1. Locarno – flooding 2000 Andrea Castelletti Politecnico di Milano Integrated and participatory planning: a procedural approach NRMLec02

2. 2

3. 3 Milan Miorina dam river Ticino Lake Maggiore

4. 4 Inhabitants: 1.500.000 Irrigated area: 500.000 ha 50% of Italy’s rice production 30% of EU’s rice production

5. 5 Regulated lake Why is Lake Maggiore regulated flood stage water demand t inflow t level JD t release Natural lake

6. 6 The regulation range Regulation range

7. 7 Historical performance natural lake regulatedhistory flood deficit

8. 8

9. 9 Historical performance natural lake regulatedhistory flood deficit To reduce lake flooding Switzerland proposes the excavation of lake outlet to Italy.

10. 10 Problem definition Excavation design (with a model) Political decision Proposal Stakeholders Public consultation How was the excavation designed? The classical planning approach The proposal was rejected!

11. 11 Why? 1.Only lakeside population will take advantage of the excavation. What about the others: - riverside population

12. 12

13. 13 Why? 1.Only the lake side population will take advantage of the excavation? What about the others: -riverside population: fears that increasing the release rate will cause larger floods; -farmers: fear that increasing the release rate will cause more severe droughts.

14. 14 Why? 1.Only the lake side population will take advantage of the excavation? 2. The proposal (and the design) comes from one of the two parties involved, the other one (Italy) does not trust it

15. 15 Problem definition Dredging design (with a model) Political decision Proposal Stakeholders Public consultation How was the excavation designed? The classical planning approach The proposal was rejected! The approach is wrong!!! What to do? Get more interests involved: swap excavation for reservoir capacity Make participatory decisions What to do? Get more interests involved: swap excavation for reservoir capacity Make participatory decisions

16. 16 Problem definition Dredging design (with a model) Political decision Proposal Stakeholders Public consultation Negotiate on positions Negotiate on interests Positions: I want to excavate I want a larger reservoir Positions: I want to excavate I want a larger reservoir Interests: Avoid floods Reduce droughts Interests: Avoid floods Reduce droughts

17. 17 Let’s experiencing a real negotiation Try to reach an agreement between Italy and Switzerland. Italy Switzerland Downstream Upstream Italy Switzerland Downstream Upstream

18. 18 Problem definition Dredging design (with a model) Political decision Proposal Stakeholders Public consultation Negotiate on positions Negotiate on interests Positions: I want to dredge I want a larger reservoir Positions: I want to dredge I want a larger reservoir Interests: Avoid floods Reduce droughts Interests: Avoid floods Reduce droughts To negotiate one needs to know the effects of the alternatives!

19. 19 Write your final agreement on a piece of paper e.g.Satisfaction Upstream 43 Downstream 22 or No Agreement

20. 20 Problem definition Dredging design (with a model) Political decision Proposal Stakeholders Public consultation Negotiate on positions Negotiate on interests Positions: I want to dredge I want a larger reservoir Positions: I want to dredge I want a larger reservoir Interests: Avoid floods Reduce droughts Interests: Avoid floods Reduce droughts To negotiate one needs to know the effects of the alternatives 1) Use models to evaluate in a “participatory” process the impacts of each alternative; 2) start a “social learning process”; 3) by means of which an “acceptable compromise” can be found. To negotiate one needs to know the effects of the alternatives 1) Use models to evaluate in a “participatory” process the impacts of each alternative; 2) start a “social learning process”; 3) by means of which an “acceptable compromise” can be found. Integrated Water Resources Management IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management IWRM

21. 21 IWRM paradigm is adopted by EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a framework for the protection of all waters requires within 2009 the production of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) to be prepared following the IWRM paradigm WFD Art. 13

22. 22 Integration  of environmental objectives;  of all water uses, functions and values into a common policy framework water for health and human consumption, water for economic sectors, transport, leisure, etc.  of all significant management and ecological aspects … including those which are beyond the scope of WFD, such as flood protection;  of stakeholders and civil society in decision making [WFD CIS GD11]

23. 23 The WFD guidelines states: “planning is a process” and requires “to provide procedural guidance on the production and development of River Basin Management Plans” supported by appropriate toolboxes, that “should help to identify the possible trade-offs among quantifiable objectives so that further debates and analysis can be more informed”. Moreover the toolboxes must support “planning as a systematic, integrative and iterative process”.

24. 24 Problem definition Excavation design (with a model) Political decision Stakeholders IWRM: the need for a procedure Procedure

25. 25 ICT Tools yes Final (political) decision reasonable alternatives 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing Alternatives 4. Estimating effects Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 5. Evaluation no Mitigation, and compensation, Agreement? MODSS PIP procedure PIP Participatory and Integrated Planning procedure 6. Comparison or negotiation Problem formulation Setting the goal and identifying the constraints Designing alternatives/options Selecting the best compromise alternative

26. 26 Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance System understanding Stakeholders identification System definition in time and space Institutional and legal analysis Setting up the Objectives among which environmental objectives, e.g. “good water status” and “sustainable uses”, as required by the WFD.

27. 27 Regulated lake Why is Lake Maggiore regulated flood stage water demand t inflow t level JD t release Natural lake

28. 28 Upstream stakeholders Coastline towns

29. 29 Upstream stakeholders Coastline towns Natural reserve

30. 30 Upstream stakeholders Coastline towns Navigation Natural reserve

31. 31 Downstream stakeholders IRRIGATION DISTRICTS: Consorzio Est Sesia RIVER NATURAL PARKS Parchi Naturali della Valle del Ticino HYDROPOWER COMPANY Enel Consorzio Villoresi

32. 32 Sectors Flooding Tourism Environment Fisheries Navigation Mosquitos Flooding Tourism Hydropower Environment Irrigation UpstreamDownstream

33. 33 Problem objective Find a way of managing the lake that gathers a consent larger than the present one and enhances environmental quality (WFD requirements).

34. 34 2. Conceptualisation Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance Defining Actions (measures)

35. 35 Actions proposed by the stakeholders excavate the lake outlet Swisses: change the regulation range Farmers: Italians: improve environmental quality Parks: change the way the lake is presently regulated (regulation policy) Lake manager:

36. 36 More in general … flood gates dykes water rights cap regulation range fish ladders wastewater treatment regulation Integrataed management using mines remeandering irrigation techniques structuralstructural Types of actions normativenormative managementmanagement mef Actions are instantiated when they clearly state “who is doing what and when”. An alternative (program of measures) is a coordinated mix of instantiated actions An alternative (program of measures) is a coordinated mix of instantiated actions The scope of planning is to identify the “best compromise alternative”

37. 37 Actions proposed by the stakeholders excavate the lake outlet Swisses: change the regulation range Farmers: Italians: improve environmental quality Parks: change the way the lake is presently regulated (regulation policy) Lake manager: planning actions (once for ever) normative structural management decisions (daily) regulation policy (design it once for ever) Alternative

38. 38 2. Conceptualisation Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance Defining Actions (measures) Defining Criteria and Indicators

39. 39

40. 40 An example of hierarchy: Irrigation Income Distribution cost Supply deficit Harvest Crop stress Indicators are not necessarily quantitative

41. 41 I_esM_C03 Maximum number of consecutive days of traffic interruption. [days] where: Di = number of days of the i-th flooding event; I = set of flooding events in the planning horizon. I_esM_C03 Maximum number of consecutive days of traffic interruption. [days] where: Di = number of days of the i-th flooding event; I = set of flooding events in the planning horizon.

42. 42 Upstream flooding: Floodings in Locarno (?)

43. 43 Indicator: Flooded area flooding threshold 1,243,002,64 Historical max. (1993)

44. 44 Flooded area 1993 – 2005 events

45. 45 parks services shopping a. … Upstream flooding: Land use

46. 46 Lakeside, 2000 Matteotti Square (213 cm). Cavour Square and promenade (124 cm). Corner Rosselli-Veneto (273 cm). Upstream flooding: Interruption in traffic

47. 47 Raised walkways down town, 1997. Walkways extension. Upstream flooding: Walking

48. 48

49. 49 Another example: Upstream Environment Quality of the protected area Wetland Migration Birds Fish Nest Ciprinidi reproduction Nanocipereti Water reeds

50. 50 Sectors Flooding Tourism Environment Fisheries Navigation Mosquitos Flooding Tourism Hydropower Environment Irrigation 7 3 4 2 5 4 4 4 3 2 4 Indicators 42 indicators UpstreamDownstream

51. 51 2. Conceptualisation Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance Defining Actions (measures) Identifying the Model Defining Criteria and Indicators

52. 52 Components To take decisions we need to simulate the system behaviour River ecosystem Catchments Lake River Ticino Irrigation districts Distribution policy Crops

53. 53 The water system topological scheme scheme Villoresi R. Elena Industriale Porto Torre River Po catchment irr. district junction diversion power plant

54. 54 Identifying the model Villoresi R. Elena Industriale Porto Torre River Po External drivers precipitation water demand

55. 55 2. Conceptualisation Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 3. Designing Alternatives

56. 56 Definition of scenarios  Precipitation (climate change)  Water demand  Crop prices  Demographic changes  Land use changes  Tourist trends ..... Scenario: (time) trajectories of external drivers that are not controllable by the Decision Makers:

57. 57 Irrigation deficit Floods structural normative actions indicators flooded area... max flood 14 days deficit... regulatory (policy) alternatives A1... A2... An Designing alternatives Experts J1J1 J2J2 Pareto Optimisation A C B Irrigation deficit Floods Dominated alternative Dominating alternative Pareto frontier

58. 58 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing alternatives Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 4. Estimating effects

59. 59 Estimation of the effectsSIMULATION Impact matrix Estimating effects structural normative actions indicators flooded area... max flood 14 days deficit... regulatory (policy) alternatives A1... A2... An Experts J1J1 J2J2 Pareto Optimisation

60. 60 Effects of the Alternatives utopia Irrigation deficit [Mm 3 /year] Flooding days [day/year] 100 200 300 400 500600 1 2 3 4 5 history 6

61. 61 Impact matrix utopia Irrigation deficit [Mm 3 /year] Flooding days [day/year] 100 200 300 400 500600 1 2 3 4 5 history 6 1.69... 4.514.22mean annual flooded area 3.31... 7.1 max flooded area.......... 14 d. deficit... A54... A1A1A0A0 alternatives indicators The Matrix of effects is the base for the cost effectiveness analysis required by WFD

62. 62 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing alternatives 4. Estimating effects Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 5. Evaluation

63. 63 Impact matrix 1.69... 4.514.22 mean annual flooded area 3.31... 7.1 max flooded area... 230... 180203 14 d. deficit... A54... A1A1A0A0 Alternatives Indicators 1 0 Value i-th indicator Value functions = stakeholders satisfaction Value functions

64. 64

65. 65 1.69... 4.514.22 mean annual flooded area 3.31... 7.1 max flooded area... 230... 180203 14 d. deficit... A54... A1A1A0A0 Alternatives Indicators 1 0 Value i-th indicator... 0.30.41... 0.5... 0.650.4... 0.75 0.32... 0 Value matrix The indicators belonging to same sector are aggregated 0.82 0.18 Weights Value functions Value functions = stakeholders satisfaction

66. 66 0.150.070.010.850.16 downstr. envir. hydropower irrigation upstr.envir. lake flood 0.700.800.660.150.83 0.590.750.860.000.61 0.480.160.140.670.26 0.660.700.550.220.12 A54…A4A2A1A1A0A0 Alternatives Indexes Value matrix e.g. this line is the Upstream satisfaction table of the initial game.

67. 67 6. Comparison or negotiations reasonable alternative 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing alternatives 4. Estimating effects Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 5. Evaluation

68. 68 0.150.070.010.850.16 downstr. envir. hydropower irrigation upstr.envir. lake flood 0.700.800.660.150.83 0.590.750.860.000.61 0.480.160.140.670.26 0.660.700.550.220.12 A54…A4A2A1A1A0A0 Alternatives Indexes Value matrix Pareto Race excessive loss in irrigation going on... reasonable alternative A0 no actions 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 upstr.envir.downstr. envir.hydropowerirrigationlake flood utility A0A36A34

69. 69 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Lake-envRiver_env. Hydrop.Irrig.Lake fllooding utility A0A36A34 Lake_flooding 1993 flood Irrigation 1976 drought inflow water demand Flooding level at Locarno 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Lake-envRiver_env.Hydrop.Irrig.Lake flooding utility A0A36A34 Effects of A34

70. 70 0.150.070.010.850.16 downstr. envir. hydropower irrigation upstr.envir. lake flood 0.700.800.660.150.83 0.590.750.860.000.61 0.480.160.140.670.26 0.660.700.550.220.12 A54…A4A2A1A1A0A0 Alternatives Indexes Value matrix Pareto Race excessive loss in irrigation going on... reasonable alternative A0 no actions 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 upstr.envir.downstr. envir.hydropowerirrigationlake flood utility A0A36A34 significant losses MITIGATE!

71. 71 6. Comparison or negotiation reasonable alternatives 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing alternatives 4. Estimating effects Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 5. Evaluation no Mitigation and compensation Agreement?

72. 72 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 utility 0.5 Mitigation measures A0 new area to acquired to mitigate A34 flooded area with A34 A34 A34 mitig. flooded area with A0

73. 73 0.150.070.010.850.16 downstr. envir. hydropower irrigation upstr.envir. lake flood 0.700.800.660.150.83 0.590.750.860.000.61 0.480.160.140.670.26 0.660.700.550.220.12 A54…A4A2A1A1A0A0 Alternatives Indexes Value matrix Pareto Race excessive loss in irrigation going on... reasonable alternative A0 no actions significant losses MITIGATE! A set of Reasonable Alternatives is obtained “By knowing the positions of stakeholders a competent authority can choose the best compromise solution” WFD CIS GD 11 “By knowing the positions of stakeholders a competent authority can choose the best compromise solution” WFD CIS GD 11

74. 74 MODSS 6. Comparison or negotiation reasonable alternatives 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing alternatives 4. Estimating effects Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 5. Evaluation no Mitigation and compensation Agreement? yes Final (political) decision Problem formulation Setting the goal and identifying the constraints Designing alternatives/options Selecting the best compromise alternative

75. 75 MODSS 6. Comparison or negotiation reasonable alternatives 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing alternatives 4. Estimating effects Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 5. Evaluation no Mitigation and compensation Agreement? yes Final (political) decision TwoLe Daily management Planning Management TwoLe/P TwoLe/M

76. 76 planning management analyst DM stakeholders DM users operational control models and policies release decision TwoLe/P TwoLe /M TwoLe: a 2 level MODSS

77. 77 MODSS 6. Comparison or negotiation reasonable alternatives 2. Conceptualisation 3. Designing alternatives 4. Estimating effects Stakeholders 1. Reconnaissance 5. Evaluation no Mitigation and compensation Agreement? yes Final (political) decision TwoLe on the Web To support transparency, forum, etc but not interviews and negotiations

78. 78 Data Bases Models Stakeholders Decision-makers Distributed participation PIP procedure TwoLe toolboxes

79. 79 Readings IPWRM.Theory Ch. 1 IPWRM.Practice Ch. 3