UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue
Water Accounting – A Tool for Integrated Water
Resource Management?
(CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006)
Water Quality Accounts:
Jean-Louis Weber
Environmental Accounting Analyst
European Environment Agency
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Outline
• Quality accounts
• Why?
• Structure
• Issues in compiling quality accounts
• Aggregation over time and space
• Definitions of quality classes and aggregation
over determinands
• EEA project
• The way forward
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Why Quality Accounts?
•
Quality accounts describes the quality of water
resources at the beginning and end of the
accounting period
•
•
in terms of chemical, physical and biological
characteristics
Important because
•
•
BUT
•
•
Quality limits water availability for certain purposes
Is a first step towards ecosystem accounting and its
variants
Still experimental (few country experiences; little or no
standardization)
Link with pressures due to human activities is not
direct
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
The quality of what?
• Quality of water & quality of water bodies
• Monitoring of points & generalisation to
water systems (aquifers – Australian
experience, lakes, rivers)
• Particular difficulty with water courses:
how to account for their relative size?
• The runoff is measured at the lowest point of
a basin – the quality varies along the stream
• The mere length confuses large rivers and
small streams
• Statistics of points make sense only when the
monitoring system is dense – rarely the case
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Assessing water quality from point
monitoring
State A
Quality
class
State
A
State
B
Change
12.5%
0.0%
-13%
18.8%
50.0%
+31%
56.2%
37.5%
-19%
13.5%
13.5%
+0%
100%
100%
0
State B
Are these statistics
relevant?
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Where is the gap?
•
Adding sampling
points is conceptually
equivalent to count for
money like that 
2
+
3
+
5
= 10 units !!!
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Water Quality Accounting Unit
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
River reaches as basic accounting units for
rivers
Importance is best measured by length and
discharge
Best candidate is SRU (standard river unit) =
reach length  discharge in m3 s-1
Large and small rivers can be aggregated
when measured in SRUs
Can be classified or weighted with quality
indexes
Results comparables from basin to basin
Robust and easy to compute
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Illustration 1
River group
Small
Medium
Large

Quality



Class1

Class2
Class3



• Note: possibility of full implementation
(GIS) or of simplified methodology
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Illustration 2
Computation of SRU
values of river reaches by
river basins
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Source: Ifen
The quality for what?
• Water composition statistics express an
objective measurement of water (e.g, the
temperature of this water body is 10°C in
average per year, in the range of 2° – 18°C)
• Water quality expresses an aptitude to
deliver a service (this water body is OK as
source of cooling water, but definitely too cold
for bathing!)
 Variables need to be interpreted
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Several ways of assessing water
quality
• According to disturbances/perturbations
to functions
• Total hydraulic and osmotic power of
river basins
• Health of ecosystem approach
(resilience)
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
From parameters to
Nuisances/Perturbations
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Issue: agree on water functions/
services
Most classificationsrecognize the following uses: drinking
water, leisure, irrigation, and industry.
The French (Oudin, 2000) distinguish for example, aquatic
life, drinking water, leisure, irrigation, livestock and
aquaculture.
Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000)
mention aquatic ecosystems, primary industries,
recreation and aesthetics, drinking water, industrial use as
well as cultural and spiritual values (although for the latter
two categories no quality guidelines are provided).
(SEA 2003)
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
The energy approach to quality
“Water resource quality (WRQ) is affected by salt
concentration and topographical position. Indeed, an
increase in salt concentration, which decreases water
availability for animal and plant nutrition, and lower
altitude, which diminishes the potential for production of
hydropower, negatively affects WRQ.”
Total power TP (MW) can be obtained by the expression:
TP = Hydraulic Power + Osmotic Power
According to this expression, TP can be defined as the
minimum power needed to transport a desalted sea-water
flow Q from sea level to position H (m) in a river course.
Influence of salt concentration and topographical position on water resource quality: The Spanish Case Study G Gascó1*, A Saa1, F
Guerrero1 and A Gascó2
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Principle of Total, Hydraulic and
Osmotic powers
+
Sources: Gasco et
al...2005,
Valero
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Possible accounting framework
Tableau 2 : Central account of the quality of rivers water (example) 1000 srkm.
Types of rivers
Classes of quality
State 1992
Main rivers
1B
2
3
1A
HC
1A
Main tributaries
1B
2
3
HC
5
1253
891
510
177
309
1228
1194
336
50
Use of the ressource
Agriculture
Energy
Industry
Municipalities and households
Discharge of waste water
Agriculture
Energy
Industry
Municipalities and households
Changes due to natural or multiple
causes
Natural causes
Accidents
Multiples causes
Total changes
3
336
9
-183
-165
16
464
-275
-182
-22
State 1994
8
1583
893
358
12
325
1691
919
154
28
Changes due to economic decisions
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
WQA: Basic structure
Unit: m3
Quality classes
Quality 1
Opening
stocks
Changes in
stocks
Closing
stocks
SEEA 2003
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Quality 2
Quality 3
Quality n
Total
(Rows)
Case studies in France, Spain, Chile,
England & Wales, Ireland, Slovenia
River size
class
Main rivers
State 1992
1A
1B
2
3
Change 1994-1992
HC
5 1253 891 510 177
1A
1B
3 329
2
3
State 1994
HC
2 -152 -165
1A
1B
2
3
Adjustment
HC 1A 1B
2
3 HC
8 1583 893 358
12
0
6
7 -32
0
Main
tributaries
309 1228 1194 336
50
16 464 -275 -182
-22 325 1691 919 154
28
0
0
0
0
0
Rivers
260 615 451 128
47
46 134 -129
-17
-28 306 749 322 110
18
-1
-4
0
0
0
Brooks
860 1464 690 243
95
-51 -170 227
15
-23 810 1295 917 258
72
7
-6
1
0
0
Example:France 1992-1994
Results in SRU*1000
WQA can be calculated at the level of river basins of ~ 10
000 km² or more
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Ecosystem health approach
e.g. Based on river fish inventory
Density of insectivorous species
Density of omnivorous species
10 metrics
retained
according to
sensibility tests
to rivers
disturbance and
redundancy
Density of phytophilous species
Relative density of lithophilous species
Number of benthic species
Number of rheophilic species
Relative number of intolerant species
Relative number of tolerant species
Number of diadromous species
Number of potamodromous species
European Fish Index = Sum of the 10 metrics
Source: FAME fish based method for the assessment of ecological status of European rivers - 2004
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Modelling Metrics according to the environmental
context
Metrics ~ f (environmental descriptors)
General Linear
Model
Linear and logistic
stepwise
procedures
Non linear
relationships
(first and second
order)
Local scale
- drainage area
- distance from source
- mean air temperature
- geological typology
- lake upstream
- altitude
- river reach slope
- wetted width
- sampling method
Regional scale
- 11 Ichtyoregions
(similarities between
catchment native species lists)
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
Danube River
Northern Plains
South-West Sweden
United Kingdom
North Sea – Meuse Rivers
West Europe
Rhone River
Mediterranean Rivers (France)
Mediterranean Rivers (Spain)
Ebro River
North Portugal
Current development
of FAME
Index classes :
1 – excellent status
2 – good status
3 – moderately perturbed
4 – perturbed
5 – heavily perturbed
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
COMPILATION ISSUES I
•
Aggregation
•
•
Over space
• Scale determines outcome
• Weighted average indicator
Over time
• Seasonal variations
• Sudden events
Comment: quick start possible from quality maps produced by
many environmental agencies: making indicators from
maps
•
Access to science
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
COMPILATION ISSUES II
•
•
Definition of quality
•
•
The choice of ‘determinands’
How to aggregate over determinands?
•
•
•
Defined for particular water use(s)
No standard classification of uses exists
How to deal with multiple use?
Definition of quality classes
Comment: how far should we go into standardizing
determinands? Interpretation of determinands is
context dependant. Outcome oriented approach
can accommodate some flexibility; need first
agreement on water services
•
Access to data
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006
EEA Projects
•
2006: Pilot implementation with partner
countries
•
•
•
•
Candidates (talks ongoing): France, Austria, Ireland,
England & Wales, Sweden, Hungary
Protocols of data exchange; extraction of the data
necessary for sampling and modelling; supply of
geographical layers on rivers and basins
Joint assessment of results
2007: start of a step by step full implementation
with the CCM2 – European catchments and
rivers database and new partnerships with
Member countries
UNSD/UNCEEA
User-Producer Dialogue on Water Accounting
CBS – Voorburg - The Netherlands, 22-24 May 2006