[MUSIC] [MUSIC] Hello, Today we are joined by Mr. Gabriel De Los Cobos. Gabriel is a hydrogeologist within the Geology, Soil and Waste Service of the canton of Geneva. Welcome Gabriel. Could you describe the Geneva aquifer and tell us about the challenges related to the management of this aquifer? >> So we let us start by talking about where the drinking water for the canton of Geneva comes from. So there are two main resources. First there is the lake which has two collecting stations. And then there is a large layer of groundwater that extends from the lake to the far west of the canton. This is known as the Genevese aquifer. About 80% of drinking water comes from the lake, and only 20% comes from the aquifer. But we will soon see that this aquifer has great potential. This aquifer crosses a border: it is shared between Geneva and neighbouring France. There are ten wells on the Geneva side, and four wells on the French side, so it is really a cross border aquifer. If we go back several decades, we know that this aquifer was discovered in about 1885, and this is when the first wells were constructed and then basically, as knowledge increased, more wells were constructed. This did not create a particular problem until the early 1960s. In fact, since the 1960s, the aquifer has been so exploited that it has actually caused a decrease in its level. So the aquifer dropped about 10 metres on average in less than 20 years. 10 metres is not much when considering the average level, but for this aquifer in certain places the level dropped more than 10 metres. That is to say, as a consequence, some wells have dried up. That is to say that the pumps could no longer pump this water since the level of the aquifer was below the level of the pumps. So at the end of the early 1970s, it was necessary to make arrangements to either try to save the aquifer, or to make arrangements to have an additional resource to ensure enough water in the future. So two choices had to be made about this overexploited aquifer. Either build a new station for pumping and water treatment or save the Geneva aquifer and make good use of the existing wells and to try to raise the level by incorporating an artificial replenishment system. At the time, replenishment systems for aquifers were not as developed as they are today. Today it is a fairly recognized tool in the world of hydrogeology, but at the time it presented a big challenge. And finally the choice was made to replenish the aquifer and to try to increase the level in order to be able to achieve a coherent management of the resource and to be able to use it all times. So, this solution entailed a great deal of technical work to try to demonstrate that replenishment could work, and to ensure that it worked as a long term solution. There was much discussion between the State of Geneva and the French parties using the same groundwater, in order to establish an institutional base, where all the administrative, financial, legal and political aspects which are part of the management of this common resource, that its management works in the long term. So what are the existing institutional arrangements for the management of this resource? Discussions lasted, I think, about eight years, before this could be put in place. The discussion were very very long and not always easy because the two parties did not always agree on certain points. I will not go into the details but eventually, in the late 1970's, the situation was as follows. Geneva had decided to set up an artificial replenishment system. Field trials in the previous years had shown that this type of tool had potential. On the other hand, the French side was indecisive. They wanted to develop other resources on their own before participating with Geneva in the construction of this replenishment station. In the end, the French did not want to finance the station, but they wanted to take advantage of the effect of this replenishment to be able to pump water easily since the objective was to raise the level of the water table so that it could be used throughout the year, as part of a coherent management of the resource over several years. So in the end, this was what was done. A written agreement was signed which detailed all the technical aspects of the aquifer, and also the duties of the various parties and, (particularly for the French who didn't participate in the construction) the financial contribution to the construction of the replenishment station. They had to agree on a right to water. Above a certain quota, they had to pay a replenishment tax in order to benefit from quantities of water that would exceed a quota of two million cubic meters per year. So this agreement was signed in June 1978, (so it has been signed for 30 years) and the construction took place at this time. And in 1980, the station was inaugurated, and from the first year, in the first two or three years of operation, the water table rose from about eight to ten meters, and this level can be maintained as a result of the replenishment station. So, based on the first few years, even though there were adjustments, we can say that the station performed well. In fact, the choice to replenish was indeed a very good choice. So how did we get to the point where both parties were willing to sign the agreement? Well, this was because the people in charge of this work relied on pragmatism. Above all, the goal was to save this resource shared by both the Swiss and the French, so there was this pragmatic side. The other important point is that attempts were made to manage this at the local level. And then there was the creation of a transboundary commission which was detailed in the agreement and once the regulations were in place, it took over all the cross border management of the groundwater. And this is shared. There is a Geneva part and a French part and this is a cross border commission. And the elements established within this commission and in particular its duties, were intended to determine which flow would be replenished and how the water rights and the different flows between Switzerland and France and the quality of water should be shared. So this is how Franco-Genevan cooperation began. Since then, there have been further developments. After 30 years (in 2007), it was necessary to renew this agreement. The agreement was essentially the same as in 1978 but there was a working group which undertook all the work related to this renewal and to frame it within the international agreements which did not exist in 1978. So this agreement became more like a convention and it is recognised as such today. And we see that, as it was signed again for a period of 30 more years, this this is indeed an excellent example of transboundary management of an aquifer and I believe that this is the the first in the world to have a transboundary agreement. >> What are the lessons learned from the management of this aquifer and how would you appraise the management of the Geneva aquifer? >> So after almost 40 years of management, we can see that, at the purely technical level, the system works very, very well - it has been possible to infiltrate more than 300 million cubic meters since 1980. At the shared management level of the aquifer, it is important to look at the lessons learned, and we decided to focus on above all, to focus on the aquifer. We wanted to save the aquifer without taking into account of all problems linked to sovereignty. So this is extremely important and I believe that is the principal element. All the problems that could be linked to each party or country were put aside. We decided to work in order to save the aquifer. The first goal was to save the groundwater body and then to achieve the best possible management of the aquifer so that it would never be overexploited as it was in the 1960s and 1970s. If I want to highlight the lessons learned, it is the aquifer, above all. This was the case at the working level of the decision-makers, everything was done locally. I think it's important that these actors were local and were able to work on their problems. Even if information was subsequently passed on, I really think it is important to do this at the local level. As a result, both the decision-maker, the politician or the consumer, everybody knows what he is talking about. To be able to talk about an aquifer, I think you need detailed knowledge of its hydrogeological aspects, one must have the best possible knowledge in order to know what one is talking about. If plans for the future are made then we know where we are going and how to do it. And then, here, this is my most important point. This is local management, pragmatism, technical knowledge. Today, almost 40 years later, we see that at the technical level, the system still works very, very well. And then, at the management level, in relation to the transboundary commission, it works very, very well and as such has been renewed for another 30 years. We can see this as a success and I hope it can be an example for other cases. >> Thank you very much, Gabriel, for sharing this beautiful example of cooperation and I am sure that the participants will have appreciated your contribution. [MUSIC]
