1. Towards the comparative analysis of the case studies: current and next steps Carlo Giupponi 1,2 1 Università degli Studi di Milano 2 FEEM SMART Workshop Tunis September 2004

2. 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. 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. 4 WP10: Tasks TASKSWHO Complete indicator data baseSUMER, Case Studies Partners Feedback: FEEM Classify indicators in DPSIR frameworkFEEM Define scenariosFEEM, Case Studies Partners Feedback: ESS, SOGREAH Define responses and link them to modelsCase study partners. Feedback: ESS, SOGREAH, FEEM Develop aggregate sustainability indicators to be used as comparative criteria FEEM Feedback: all partners Define how to derive values for sustainability indicators from models ESS, SOGREAH Comparative Multicriteria analysisFEEM, ESS Complete DeliverableUATLA (part 1), FEEM (part 2)

5. 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. 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. 7 Scenarios Scenarios are defined by COMMON VARIABLES representing DRIVING FORCES and PRESSURES

8. 8 Responses WDM WSM WQM

9. 9 Sustainability indicators TYPEINDICATOR MEASUREMENT UNITSOURCE ECONOMIC (I) D/S ratio for agriculture%WaterWare D/S ratio for industry%WaterWare D/S ratio for tourism%WaterWare Economic efficiency of the systemEUR/m3WaterWare SOCIAL (I) Number of days with restricted domestic supply days/yearWaterWare ENVIRONMENTAL (S/I) Global quality of coastal watersclass (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. 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. 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