MAGIC...Monterrey-Viña, A., Musicki-Savic, A., Díaz-Peña, F.J., & Peñate-Suárez, B., Technical...

i

Horizon 2020 Societal challenge 5: Climate action, environment, resource

efficiency and raw materials

MAGIC

Moving Towards Adaptive Governance in Complexity: Informing Nexus Security

GA No. 689669, Funding type RIA

Deliverable number (relative in

WP) D6.7

Deliverable name: Solving water problems vs. creating new ones: the use of alternative water resources for irrigation

Quality check of the alternative water resources innovation WP / WP number: WP6

Delivery due date: Project month 45 (29/02/2020)

Actual date of submission: 28/02/2020

Dissemination level: Public

Lead beneficiary: ITC

Responsible scientist/administrator: Baltasar Peñate Suárez

Estimated effort (PM): 27 PM

Contributor(s): Violeta Cabello Villarejo (UAB), Ana Musicki Savic (ITC), David Romero Manrique (JRC), Adrián Monterey Viña (ITC), Ângela Guimarães Pereira (JRC), Baltasar Peñate Suárez (ITC)

Name1 (partner institution), name2 (partner institution), … Estimated effort contributor(s) (PM):

ITC: 17 PM; UAB: 7 PM; JRC: 3 PM

Internal reviewer: Zora Kovacic (UiB), Jan Sindt (CA), Joep Schyns (UT)

Ref. Ares(2020)1259243 - 28/02/2020

ii

1. Changes with respect to the DoA The title of the deliverable has been slightly changed with the sole purpose of making it more attractive and giving a better idea of the content.

2. Dissemination and uptake This deliverable is of interest to the scientific community (including the consortium itself) and regional (Canary Islands), national, and EU level policy-makers. Uptake by the scientific community is encouraged through scientific publications and participation in workshops and conferences (see point 4, evidence of accomplishment). Uptake by policy makers has been and will be encouraged through the engagement activities reported on in the deliverable and follow-up activities scheduled for the first half of 2020, and the dissemination of videos and policy briefs (see point 4). Several policymakers have already shown interest in using the results of this deliverable. Firstly, the Insular Council of Gran Canaria has included the assessment results in the 2030 roadmap of food sovereignty. Secondly, the regional General Directorate of Water and the Spanish Ministry of Ecological Transition are including the results of the Valle Guerra (Tenerife) case study in the forthcoming practical case of application of the new water reuse regulation in Spain. A risk assessment will be done in collaboration with CEDEX1 in 2020.

3. Short Summary of results (<250 words) The objective of this Deliverable was to provide robust knowledge in order to assist on the elaboration of efficient policies both at European and regional levels regarding the development and implementation of Alternative Water Resources (AWR), taking into consideration the Water-Energy-Food Nexus (WEF) i.e. the interactions between the water, energetic and agricultural systems. In general terms, we found (and contributed to) social acceptance of AWR as pertinent innovations to face problems of decreasing freshwater resources while providing security to farmers in terms of water availability, quality and price. According to our analysis, AWR play an important role in several aspects, for instance, they may contribute to the recovery of aquifers; support agricultural production for exportation; regulate water prices within a context of private water market; or reduce seasonal dependence on water. When studying a situation of water scarcity and scenarios of climatic emergence, we found that societal consensus is clear within the majority of actors involved. Nevertheless, other factors require further analysis and improvements: the quality of water, the environmental impacts (soil, marine health), fossil fuels dependence, or the knowledge on water management. Energy consumption is another relevant issue. Our findings suggest that the consideration of the WEF Nexus is weak among the majority of the stakeholders (for instance, AWR promoters, policymakers, researchers, etc.). Furthermore, there is no regulatory framework considering the Nexus as a whole. In conclusion, AWR constitute a stable resource to alleviate water stress in regions suffering water scarcity, but they do only partially contribute to the recovery of a depressed agricultural activity and the reduction of fossil fuels consumption.

1 CEDEX is a state-of-the-art public body applied to civil engineering, building and the environment, organically assigned to the Ministry of Development and functionally to the Ministries of Development and for the Ecological Transition.

iii

4. Evidence of accomplishment Publications in scientific journals

Monterrey-Viña, A., Musicki-Savic, A., Díaz-Peña, F.J., & Peñate-Suárez, B., Technical and Agronomical Assessment of the Use of Desalinated Seawater for Coastal Irrigation in an Insular Context. Water 2020, 12, 272.

In preparation:

Solving water problems or creating new ones? Lessons from the implementation of alternative water resources in the Canary Islands. Targeted journal: Water resources research.

Co-producing narratives on the water-food-energy nexus in the Canary Islands with Quantitative Story-Telling. Targeted journal: Sustainability Science.

Conferences, oral presentations and posters

International Seminar on Environment and Society. Current challenges and pathways to change". University of Lisbon, Institute of Social Sciences. March 2-3, 2020, Lisbon (Portugal).

V Post-Normal Science Symposium. Co-producing narratives on the future of alternative water resources in the Canary Islands. September 20-22, 2020, Florence (Italy).

Conference of Desalination for the Environment. Clean Water and Energy. European Desalination Society (EDS). June 7-11, 2020, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain).

Other dissemination material

Other dissemination material (videos, policy briefs) has been and will be made available through the our innovation page on the MAGIC project website: https://magic-nexus.eu/case_study/innovation-alternative-water-sources

The data related to this deliverable have been made available in open access in the NIS and on Zenodo.

https://magic-nexus.eu/case_study/innovation-alternative-water-sources


Horizon 2020 Societal challenge 5: Climate action, environment, resource

efficiency and raw materials

Deliverable 6.7

Solving water problems vs. creating new ones: the use of alternative water resources

for irrigation Quality check of the alternative water resources innovation

Contributors: Violeta Cabello Villarejo (UAB), Ana Musicki Savic (ITC), David Romero Manrique (JRC), Adrián Monterey Viña (ITC), Ângela

Guimarães Pereira (JRC), Baltasar Peñate Suárez (ITC)

February, 2020

www.magic-nexus.eu

http://www.magic-nexus.eu/

Solving water problems vs. creating new ones: the use of alternative water resources for irrigation

2

Please cite as: Cabello Villarejo V., Musicki Savic A., Romero Manrique, D., Monterrey Viña A., Guimarães Pereira Â., Peñate Suárez B.– Solving water problems vs. creating new ones: the use of alternative water resources for irrigation MAGIC (H2020–GA 689669) Project Deliverable 6.7 Date (27th February 2020) Disclaimer: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 689669. The present work reflects only the authors' view and the funding Agency cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

MAGIC–GA 689669

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations 5 List of tables 5

List of Figures 5 Summary for Policymakers 7

Technical Summary 9 1. Introduction 10

2. Phase 1: Background and evaluation of the use of alternative water resources for irrigation 11

2.1. Introduction to Alternative Water Resources and their context in the Canaries 12

2.1.1. Desalination Technologies in the Archipelago 14

2.1.2. Reclaimed water technologies 16 2.2. Regulatory framework 19

2.2.1. Desalination and Reclaimed Water (regional, national and EU policies) 19 2.2.2. Agricultural policies and subsidies (related to the use of AWR for irrigation) 23

2.2.3. Energy legislative context 25 2.3. Preliminary exploration of narratives on AWR 26

2.4. Description of selected case studies 27

2.4.1. Gran Canaria case study 28 2.4.2. Tenerife case study 29

3. Phase 2: Analysis of the role of the alternative water resources for irrigation 31 3.1. General introduction to Phase 2 31

3.2. Results of QST 32 3.2.1. The Case of Gran Canaria 32

3.2.2. The Case of Tenerife 37 3.3 Conclusions from case studies 43

4. Stakeholder Engagement 45

4.1 Stakeholders mapping 46 4.2 Interviews 48

4.3 Agricultural Survey 48 4.4 Workshops 49

4.5 Follow up in the Dialogue Space 49 5. Materials and Methods 49

5.2. Phase 1 49

5.3. Phase 2 50 5.3.2. Identification of narratives 50

5.3.3. Quantitative analyses with MuSIASEM 52 5.3.4. Participatory narrative assessment 59


4

6. Reflections on learning experience 67 7. Dissemination plan 72

References 73

MAGIC–GA 689669

5

Abbreviations AWR Alternative Water Resources

CIAGC Consejo Insular de Aguas de Gran Canaria

CIATF Consejo Insular de Aguas de Tenerife

EC European Commission

EDR Electrodialysis Reversal

EU European Union

GIS Geographic Information Systems

ITC Instituto Tecnológico de Canarias

NIS Nexus Information Space

QST Quantitative Story Telling

WEF Water-Energy-Food

WFD Water Framework Directive

List of tables Table 1. Stakeholders' categories and dimensions .......................................................................... 48 Table 2. Variables used to characterize farms and water sources processors. ............................... 56

List of Figures Figure 1. Main desalination plants on Gran Canaria. The yellow boxes represent

desalinated seawater and the red dots the desalted brackish water. ........................... 15 Figure 2. Infrastructures of seawater desalination and brackish water desalination in

Tenerife. ......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3. The reclaimed water network in Gran Canaria (red-coloured line). The map also

shows the waste-water treatment plants, the basins and tertiary treatment systems. .......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4. Territorial ambits of reclaimed water supply in Tenerife. ................................................ 19 Figure 5 Map of the Canary Islands (Spain) together with the location of the two case

study areas in Gran Canaria and Tenerife (red-shaded). ............................................... 28 Figure 6. The process of determining Gran Canaria’s study area. ................................................... 29 Figure 7. The process of determining Tenerife’s study area............................................................ 30 Figure 8. Quantitative Story Telling cycle developed in the Canary Islands case studies. ............... 31 Figure 9. Overall water use pattern in Southeast Gran Canaria, expressed as a

percentage of the overall volume of water used by agriculture.................................... 34 Figure 10. Water used in different management strategies by large farms (>10ha) in the

study area. ...................................................................................................................... 34


6

Figure 11. Water used in different management strategies by small farms (<10ha) in the study area. ...................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 12. Tons of production represented by farm size. ................................................................ 39 Figure 13. Tons of production represented by farm size. ................................................................ 40 Figure 14. Positive aspects of reclaimed water. .............................................................................. 41 Figure 15. Negative aspects of reclaimed water. ............................................................................. 41 Figure 16. Integrated approach to stakeholder engagement. ......................................................... 46 Figure 17. Graphic representation of stakeholders according to their interest, power and

territorial scale. .............................................................................................................. 47 Figure 18. Basic structure of the processor data array describing farming systems in the

case studies. ................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 19. Hierarchical description of the crop production system in the study areas. ................. 54 Figure 20. Sequential description of water management system, intertwined with the

crop production hierarchy. ............................................................................................. 54 Figure 21. Data on production traded to different markets at three different levels in the

crop production hierarchy. ............................................................................................. 59 Figure 22. Panel used (DIN A0) for evaluation of viability and desirability of narratives. .............. 61 Figure 23. Panel used to steer deliberation on actions forward. .................................................... 61 Figure 24. Examples of fake news used to frame futuristic scenarios. ............................................ 66

MAGIC–GA 689669

7

Summary for Policymakers

Water scarcity is not a natural phenomenon. It occurs when water extraction largely exceeds the recharge rate of renewable freshwater resources, driving to its depletion. According to several international organisations, water overexploitation has been a common tendency worldwide in the last century (FAO, 2011; WWF, 2018). Water scarcity is compelling several regions to develop adaptation strategies based on the use of Alternative Water Resources (AWR), such as reclaimed wastewater and desalinated seawater.

In this context, AWR have emerged as reliable resources to alleviate water scarcity and droughts. These resources are aimed at coping with the growing water demand, increasing water availability for different uses, being the agriculture a primarily benefited sector.

Nevertheless, developing and implementing AWR demand additional efforts from the governance system: elaborate and adapt integrated water planning and management strategies; produce new normative and regulations; and control and reduce potential negative impacts, for instance, on the coastline, marine health, or soil. However, the heralded high potential of AWR is not joined by an EU legislative framework that can cope with the different contexts in which such technologies can become a viable alternative. In addition, the interactions between alternative waters with both the energy and the food systems have to be analysed within a Nexus perspective.

In the case of irrigation, both desalinated and reclaimed water can be considered relevant water supply alternatives because they are independent from seasonal patterns, not affected by drought and weather variability and they are able to cover peaks of water demand. There are not many EU regions with integrated management of desalination and reclaimed urban wastewater for irrigation purposes. Regarding wastewater reuse, a new EU regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse was approved at the end of 2019. Wastewater reuse is particularly relevant in the EC narratives in relation to the concept of circular economy. Another aspect that is usually overlooked by the EC is the need to include desalination technologies as advanced treatment in the chain of wastewater reclamation in order to obtain safe (sanitary conditions) and high-quality water.

The objective of this study is to provide robust knowledge in order to assist on the

elaboration of efficient policies both at European and regional levels regarding the development and implementation of AWR, taking into consideration the Water-Energy-Food Nexus (WEF), i.e. the interactions between the water, energetic and agricultural systems. To achieve this general objective, we apply an integrated methodological framework that combine qualitative and qualitative information, named Quantitative Storytelling, in two case studies located in the Canary Islands. This archipelago is a singular territory with more than 50 years of desalination experience and more than 30 with reuse water initiatives for irrigation. On a first step of the methodological process we gathered quantitative and qualitative information from different data sources; on a second phase, we carried out a participatory narratives assessment in order to a) validate initial data; b) to assess the extent to which the narratives identified were perceived viable and desirable in the context of different scenarios, and c) to propose new actions (and narratives) to take steps towards the most viable and desirable scenarios, or to respond to undesirable possible trajectories.

According to our analysis, AWR play an important role in several aspects, for instance, they may contribute to the recovery of aquifers; support agricultural production for exportation; regulate water prices within a context of private water market; or reduce seasonal dependence on water. When analysing a situation of water scarcity and scenarios of climatic emergence, we found that societal consensus is clear within the majority of actors involved.

Nevertheless, other factors require further analysis and improvements: the quality of water, the environmental impacts (soil, brine discharge, seawater health), fossil fuels


8

dependence, or the knowledge on water management. Energy consumption is other relevant issue, our findings suggest that the consideration of the WEF Nexus is weak from the majority of stakeholders (for instance, AWR promoters, policymakers, researchers, etc.). Furthermore, there is not a regulatory framework considering the Nexus as a whole.

In conclusion, AWR constitute a stable resource to alleviate water stress in regions suffering water scarcity, but they do partially contribute to both the recovery of a depressed agricultural activity, and to the reduction of fossil fuels consumption.

MAGIC–GA 689669

9

Technical Summary Seawater desalination and reclaimed water are two important Alternative Water Resources

(AWR) in some regions with water scarcity in the EU. These two technologies are in constant evolution for the sake of reducing exploitation costs and producing water of different qualities. Currently, EU accounts for 10% of the world’s desalination capacity – the Middle East is the global leader, with 70% of capacity (EDS, 2017). Water providers in Spain – as well as Italy, Greece and Malta– are increasingly turning to desalination to address freshwater needs in dry periods. As desalinated water, reclaimed wastewater is an alternative water supply. Reusing water after appropriate treatment extends its life cycle and helps preserving natural water resources. While more than 40,000 million cubic meters of wastewater are treated in the EU every year, only 964 million cubic meters of this treated wastewater are currently reused (EC, 2016). According to the European Commission (EC) strategy, the use of ARW will increase in the next decades due to the population growth and longer drought period and a recently EU regulation on minimum requirements for agriculture water reuse was approved at the end of 2019. Wastewater reuse is particularly relevant in the EC narratives in relation to the concept of circular economy. However, the heralded high potential for increased water reuse is not joined by an EU legislative framework that can cope with the different contexts in which such technologies can become a viable alternative. Another aspect that is usually overlooked by the EC is the need to include desalination technologies as advanced treatment in the chain of wastewater reclamation in order to obtain safe (sanitary conditions) and high quality water. In the case of irrigation, both desalinated and reclaimed water can be considered relevant water supply alternatives because they are independent from seasons, not affected by drought and weather variability, and they are able to cover peaks of water demand.

This assessment focused on comprehending the background of the Canary Islands Archipelago (Spain), as a singular territory with more than 50 years of desalination experience and more than 30 with reuse water initiatives for irrigation. Two agricultural areas of this arid EU Archipelago have been selected: The Southeast of Gran Canaria Island (750 Ha approx.) and Valle Guerra (Northeast) of Tenerife Island (485 Ha approx.). This report contains a description of the process of assessing AWR narratives in both areas using a Quantitative Story Telling (QST) approach; and it finalizes with some reflections and learning experiences regarding the methodological approach, the outcomes, and the policy implications to other European regions. The document provides a quality assessment of the narratives surrounding AWR and their relation to the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus.

In Phase 1 an analysis of the background and implementation of AWR in the Canary Islands

is presented. Phase 1 aims to introduce the context of AWR in the Archipelago and identify the main justifications as well as the main criticisms raised on these innovations. Building on this background, Phase 2 develops a full QST cycle in these areas, with different realities in what regards the use of AWR. Phase 2 aimed at generating a reflexive and positive ARW vision among the stakeholders involved in the Canary Islands around the WEF nexus and its implications in terms of governance in the islands. An integrated and very fruitful participatory narrative assessment methodology was developed, which has concluded with an excellent knowledge (qualitative and quantitative). The implications for the WEF Nexus of the use of AWR and the validity of the narrative of this innovation show the robust contribution of the AWR for irrigation.


10

1. Introduction Regions with water scarcity in European Union (EU) are increasingly exploring Alternative Water Resources (AWR) to meet the challenges related to water availability (EC, 2017). According to the European Commission (EC), the use of AWR will increase in the coming decades due to population growth and longer drought periods (EC, 2012). Seawater desalination and reclaimed water are two of the most important alternative forms of water supply1. Demand for desalinated and reclaimed water is foreseen to grow worldwide and especially in arid and semi-arid regions, as municipalities and industries are diversifying their water supply options (GWI, 2018). Water providers in Southern Europe, like in Spain – as well as in Italy, Greece and Malta– are progressively turning to desalination to address freshwater needs in dry periods. On the other hand, wastewater reuse has gained relevance within the European Commission policies in relation to the concept of circular economy (MS12-MAGIC, 2017; EC, 2017). According to this narrative, reusing water after appropriate treatment e is defended as a means to. While more than 40,000 million cubic meters of wastewater are treated in the EU every year, only 964 million cubic meters of this treated wastewater are being reused nowadays (EC, 2017). Most common uses of desalinated and reclaimed water are not only potable and non-potable urban uses, but also groundwater recharge, surface water enhancement, recreational and industrial purposes (IWA, 2016). In recent years, the use of AWR for irrigation purposes is also increasing in areas with over drafted freshwater resources like the Canary Islands. However, there are several limiting factors in the case of the use of AWR to agricultural purposes, as the high energy cost of the treatments, the high final price in comparison with conventional resources, the desalination brine discharge impacts in the coastal ecosystem or the healthy risk and pollutants of the reclaimed waters. Moreover, they are not adequate for all sorts of crops and these resources are costly in terms of infrastructure and energy consumption. Besides that, the heralded high potential for increased water reuse is contrasted by the introduction of a recently European regulation that could cope with the different contexts in which such technologies can become a viable alternative. This assessment tries to analyse the use of AWR for irrigation using the MAGIC perspective. In the current context of South to North exportations, decreasing margin of benefits of agriculture and farmers mobilizations across Europe, these questions become even more pressing. The MAGIC project aims to open new pathways to address complex policy issues at the nexus between water, energy and food resources (MAGIC Nexus, 2017). The concept of “nexus” has become an important topic to signal the existence of “knowledge gaps” in the narratives and policies related with sustainability when different dimensions and scales of analysis are considered simultaneously (LIPHE4, 2013; Mario Giampietro et al., 2013; MS 12- MAGIC, 2017). Nexus thinking enables a different kind of complex analysis focused on connections, synergies and trade-offs. Applying nexus thinking to the analyses of the use of AWR for irrigation from a MAGIC perspective expands the focus from the technical aspects of these innovations to understand the role they are playing in the overall societal metabolism, how this role is described by whom and how it is projected into future expectations. This report focused on the Canary Islands Archipelago (Spain), as a singular territory with more than 50 years of desalination experience and more than 30 with reuse water initiatives for

1 Another alternative water resource is rainwater harvest, as well as any other integrated (sustainable) approach to water management.

MAGIC–GA 689669

11

irrigation. The deliverable contains a description of the process of assessment of narratives about AWR in the Canary Islands region using the Quantitative Story Telling (QST) approach and finalizes with reflections and learning experiences regarding the methodological approach, the outcomes and the policy implications to other European regions. The main objective of this study was therefore to test QST as a framework for quality assessment of narratives about AWR as water management innovations within the Canaries and their relation to the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus. The report starts with Phase 1, where an analysis of the background and implementation of AWR in the Canary Islands is presented. Phase 1 introduces the context of desalination and reclamation in the Canaries, their regulatory framework and the main discussions surrounding the implementation of these technologies. Phase 1 also introduces the two case study areas where Phase 2 was carried out, one in Gran Canaria and one in Tenerife, with different realities in what regards the use of AWR. Building on this background, Phase 2 develops a full QST cycle in two different case studies with the overall objective of generating a reflexive environment among local stakeholders around the WEF nexus and its implications in terms of governance in the islands. For this purpose, an integrated participatory narrative assessment methodology was developed. The subsequent sections elaborate on the stakeholder engagement throughout the process, and on the materials and methods used for the quality check in QST. The report closes with a reflection on the learning experience regarding the methodological approach and a discussion of the main lessons for EU policy and other European regions promoting AWR.

2. Phase 1: Background and evaluation of the use of alternative water resources for irrigation

The innovation assessed in this report is described as the use of AWR for agricultural irrigation. AWR encompass desalination of seawater and reclamation of urban wastewater. In this section the background of these industrial water production processes is introduced as well as their historical and political context within the Canary Islands. Additionally, the main discussions surrounding the implementation on these technologies is described through policy and press documents and participant observation in deliberative workshops from previous research projects. This Phase also introduces the two case study areas where Phase 2 was carried out. A deep background is uploaded in the MAGIC website.

https://magic-nexus.eu/documents/uso-agricola-de-agua-alternativa


12

2.1. Introduction to Alternative Water Resources and their context in the Canaries

Eight habited islands located in the Atlantic Ocean at latitude of 28 °N. is the territory called The Canary Islands (SPAIN). The water culture in the Canary Islands cannot be understood without taking into account agriculture, due to the fact that water resources have been linked to agricultural exports from the very moment colonisation happened in the islands, in the late 15th century. Besides, the water culture, its marketing and the relation with the agricultural activity and water-energy use is profoundly affected by the legal framework. The economic development based on exports of sugar increased water requirements not only for the irrigation of the sugar-cane plantations but also for the operation of the sugar refineries2. In this context, the Heredades or Heredamientos de Aguas arose as unifying organisations of owners of the rights of water, which, via a complex network of irrigation channels or atarjeas, distributed the water to reservoirs and tanks. The development of new export crops at the beginning of the 20th century, such as banana and tomato, diversified the export business increasing the number of small producers. It also increased the pressure once again on groundwater resources. At that moment, it became necessary to invest in water infrastructures, by rising the number of galleries and wells, which had, until then, been devoted to domestic consumption in areas where there were no sources of water nearby. In the case of Gran Canaria, specially, it was mainly the wells which were dug all over the island which covered the needs of the new crops, increasing the energy requirements and the over-exploitation of the aquifers up to the present. This process of increasing over-exploitation of natural resources on islands such as Gran Canaria and Tenerife led to a situation of speculative increases in the price of water for irrigation and a scarcity of water supply after the mid-20th century. With this context, desalination was introduced and later reclaimed water, to satisfy the demand.

Gran Canaria and Tenerife, with an average rainfall of 300 mm per year, are part of the Canary Islands, which are located within the Macaronesia. The characteristics of the Canary Island’s territory are desertification, scarcity of water resources and high degree of vulnerability.

The population in the Canary Islands, with a surface of 7.447 km2, has doubled in the last half-century. Nowadays it accounts for 2.1 million islanders and 22 million tourists per year (ISTAC a, 2017; ISTAC b, 2017).

The water management scenario in the Canary Islands so far has shown that high demographic density (as a result of urban development and mass-tourism) increases the demand for water and energy consumption; causing an intensified groundwater and/or surface water extraction rate.

Apart from the urban and tourism sector (which make up a 46% of the total water amount), there has also been a noticeable increase in the water demand from other water uses in the Canary Islands; such as recreational (4%), industrial (3%) and agricultural (44%) (CIAGC, 2016; CIATF, 2015). The demand percentages are analogous for both Gran Canaria and Tenerife, as they are

2 Perez, J. (2013). El azúcar y su introducción en las islas atlánticas. Volumen II Ed: Cabildo Insular de La Palma. Source: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/libro/560916/2.pdf

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/libro/560916/2.pdf

MAGIC–GA 689669

13

islands with very similar socio-demographic and economic indicators. In the agricultural sector the water sources include:

• Surface water • Groundwater • Desalinated brackish water • Desalinated seawater • Reclaimed water (from tertiary treatments)

The origin of water supply to the agricultural areas of Gran Canaria and Tenerife are desalinated seawater (pumped inland) as well as desalinated brackish water and groundwater (extracted from the aquifers also by pumping). Part of that water is collected in sanitation networks and treated in sewage treatment plants, for its discharge in an appropriate manner. Part of the treated water is subjected to more advanced treatments (different types of tertiary treatments) with the purpose of producing irrigation water for agriculture (reclaimed water). Related to the water market in the Canary Islands is a particular case, different from the rest of Spain and European Countries. In the Canaries, water resources have been traditionally mined and managed by private initiatives. During the 19th century, landowners and farmers dug wells and horizontal galleries in the mountains to extract groundwater. These “mining” activities were privately financed and assigned a legal nature of market good to mined water within a private trading system. Today, over 85% of the total water resources in this Archipelago is of a private nature. The private water market has a very strong influence on aspects such as the price and the quality of the water supplied to farmers. Under current regulation, water-owners hold the capacity of setting prices and of deciding what end-user (or customer, for instance, tourist sector, municipalities, farmers, etc.) they prefer to sell the water or with what quality (Aguilera-Klink and Sánchez-García, 2005). In order to compensate for the imbalances created by the private management system, public institutions run institutional markets (Garrido and Llamas, 2009), the Gran Canaria Water Insular Council (CIAGC) and the Tenerife Water Insular Council (CIATF), created under the Canarian water regulation of 1990. These administrative bodies, dependent on the Cabildos (Insular Governments), have the main role of planning and management of the water networks. Therefore, in the water market of the Canaries, many agents are involved who share out water rights. On one hand, the private rights, as in the case of the Heredamientos, irrigation communities, companies; and on the other hand, the public rights, with the public water management companies and the Water Councils of the islands, which are the equivalent to the River Basin organizations of the Spanish State.

Regarding the regulatory frameworks on the water market and its influence -or capacity- to rule private markets, it is important to stress two main points:

1. Private owners are part of the decision spheres within the Insular Councils. 2. Private water uses do not require a mandatory authorization regime for their use,

thus can evade the control and monitoring systems established in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (La Calle, 2008).


14

2.1.1. Desalination Technologies in the Archipelago Desalination is the process of removing dissolved salts from water. The aim is to provide fresh water for human use and consumption. The input of a desalination plant is seawater or underground salted water. The typical dissolved salt concentration in sea or ocean water is 35 g/l. One of the by-products of a desalination plant is the brine, which is saturated water with a high concentration of salts (in excess of 70 g/l). The water that contains low concentration of soluble salts (between 1 and 10 g/l) is named as brackish water.

In general, the desalination processes can require thermal, mechanical or electrical energy. In the case of the exploitation of these technologies in the islands from 50 years, the established desalination technologies are divided in membrane and thermal ones:

• THERMAL: • Multi-Stage Flash (MSF): A desalination process where a stream of brine flows

through the bottom of chambers, or stages, each operating at a successively lower pressure, and a proportion of it flashes into steam and is then condensed.

• Multi-Effect Distillation (MED): A thin film evaporation process where the vapour formed in a chamber, or effect, condenses, providing a heat source for further evaporation.

• Vapour Compression Distillation: Evaporative system where vapour boiled off in the evaporator is mechanically compressed and reused as the heating medium.

• MEMBRANE: • Reverse Osmosis (RO): A method of separating water from dissolved salts by passing

feedwater through a semipermeable membrane at a pressure greater than the osmotic pressure caused by the dissolved salts.

• Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR): A variation of the electrodialysis process using electrode polarity reversal to automatically clean membrane surfaces.

• Electrodeionisation (EDI): A water treatment process combining an electrodialysis membrane process with an ion exchange resin process to produce high purity, demineralized water.

RO, MSF and MED are the most common technologies used for seawater desalination here. Membrane technologies continue to dominate the market (GWI, 2018). In Spain, RO is the most predominant technology. Desalination technology has a long history in the Canary Islands as compared to other European regions. The installation of the first desalination plant in Europe took place in 1964 in the island of Lanzarote. The desalination of sea and brackish water for drinking water supply was then incorporated. Today, there are 320 desalination plants in the Canary Islands. In the Archipelago, the input of seawater in a desalination plant comes directly from the Atlantic Ocean (Gotor, et al., 2018).

Gran Canaria is the Canary Island which has the largest capacity of desalination plants installed. According to data from 2012, the island has had over 350.000 m3/day of desalination capacity. In 2014, the island of Gran Canaria had a water demand of 72 hm3

/y of desalted water, 65.6 hm3 /y

of groundwater, and 10.7 hm3 /y of surface water (CIAGC, 2016).

MAGIC–GA 689669

15

By 2019, a large amount of infrastructure has been built, distributed around the main centres of population including the Las Palmas III desalination plant, with a capacity of 114,000 m3/day. In the figure below, the main desalination plants on the island are shown, together with their capacity in m3/day and their location. Some of them are solely used for agriculture.

Figure 1. Main desalination plants on Gran Canaria. The yellow boxes represent desalinated seawater

and the red dots the desalted brackish water.

Source: Water Council of Gran Canaria (CIAGC)3.

On Tenerife, the water resources generated from desalinated water amounted to 26.6 hm³ in 2015, 16% of the total water resources used in the island (figure 2 shows the main infrastructures). In the period of 2000-2010, the volume of desalinated water increased notably, with an annual growth of 16.4%. In addition to urban demand, there are different uses for irrigation, whether agricultural or golf courses. It is noteworthy that in the year 2010, water demand from golf courses rose to 3 hm³, which represents nearly 2% of the island`s demand (CIATF, 2015).

3 “Consejo Insular de Aguas de Gran Canaria”. Plan Hidrológico de Gran Canaria (2009-2015).


16

Figure 2. Infrastructures of seawater desalination and brackish water desalination in Tenerife.

Source: Water Council of Tenerife (CIATF)4.

2.1.2. Reclaimed water technologies Reclaimed water is wastewater that has been treated to a level that allows for its reuse in potable or non-potable ways (advanced treatments). The general path in a water recycling treatment plant is:

• Primary Treatment (sedimentation). • Secondary Treatment (biological oxidation or disinfection). • Tertiary/Advanced Treatment (chemical coagulation, filtration, disinfection, brackish

water desalination). Treatment processes for water reclamation and reuse can happen with or without desalination (BOE, 2007). In the Canary Islands, due to the relative high treated water conductivity (more than 1,500 uS/cm) is required a desalination process. The treatment without desalination can consist of:

• Type 1: Physical-chemical treatment (chemical precipitation) with a lamella settling system7, filtration with membranes (UF) and disinfection. Residual chlorine may be needed.

• Type 2: Chemical precipitation, depth filtration and disinfection (UV radiation8 with chlorination). Residual chlorine may be needed. This type can reach the same bacteriological standards as type 1 except for the turbidity limit.

• Type 3: Filtration and disinfection (tendency to use UV radiation + residual chlorine). • Type 4: Filtration with regular treated wastewater quality standards.

4 “Consejo Insular de Aguas de Tenerife.” Plan Hidrológico de Tenerife. Second Cycle (2015-2021).

MAGIC–GA 689669

17

The treatment processes with desalination can be: • Type 5a: Physical-chemical treatment (chemical precipitation) with a lamella settling

system, filtration, filtration with membranes (protective barriers), RO desalination and residual chlorine.

• Type 5b: Physical-chemical treatment (chemical precipitation) with a lamella settling system, filtration (double depth filtration with continuous washing), EDR desalination and disinfection (tendency to use UV radiation followed by residual chlorine).

The water quality of treatment process with desalination type 5a could be used to recharge aquifers by direct injection. In Spain, most types of treatments include RO to remove nutrients and trace constituents. The treatments that include desalination cost around 0.35-0.45 €/m3 (of produced water) whereas the treatments without desalination (types 1-4) have a cost lower than 0.20 €/m3 (with a range between 0.04 and 0.20 €/m3). In the past two decades, recycling of urban wastewater for agricultural purposes has been incrementing attention (Chaidez et al., 2014). In the Macaronesian region, the reuse of treated water with an appropriate physic-chemical and microbiological quality is a resource for agricultural irrigation, golf courses and green areas (gardens and parks), as well as for other uses (ITC, 2007). The planned reuse of reclaimed water in the Canary Islands began at the end of the 20th century (during the 80s) as a result of overexploitation of aquifers (ADAPTaRES, 2017).

Nowadays, a total of 130 wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) exist on the islands, of which more than 30% incorporate tertiary treatments. Moreover, about 70% of the treatments applied incorporate some type of membrane technology (electrodialysis reversal, microfiltration, ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis). In 2015, the total volume reused in the Canary Islands was of 28.09 hm3, that is to say, 65% of all the water resources in the Canaries5.

The Archipelago has a great diversity of types of tertiary treatment and combinations applied (ITC, 2007). The set of facilities is very heterogeneous, both from the technological point of view (the degree of treatment and dimensions) and from the point of view of ownership and management. The type of tertiary treatments chosen for wastewater reuse is of transcendental importance from the energy point of view as, in some cases, it can double the energy demand of a wastewater treatment plant.. It is worth emphasising that the majority of the treated water which has been reused comes originally from desalinated water.

In 2005, the total volume of wastewater reused in Gran Canaria was 9.3 hm3/year, out of which 42.9% went to agricultural lands, mainly in the east and the north of the island (ITC, 2007). In 2014, that volume raised to 12.3 hm3 /y (CIAGC, 2016). The majority of the reclaimed water that is reused nowadays comes from five large treatment plants located in the municipalities of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Telde, Agüimes, San Bartolomé de Tirajana and Mogán (ITC, 2007). The figure below shows the reclaimed water infrastructures.

5 Source: General Directorate of Water in the Canary Islands’ Government.


18

Figure 3. The reclaimed water network in Gran Canaria (red-coloured line). The map also shows the waste-water treatment plants, the basins and tertiary treatment systems.

Source: CIAGC6.

In the case of Tenerife, the southern area of the Island was the pioneer in reusing wastewater for agriculture already in the 90s. This was possible due to the construction of a water treatment network joining the Santa Cruz wastewater treatment station (operating flow of 21,820 m³/d), fed from the metropolitan area (boroughs of El Rosario, La Laguna and Santa Cruz de Tenerife), with the wastewater treatment plant of Adeje-Arona (operating flow of 10,950 m³/d) fed from the boroughs of Adeje and Arona in the south of the island. The wastewater treatment plants are connected by a pipe 61 km in length, which supplies reclaimed water to an extensive area of tomato cultivation. The reclaimed water is distributed in the following proportions: 66.4% to agricultural plots, 21.9% to golf courses, 11.2% to parks and gardens and 0.5% for other uses. The volume of reclaimed water on the island reached 11.1 hm³ in 2015 (CIATF, 2015). Currently, the supply of reclaimed water has been planned to expand in other parts of the island, such as Valle Guerra, the north-west; or the Orotava Valley. See the first and fifth blue-circled area in Figure 4.

6 “Consejo Insular de Aguas de Gran Canaria”. Plan Hidrológico de Gran Canaria (2009-2015).

MAGIC–GA 689669

19

Figure 4. Territorial ambits of reclaimed water supply in Tenerife.

Source: Water Council of Tenerife (CIATF, 2015)

2.2. Regulatory framework A brief introduction to the regional, national and EU legislations of water (specifically, how they affect the development and use of AWR), agriculture (related to the use of AWR to irrigate crops) and energy (with the existing policies and subsidies) is shown in this section. It follows a WEF Nexus perspective as the respecting agriculture and energy policies and subsidies are also taken into account.

2.2.1. Desalination and Reclaimed Water (regional, national and EU policies)

The application of water policies in the Canaries differs in each island, as a matter of their orography, the (micro)climates, the water demands (depending on population growth) and the economic development of each island’s territory. Still, policies have the function of regulating the water market in the Canary Islands, which, as seen before, is a mixed market with both public and private participation, and in which there have been constant conflicts regarding rights of obtaining, managing and marketing a natural resource as is water.


20

Water Law of the Canary Islands (Regional)

In the Canaries, there is a special regime of Water Law which is set out in the "Estatuto de Autonomía" (Law granting autonomous powers of government) and the Complementary Transfers to the Canaries Act, which gives the Canary Islands autonomy regarding water. This is the existing legal arrangement in the Canary Islands:

• Act 12/1990, of 26th July, on Water.

• Act 10/2010, of 27th December, in modification of Act 12/1990, of 26th July, on Water.

• Act 44/2010, of 30th December, on Canarian waters.

In this regulatory framework, it is set down that water is subordinate to the general interest for its use in the proper quantity and quality, respecting the environment of the islands. It is considered to be a unitary resource, constituting one water area per island, administered by the Island Water Councils attached to the Cabildos (Island Corporations), and where planning is materialised in the Planes Hidrológicos Insulares (Hydrological Plans). These are some of the functions of the Island Water Council7:

• Preparation of budgets, legislation and plans.

• Control, custody and management of water in the public domain.

• Services of advice, execution and control of water programmes and works.

• Setting of prices for water and transport of water.

• The exploitation of making use of water.

• In general, all work relative to the administration of water on the island that is not reserved to other bodies.

There has been a historical request in the islands to make the Hydrological Plans and the Island Water Councils living organisations with participation in all social sectors that take part in the management of water, either public or private. This way, the general interests of the population can be prioritised.

The Water Law, in its article 91, says that the Water Insular Councils, "due to insufficient resources ... will impose the use of industrial production water on recreational, tourist and industrial uses". This is one argument for the use of desalinated sea water in urban and tourist supply, for its subsequent reuse in agriculture.

The use of reclaimed water has been a clear commitment by the Water Councils since the 1999 Hydrological Plan. However, despite the growing implementation of reclaimed water in the past decades, the proposed objectives have not always been achieved mainly due to delays in the execution of the necessary infrastructures or sewage treatment plants with insufficient capacity (CIAGC, 2016).

Hydrological Basin Plans (Each islands is consider an individual hydrological basin) The objectives of the Hydrological Basin Planning are defined in article 40.1 of the Consolidated Text of the Water Law (Royal Legislative Decree 1/2001 of July 20), and in article 1 of the Hydrological Planning Regulation, (Royal Decree 907 / 2007, of July 6): “Hydrological planning will have as a general objective to achieve the good state and adequate protection of the public water and water domain subject to the Water Law, the

7 Department of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishing and Water of the Canary Islands Government.

MAGIC–GA 689669

21

satisfaction of water demands, the balance and harmonization of regional and sectoral development, increasing the availability of the resource, protecting its quality, saving its employment and rationalizing its uses in harmony with the environment and other natural resources”.

The Hydrological Planning Instruction for the Intra-Community Hydrographic Demarcations of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands (Decree 165/2015, of July 3) establishes the technical criteria for the homogenization and systematization of the work of elaboration of the hydrological plans. The current Hydrological Plan for the Canarian Hydrographic Demarcations (approved in September 2018) is the 2nd cycle, 2015-2021 period. The 3rd cycle of the Hydrographic Demarcations of the Canary Islands, period 2021-2027, is in review.

The Irrigation Plan of the Canary Islands (regional)

The Irrigation Plan of the Canary Islands (2014-2020)8 contemplates numerous actions for the use of new water resources for irrigation, mainly those located in coastal areas, due to the great water requirements for crop irrigation and the lack of groundwater water resources.

In the Irrigation Plan a series of actions encourage the reuse of treated water, some of which are:

- Including facilities with the necessary tertiary treatments for the production of water. - Including facilities for water desalination, beyond what is set down in the regulations and in

accordance with the crops’ and watering requirements. - Establishing new networks exclusively for reclaimed water and allowing farmers to choose

for the most convenient water resource: either the traditionally supplied water, the new (alternative) resources or a mixture of both.

Wastewater Reclamation Royal Decree 1620/2007 (National)

The European regulation 852/2004 (EC, 2004) on the hygiene of foodstuffs stated that the use of non-potable or recycled water is not forbidden but has to be in accordance with strict quality regulations. Therefore, a renewed need for informed guidance on health protection for reclaimed water emerged. In the national level, the Royal Decree 1620/2007 (BOE, 2007) transposes the European WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC) and incorporates the concept and definition of reclaimed water. The regulation in use at the national level lays down the legal regime for the reuse of treated wastewater, establishes both the basic requisites for water reuse, and the necessary procedures to obtain the authorizations

The Spanish legislation (BOE, 2007) defines reclaimed water as “purified wastewater that, where appropriate, has undergone an additional or complementary treatment process that allows its quality to be adapted to the intended use” and its use requires an administrative concession granted according to the subsequent use of water.

8 Irrigation Plan of the Canaries (2014-2020). General Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development. Government of the Canary Islands. Obtained from: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/agricultura/docs/desarrollo-rural/regadio/PRC_avance.pdf


22

Under the RD 1620/2007, the accepted uses of reclaimed water are the following:

o Urban uses: 1.1 residential (private garden watering, discharge of bathroom appliances). 1.2 Urban services (watering of urban green areas, hosing down streets, firefighting, industrial car wash).

o Agricultural uses: 2.1 Irrigation of fresh food crops direct contact of reclaimed water with edible parts. 2.2 a) Systems not avoiding direct contact of reclaimed water with edible parts b) Irrigation of pastureland for milk or meat-producing animals c) Aquaculture. 2.3 a) Localized irrigation of ligneous crops b) ornamental flowers.

o Industrial uses: 3.1 a) Process and cleaning water except in food industry b) Other industrial uses. 3.2 Refrigeration towers and evaporation condensers.

o Recreational: 4.1 Irrigation of golf courses. 4.2 ponds, bodies of water and running water with no public access.

o Environmental:5.1. Recharge of aquifers by localized seepage through the soil.5.2. Recharge of aquifers by direct injection. 5.3. a) Irrigation of forests, green zones and similar areas with no public access b) Forestry. 5.4. Other environmental uses (maintenance of wetlands, minimum flows and similar uses).

The following uses are forbidden: drinking water (except catastrophe), hospitals, molluscs in aquaculture, bath water, ponds, bodies of water and running water with public access.

The Ministry of Ecological Transition, Fight against Climate Change and Territorial Planning, has held a conference on January 2020 in Tenerife, dedicated to the new European Regulation on wastewater reuse, which aims to improve the quality of reclaimed water for its use, mainly for agricultural purposes9. The new EU wastewater reuse regulation concerning agricultural irrigation is already approved (December 2019) and the country members have three years for its implementation.

The updated legislative proposal will be mandatory for all the countries of the European Union (EU) that are going to make use of this unconventional water source. It wants to guarantee that the quality of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation reaches the same levels of quality and control in all countries of the EU. This will cause a modification to the current national RD as member states will have to adapt to that regulation (within a period of 3 years).

The Water Framework Directive (EU) The WFD (Directive 2000/60/CE) sets down that water is not a commercial property, but a property which must be protected, defended and treated as such. According to the WFD, the supply of water is a service of general interest. Water policies must be based on sustainable approaches, for prevention of contamination and improvement of ecosystems and available resources. However, the WFD does not talk about AWR and it imposes environmental objectives for the recovery of water bodies. It states that all European water bodies must recover to a ‘good status’ in terms of ‘environmental goals’.

9 Source: https://www3.gobiernodecanarias.org/noticias/el-gobierno-de-canarias-dedica-unas-jornadas-al-nuevo-reglamento-europeo-sobre-la-reutilizacion-de-agua/

MAGIC–GA 689669

23

2.2.2. Agricultural policies and subsidies (related to the use of AWR for irrigation) The local agriculture is gravely harmed by the great growth in imported food in the Canaries, which according to a recent study, puts the degree of self-sufficiency with local produce in the islands at 20.1% of the commercial value, well below the recommendation of the WFP (World Food Programme) to achieve a minimum level of self-supply on islands of 35-40% of the commercial value10. It is important to add that there is an increase in demand for food in the islands caused by the growth in population and tourism.

The decrease of local production is due in large part to the agricultural policies applied in the islands, with a specific programme for the Canaries in the framework of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) denominated POSEI, which boosts export crops by means of mechanisms of aid/subsidies, compared with the limited level of help for local production11. The CAP is a common policy for all EU countries since 1962 that aims to safeguard EU farmers to make a reasonable living and ensure a stable supply of affordable food as well as to keep the rural economy alive12.

POSEI (Community Programme in Support of the Agricultural Production of the Canaries)

The POSEI is the legal basis set down in 1991 through Regulation (CEE) nº 1601/92 of the Council, on 15th June, on specific measures of the Canary Islands relative to certain agricultural products as a set of measures aimed at counteracting the conditioning factors on our agriculture and livestock keeping due to distance (being islands), fragmentation of the territory, and other difficulties deriving from the geographical position, the orography and economic weaknesses of the Islands.

The POSEI is structured in two chapters: one that encourages local production and the second about the Specific Supply Regime (REA), through which the import of certain products is subsidised (dairy products and derivatives, meat, sugar, etc.) devoted to direct consumption or for transformation, and the purpose of which is to balance the average cost of the shopping basket.

The POSEI is almost totally financed by the EU. There is only a small percentage supplied by the national Ministry of Agriculture additional to the POSEI, and which is authorised by the EU as an additional complement to the POSEI.

The objectives of the POSEI are as follows:

• To realistically make the Canaries part of the EU, setting an appropriate framework for the application of the common policies in the region.

• The full participation of the Canaries in the dynamics of the internal market by means of the optimum use of the existing community regulations and instruments.

The lines of action as stated in the POSEI:

10 Godenau, D., Cáceres, J.J., Martín, G., González, J.I. (2018) El grado de autoabastecimiento alimentario de Canarias: propuesta de medición estadística. Department of Agriculture, Fishing and Water of the Canary Islands Government. University of La Laguna. 11 Nuez Yánez, J. S., & Redondo Zaera, M. (2008). La balanza agroalimentaria de Canarias. Hacienda Canaria, 24, 49-80. 12 Source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en


24

• Maintenance of the traditional agricultural activities to safeguard the economic and social fabric of the rural areas and avoid damage to the traditional landscape and the environment due to the abandonment of small farms.

• Increasing the current percentage of self-supply of fresh produce in the Canaries.

• Facilitating the access of Canarian production to other markets so as to maintain the current volume of shipments.

• Encouraging the integration of farmers and livestock keepers in Producers’ Groups and Associations.

• Encouraging agricultural production with quality.

However, the first two lines of actions of the POSEI have been widely questioned as the local production of the Canary Islands is still not as implemented as it should be13.

The POSEI has four measures:

o Support for plant production (tomatoes):

The main objective of this aid is to increase the current percentage of self-sufficiency with fresh produce in the Canaries and the production of ornamental plants and cut flowers for export.

The line of aid varies between a minimum for individual and uninsured producers and a maximum for producers in Associations or Organisations which are insured.

This measure includes aid to tomato producers for export and this is a subsidy per cultivated hectare of tomatoes for export, with the aim of reducing the loss of competitiveness of the tomato production sector. From 2014, the aid amounted to 7,700 €/hectare14.

o Aid to Banana Producers:

The European Union, with the POSEI programme, plans economic support for agricultural production in the ultra-outlying regions, with the aim of guaranteeing an equitable standard of living for the farmers dedicated to the agricultural sector. For the banana crop, this amounts to € 141.1 million a year, 2 out of every 3 Euros devoted to the POSEI.

Within the POSEI programme, the Canaries have rights granted for 420,000 tonnes of bananas annually, corresponding to a total area of 11,200 hectares with an average yield of 37,500 kilos per hectare. Depending on the aid campaign, this may vary between 0.30 and 0.40 €/kg.

The amount of the aid set down under POSEI is:

o The cultivated area, of €1,200/ha (open air cultivation) up to a maximum of 7,600 hectares.

o The “historical kilos produced”, gaining the remainder of the aid when 70% of the kilos assigned in the “historical crops” of each farm (according to the average production over the last five years).

13 CES (2015). Annual Report 2015 of the Council on the economic, social and employment situation of the Canaries in 2014. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Economic and Social Council of the Canary Islands. 14 Regulation (EU) nº 228/2013 of the European Parliament and Council, of 13th March 2013.

MAGIC–GA 689669

25

o Support for Animal Production:

This aims to help the production of meat and milk in the livestock sector in the Canaries, as well as cultivation of forage crops and beekeeping. The financial aid for 2015 was about 220 million Euros.

o Specific Supply Regime (REA):

In order to guarantee the supply of essential agricultural products in the ultra-remote regions and to reduce the additional costs deriving from their situation, a specific regime of supply sufficiency was set up (the REA). The REA began to be applied on 1st July 1992 and it subsidizes the import of certain products (dairy products and derivatives, meat, sugar, etc.). Each member state prepares a supply forecast in which it quantifies the annual supply needs 15 of each ultra-outlying region.

Subsidies for agricultural irrigation (Regional)

In 2017, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Water awarded the first call of a subsidy to compensate for the extra cost of irrigation water in the Islands. The subsidy compensated for the energy cost overrun of water for agricultural irrigation corresponding to that year, which amounted to a total of € 6 million16.

The grant of six million euros was intended for public and private entities that supply water for agricultural irrigation from wells and galleries. In the 2018 call, the second, which awarded with eight million euros, desalinated water was also included17.

In 2019, the Ministry for Ecological Transition was processing the draft of the Royal Decree that will regulate the direct granting of a subsidy to the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands to allow farmers on the islands to access, at affordable costs, water from desalination and wells and galleries18.

2.2.3. Energy legislative context There is no specific regulation of energy in the context of AWR for agricultural irrigation. Nonetheless, there is a (National) Royal Decree (RD) which regulates the administrative, technical and economic conditions of the self-consumption of electric energy, the Royal Decree 244/2019. This RD is based on the Royal Decree 900/2015, which regulated the administrative, technical and economic conditions of supply of electricity with self-consumption and production with self-consumption. This regulation included, among others, the technical requirements that the facilities for the self-consumption of electric energy had to meet to ensure compliance with the safety criteria of the facilities, as well as the economic framework of application for this activity.

16 Source: https://www3.gobiernodecanarias.org/noticias/el-gobierno-de-canarias-adjudica-los-6-millones-de-euros-de-compensacion-para-el-agua-de-riego-agricola-de-2017/ 17 Source: https://www3.gobiernodecanarias.org/noticias/el-gobierno-de-canarias-adjudica-los-6-millones-de-euros-de-compensacion-para-el-agua-de-riego-agricola-de-2017/ 18 Source: https://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/agricola/agricultura/subvencion-Canarias-materia-aguas-cerca_0_874213219.html


26

The current RD 244/2019 is the Spanish legal system that follows the content of article 21 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of December 11, 2018, regarding the promotion of use of energy from renewable sources. Subsidies to renewable energy use in farms (Regional) After the approval of the regulations related to energy self-consumption with renewable energies, several Autonomous Communities in Spain have implemented subsidies for the installation of solar photovoltaic or wind energy for self-consumption and aid or discounts in the payment of taxes to encourage the installation of this type of technologies and contribute to this way to the decarbonization. Subsidies aimed at supporting investments in farms have been convened by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Water of the Canary Islands. In September 2016, the regulatory bases were granted in the Rural Development Program of the Canary Islands region, for the period 2014-202019. The aid reaches photovoltaic and wind installations isolated from the electricity grid, including agricultural solar pumps, which may carry accumulation, and for solar thermal installations. The subsidy will be a maximum of 40% of the investment, being able to reach up to 75% of the investment, without exceeding € 300,000 per farm.

2.3. Preliminary exploration of narratives on AWR As a prior step to the analyses of narratives in Phase 2, MAGIC partners attended two participatory workshops in the Archipelago organised by other research projects that had synergies with our case study (see more details in the section 4). First, on January 26th 2018, the conference “Reclaimed water for agriculture in the Canary Islands” organised in the framework of the ADAPTaRES project (cofunding by ERDF -2014 - 2020 INTERREG V-A MAC. Second, the ACEQUIA - Climate change, droughts and water uses in Gran Canaria participatory workshop - between the 18th-20th of June, 2018 (see more details in the section 4). ADAPTaRES workshop focussed on water management and climate change adaptation in the Canaries, while the other focussed on the use of reclaimed water for agriculture in the Canary Islands. Workshops’ minutes enabled an initial exploration of the main discussion topics and delineate key arguments that helped framing the interviews in Phase 2. From our observations in the first workshop, no fundamental criticism to AWR was found, neither to desalination nor reclamation. On the contrary, most narratives deemed these innovations as central objects of the present and future of water management and climate adaptation in the Canaries. AWR are so established in the water management imaginary of the Canaries that they lacked grand justification narratives. That is, there wasn’t any narrative explaining why AWR are needed in the Canaries, for what purpose. Whereas many narratives referred to water scarcity and degradation of aquifers and natural water resources, there was not a direct connection between these claims and the need for AWR. These phenomena were rather related to water governance insufficiencies such as uncertainties in data and models used in planning. Relative to the use of AWR for agriculture, concerns were raised by a technician from the agricultural administration around the inadequate salt balance especially of desalinated water. This water quality is generating impacts on crops and soils. In addition, difficulties of wastewater reuse due to restrictive constraints in EU regulation were mentioned. He also expressed 19 Source: https://www.cambioenergetico.com/Documentos/bases-subvencion-canarias.pdf

MAGIC–GA 689669

27

expectations about the potential of AWR to cover a share of current agricultural water demand, even to expand agricultural land in current regression. Agricultural abandonment problems are more acute in high rural lands were AWR are not available. Finally, nexus implications were raised by MAGIC partners in their presentation, mentioning the energy dependency and the high costs of the infrastructure required to make these resources available. In the second workshop, the majority of participants were farmers. Main narratives on reclaimed water were that the insular deficit of water supply, accelerated due to human-induced causes, had brought the abandonment of agricultural lands, and that impacts from untreated wastewater discharges were increasing uncontrollably. In this context, it was acceptable and necessary to use reclaimed water. The main discussion topics were the need for re-defining the current legislation on reclaimed water (national Royal Decree 1620/2007) and the importance of understanding how reclaimed water can affect the soil-plant system. The use of reclaimed water requires constant control of its quality and complying with RD 1620/2007 makes it possible to keep the basic requisites of water reuse for irrigation and the procedures for necessary authorizations. The farmers that attended the workshop explained that the legislation on reclaimed water does not comply with all typologies of water users (farmers in this context) and that it is missing some physical-chemical parameters of agronomic interest are required to optimise reclaimed water management. In their view, an adequate specification of nutrients (for phosphorous and nitrogen, for example) in the legislation would facilitate the management and use of reclaimed water. The attendees also debated about the importance of identifying the effects in the soil-plant system of using reclaimed water for irrigation and/or aquifer recharge.

2.4. Description of selected case studies Two case studies were developed in two different islands facing different situations in what regards the use of AWR for irrigation. The map below (Figure 5) allows to geographically spot the entire Canary Archipelago (Spain) in the Atlantic Ocean and locates the specific regions studied in both islands.

The first case study is the region of the Southeast of Gran Canaria, a large agricultural area that uses a variety of fresh and AWR. The region has a long trajectory in the use of AWR that enabled an analysis of narratives about that experience, the encountered problems, the lessons learnt from the past one, the future challenges. It is noteworthy that ITC has been working in the area for a long time and holds an extensive network of contacts that facilitated the stakeholder engagement.

The second case study focused on an on-going implementation (only) of reclaimed water for agriculture in the Valle Guerra region in the Northeast of Tenerife. When initiating this study, a EDR tertiary treatment management plan was producing the new water resources, but the distribution network was under construction. Therefore, farmers were still exclusively using freshwater resources. Contrary to the Gran Canaria case, this study provided insights on the expectations and conflicts raised when an innovation is initially implemented.


28

Figure 5 Map of the Canary Islands (Spain) together with the location of the two case study areas in Gran Canaria and Tenerife (red-shaded).

Source: Own elaboration.

Cross-case comparison provided the basis for refining QST as a framework that enables the assessment of innovations at different stages of implementation.

2.4.1. Gran Canaria case study

The chosen study area for WP6.6 on Gran Canaria is the south-eastern district, with three boroughs: Ingenio, Agüimes and Santa Lucia, a well-delimited area devoted to export crops and those for supplying local markets (Figure 6 shows the map with the most predominant crops available as well as the uncultivated agricultural areas). Here, agriculture competes for water resources with other tourism-related and industrial activities.

The coastal area of the south-east has an arid climate, with rainfall of no more than 150 mm/year. Apart from the climatological (arid) conditions, the water resources in the area are scarce due to contamination as a result of intrusion from the sea into the coastal aquifer as a consequence of uncontrolled extraction of water from the numerous wells in the area, which in the past were used for the booming tomato exports. However, due to a large range of causes tomatoes collapsed, there is currently a generalised trend to abandonment of land and greenhouses in this district. In this situation, there is the alternative to recover land for crops for local consumption, for which there are AWR; and to be more exact, desalinated water for agriculture offered by private companies.

MAGIC–GA 689669

29

Figure 6. The process of determining Gran Canaria’s study area.

Legend: 1) Map of all crops cultivated in the three boroughs of the Southeast of Gran Canaria. 2) The existing reclaimed water network (blue line) which delineates the study area downstream. 3) The

chosen study area with the most predominant crops (banana, tomato). Source: IDECanarias (https://visor.grafcan.es/visorweb/)on the 15th of June 2018. Own elaboration.

For these reasons, the south-eastern area is a key example to explore the use of desalinated water for agriculture. It includes a range of factors of interest for analysis, such as the collapse of the tomato (export crop); abandoned infrastructure and land; and a high population density, who have had their access to the food and agricultural marketing channels limited, as well as the possibility of choosing where their food comes from.

2.4.2. Tenerife case study

The district of Valle Guerra is located on the northward-facing side of Tenerife, in the coastal area of the borough of San Cristóbal de La Laguna. There is a great diversity of export crops and those for sale on the island; as well as the cultivation of the banana, subtropical produce, vegetables and ornamental plants (see Figure 7 which includes the map with the different crop typologies).

In the northward-facing parts, rainfall is much more abundant, reaching values of up to 700 mm/year in Valle Guerra. The water resources available in the district of La Laguna-Tegueste are 4.54 hm3 of underground water, 0.19 hm3 surface water, and 0.06 hm3 of treated water20.

20 Water Council of Tenerife (“Consejo Insular de Aguas de Tenerife”). Plan Hidrológico de Tenerife. Second Cycle (2015-2021).

https://visor.grafcan.es/visorweb/


30

Figure 7. The process of determining Tenerife’s study area.

Legend: 1) The municipality of San Cristóbal de La Laguna (Northeast of Tenerife) and its map of crops in Valle Guerra. 2) The chosen study area downstream the Tejina-Tacoronte road (blue delineation). 3)

Map of the most relevant crops cultivated in Valle Guerra. Source: IDECanarias (https://visor.grafcan.es/visorweb/) on the 15th of June 2018. Own

elaboration.

The Valle Guerra wastewater treatment plant has a project to supply 4,000 m3/day of treated desalinated water to supply 2,000 irrigators on farms in the boroughs of Tacoronte, Tegueste and San Cristóbal de la Laguna21. The proposed date for commencing the distribution of regenerated water was February 2018. However, faults have been detected in the treatment system and the installation of the distribution facilities (meters) has also been delayed. Currently, the first phase of the irrigation network has being brought to an end by the Canary Islands Government, and the first flows have taken place during 2019. Only a few farms near the water treatment plant are using reclaimed water, even without desalination, with conductivity values close to 1,600 µS/cm, as is the case of the properties of the CATESA company devoted to the cultivation of flowers and natural plants.

21 Water Council of Tenerife. (“Consejo Insular de Aguas de Tenerife”). Video presentation of the water treatment plant Valle Guerra. Obtained from: http://www.aguastenerife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230&Itemid=1155

https://visor.grafcan.es/visorweb/

http://www.aguastenerife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230&Itemid=1155

MAGIC–GA 689669

31

3. Phase 2: Analysis of the role of the alternative water resources for irrigation 3.1. General introduction to Phase 2

Phase 1 allowed us an understanding of the social consensus around AWR in Gran Canaria. That is, apparently there were not conflicting views or alternative narratives questioning the need for such technologies. On the other hand, concerns appeared on problems derived from the use of these resources and, especially, on the future of agriculture.

Building upon these reflections, Phase 2 aimed at analysing more in depth these aspects at the time generating a reflexive environment among the stakeholders in the Canary Islands around the WEF nexus and its governance implications. A full QST cycle was designed with two purposes:

1. Identify and assess existing narratives related to both the experience of implementation and use of AWR and the expectations about their future development. 2. Co-produce new narratives together with stakeholders that take into consideration sustainability and nexus implications.

These research goals were addressed in the two case studies presented in section 2.4. Similar to other innovation cases, the QST process had 6 main steps integrating qualitative and quantitative methods with engagement of stakeholders (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Quantitative Story Telling cycle developed in the Canary Islands case studies.

Source: Own elaboration.

As described in detail in section 5, the assessment of viability and desirability of narratives on AWR was developed using a deliberative methodology within a co-production logic. That is, we did not take stakeholders narratives as data to support or to falsify using our MuSIASEM model, but to frame the quantitative diagnosis of water and agricultural metabolism in the two study areas. This framing implied the design of the grammar (analytical levels and typologies), the decision on what data to analyse from more than 30 variables characterizing farming systems and on how to present the quantitative data to the stakeholders. In turn, our diagnostic analyses were used to create a deliberation space in two workshops where previously identify narratives were appraised and where new collective narratives could emerge. Finally, the two workshops (Gran

https://magic-nexus.eu/events/water-energy-agriculture-nexus-gran-canaria


32

Canaria and Tenerife) results were processed in two reports (Gran Canaria and Tenerife) and shared with participants for validation. In the next section we present the main results of the above described process. In addition to sharing and validating these results with participating actors, we expect to develop a second iteration of the QST cycle in the following months with a smaller number of local and national stakeholders in higher decision-making positions. We will use the MAGIC dialogue space for such purpose.

3.2. Results of QST The outcomes of the QST process are presented following the steps of the QST process: First, we introduce the initial narratives on AWR identified from interviews with stakeholders. Second, we briefly introduce the results of the quantitative analyses as they were presented in the workshops. Third, we summarize the outcomes of the workshops’ deliberation involving the confirmation, falsification or transformation of the narratives on AWR. We repeat the process for each case study and connect them in the final conclusions. All the documents generated in this process are uploaded in the innovation section of the MAGIC website.

3.2.1. The Case of Gran Canaria A. Narratives on AWR in the Southeast Gran Canaria The Gran Canaria island was a pioneer in the use of AWR within the archipelago. The use of desalinated water for domestic, industrial and agricultural activities is completely integrated and accepted by the island society and its economic sectors. There is a broad consensus among local actors regarding the use and benefits of AWR. Actors narrated a story of success of these resources as the tipping point that enabled facing a widespread condition of drought and water scarcity in the island during the XX century while stopping the dramatic decrease in groundwater table levels.

Water scarcity due to drought and overexploitation of aquifers were the main justifications provided by most interviewed actors when asked for the purpose of these innovations. During the second half of the 20th century, the region experienced a boom of agriculture for exportation, especially tomato, coupled to the intensification not only of agricultural production systems but also of touristic activities. These activities together drove the rapid degradation of all aquifers in the island both in quantity and quality. In this context, the implementation of AWR was acclaimed as the key innovation that allowed for the recovery of groundwater resources. According to the interviewees, the aquifers had nowadays reached situation of hydrological balance.

It was also uphold that AWR brought multiple other benefits for farmers. For instance, constant water availability, quality and stable price were repeatedly claimed as the cornerstone for the success of these innovations. The security provided by AWR to farmers was causally linked to three interconnected factors: the private fresh water resources market in Gran Canaria, the public leadership of AWR development and the regulation of water prices. The general narrative is that AWR are publicly owned and their promotion through regulated prices influenced the traditional private fresh water resources market by lowering overall prices and reducing speculation. In turn, the perception of water security was fundamental to the expansion of agricultural production on the island, especially export agriculture. In recent years, AWR are also contributing to the diversification of crops beyond tomato for exportation. Employment opportunities related to the agricultural activity were also mentioned although without much emphasis. In spite of the multiple benefits that AWR brought to farmers, agricultural abandonment was repeatedly


https://magic-nexus.eu/events/seminario-participativo-magic-en-tenerife

https://magic-nexus.eu/documents/informe-seminario-participativo-magic-nexo-agua-energ%C3%ADa-agricultura-en-gran-canaria

https://magic-nexus.eu/documents/informe-seminario-participativo-magic-nexo-agua-energia-agricultura-en-tenerife


MAGIC–GA 689669

33

brought up as a negative trend in the island. Interviewees described it as a multidimensional problem influenced by political and especially economic-financial causes.

According to the interviewees, the use and exploitation of AWR entail some specific problems and obstacles, as well as some challenges that are necessary to solve for a more efficient development of this innovation. The most important problem described is the bad quality of AWR. It was recurrently stated that the salts balance of desalinated water is harmful for soils. The continuous deterioration and degradation of soil structure due to the use of desalinated water was claimed as decisive limitation for agriculture progress in the medium and long run. Interviewed farmers hold a solid experience in the management of desalinated water. They have learnt to mix desalinated water with other resources to adapt its quality to crops necessities and to reduce impacts on soil. In what regards reclaimed water resources, whereas the salt problem is less relevant, they face the problem of emergent contaminants such as medicines, drugs or chemicals from urban consumers.

Regarding the nexus with energy, interviewees mentioned the importance of energy costs in water industrialisation processes as one of the key challenges for the future development of this innovation. In this vein, expectations on AWR mostly referred to the integration with renewable energy sources as a means to reduce their price and make it affordable to most farming systems. However, the contribution of energy costs to the overall prize of water was unclear with different actors providing different figures. Moreover, no one provided data on the costs of renewable energy systems and their contribution to lower AWR prices.

B. Contrasting narratives with quantitative data As explained in the methodological section 5, the quantitative analyses in this case study consisted of a diagnosis of agricultural and water metabolism with MuSIASEM processors. The objective of this step was to enrich the picture described by the initial identification of narratives, adding relevant information that either confirmed, contested or clarified key issues raised by the narratives. This section summarizes the main data and arguments as was presented in the participatory workshop. The full data analysed is linked in the MAGIC website (workshop presentation) (in Spanish).

Aquifer status Regarding the claimed recovery of aquifers good status, official data from the River District Management Plan 2016-2020 described most aquifers in the Gran Canaria island in good quantitative status but bad qualitative status. Only the central highlands aquifers were deemed in good physic-chemical conditions.

Water management The analysis of water use data (Figure 9) confirmed that up to 46% of water resources come from AWR whereas still 44% come from groundwater. However, groundwater is never used as a single resource but it is either desalinated (17% of total resource use) or mixed with other water sources (27% of total resource use). These numbers show that there is a high level of implementation of AWR and also of adaptation to aquifer degradation. Not only desalinated water has a bad salt balance but also the groundwater from local aquifers that suffer from severe seawater intrusion and thus high conductivity. Mixing both resources appears to be a viable alternative for some farms. When focusing on the farm typologies (Figures 10 and 11), we observed different patterns in this adaptation. On the one hand, large farms (>10ha) use mostly mixes of desalinated water with groundwater or reclaimed water in different shares, while reclaimed and desalted from




34

groundwater are used as single resources (not mixed) in a minor share. On the other hand, small farms (<10 ha) rely mostly on single resources, either desalination from sea or from groundwater followed by reclamation, and to a lesser extent on different mixes with reclaimed or desalted groundwater. Figure 9. Overall water use pattern in Southeast Gran Canaria, expressed as a percentage of the overall

volume of water used by agriculture.

Legend: GW - Groundwater; SUR - Surface water; DES-GW: Desalinated groundwater;

DES - Desalinated; REU - Reclaimed water. Source: Own elaboration. Agriculture survey done.

Figure 10. Water used in different management strategies by large farms (>10ha) in the study area.

Legend: Vertical axes represent the volume of water; horizontal axes splits into management resources in mixes (Yes) or single (No). The colour set shows the different categories in each of them, namely: DES

y REU: Desalinated and Reclaimed; POZ Y DES: Groundwater and Desalinated; REU: Reclaimed; SAL-DES: Desalted groundwater; SUP: Surface water.

MAGIC–GA 689669

35

Figure 11. Water used in different management strategies by small farms (<10ha) in the study area.

Legend: Vertical axes represent the volume of water; horizontal axes splits into management resources in mixes (Si) or single (No). The colour set shows the different categories in each of them, namely: DES: Desalinated; POZ y REU: Groundwater and reclaimed; REU: Reclaimed; REU y DES: Desalinated and Reclaimed; SAL-DES: Desalted groundwater; SAL-DES y POZ: Desalted groundwater and groundwater; SAL-DES y REU: Desalted groundwater and reclaimed; SUP: Surface water; SUP y DES: Surface and Desalinated.

Agriculture activity & diversification In 2013, 54% of agricultural land in the coast was classified as abandoned. This percentage increases to 78% when including the upper rural area and has increased over the years. Land use data thus supports claims on the regression trends of agriculture in Southeast of Gran Canaria. The analysis of the agricultural metabolism in the coastal area showed two very different co-existing patterns. On one hand, most of the overall yield is banana and tomato for exportation. It is produced in large farms with integrated farming systems. On the other hand, the third most important crop category is vegetables, with a yield equivalent to banana, produced in small farms in either integrated, organic or conventional systems and mostly traded in local markets.

Water-crop production patterns When relating farming to water management patterns we can confirm the high penetration of AWR, which are used by all farming systems. In general terms, large export oriented farms use most of the water in desalinated-groundwater mixes. Therefore they contribute to aquifer extractions. Small farms have integrated reclamation in more diversified water management patterns and produce also a wider range of crops. They also withdraw and desalt groundwater but their overall contribution is small.

Energy costs and water price According to direct informants, desalination and reclaimed water have rates fixed by public administrations in 0.5 €/m3 and 0.8 €/m3 respectively. On the other hand, groundwater resources are traded in the private market with prices oscillating between 0.55-0.83€/m3 depending on


36

seasonal and market variations. The overall prices paid by surveyed farming systems in May 2019 varied from 0.48 to 0.82 €/m3 depending on the management strategies chosen, with lower ranges found in reclaimed water mixes (around 0.45 to 0.53 €/m3) and higher in desalted water mixes. The average energy costs of desalinated water in the study area are 3.5 kWh/m3 for desalination and 1.5 kWh/m3 for reclamation, without pumping costs. These costs represent 25-30% and 20-25% of total water production costs respectively. These numbers clarify contradictions in the narratives, most of which considered energy costs a much larger share of AWR costs (up to 50-70%). Considering this data, the monetary costs for elevating AWR to highland were estimated in 1.02 or 1.12 to €/m3 for desalination, depending on the altitude, and 0.57 €/m3 for reclaimed water. So far, there is no solid quantitative evidence supporting the perceived potential of renewable energy to lower AWR prices. Pilot experiences in the area have found optimization possibilities when technologies are connected to the supply network. Nevertheless, investments in renewables technology are highly vulnerable to market, regulatory and political contextual changes. C. Participatory narrative assessment The previous analysis was presented and discussed during a participatory workshop with more than 30 stakeholders (see more details in the section 4). In this section we summarize the key arguments that endorsed or contested our analyses as well as the new narratives that emerged along the deliberation.

What was endorsed or reframed The justification of AWR required to recover the status of aquifers was supported by most participants during the workshop. However, it was clarified that while water table levels have been stabilized, they remain low and won’t rise again because ‘that fossil water is gone’. In terms of physic-chemical conditions, several opinions deemed their improvement not viable due to the challenges in groundwater pollution by nitrates and other emerging contaminants. Adding to this discussion, there was a perceived problem of insufficient information on aquifers data.

A second endorsed narrative was the importance of AWR in providing water security to farmers in three aspects: availability, quality and price. The context of privatization of freshwater resources is determinant in this sense. Supporting the initial narratives, participants explained that AWR are publicly led and regulated, and this public leadership limited speculation and stabilized prices. In this regard, the prices of AWR were assessed as viable and desirable because they are publicly subsidized. In the current context of decreasing margins of benefits for agriculture, publicly subsidized ‘social prices’ of AWR were considered indispensable for the system viability. The problems of water quality associated to AWR were also confirmed by participants. The discussion mostly centered on reclaimed water which was seen as a more viable alternative to desalination. These resources require a rather sophisticated management to prevent contamination of crops, controlling multiple parameters through continuous monitoring. This problem was framed as a technical and educational challenge. On the one hand, farmers need new training and technical support. On the other hand, urban citizens need to be educated in their habits so that their wastewater can be treated to agricultural standards. The existence of two different agricultural patterns was also backed up by participants, who insisted in differentiating between exports and local based farming in both the analyses and the policy proposals. According to them, European agricultural policies so far mostly protect export-



MAGIC–GA 689669

37

oriented intensive farming, while small farming systems connected to the local economy face the consequences of ‘perverse subsidies’ to exports and imports.

What was contested or falsified Following the previous discussion, the narrative of AWR contributing to reduce the abandonment of agricultural activity was largely contested. It was repeatedly claimed in all discussion groups that water is not the limiting factor for agriculture in Gran Canaria. Described limiting factors were of three types:

● Financial: decreasing margin of benefits, impossibility of obtaining fair prices for food products, dependency of intermediaries and market competition.

● Social: aging, lack of young farmers, difficult access to land. ● Policy: the lack of a local agricultural policy correcting CAP effects by protecting local

production. In a similar vein, the capacity of AWR to foster agriculture in rural highlands was a matter of debate. Participants agreed with the existence of multiple causes for agricultural abandonment and that foremost there needs to be demand for agricultural products. Most participants also stated that agriculture could actually expand in the area if the resources are made available. However, there were divergent opinions relative to AWR being the most suitable resources to meet such needs. On the one hand, some participants appraised this alternative as a viable and desirable option. Even considering the potential impacts on soil, irrigation with AWR was preferred to ‘no irrigation’. In their view, surplus of wind energy produced in the island could support the cost of elevation. On the other hand, other participants questioned the actual necessity of pumping AWR from the coast when local freshwater resources are sold away to the coast though the private water market was discussed. In their view, “km 0” strategies should also be applied to water management. What emerged From organic to fair farming. The narrative gathering more support was the re-localization of agriculture with local market promotion linked to crop diversification in small farming systems and to the regulation of food prices. This shift was assessed as viable and desirable and many specific proposals were made along this line. In sum, most proposals to move forward focused on re-localization, not only of production and consumption of water, food and energy, but also of nexus governance. The need for a local agricultural policy beyond the CAP was a repeated claim together with the governance of private water markets. Within the problems of using AWR, proposals agreed that they can be handled with more knowledge, training and technical support to farmers as well as wider awareness campaigns.

3.2.2. The Case of Tenerife A. Narratives on AWR in the Northeast of Tenerife In Tenerife island, actors and actions look forward instead of supporting narratives on past events or dynamics. This difference resides in that reclaimed water for agriculture is a recent innovation in the island. Nevertheless, the declared causes supporting its development slightly differ from the Gran Canaria case.

The main justification narrative describing the innovation is provided by its promoters, the water and agricultural administrations in the island. It can be summarised as follows: The


38

implementation and development of reclaimed water for irrigation is considered necessary due to the depletion of traditional water resources (aquifers and wells). In the last century, sectoral competition and pressure on natural water resources on the island have increased considerably (tourism, population pressure, industry and construction, agriculture). Together with hydrological factors, such as a decrease in average annual rainfall and climate change effects, they trigger the search for new sources of water. The availability of reclaimed water in this context is considered an essential condition for maintaining the economic activity in the island. These actors stated that there was not social rejection from farmers to use reclaimed water. In this case study, we found divergent narratives challenging some aspects of the main narrative:

- ‘There is not overexploitation’. The situation of overexploitation of natural resources is questioned by important actors, such as the private water owners. They uphold that there has been a rational and sustainable extraction of these resources under the monitoring and control of public administration. This narrative is supported under the affirmation that techno-scientific models used to assess the aquifers status imply a high uncertainty. In addition, there is no transparency from the public administration regarding the data used to run the models.

- Narrative that questions technological ‘miracles’. Under this narrative, the risk of diminishing water resources is accepted, especially in a context of climate change. However, reclaimed water is not a solution, but a patch to a more complex problem that is the unsustainable economic and water management model on the island. The cause of the problem lay in the huge competence for resources by different growing sectors in the island: tourism, domestic due to the high population, industrial uses, agricultural exports, etc. This narrative is uphold by a minority of actors, concretely from a Civil Society Organisation and from a research body.

In our study area, a wastewater treatment plant was recently built in order to provide water to the agricultural sector. The project is promoted by the insular public administration CIATF. This administrative body is responsible for the implementation of water planning and management strategies in the island, and is composed of a 50% by public bodies, and a 50% by private actors (water owners, agricultural companies, associations, etc.). When local actors were asked by the potential problems this innovation could bring (bad water quality, emerging pollutants, impacts on soil and the environment, energy dependence, price or market rejections), we mostly found contested views:

● The price of reclaimed water is more expensive than that of natural resources (some farmers) VS it is cheaper (Administration/promoters).

● The quality of reclaimed water is better than that of natural resources (Administration/promoters) VS it is worse (some scientists and farmers).

● There are not impacts on soil and production associated with the use of reclaimed (Administration/promoters) VS impacts do exist (some scientists and some farmers).

This analysis shows that the uncertainty surrounding this innovation in the Tenerife case study was high, both in terms of available information and of ambiguity in the problem framing. For this reason, the following steps had the objective of providing new data and generating a more informed deliberation. B. Contrasting narratives with quantitative data Data analyses in this case was aimed at complementing or clarifying some of the above identified issues. The overall results from the narratives and data analyses can be found here (in Spanish).


MAGIC–GA 689669

39

Status of aquifers According to the official data from the River District Management Plan 2016-2020, the picture of groundwater status in Tenerife reverses from Gran Canaria. All aquifers are assessed as in bad quantitative status with monitoring wells showing decreasing trends. On the other hand, the physic-chemical conditions are considered acceptable in most of the aquifers.

Water-crop production patterns Metabolic patterns in Tenerife are not as sharply differentiated as in Gran Canaria. Most farms are either small (4-9 ha) or very small (<2.5 ha) with diversified production and commercialization strategies across farm sizes (see Figure 12). For instance, organic farming is championed by large farms producing bananas for exportation, whereas conventional farming is mostly run in small farms producing ornamental flowers and vegetables for the local market (as seen in Figure 13). There is also a minor share of self-consumption gardens.

Figure 12. Tons of production represented by farm size.

Legend: (B - Large, M - Small, S - Very small) and production system (red - conventional, green -

organic, blue - integrated). At the time of data collection (May-June 2019), 90% of total water resource use in the study area was groundwater while the rest was surface water used mostly for ornamental flowers production. Reclaimed water was implemented along the summer of 2019 and therefore we could not analyse it quantitatively.

Price of reclaimed water Collected data from farms showed that groundwater resources price ranges from 0.13 to 0.5 €/m3

when provided by irrigation communities and from 0.5-0.66 €/m3 when provided by private water supply companies. On the other hand, reclaimed water has a fixed price of 0.45 €/m3 which depends upon the output quality of the water as explained in the next section. Regarding seawater desalinated water resources, the costs range between 0.58-0.75 €/m3, greater than the average price of groundwater and/or reclaimed water.


40

Figure 13. Tons of production represented by farm size.

Legend: (G - Large, M - Small, P - Very small) and market (red – self-consumption, green - export, blue –

local market).

Quality of water resources Water quality data revealed that a large share of farmers is using resources of very good quality (conductivity < 400 microS/cm). Those farms are mostly of two types: on the one hand there are family gardens producing for self-consumption and small farms producing vegetables for local markets; on the other hand, there are medium farms producing ornamental flowers and banana. Lastly, there are also farmers from all types of farming systems using water of medium or bad quality.

Social rejection To contrast the narrative about the acceptance of reclaimed water by farmers, data on their perception of these resources was collected and analysed. The results showed that 40% of surveyed farmers were against using reclaimed water. Farms rejecting these resources were mostly self-consumption gardens and banana and ornamental flower producers. Therefore, most resistance to change was found in those farms that are using water resources of good quality at the moment. Nevertheless, resistance was also observed in farms using resources of bad quality. When asked for the positive and negative aspects of reclaimed water, the contradictions observed in the analyses of narratives were again revealed (Figures 14 and 15). Among the positive aspects, security in availability stands out in those in favour and against the use of reclaimed water. The second aspect is the good quality of the water and the third the reduction of water price.

MAGIC–GA 689669

41

Figure 14. Positive aspects of reclaimed water.

Legend: Views are split into those against (No) and those in favour (Si) of using reclaimed water.

In what regards the negative aspects, variable availability was raised as a problem by those against the use of reclaimed water. In addition, bad water quality and high salinity were relevant concerns for both groups whereas health risks (connected to market rejection) was a minor issue. A large fraction of those in favour of using reclaimed water signalled ‘other’ unspecified negative aspects. Those mostly referred to the lack of information on the project and the new resources or the fact that they liked the resources they were using at the moment.

Figure 15. Negative aspects of reclaimed water.

Legend: Views are split into those against (No) and those in favour (Si) of using reclaimed water.


42

C. Participatory narrative assessment What was clarified During the workshop, precise data on the price-quality connection of reclaimed water was provided. Technicians from the wastewater reclamation plant explained that the water produced at the moment in tertiary treatment with reverse osmosis (desalination technology) has a very good quality (600 microS/cm) because it was agreed with demanding farmers. Bringing the water to this quality is energy expensive and the resulting price is 0.45€/m3. According to them, if farmers demand a different quality (higher conductivity) water price would decrease. The current price, however, was appraised as viable for most farmers in the context of private freshwater trading. It is worth mentioning that quality was measured with only one indicator, conductivity. Concentration of microorganisms was also broached but no questions were raised on emergent contaminants or overall salt balance of reclaimed water. These quality issues experienced in Gran Canaria were not part of the discussion. What was endorsed or reframed During the workshop, there was a strong convergence on the idea of reclaimed water use increasing steadily in the future. In the short run, the new resources were defended as a means to alleviate impacts of drought events and periods of scarcity, complementing instead of competing with current water resources. In the long run, social awareness and European environmental policy were named as drivers for incrementing the ‘circular economy of water’. Awareness campaigns with citizens to reduce the concentration of pollutants in wastewater were again proposed as a necessary action towards this desired future. What was contested or falsified In regard to social rejection of reclaimed water, during the workshop we visited some farmers who had fully integrated the new resources and some others that showed caution and rather aimed for a period of testing what resource best suits their crops. We also presented the previous analyses of narratives and of quantitative data showing the existence of divergent perspectives regarding the new resources. However, during the deliberation, the narrative in favour of reclaimed water was rather hegemonic and arguments against were rapidly contested. Criticism was mostly circumscribed to the process of implementation of the new infrastructure together with demands for more information and dialogue with farmers when planning the future expansion of the irrigation network. This outcome can be related to the expansion of the irrigation network during the 6 months between the interviews and the workshop which, coupled with the strong public-private partnership promoting the new resources among farmers. On the other hand, those upholding divergent narratives were not only in a situation of minority but also in a very low power position as compared to public administrations and private water owners. These actors did not voice strong criticisms during the deliberation. A second narrative that was questioned is the contribution of reclaimed water to aquifers recovery. The reason given for the lack of causal connection is the existence of a private water market attending the strong competition for freshwater resources. According to participants, if agriculture reduces its groundwater demand, the tourist sector will immediately absorb those resources ‘You can’t close the tap in the galleries’. Finally, the support of reclaimed water to sustain or expand agriculture was also a contested issue. While some actors expected a positive relation in this regard especially for export-oriented crops, others raised the lack of support for local agriculture in the context of subsidized imports and the expectation to continue the current regression trends. The idea of local food sovereignty



MAGIC–GA 689669

43

was questioned by some actors in this workshop. Two arguments were raised in this regard: the lack of agreement on the adequate percentage of self-consumption was adequate for sovereignty (20-40% rates were discussed), and the risk of losing the special conditions of the Canary Islands in European agricultural policies.

What emerged The largest uncertainty perceived at the moment was the new European regulatory framework for water reuse and how it could affect the current implementation process in the study area. However, a drastic change of agricultural policy context to more stringent export conditions was considered unlikely by participants. In the exercise of imagining such scenario, participants agreed that adaptation would come in hand of reinforcing local markets in connection with the tourist sector. The re-localization of fodder production was also proposed. A second analysed future was the climate and fossil fuel crises. Participants agreed that the societies in general, and the Canarian society in particular, will adapt to these changes through innovation and technology. In this context, the role of AWR and renewable energy was emphasised as essential for providing security in water, food and energy supply to the local population. Decentralized technologies and governance capacity were raised as requisites for this shift. Alternative proposals in this debate were directed to manage landscapes according to available resources.

3.3 Conclusions from case studies The case studies analysed above present some similarities albeit also relevant differences. In general terms, we found (and contributed to) social acceptance of AWR as pertinent innovations to face problems of decreasing freshwater resources while providing security to farmers in terms of water availability, quality and price. The success of AWR in the Canaries, however, cannot be separated from the context of private marketization of freshwater resources, of public leadership of these innovations and of regulation of their prices through subsidies. While this regulation violates the cost recovery principle of the WFD, it is considered a desirable and viable alternative in light of the impossibility of increasing food prices for farmers. In this regard, we observed a common concern about the future of agriculture in the current European policy context. The problem of viability of farming systems gathers more attention than the problem of sustainability of water resources. In both case studies we found emerging narratives claiming the need to strengthen local food policy and market circuits. When confronted with the problems derived from the use of AWR in agriculture, in both case studies we obtained similar proposals: technical support and training to farmers on the one hand, and education and awareness campaigns to citizens on the other hand. Concerning the energy dimension, in both study areas we found mostly expectations about the role that renewable energy technologies could play in ratcheting down AWR prices. This nexus relation is claimed as a field for future research and innovation.

With reference to differences among the case studies, first and foremost there is an issue of existence of alternatives. The situation of massive aquifer overdraft during decades in Gran Canaria left AWR the only alternative to sustain metabolic patterns. In fact, AWR have not only contributed to preserve the export-based intensive agricultural model, but also to start diversifying agricultural patterns at the time to stabilize the hydrological balance of aquifers. As stated by an actor during the workshop, AWR have ‘replaced a perception of water scarcity by one of water abundance’. This experience contributes to the lack of contestation of the use of these resources and the claimed needs to continue innovating to address existing challenges. Whereas groundwater still plays an important role in agricultural metabolism, especially in the production of banana and tomato for exportation, both reclamation and desalination are fully



44

integrated in a myriad of water-food metabolic patterns. They are used by large and small farming systems, in isolation or in mixes. In this case study, actors had more information on AWR and their challenges. While uncertainty on aquifers data was raised, it was not central a central element in local narratives. Challenges of AWR are mostly related to their quality. In the case of desalination, quality challenges refer to the management of inadequate salt balance and the long-term impacts on soils. Reclaimed water faces challenges with regards to the high technical skills and the close monitoring required to deal with emerging contaminants. The preference of our engaged stakeholders in Gran Canaria seemed to be in fostering reclamation coupled to a re-localization of food governance. The narrative on local food sovereignty gathers a robust consensus here. We also found a stronger critique of private water markets especially in relation to the unequal situation of highland agriculture.

In the Tenerife case, reclaimed water is an alternative to existing high-quality surface and groundwater resources. Farmers can freely choose to connect to the new irrigation network and open the tap of reclaimed water or stay in their current situation. In the initial analysis of narratives, we found contestation concerning the problem framing: is reclaimed water a solution to decreasing groundwater resources? or is it a solution to increasing sectoral competition? We also found narrative pluralism corresponding to several other aspects. First, the lack of information about the project and the new resources was reflected in the existence of different views on key characteristics of reclaimed water (price, quality, potential impacts). Second, we found a stronger dissent in this case respecting the information used about aquifers overdraft, both on scientific models and on how their results are used in water management plans. Finally, there was divergence among farmers in regard to their willingness to shift to the new resources and in the perceived security these would provide. These findings suggest that a new technology is not a mere solution to well defined problems but rather brings different values in dispute.

The workshop developed in Tenerife played a role in handling some of these uncertainties by providing new information and by opening a space for multi-stakeholder dialogue. The price-quality connection was narrated here as a solution rather than a problem: reclaimed water quality can be adjusted to farmers needs at a competitive price and thus provide a viable alternative in times of scarcity. Despite our efforts to bring up a diversity of opinions, an optimistic perception about the future of this innovation, especially when considering difficult contexts of commercial or climatic crisis, was reinforced during the deliberation. Whereas the availability of reclaimed water alone may not contribute to sustaining agriculture or to recovering the good status of aquifers, it complements existing groundwater resources and provides security to farmers against sectoral competition and climatic vagaries. The role of private water owners was less questioned in this case, partially because they were present in the engagement process and because they support the mainstreaming of reclaimed water resources.

As a closing remark, it is noteworthy that new developments of AWR like the Tenerife case do not build upon lessons from previous experiences like Gran Canaria. In addition to recommendations for cross-fertilization in this regard (BOX 1), we conclude with a reflection on the multiple roles AWR play as innovations in the Canaries, reflected in the plurality of narratives observed, that are inextricably linked to the context in which they have been deployed. Moreover, those roles are not fulfilled with equal efficacy. Whereas the idea of providing security to farmers is central, the contribution of AWR to sustain metabolic funds (farms, aquifers) is limited in the absence of other factors.


MAGIC–GA 689669

45

BOX #1: Knowledge transfer of the alternative water resources (AWR) governance in the Canary Islands

The use of desalinated and reclaimed water for irrigation has been growing year after year in the Canary Islands Archipelago (Spain). This EU’s outermost region is a singular territory with more than fifty years of desalination exploitation, more than thirty years of water reuse for irrigation experience and several real-scale initiatives of coupling water treatments processes with renewable energies.

In the study realised, we found an extensive experience in the use of AWR for irrigation in the Southeast of Gran Canaria and a high potential of using reclaimed waters in the Valle Guerra area in Tenerife. The findings suggest that water access is not the key problem in these areas as initially hypothesized considering the local conditions of aridity and groundwater overdraft. On the contrary, AWR provide security to farmers in terms of availability and stable water prices.

In the case of the Gran Canaria study, the perception of water security is fundamental to the expansion of agricultural production on the island, especially export agriculture. The AWR’s appearance has also contributing to the diversification of crops beyond tomato for exportation. However, far from maintaining an exportation model, the sector opts towards a local product (km 0) with a profitable price that does not depend on intermediaries, a more diverse agriculture and livestock with fair trade channels.

The decrease in the availability of water from natural sources due to climate change and over-exploitation is a reality in Tenerife case study, which will lead to greater efficiency in the use of water resources and the gradual increase of the use of reclaimed water. The reclaimed water’s quality offered is considered to be excellent at present and suitable for most crops. The creation of resilient landscape, restoring the terraces and with appropriate crops according to climatic floors to reduce the demand for water.

In general, the perception of the quality of AWR was among the major issues of concern. On one hand, there are concerns about the concentration of salts in desalinated seawater and brackish water and their impacts on the soil structure and/or to certain crops. On the other hand, the high concentration of nutrients and the presence of emergent contaminants in reclaimed water pose risks that require significant technical skills in their management. To address water quality problems, farmers are adapting by blending different fresh and alternative resources in different shares and applying organic fertilization.

The price of the water is another issue of concern for farmers for the stakeholders, in view of the diversity of types of water and prices. The prevailing perception is that publicly owned AWR influence the traditional private water market by regulating and lowering prices. The potentional of coupling with renewable energies to reduce the AWR price requires further exploration. Besides, the AWR need to be adjusted to farmers' needs at a competitive price in order to provide a viable alternative in times of scarcity.

Finally, the continued technical support and training to farmers are proposed as essential actions in the expansion of AWR use, together with citizen awareness campaigns for improving the acceptance of AWR in the insular societies.

4. Stakeholder Engagement The rationale of the engagement process in the quality check for this innovation followed a co-production logic. Not only the design and implementation of the QST methodology connected an analytical with an engagement part, but also the assessment of viability and desirability of narratives was generated through a deliberative methodology. For this reason, both parts greatly overlap. In this section, we cover the main numbers, type of actors and milestones of the


46

engagement process while the methods, contents and main findings are explained in depth in sections 3.2 and 5.2. MAGIC partners attended two participatory workshops in the Archipelago organised by other research projects that had synergies with our case study. First, on January 26th 2018, the conference “Reclaimed water for agriculture in the Canary Islands” organised in the framework of the ADAPTaRES project (cofunding by ERDF -2014 - 2020 INTERREG V-A MAC. Second, the ACEQUIA - Climate change, droughts and water uses in Gran Canaria participatory workshop - between the 18th-20th of June, 2018. ADAPTaRES workshop focussed on water management and climate change adaptation in the Canaries, while the other focussed on the use of reclaimed water for agriculture in the Canary Islands. Workshops’ minutes enabled an initial exploration of the main discussion topics and delineate key arguments that helped framing the interviews in Phase 2. So, this preliminary information was useful to achieve the following objectives: a. the identification of potential interested stakeholders for the MAGIC case studies; b. to contextualise the issues under analysis; c. to identify existing pre-narratives.

4.1 Stakeholders mapping In order to engage the actors from the first stage of the process, an integrated framework was designed and applied (see figure 16). The Socio-Institutional Analysis (see section 5.2.1) and stakeholders mapping constitute the essential basis to carry out effectively the round of interviews with a wide range of actors and knowledge. This block of methods is considered as part of the engagement. Agriculture surveys were oriented to farmers mainly. Most of them do not participated in the stakeholder interviews and engagement. The survey information methodology was not considered part of the engagement, but the outputs of this tool were useful to gather quantitative data which was presented and discussed in a later step during the workshops in combination with qualitative information.

Figure 16. Integrated approach to stakeholder engagement.

MAGIC–GA 689669

47

The Socio-Institutional Analysis and the stakeholder’s analysis and mapping provided the identification of more than sixty potential involved actors in the region. The actors were categorised according to several criteria related to the nexus water-agriculture, their capacity of influence in decisions and policies, their experience in the use of AWR, their research experience and academic knowledge, their public involvement into the topic, etc. In addition, they were classified according to the following categories: public sector (decision and policy makers), private sector (influence), users (experience and local knowledge), research and techno-scientific knowledge.

Figure 17 represents a graphic disposition of the main categories which the relevant actors belong to. In the graphic, actors are positioned according to the territorial scale in which they operate (horizontal axis) and the interest on the issue (vertical axis). The size of the bubble represents their power or capacity to influence decision-making.

Interest has been quantified according to the consensus within the social group, after analyzing the literature (for instance, press review) and the data from the surveys; while the power (bubble) has been quantified according to the literature (press and legislative), their capacity to decide on planning and management of water resources, for instance, the percentage of representation on the Water Council.

Some categories include different actors which might differ in the capacity of action within the issue. For instance, under the category “Cabildo” there are other important sub-actors such as BALTEN (water management), councils (decision sphere) and Insular Water Councils (Consejo Insular de Agua). Another example is the category R&D bodies, which include Universities and other research and innovation centres. There is also a differentiation between farmers (small) and agricultural companies (large/export). Figure 17. Graphic representation of stakeholders according to their interest, power and territorial scale.


48

4.2 Interviews Local and regional actors were contacted by phone and e-mail during January and February 2019, and the interview sessions were scheduled by the same means. In total, 27 actors (see table below) participated in interviews at regional, insular and local levels. Table 1. Stakeholders' categories and dimensions

Category No. of participants

Policy, political and decision makers (public administration of the Canarian Government, Cabildo of Gran Canaria and Cabildo of Tenerife; Consejos Insulares de Agua (Water Insular Councils); municipalities, Counsellors of Cabildos.

11

Private actors (private companies, water rights-holders, cooperatives)

5

Farmers 1

Environmental NGOs and associations 3

R&D organisations (University of La Laguna and Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; ITC)

7

4.3 Agricultural Survey A field survey was useful to gather quantitative data and a descriptive analysis of the use of AWR for agriculture in the case study areas.

This tool provided information and data useful to characterise the farms activity and farmers behaviour regarding the uses of water in the studied areas. The results were combined with qualitative information (narratives) facilitating the discussion and the implementation of QST. See Gran Canaria and Tenerife presentations to see worked data.



MAGIC–GA 689669

49

In total, 31 surveys on site were conducted in the island of Gran Canaria (Sureste area), and 37 in the island of Tenerife (Valle Guerra area).

4.4 Workshops Two 1-day intensive workshops were carried out on both islands. In Gran Canaria, 31 participants attended the workshop, located at the installations of the Canary Islands Institute of Technology (ITC); while in the case of Tenerife, 36 actors participated in the workshop which took place at the Cultural Centre of Tejina (close to the wastewater treatment plant). Both workshops have a minutes report with conclusion linked in the MAGIC website (Gran Canaria; Tenerife).

4.5 Follow up in the Dialogue Space The engagement process is intended to be extended to the Nexus Dialogue Space [http://magic-nexus.eu/dialogue-space] in Spring 2020.

The engagement process is intended to be extended to the Nexus Dialogue Space [http://magic-nexus.eu/dialogue-space] in 2020 by using the MAGIC Virtual Engagement Room. This web application “enables a pre-selected group of people to have a remote and distributed discussion on a specific issue. For this purpose, several tools are available to help the participants express their opinions and ideas”. For instance, the live video conference tool will be used to conduct an online focus group involving regional policy-makers linked to the case studies.

This last participatory activity will be useful to discuss the main results of the project, provide a Nexus perspective to local policy-makers (participants), and to motivate them to implement those results in terms of policy outputs.

BOX #2: Utility of the obtained results

Despite the Nexus Dialogue Space tasks proposed, the AWR assessment results have been so relevant that some policymakers have already shown interest in the use of them.

Firstly, the Island Council of Gran Canaria has included the assessment results in the 2030 roadmap of food sovereignty.

Secondly, the regional General Directorate of Water and the Spanish Ministry of Ecological Transition has included the assessment results related to Valle Guerra in the forthcoming practical case of application of the new water reuse regulation in Spain. A risk assessment will be done in collaboration with CEDEX in 2020. CEDEX is a state-of-the-art public body applied to civil engineering, building and the environment, organically assigned to the Ministry of Development and functionally to the Ministries of Development and for the Ecological Transition.

5. Materials and Methods 5.2. Phase 1 While most of the research on these innovations concentrated in Phase 2, as kick-off step in Phase 1 a background document was developed including the social, institutional and legislative contexts for the development and use of AWR in the Canary Islands, the selection of the two case study areas and a preliminary exploration of narratives. The document was published in the MAGIC website repository in Spanish in November 2018. In this report we synthesize the main information that pertains Phase 1 of the research, namely, the innovations addressed, the





https://magic-nexus.eu/documents/informe-seminario-participativo-magic-nexo-agua-energia-agricultura-en-tenerife

http://magic-nexus.eu/documents/uso-agricola-de-agua-alternativa

http://magic-nexus.eu/documents/uso-agricola-de-agua-alternativa


50

regulatory framework at European, Spanish and regional levels, the description of the two case studies and the initial exploration of narratives that helped framing the design of the QST methodology for Phase 2. For the preliminary exploration of narratives, we attended two events organised by other research projects synergistic with MAGIC. First, on January 26th 2018, ITC organised the conference “Reclaimed water for agriculture in the Canary Islands”22 organised within the 2014 - 2020 INTERREG V-A Spain - Portugal (Madeira - Açores - Canarias (MAC) project ADAPTaRES. The event was attended by about twenty people related to the water management and agricultural sector in the Southeast of Gran Canaria, who shared their personal struggles and achievements with the use of reclaimed water. Second, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) organised the ACEQUIA participatory workshop in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria between the 18th-20th of June, 2018. 23The workshop’s title was ‘Climate change, droughts and water uses in Gran Canaria’ and gathered more than fifty people from the agricultural, water and energy public and private sectors; academics; and civil society organisations. It was a very interesting fora with relevant discussions on the role of AWR for agriculture in the context of climate change in the Canaries. MAGIC partners JRC, ITC and UAB participated in the workshop presenting the project in a round table, facilitating and participating in the deliberative exercises. Text analyses of the two workshops minutes enabled delineating the main discussion topics and helped framing the interviews and analysis of narratives in Phase 2. 5.3. Phase 2 The QST cycle applied to these case studies had 6 main steps which we group here in three methodological sections. The first section describes the analysis of narratives on AWR and related nexus aspects (steps 1-2 of QST as portrayed in Figure 8). The second section explains the quantitative analyses part of QST (steps 3, 4 and 5) whereas the third includes the deliberative methodology used to assess the narratives in deliberative workshops (steps 6).

5.3.2. Identification of narratives In order to identify the main narratives surrounding the development of AWR in each case study, different methods were integrated. a. Socio-Institutional Analysis Socio-institutional Analysis (SIA) is an exploratory approach aimed to gather relevant information about the different institutional structures and social relationships within a given issue (Corral, 2000; Corral et al., 2017; Romero Manrique et al., 2016). This methodological approach is proposed within this innovation with the objective of addressing the problem from a broad and historical perspective, paying special attention to the following aspects: (a) the institutional and social contexts in which policies are developed and decisions are made, and ( b) the actors involved in the process, so as their interests and behaviour. Different sources of information were used to carry out the SIA, namely the material collected in the phase 1, different media sources (written and online press), normative documents, websites

22 ADAPTaRES Conference (26/01/2018). Reclaimed Water in the Agriculture of Gran Canaria. Online: http://adaptares.com/es/blog/charla-las-aguas-regeneradas-en-la- agricultura-de-las-islas-en-la-heredad-de-aguas-de-sardina/ 23 A technical report is soon to be published by the JRC under the name “ACEQUIA Report: climate change, droughts and water uses” – A LOGIC Proposal for Action.

https://www.keep.eu/project/21491/adaptaci%C3%B3n-al-cambio-clim%C3%A1tico-en-la-macaronesia-a-trav%C3%A9s-del-uso-eficiente-del-agua-y-su-reutilizaci%C3%B3n?ss=5d327cb7cff00666c9e84c9bcf44f2d5&espon=

http://adaptares.com/es/

https://www.energiagrancanaria.com/cambio-climatico-en-gran-canaria/

https://www.energiagrancanaria.com/cambio-climatico-en-gran-canaria/

MAGIC–GA 689669

51

of institutions and organizations, technical and scientific literature regarding water, energy and agricultural issues in the region. The SIA facilitated the identification and analysis of the relevant stakeholders according to the following criteria related to the nexus water-energy-agriculture: their capacity of influence in decisions and policies (power), their experience in the use of AWR, their research experience and academic knowledge, their public involvement into the topic, etc. In addition, they were classified according to the following categories: public sector (decision and policy makers), private sector (influence), users (experience and local knowledge), research and techno-scientific knowledge. b. Semi-structured Interviews The actors identified during the previous step were contacted and interview sessions were scheduled by phone and e-mail. The interviews were conducted during February 2019 in both islands. In total, 27 actors (see table 1 in section 3) participated in interviews from regional, insular and local levels. In order to gather relevant information concerning the purpose, means, promoters, challenges and expectations on AWR in the Canary Islands, the interviews were structured according to the following logic:

1. Biographical information of the interviewee. 2. Insights about the state of resources water, energy, agriculture in the region. 3. Institutional context (role of the organization, responsibilities, relationships with other

actors, etc.). 4. Development objectives and use of AWR. 5. Pressures and obstacles. 6. Questions and discussion about the NEXUS. 7. Future development, perspectives, expectations. 8. Collaborations and other actors.

c. Narrative identification and analysis The analysis and identification of narratives was carried out in two steps. First, interviews transcripts were analysed through a coding structure aimed at facilitating the emergence of the narratives and their interrelated discourses. A first document was produced in each case study summarising the main claims in what regards the following topics:

1. Opinions about the state of water resources, agriculture. 2. Socio-institutional context (role of each organization, responsibilities, relations with other

actors, etc.) a. Relevant actors in the definition of water and agriculture strategies and in the

implementation of AWR in the islands. b. Who has promoted its development?

3. Causes, objectives and benefits of the development and use of AWR. Benefits of implementing and developing the innovations in the islands. Historical development of innovations and main causes of its development and implementation. Who benefits from the implementation?

4. Pressures, obstacles and impacts derived from the use of AWR. Environmental impacts, economic, energy, social costs, etc.

5. Alternatives. Are there other alternatives to the use of these innovations? 6. Questions and discussion about the NEXUS. Knowledge about the nexus. Importance that

the actors give to the nexus. Use of energy sources related to innovations. 7. Future development, perspectives, expectations.


52

8. Other information and data like quantitative “evidence” (data) expressed by the actors. These documents were analysed and coded into the following category of narratives:

● Principal justification narratives: Why AWR are needed? What is their purpose in the context of agriculture and water management in the study areas? How is their role defined and by whom?

● Contesting narratives: Is there a consensus or different visions on the what, why, how of AWR? If there are different visions, who challenges the principal narrative and how?

● Normative narratives describing problems or challenges in the implementation of AWR. These narratives explain what the problems are.

● Normative narratives describing expectations of future scenarios regarding the use of AWR in agriculture. These narratives describe what the future should look like.

● Uncertainties: narratives referring to insufficient information, to uncertainties in existing information or providing contrasting quantitative numbers about an issue.

The resulting narratives were contrasted with quantitative data and structured in information products to steer deliberation with stakeholders as explained in the next section.

5.3.3. Quantitative analyses with MUSIASEM The quantitative analysis of this innovation was aimed at generating a diagnosis of existing agricultural systems in the two study areas with regards to nexus relations between agricultural production and water resources management. This diagnostic analysis served the purpose of informing deliberation and the assessment of narratives in two participatory workshops. The scale of analysis is sub-regional, with the extent covering two agricultural areas, one of 732 ha in Gran Canaria and 484 ha in Tenerife, and the resolution zooming onto instances of farms within those areas. a. Grammar The analysis followed the rationale of a previous MAGIC case study in the region Almería (southern Spain) published in Deliverable 4.1 and in Cabello et al., 2019. A processor data array structure (Figure 18) was used to quantify and connect two different descriptions of the systems under analysis: one hierarchical pathway describing the crop production logic (Figure 19) and a related sequential pathway depicting the water management logic (Figure 20).

https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?6oDhYW

MAGIC–GA 689669

53

Figure 18. Basic structure of the processor data array describing farming systems in the case studies.

Legend: GW: groundwater; SUP: surface water; DES: desalinated seawater; DES-GW: desalinated groundwater; REU: reclaimed water.

As depicted in Figure 18, processor variables include the water mix from different sources, human activity, land used, organic fertilizers and yield of different crops. Following the crop production hierarchy (Figure 19), we considered that existing crops can be produced in farms of different production systems, of different sizes and can finally be traded locally or in external markets. Analytical levels in this hierarchical description were the same in both case studies albeit categories within levels change. For instance, in Tenerife three farm sizes were considered instead of the two in Gran Canaria and the list of crops is different. The water management grammar (Figure 20) uses a sequential pathway of processors connecting water sources such as aquifers or desalination plants to water suppliers differentiating public and private actors and water mixes by farms. As explained in section 2, the competition between public and private water suppliers in the Canaries is a key explanatory factor of the overall dynamic of the system. Furthermore, the water mixes category reveals the adaptation strategies of farming systems to the negative impacts of desalinated and reclaimed water and enables the assessment of who and how is adapting in what ways. This level was especially relevant in the Gran Canaria case study since the quality check focuses on evaluating the experience of years of use of AWR. On the other hand, the Tenerife case focused on assessing narratives about the future expectations on the use of reclaimed water. The analyses here tried to uncover the existence of divergent perspectives in this regard. For this purpose, additional analytical levels were considered. First, one level classified farms according to whether they are for or against the use of reclaimed water. Second, another level reflecting the quality of water sources (using conductivity as indicator) was added to the water management pathway. These new levels enabled the assessment of what type of farms were for or against the use of the new resources in relation to the quality of the water they are using.


54

Figure 199. Hierarchical description of the crop production system in the study areas.

Figure 20Sequential description of water management system, intertwined with the crop production

hierarchy.

Note: the farm typology can be selected at any of the levels depicted in Figure 15, enabling a multi-level relational analysis.

Note that the lists of categories shown in the previous figures are not exhaustive and the full dataset can be found in the MAGIC Nexus Information Space. The following section details the data management process.

MAGIC–GA 689669

55

b. Data management

Data collection - Agricultural field survey To obtain primary data on farming systems metabolism, field surveys were conducted to a structured sample of farms in the study areas. The methodology followed AGRIS24 recommendations on the structure, questions, sample design and implementation (GSARS, 2018; built upon FAO, 1996).

The full population of farms in the Canary Islands are annually mapped by the regional government and data opened in their agricultural statistics25. The latest full GIS cartography that includes the location, surface and the typology of crops was released in 2013. This spatial dataset was used to extract and sample the farming population within the study areas. The sampling method was probabilistic following AGRIS. The sample was selected from a stratification of the crop categories including the most representative ones in terms of land use (7 crop types in Gran Canaria and 5 in Tenerife). A total of 31 farms were surveyed in the Southeast area in Gran Canaria (3.7% of the population, 39.7% of the agricultural land) and 37 in the Valle Guerra area in Tenerife (1.7% of the population, 18.6% of the agricultural land). Farming implies an appropriate relation between categories of human activity and categories of land use (Serrano-Tovar, 2014). That is why the surveys included 67 questions grouped in the following 5 blocks:

A) Context data (such as location, owner, age and gender) B) Crops and production (such as the specific crops, production system, technology,

fertilizers, pesticides) C) Water and energy (water used, supplier, source, irrigation system and quality, energy,

pumping consumption, fuel, machinery) D) Human activity (number of workers, type, weeks worked per year and hours per week) E) Agricultural model (production to different markets, retailers).

The questions of the water block had a special emphasis, asking farmers their personal perception about the use of AWR (Adrián Monterrey-Viña et al., 2020). Field work took place between March-April 2019 in Gran Canaria and during May-June 2019 in Tenerife by qualified personnel in the agricultural sector and in conducting surveys. Data was collected using a tablet device and an online form in Open Data Kit (ODK)26 enabling direct compilation in an excel table. Secondary data sources During the field work, most farmers had difficulties quantifying key variables of agricultural metabolism such as their annual yield, water and energy consumed. The reasons for this difficulty include the lack of accounting in small farms (the majority), either because they had multiple and changing crops or simply because they did not have this sort of management, and the lack of trust to release data on their performance. For this reason, a search for technical coefficient in secondary sources was developed to complete the dataset. First, crop yield benchmarks (kg/ha)

24 AGRIS is a global database providing information and bibliography on agriculture. It is specifically designed to support national agencies to produce disaggregated data of good quality regarding technical, economic and environmental dimensions of agricultural production. 25 Source: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/menu.do?uripub=urn:uuid:ef5f2e5c-e2c4-4c1d-b5ed-c20fe946ce6f 26 ODK is an open-software data acquisition tool.

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/menu.do?uripub=urn:uuid:ef5f2e5c-e2c4-4c1d-b5ed-c20fe946ce6f

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/menu.do?uripub=urn:uuid:ef5f2e5c-e2c4-4c1d-b5ed-c20fe946ce6f


56

were obtained from public agricultural stats, dividing and averaging overall production per crop with land used in each island for the series 2012-2016. Second, water consumption benchmarks were obtained from Hernández and de la Rosa (2005). While this study focussed exclusively on Tenerife Island, it provides geographically disaggregated water consumption coefficients. The coefficients from the Southeast area of the island were assumed to be the same for for the Gran Canaria case study located in similar coordinates.

Additional data on the energy costs and prices of different water sources was obtained from ITC databases and by direct phone calls to water providers. Finally, water basin management plans 2015-202127 were reviewed to extract data on aquifer quantitative and qualitative status. c. Data structuring and processing The above described datasets were firstly processed in excel to derive processors variables as shown in the following Table 2. Processed datasets were formatted and uploaded into MAGIC NIS. The full NIS structuring process was documented in a MAGIC project 5 videos (in Spanish). The dataset is currently available on request pending final publications of the deliverables. Table 2. Variables used to characterize farms and water sources processors.

Variable Type Units Data source

Calculation

Production technology Categorical - survey dataset

Transformation from survey dataset: Greenhouse ‘Si’ = ‘GH’ Greenhouse ‘No’=’OF’

Cropping system Categorical - survey dataset

Direct extraction from survey dataset

Crop category Categorical - survey dataset


Crops Categorical - survey dataset


Land use Numeric ha survey dataset


Human activity Numeric h/y survey dataset

=52 working weeks* weekly hours of work*number of workers

Age Numeric y survey dataset


Gender Categorical - survey dataset


Irrigation system Categorical - survey dataset


27

Source: https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/aguas/temas/planificacion/hidrologica/

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxsZ6s6H0Q4pULtA1VUeVB1uMG4p60eMO

https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/aguas/temas/planificacion/hidrologica/

MAGIC–GA 689669

57

Table 2 cont. Variables used to characterize farms and water sources processors.

Variable Type Units Data source Calculation

Water supplier Categorical - survey dataset


Water consumption per hectare and crop

Numeric m3/h Hernández and de la Rosa (2005)

Assignation of benchmark according to location

Water consumption by source: ● Groundwater ● Surface ● Desalted from sea ● Desalted from well ● Reclaimed

Numeric Hm3 Survey dataset, Hernández and de la Rosa (2005)

=Water consumption per crop * land use* Share of water source within the mix

Water price Numeric €/m3 Direct call to water providers

-

Energy cost (production + pumping) (only in Gran Canaria)

Numeric kWh/m3 Direct call to water providers

-

Conductivity (only in Tenerife)

Numeric µS/cm survey dataset


Perception of water quality (only in Tenerife)

Categorical - survey dataset


Perspective on reclaimed water use (only in Tenerife)

Categorical - survey dataset


Yield per hectare and crop

Numeric kg/ha Cabildo insular stats

=𝛴𝛴Overall production/overall land used (2012-2016) in each island

Local trade Numeric ton survey dataset, yield per hectare benchmarks

=Yield per hectare and crop*Land use*Share of production to local market

Export Numeric ton survey dataset, yield per ha benchmarks

=Yield per hectare and crop*Land use*Share of production to exports


58

For analytical purposes, specific csv files were generated and exported to Rstudio for visualization and analysis. d. Data analysis Data analyses was framed within the engagement process and aimed at producing a basic diagnosis of current farming systems metabolism with relation to crop production and water management. Therefore, in these case studies MuSIASEM was used only in diagnostic mode and not in anticipation mode. The assessment of the viability and desirability of narratives was purely deliberative, and quantifications were restricted to descriptive analysis of the current situation with one exception. In the Gran Canaria workshop, one of the narratives focused on the potential future of pumping of AWR from the coast to support agricultural development in high rural lands. In this case, an estimation of the energetic costs was made based on a calculation of current and potential water demand (using existing crop map in 2013 first and assuming a partial recovery of abandoned agricultural areas second). To calculate the scenario, we assumed an energy intensity of 3.5 kWh/m3 of the desalination process (Arenas, et al., 2019) and 1.5 kWh/m3 of the reclamation process and a height to pump of 700 m over the sea level. Three main phases can be described in the data analysis process, which were not linear but rather iterative with many interactions in the Dialogue Space between the MAGIC teams involved in this task.

1. Exploratory analyses and grammars update. Different datasets were exported from the original excel table in csv format for initial exploration in R. A long list of graphs exploring and relating most of the variables in Table 2 was produced. R plot package was used for visualization purposes. This initial exploration enabled the adjustment of levels and categories within the water-food grammar and the NIS dataset structure.

2. Selection of relevant data and graph formats to support the assessment of narratives. The criteria used for the selection and final graph production were:

a. Relevance: The data had to say something in relation to the identified narratives. In some occasions, the data confirmed or contradicted narrative claims. In other occasions it provided new information with regards to an issue that was unclear or had different opinions in the narratives. Finally, in one occasion we provided data on scenario quantification as explained above.

b. Multi-level perspective: Whenever possible, data was displayed at different levels of aggregation following the grammars to enable a relational understanding of the variables. An example is shown in the following Figure 21.

c. Inclusiveness: We decided to reduce to the minimum the information displayed

and present it in the simplest possible way so that most actors could understand it. Considering we engaged from academics and decision makers to farmers, what was sufficient information was a difficult balance to achieve. To cover a larger spectrum, two different information products were used.

3. Production of material for the deliberation. A PowerPoint presentation and a printed

booklet were used as inputs for the deliberation. The booklet included presentation slides plus extra data, graphs and information on the modelling procedure with MuSIASEM. The information flow was designed to enable the analyses of narratives. For this purpose, we followed the structure of the analyses of narratives and combined qualitative claims extracted from the interviews with quantitative data:

a. Overall justification narratives.

MAGIC–GA 689669

59

b. Contesting narratives if any. c. Normative narratives on existing challenges. d. Normative narratives on future expectations. e. Narratives describing uncertainties in the information or different quantitative

data.

Figure 21. Data on production traded to different markets at three different levels in the crop production hierarchy.

Explanation: The overall production (pie chart above), the crop production hierarchy by farm size (on

the left) and by crops (below-right corner). Visualization used in the Gran Canaria workshop.

This general structure was adapted to each case study, so they were the information products. The documents can be accessed in the MAGIC website document repository:

● Gran Canaria workshop (https://magic-nexus.eu/events/water-energy-agriculture-nexus-gran-canaria):

○ Agenda ○ Presentation ○ Booklet 1 ○ Booklet 2 ○ Booklet 3 ○ Final report (after the event)

● Tenerife workshop (https://magic-nexus.eu/events/seminario-participativo-magic-en-tenerife):

○ Agenda ○ Presentation & booklet ○ Final report (after the event)

5.3.4. Participatory narrative assessment The previous steps allowed us an understanding of the narratives in terms of how stories are built around AWR in the Canary Islands, meaning how different historical events and decisions are related by the different actors, and to establish relations between narratives and quantitative data.






60

For the final stage of the QST process, our goals were:

● to validate our diagnosis, ● to assess the extent to which the narratives identified were perceived viable and

desirable in the context of different scenarios and ● to propose new actions (and narratives) to take steps towards the most viable and

desirable scenarios, or to respond to undesirable possible trajectories. For these purposes, a participatory workshop was held in each case study engaging a diverse range of stakeholders as thoroughly described in the engagement section 4. The workshops had a similar 4 steps structure albeit adapted to the objectives and context of each case study.

● STEP 1 - Presentation of the initial diagnosis. The results of the narrative and MuSIASEM analyses were presented, contextualized within MAGIC and QST research.

● STEP 2 - Deliberation on narratives under different scenarios. A Participatory Narrative

Inquiry method was used to discuss over presented narratives within different framings (Kurtz, 2014). To obtain those framings, a pre-defined scenario was given to the participants distributed in three groups: one business as usual scenario (BAU) and two future scenarios. The logic used to design the scenarios was different in the two case studies. In the Gran Canaria workshop, the scenarios were defined following narratives from interviewees that depicted expectations about the future. Therefore, they reflected local concerns and somewhat plausible possibilities for some of the actors in what regards the future of the nexus in the study area. On the other hand, the scenarios in Tenerife were designed using fake-news depicting ‘negative’ futures that would influence the development and use of reclaimed water in the study area. Each group participants were provided with a printed booklet including a set of narratives to discuss and the slides of the presentation relating qualitative and quantitative data (see section 5.2.c). For each narrative, the same iterative process was followed: first, the narrative was read and time was given to go over the data and think of their opinions; second, deliberation was held over the plausibility and desirability of the narratives using the following two axis panel (figure 22). The vertical axis shows degrees of plausibility from ‘Sure’ to ‘Impossible’, while the horizontal axis shows degrees of desirability from ‘Great’ to ‘Terrible’. The discussion was organised in rounds so all actors could voice their opinion and write their contributions in posits that were located in the panels. Thereby, the four quadrants were filled up with opinions on the different narratives as desirable and plausible, desirable but not plausible, not desirable and not plausible and not desirable but plausible.

● STEP 3 - Proposing steps towards viable and desirable scenarios. This second exercise was

aimed to prompt the emergence of new collective narratives on the future of AWR and the nexus in the region. Building upon discussions in STEP 2, participants were asked to propose concrete actions needed in order to move to the most desirable scenarios, as well as to identify involved actors who can push those actions forward. The panel shows In Figure 23 was used.

● STEP 4 - Participants reconvened in plenary in order to share the information of the

previous exercises and collect views from participants in other groups.

https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?GL9AEw

MAGIC–GA 689669

61

Figure 22. Panel used (DIN A0) for evaluation of viability and desirability of narratives.

Source: Adapted from (Kurtz, 2014).

Figure 23. Panel used to steer deliberation on actions forward.

External drivers External factors to the region which influence the evolution of the issue

Internal drivers Internal factors to the region which influence the evolution of the issue

Actions What can we do? What should be done?

Actors Who should lead the actions?

In what follows, we provide a detailed description of the narratives assessed and the structure followed within each of the six deliberation groups.

a. Gran Canaria case study This case study aimed at assessing narratives about the experience of more than 40 years of implemented AWR in the region, about existing challenges and future expectations. The presentation of the diagnosis (STEP 1) analyses of narratives was structured in three main parts:

a. Principal narrative on AWR that included the main justifications for the need of these innovations and the benefits they brought to the region. b. Narratives describing specific problems or challenges of the use of AWR in the current agricultural model. c. Narratives describing expectations regarding the role of AWR in potential futures desired by participants, namely the transformation of the agricultural model and the support to irrigation in high rural lands of the region.

https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?zgKPCI


62

The following scenarios were used as input for the working groups in STEP 2 of the process: Group 1 - Business as usual. The possibility of maintaining the current agricultural production model, mainly concentrated on coastal areas and destined for exportation, was discussed within this group. The participants were asked to answer the main questions: what are the main strengths and weaknesses of the current model? To what extent does it contribute to the region? What challenges we face?

The plausibility and desirability of the following narratives was discussed using the panel: 1. The status of aquifers has been recovered thanks to the use of AWR. 2. The price of AWR, related to its energy costs, is viable for farming systems. 3. AWR generate important impacts on soil and crops. Farmers are preventing these impacts

by mixing different water resources and using organic soil fertilization. These adaptation strategies are effective.

4. The current agricultural model is not sustainable in the medium term, the current trend of agricultural land abandonment is a complex problem with multiple interrelated causes.

Group 2. Transformation of the agricultural model. This group discussed the role and potential of AWR to transform the agricultural model in the study area and, by extension, throughout the island, for instance, promoting production for the internal market, domestic self-supply and food sovereignty. The following questions were explored: what type of agriculture is viable and desirable for this model? What is the role of AWR boosting it? Are there other limiting factors to consider besides water?

MAGIC–GA 689669

63

The narratives discussed within this group included:

1. We are already diversifying the crops produced and the markets, increasing local trade. 2. Food sovereignty is the answer to the crisis of agriculture. It is a viable and desirable

policy option. 3. AWR can support the agricultural model transition. 4. AWR in new model should contribute to the recovery of aquifer status.

Group 3. Pumping and distribution of alternative waters to midlands. This group discussed the feasibility of irrigation at medium and high altitudes with AWR to increase production and agricultural activity in the midlands. During the discussion, several questions were launched in order to create debate and contrast opinions: why do you want to irrigate at high altitudes? Who demands and needs that water, and what kind of agriculture is it intended to promote? whether several problems are not resolved at low levels (water quality, soil, etc.), will these same problems be extended to the midlands? How can you cover the cost of pumping water?


64

Narratives discussed within this group included:

1. Agricultural abandonment is a severe problem in high rural areas. The current trend of agricultural land abandonment is a complex problem with multiple interrelated causes.

2. Pumping AWR to high altitudes is a solution to agricultural abandonment problems. However, it can also bring new problems as observed in coastal areas.

3. Rising water has an important energy cost that someone has to pay for. The role of renewable energy in decreasing these costs is still uncertain.

b. Tenerife case study The case study on the island of Tenerife focuses exclusively on reclaimed water as innovation since there are not desalinated resources in the area. Wastewater reclamation technology is still in a stage of implementation and development with only a few farmers using the new resources. In fact, most of those farmers connected to the irrigation network right in the previous months to the workshop. Therefore, the experience in the use of this type of water for agricultural production is thus inchoate. This is a big difference with the case of the island of Gran Canaria, which holds a long tradition, experience and knowledge in the use of AWR. For the above-mentioned reasons, the workshop in Tenerife focused on future imaginaries around reclaimed water resources under potentially undesirable scenarios. The following general questions were explored:

● What role do these waters play in the recovery or degradation of natural water resources?

● Is the development and implementation of this innovation desirable and feasible if we take into account future scenarios of climate change, energy crisis or hardening of export conditions (high tariffs, protectionism, brexit, etc.)?

● What role does reclaimed water play in agricultural development if we take into account current limitations and challenges, such as: price, quality, internal rejection (farmers) and external (exports), etc.?

MAGIC–GA 689669

65

As mentioned, the implementation of reclaimed water in the Valle Guerra area in Tenerife is on-going. From the interview’s analyses, we noticed a general lack of information around this implementation. Moreover, the field surveys undertaken in May-Jun 2019 did not include the new farmers joining the reclaimed water irrigation system. For this reason, a first guided visit tour was planned to add more information to our diagnostic. The Water Treatment Plant of the Norwest of the island producing reclaimed water was first visited, followed by a visit to two different companies dedicated to exportation of banana, flowers and tropical fruits. The difference between both companies lies in the fact that the bananas producer is currently using reclaimed water, while the flowers and tropical fruits is not using it and has a prudent attitude towards its use.

This tour was based on the futuring tours methodologies developed by Davies et al. (2013) and it was intended to elicitate a contextual-experiential situation to the participants (L'Astorina et al., 2018). This exercise facilitates the elucidation of information and social debates in the following activities of the workshop. The diagnostic information in Tenerife was different than in Gran Canaria and structured in the following terms:

1. Mainstream justification narrative: why should reclaimed water be implemented? why is it needed?

2. Contesting narratives to the mainstream one, including their contribution to aquifer recovery and their role as ‘maintaining the status quo’.

3. Contrasting narratives on particular aspects of reclaimed water such as price, quality or impacts on soil.

4. Acceptance vs rejection of reclaimed water among farmers. This set of narratives was discussed and appraised within different socio-economic contexts framed as:


66

Group 1. Evolution of the island within current contextual conditions (Business As Usual). This group analysed the current agricultural model, the role of reclaimed water within this model, and aspects in which there is controversy, such as the evolution of aquifers, water quality, water prices, etc. Is it feasible, viable and desirable to enhance these waters? Why, why not, and how? Group 2. The role of reclaimed waters under a future scenario of climate crisis and fossil fuel crisis. Under this scenario, is it feasible and desirable to enhance these waters? Why, why not, and how? Group 3. The role of reclaimed waters under a future scenario of commercial crisis derived from a greater difficulty in exporting due to external constraints, such as strict sanitary regulations, brexit, stronger tariffs, opening of other markets (American banana, Moroccan tomato, etc.) Under this scenario, is it feasible and desirable to boost these waters? Why, why not, and how? Futurist news were designed as material triggering discussion in groups 2 and 3. See some examples below.

Figure 24. Examples of fake news used to frame futuristic scenarios.

MAGIC–GA 689669

67

6. Reflections on learning experience This section reflects on the learning outcomes of the quality check of the innovation. Key lessons from this study with respect to the potential role of AWR in the EU can be found in Box #3. Before the specific reflections on each phase of the analysis, it is worth noting that this study was developed in close collaboration between different researchers from three MAGIC partners, with different backgrounds (sociology, agronomy, environmental sciences and engineering) and understanding of the local situation in the Canary Islands. In our view, our interdisciplinary collaboration was very fruitful not only in terms of capacity of coordination and analysis but also of combining, sometimes negotiating between, our different scientific perspectives. To achieve such level of coordination, we met in the MAGIC online dialogue space almost on a daily basis for several months and worked in google drive collaborative documents.

● Key decisions to be taken when identifying and selecting narratives The identification of narratives about the innovation presented in this case study was developed in several steps. The process is cumulative regarding the quality of the information gathered, and possible missed or unseen information might influence the correct identification of narratives. Therefore, the correct development of each step is crucial and need to be carefully carried out. The whole body of actors identified during the stakeholders analysis and mapping have to represent the full societal spectrum in which the issue evolves. A partial identification of actors leads to further partial analysis of narratives, to an unreal contextualisation of the issue, and finally, to inconclusive outcomes. Based on these considerations, we mapped a full representation of actors and stakeholders. We designed an interview guide with the purpose of eliciting narratives about the why, what and how of the innovation in the different cases. In both the sample of interviewed stakeholders and in the conversations held with them, we tried to widen the scope of analysis from the specific technical challenges AWR are facing in the local context to the views on the roles they play in the existing societal metabolism, on nexus interconnections and on future expectations. Next step was the analysis of the interviews following a coding framework, useful to identify the dominant -and hidden- narratives. For this purpose, we used the typology of narratives described in the methodological section that is similar to other case studies in MAGIC (justification narratives, normative narratives about problems, normative narratives about the future, key uncertainties). We focused on those claims describing the purpose of these innovations when looking at the past in the Gran Canaria case, and to the future in the Tenerife case. In order to reflect on the nexus concept, we selected concerns about the relation of AWR with agriculture and with energy. Finally, the possibility of contrasting narratives with the data available and MuSIASEM analysis was another criterion for selection. As a cross-cutting aspect, we had an explicit emphasis on the idea of pluralism and on trying to uncover diverse perspectives as means to enrich the picture and generate more ‘robust’ narratives. Therefore, we paid special attention to those aspects in which there were different opinions, contradictions, and different data. However, we did not push this emphasis to the point of not respecting actual consensual aspects across narratives. This balance between challenging established narratives and being respectful with actors’ views was indeed difficult and worth reflecting over from a QST perspective.


68

● Quantitative analysis: pros and cons of the chosen methods, limitations/problems encountered, uncertainties, etc.

The quantitative analysis in this study was circumscribed to diagnosis of existing nexus patterns without assessing scenarios or alternative solutions. In this sense, the full potential of MuSIASEM as an anticipation tool was not deployed. We encountered several limitations preventing the development of scenario quantifications. First, we had changes in team composition and a maternity leave that affected the coordination of the team for several months. Data collection was developed in parallel to the interviews during the first months of field work (Feb-Jun 2019). For this reason, some relevant aspects raised during the interviews, such as the specific problems with water quality experienced by AWR users, could not be analysed in quantitative terms. Consequently, we had strong time constraints that affected the overall research process. We had a total of 5 months to develop both the analysis of interview and survey data and the stakeholder engagement in two case studies. To optimise our efforts, we decided to organise only one workshop in each study area in which we could validate our qualitative and quantitative diagnosis while also assess identified narratives under different scenarios. Therefore, the anticipatory aspect of QST was addressed through the methodology of the deliberation. The field survey was a very interesting method of obtaining direct information of stakeholders. The measure was exact to have a statistic result but it should recommend to increase the number of interviewers to have a more realist state of the art of the AWR situation. Concerning uncertainties in the data used, we can refer to three main sources. First, the data on the quantitative and qualitative ‘status’ of aquifers, extracted from official insular management plans, raised controversy among stakeholders in both case studies. This sort of controversy around how aquifers are modelled and how decisions are taken out of those models is common in water scarce areas with over drafted groundwater resources. Aquifers are difficult to model because they are not close water containers but a slow and continuous flow under the ground with multiple interactions with surface water bodies. There is not consensus among the scientific community on the best way to characterize them and this discrepancy is usually translated into policy debates. A second source of uncertainty in our database comes from the secondary data used to quantify water uses and crop yields. The data are local estimations based on a set of assumptions. Thus they were used as benchmarks to characterize types of farms but they are not representative of single instances in our sample. The third noteworthy source of uncertainty is the representativeness of our stratified sample of farms based on the criteria of crop types and land use. While we believe this is a good approach to cover the most important types of cropping systems, an additional criteria of water sources could be also added in the selection. This shortcoming proved relevant in the case of Tenerife where farms using reclaimed water were not sampled. Despite these limitations, the quantitative analysis presented during the workshop was highly rated by participants in evaluation surveys, especially in Gran Canaria. In their feedback, stakeholders mentioned the usefulness of the data to frame the discussion and to clarify certain aspects. Therefore we consider that our purpose of providing information useful to the deliberation was achieved. On the other hand, suggestions for improvement included sharing the information in advance and addressing some knowledge gaps raised by the interviews that were unattended in our analyses.

MAGIC–GA 689669

69

● Stakeholder engagement: pros and cons of methods deployed; difficulties in engaging, how changes may affect the main outcomes;

We consider our engagement events quite successful in terms of number and diversity of participants. While initiating an engagement process is usually very time consuming, we managed to accomplish our goals in a very short period of time. A key factor in this success is the role of ITC in the Canarian research and innovation context. ITC’s recognition was reflected in the rapid attendance to our calls, the acceptance of most invitations both to the interviews and to the workshops. Although the attendance to the interviews by the stakeholders was successful, not all the stakeholders attended the workshops. It is common that, in controversial issues in which social or economic conflicts exist, some stakeholders are reluctant to interact with others. For instance, in the Tenerife case, private water owners did not attend the participatory activity, although they participated in the interviews. Regarding the workshop’s methodology, we believe it is one of the strengths of this study in its usefulness to eliciting deliberation over the narratives in several aspects. First, presenting our diagnosis served the purposes of framing the event, structuring the discussion around our selected ‘matters of concern’ and providing relevant information. Secondly, the effort in defining different scenarios for different working groups served the purpose of analysing the narratives from different angles and thinking out of the box of the ‘business as usual’. Thirdly, the viability-desirability panel helped structuring the deliberation over different and complicated issues (in the form of narratives) at the time collecting new data on participants views and generating a collective assessment of the narratives that emerged in the aggregated patterns of participation (location and colours of posits in the four quadrants). Lastly, the drivers-actions-actors exercise was useful to look forward and prompt the emergence of new normative narratives about how to move to desired scenarios. Facilitation was carefully crafted for each exercise with the idea of guaranteeing equality in the capacity to participate. However, we found some difficulties during the collective processes. For instance, it was not always easy to keep the planned structure and some discussion groups followed their own dynamics; our capacity to deal with power asymmetries, especially in the workshop in Tenerife, was limited and this was reflected in the discussion outcomes; and finally, the use of language needs to be adapted to different types of actors, it is difficult to communicate horizontally to a such heterogeneous groups (students, technicians, researchers, farmers, etc.). The feedback received from participants in the events was in general very positive on the organisation, the methodology and the usefulness of the discussions held. We got many requests for using the outcomes to promote further actions and for the continuation of the engagement process. Whereas the former will be attended by organising a digital event with decision makers from both islands, the latter is out of the time scope of MAGIC.

● Lessons learned for next steps and recommendations for further assessments.

As a summary of above reflections, our key lessons for the future applications of QST to assess innovations are:

a) Interdisciplinarity can be very productive and provide robustness to the research if a good collaborative relation is established among teams. Building this sort of relation is time-consuming and requires a lot of coordination.


70

b) Interviews are a useful method to both eliciting narratives and engaging actors. In comparison to other methods for narrative identification like policy text analyses, interviews provide the opportunity of establishing a relation and creating a meaningful conversation in which the narratives are created out of the interaction between the researcher and the interviewee. In this dialogical vein, other participatory methods could be explored in the future.

c) We recommend the steps of the QST cycle to be followed in chronological order to guarantee that the quantitative analyses address most relevant matters of concern. This is even more relevant when those concerns have been selected out of an interaction with stakeholders.

d) The use of quantitative analysis in diagnostic mode was sufficient to the purpose of triggering an informed deliberation about the purpose, challenges and futures of AWR in the Canaries. However, further efforts could be directed to quantitative assessment of different scenarios or alternative solutions. Such efforts would likely require more iterations in the QST cycle if active engagement in the definition of narratives is to be maintained.

e) Stakeholder engagement is a slow and careful art that requires time and expertise. Some

factors that determined the success of our engagement workshops were the existence of a local network of stakeholders and trust relationships around ITC, the leadership of JRC as experts in engagement, the selection of narratives that expressed matters of concern for participants (and not only for researchers) and the careful design of the workshop structure so that different views could be voiced and we could move from collectively diagnosing problems to proposing changes. While the workshops met their purposes, the impact of a single event in such an extended peer community may be limited. Care shall be paid at least in making the results from the engagement and the overall research accessible to participants in adequate formats. All the opinions are important but several stakeholders in a same event is not positive.

f) We add a reflection about the impact of power asymmetries in collective deliberation

spaces and their outcomes. While the literature is full of recommendations in this regard, we did not take this aspect sufficiently into account in the design of our process and it played a role in our engagements. We recommend more attention to be paid to power dynamics and their effect on what narratives are reinforced and what are downplayed, including researchers as part of that dynamics.

g) Utility of the obtained results: As we mentioned in the box#2 (section 5), this AWR assessment results have been so relevant that some policymakers have already shown interest in the use of them. Two policy makers have integrated the results in their planning. It is a real consequence of a productive and positive work done.

MAGIC–GA 689669

71

BOX #3: Conditions for Alternative Water Resources (AWR) for irrigation contribute to the WEF Nexus sustainability in the European Union

Water scarcity is compelling several regions to develop adaptation strategies based on the use of AWR, such as reclaimed water and desalinated seawater. AWR have emerged as reliable resources to alleviate water scarcity and droughts. These resources are aimed at coping with the growing water demand by increasing water availability for different uses including agriculture. While AWR play an important role in some European agricultural regions with arid conditions, the implementation of these innovations is not sufficient to solve the water dependence within this complex sector.

There are not many EU regions with integrated management of desalination and reclaimed urban wastewater for irrigation purposes. In this regard, the Canary Islands Archipelago is an pioneer example from the technological and social governance viewpoints. This region has several years of experience with some suited agricultural practices that take into consideration the interactions between the water, energy and agricultural systems. In this region, AWR constitute a stable resource to alleviate water stress and provide security to farming activities.

The use of AWR provides several advantages. These resources may contribute to the recovery of natural aquifers if adequately managed within the water resources pool, and to the regulation of water prices within a context of a private water market. They also support agricultural production for exportation and have contributed to the reduction of seasonal dependence on fresh water resources. The societal consensus for AWR is clear within the majority of actors involved in the studied region, especially under the situation of water scarcity and scenarios of climate emergency.

Nevertheless, other factors require further analysis and improvements: the quality of water vs. crops/soils, the environmental and human impacts (soil, marine health, and emerging pollutants), fossil fuel dependence, or the knowledge on water management. Furthermore, it is important to propose a regulatory framework considering the Nexus as a whole from the EC.

Three key challenges under a European dimension have to be highlighted. Firstly, the technical support and continuous training to farmers and education, as well as awareness campaigns to citizens. It is crucial to work on the acceptance of wastewater reuse in the society.

Secondly, a reflexion about the effects that the EU's common agricultural policy (CAP) has in the food market. The current policy does not contribute to the development of local agricultural sustainable initiatives which could promote the use of AWR linked to km 0 or fair price products.

Finally, the water price for irrigation has an important energy cost. The role of renewable energy in decreasing these costs is still uncertain and it requires specific demonstrative innovative projects to test the goodness of this water-energy-food synergy.


72

7. Dissemination plan With the objective of spreading and communicating both projects’ activities and results, our Dissemination Plan is organised in several actions aimed at reach both international, national (Spain) and regional (Canary Islands) levels:

- Publications in scientific journals.

• Monterrey-Viña, A., Musicki-Savic, A., Díaz-Peña, F.J., & Peñate-Suárez, B., Technical and Agronomical Assessment of the Use of Desalinated Seawater for Coastal Irrigation in an Insular Context. Water 2020, 12, 272.

In preparation:

● Solving water problems or creating new ones? Lessons from the implementation of AWR in the Canary Islands. Targeted journal: Water resources research.

● Co-producing narratives on the water-food-energy nexus in the Canary Islands with Quantitative Story-Telling. Targeted journal: Sustainability Science.

- Other dissemination material ● Summary video of the assessment ● Policy brief November 2018 (see the following pages) ● Policy brief March 2020 (a summary of the case study assessment) ● MAGIC website section - https://magic-nexus.eu/case_study/innovation-alternative-

water-sources ● The data related to this deliverable have been made available in open access in the NIS

and on Zenodo

- Further engagements activities Further engagement actions will be useful to communicate the project and its results to specialised audiences, such as policy makers, technicians and other researchers. The Nexus Space and concretely, the Virtual Engagement Room are tools which facilitate further communication and discussions. In relation of the dissemination in Conferences - oral presentations and posters- has been presented the following (pending of acceptation):

● International Seminar on Environment and Society. Current challenges and pathways to change". University of Lisbon, Institute of Social Sciences. March 2-3, 2020, Lisbon (Portugal).

● V Post-Normal Science Symposium. Co-producing narratives on the future of alternative water resources in the Canary Islands. September 20-22, 2020, Florence (Italy).

● Conference of Desalination for the Environment. Clean Water and Energy. European Desalination Society (EDS). June 7-11, 2020, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain).

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=5400152621&tip=sid&clean=0



https://zenodo.org/communities/magic/search?page=1&size=20&q=dataset

MAGIC–GA 689669

73


74

MAGIC–GA 689669

75

References ADAPTaRES (2017) – Adaptation to Climate Change in Macaronesia through the efficient use of water and its reuse. Interreg- EU. Especial “Aguas” - RETEMA (pp. 54- 59). Retrieved from: https://www.retema.es/revistas/mayo-junio-WnUi Aguilera-Klink, F., & Sánchez-García, J. (2005, June). Environmental degradation as a result of democratic disruption: The case of the Canary Islands. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Lisbon (pp. 14-17). Arenas-Urrea, S.; Díaz-Reyes, F.; Peñate-Suárez, B.; de la Fuente-Bencomo, J.A. Technical review, evaluation and efficiency of energy recovery devices installed in the Canary Islands desalination plants. Desalination 2019, 450, 54–63, doi:10.1016/j.desal.2018.07.013. BOE (2007). Royal Decree 1620/2007, of December 7, which establishes the legal regime for the reuse of treated water. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministry of the Presidency. Retrieved from: https://boe.es/boe/dias/2007/12/08/pdfs/A50639-50661.pdf. Cabello, V., Renner, A., Giampietro, M., (2019). Relational analysis of the resource nexus in arid land crop production. Adv. Water Resour. 130, 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.06.014 Chaidez C. et al. (2014). Water: waste, recycling and irrigation in fresh produce processing. Global Safety of Fresh Produce (chapter 9). A Handbook of Best Practice, Innovative Commercial Solutions and Case Studies (pp. 119–132). CIAGC (2016). Water Council of Gran Canaria (“Consejo Insular de Aguas de Gran Canaria”). Plan Hidrológico de Gran Canaria. Second Cycle (2015-2021). Retrieved from: http://www.aguasgrancanaria.com/pdfs/PlanHidro/PHGC-DOC-INICIALES-rev01.3.pdf CIATF (2015). Water Council of Tenerife (“Consejo Insular de Aguas de Tenerife”). Plan Hidrológico de Tenerife. Second Cycle (2015-2021). Online from: https://www.aguastenerife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138&Itemid=551 Corral, S. (2000). Una metodología integrada de exploración y comprensión de los procesos de elaboración de políticas públicas. Universidad de La Laguna. Corral, S., Romero, D., Pereira, A., & Cuenca, E. (2017). Assessing the complexity of the spreading processes of agricultural pests: the case of the Guatemalan potato moth in Tenerife. Land Use Policy, 69, 338-348. Custodio, E., del Carmen Cabrera, M., Poncela, R., Puga, L. O., Skupien, E., & del Villar, A. (2016). Groundwater intensive exploitation and mining in Gran Canaria and Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain: Hydrogeological, environmental, economic and social aspects. Science of the Total Environment, 557, 425-437. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking skills and creativity, 8, 80-91.

https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?MKCGWz


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.06.014


76

EC (2012). European Commission. A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium. EC (2017). European Commission. Water Reuse - Background and policy context. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/reuse.htm EC (2017). European Commission, Water Reuse – Background and Policy Context. Environment (Water) - European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/reuse.htm EDS (2017). European Desalination Society. Retrieved from: http://www.edsoc.com FAO (1996). Multiple Frame Agricultural Surveys: Volumen I: Current Surveys based on area and list sampling methods. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Statistical Development Series nº7. FAO: Roma. Garrido, A., & Llamas, M. R. (Eds.). (2009). Water policy in Spain. CRC Press. Gómez-Gotor, A.; Del Río-Gamero, B.; Prieto Prado, I.; Casañas, A. The history of desalination in the Canary Islands. Desalination 2018, 428, 86–107, doi:10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.051. GSARS (2018). AGRIS Guía para la encuesta agrícola integrada. Estrategia global para el mejoramiento de las estadísticas agropecuarias y rurales. Retrieved from: http://gsars.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GS-AGRIS-Handbook-ES-web.pdf GWI (2018). Global Water Intelligence - IDA Desalination Yearbook 2017-2018. Water Desalination Report. ISBN: 978-1-907467-52-3 Hernández J.M. y de la Rosa B. (2005). Estudio sobre consumos hídricos agrícolas, evaluación de sistemas de riego y estimación de la eficiencia de los regadíos de la isla de Tenerife. Servicio Técnico de Agroindustrias e Infraestructura Rural, Área de Aguas, Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca del Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Tenerife, por encargo de la Dirección General de Estructuras Agrarias de la Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación. IWA (2016). The International Water Association (IWA). Alternative Water Resources: A Review of Concepts, Solutions and Experiences. Alternative Water Resources Cluster. ISTAC a (2017). Population according to indicators - Autonomous communities and years. Instituto Canario de Estadística. Retrieved from: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/tabla.do ISTAC b (2017). Statistics of Tourist Movements in Canary Islands Borders. Instituto Canario de Estadística. Retrieved from: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi- istac/tabla.do ITC (2007). Introducción a la Reutilización de Aguas Depuradas y exposición de casos prácticos (Introduction to the Reuse of Purified Waters and exposition of practical cases). Aquamac. ISBN: 978-84-691-0047-9. Kurtz, C.F., (2014). Working with Stories in Your Community Or Organization: Participatory Narrative Inquiry, 3 edition. ed. Kurtz-Fernhout Publishing.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/reuse.htm

http://www.edsoc.com/

http://gsars.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GS-AGRIS-Handbook-ES-web.pdf

http://gsars.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GS-AGRIS-Handbook-ES-web.pdf

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/tabla.do

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/tabla.do

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-%20istac/tabla.do



MAGIC–GA 689669

77

L'Astorina, A., Ghezzi, A., Guerzoni, S., & Molinaroli, E. (2018). Time to teach post-normal science communication? Fostering the engagement of the extended peer community in an academic course of Environmental Sciences. Journal of Science Communication, 17(4), N02. La Calle, A. (2008). La adaptación española de la Directiva marco del agua. Panel científicotécnico de seguimiento de la política de aguas, Sevilla: Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua. Available online: http://www. unizar. es/fnca [consulta 05-04-2010].

LIPHE4 (2013). The Nexus beween Energy, Food, Land Use and Water. Application of a Multi-Scale Integrated Approach. Retrieved from: http://nexus-assessment.info/index.php/methodology/musiasem MAGIC Nexus (2017). Official website of the MAGIC-Nexus project. URL: http://magic- nexus.eu/project-details Giampietro, M., Aspinall, R.J., Bukkens, S.G.F., Benalcazar, J.C., Diaz-Maurin, F., Flammini, A., Gomiero, T., Kovacic, Z., Madrid, C., Ramos-Martín, J., Serrano-Tovar, T., (2013). An Innovative Accounting Framework for the Food-Energy-Water Nexus. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3468e/i3468e.pdf. 978-92-5-107957-7. Monterrey-Viña, A., Musicki-Savic, A., Díaz-Peña, F.J., & Peñate-Suárez, B., Technical and Agronomical Assessment of the Use of Desalinated Seawater for Coastal Irrigation in an Insular Context. Water 2020, 12, 272. MS 12 - MAGIC (2017). Milestone 12 under Work Package 6. Moving Towards Adaptive Governance in Complexity: Informing Nexus Security. Retrieved from: http://magic- nexus.eu Romero Manrique, D., Corral, S., Legna de la Nuez, D., & Hernandez Hernandez, J. (2016). A Socio-Institutional Approach to Brighten Complexity under Agricultural Pest Invasion Conditions. Sustainability, 8(7), 598.

Serrano-Tovar, T. (2014). Spatial Analysis in MuSIASEM: The Use of Geographic Information Systems and Land Use Applied to the Integrated Analysis of Rural Systems’ Metabolism. Ph.D. Thesis, Environmental Sciences and Technologies, Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, Spain. Available online: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2014/hdl_10803_286179/tst1de2.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2019).

MAGIC...Monterrey-Viña, A., Musicki-Savic, A., Díaz-Peña, F.J., & Peñate-Suárez, B., Technical...

Documents

Transcript of MAGIC...Monterrey-Viña, A., Musicki-Savic, A., Díaz-Peña, F.J., & Peñate-Suárez, B., Technical...