergovernance.org)
IAH lead:
1. Trends in groundwater pollution; trends in loss of groundwater quality and related aquifer
services (including. ecosystems);
2. Conjunctive use and management of groundwater and surface water.
3. Urban‐rural tensions; opportunities for co‐management.
4. Management of recharge/discharge processes and aquifer equilibrium states.
UNESCO lead:
5. Groundwater Policy and Governance.
(http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/downloads/GWG_PolicyThematicPaper.pdf)
6. The legal frameworks for sustainable groundwater governance: at local, national, regional and
international levels
FAO lead:
7. Local groundwater management institutions/user partnerships.
8. Social adoption of groundwater pumping technology and the development of groundwater
cultures.
(http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/downloads/GWG_Thematic_Paper_8_draft_7_Feb_2
012.pdf)
9. Macro‐economic trends that influence demand for groundwater and related aquifer services.
10. Governance of the underground space and groundwater frontiers
http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/downloads/GWG_Thematic5_8June2012.pdf
World Bank lead:
11. Political economy of groundwater governance
12. Water and Climate Change: Impacts on groundwater resources and adaptation options
(http://water.worldbank.org/water/publications/water‐and‐climate‐change‐impacts‐groundwate
r‐resources‐and‐adaptationoptions)
Page 26 of 47
APPENDIX 2. THE WORLD GROUNDWATER RESERVOIRS AND FLOW
CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPARISON WITH ECONOMIC ‘RESERVOIRS’
Fresh groundwater storage and flow
After data compiled by J.Margat (2008) from various sources (mainly Russian authors)
See www.igrac.nl
Total fresh groundwater stock
Total groundwater stock
= 23.4 million km3
(=fresh+brackish+saline)
Total fresh groundwater flux
Mean
residence time
in million km3
in m of water depth
in km3/a
in mm/a
in years
North & Central America
1.9
78
2160
104
880
South America
1.2
67
4120
231
291
Africa
2.5
83
1600
52
1563
Europe
0.5
48
1120
115
446
Asia
3.4
78
3750
84
907
Australia & Oceania
0.3
34
757
88
396
TOTAL WORLD
9.8
72
13325
101
735
Approximately 98%
of all liquid fresh
water stored on earth
Approximately 30%
of total terrestrial flux
of fresh water
5
Compared to economics:
The gross world product (GWP), as a traditional value of the world’s annual economy, is estimated at
US$ 70 1012 (seventy trillion US$) (data 2011, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product)
. Fresh groundwater resources are estimated at 10 million km3, or 1016 m3. Assuming a value of 1 US$
to one m3 of groundwater (hardly any multiplier, which compensates the lower value of deeper
water), the world fresh groundwater resources represent about 140 years of the present global
economy. If we consider a safety factor of 10 the groundwater stock still presents 14 years of the
GWP. A bank or a state possessing such a wealth is considered to be in a luxurious position.
Comparison with the reserves of oil provides the following result. Oil reserves are estimated 210.5
109 m3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves). The present price for a m3 of crude oil is around
US$ 600, which results in a value of about US$ 130 1012 or the equivalent of two global economy
years.
The exercise shows that the strategic value of groundwater reserves at global level is considerable
and comparable to a resource as oil. As the total of fresh surface water is about 100 times smaller
than the volume of fresh groundwater its strategic value at global scale is much lower. At operational
watershed scale the economic value of surface water reservoirs often outweighs that of groundwater
Page 27 of 47
in the humid areas of the world. In the (semi-)-arid zones of the world groundwater reservoirs are
often exploited without a long term economic vision (see also appendix 6).
At European scale the following number show the importance of groundwater reservoirs. Total
annual river discharge in Europe is about 1,000 km3 of which the the Danube and Rhine contribute
some 25% (Danube 172 km3/yr, Rhine 70 km3/yr). Groundwater storage in Europe is about 500,000
km3, which is equivalent to about 500 years of river discharge which shows the importance of
buffering at macro scale.
Page 28 of 47
APPENDIX 3. BUFFERING FUNCTION OF GROUNDWATER
(Draft proposition - article)
Resilience: Who manages reservoirs in a good way, survives crises.
Theo Olsthoorn and Ebel Smidt
Groundwater constitutes the largest body of freshwater in the world. In the current policy debates
on sustainability, climate crisis and financial-economic and political crises, the issue of responsible
international and national management of this reservoir is still underexposed despite some good
ideas from the international world (UNESCO and INBO). Groundwater forms an important reservoir
that can help to get through the current crisis effectively. However groundwater hardly plays this role
partly due to its invisibility and its distributed nature which poses specific management and
governance requirements. It is an important challenge to analyse how the full integration of
groundwater reservoirs shared by a neighboring countries can influence negotiations on the mutual
benefits of joint water resources management. In international conflicts over water the integration
of the buffering functions of groundwater might help to resolve the conflict. By widening the scope
or increasing the pie solutions will come at stage. This is the heart of mediation processes.
This widening of the scope requires different time horizons in water balances to be integrated.
Groundwater reservoirs show recharging and discharging periods of tens to hundreds or thousands
of years while surface water systems are analyzed in terms of annual flows and stock variations over
maximum some tens of years. Bringing in the full scope of groundwater reservoirs will also change
the picture of potential energy available in a country. Sound scientific frameworks for such
negotiations are still underdeveloped.
What are the specific roles of groundwater as a buffer? What are the specific characteristics of a
groundwater reservoirs and how can these influence the possibilities for a negotiated outcome which
otherwise would be out of the picture? Interesting is the possibility that the upstream countries
show a strong interest in ensuring that the downstream countries manage well their groundwater
buffers to minimize claims on surface water. The relationship between Ethiopia-Sudan- South SudanEgypt is a possible example. Ethiopia, Sudan and South Sudan - as important exponents of many
other upstream countries, claim a larger share of the Nile surface water and urge Egypt to utilize its
water on a more efficient way. If the tension increases over the surface water system, parties might
be forced to analyze their groundwater shares and systems.
Thereafter a variety of questions emerge: how are buffer capacities determined and compared with
each other, how are technical consultations and stake holder consultations organized and joint
governance and management strategies determined? How is the subsequent implementation phase
financed and organized, how to stimulate mutual trust, how to negotiate on different scenarios and
how does culture plays a role in these negotations etc.? Reuse of water (with or without storage)
may also be involved, as an issue of broadening the scope at lower costs than the desalination of
Page 29 of 47
brackish and saline water. The desalination variant can be brought in as well as an asset of the
coastal countries. Desalinated groundwater can be used to recharge groundwater reservoirs when
excess water from desalination plants is available - which happens where desalinated water is a
byproduct of energy production – or when which is produced at low energy prices. Reuse holds not
only for water but also for energy added to the water system. Reuse requires treatment but can
reduce the diffuse load on the downstream environment. So once the process of the analysis of
balances and stocks is initiated besides flow analysis, the total energy and chemical balance can
better be included as well. Savings of energy and chemicals at catchment level contribute more to
improving the environment and public health in the entire watershed when measures are applied
upstream. The capacity and effectiveness of ground water storage will normally increase going
downstream. If ground water reservoirs can be linked through affordable water transport systems
then an interesting palette is created of geographically and in time connected distributed systems for
reuse and storage of water. Taking into consideration the above mentioned aspects of energy there
is a challenge for complex international negotiations between countries within a river basin with
access to ground water reservoirs. The object of negotiations is reservoirs of different ages and
different origins. The hypothesis of the research is that cultural and religious frameworks of
perception matter and hence the importance the parties attach to these reservoirs. Technical and
political negotiations on the 'invisible' groundwater or 'the hidden sources of water' can become
simpler or more complex under the influence of cultural and religious frameworks. The subject of the
proposed analysis is therefore which methods, institutions and organizations are needed to address
these issues effectively.
In this phase of the research, we can already state that the adage that a country needs to have
organized appropriately its water buffers, probably leads to interesting openings in international
water negotiations. A comparison with acceptable deficits in public budgets within the EU is
tempting. The reasonable financial shortfall is determined in a complex iterative top-down and
bottom-up process. The same process will be needed to determine an optimal strategy for the
management of groundwater resources in a basin, or a conglomeration of countries that share river
basins and groundwater basins. Such a strategy allows and challenges implementing measures which
are beneficial to both down-and upstream countries. The purpose of the strategy will be to optimize
the buffer management in order to have reasonable and equitable and maximized benefits for all the
countries concerning operations under normal conditions and to best survive in case a prolonged
crisis will occur.
Page 30 of 47
APPENDIX 4. WATER GOVERNANCE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT AND
CLASSIFICATION
Teisman and In ‘t Veld (2013) propose a classification system of governance capacity based on needs
for improvement and type of society and levels of governance and public or private dominance (see
table 1).
Table 1. Classification of water governance capacity (Teisman and In ‘t Veld, 2013).
Less
institutionnalized
societies in
terms of
governments
Sufficiently
increasing
capacity
Improvements
needed
1
2
Fully institutionalized societies with strong governments, including water
authorities
Mainly located on national
Combination of levels of
Mainly located on a
level
governance
local or regional level
Publicly
Public,
Publicly
Public,
Publicly
Public,
dominated
private and
dominated
private
dominated
private
not-forand notand notprofit
for-profit
forprofit
3
5
7
9
11
13
4
6
8
10
12
14
(Note: we propose ‘sufficiently increasing capacity’ as classification of the countries which had more means to invest in
governance instead of the original term ‘sufficient capacity’)
In situation 1, we will find a vital civil society able to handle issues, including water issues in a selforganizing manner. Some parts of the US could fit in this category.
In situation 2, we will find a society without strong government, but also not able to deal with
societal issues including water issues in a self regulatory manner. A variety of countries and areas can
fit in this category, especially in cases of war or civil wars, but also in cases of strong power
asymmetries.
In situation 3, we will find a fully institutionalized society with a strong national government, but at
the other hand with potentially weak developed regional and local authorities and a weak private
and civic input. In the assessment, we will identify the strength of this arrangement. It is possible that
the national government is dealing quite effective and efficient with the water system.
In situation 4 however we will indicate a national system with substantial government failures
related to public monopolies: technocracy, imbalanced consideration of interests, in favor of largescale solutions and the most prospered areas.
Page 31 of 47
In situation 5 we will indicate a centralized public government system that is balanced by substantial
input from private sector – for instance by private water service companies – and civic action. In a
balanced way this system will be quite vital
In situation 6, however we will indicate that also this well established mixed system can have
characteristics that undermine governance capacity. We can refer to oligarchies in which the
relation between national government and some companies is so strong that corruption and misuse
can easily take place. In order to understand the problems of national monopolies we will focus
much more on their abilities to fulfill societal needs.
In situation 7, we will indicate a multilevel governance system without input from private en civic
organizations. This situation can be quite satisfactory able to deal with a lot of collective issues. The
Netherlands seems to fit in this category.
In situation 8, we will indicate a multilevel governance system without input from private and civic
organizations, which does not deliver in a sufficient way. Reasons for this can be that national and
local and regional governments to not cooperate in an effective way. Some authors have indicated
that the flooding of Louisiana partially was caused by the endless negotiations between government
levels without coming to actions. In order to understand this problem we will assess in situation 7/8
much more on the relations between government layers.
In situation 9, we will indicate a multilevel governance system with input from private and civic
organizations. This is the most complex system in terms of amounts of actors and varieties of
interests. If done well this can lead to high quality governance programs taken water issues on a
sufficient way into account.
In situation 10, however, we indicate a multilevel governance system with input from private and
civic organizations, not able to generate the capacity to deal with water issues sufficiently. The
reasons for this can be that all parties involved are well able to bring in additional claims and
demands, without contributing sufficiently in the capacity to meet these rich sets of claims.
In situation 11, we will indicate a decentralized governance system in which local and regional
governments play a central role. The Cantons in Switzerland can be an example of such a system.
They are quite able to deal with the substantial water issues in their country.
In situation 12, however, we indicate a decentralized governance system in which local and regional
governments play a central role, without generation, enough capacity to deal with important water
issues like water supply or flood protection. The situation in Bangladesh probably is a good example
of this situation.
Page 32 of 47
In situation 13, we will indicate a decentralized governance system in which local and regional
governments, combined with private companies and civic culture are dealing with water issues in a
sufficient way.
In situation 14, however, we will indicate a decentralized governance system in which local and
regional governments, combined with private companies and civic culture are not able to deal with
water issues in a sufficient way.
For the determination of the governance capacity and needs for improvement Teisman and In ‘t Veld
propose a number of sub-aspects of the main five aspects of governance capacity. Describing the
status of each sub-aspects assists the determination of the governance capacity at national or other
level (see Table 2).
Table 2. Aspects of governance capacity (Teisman and in ‘t Veld, 2013).
Aspects on which capacity is assessed
Aspect of Governance capacity
Juridical quality
Knowledge
quality
Economic
quality
Institutional
quality
Extent, coherence,
flexibility and
intensity of the
multilevel
governance system
Extent, coherence,
flexibility and
intensity of the
actor networks
Extent, coherence,
flexibility and
intensity of the
perspective and
goal ambitions
Extent, coherence,
flexibility and
intensity of the
applied strategies
and instruments
Extent, coherence,
flexibility and
intensity of the
responsibilities and
resources
Legality and
proper water laws
Identification of
water issue
Identification
of economic
aspects of
water issue
Legitimacy, conflict
prevention and
resolution
Quality of
applied models
and data
Awareness of
principles of
properness and
reason
Quality of the
risk and
uncertainty
assessment
Appropriate
economic
methodology
applied.
Appropriate
data identified
and collected?
Awareness of
principles of
equitability and
fair use
Quality of the
impact
assessment
Assessment of
the economic
relation with
context?
Awareness of the
interests of third
parties and
ecosystems
Knowledge to
maintain and
manage water
system
Strength of
applied
methods
Acting and
interacting
(managerial)
Capacities
Degree of
participation
Quality of selforganizing
capacity
Connective
capacities of
leading people
Quality of
program
management
Quality of
process design
and
management
Page 33 of 47
APPENDIX 5. BACKGROUND OF RELEVANT CONCEPTS
(with thanks copied and slightly adapted from : R. ter Horst, Facing barriers. An analysis of water
governance in the West Bank – Palestine Territory, MSc. Thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam – GP
project, 2012.)
Important topics in the discussions on water management and governance are:
Ecological Modernization. Ecological Modernization is an interesting, still developing, theory on how
modernization can lead to better nature conservation and sustainability. The framework of the
theory is set and authors are working on the development of the theory. This theory might fit well
into thoughts of using technology to refill aquifers and developing deserts in a sound ecological and
economic manner.
Governance of common pool resources. When talking about common pool resources, Eleanor
Ostrom and her research groups are lead authors feeding into the debate on the definition of
common pool resources and most effective management systems. Founder of the debates is Hardin
(1968) who wrote about the tragedy of the commons and how only capitalistic or socialistic systems
would prevent people from damaging a common pool resource. Taking a step further, the
government and policy instruments are debated as part of the governance structures. In modern
approaches scale is one of the leading subjects. Governance across different levels and scales has
become an important topic. Environmental (cross-scale) governance has leading authors such as
W.N. Adger.
Resilience and adaptation. Climate change, a changing environment and survival of communities
(small or large – on different level) has become part of the debate on governance. Authors such as C.
Folkes and F. Berkes are the authors who receive a lot of attention. The focus within the field of
resilience-thinking is mainly on small communities and the difficulty of implementing diversification
within such communities in order to be able to adapt to a changing nature or society.
Risk: assessment and decision making. Risk is an inherent part of the debate about a changing
environment but also part of decision making. How can decision makers deal with risk (Klinke and
Renn, 2002; Aven and Kristensen, 2005; Brugnach et al., 2008 – who try to define different types of
risks and how to deal with them)? What seems to be of particular interest is how uncertainty can be
introduced into negotiations without blocking the progress.
Page 34 of 47
APPENDIX 6. LONG TERM PLANNING HORIZON – OVERCOMING THE NEED
FOR SUSTAINABILITY AS GOVERNING PRINCIPLE AND THE NEED FOR USING
FOSSIL GROUNDWATER RESERVES IN THE (SEM-) ARID ZONES OF THE WORLD
(Excerpt of a draft article by Smidt et al, to be submitted for publication in 2013)
1. A long term planning horizon. As it concerns societal survival, a horizon of 100-200 years is
recommended. The recent Netherlands Delta Plan can be taken as one of the very few long term
robust survival plans (Kabat et al., 2009). Proper use of frameworks of sustainability and progressive
development is required (Smidt et al. 2012).
Abundant renewable
energy resources
Scarce renewable
energy resources
Relatively quick implementation of
sustainability by progressive
development (50-100 years, 2
generations)
Relatively simple and quick
implementation of sustainable
development (25-50 years, 1
generation)
Complicated and slow
implementation of progressive
development towards
sustainability (>200 years, more
than 4 generations)
Relatively complicated
implementation of sustainability
by progressive development (100200 years, 3-4 generations)
Scarce renewable
water Resources
Abundant renewable
water resources
Figure 1 - Progressive Development (PD) and Sustainability correlation under different renewable energy and water
regimes.
Figure 2 demonstrates how a groundwater development scheme at the fringes of the desert which is
threatened by its economic end life can be turned into a sustainable project by importing water and
applying artificial recharge.
Page 35 of 47
Figure 2 - Groundwater extraction (top), and the economic benefits from a conjunctive use with artificial recharge system in
comparison to a conjunctive use or groundwater only system (bottom)
Implement governance projects at local, national and international levels that improve water
management amongst other by using every drop available for buffering by transboundary
cooperation. “Transboundary” is meant in the sense of multidimensional boundaries (Meerts,
2011) 6, i.e.:
I. Geographic: borders between states and state entities, overcoming the issue of sovereignty;
II. Systemic: creating new strength of states and international organizations;
III. Needs: the role of new interests in creating new positions;
IV. Resources: the progressive development of capacity of people and their tools;
V. Regulators: the significance of evaluating rules and regulations, norms and values;
VI. Time: creative incorporation of short term versus long term perspectives and projections.
6
P. Meerts, Boundaries in bargaining: a multidimensional view, Group Decision and Negotiation 20, 155-164 (2010).
Page 36 of 47
APPENDIX 7. PRESENTATION 5TH REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON
GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE IN THE HAGUE, 19-21 MARCH 2013
Page 37 of 47
Page 38 of 47
Page 39 of 47
Page 40 of 47
Page 41 of 47
Page 42 of 47
Page 43 of 47
Page 44 of 47
Page 45 of 47
Page 46 of 47
Page 47 of 47

Essay Groundwater Governance (Smidt / Satijn)

Transcription

Similar documents

Physical Geography Water Resources Chapter 9

The Water Cycle - UN

Nicole LaDue, Michigan State University Beth A. Covitt, University of

Awesome Aquifers - Groundwater Foundation

JSEM Conference Submittal

4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARK PATCHETT MPCS

Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sub-Project at the Nevada Test Site

Whitemans Creek Water Budget - Latornell Conservation Symposium

01..Photo album Karst of Horn of Africa ZS SM