1 / 52

A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans

SOCOPSE Final Conference 24 and 25 June 2009. A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans. Willy van Tongeren, Ruud Baartmans, Jaap van der Vlies Maastricht 24 June 2009.

diata
Download Presentation

A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SOCOPSE Final Conference 24 and 25 June 2009 A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans Willy van Tongeren, Ruud Baartmans, Jaap van der Vlies Maastricht 24 June 2009

  2. Session G08: Managing priority substances under the Water Framework Directive A Decision Support System for management of priority substances in river basin management plans Willy van Tongeren, Ruud Baartmans, Jaap van der Vlies, Anna Jöborn, Anna Palm-Cousins, Mohammed Belhaj, John Munthe, Tuomas Mattila, Susanne Ullrich, Jozef Pacyna, Kyrre Sundseth, Geraldine Ducos

  3. Outline • Introduction: • Aim/background • Water Framework Directive • Decision Support System • Step by step plan • Tools • Conclusions

  4. WFD: Some key questions for PS’s • Actual and future status of waters? • Possible sources? • Possible measures? • Effects of measures: … concentration reduction?… costs? … other effects? • Who to consult, who to decide with? • Etc.

  5. WFD planning cycle Now, we are already here…

  6. At some time, not far from now… Mr. Jones, Some-Where Water • Working at Some-Where Water • Is responsible for drafting a chapter on priority substances in the RBMP • Is neither a scientist nor an economist Fortunately, he has the SOCOPSEDSS Handbook which provides him guidance and an approach…

  7. Aim • Support water authorities and other stakeholders to make plans and take decisions for the control of PSs • Identify current and future environmental problems • Asses effectiveness and impacts of various measures • Help to select the measures • At local, national and European level, and/or at river basin level • Transparent decision making • Make optimal use of local knowledge, experiences, etc.

  8. Decision Support System

  9. Place in the project

  10. Approach • Based on socio economic evaluation methods • Step by step • Additional methods and tools • Strong Stakeholder involvement • Gives support, does not make decisions

  11. The steps

  12. Update plans (2015)

  13. Step 0: System definition=(WFD requirement) • Define physical boundaries • Characterize geographical, physical, chemical, biological and societal conditions • Identify key stakeholders in decision-making process

  14. Step 1: Problem definition • To indicate: • Areas of EQS exceedance • Areas where PS concentrations increase in time • Result: table/map of indicating the areas where EQS’s are exceeded and/or where concentrations increase in time

  15. Overview result problem definition

  16. Step 2: Inventory of sources Where is the pollution coming from and what is the level ? • EU wide inventory of major sources of emissions to air, water and soil which affect PS in various aquatic ecosystems (SFA, WP 2) • Which sources are relevant for areas of exceedance? • Calculate emissions from emission factors • Use of models

  17. Step 3: Definition of baseline scenario(=Fine tuning the problem definition) • To what extend additional measures are necessary to improve water quality taking into account the measures already taken? • Is there a reason to assume that the present situation of water quality will change or will be different in future? • If so: why? • Will problem change?

  18. Step 4: Inventory of possible measures Envisage Relevant and possible management options for actual and future areas of exceedance (WP 4) • Measures for polluters • Process-oriented options • End-of-pipe techniques • Policy instruments • Substitution of product/substance • Community level options

  19. Data base of abatement measures Census of all possible abatement and substitution measures by substance; It was constituted on the basis of: A bibliographic review : about 450 references ; A survey questionnaire : about 200 contacts ; Exchanges with stakeholders during 3 workshops: Paris, Katowice, Nieuwegein (22 persons came in total).

  20. Database of “triplets”: measure-substance-emission source Excerpt from the database

  21. Step 5: Assessment of the effects of the measures • What are the effects of measures? • Depict reduction of concentration • Costs of concentration reduction • Other relevant effects? Which?

  22. Qualitative assessment: Type of pollution (Pol) Complexity of implementation (Cmp) Impact on the process of the factory (Imp) Limits and restrictions (Lim) • For each substance, we gathered and synthesized information (Substance = DEHP) Efficiency of emission reduction (Eff) Removal of other pollutants than SOCOPSE ones (Oth) Consumption of energy (En) Cross-effects (CE), Production of waste (W) Investment costs (IC) Operational costs (OC) Status of the technique (St) Number of applications (App) Excerpt from Substance Report on DEHP

  23. Step 6: Selection of the best options • In dialogue with main stakeholder groups • Method:… Costs and concentration reduction: CEA… If also ‘other effects’: (quick scan) SCBA or MCA • No force to require means, only targets (EQSs):selection is advice to apply by the polluters

  24. The MultiCriteria Analysis (ELECTRE Model INERIS): Ranking of triplets according to criteria and weights: Efficiency = 1/3 Share = 1/6 Costs = 1/6 Availability = 1/6 Co-benefits = 1/12 Scale = 1/12 Weights are allocated in order to get the same weighting between total costs and total benefits Total environmental benefits = 1/2 Total costs = 1/2

  25. Quantitative assessment: For each substance, we asked experts to fill-in a data table: (Substance = DEHP) Excerpt from the datatable

  26. Application at the European level for all substances: (Best measure by substance)

  27. Tools • Models • Substance Flow Analyses • Substance reports • Fact Sheets • Additional tools • MCA, • SCBA, • Stakeholder analyses • ….

  28. First conclusions • DSS developed & is successfully tested in cases • DSS can help different stakeholders with plan updates • Handbook and web based draft available: … Measures for source-substance combinations… Environmental fate modelling… Economic evaluation methods • Possible improvements: … How to deal with uncertainties … Other substances

  29. www.socopse.eu

  30. Also this story has a happy end, So Mr Jones Changes to …

  31. A Happy Water Prince ?

  32. Thank you SOCOPSE Final Conference:24-25 June 2009, Maastricht (NL) ruud.baartmans@tno.nl willy.vantongeren@tno.nl www.socopse.eu

  33. Water Framework Directive • A legal framework for achieving good ecological and chemical status in waters across Europe • Management by river basin • Limits in concentration of 33 priority substances(PSs) • Result obligation in 2015 (2027 ultimately) River basin management plans:First plan: 2009, updated plan: 2015

  34. Decision Schemes

  35. Step 1: Problem definition

  36. Step 2: Inventory of sources

  37. Step 3: Definition of baseline scenario

  38. Step 4: Inventory of possible measures Input from Step 3 measures database future areas of exceedance and possible sources measure relevant for source? no skip measure yes table of possible (single) measures per source-substance combination does measureapply to more than 1 source or substance? yes consider to apply measure for more than 1 source or substance no table of possible measures per substance-source combination Input for Step 5

  39. Step 5: Assessment of the effects of the measures Input from Step 4 information on use of fate models table of possible measures per source-substance combination calculate/estimate concentration reduction calculate/estimate Cost of Reduction Are there other effects besides Cost of Reduction and concentration reduction to be considered? yes depict these other effects no table of effects of measures, costs, reduction, other effects Input for Step 6

  40. Step 6: Selection of the best options

  41. Emission reduction strategy of priority and emerging chemicals in European waters G.DUCOS, JM. BRIGNON, F. OESTERHOLT, S.M. ULLRICH, J. KRUPANEK, W. Van TONGEREN, J. MUNTHE

  42. General aim: • Support the implementation of the WFD with regards to Priority Substances • Background: • SOCOPSE: focus on the development of tools to support the WFD implementation • 11 PSs: Hg, Cd, PBDE, TBT, Atrazine, Isoproturon, PAH, Anthracene, DEHP, HCB, NP • In this presentation: • Tools = 1) Inventory of abatement measures • 2) Assessment of abatement measures • 3) Emission Reduction Strategy with MCA

  43. 3) Emission Reduction Strategy The ERS regarding all SOCOPSE substances is built from the best measures by substance; The ranking of measures is processed with an outranking MultiCriteria Analysis model (ELECTRE); Database = Quantitative assessment table

More Related