Assessing Impact of Land Use and Climate Changes

on River Flow of Upper Citarum Watershed

Rizaldi BoerDelon MartinusAhmad Faqih

Perdinan Bambang D. Dasanto

Study Site: Upper Citarum

• Covering an area of about 720 thousand ha• There are three dams ~ vital for meeting water demand of about

11 districts within watershed and 5 districts outside the watershed (north coast of West Java)

Cirata Dam

Saguling Dam

Jatiluhur Dam

Upper Citarum

05

1015202530354045

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MonthIn

flow

(m

3/s)

El-NinoNormalLa-Nina

0

40

80

120

160

200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Inflo

w (

m3/

s)

El-NinoNormalLa-Nina

0

40

80

120

160

200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Inflo

w (

m3/

s)

El-NinoNormalLa-Nina

Monthly Average: Inflows to the three Dams in El-

Nino, Normal and La-Nina years

SAGULING

CIRATA

JATILUHUR/H. JUANDA

Inflow Local Inflows

Local Inflows

Sea level87.5 m

107 m

206 m

220 m

625 m

643 m

Outflow from Jatiluhur

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MonthIn

flow

(m

3/s)

Dry yearsNormal years

Outflow from Cirata

0

50

100

150

200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Inflo

w (

m3/

s)

Dry yearsNormal years

Outflow from Saguling

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Inflo

w (

m3/

s)

Dry yearsNormal years

Outflows from the three dams in normal

and dry years

SAGULING

CIRATA

JATILUHUR/H. JUANDA

outflow

Inflow

outflow

Inflow

Sea level87.5 m

107 m

206 m

220 m

625 m

643 m

outflow

Outflow and power generation

y = 2.2137x

y = 0.6942x

y = 0.4578x0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 50 100 150 200 250

Outflow (m3/s)

Pow

er (

GW

h)

SagulingCirataJatiluhurLinear (Saguling)Linear (Cirata)Linear (Jatiluhur)

-250-200-150-100-50

050

100150200250

1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Month and Year

Ra

infa

ll A

no

ma

ly (

mm

)

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Month and Year

Ne

w D

rou

gh

t A

rea

(h

a)

Vulnerability of Rice-Based Cropping System to Climate Variability

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Month and Year

Ne

w F

loo

d A

rea

(h

a)

-250-200-150-100-50

050

100150200250

1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Month and Year

Ra

infa

ll A

no

ma

ly (

mm

)

Vulnerability of Rice-Based Cropping System to Climate Variability

Average of Cumulative Drought Area between Normal and El-Nino years

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Cu

mu

lati

ve D

rou

gh

t Are

a (h

a)Normal YearsEl-Nino Years

ricericericerice

~ 80%

fallow

rice fallowupland crops fallowvegetables

fallow

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Impact on Rice Production

Historical Land Use Changes

Land Use

Area (ha) Percent change

‘89 ‘93 ‘99 ‘01 89-93 93-99 99-01 89-01

Bare land and shrub land 2694 5105 10469 11860 89.5 105.1 13.3 340.3

Agriculture area1/ 126536 124755 126501 126335 -1.4 1.4 -0.1 -0.2

Forest & vegetation covers2/ 46105 44182 34928 31951 -4.2 -20.9 -8.5 -30.7

Settlements 2639 3429 4547 5522 29.9 32.6 21.4 109.2

Urban and Industries 9030 9597 10627 11426 6.3 10.7 7.5 26.5

Dam/Lakes 312 247 243 223 -20.9 -1.5 -8.5 -28.7

 TOTAL 187316 187316 187316 187316

Change of Forest Cover in the Upper Citarum

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

1989 1993 1999 2001

Year

For

est

Are

a (h

a)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percent of T

otal Area

Forest AreaPercent of total Area

Critical Land in Citarum

0

30000

60000

90000

120000

150000

180000

Cri

tica

l L

and

(h

a)

Ban

dung

*

Cia

njur

Kar

awan

g

Pur

wak

arta

Ban

dung

City Kot

aC

imah

i

Source: BP-DAS Citarum-Ciliwung (2003)

Community Perception• About 85% of respondents

stated that there is an increase in drought and flood frequency and intensity (Sulandari et al., 2004)

• Dialog between stakeholders and scientist at Bandung, it was suggested that at least 40% of watershed area should be maintained as conservation zone (forest cover) ~ It is believed that increasing forest cover will diminish the damage of flood and drought risk

• In 2010, government targeted to increase forest cover up to 48% of the total areas

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

1989 1993 1999 2001

Year

For

est

Are

a (h

a)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percent of T

otal Area

Forest AreaPercent of total Area

Objectives

• To evaluate impact of land use and climate changes scenarios on river flow at Nanjung (Upper watershed)

• To develop recommendations for local government in setting up land use scenarios in the upper catchments of Citarum watershed

Step of Analysis

Historical Land Use

Observed Stream flow

Historical Climate

data

VIC-BASIN Model

Good?

Develop relationship between % forest

cover and base flow

Select the base flow

Change base flow and run off parameters

Land Use Scenarios

Climate Scenarios

GCM

Downscaled GCM to

Study sites

Estimate base flow parameter

VIC-BASIN Model

CLIMGEN

Evaluate the impact and develop

recommendation

Critical Land and Rehabilitation Plan for the Four Land Use Scenario for Upper

Citarum Watershed

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2003 Mitigation 1 Mitigation 2 Mitigation 3 Government

Critical land Rehabilitation

Are

a (h

a)

Land Use Scenarios

LU-2001 MIT-1 MIT-2 MIT-3 RUTRShrubs 11862 9578 5 0 0

Agriculture 126494 118465 124167 115736 77426

Forest/Agroforest 31825 35921 45990 54445 89426

City/Industrial areas 16912 22849 16931 16912 20016

Dam/Lakes 223 503 223 223 448

TOTAL 187316 187316 187316 187316 187316

Percent forest cover (%) 17 19 25 29 48

Land use categoryArea (ha)

1989

ShrubsDam/LakeForest/AgroforestAgricultureCity/Industrial Area

Land Use Scenarios

17%: Baseline

19%: MIT-1

25%: MIT-2

29%: MIT-3

48%: RTRW

y = 0.521Ln(x) - 1.2047

R2 = 0.9553

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

10 15 20 25 30

Percent Forest Cover (%)

Ba

seflo

w P

ara

me

ter

Relationship between base flow parameter and forest cover

Citarum

Sumber Jaya

Comparison between observed and Downscaled

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

TIME (Month)

RA

INF

ALL

(m

m)

Observed Data

Downscaled Data

Comparison between Observed (Above) and Downscaled Rainfall (Below)

D JF baseline ra in fa ll from dow nscaling (1961-1990)

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7.4

-7.2

-7

-6.8

-6.6

-6.4

-6.2

-6

-5.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7.4

-7.2

-7

-6.8

-6.6

-6.4

-6.2

-6

-5.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

D JF baseline ra in fa ll from observation (1961-1990)

M AM baseline ra infa ll from observation (1961-1990)

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7.4

-7.2

-7

-6.8

-6.6

-6.4

-6.2

-6

-5.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

M AM baseline ra in fa ll from dow nscaling (1961-1990)

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7.4

-7.2

-7

-6.8

-6.6

-6.4

-6.2

-6

-5.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

JJA baseline ra infa ll from observation (1961-1990)

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7.4

-7.2

-7

-6.8

-6.6

-6.4

-6.2

-6

-5.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

JJA baseline rainfall from downscaling (1961-1990)

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7.4

-7.2

-7

-6.8

-6.6

-6.4

-6.2

-6

-5.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

SO N baseline ra infa ll from observation (1961-1990)

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7.4

-7.2

-7

-6.8

-6.6

-6.4

-6.2

-6

-5.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

S O N baseline ra in fa ll from dow nscaling (1961-1990)

106.6 106.8 107 107.2 107.4 107.6 107.8 108 108.2

-7 .4

-7 .2

-7

-6 .8

-6 .6

-6 .4

-6 .2

-6

-5 .8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

DJF MAM JJA SON

DJF MAM JJA SON

Projected Annual Rainfall at Citarum Watershed

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

Ann

ual r

ainf

all

Low Scenario

High Scenario

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Ra

infa

ll (m

m)

BaselineLow-ScenarioHigh-Scenario

GCM outputs from ECHAM model downloaded from Data Distribution Centre

Result of Validation Using CLIMGEN

050

100150200250300350

1

37

73

10

9

14

5

18

1

21

7

25

3

28

9

32

5

36

1

Julian DayS

tre

am

flow

(m

3/s

) Mean SS_UGCDObserved Streamflow

0

2040

6080

100120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Str

eam

flow

(m

3/s)

Mean SS_UGDCObserved Streamflow

Distribution of stream flow under different land use and climate scenarios

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 200 400 600

Discharge (m3/s)

Cu

mu

lativ

e P

rob

ab

ility

(%

)

2001Mit-1Mit-2Mit-3RUTR

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 200 400 600

Discharge (m3/s)

Cu

mu

lativ

e P

rob

ab

ility

(%

)

2001Mit-1Mit-2Mit-3RUTR

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 200 400 600

Discharge (m3/s)

Cu

mu

lativ

e P

rob

ab

ility

(%

)

2001Mit-1Mit-2Mit-3RUTR

Baseline climate

Low Scenario High Scenario

Under baseline and low climate scenarios, increasing forest cover more than 20% and up to 47% of the total land areas would not change the distribution of stream flow Under high climate scenario, the distribution of stream flow under baseline and mitigation 1 land use scenario (percent land use cover is between 17% and 19%) was different from those under Mitigation 2 and 3 scenarios (percent forest cover is between 25% and 29%) and under RUTR (percent forest cover is 48%).

NEXT STEP

• Inflow and outflow analysis– Impact on electricity production– Risk of drought and flood– Drinking water availability during dry season

• Presenting the result in workshops and do policy dialogues

• Do more ground works with vulnerable groups

A SMALL STEP:

INCREASING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY OF FARMERS TO EXTREME

CLIMATE EVENTS THROUGH FIELD SCHOOL PROGRAM

Why we need Climate Field School?

• Climate fluctuates from time to time and also varies between locations

• Managing climate variability is not an easy task.

• Farmers are always suffering from drought whenever El-Nino occurs without able to anticipate the events.

• BMG who provides climate forecast information also could not effectively present their forecast

• Farmers also have difficulties to apply the climate information in the fields for practical uses

What is the concept of FS ?Get experiences

Discuss/explain experiences to

colleagues

Analyze the experiences together

with colleagues

Make Decision

Take action

Field Facilitators

Objectives of CFS

In the initial phase (short term): To increase farmers knowledge on climate

and ability to anticipate its phenomena such as extreme events for their farming activities base on their past experiences and current knowledge;

To assist farmers in observing climate phenomenon and using it to set up better planting strategies

To assist farmers how to translate climate forecast information for supporting their farming activities

Objectives of CFSLong term objective: • To form farmer groups that have

strong motivation to develop their own agribusiness activities where climate information is used as inputs for making better plans, strategies and decisions, and to protect the environment through their active participation in climate change mitigation programs

Communicating climate knowledge & climate information applications to increase

adaptive capacity and community participations in mitigating climate change

Research Agencies,Universities

National and local Governments

Farmers and other end users

Transfer of knowledge & technology information through

science and policy forum

Inputs and Feed back

Programs, policies, & regulations

Inputs and Feed backIn

puts

and

Fee

d ba

ck

Tran

sfer

of t

echn

olog

ies

thro

ugh

varie

ty o

f mea

ns

Sustainable system and prosperous

communities

Mitigation actions

Adaptation actions NGOs

Good incentive system

Good climate forecasting

system

APPROACH