Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A multi-perspective tool to visualize relationships in the Food-Water-Energy-Nexus


Published on

Presentation on Designing for multi-stakeholder analysis of trade-offs in Water-Energy-Food nexus held during STS Conference in Graz 2019

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A multi-perspective tool to visualize relationships in the Food-Water-Energy-Nexus

  1. 1. @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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  14. 14. @dafne_project
  15. 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. 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. 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. 18. Candidate pathways P0: baseline scenario • no infrastructural interventions • energy-driven operations of the reservoirs • no environmental constraints 18
  19. 19. Candidate pathways P1: baseline scenario + Koysha power plant • Inclusion of Koysha • energy-driven operations of the reservoirs • no environmental constraints 19
  20. 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. 21. Candidate pathways P3: baseline scenario + Koysha power plant • Inclusion of Koysha • Inclusion of the planned agricultural districts • no environmental constraints 21