Towards the comparative analysis Towards the comparative analysis of the case studies: of the case studies: current and next stepscurrent and next stepsCarlo Giupponi1,2

1Università degli Studi di Milano 2FEEM

SM

AR

T W

ork

sho

p

SM

AR

T W

ork

sho

p

Tu

nis

Sep

tem

ber

200

4T

un

is S

epte

mb

er 2

004

2

WP10: Issues for the Grenoble meeting

How far we are from the work plan agreed in Tunis?

How to finally meet the overall objectives of WP10?

How to disseminate results (D10.3)?

3

WP10 objectives

To identify commonalities and differences and relate them to the specific regional setting;

To identify more generally applicable results that are invariant across the case studies;

To organize these finding in terms of a comparative policy assessment (existing and desirable, future ones) and best practice examples – contribution to sustainability.

4

WP10: Tasks

TASKS WHO

Complete indicator data base SUMER, Case Studies PartnersFeedback: FEEM

Classify indicators in DPSIR framework FEEM

Define scenarios FEEM, Case Studies Partners Feedback: ESS, SOGREAH

Define responses and link them to models Case study partners. Feedback: ESS, SOGREAH, FEEM

Develop aggregate sustainability indicators to be used as comparative criteria

FEEMFeedback: all partners

Define how to derive values for sustainability indicators from models

ESS, SOGREAH

Comparative Multicriteria analysis FEEM, ESS

Complete Deliverable UATLA (part 1), FEEM (part 2)

5

STEPS MEETING THE OBJECTIVES OF WP10

1) Definition of scenarios

2) Definition of responses

3) Definition of sustainability indicators

4) Model runs (4) on the 3 scenarios with current responses

5) Model runs (12) on the 3 scenarios with possible future responses

CA on existing policies for each scenario

CA on proposed policies for each scenario

6) Sustainability analysis of the proposed responses

CA on proposed policies responses for each scenario

7) Reassessment of results according to the DPSIR framework

Dissemination of results

6

Where we are

In Tunis we have to agreed on:

- scenarios

-responses

- sustainability indicators

In Grenoble we should clarify what is left to be done to reach the final step of the comparative analysis:

- Scenario definition

- Responses options

- Sustainability indicators

7

Scenarios

Scenarios are defined by COMMON VARIABLES representing DRIVING FORCES and PRESSURES

Precipitation EEA D04.01

Temperature SMART D04.01

Population growth rate UNEP/MAP D04.01

Urban population UNEP/MAP D04.01

Rural population UNEP/MAP D04.01

Population density UNEP/MAP D04.01

Share of Urban area SMART% of total area LUC MODEL

Share of irrigated agricultural land UNEP/MAP

% of total area LUC MODEL

Share of Industrial area SMART% of total area LUC MODEL

Share of Portual area SMART% of total area LUC MODEL

Share of Tourism development area SMART

% of total area LUC MODEL

or: Number of turists per km of coastline UNEP/MAP turists/km2

national statistics

SOURCEPROPOSED

UNIT (2)TYPE INDICATORPROPOSED

BY

CLIMATE(D)

POPULATION (D)

LAND-USE(D)

8

Responses

TYPE RESPONSEPROPOSED BY

Water demand management Water prices (domestic, agriculture, industry, tourism) EEAWater subventions SMARTWater distribution and use systems investments SMARTChange in irrigation systems SMARTChange in cropping patterns SMARTRising awareness for limiting abstraction SMARTMinimum flow for environmental purposes SMART

Water supply management Efficiency of water use EEAEfficiency in irrigation UNEP_MAPEfficiency in urban network UNEP_MAPWater leakage EEA

Water harvesting (lakes, reservoirs, small dams) SMART

Reservoir storage investments SMART

Groundwater exploitation SMARTMobilization of surface water SMARTBasin-out water supply (groundwater) SMARTWater imports SMARTRecycling of wastewater SMARTDesalination SMARTLimits to groundwater exploitation SMART

Water quality management Share of industrial wastewatertreated on site UNEP-MAPSolid waste management for avoiding illegal discharge in waterflows SMARTUrban waste water treatment EEAWater treatment investments SMARTShare of collected and treated wastewater by the public sewerage system UNEP-MAPRising awareness for limiting fertilization

SMARTLimit salinization through drainage systems SMARTExistence of monitoring programs concerning pollutants inputs UNEP-MAPNational regulations on wastewater SMART

WDM

WSM

WQM

9

Sustainability indicators

TYPE INDICATORMEASUREMENT

UNIT SOURCE

ECONOMIC (I)

D/S ratio for agriculture % WaterWare

D/S ratio for industry % WaterWare

D/S ratio for tourism % WaterWare

Economic efficiency of the system EUR/m3 WaterWare

SOCIAL (I)

Number of days with restricted domestic supply

days/year WaterWare

ENVIRONMENTAL(S/I)

Global quality of coastal waters class (I-IV) Telemac

D/S ratio for environmental uses % Waterware

Sustainability indicators are defined by COMMON VARIABLES representing the expected STATE (changes)/IMPACTS (effects) of RESPONSES MDGs ?

Water sanitation

10

Model outputs and MC analysis

Hence, for each CS:

3x4 = 12 runs of models per each CS

16 sets of results of (7) sustainability indicators

3 scenarios, 1 Current +3 Future Responses (WD, WS, WQ)

Analysis matrix with 7 rows (indicators/criteria) and 16 columns (response options/scenarios)

11

Future plans

Can we confirme the above? If yes: next steps may be:

– Agree upon the methods for the final CA step (MCA, ES, MOA);

– Involve partners in the pre-final step and identify needs for refinements (new runs?)

– Involve partners in the final step (MCA GDM?) If no:

– Identify what is feasible and refine/adapt the proposed approach if needed