Do Stakeholder Forum

Subtask Description:
Scenario comparison.

Action points of the implementation:

Provide a summary of each of the scenarios in a comparative way in order to point out differences
Give time to the audience to reflect and to ask open questions

Area:
Pertuis Charentais, France

Policy Issue:
Freshwater allocation in the Charente river catchment

Human Activities:
Agriculture, oyster farming, recreational fishing, drinking water consumption.

General Information:
The river is a strategic resource for the whole region. Due to agriculture diffuse pollution and water shortage recurrent events during summer. 52% of the water bodies of the Charente basin show a risk of failing the WFD objectives in 2015. The management of the river and its coastal zone implies to take into account the management of agricultural activities and of water supply in the river basin. The main stakeholder concerns (most of them policy makers) are connected to the sustainable management of the water resources and the achievement of the good ecological status. The policy options are considering the modification of the “authorised volumes of water” for each consumptive uses (drinking water for households, irrigation for agriculture) and the improvement of the limitation rules which apply to the consumptive uses during the periods of water shortage.

Example of Implementation:
In order to present scenario comparisons, an animated graphical tool has been developed in ExtendSim, by the Pertuis Charentais scientific team, which allows for comparing values of any variable over two runs. At the end of each run, a board of histogram gives the value of the indicator and gives a percentage of variation between two simulations. Among the numerous scenarios which have been built with the stakeholders, the team prepared three scenarios to be run with the model during the output step meeting:
1. Governance option scenario:

Simulation 1: Current conditions of irrigation governance in all watersheds.
Simulation 2: A slider allows four possible choices of irrigation regulation and management.

2. Test of irrigated agricultural surfaces:

Simulation 1: Actual
Simulation 2: Test of an increased or diminished irrigated surface on watershed.

3. Test of allowed water volumes for irrigation:

Simulation 1: Actual
Simulation 2: Test of lower allowed water volumes for irrigation using a slider

Click on thumbnail for full image

Figure 1: Test of governance options. Simulation 1: Current governance system. Simulation 2: Test of different governance options using sliding lists.

For each scenario, there is a choice of three types of climatic conditions: a medium year (the year 2008), a dry year (the year 2005) and a wet year (the year 2007). It was specified to the stakeholder group that some of the components were still not validated and that the results should not be used without revision: therefore, a “DEMO VERSION” caption has been applied to the outputs. The aim of the model presentation was to show to the stakeholder group what type of visualization of results was possible with the model, and to discuss with the group the relevance of the choice of indicators and the model outputs (See Figure 1 and 2).

Click on thumbnail for full image

Figure 2: Test of irrigated surface option. Simulation 1: Actual. Simulation 2: Test of an increased or diminished irrigated surface on watershed using a slider.

Comments:
This example provides a very good demonstration of the potential presentational opportunities of the selected software.

Contact: Johanna Ballé-Béganton, Johanna.Beganton@ifremer.fr.