- Email: [email protected]
Chapter 12 Comparison: the first negotiation step
Chapter 12 Comparison: the first negotiation step EB, FC, FP and RSS This chapter presents the preliminaries to the Comparison phase and the first negotiations step (Figure 12.1).
12.1
Sharing the results of the evaluation
The aim of sharing the results of the evaluation (Section 10.2) is to get each Stakeholder to understand how the value functions were defined for all the sectors and which effects are evaluated. To achieve this, an open meeting was organized for all the Stakeholders and the members of the Italian–Swiss Commission. In the meeting the Stakeholders (or rather, the Experts they commissioned) took turns in presenting the sector(s) that interested them. We will outline the structure of the presentation from the Upstream Flooding sector as an example: • Explanation of each indicator and presentation of the partial value function associated to it. For example, Figure 12.2 shows the partial value function associated to the indicator maximum flooded area [km2 ] in Locarno (iFl_U_1_Loc ). The non-linearity of the function derives from the fact that no substantial damage is recorded for small floods, and so the value function is equal to one. Once a threshold value (0.7 km2 ) has been exceeded, the flood begins to cause damage and it is necessary to take defence measures, which have a cost; this causes a decrease in the value function, which is increasingly marked as the flooded area grows. When the flooded area exceeds 2.5 km2 , the greatest possible damage is recorded: from this threshold upwards the value function will thus be zero. On the same graph the points that represent the performances of the alternatives designed in the first step are marked. Note that they are divided into two groups. To understand the reason for this, observe that in all the alternatives the worst event is the flood in October 1993, which was produced by a sequence of three flood waves entering the lake, of which the biggest was the last. In practice, what counts in these conditions is only the stage–discharge relation that is adopted; the effect of 285
286
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Figure 12.1: The steps for identifying the reasonable alternatives. The highlighted steps are the ones whose results are described in this chapter.
12.1 S HARING THE RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
287
Figure 12.2: The images that were used to explain the meaning of the partial value function for the indicator maximum flooded area [km2 ] in Locarno (iFl_U_1_Loc ).
the regulation policy is secondary. The two groups (from left to right) thus correspond to the values that follow from the actions SD+600 and SD CUR respectively. To help the participants get an idea of what the different values represent, the Expert showed two images of the same street and the water level that would be reached in each case. • Presentation of the vector of weights used to aggregate the partial value functions: this shows the relative importance of the indicators (and so of the effects that they quantify) in defining the global value function. The vector of the weights for the Upstream Flooding sector is shown in Table 12.1. Note above all that the overall weight of the indicators for the township of Locarno is higher than that of the indicators for Verbania. There are two reasons for this: on the one hand, Locarno represents a larger fraction of lakeside towns; on the other hand, in these towns there are more valuable structures and activities that can be damaged than in Verbania. Next observe that the Expert gave greater importance to the extreme event (flooded area and duration) than the average behaviour. Lastly, zero weight was given to the two indicators of interrupted traffic because no alternative produced, according to the Expert’s judgement, significant effects on the traffic; in other words, the partial value functions for both the indicators are equal to one for all the alternatives. It follows that the weight attributed to them is irrelevant.
288
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Table 12.1. The vector of weights used in the Upstream Flooding sector to aggregate the partial value functions Indicator
Weight
iFl_U_1_Loc iFl_U_1_Vb iFl_U_2_Loc iFl_U_2_Vb iFl_U_3_Loc iFl_U_3_Vb iFl_U_4_Loc iFl_U_4_Vb iFl_U_5_Loc iFl_U_5_Vb iFl_U_6_Loc iFl_U_6_Vb
12.2
Maximum flooded area in Locarno Maximum flooded area in Verbania Average annual flooded area in Locarno Average annual flooded area in Verbania Maximum number of consecutive flooding days in Locarno Maximum number of consecutive flooding days in Verbania Average annual number of flooding days in Locarno Average annual number of flooding days in Verbania Maximum number of days of interrupted traffic in Locarno Maximum number of days of interrupted traffic in Verbano Average annual number of days of interrupted traffic in Locarno Average annual number of days of interrupted traffic in Verbania
0.21 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.25 0.05 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Preliminary analysis
The aim of this analysis (Section 10.2) is to show the Stakeholders the sensitivity of the sector index values, computed by means of the global value function, to the actions. To do this, graphs like the one shown in Figure 12.3 (again referring to the Upstream Flooding sector) were used. Remember that the alternatives designed up to this point are all characterized by a MEF equal to 13 m3 /s (Sections 5.4.1 and 11.1), so that, apart from the policy, they are differentiated by the pair (SDi /RANGEi ). As shown in the figure, three possible pairs were considered. For each pair, the bar represents the interval of variation of the index value produced by changing the policy. Observe that, for the same stage–discharge relation, the size of the interval increases as the regulation range is widened; conversely, for the same regulation range, the size decreases when passing from SD CUR to SD+600 , because the latter, by allowing for higher releases, reduces the preventative role of regulation. The difference F between the sector index values associated to the worst alternative with (SD+600 /RANGE ENL ) and to the worst with (SD+600 /RANGE CUR ) represents the maximum decrease in the index
Figure 12.3: Sensitivity of the Upstream Flooding sector index to actions.
12.3 I NDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION
289
Figure 12.4: Sensitivity of the Downstream Environment sector index to actions.
value that the shore-dwellers can fear as a consequence of widening the regulation range. The difference S provides information similar to that given by F , in relation to a change in the stage–discharge relation. The information provided by this type of graph is very important for the development of the decision-making process. On the one hand, it confirms the rationality of the Swiss request to excavate the lake outlet (S has a high value); on the other hand, it shows that they should accept the widening of the regulation range, if this is necessary to obtain the excavation. In fact, even if the most unfavourable policy for Upstream Flooding were chosen, the corresponding index value would be much greater than the maximum index value that the sector could obtain in the current situation, i.e. with the pair (SD CUR /RANGE CUR ). The considerations presented clearly pertain to the Upstream Flooding sector only. If another sector is examined, e.g. Downstream Environment (Figure 12.4), it can be noticed that the sensitivity to the policy is much higher than the sensitivity to the pair (SDi /RANGEi ), which means that this sector should concentrate its attention on the choice of the first, rather than the second.
12.3
Individual exploration
Each Stakeholder compares all the alternatives that have been designed, with the aim of identifying the one that (s)he prefers and that (s)he will propose when her/his turn to start the ENP comes. Each Stakeholder can compare the alternatives by considering the sector index values (s)he is interested in and, if necessary, the indicator values and the trajectories of several hydrological variables. In Figure 12.5 the list of the alternatives chosen by the representatives of the Stakeholders is shown.
290
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Figure 12.5: The alternatives preferred by the Stakeholders.
Figure 12.6: A0’s performance.
12.4 A0’ S PERFORMANCE
291
Figure 12.7: Upstream Flooding sector index vs Navigation sector index.
12.4
A0’s performance
The alternative A0 assumes that nothing is changed with respect to the current situation (Section 3.7.1): it is thus a natural reference point for the Stakeholders during the individual exploration and the negotiations. In Figure 12.6 the performance of A0 is shown for each of the sectors. We already know that the sector index values for Upstream Flooding, Irrigation and Downstream Environment are held to be unsatisfactory by the corresponding Stakeholders, and it is for this very reason that Switzerland and Italy put forward the proposals and counterproposals described in Chapter 3. We do not know, however, how the other sectors judge A0 ’s performance: it is worth finding this out because it will make it possible to identify any possible alliance among the sectors. Navigation By observing Figure 12.7 we can see that there is a strong positive correlation between this sector’s index and the Upstream Flooding index. As we noted in Section 4.2.1, the navigability of the lake is limited when the lake levels are either too high or too low. None of the alternatives that were designed creates problems due to low levels, and so the satisfaction for the Navigation sector depends only on the need to close some of the stops or to put up raised walkways to allow the passengers access to the ferries when the lake level is too high. Since the heights of the stops are higher than the elevation at which flooding begins at Locarno and Verbania, it is easy to understand why the two sectors are positively correlated. However, it cannot be concluded that, if the Stakeholders who are interested in the Upstream Flooding sector are dissatisfied, then those interested in the Navigation sector are as well. It was necessary to interview the second group, who confirmed that they too are dissatisfied with A0. Upstream Tourism Table 12.2 shows that the index of this sector is more influenced by reduced landscape aesthetics and by reduced access to beaches than by discomfort produced
292
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Table 12.2. The vector of weights that defines the global value function of the Upstream Tourism sector Indicator iTou_U_1 iTou_U_2 iTou_U_3 iTou_U_4
Weight Percentage of the tourist season in which the lake level is lower than the Tourist Normality Range Percentage of the tourist season in which the lake level is higher than the Tourist Normality Range Average annual number of necessary treatments Average duration of the periods in which treatments are probable
0.21 0.44 0.16 0.19
by mosquitoes. The first two criteria are quantified by indicators that consider the percentage of the tourist season in which the lake level is higher and lower than the Tourist Normality Range (Section 4.5.10 of the companion website). The latter is defined as a sequence of level ranges, the tth of which is the range of levels that ‘usually’ occurred in the past on day t. It follows that Upstream Tourism rates the alternative A0 very highly. Mosquitoes The historical regulation of Verbano produced an increase in the average level of the lake with respect to the natural situation (Figure 12.8). In this way the probability that the areas where the mosquitoes lay their eggs will be flooded has increased (see Section 2.2.1.4 of the companion website), thus increasing their proliferation, which is displeasing for the population and the tourist operators. Since the lake level trajectory for alternative A0 coincides with the historical trajectory by definition (see Section 3.7.1), alternative A0 is judged to be unsatisfactory by this sector.
Figure 12.8: Trajectories of the lake level median in natural and regulated regime conditions.
12.4 A0’ S PERFORMANCE
293
Figure 12.9: Trajectory of the median lake level produced by alternative A0 and the threshold values and periods that appear in the definition of the indicators of the Upstream Environment sector.
Upstream Fishing Alternative A0 is evaluated positively by Upstream Fishing for several reasons. For example, A0 does not produce sudden falls in the lake level in the month of December, which would have a negative impact on the reproductive cycle of the White Fish; this behaviour was not dictated by attention for the concerns of the fishermen, but by the need to create a storage for irrigation in spring. Surprisingly, we discovered that two sectors, Upstream Fishing and Irrigation, which one might have expected to be in conflict, are potentially allied in practice, at least for the protection of White Fish. A second example: the lake level trajectory produced by alternative A0 favours access to the reed beds for the Pike and the Cyprinids, which go there to lay their eggs. Upstream Environment The Upstream Environment sector, on the other hand, is not at all satisfied with the performance of A0. The reason is evident: the lake ecosystem is damaged when the level is in either of the ranges highlighted in Figure 12.9 and this occurs frequently, as the figure shows. ENEL Power The situation of this sector is quite particular: the introduction of the Galli Law (Section 7.6.2), which subordinates the use of water for hydropower production to domestic use and agricultural and environmental purposes, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the past production rate into the future. The provisions of the Galli Law are totally satisfied by the formulation of the (Optimal) Control Problem (Section 7.6.3), while it was only partially possible to take it into account in the definition of alternative A0: the distribution policy takes account of the law,1 but the release from the lake, which is 1 In fact, when the release does not satisfy the overall water demand, the first reduction is to the supply for hydropower plants (Section 6.7.3).
294
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP Table 12.3. The sectors that were explicitly considered in the negotiations and those associated to each of them Visualized sector
Associated sector
Upstream Flooding Upstream Environment Irrigation ENEL Power Downstream Environment
Navigation Mosquitoes Upstream Fishing East Sesia Power –
assumed to be equal to the historical release over all the evaluation horizon (1974–1998), is influenced by the law only in the last five years, because it came into force only in 1994. Alternative A0 thus provides a very high value for the ENEL Power sector index, but ENEL knows full well that this performance cannot be maintained. East Sesia Power this sector.
The above considerations for the ENEL Power sector are valid also for
Downstream Tourism There are no particular observations: alternative A0 is considered to be fairly satisfactory.
12.5
Negotiations
In Section 10.3 we explained that it is not advisable to visualize more than 5÷7 sector indices in the negotiations based on ENP. Thus, in order to reduce the number of indices, only one sector index can be visualized from any set of positively correlated indices. By means of scatter plots like the one shown in Figure 12.7, pairwise positive correlation among the sectors was examined and it was discovered that four sectors can be selected to represent eight (see the first four rows in Table 12.3). Moreover, the Stakeholders interested in the Upstream Tourism sector, who are also interested in the Upstream Flooding sector (see Figure 10.2), declared that mediocre performances for Upstream Tourism can be compensated by good performances for Upstream Flooding, because this is the sector that interests them the most. For this reason, the sector index of Upstream Tourism is not visualized and it will be shown on request only. A similar decision was made for Downstream Tourism too. Remember finally that, for the reason presented in Section 11.3.6, the Downstream Flooding sector is not considered in these negotiations. In conclusion, during negotiations the sector indices for Upstream Flooding, Upstream Environment, Irrigation, ENEL Power and Downstream Environment were visualized. To keep the presentation simple, in the following we will focus our attention on the positions assumed by the representatives of these five sectors, even if representatives of the other sectors actively participated in the negotiations as well. As we already said (page 249), the negotiations are carried out by applying the Elementary Negotiation Procedure (ENP) as many times as there are Stakeholders and each time, at Step 1, alternative Achosen is proposed by a different Stakeholder. We will use the East Ticino Consortium’s turn to exemplify.
12.5 N EGOTIATIONS
295
Figure 12.10: The sector indices for alternative A13 compared with those for alternative A0.
At Step 1 the East Ticino Consortium proposes their preferred alternative, namely A13, which thus becomes Achosen . Its performance is shown in Figure 12.10. The Stakeholders take the following positions: • Support: East Ticino Consortium; • Accept: ENEL, East Sesia Consortium; • Oppose: Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno, Bolle di Magadino Foundation, Ticino Parks. The position of the East Sesia Consortium deserves some comment: it might be surprising that they do not support the alternative proposed by the East Ticino Consortium, since both Consortia are interested in Irrigation. The difference in the position of the two Consortia can be explained by observing that they are in different conditions. The East Sesia Consortium’s situation is more critical, because their Abstraction Licence provides less than their current water needs (Section 6.9.2 of the companion website), and so it is difficult to guarantee each year that at the end of March there will be enough water to submerge the rice paddies. On the other hand, the East Ticino Consortium’s Abstraction Licence currently provides for more than the Consortium’s current water demand, which has gradually decreased over time with the industrialization of its territory. Furthermore, the East Sesia Consortium is not interested in irrigation alone, but also in the hydropower production, which, as shown in Figure 12.10, diminishes from A0 to A13. Then the Stakeholders are asked to identify the sector Sectd that seems to be the most disfavoured. It is at this point that the conflict emerges, because each of the opposers believes that they are the most disfavoured. We are thus at a branching point of the procedure: let us call it BP1 . The Facilitator arbitrarily chooses Upstream Flooding as the disfavoured sector, promising to return later and consider both Upstream Environment and Downstream Environment (Step 2).
296
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Figure 12.11: The sector indices for alternative A53 compared with those for A13 and A0.
Then the Stakeholders are asked to fix the acceptability thresholds for the sector indices they are interested in. The Stakeholders interested in Upstream Environment and Downstream Environment, after some discussion, decide not to fix any threshold, because they want to reserve their judgement until they are treated as disfavoured sectors. Those interested in Irrigation and ENEL Power establish their threshold at 0.7: a value that is a little higher than that produced by A0 for Irrigation and a little lower for ENEL Power (Step 3). Since the set Aexp of the alternatives that satisfy the acceptability thresholds is not empty (Step 4), the Facilitator proceeds with Step 5. Once the alternatives in Aexp have been ordered with the rule of minimum overall dissatisfaction, as the Stakeholders requested, the first alternative on the list is A53, which thus becomes alternative Acurrent (Step 5). Its performance is shown in Figure 12.11. Note the strong increase in value for the Upstream Flooding sector, a slight increase in ENEL Power, while the value for Irrigation is unchanged. The sectors Upstream Environment and Downstream Environment experience a decrease. Given its performance, the Stakeholders take the following positions in relation to this alternative: • Support: East Ticino Consortium, Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno; • Accept: ENEL, East Sesia Consortium; • Oppose: Bolle di Magadino Foundation, Ticino Parks. Alternative A53 thus gets a wider agreement than alternative A13: then the ENP procedure continues from Step 2, with A53 as Achosen (Step 6). Given the large increase of the Upstream Flooding index produced by A53, compared to A13 and A0, the East Sesia Consortium proposes that the lakeside towns should be satisfied with that and that an effort should be made to find an alternative that increases the satisfaction for Irrigation. The proposal is accepted by all, with the abstention of the Stakeholders interested in Upstream and Downstream Environment, who are already opposed to the alternative and reserve their judgement for the time when the branching point BP1 is re-
12.5 N EGOTIATIONS
297
Figure 12.12: The sector indices for alternative A34 compared with those for A53 and A0.
visited. Thus the sector considered as disfavoured is Irrigation, which is not the sector with the lowest index: this is not surprising because, as we have already noted, such a selection criterion would be unjustified since the indices are defined on an arbitrary scale (Step 2). The interested Stakeholders pose a threshold of 0.6 for Upstream Flooding and maintain 0.7 for ENEL Power (Step 3); clearly, a threshold is no longer necessary for Irrigation, given that we are looking for alternatives that increase the index of this sector. Since Aexp is not empty, we may proceed (Step 4); once the alternatives are ranked with the rule minimum overall dissatisfaction (the Stakeholders do not want to change it), alternative A34 comes up first and so becomes alternative Acurrent (Step 5). Its performance is shown in Figure 12.12. The index of Irrigation grows, while the other sector indices remain unchanged (or almost unchanged). The East Sesia Consortium declares that it supports alternative A34, while the others judge it to be equivalent to A53: the agreement has thus been further broadened. Since Acurrent gets a wider agreement than Achosen , Achosen is replaced with Acurrent and the negotiators return to Step 2 (Step 6). The lakeside towns and the Irrigation Consortia are satisfied with alternative Achosen : Sectd must thus be chosen from the other three sectors. Since there are no specific requests from the Stakeholders, it is decided to look for alternatives that increase the index of Upstream Environment, and then move to the other two sectors. This is a new branching point of the procedure: let us call it BP2 (Step 2). The Stakeholders interested in Upstream Flooding and ENEL Power keep the thresholds that they fixed previously, while those interested in Irrigation set it at 0.74. The set Aacc of alternatives that satisfy these thresholds is not empty but none of those alternatives improves the index of Upstream Environment (Step 3). Thus the set Aexp is empty: the Stakeholders are asked to lower their thresholds but they refuse. Thus the Facilitator comes back to the branching point BP2 (end of Step 4 for the branching case, see page 249). By maintaining the same thresholds, the Stakeholders look for alternatives that increase the index of Downstream Environment with respect to A34; but without success (Steps 2, 3 and 4). The only thing left to do is to explore the possibility of increasing the index of ENEL Power (last pathway from BP2 ). Both the Bolle di Magadino Foundation and the Ticino Parks affirm that they are not willing to lower their index any
298
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP Table 12.4. The reasonable alternatives identified in the first negotiation step Alternative
A0 A9 A18 A54 A34 A36
SD
CUR CUR CUR
+600 +600 +600
RANGE
CUR CUR CUR CUR ENL ENL
Weights
MEF
13CON 13CON 13CON 13CON 13CON 13CON
λfl
λirr
λenv
– 0.00 0.01 0.99 0.99 0.98
– 0.00 0.98 0.01 0.01 0.01
– 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
further; the Facilitator thus sets their acceptability thresholds at the values that correspond to alternative A34: 0.26 for Upstream Environment and 0.05 for Downstream Environment. With these values the set Aexp proves to be empty (Step 3). Since no one is willing to reduce his/her own threshold, the Facilitator concludes that alternative A34 is a reasonable alternative (Step 4). Now, as promised, the branching point BP1 is revisited: thereby A13 is assumed once more as Achosen and one of the two sectors that were proposed earlier, but not considered, is chosen as Sectd . The Facilitator begins with Upstream Environment (Step 2). The Stakeholders from Irrigation and ENEL Power maintain their threshold at 0.7, while the representatives for Upstream Flooding decide not to pose any threshold. The resulting set Aexp turns out to be empty (Step 3). Since none of the Stakeholders is willing to reduce their acceptability thresholds, it is concluded that it is impossible to find an alternative which gets a wider agreement than A13, by moving in the direction of Upstream Environment (Step 4). The result is the same when Downstream Environment is considered. All the pathways from the branching point BP1 have now been examined. Note that, even if with the last two attempts the agreement was not broadened with respect to A13, this alternative is not a reasonable one, because when exploring the first pathway from BP1 we found an alternative that obtains a wider agreement: A34. Therefore East Ticino Consortium’s turn concludes with the identification of this alternative as a reasonable alternative.
12.6
The results of the first negotiations step
By proceeding as detailed in the previous section with one Stakeholder at a time, the six reasonable alternatives listed in Table 12.4 were identified. In Table 12.5 the positions of the Stakeholders with respect to them are shown. The Ticino Parks’ choice to support only alternative A9, which is characterized by the extreme policy in favour of the environment, namely no water supply to the canals, must be considered only as a provocative choice, while they are waiting to analyse alternatives with a MEF higher than 13 m3 /s. For this reason, none of the other Stakeholders support this alternative, not even the Bolle di Magadino Foundation, even if the Upstream Environment index of alternative A9 is particularly high.
SD
RANGE
MEF
Alternative
13CON
A0
Support GRAIA Society ENEL Company
Stakeholders Accept
Ticino Parks CUR
CUR
13CON
13CON
CUR
+600
13CON
A9
Bolle di Magadino Foundation
GRAIA Society Ticino Parks
Lake Navigation Company Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno
GRAIA Society East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company ENEL Company GRAIA Society
A18
A54
13CON
A34
13CON
A36
ENL
Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company Bolle di Magadino Foundation
GRAIA
Society
Oppose Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company Bolle di Magadino Foundation East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium Ticino Parks Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company Bolle di Magadino Foundation GRAIA Society East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company Ticino Parks Bolle di Magadino Foundation
12.6 T HE RESULTS OF THE FIRST NEGOTIATIONS STEP
Table 12.5. The positions of the Stakeholders with respect to the reasonable alternatives identified in the first negotiation step
Ticino Parks Bolle di Magadino Foundation
East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company Ticino Parks
299
12.1
Sharing the results of the evaluation
The aim of sharing the results of the evaluation (Section 10.2) is to get each Stakeholder to understand how the value functions were defined for all the sectors and which effects are evaluated. To achieve this, an open meeting was organized for all the Stakeholders and the members of the Italian–Swiss Commission. In the meeting the Stakeholders (or rather, the Experts they commissioned) took turns in presenting the sector(s) that interested them. We will outline the structure of the presentation from the Upstream Flooding sector as an example: • Explanation of each indicator and presentation of the partial value function associated to it. For example, Figure 12.2 shows the partial value function associated to the indicator maximum flooded area [km2 ] in Locarno (iFl_U_1_Loc ). The non-linearity of the function derives from the fact that no substantial damage is recorded for small floods, and so the value function is equal to one. Once a threshold value (0.7 km2 ) has been exceeded, the flood begins to cause damage and it is necessary to take defence measures, which have a cost; this causes a decrease in the value function, which is increasingly marked as the flooded area grows. When the flooded area exceeds 2.5 km2 , the greatest possible damage is recorded: from this threshold upwards the value function will thus be zero. On the same graph the points that represent the performances of the alternatives designed in the first step are marked. Note that they are divided into two groups. To understand the reason for this, observe that in all the alternatives the worst event is the flood in October 1993, which was produced by a sequence of three flood waves entering the lake, of which the biggest was the last. In practice, what counts in these conditions is only the stage–discharge relation that is adopted; the effect of 285
286
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Figure 12.1: The steps for identifying the reasonable alternatives. The highlighted steps are the ones whose results are described in this chapter.
12.1 S HARING THE RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
287
Figure 12.2: The images that were used to explain the meaning of the partial value function for the indicator maximum flooded area [km2 ] in Locarno (iFl_U_1_Loc ).
the regulation policy is secondary. The two groups (from left to right) thus correspond to the values that follow from the actions SD+600 and SD CUR respectively. To help the participants get an idea of what the different values represent, the Expert showed two images of the same street and the water level that would be reached in each case. • Presentation of the vector of weights used to aggregate the partial value functions: this shows the relative importance of the indicators (and so of the effects that they quantify) in defining the global value function. The vector of the weights for the Upstream Flooding sector is shown in Table 12.1. Note above all that the overall weight of the indicators for the township of Locarno is higher than that of the indicators for Verbania. There are two reasons for this: on the one hand, Locarno represents a larger fraction of lakeside towns; on the other hand, in these towns there are more valuable structures and activities that can be damaged than in Verbania. Next observe that the Expert gave greater importance to the extreme event (flooded area and duration) than the average behaviour. Lastly, zero weight was given to the two indicators of interrupted traffic because no alternative produced, according to the Expert’s judgement, significant effects on the traffic; in other words, the partial value functions for both the indicators are equal to one for all the alternatives. It follows that the weight attributed to them is irrelevant.
288
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Table 12.1. The vector of weights used in the Upstream Flooding sector to aggregate the partial value functions Indicator
Weight
iFl_U_1_Loc iFl_U_1_Vb iFl_U_2_Loc iFl_U_2_Vb iFl_U_3_Loc iFl_U_3_Vb iFl_U_4_Loc iFl_U_4_Vb iFl_U_5_Loc iFl_U_5_Vb iFl_U_6_Loc iFl_U_6_Vb
12.2
Maximum flooded area in Locarno Maximum flooded area in Verbania Average annual flooded area in Locarno Average annual flooded area in Verbania Maximum number of consecutive flooding days in Locarno Maximum number of consecutive flooding days in Verbania Average annual number of flooding days in Locarno Average annual number of flooding days in Verbania Maximum number of days of interrupted traffic in Locarno Maximum number of days of interrupted traffic in Verbano Average annual number of days of interrupted traffic in Locarno Average annual number of days of interrupted traffic in Verbania
0.21 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.25 0.05 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Preliminary analysis
The aim of this analysis (Section 10.2) is to show the Stakeholders the sensitivity of the sector index values, computed by means of the global value function, to the actions. To do this, graphs like the one shown in Figure 12.3 (again referring to the Upstream Flooding sector) were used. Remember that the alternatives designed up to this point are all characterized by a MEF equal to 13 m3 /s (Sections 5.4.1 and 11.1), so that, apart from the policy, they are differentiated by the pair (SDi /RANGEi ). As shown in the figure, three possible pairs were considered. For each pair, the bar represents the interval of variation of the index value produced by changing the policy. Observe that, for the same stage–discharge relation, the size of the interval increases as the regulation range is widened; conversely, for the same regulation range, the size decreases when passing from SD CUR to SD+600 , because the latter, by allowing for higher releases, reduces the preventative role of regulation. The difference F between the sector index values associated to the worst alternative with (SD+600 /RANGE ENL ) and to the worst with (SD+600 /RANGE CUR ) represents the maximum decrease in the index
Figure 12.3: Sensitivity of the Upstream Flooding sector index to actions.
12.3 I NDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION
289
Figure 12.4: Sensitivity of the Downstream Environment sector index to actions.
value that the shore-dwellers can fear as a consequence of widening the regulation range. The difference S provides information similar to that given by F , in relation to a change in the stage–discharge relation. The information provided by this type of graph is very important for the development of the decision-making process. On the one hand, it confirms the rationality of the Swiss request to excavate the lake outlet (S has a high value); on the other hand, it shows that they should accept the widening of the regulation range, if this is necessary to obtain the excavation. In fact, even if the most unfavourable policy for Upstream Flooding were chosen, the corresponding index value would be much greater than the maximum index value that the sector could obtain in the current situation, i.e. with the pair (SD CUR /RANGE CUR ). The considerations presented clearly pertain to the Upstream Flooding sector only. If another sector is examined, e.g. Downstream Environment (Figure 12.4), it can be noticed that the sensitivity to the policy is much higher than the sensitivity to the pair (SDi /RANGEi ), which means that this sector should concentrate its attention on the choice of the first, rather than the second.
12.3
Individual exploration
Each Stakeholder compares all the alternatives that have been designed, with the aim of identifying the one that (s)he prefers and that (s)he will propose when her/his turn to start the ENP comes. Each Stakeholder can compare the alternatives by considering the sector index values (s)he is interested in and, if necessary, the indicator values and the trajectories of several hydrological variables. In Figure 12.5 the list of the alternatives chosen by the representatives of the Stakeholders is shown.
290
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Figure 12.5: The alternatives preferred by the Stakeholders.
Figure 12.6: A0’s performance.
12.4 A0’ S PERFORMANCE
291
Figure 12.7: Upstream Flooding sector index vs Navigation sector index.
12.4
A0’s performance
The alternative A0 assumes that nothing is changed with respect to the current situation (Section 3.7.1): it is thus a natural reference point for the Stakeholders during the individual exploration and the negotiations. In Figure 12.6 the performance of A0 is shown for each of the sectors. We already know that the sector index values for Upstream Flooding, Irrigation and Downstream Environment are held to be unsatisfactory by the corresponding Stakeholders, and it is for this very reason that Switzerland and Italy put forward the proposals and counterproposals described in Chapter 3. We do not know, however, how the other sectors judge A0 ’s performance: it is worth finding this out because it will make it possible to identify any possible alliance among the sectors. Navigation By observing Figure 12.7 we can see that there is a strong positive correlation between this sector’s index and the Upstream Flooding index. As we noted in Section 4.2.1, the navigability of the lake is limited when the lake levels are either too high or too low. None of the alternatives that were designed creates problems due to low levels, and so the satisfaction for the Navigation sector depends only on the need to close some of the stops or to put up raised walkways to allow the passengers access to the ferries when the lake level is too high. Since the heights of the stops are higher than the elevation at which flooding begins at Locarno and Verbania, it is easy to understand why the two sectors are positively correlated. However, it cannot be concluded that, if the Stakeholders who are interested in the Upstream Flooding sector are dissatisfied, then those interested in the Navigation sector are as well. It was necessary to interview the second group, who confirmed that they too are dissatisfied with A0. Upstream Tourism Table 12.2 shows that the index of this sector is more influenced by reduced landscape aesthetics and by reduced access to beaches than by discomfort produced
292
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Table 12.2. The vector of weights that defines the global value function of the Upstream Tourism sector Indicator iTou_U_1 iTou_U_2 iTou_U_3 iTou_U_4
Weight Percentage of the tourist season in which the lake level is lower than the Tourist Normality Range Percentage of the tourist season in which the lake level is higher than the Tourist Normality Range Average annual number of necessary treatments Average duration of the periods in which treatments are probable
0.21 0.44 0.16 0.19
by mosquitoes. The first two criteria are quantified by indicators that consider the percentage of the tourist season in which the lake level is higher and lower than the Tourist Normality Range (Section 4.5.10 of the companion website). The latter is defined as a sequence of level ranges, the tth of which is the range of levels that ‘usually’ occurred in the past on day t. It follows that Upstream Tourism rates the alternative A0 very highly. Mosquitoes The historical regulation of Verbano produced an increase in the average level of the lake with respect to the natural situation (Figure 12.8). In this way the probability that the areas where the mosquitoes lay their eggs will be flooded has increased (see Section 2.2.1.4 of the companion website), thus increasing their proliferation, which is displeasing for the population and the tourist operators. Since the lake level trajectory for alternative A0 coincides with the historical trajectory by definition (see Section 3.7.1), alternative A0 is judged to be unsatisfactory by this sector.
Figure 12.8: Trajectories of the lake level median in natural and regulated regime conditions.
12.4 A0’ S PERFORMANCE
293
Figure 12.9: Trajectory of the median lake level produced by alternative A0 and the threshold values and periods that appear in the definition of the indicators of the Upstream Environment sector.
Upstream Fishing Alternative A0 is evaluated positively by Upstream Fishing for several reasons. For example, A0 does not produce sudden falls in the lake level in the month of December, which would have a negative impact on the reproductive cycle of the White Fish; this behaviour was not dictated by attention for the concerns of the fishermen, but by the need to create a storage for irrigation in spring. Surprisingly, we discovered that two sectors, Upstream Fishing and Irrigation, which one might have expected to be in conflict, are potentially allied in practice, at least for the protection of White Fish. A second example: the lake level trajectory produced by alternative A0 favours access to the reed beds for the Pike and the Cyprinids, which go there to lay their eggs. Upstream Environment The Upstream Environment sector, on the other hand, is not at all satisfied with the performance of A0. The reason is evident: the lake ecosystem is damaged when the level is in either of the ranges highlighted in Figure 12.9 and this occurs frequently, as the figure shows. ENEL Power The situation of this sector is quite particular: the introduction of the Galli Law (Section 7.6.2), which subordinates the use of water for hydropower production to domestic use and agricultural and environmental purposes, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the past production rate into the future. The provisions of the Galli Law are totally satisfied by the formulation of the (Optimal) Control Problem (Section 7.6.3), while it was only partially possible to take it into account in the definition of alternative A0: the distribution policy takes account of the law,1 but the release from the lake, which is 1 In fact, when the release does not satisfy the overall water demand, the first reduction is to the supply for hydropower plants (Section 6.7.3).
294
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP Table 12.3. The sectors that were explicitly considered in the negotiations and those associated to each of them Visualized sector
Associated sector
Upstream Flooding Upstream Environment Irrigation ENEL Power Downstream Environment
Navigation Mosquitoes Upstream Fishing East Sesia Power –
assumed to be equal to the historical release over all the evaluation horizon (1974–1998), is influenced by the law only in the last five years, because it came into force only in 1994. Alternative A0 thus provides a very high value for the ENEL Power sector index, but ENEL knows full well that this performance cannot be maintained. East Sesia Power this sector.
The above considerations for the ENEL Power sector are valid also for
Downstream Tourism There are no particular observations: alternative A0 is considered to be fairly satisfactory.
12.5
Negotiations
In Section 10.3 we explained that it is not advisable to visualize more than 5÷7 sector indices in the negotiations based on ENP. Thus, in order to reduce the number of indices, only one sector index can be visualized from any set of positively correlated indices. By means of scatter plots like the one shown in Figure 12.7, pairwise positive correlation among the sectors was examined and it was discovered that four sectors can be selected to represent eight (see the first four rows in Table 12.3). Moreover, the Stakeholders interested in the Upstream Tourism sector, who are also interested in the Upstream Flooding sector (see Figure 10.2), declared that mediocre performances for Upstream Tourism can be compensated by good performances for Upstream Flooding, because this is the sector that interests them the most. For this reason, the sector index of Upstream Tourism is not visualized and it will be shown on request only. A similar decision was made for Downstream Tourism too. Remember finally that, for the reason presented in Section 11.3.6, the Downstream Flooding sector is not considered in these negotiations. In conclusion, during negotiations the sector indices for Upstream Flooding, Upstream Environment, Irrigation, ENEL Power and Downstream Environment were visualized. To keep the presentation simple, in the following we will focus our attention on the positions assumed by the representatives of these five sectors, even if representatives of the other sectors actively participated in the negotiations as well. As we already said (page 249), the negotiations are carried out by applying the Elementary Negotiation Procedure (ENP) as many times as there are Stakeholders and each time, at Step 1, alternative Achosen is proposed by a different Stakeholder. We will use the East Ticino Consortium’s turn to exemplify.
12.5 N EGOTIATIONS
295
Figure 12.10: The sector indices for alternative A13 compared with those for alternative A0.
At Step 1 the East Ticino Consortium proposes their preferred alternative, namely A13, which thus becomes Achosen . Its performance is shown in Figure 12.10. The Stakeholders take the following positions: • Support: East Ticino Consortium; • Accept: ENEL, East Sesia Consortium; • Oppose: Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno, Bolle di Magadino Foundation, Ticino Parks. The position of the East Sesia Consortium deserves some comment: it might be surprising that they do not support the alternative proposed by the East Ticino Consortium, since both Consortia are interested in Irrigation. The difference in the position of the two Consortia can be explained by observing that they are in different conditions. The East Sesia Consortium’s situation is more critical, because their Abstraction Licence provides less than their current water needs (Section 6.9.2 of the companion website), and so it is difficult to guarantee each year that at the end of March there will be enough water to submerge the rice paddies. On the other hand, the East Ticino Consortium’s Abstraction Licence currently provides for more than the Consortium’s current water demand, which has gradually decreased over time with the industrialization of its territory. Furthermore, the East Sesia Consortium is not interested in irrigation alone, but also in the hydropower production, which, as shown in Figure 12.10, diminishes from A0 to A13. Then the Stakeholders are asked to identify the sector Sectd that seems to be the most disfavoured. It is at this point that the conflict emerges, because each of the opposers believes that they are the most disfavoured. We are thus at a branching point of the procedure: let us call it BP1 . The Facilitator arbitrarily chooses Upstream Flooding as the disfavoured sector, promising to return later and consider both Upstream Environment and Downstream Environment (Step 2).
296
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP
Figure 12.11: The sector indices for alternative A53 compared with those for A13 and A0.
Then the Stakeholders are asked to fix the acceptability thresholds for the sector indices they are interested in. The Stakeholders interested in Upstream Environment and Downstream Environment, after some discussion, decide not to fix any threshold, because they want to reserve their judgement until they are treated as disfavoured sectors. Those interested in Irrigation and ENEL Power establish their threshold at 0.7: a value that is a little higher than that produced by A0 for Irrigation and a little lower for ENEL Power (Step 3). Since the set Aexp of the alternatives that satisfy the acceptability thresholds is not empty (Step 4), the Facilitator proceeds with Step 5. Once the alternatives in Aexp have been ordered with the rule of minimum overall dissatisfaction, as the Stakeholders requested, the first alternative on the list is A53, which thus becomes alternative Acurrent (Step 5). Its performance is shown in Figure 12.11. Note the strong increase in value for the Upstream Flooding sector, a slight increase in ENEL Power, while the value for Irrigation is unchanged. The sectors Upstream Environment and Downstream Environment experience a decrease. Given its performance, the Stakeholders take the following positions in relation to this alternative: • Support: East Ticino Consortium, Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno; • Accept: ENEL, East Sesia Consortium; • Oppose: Bolle di Magadino Foundation, Ticino Parks. Alternative A53 thus gets a wider agreement than alternative A13: then the ENP procedure continues from Step 2, with A53 as Achosen (Step 6). Given the large increase of the Upstream Flooding index produced by A53, compared to A13 and A0, the East Sesia Consortium proposes that the lakeside towns should be satisfied with that and that an effort should be made to find an alternative that increases the satisfaction for Irrigation. The proposal is accepted by all, with the abstention of the Stakeholders interested in Upstream and Downstream Environment, who are already opposed to the alternative and reserve their judgement for the time when the branching point BP1 is re-
12.5 N EGOTIATIONS
297
Figure 12.12: The sector indices for alternative A34 compared with those for A53 and A0.
visited. Thus the sector considered as disfavoured is Irrigation, which is not the sector with the lowest index: this is not surprising because, as we have already noted, such a selection criterion would be unjustified since the indices are defined on an arbitrary scale (Step 2). The interested Stakeholders pose a threshold of 0.6 for Upstream Flooding and maintain 0.7 for ENEL Power (Step 3); clearly, a threshold is no longer necessary for Irrigation, given that we are looking for alternatives that increase the index of this sector. Since Aexp is not empty, we may proceed (Step 4); once the alternatives are ranked with the rule minimum overall dissatisfaction (the Stakeholders do not want to change it), alternative A34 comes up first and so becomes alternative Acurrent (Step 5). Its performance is shown in Figure 12.12. The index of Irrigation grows, while the other sector indices remain unchanged (or almost unchanged). The East Sesia Consortium declares that it supports alternative A34, while the others judge it to be equivalent to A53: the agreement has thus been further broadened. Since Acurrent gets a wider agreement than Achosen , Achosen is replaced with Acurrent and the negotiators return to Step 2 (Step 6). The lakeside towns and the Irrigation Consortia are satisfied with alternative Achosen : Sectd must thus be chosen from the other three sectors. Since there are no specific requests from the Stakeholders, it is decided to look for alternatives that increase the index of Upstream Environment, and then move to the other two sectors. This is a new branching point of the procedure: let us call it BP2 (Step 2). The Stakeholders interested in Upstream Flooding and ENEL Power keep the thresholds that they fixed previously, while those interested in Irrigation set it at 0.74. The set Aacc of alternatives that satisfy these thresholds is not empty but none of those alternatives improves the index of Upstream Environment (Step 3). Thus the set Aexp is empty: the Stakeholders are asked to lower their thresholds but they refuse. Thus the Facilitator comes back to the branching point BP2 (end of Step 4 for the branching case, see page 249). By maintaining the same thresholds, the Stakeholders look for alternatives that increase the index of Downstream Environment with respect to A34; but without success (Steps 2, 3 and 4). The only thing left to do is to explore the possibility of increasing the index of ENEL Power (last pathway from BP2 ). Both the Bolle di Magadino Foundation and the Ticino Parks affirm that they are not willing to lower their index any
298
C HAPTER 12. C OMPARISON : THE FIRST NEGOTIATION STEP Table 12.4. The reasonable alternatives identified in the first negotiation step Alternative
A0 A9 A18 A54 A34 A36
SD
CUR CUR CUR
+600 +600 +600
RANGE
CUR CUR CUR CUR ENL ENL
Weights
MEF
13CON 13CON 13CON 13CON 13CON 13CON
λfl
λirr
λenv
– 0.00 0.01 0.99 0.99 0.98
– 0.00 0.98 0.01 0.01 0.01
– 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
further; the Facilitator thus sets their acceptability thresholds at the values that correspond to alternative A34: 0.26 for Upstream Environment and 0.05 for Downstream Environment. With these values the set Aexp proves to be empty (Step 3). Since no one is willing to reduce his/her own threshold, the Facilitator concludes that alternative A34 is a reasonable alternative (Step 4). Now, as promised, the branching point BP1 is revisited: thereby A13 is assumed once more as Achosen and one of the two sectors that were proposed earlier, but not considered, is chosen as Sectd . The Facilitator begins with Upstream Environment (Step 2). The Stakeholders from Irrigation and ENEL Power maintain their threshold at 0.7, while the representatives for Upstream Flooding decide not to pose any threshold. The resulting set Aexp turns out to be empty (Step 3). Since none of the Stakeholders is willing to reduce their acceptability thresholds, it is concluded that it is impossible to find an alternative which gets a wider agreement than A13, by moving in the direction of Upstream Environment (Step 4). The result is the same when Downstream Environment is considered. All the pathways from the branching point BP1 have now been examined. Note that, even if with the last two attempts the agreement was not broadened with respect to A13, this alternative is not a reasonable one, because when exploring the first pathway from BP1 we found an alternative that obtains a wider agreement: A34. Therefore East Ticino Consortium’s turn concludes with the identification of this alternative as a reasonable alternative.
12.6
The results of the first negotiations step
By proceeding as detailed in the previous section with one Stakeholder at a time, the six reasonable alternatives listed in Table 12.4 were identified. In Table 12.5 the positions of the Stakeholders with respect to them are shown. The Ticino Parks’ choice to support only alternative A9, which is characterized by the extreme policy in favour of the environment, namely no water supply to the canals, must be considered only as a provocative choice, while they are waiting to analyse alternatives with a MEF higher than 13 m3 /s. For this reason, none of the other Stakeholders support this alternative, not even the Bolle di Magadino Foundation, even if the Upstream Environment index of alternative A9 is particularly high.
SD
RANGE
MEF
Alternative
13CON
A0
Support GRAIA Society ENEL Company
Stakeholders Accept
Ticino Parks CUR
CUR
13CON
13CON
CUR
+600
13CON
A9
Bolle di Magadino Foundation
GRAIA Society Ticino Parks
Lake Navigation Company Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno
GRAIA Society East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company ENEL Company GRAIA Society
A18
A54
13CON
A34
13CON
A36
ENL
Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company Bolle di Magadino Foundation
GRAIA
Society
Oppose Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company Bolle di Magadino Foundation East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium Ticino Parks Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company Bolle di Magadino Foundation GRAIA Society East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company Municipalities of Verbania and Locarno Lake Navigation Company East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company Ticino Parks Bolle di Magadino Foundation
12.6 T HE RESULTS OF THE FIRST NEGOTIATIONS STEP
Table 12.5. The positions of the Stakeholders with respect to the reasonable alternatives identified in the first negotiation step
Ticino Parks Bolle di Magadino Foundation
East Sesia Consortium East Ticino Consortium ENEL Company Ticino Parks
299