A multi-perspective tool to visualize relationships in the Food-Water-Energy-Nexus
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•160 views
Presentation on Designing for multi-stakeholder analysis of trade-offs in Water-Energy-Food nexus held during STS Conference in Graz 2019
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie A multi-perspective tool to visualize relationships in the Food-Water-Energy-Nexus
Ähnlich wie A multi-perspective tool to visualize relationships in the Food-Water-Energy-Nexus (20)
Mehr von DAFNE project
Mehr von DAFNE project (9)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
A multi-perspective tool to visualize relationships in the Food-Water-Energy-Nexus
- 1. www.dafne-project.eu @dafne_project DECISION ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK TO EXPLORE THE WATER-ENERGY-FOOD NEXUS IN COMPLEX TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES OF FAST DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Funded under the H2020 Framework Programme of the EU, GA No. 690268 A multi-perspective tool to visualize relationships in the Food-Water-Energy- Nexus Dr. Ksenia Koroleva European Institute for Participatory Media Berlin
- 2. • ~760 km (Omo), ~130,000 km2 • Source in northern Highlands with annual precipitation > 1500 mm • 2 riparian states (Ethiopia and Kenya) • 80-90 % of annual inflow into Lake Turkana comes from Omo • Omo experiences large seasonal fluctuations WEF issues • Large investments: hydropower plants Gibe I- II-III operational & Koysha planned; large- scale irrigation schemes for commercial sugar cane production • Reduced water quality of Omo river and Lake Turkana due to irrigation in the basin • Environmental and cultural conservation • Deforestation and land degradation 2 Transboundary WEF issues in the developing countries Omo-Turkana River Basin, Ethiopia Another Case study: Zambezi river basin GIBE I GIBE III TURK ANA Gojeb Lateral inflow Lateral inflow Turkwel Kerio Omo GIBE II KOY SHAAgricultur al district Agricult ural district
- 3. 3 Urbanisation along the Omo River Creates conflicts with local tribes • Mursi Population ca. 10’000 in the north, between Omo and Mago rivers • Territory overlaps with the Omo National Park and Tama Wildlife reserve • Recession and rainfed agriculture • Not allowed to graze their cattle on the territory of the park • Planned Kuaraz Sugar plantation will excise a large portion of their territory forced displacement which causes conflict Sources of conflict
- 4. Various stakeholders with conflicting interests 4 Double energy production and become exporter of energy Avoidance of flooding Sustainable fishing Food security Food productivity Expand irrigation ENVIRON MENT TOURISM Stabilization of the river for navigation Diversity and cultural heritage of tribes Livelihood and cultural heritage of communities Preserve forest and biodiversity Impact on the relationship with Kenya…
- 5. DAFNE project Decision-Analytic Framework to explore water-energy-food NEXUS • Goal: explore alternative development pathways for advancing water management strategies under current and future scenarios 5 • basis for basin policy making, i.e. exploring which decisions have which impacts if and when implemented VNL (virtual negotiation lab) – WP6 In the virtual negotiationlab the stakeholder/DMs comparativelyassess the pathwayprovided by WP5 and negotiate to extract several interesting largelyagreedupon alternatives. DAF (decision analytic framework) – WP5 Robust pathways (sequences of actions) are selected via simulation-basedoptimizationof the integratedmodel built in WP3 fordifferent alternative combinations/timing of planning actions suggestedby WP3 and WP4 under current and future climatic andsocio-technological scenarios (WP3). Pathwayare assessedbased on the multiple indicators identified inWP2. The DAF provides: • Set of interesting alternative pathways for each scenarios considered. • A set of robust alternatives across all the scenarios. INDICATORS – WP2 • Evaluation Indicators representing the different stakeholder groups are identifiedsector by sector in collaboration withthe stakeholders and the decision makers. • Additional high level indicators can be formulatedin WP3 to capture governance, economic and legal aspect of general interest. MODELS – WP3/WP4 • Models of the natural processes are set up and validated • Models of the socio-economic processes are set up and validated • The model of the different components are combined into an integratedmodel ACTIONS and SCENARIOS – WP2 • Current baseline and future scenarios of the maindrivers (boundaries) of the system are built. • Planning and management actions, including infrastructural, normative and operational intervention are identified(the action will be combined into pathways: temporal sequence of set of actions) Set of feasible actions Trajectories of key variables (e.g. reservoir storages, water supply, agricultural production,…) Pathways and evaluation indicators Candidate pathways MONITORING – WP2 • Historical data acquisition • Large scale remote sensing and local scale Unmanned Aerial Vehicle surveys • Ground truth by fieldwork • Socio-economic surveys STAKEHOLDERSINVOLVEMENT STAKEHOLDERSINVOLVEMENT STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT FEEDBACK MONITORING ACTIONS and SCENARIOS INDICATORS MODELS DAF NSL STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT • Pathway = temporal sequence of actions (e.g. a new dam, new irrigation area, new environment protection, …) • Impact of pathways on a series of indicators (FEW, socio- economic…)
- 6. Participatory Integrated Planning (PIP) Negotiation Simulation Labs with stakeholders throughout the project 6 Problem Definition (issues) Possible actions and scenarios Selection of alternatives Final presentation of results Integration into decision making Indicators measuring effects Analysis and refinement of trade-offs Feedback to the tools Training MOOCs 1st NSL (Feb 2018) 2nd NSL (Jul 2019) 3rd NSL (2020) 2020 - …
- 7. Decision-Analytic Framework (DAF) A central outcome of the project 7 The DAF is a quantitative assessment tool to: • facilitate understanding of the impact of alternative planning options on the broad range of heterogeneous and often competing interests • support comparative analysis of alternative pathways
- 8. Results of the DAF model A large amount of data to tackle 8 • The results of the DAF model is a huge number of alternative pathways from which the stakeholders have to select a subset • The pathways are evaluated on a large number of indicators representing the interests of the various stakeholders This tool helps to screen the pathways
- 9. Visualizing relationships in the FEW Multi-perspective tool 1. Presents trade-offs in the FEW sector and supports comparative analysis of alternatives for a wide range of stakeholders 2. Provides both an overall holistic view and detailed view on specific issues 3. Takes roots in perspective making and perspective taking theory (Boland and Tenkasi 1995) to enable negotiation between the sectors 9
- 10. Perspective making Visualizing different sets of solution alternatives 10 • …normalized and absolute scales to ensure comparability and analyse trade-offs • …understand the impact on indicators specific to a stakeholder sector • … view pathways in detail and save to favorites • …refine the sector’s perspective and save it trade-off between the irrigation agriculture and the impact on fisheries:
- 11. Perspective taking Enabling negotiation between sectors 11 • Get an understanding of other sectors’ perspectives and trade-offs • Comment and annotate the selected pathway views to help in negotiation Here one can vividly see which pathways satisfy both sector perspectives
- 12. Contextualizing the results in terms of SDG’s 12 ”…add more details in the simplified language so that it is understood by many… someone very high level looking at these results will not be interested in the details” – stakeholder Omo
- 13. Open questions • How to make results trustworthy and understandable, especially to non-technical stakeholders? • How to present results which have potential to cause conflict between the sectors? • How to support the transfer of the results into actual policy making decisions? 13
- 15. The process of results generation 15 First results of the simulation on the 5 design indicators yield a long list of pathways Stakeholders select the pathways they would like to know more about during the NSL Full model results are simulated Results can be viewed, compared and discussed in the trade-off analysis tool Screening Trade-off analysis
- 16. DAF strategic model Omo-Turkana Basin GIBE I GIBE III TURKA NA Gojeb Lateral inflow Lateral inflow Turkwel Kerio Omo GIBE II KOYS HA Agricultural district Agricultural district Water/Environment: minimize monthly average deficit wrt natural pattern Energy: maximize total annual hydropower production Food (recession agriculture): minimize average squared deficit wrt late summer flood pattern Food (Turkana fisheries): minimize maximum deficit of fish field wrt average (natural) conditions Food (large scale agriculture): minimize average squared irrigation deficit
- 17. Actions, alternatives and pathways Structural = physical modification of the system (e.g., construction of new dam or irrigation system) Non-structural = modification of system functioning (e.g., environmental or water quality regulations, operations of reservoirs) An alternative is a combination of actions, designed assuming stationary boundary conditions. A pathway is a temporal sequence of actions. 17
- 18. Candidate pathways P0: baseline scenario • no infrastructural interventions • energy-driven operations of the reservoirs • no environmental constraints 18
- 19. Candidate pathways P1: baseline scenario + Koysha power plant • Inclusion of Koysha • energy-driven operations of the reservoirs • no environmental constraints 19
- 20. Candidate pathways P2: baseline scenario + Agricultural districts • Inclusion of the planned agricultural districts • irrigation-driven operations of the reservoirs • no environmental constraints 20
- 21. Candidate pathways P3: baseline scenario + Koysha power plant • Inclusion of Koysha • Inclusion of the planned agricultural districts • no environmental constraints 21
Hinweis der Redaktion
- As is common with tropical rivers, the flow regime of the Omo experiences large seasonal fluctuations (Saha et al, 2015, p.140). While the river runs nearly dry in the months of January, February and March, floods occurring in the wet season can reach magnitudes, allowing them the inundation of large floodplain areas (Agriconsulting and Mid-Day, 2009, p.2). The riparian ecosystem adapts over time to those seasonal fluctuations - just as the tribal populations practicing flood recession agriculture do -, thereby becoming dependent on them, be it through the natural irrigation of floodplains or the sedimentation of silt. A change of this seasonal cycle will in all likelihood have a considerable effect on the ecosystem (Saha et al, 2015, p.140).
- Mursi Tribe - The Mursi population - numbering around 10'000 - live in the northernmost region of the study area, between the Omo and Mago River (SOGREAH, 2010, p.40). Their territory overlap partially with the Omo National Park and the Tama Wildlife reserve, which they are ordered by the Ethiopian government not to trespass, and not to let their cattle graze there, or cultivate along a portion of the Mago river (Johnston, 2009). Additionally, the planned Kuraz Sugar Plantation will excise a large portion of the Omo National Park and Mursi territory, including both banks of the Omo River, currently used for recession and rainfed cultivation (see Figure A-I.5 and Figure A-I.6). Although by February 2016 the designated Kuraz Sugar Plantation only amounts to 13'000 ha - less than a tenth of its planned size (Kamski, 2016) - forced displacement has already ignited conflicts (Oakland Institute, 2016, "Hunger - Ethiopia’s new weapon to force tribes off their land", July 11th 2012).
- Unlike the wildlife in National Parks, the overall riparian area in the Lower Omo Valley will likely be more susceptible to a river regime change. As is common with tropical rivers, the flow regime of the Omo experiences large seasonal fluctuations (Saha et al, 2015, p.140). While the river runs nearly dry in the months of January, February and March, floods occurring in the wet season can reach magnitudes, allowing them the inundation of large floodplain areas (Agriconsulting and Mid-Day, 2009, p.2). The riparian ecosystem adapts over time to those seasonal fluctuations - just as the tribal populations practicing flood recession agriculture do -, thereby becoming dependent on them, be it through the natural irrigation of floodplains or the sedimentation of silt. A change of this seasonal cycle will in all likelihood have a considerable effect on the ecosystem (Saha et al, 2015, p.140). Government: double energy production and become exporter of energy to neighbouring countries; expand irrigation and provide land for foreign investment Environment: preserving environment and forest, sustainable land management, maintain the livelihood and cultural heritage of communities in the Omo basin Agriculture: food security and food productivity, access to water, avoidance of flooding Tourism: stimulating tourism in the area (Omo river and local tribes)
- “Decision-Analytic Framework to explore the water-energy-food NExus in complex and transboundary water resources systems of fast growing developing countries” DAFNE focuses on integrated water resources planning and management in the context of competing use of water by the Energy, Agriculture and Environment sectors WEF nexus DAFNE uses a quantitative analytic framework that allows exploration of trade-offs among planning and management options
- An alternative is a combination of actions, designed assuming stationary boundary conditions. A pathway is a temporal sequence of actions.
- we need to develop tools that allow visualization of relationships between the often conflicting FEW issues so that they can bring together various stakeholders, increase the stakeholder’s awareness about the FEW nexus and their inclination to adopt a more holistic view when making decisions. First, the tool allows to present the trade-offs in the FEW sector and supports the comparative analysis of alternatives for a wide range of stakeholders. Second, the tool supports two types of use: it provides both an overall holistic view on the FEW issues which can be used by stakeholders on high-level and those with less technical backgrounds as well as a very detailed view on specific issues in isolation for stakeholders with special interests. Third, by taking its roots in the perspective making and perspective taking theory (Boland and Tenkasi 1995), the tool is built to support both a perspective of a single sector as well as multiple perspectives thus making this tool valuable for negotiation between the various sectors. In this way, the tool allows the stakeholders to uncover the interconnections between the different FEW issues, encourage communication and decision-making as well as build trust and willingness to use such tools.
- a high usage of water for irrigation agriculture upstream will cause a shortage of water downstream, thus negatively affecting the Turkana Lake’s fishing opportunities. An example of the result of the perspective-making process is presented in Figure 20 with a stakeholder from a socio-economic sector who was interested in three indicators: energy production, minimization of water deficit for the irrigation agriculture, and the minimization of the negative impact on the Turkana fisheries. From this perspective, the stakeholder could clearly identify the trade-off between the irrigation agriculture and the impact on fisheries: a high usage of water for irrigation agriculture upstream will cause a shortage of water downstream, thus negatively affecting the Turkana Lake’s fishing opportunities. In this mode, some stakeholders wanted to explore more indicators (which will be the case once the data becomes available) as well as were wondering about the possibility to 'make a perspective' for such inter-disciplinary sectors as tourism and possibly include integrated indicators (value-added indicators) to convince the stakeholders from various sectors.
- The Perspective-taking ability of the tool was evaluated through the interaction with the mode “Compare perspectives” described in detail in section 5. As with the perspective-making mode, the perspective-taking mode of the tool was perceived as useful and easy to use. As one stakeholder commented: “Comparison mode is also very helpful, good visualization, can compare easily, to make trade-offs, and to have evidence for negotiation”. The possibility to consider the impact on other sectors and comparing one’s own to the perspective of others was regarded as especially useful to the stakeholders. All of the stakeholders could understand and use the functionalities of this mode of the tool such as: retrieving their perspective, making comparisons, identifying their preferred pathways, as well as providing feedback. An example of the perspective-taking process is presented in Figure 21: the stakeholder from the socio-economic sector retrieves the perspective from the previous paragraph and compares it to the perspective of the tourism and culture sector. The focus of the tourism and culture is slightly different: the stakeholder from this sector was interested in the impact of the pathways on indicators relating to minimization of the deviation from the natural condition in the Omo delta, as well as minimization of the deviation from the flood pulse for recession agriculture. One can see that the two perspectives do show some differences and the Pn3_2 which can satisfy the tourism sector, would not satisfy socio-economic stakeholders as it yields a negative impact on the irrigation agriculture. However, the pathway Pn3_387 could satisfy both of these sectors. As such, by putting the perspectives of the two sectors side by side, a trade-off analysis process for a cooperative selection of pathways can be supported.
- Most of the indicators we explore can be connected to the sustainable development goals set out by the UN Allow to monitor the progress of their achievement by each country What concerns understanding the results of the model, it was observed that some stakeholders could grasp the results of the model easily, while others required some more guidance into the interpretation of the results. Those stakeholders who required more explanations are the ones with less technical backgrounds who do not deal with a large amount of numbers in their daily work and are not familiar with the technicalities of WEF nexus modelling. Specific points scattered around understanding the concept of a pathway and the meaning behind it. As such, the stakeholders desired more details about the pathways and some simple description as to the actions that comprise it. They asked: “How can the model be translated into action? What should the stakeholders do?”. Access to the detailed information about the pathways and the indicators was already foreseen: this can be viewed in the Geoportal with a direct link from the multi-perspective visual analysis tool; however, the stakeholder feedback suggests that it would be advantageous to include some of this more detailed information already in the multi-perspective visual analysis tool itself. Another point was around understanding the impact on the indicators in absolute and normalized values. Overall, normalized values allowed for an easier way of understanding, but normalization in some cases can be misleading (e.g. in a case where a 0.8 normalized value corresponds to a very low absolute term). Finally, the stakeholders suggested that it would be helpful if there could be an overall simplification of the underlying model so it could be grasped without the detailed knowledge of the DAF model. One of the stakeholders mentioned: ”There should be a way to simplify it, add more details in the simplified language so that it is understood by many… someone very high level looking at these results will not be interested in the details”. On the other end of the spectrum, some stakeholders actually required much more information than was presented in the tool. For example, they asked about spatial information in addition to the graphs, which is contained in the Geoportal and linked to directly from the multi-perspective visual analysis tool. This confirms the concept of providing a close linking between the two tools for different purposes of analysis and different types of stakeholders (e.g. technical vs. non-technical). There are several possible ways of addressing the issues outlined