groundwater

40 Pages·2012·17.66 MB·English

Enhancing the use of Science in International Enhancing the use of Science in International
Waters projects to improve project results Waters projects to improve project results
ANALYSIS REPORT
GROUNDWATER
A global Analysis of Groundwater science
and transboundary management
The United Nati ons Think Tank on Water
United Nati ons University
Insti tute for Water, Environment and Health
175 Longwood Road South, Suite 204
Hamilton, ON Canada L8P 0A1
1.905.667.5511 • www.inweh.unu.edu ISBN: 92-808-6018-6
GEF IW:Science Project

Analysis Report of the
Groundwater Working Group
IW: Science, or Enhancing the Use of Science in International Waters Projects to Improve
Project Results is a medium-sized project of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
International Waters (IW) focal area, implemented by the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP) and executed by the United Nations University Institute for Water,
Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH). GEF ID Number: 3343.
CORE PARTNERS
Analysis Report of the
Groundwater Working Group
March 2012
This report is written as part of the IW:Science series of reports comprising a Synopsis and Analysis for each of fi ve classes of global
transboundary water system: River Basin, Lake, Groundwater, Land-based Pollution Sources, and Large Marine Ecosystems and Open
Oceans. The fi ndings and content of the Synopsis and Analysis Reports are then integrated into two IW:Science Synthesis Reports to
provide a global water view with regard to Emerging Science Issues and Research Needs for Targeted Intervention in the IW Focal Area, and
Application of Science for Adaptive Management & Development and use of Indicators to support IW Projects. All reports can be found on
the IW:Science, UNU-INWEH, IW:LEARN and GEF websites.
This report was prepared under the responsibility of the IW:Science Core Partner and Lead Institution of the Groundwater Working Group:
Through the dedication, input and authorship of the Groundwater Working Group Co-chairs:
Ofelia Tujchneider National University of El Litoral & National Council of Scientifi c &Technical Research, Argentina
Jac van der Gun UNESCO-IHOP Senior Consultant, The Netherlands
and the IW:Science Groundwater Working Group members:
Abou Amani UNESCO, Ghana
Bo Appelgren UNESCO-IHP Senior Consultant, Italy
Giuseppe Arduino UNESCO, Indonesia
Alice Aureli UNESCO, France
Stefano Burchi International Association for Water Law (AIDA), Italy
Greg Christelis Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, Namibia
Emilio Custodio Technical University of Catalonia, Spain
Todd Jarvis Oregon State University, United States of America
Julio Kettelhut Water Resources Secretariat, Ministry of the Environment, Brazil
Alexandros Makarigakis UNESCO, Ethiopia
Andrea Merla UNESCO-IHP Senior Consultant, Italy
Shaminder Puri International Association of Hydrogeologists, United Kingdom
Fabrice Renaud UNU-EHS, Germany
Alfonso Rivera Geological Survey of Canada, Canada
Holger Treidel UNESCO-IHP, France
Frank van Weert IGRAC, The Netherlands
Mark Zeitoun School of International Development, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom
Han Zaisheng China University of Geosciences, China
DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and presentations of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of the United Nations University (UNU) concerning legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and do
not necessarily refl ect the views of the UNU. Mention of the names of fi rms or commercial products does not imply endorsement by UNU.
©The United Nations University, 2012

Available from:
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH)
175 Longwood Road South, Suite 204
Hamilton, Ontario CANADA L8P OA1
Tel: + 1-905-667-5511 Fax: + 1-905-667-5510
Email: [email protected] Web: www.inweh.unu.edu
IW:Science Project Manager: Andrew Dansie

ISBN 92-808-6018-6
Cover photo: Sustainable use of groundwater resources will play a pivotal role in the provision of water for future generations, child in West Africa
Groundwater Working Group
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRONYM MEANING ACRONYM MEANING
AM Adaptive Management NSAS Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System
DPSIR Driving forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, and NWSAS North Western Sahara Aquifer System
Responses
PCU Project Coordination Unit
GAS Guarani Aquifer System
RBM Results Based Management
GEF Global Environment Facility
RBO River Basin Organisation
GIS Geographic Information System
SADC Southern African Development Community
GIWA Global International Waters Assessment
SAP Strategic Action Programme
GWG Groundwater Working Group
SSG Scientifi c Synthesis Group
IAS Iullemeden Aquifer System
TAG Technical Advisory Group
IGRAC International Groundwater Resources
TAs, TBAs Transboundary Aquifers
Assessment Centre
TBA Transboundary Aquifer
ISARM Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources
Management TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
ITC International Trade Centre TWAP Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme
IW International Waters UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientifi c, and
Cultural Organization
IW:Science International Waters Science
UNU-INWEH United Nations University Institute for Water
IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
Environment and Health
LME Large Marine Ecosystem
WGs Working Groups
MAR Managed (Artifi cial) Aquifer Recharge
WWDR3 Third World Water Development Report
MSLME Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem
iii
Analysis Report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2
1.1 The GEF IW: Science project ...........................................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Core Questions ..............................................................................................................................................................................3
1.4 Activities of the Groundwater Working Group ...................................................................................................................................4
1.5 Purpose of this report .....................................................................................................................................................................5
2. What is ‘science’ in the context of the IW:Science project? ................................ 6
3. Relevant Groundwater-Related IW Projects Considered ..................................... 8
4. Three Interesting Paradigms ............................................................................... 10
4.1 Adaptive Management ................................................................................................................................................................10
4.2 Results-Based Management ........................................................................................................................................................11
4.3 Social-Ecological Systems Approach ...........................................................................................................................................12
4.4 Comments on AM versus RBM ....................................................................................................................................................13
5. Core Questions on Critical Science Issues ......................................................... 14
5.1 Core Question A1: What are the critical science challenges “on the horizon” specifi c to each ecosystem type? ...............................14
5.2 Core Question A2: What is the signifi cance of regional and global-scale drivers, e.g., climate change, in the genesis of
transboundary groundwater problems? .......................................................................................................................................14
5.3 Core Question A3: Describe how understanding and managing multiple causality in a transboundary water context is undertaken ..15
5.4 Core Question A4: How are variable spatial and temporal scales in IW projects accounted for? .......................................................16
5.5 Core Question A5: What approaches were used to understand/assess the coupling of social and ecological systems? .....................16
5.6 Core Question A6: What scientifi c knowledge is available and/or used to evaluate trade-offs between the response options
developed by IW projects? ...........................................................................................................................................................16
6. Core Questions on Application of Science for Adaptive Management .............. 18
6.1 Core Question B1: Was engagement of both local and wider science communities utilised in IW projects? If not, how can
improvements be made? .............................................................................................................................................................18
6.2 Core Question B2: Is science expertise and local knowledge well applied within the IW focal area, particularly in accessing
existing baseline information, new fi ndings on methodologies, science breakthroughs and scanning for emerging issues?..............18
6.3 Core Question B3: Identify lessons learned for linking science and management, including policy formulation and broader
governance issues. .....................................................................................................................................................................19
6.4 Core Question B4: Is adaptive management happening? How to better understand and effectively communicate the role of
science in adaptive management to different groundwater user groups. ........................................................................................20
6.5 Core Question B5: How to better communicate newly-synthesized science knowledge to stakeholders within and external to GEF? 21
iv
Groundwater Working Group
7. Core Questions on Development and Use of Indicators to Support Results-
Based IW Projects .............................................................................................. 22
7.1 Core Question C1: How did the projects help build and implement sound indicators and monitoring strategies to support
SAP implementation and/or ultimately assess the achievement of environmental and social benefi ts? ...........................................22
7.2 Core Question C2: How can we identify effective proxy indicators for use in IW projects? ..............................................................22
7.3 Core Question C3: How to make better use of appropriate science and best practices for Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis ..........23
8. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 24
8.1 General conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................24
8.2 On critical science issues ............................................................................................................................................................24
8.3 On generating and using science for underpinning management policies/strategies ......................................................................25
8.4 On projects aiming for the transition from science to management ...............................................................................................26
9. Recommendations .............................................................................................. 28
9.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................................................28
9.2 On critical science issues ............................................................................................................................................................28
9.3 On generating and using science for underpinning management policies/strategies ......................................................................28
9.4 On projects aiming for the transition from science to management ...............................................................................................29
10. References .......................................................................................................... 30
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Transboundary Aquifers of South-East Asia Map ................................................................................................................7
Figure 2 Transboundary Aquifers of Latin-American Map .................................................................................................................8
Table 1 The set of projects reviewed and used as a basis for the Core Question analysis .................................................................9
Figure 3 Typical features of Results-Based Management (according to UNESCO, 2010) .................................................................12
Table 2 Overview of groundwater ecosystem services ................................................................................................................13
Figure 4 Transboundary Aquifers of Africa Map ............................................................................................................................17
Figure 5 Transboundary Aquifers of the World ..............................................................................................................................27
Appendices listing
The appendices for this report are available electronically from the IW:Science, UNU-INWEH, IW:LEARN and GEF websites
Appendices 1-15 Answers to core questions as prepared in their raw format by Working Group members.
Appendix 16 ‘Aquifers, Hydrology & Eco-Hydrology’ for synergizing International Waters and Land Degradation
Focal Areas in GEF-IV (FY 2007-2010)
1
1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 The GEF IW: Science project 1.2 Approach and Methodology
Enhancing the Use of Science in International Waters The approach adopted by the IW:Science project,
Projects to Improve Project Results is a GEF IW:Science directed by UNU-INWEH, relies on parallel information
project launched in 2009 covering the fi ve main areas in extraction and analysis activities by fi ve working groups
the GEF International Waters portfolio: surface water; (WGs), one for each of the fi ve main areas in the GEF
lakes; groundwater; large marine ecosystems; and deep International Waters portfolio, as indicated above. A
oceans. A working group was formed to address each of Scientifi c Synthesis Group (SSG) will integrate the
these areas. outputs of these fi ve working groups, creating synergy
and a deeper understanding of the role of science in the
The project’s objective is to enhance – through IW portfolio. UNU-INWEH assists the working groups
knowledge integration and information-sharing tools – by establishing a GEF IW projects document database
the use of science in the GEF IW focal area to strengthen and will create an IW scientifi c learning network for
priority setting, knowledge sharing, and results-based, information sharing and mutual learning.
adaptive management in current and future projects.
The project has three components: The activities of each working group consisted mainly of
the following two components:
1. Understanding and documenting, for future analysis
and reference, the scientifi c experience and scientifi c 4. Identifying and documenting science as
best practices from the IW project portfolio. used in GEF IW projects. This was done on
the basis of a predefi ned set of projects and
2. Undertaking and reporting a comparative, cross- results reported in a Synopsis Report.
sectoral assessment of IW:Science, identifying
intended users and impacts, contemporary 5. Analysing the use of science in the selected set
scientifi c challenges, research and science-policy of GEF IW projects, against the background
gaps, emerging issues, and global-scale impacts. of relevant aspects and from different angles
of view. To facilitate this analysis, a set of core
3. Creating an IW scientifi c learning network questions was developed, to be used by all
for information sharing and mutual working groups (see Section 1.3). Results of the
learning among IW projects and with analysis are presented in an Analysis Report.
the wider water science community.
2
1.3 Core Questions
To focus the analysis and facilitate subsequent inter-
comparison and synthesis in the next stage of the project
(Component 2), the Working Groups were challenged
to address a common suite of core questions on critical
science challenges as they relate to a specifi c water
system type. Three categories of questions are considered.
The tentative issue areas, drafted 4 March 2009, were
discussed at the Steering Committee meeting in Bonn,
25-26 March 2009, and again at the project inception
meeting in Macao, 25-28 January 2010, after which they
read as follows: Aquifer System Salto-Salto Chico, shared by Argentina and Uruguay – Entre Rios
Province, Argentina / E. Diaz
A. Critical science issues:
B. Application of science for adaptive management:
1. What are the critical science challenges “on
the horizon” specifi c to each ecosystem type? 1. Was engagement of both local and wider
science communities utilised in IW projects?
2. What is the signifi cance of regional and global- If not, how can improvements be made?
scale drivers, in particular climate change, in
the genesis of transboundary problems? 2. Is scientifi c expertise and local knowledge well
applied within the IW focal area, particularly
3. Describe how understanding and managing in accessing existing baseline information,
multiple causality in a transboundary new fi ndings on methodologies, science
water context is undertaken. breakthroughs and scanning for emerging issues?
4. How are variable spatial and temporal 3. Identify lessons learned for linking science
scales in IW projects accounted for? and policy implementation, including policy
formulation and broader governance issues.
5. What approaches were used to understand/assess
the coupling of social and ecological systems? 4. Is adaptive management happening? How to
better understand and effectively communicate
6. What scientifi c knowledge is available and/ the scientifi c dimensions of adaptive
or used to evaluate trade-offs between the management to different user groups?
response options developed by IW projects?1
5. How to better communicate newly-
synthesized science knowledge to
1 Question added in January 2010 at Project Inception Workshop stakeholders within and external to GEF?
3
Analysis Report
C. Development and use of indicators to support 1.4 Activities of the Groundwater
results-based IW projects: Working Group
1. How did the projects help build and In an early stage of the project, before the Inception
implement sound indicators and monitoring Meeting in Macao (25-28 January 2010), the majority
strategies to support Strategic Action of the core questions were already addressed, in a
Programme (SAP) implementation and/ preliminary manner, by the Groundwater Working
or ultimately assess achievement of Group (Tujchneider and Van der Gun, 2010a). This
environmental and social benefi ts? allowed members to become acquainted with the
project’s approach and develop some provisional results
2. How can we identify effective proxy for the analysis, but it also revealed a serious bottle-
indicators for use in IW projects? neck: a lack of access to IW project documents.
3. How to make better use of appropriate The work to inventory project documents, initiated in
science and best practices for the autumn of 2009 by the Project Coordination Unit
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis? (PCU), continued after the Macao meeting, producing an
impressive project document database. Nonetheless, in
The core questions were to be addressed by each spite of huge efforts, reports of crucial importance are
Working Group in the context of a specifi c water still missing for many GEF IW projects.
system type, groundwater2 in this case, and with a GEF
IW-projects focus (what do we observe in existing GEF Using a template to facilitate the analysis, members of
IW projects in relation to these specifi c questions?). the Groundwater Working Group reviewed 11 projects.
The analysis should give a picture of practices in Their project reviews – together with a number of
GEF projects in relation to each question, highlight thematic reviews – are presented in a Synopsis Report
strengths and weaknesses, and – where possible – make (Tujchneider and Van der Gun, 2010b).
suggestions for improving the science components of
GEF’s IW projects. After the Synopsis Report was fi nalized, each
member was asked to prepare a write-up on one or
two of the core questions. A draft Core Questions
Report (Tujchneider and Van der Gun, 2010c) was
produced, providing a quick overview and digest of
the contributions. This was done primarily in order to
contribute to focused discussions at the Groundwater
Working Groups’ second meeting in Perugia, 27-29
September 2010. Discussions in Perugia were fruitful
and produced a balanced view from the Working Group
on the science components in groundwater related GEF
IW projects and on options to enhance these.
Water containers to be fi lled, Northern Kenya / A. Dansie
2 The corresponding projects all are related in one way or
another to the management of aquifer resources (see also
Stephan (2009) and the included UNILC Draft Articles on the
Law of Transboundary Aquifers).
4