ESEE 201 1 International Conference June 14-17, 2011, Boğazi ç i University, Istanbul

1. ESEE 2011 International Conference June 14-17, 2011, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul • The Alqueva Multipurpose Project: A Case of controversial public decision process • Vasco BarrosoGonçalves • DINAMIA-CET/ISCTE-IUL • Lisboa

2. Objectives • The evaluation process of projectsandprogramscontinues to be • closed to multiple interests and certain alternatives and criteria • for assessment result excluded • Importantsocio-technical controversies • Uncertainties • Significanteffects on the environment • Sustainability concerns • Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) does not guideon how • to perform project evaluationand move towards sustainability- • oriented objectives • Which actors ? • What knowledge ? • We explore newdecision making frameworks for analysis and evaluationof complex and controversial projects. • In a Case Study, the Alqueva Multipurpose Project, the applied public decision support devicesarecrıtıcallyanalyzed.

3. Theoretical framework • Elements of the decision making process • A process ofmethodological steps or stages isrequired to form more • systematic decision-making processes, lead information to management • and policy formulationandput the theoretic models into practice • One example of the different steps of a strategic decision making process • (Nilsson and Dalkmann, 2001): • - Environmental and social context • - Specifying the issue • - Goal setting • - Information collection and processing • - Alternatives • - Evaluation • - Decision • - Implementation

4. Theoretical perspectives to decision-making • Two approaches:a monistic approach and a pluralistic approach • Monistic approach: • - Relieson commensurability in spite of valueconflicts • - Clarifıesobjectives and sets priorities • - Listsall decision alternatives, evaluatestheir consequencesand chooses • the alternative that maximizes the objectives • - Most applied device of decision: cost-benefit analysis • Pluralistic or deliberative paradigm: • - Systematicprocess of experimentation, learning and continuous • improvement of policies and management practices • - Leadsto a satisfactory decision • - Most applied devices of decision: integrated and multi-criteriaanalysis • Other devices of decision: indicators/indices, product - related and integrated assessment toolsparticipatory tools.

5. Three recent decision-making frameworks • Mega-projectsFramework(Priemus, 2010) • StrategıcEnvıronmental Framework(Partidário, 2009) • River Basin DecisionProcessFramework(Guimarães Pereira and • Corral-Quintana, 2009).

6. Mega-projects framework(Priemus, 2010) • Ways to deal with themany problems in the decision-making process • on mega-projects • Basıcıdeas • - Knowledge-intensive learning process, in which many stakeholders • and citizens are involved; • - Optionshave to be maintained to guarantee flexibility and adaptivity • as long as possibletocope with • . changing markets • . changing political landscapes • . new technologies • . changing knowledge and insights

7. StrategıcEnvıronmental Framework(Partidário, 2009) • Basıcıdeas • - SEA Directive (2001/42/EC)and current frameworks and practices • of SEAhave not worked as an effective strategic-based instrument • appliedto projects, policiesandprogrammes; • - Designof the SEA must be more sensitive to the real characteristics • of the decision making context; • - SEA must offer flexibility and cannot be formatted as a streamlined • sequence of standard activities; • - SEA should focus on both the content and theprocess; • - Systematicapplication of participatory and interactive approaches; • - Otherveryımportant concerns: strategy and pragmatism, long-term • vision andholism process analysis.

8. River basin decision process framework(Guimarães Pereira and Corral-Quintana, 2009) • Basıcıdeas • - An integrated evaluation framework (principles of Integrated Assessment • as the guiding base); • - A new multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder participatory approach • - Three interrelated dimensions of analysıs: • Information, Assessment, Participation. • All these dimensions are framed by the institutional,political and socio- • economical context; • - Four principles toset quality of evaluation: • . Inclusive governance (Context); • . Socially robust knowledge (Information); • . Transparent assessment (Assessment); and • . Extended peer review (Participation).

9. Differentdecısıonframeworkswıth important similar features • - An integrated, participative and processualview; • - A comprehensive multi-dimensional(socio-economic, environmental, • political, institutional, etc.)assessment of all alternatives, accounting for • complexity and perspectives/interests involved; • Decision-making process defined as a learning process and need to • organize ongoing monitoring.

10. Mega-projects framework

11. SEA framework

12. River Basin Decision ProcessFramework Structured processand general tasks for performing an “Integrated Deliberative Decision Process”

13. Tentative general table

14. Case Study Analysıs:Alqueva Multipurpose project • JustıfıcatıonandObjectıves • Alqueva project ınvolved a large and • lasting controversy • Detailed critical ex-post analysis of the • Alqueva project was undertaken with the • help of a process of methodological steps • in line with the frameworks presented • - to clarify its environmental and economic sustainability conditions; • - to identify the barriers and opportunities to achieving sound evaluation.

15. Case Study brief description • Alquevais a multipurpose projectthat was conceived as a part of theIrrigationPlan • of the Alentejo region in the south of Portugal, by meansof settingup a strategic • water reserve for water supply for irrigation(110 000 ha), population and industry. • The Alqueva Dam is the main infrastructure of the projectand is locatedon the river • Guadiana. Alquevais the largestartificial lake in Europe(250 km2) and has a total • capacity over4000 hm3 and a full storagelevel at 152 m. • The project also includes ahydroelectric plant, an adducting systemfor water • supplyand an irrigation system.

16. Case Study brief description (cont.) • Very important negative environmental and social impacts: submersionof a • very large area with important ecological values and habitats; other impacts • related to the qualityof water for irrigation. • The decision process was very longand complex andof a greatpolitical and • strategic relevanceat national level. Studied and debatedduring the last 40 • years. • The dam’s construction works began in 1995. In February 2002, the doors of • the AlquevaDam were closed and the lake began to fulfill. In 2010, the lake • reached the maximum water level.

17. Case Study analysis • Methodological steps (in line with the frameworks presented): • - Problem analysis • - Functional Programme • - Preparation of the Project • . Impacts analysis • . Impacts evaluation • . Options selection

18. Problem analysis • The Alqueva Project is an example of the decisive role of the political • and socio - economic context in the decision-making process. • The decision of the EU to co-finance the project was a very important • factor for the implementation of the project. • This has limited the scopeof the studies, particularly in the analysis of • other technical options andin the identification and analysis of • uncertainties. • Developmentalternatives were defined mainly based on the predicted • storage level of the dam, without environment concern and forgetting • strategic alternative visions for the project such as being a tourist • attraction pole.

19. Functional Programme • The planning and evaluation processes were not explicitly defined • and it was not clear when, how and by whom were decisions • taken. • Decisions lacked transparency. • Multiple values and perspectives were concealed. • The “stakeholders” and the public participation in the different stages • of the decision-making process was insufficient.

20. Preparation and Realization of the Project • Impacts analysis • The studies of Alqueva lacked procedures and tools to deal withuncertainty and • information complexity, particularly in scenarioanalysisand impacts evaluation. • Decisions had an insufficient use of science and expertise. • Impacts evaluation • Difficulties in quantification, aggregation and evaluation of economic, social • and environmental impacts . • Uncompletedresults, ınadequatescope and financially biased costs. • Options selection • The selection of strategic options suffered from from the formulationof the • project’s basic conception andfrominsufficient impacts evaluation. • Some limited forms of Cost – Benefit Analysis models and multi-criteria models • were considered.

21. Conclusions • The newdecısıonframeworksbriefly described coincide in general in the • followıngrelevant set of concerns: • - In the context of sustainable development, which requires comprehensive • and consistent analysisrational-type anddeliberative and participative • analysisshould be reconciledin order to betterintegratemultiple interests • and values​​,multidisciplinarityand uncertainties. • - In order to operationalize the studyand implementation of projectsthe • use of a decision-making framework in stages is very useful.But an • integrative and flexible perspective throughout the process should be • maintained.

22. Conclusions (cont.) • - The different steps of the decision-making process (problem analysis, • functional programme, preparation and realization of the project, • operation) are strongly influenced by the context of values ​​and • interests,as well as by the information and knowledge used and • the participationactivities. • Thus, quality assessmentactivities throughout the process will be • important to ensure optimum results for the analysis, evaluation • and selection of projects and policies. • The analysis ofthe case study of the Alqueva dam project brings out • the limitationsof the studies that have been developed for this • project in light of the new methodological frameworks described.