Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

HOLISTIC METHODS OF EFA

Curso Caudales Ambientales, Lima, Per, 25 27 Noviembre, 2009 Jay OKeeffe, UNESCO-IHE & Rebecca Tharme, The Nature Conservancy

Holistic Methodologies:

Maintenance of whole ecosystem, not economically


important single species

Addresses resource limitations (e.g. biophysical data)


relevant in developing countries

Well developed links between flow regime


character and biophysical responses

Explicit link (in some) between biophysical

response to flow change and effects on subsistence users who depend directly on river for livelihoods

Holistic Methodologies: Examples Building Block Methodology (BBM) Downstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformation Benchmarking Methodology Savannah Process (ESWM) (TNC)
Benchmarking Methodology -7 key flow statistics

(DRIFT)

DRIFT Downstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformation


Flow component Dry season low flows Wet season low flows Within-year flood I Within-year flood II Within-year flood III Within-year flood IV 1:2 year flood 1:5 year flood 1:10 year flood 1:20 year flood Discharge (Q) in m3 s-1 0.1 - 16 0.1 - 50 17- 48 49 - 95 96 - 190 191 - 379 380 530 665 870
-1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2 0 50 100 150 200 (56%) 250 300 350 (99%) 400

Number per year

6 3 3
0

Present River State = Near natural


-0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1

Near natural Moderately modified

Significantly modified

Ma x im um de pth (m ) Me an velo ci ty (m.sec-1) 1 .0 2 Wett ed p erim ete r (m x 1 0 ) D 0 .1 5 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.1 1 .0 10 .0 1 00.0 10 00.0 -1) D ischarge (m 3.se c

DRIFT Integrity Score

( a)

Mean annual flow Flow regime class Annual Proportional Flow Deviation - APFD 1:5, 5, 20 year ARI Mean wet season flow

10

Ecological requirements affected - reduction in floods Ecological requirements affected - reduction in low flows

Highly significantly modified

6 1:20 1: 10 1:5 1:2 2

Impacts on fish Change in health Change in mortalities

Total volume used (MCM) (Percentage MAR in brackets)

(b )
0 0 5 0 10 0 150

Dis tance (m)

3 (IV)

(III) 2 (II) (i ) (I) 1 (v) (ii) (i v) 0 2 0 30 40 5 0 60 7 0 80 90 (iii) (vi)

Severity/ confidence

( c)

D istance (m)

King et al. 2003; 2006 Arthington et al. 2003

Social consecquence

Holistic Methodologies: Evolution


I.

Originally developed in South Africa and Australia, followed by U.K. and U.S.A. Process for developing environmental flows for diverse situations limited resources/data to extensive resources/data Four levels:
Hydrologic Analysis (desktop, ecologically relevant suite of indices Ecological Flow Components) Expert Panel Approach Field Studies and Modeling Adaptive Refinement

II. III. IV.

Holistic Methodologies: Options Based on Investment and Certainty

Time/Resource Investment and Level of Certainty

Level I

Level II

Level III

Level IV

Adaptive refinement Holistic expert panel Holistic field studies Holistic hydrological analysis approach and modeling Range of variability analysis Initiate flows and monitoring to Environmental flow components move toward Foundation for seeking funding and support to move toward

Holistic Methodologies: Comparison Based on Time Available


Level I: Hydrologic Analysis Months 1 - 5

Level II: Expert Panel Approach

Months 6 - 12

Level III: Field Studies and Modeling Years 2 5 + Level IV: Adaptive Refinement

Holistic Methodologies: Comparison Based on Cost


Level I: Hydrologic Analysis ~ $10,000

Level II: Expert-Panel Driven

~ $100,000

Level III: Field Studies and Modeling Level IV: Adaptive Refinement

~ $1,000,000 +

Requires sustainable budget long-term investment

Holistic Methodologies: Level I Hydrologic Analysis

First step - prior to implementing other


levels

Precautionary stand alone approach augment with more comprehensive approaches over time

Can use tools such as Indicators of

Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) e.g. Range of Variability Analysis (RVA)

Potential for regionalisation of approach

Holistic Methodologies: Level II Expert Panel Approaches


Orientation meeting

Monitoring and research program

Review & summary report

Implementation of flow prescription Flow recommendation workshop

(Richter et al. 2006)

Specialist Expertise for Interdisciplinary Expert Panel


River flow River channel form Biota Water quality Subsistence users Economics Process
surface & groundwater hydrology, hydraulics, water resources modelling, climate change geomorphology, sedimentology, land use vegetation, fish, invertebrates, frogs, reptiles, water-dependent mammals, birds chemistry, microbiology sociology, anthropology, water supply, public health, animal health, fisheries ecological economics, resource economics, macroeconomics co-ordinator, international mentor

Holistic Methodologies: Level III Field Studies and Monitoring

For systems with extensive existing data And/or cases where funding and time available to
collect new data Situations where greater certainty is required

Field studies and modeling to reduce uncertainties and address knowledge gaps
Models for meander migration and sediment transport; Key flow range = 15,000 20,000 cfs

Required 1 in 10 years

Cottonwood recruitment box model (rate of recession) Data on fish utilization of floodplains (duration for rearing)

Q (cms)

H20 Temp Models Fish passage models

Spawning surveys

Holistic Methodologies: Level IV Adaptive Refinement

Similar to Level III, but begins cycle of


experimental releases

Evaluation of ecological responses Modification of e-flows and water management


based on results

Environmental Flow Framework (e.g. DRIFT)


(1) Biophysical
Describe the nature and functioning of the river Develop predictive capacity of flow related changes

(2) Sociological
Identify PAR Describe river use and health profiles Develop predictive capacity of social impacts of river changes

(3) Scenario development


Identify possible future scenarios and describe biophysical consequences of each Describe social consequences of each scenario

(4) Economic
Calculate compensation and mitigation costs for PAR

Output to decision-maker

(King et al. 2003)

Comparison of BBM and DRIFT


DRIFT is a scenario-based interactive approach, in which a database is created that can be queried to describe the biophysical consequences of any number of potential future flow regimes (scenarios). It is designed for use in negotiations over different allocations of water, and consequent levels and severity of ecosystem modification. The BBM builds up a recommended flow regime, in response to a predetermined environmental objective, or a series of flow regimes designed for different levels of ecosystem modification. In the Flow/stressor response variation of the BBM, ecological response curves for different aspects of the ecosystem are developed, leading to an overall risk curve of ecosystem stress at different flows, which can be queried for any potential future scenario.

Comparison of BBM and DRIFT

As part of the DRIFT database analysis, the links between changing river condition and the socio-economic impacts for riparian communities (people who rely on the river for subsistence) are automatically quantified Both methods are well described in detailed user manuals, but DRIFT requires more technical knowledge, particularly of the database analysis model, and requires more initial data input, The BBM is more flexible and robust in data/knowledge poor conditions, but ultimately, both are simply different frameworks for the analysis of whatever data/knowledge is available or can be collected, and this governs the confidence in the final recommendations.

Comparison of BBM and DRIFT


DRIFT is a top-down method, so that each flow does not have to be defined and motivated, reducing the risk of missing significant components of the flow regime, but resulting in a lack of motivation for each flow component BBM is a bottom-up method, in which each flow component is specifically identified and motivated. This risks the possibility that specialists will fail to identify some significant flow component, but results in a more carefully motivated set of flow recommendations Ultimately, the choice of method will depend on resources available, and the expertise and experience of the coordinator/facilitator

Gracias