a report on ribasim-submitted final

7/21/2019 A Report on RIBASIM-Submitted Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-report-on-ribasim-submitted-final 1/72

A Report on

Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan

Using RIBASIM

Submitted to:

Laura Basco Carrera

Submitted By:

Sudish Lal Maskey (43584 / 227)

Karim Morsy (45880 / 277)



A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM HERBD/43584/227/45880/277

3

10. Design and analysis of alternative strategies ............................................................................................... 47

10.1 Strategy 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 48

10.1.1 Public Water Supply .................................................................................................................................... 48

10.1.2 Irrigation Water Supply ............................................................................................................................... 49

10.1.3 Energy .............................................................. ................................................................. ........................... 50

10.2 Strategy 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 51

10.2.1Public Water Supply ..................................................................................................................................... 51


10.2.3 Energy .............................................................. ................................................................. ........................... 53

10.3.1 Public Water Supply .................................................................................................................................... 53


10.3.3 Energy .............................................................. ................................................................. ........................... 55

10.4 Scorecard for better decision making ............................................................ ................................................. 55

11. Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................................................................... 63

11.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 63

11.2 Recommendations ......................................................... .............................................................. ................... 63

12. References .................................................................................................................................................. 64

13. Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 65




4

List of Figures

Figure 1 Overview of the Nile Basin ..............................................................................................................9

Figure 2 Nile River Basin ...............................................................................................................................9

Figure 3 Integrated Water Resource Management Framework ................................................................ 11

Figure 4 Stake Holder Analysis ................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 5 Problem Identification ................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 6 Schematization of the Nile Basin showing Atbara River Confluence ........................................... 17

Figure 7 Merowe Dam ............................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 8 Data for calibration ...................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9 Results of Calibration ................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 10 Shortage in Public Water Supply ................................................................................................ 30

Figure 11 Graph obtained from Ribasim .................................................................................................... 30

Figure 12 Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply .......................................................................................... 31

Figure 13 Ribasim Graph showing Shortage in Irrigation in ...................................................................... 32

Figure 14 Ribasim Graph showing time step shortage in Irrigation Water Supply .................................... 32

Figure 15 Shortage in Energy in base case ................................................................................................. 33

Figure 16 Shortage in Energy ..................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 17 Graph showing shortage in Public Water Supply in Reference Case ......................................... 38

Figure 18 Ribasim Graph showing Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply in Reference Case ...................... 38

Figure 19 Shortage of Water for Irrigation in Reference Case .................................................................. 39

Figure 20 Ribasim Graph showing the Shortage Irrigation Water Supply in Reference Case ................... 40

Figure 21 Ribasim graph showing a time step of shortage in irrigation water supply in Reference Case. 40

Figure 22 Shortage Comparison Chart for Irrigation ................................................................................. 43

Figure 23Comparative Chart for Public water shortage in reference case with strategy 1 ...................... 49

Figure 24Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply in Reference case and Strategy1 ...................... 50

Figure 25Comparative Study of Energy Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 1 ................................ 51

Figure 26 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 2 .......... 52

Figure 27 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference Case and Strategy 2 .... 53

Figure 28 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3 .......... 54

Figure 29 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3 ..... 55

Figure 30 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Ethiopia ........................................................... 59

Figure 31 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Sudan and South Sudan .................................. 59

Figure 32 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Egypt ............................................................... 60

Figure 33 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Sudan ................................................................................ 60

http://d/UNESCO-IHE%20works/Module%206/Exercise/Report/Ribasim%20final%20report/A%20Report%20on%20RIBASIM1.docx%23_Toc414745914













5

Figure 34 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Egypt ................................................................................. 61

Figure 35 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Ethiopia............................................................................. 61

Figure 36 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Ethiopia............................................................................. 62




6

List of Tables

Table 1 Problem Identification................................................................................................................... 15

Table 2 Data Analysis for Calibration and model input ............................................................................. 19

Table 3 Population in Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, and Ethiopia 2005 ................................................ 21

Table 4 Water needed by the population in the four riparian countries 2005 ......................................... 21

Table 5 Population and Water Demand for the Riparian Countries 2005 ................................................. 21

Table 6 Livestock details 2005 ................................................................................................................... 21

Table 7 Water needed for livestock 2005 .................................................................................................. 21

Table 8 Population and Water Demand of Livestock 2005 ....................................................................... 22

Table 9 Total Water Demand 2005 ............................................................................................................ 22

Table 10 Energy Table 2005 ....................................................................................................................... 22

Table 11 Potential yield for wheat, vegetables and sugarcane 2005 ........................................................ 22

Table 12 Required Irrigation Area 2005 ..................................................................................................... 23

Table 13 Current Irrigated area for the Nile River Basin 2005 ................................................................... 23

Table 14 Comparision area equiped for irrigation, area currenlty irrigated and required irrigation per

country 2005 .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Table 15 Cropping Pattern per country for the present situation 2005 .................................................... 24

Table 16 Area Currently irrigated for egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan and South Sudan 2005 ........................ 24

Table 17 Crop Evapo-transpiration per irrigation scheme in sudan and Egypt 2005 ................................ 25

Table 18 Crop factors for Wheat,Vegetables and Sugarcane 2005 ........................................................... 25

Table 19 Calendar of the cropping plan for Sudan and Egypt 2005 .......................................................... 25

Table 20Expected rainfall per irrigation scheme in Egypt 2005 ................................................................ 26

Table 21 Net water requirements for Wheat and Vegetables for "Fir_Nile Valley Delta"irrigation Scheme

2005 ........................................................................................................................................................... 27

Table 22Net water requirements for Sugarcane for "Fir_Nile Valley Delta"irrigation Scheme 2005 ....... 28

Table 23 Total Net water Requirement for all types of crop 2005 ............................................................ 29

Table 24 Shortage in Public Water Supply ................................................................................................. 29

Table 25 Irrigation Shortage in Base case .................................................................................................. 31

Table 26 Population in Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, and Ethiopia 2030 .............................................. 34

Table 27 Water needed by the population in the four riparian countries 2030 ....................................... 34

Table 28 Population and Water Demand for the Riparian Countries 2030 ............................................... 34

Table 29 Livestock details 2030 ................................................................................................................. 34

Table 30 Water needed for livestock 2030 ................................................................................................ 34

Table 31 Population and Water Demand of Livestock 2030...................................................................... 34




7

Table 32 Total Water Demand 2030 .......................................................................................................... 35

Table 33 Energy Table 2030 ....................................................................................................................... 35

Table 34 Potential yield for wheat, vegetables and sugarcane 2030 ........................................................ 35

Table 35 Required Irrigation Area 2030 ..................................................................................................... 36

Table 36 Irrigation developments for 2030 ............................................................................................... 36

Table 37 Irrigated areas in base case and reference case 2030 ................................................................ 36

Table 38 Cropping patterns for 2030 ......................................................................................................... 36

Table 39 Irrigation Area Gap ...................................................................................................................... 37

Table 40 Distribution of irrigated area per country for 2030 .................................................................... 37

Table 41 Irrigated area per crop in each country ...................................................................................... 37

Table 42 Shortage in Public Water Supply in Reference Case ................................................................... 38

Table 43 Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply in Reference Case .............................................................. 39

Table 44 Shortage in Energy in Reference Case ......................................................................................... 41

Table 45 Shortage of Energy in Reference Case ........................................................................................ 41

Table 46 Comparative study of Shortage situation Public Water Supply .................................................. 42

Table 47 Comparative Study of Shortage Situation of Public Water Supply ............................................. 42

Table 48 Comparison of Shortage Situation .............................................................................................. 42

Table 49 Assumed population and Public water supply ............................................................................ 47

Table 50 Net Irrigation Demand after change in cropping time ................................................................ 47Table 51 Reservoir operation Rules adopted fir alternative strategies ..................................................... 48

Table 52 Comparison of Shortage in Public Water Supply with reference case and strategy 1 ............... 49

Table 53 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 1 .................. 50

Table 54Comparative Study of Irrigation Energy Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 1 .................. 50

Table 55 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 2 ........... 51

Table 56 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 2 ...... 52

Table 57 Comparative Study of Energy Shortage in Reference Case and Strategy 2 ................................ 53

Table 58 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3 ........... 54

Table 59 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3 ...... 55

Table 60 Criteria and Values obtained from calculations and ribasim for all the countries with different

strategies .................................................................................................................................................... 56

Table 61 Coloured Representation of Score card ...................................................................................... 57

Table 62 Score Card showing the preference level of each objectives with strategies ............................ 58

Table 63 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Sudan ................................................................................. 60

Table 64 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Egypt .................................................................................. 61




8

Table 65Complete Analysis of all three cases ............................................................................................ 11




9

1. Introduction

The Nile River is a major north-flowing river in north

eastern Africa and generally regarded as the longest

river in the world The Nile river basin comprises of 11riparian countries which are Burundi, Rwanda,

Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya,

Uganda, South Sudan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and

Egypt. Nile River has two main tributaries; White Nile

with its sources from Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania,

Kenya, Zaire and Uganda and Blue Nile with its sources

in the Ethiopian highlands. The population living in this

basin represents about 54% of the total population of

the riparian countries. Within the Nile basin, there are

five major lakes (Victoria, Albert, Kyoga, Tana and

Nasser) with a surface area larger than 1000 km2

1.1 Location and Study Area

The Nile extends over a wide band of latitude from 4°S to 32°N. The

river flows from highland region in the tropical climate zone with

abundant moisture to lowland plains under severe arid conditions.

It has a total length of 6700 km. Egypt is wholly dependent upon

water that originates from the upstream Nile Basin. The drainage

area of the Nile basin is roughly 3.4 million km2, with and average

discharge of 2800m3/s; providing freshwater resources to a

population of about 200 million people.

1.2 Use of RIBASIM to analyse the Basin

To analyse the Project and its different components River Basin Simulation (RIBASIM) is used as a tool.

This software was developed by Deltares, Delft Hydraulics which is mainly used in water management

studies for the simulation of river basin management. This model is used for large water resources

development and also operational of water management systems dealing with multi sector of water

supply. To address all the problems related to water resources and water supply, appropriate

schematization is to be done during modelling in RIBASIM

Figure 1 Overview of the Nile Basin

Figure 2 Nile River Basin




10

2. Characterization of the Nile Water Resources

The components that should be included in planning IWRM in the Nile Basin are as follows:

Components of Natural Resource System (NRS)

The physical system-

The average annual rainfall over the basin differs considerably from upstream

2500mm/year to downstream 0mm/year

In the south, the highest rainfall volume is accumulated in the month of April, with a

second maximum between September and November

In the north, maximum rainfall gradually shifts towards a single maximum in July-

August.

Fluctuations in the Nile flows are primarily driven by the variation in rainfall over the

Ethiopian highlands

The considerable amount of water is lost through evaporation

The chemical system and

The biological system-response of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem, sedimentation problems

in the reservoirs, flooding

Control variables – Change of Reservoir operation rule curve, the size of feeder canals, etc.

Components of Socio-Economic System (SES)

Water uses and related activities-

Dams constructed for irrigations and hydropower like the Rosieres and sennar in the

blue Nile, Aswan in the Main Nile

Regulated lakes like Lake Tana

Water supply both for municipal and industrial

Future plans for expansion of those schemes

Tourist attraction

Control variables –Governed by legislative and regulating measures

Components of the administrative and Institutional System (AIS)

International Agreement- between the countries like the agreement of Egypt and Great

Britain ( Repr. Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) in 1929; Egypt and Sudan in 1959 and

Egypt and Ethiopia in 1993

Central Government

Regional government

Coordinating bodies between the countries




11

Figure 3 Integrated Water Resource Management Framework

2.1The Stakeholders

The stake holder analysis is done based on this format

Meet their needs Key player

Least important Show consideration

Figure 4 Stake Holder Analysis

Stakeholder analysis is a process of systematically gathering and analysing qualitative information to

determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and/or implementing a policy

or program. Stakeholders in a process are actors (persons or organizations) with a vested interest in the

Interest of stakeholders

Power/influenceofstakeholders




12

policy being promoted. These stakeholders, or “interested parties,” can usually be grouped into the

following categories: international/donors, national political (legislators, governors), public (ministry of

health [MOH], social security agency, ministry of finance), labour (unions, medical associations),

commercial /private for-profit, non-profit (nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], foundations), civil

society, and users/consumers.




13

A scoring system was used to more easily decide on a ranking, as it was difficult to say definitively if groups had power ( legitimacy and urgency) or not, and a

scale more accurately reflected the differences between groups. For the Venn diagram values of 2 and 3 were included in the circle, with 1 excluded.

Stakeholder Description Scoring (3-high, 1-low) Stakeholder type

Power Urgency Legitimacy

Aquaculture/Fisheries Local industry who wish to maintain traditional

fishery or develop a new economic sector of

aquaculture using the lake

3 3 2 Definitive

Governmental Consortium The lake management organisation, with

representatives from the three bordering countries

3 2 3 Definitive

Environmental NGOs Local and larger groups concerned about the

environmental state of the lake

1 3 3 Dependent

Local people Residents of the area 2 1 1 Dormant

Recreational Users Primarily boat and property owners from other

places who visit the lake frequently

2 3 1 Dangerous

Tourism Largest economic sector in region 1 2 1 Demanding

Universities/Research

centres

Researchers interested in the region 1 1 3 Discretionary

Consumers People who would buy the fish produced in the

region

1 2 1 Demanding




14

Several actions of a certain stakeholder can be both positive and negative, depending on its intensity and the perspective of the stakeholder on the issue. In

addition, their action and their influence frequently depend on the interaction between each other, which has not been considered in this approach. Furthermore,

power often simultaneously raises when legitimacy is increased. This became obvious when the salience of the stakeholders was tried to improve in the direction

towards a definitive one

Stakeholder How could these stakeholders influence the sustainable management of the region? How their Salience can be improved?

Lacking

(Power,

Legitimacy,

Urgency)

Positive Negative

Aquaculture/

Fisheries

Important part of the local economy and an

influence on local government

Potential to overdevelop aquaculture and

put ecosystem and tourism at risk

Production of scientific research and

reports, greater understanding of

objections and other perspectives

L

GovernmentalConsortium

Mediate between stakeholders, and make

plans without undue pressure

Able to block progress, especially with

veto power for all countries

-

Environmental

NGOs

Build awareness in general population and

inform governments

All NGOs may be vulnerable to actions of

one group

Collaboration with other stakeholders,

change to more inclusive lake governance,

increased community support, links to

NGOs at different scales

P

Local people Power available to push for change Depend on information, and require

motivation. Could be used

Awareness and Education. Greater role in

planning processU, L

Recreational

Users

Able to support good management vocally

and financially

Lack of legitimacy means they may be

misinformed or follow narrow interest

Increase their awareness through

posters/news etc. L

Tourism Care greatly about water quality and the

aesthetic value of the place and can make

governments aware

Interests depend on tourists (who may

also support fishing)

Increased power through collaboration,

understanding tourism's value to society P, L

Universities/Research centres Provide legitimacy to other groups throughfocused research Lack of urgency and connection to regionmay affect results Collaboration with other stakeholdersP, U

Consumers Drive economic decisions affecting the

development of the region

But, drive economic decisions affecting

the development of the region

Altering/coordinating buying decisions,

increased awareness of problems P, L



A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

3. Problem Identification for the Present Situation

Table 1 Problem Identification

Basin systemphenomena

Causes Socio-econ. effects Measures Implications

Shortage of waterInsufficient food

-uneven rainfall-increased demand

economic losses reservoirs - high costs- hydropower

- environmentaleffects

Water quality (asshown in figure 4)

- Quantity ofdomestic andindustrial effluents.- Quantity of flow inthe canals, which inturn depends onirrigation demands.

Socio-econ. EffectsHealth issues

Along the Nile basin - environmentaleffects-Diseases

Power Supply

Agriculture

Water Allocation and

Equity

Dams (reservoirs)

Health Problems

Food insecurity

Water Shortage

Population Growth

High Sediment Trap

Environmental

Effects

Floods

Crop Yield

Economy

Figure 5 Problem Identification




16

4. Objective and Criteria (including the Work Plan)

Objectives Evaluation Criteria

1. Self-sufficiency food Coverage [%]

2. Improve employment Increase of employment

- Number of permanent jobs

- Number of temporally jobs

3. Increase income of people

- Improve income position of farmers

- Improve equity in income distribution

net income of the farmers

4. Increase the export production - Export value

5. Support economic development in an economic

development in an economically efficient way

- Total annual benefits

- Total annual costs

- B/C ratio

- NPV

- Total capital required

- Foreign currency required

- Total construction costs

- Total O&M costs

- Sectorial value added

- GRP




17

5. Nile RIBASIM Schematization

The Nile Basin except the Atbara River till the confluence

was provided by the lecturer. So the schematisation of

Atbara River with different structures in the river was madeas shown in figure 7. This was done by adding confluence

points and connecting them with the links and calibrating

them. The schematization includes different natural

systems as well as manmade systems. For the analysis of

this basin, schematization at Atbara River includes different

types of nodes Variable inflow nodes, Confluence nodes,

surface irrigation nodes, fixed irrigation nodes, Reservoirs

nodes and diversion nodes which were connected by the

links.

5.1 Reservoirs (Merowe Dam)

Merowe dam is a potential project proposed to be built on

the Nile river basin in 2002. This dam is located in north Sudan in the capital Khartoum, the main

purpose behind building this dam is hydropower

generation, as well as controlling the flood. The

flood water level is expected to be 300m with a

discharge 9999 m3/s with expected 1250MW of

electricity, this project is considered as the largest

contemporary hydropower project in Africa. The

creation of the reservoir lake will increase the

surface area of the Nile about 700 km2, with

1500,000 m3/yr evapotranspiration rate and this

loss is almost 8% of the total water in Sudan.

5.2 Karadobi Dam

Karadobi projects is expected to provide improvements to the downstream riparian countries with

regards to flooding, siltation, irrigation and water conservation.

The Karadobi hydropower project is located on the Abbay River ( Blue Nile ). The proposed dam site

is located 1.7km down stream of its confluence with Guder River at about 135km (air distance) north

west of Addis-Ababa. The project was studied at reconnaissance level in the Abbay River Master Plan

Project by BCEOM, in 1998.

Figure 6 Schematization of the Nile Basin showing Atbara

River Confluence

Figure 7 Merowe Dam




18

The Ministry of Water Resources had entered an agreement and signed a contract with the

international consultants, Norplan-Norconsult- Lahmeyer (with local associates) on May 10, 2004, to

undertake pre-feasibility and feasibility studies of Karadobi hydropower projects respectively.

The study of the Karadobi Multi-Purpose Project indicate a rolled concrete gravity dam of maximum

structural height of 260m and length of about 684 m at the crest, with a corresponding installed

capacity of 1600 MW. The reservoir area full level has an area of 445km 2 with a capacity of. 40,200

Mm3.

The goal of the Project is to:

Promote regional economic development through provision of more renewable hydropower energy

at a reasonable cost




19

6. Model data, calibration and assumption

Calibration of the model data means a cross check of the variation between the simulated and

monitored data. In this Basin the variation between the simulated and monitored may be due to

heavy evaporation loss in the basin. So, to compensate this error surface area and initial storage wascalculated by assuming average depth of 10m. The calculation is shown in table 1 below. This Value

was used in the model as shown in the figure 4.i.e in the storage node. The chart showing the

calibrated data with simulated and monitored data is as shown in figure 5.

Table 2 Data Analysis for Calibration and model input

Figure 8 Data for calibration




20

Figure 9 Results of Calibration




21

7. Base case analysis including the water demands (for each water user)

for the present and future situation (Reference Case)

7.1 Water requirements for public and livestock water supply in present case

For the current situation the water demand is computed by translating population and livestock

statistics into food demand. The food demand is used for determining the required irrigation area.

The population in Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, and Ethiopia is indicated in table2.

Country Population*10^6 in 2005

Ethiopia 27.1

Sudan and South Sudan 26.4

Egypt 72

Table 3 Population in Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, and Ethiopia 2005

The water needed per country is given in table 3 below.

Country Water Needed for population (l/cap/day)

Ethiopia 25

Sudan and South Sudan 25

Egypt 56

Table 4 Water needed by the population in the four riparian countries 2005

The datas from table 2 and 3 was then used to calculate the total water demand for each riparian

countries. The result obtained is illustrated in table 4 below.

Country Ethiopia Sudan and South Sudan Egypt

Population 27,100,000.00 26,400,000.00 72,000,000.00

Population water

demand (McM)247,287,500.00 240,900,000.00 1,471,680,000.00

Table 5 Population and Water Demand for the Riparian Countries 2005

Similarly, using the table 5 and 6 below the water demand for the livestocks was calculated and is

shown in table 7 below.

Country Livestock (in*10^6 TLU)

Ethiopia 10.6


Egypt 50

Table 6 Livestock details 2005

Country Water Needed for Livestock(l/cap/day)

Ethiopia 20


Egypt 20

Table 7 Water needed for livestock 2005




22

Country EthiopiaSudan and South

SudanEgypt

Population 10,600,000.00 31,200,000.00 50,000,000.00

Population water demand

Livestock (McM)77,380,000.00 227,760,000.00 365,000,000.0

Table 8 Population and Water Demand of Livestock 2005

Then the total water demand was calculated per country as follows:

Country Ethiopia Sudan and South

Sudan

Egypt

Population 27,100,000.00 26,400,000.00 72,000,000.00

Population water demand (McM) 247,287,500.00 240,900,000.00 1,471,680,000.00

Population 10,600,000.00 31,200,000.00 50,000,000.00

Population water demand

Livestock (McM)

77,380,000.00 227,760,000.00 365,000,000.00

Total water demand PWS(McM/year) 324,667,500.00 468,660,000.00 1,836,680,000.00

Total water demand PWS(m3/s) 10.30 14.86 58.24

Table 9 Total Water Demand 2005

The results were then used as the values for public water supply nodes in Ribasim.

7.2 Water Demand for Irrigation in present case

Two assumptions were made for the computation of irrigated area.

1. Only wheat is considered to fulfil cereal requirement

2. Sugarcane is entirely for export and does not contribute to food of local population

For the agricultural water demand, the food demand for the population was calculated using

the datas in table 9 and table 2. Then using table 10 required Irrigation area was calculated

which is as shown in table 11.

Energy requirement per capita per day assuming light activity level (Kcal) 2100

Nutritional Value of 1000gm cereals / wheat (Kcal) 3400

Table 10 Energy Table 2005

Country Potential yield (kg/ha/yr)Wheat Vegetables Sugarcane

Ethiopia 1160 40000 125000

Sudan and South Sudan 1600 40000 125000

Egypt 8000 40000 125000

Table 11 Potential yield for wheat, vegetables and sugarcane 2005


Sudan

Egypt Total

Total cereals/wheat

requirements per

year(Mton)

6,109,455,882 5,951,647,058 16,231,764,705 28,292,867,647




23

Required

cereals/wheat area

(Mha)

5,266,772 3,719,779 2,028,970 11,015,522

Required Irrigation

Area (Mha)5,266,772 3,719,779 2,028,970 11,015,522

Table 12 Required Irrigation Area 2005

The irrigated area in present situation according to the country is as shown in table 12.

Country Node Total irrigated area

2005 (ha) from

software

Total irrigated

area 2005 (ha)

% Area

distribution

Ethiopia Fir_Et_SmallScaleHumer

aMetemaIrr(P)

1800 0

Total 1800 0

Sudan and

South Sudan

Fir_Su_NewHalfaIrr 105000 105000 12.43%

Fir_Su_GeziraMenagilSu

kiGeneidAbuNamaSel

650000 650000 76.92%

Fir_Su_MainNile_Merow

eNasser_Irr

90000 90000 10.65%

Total 845000 845000 100.00%

Egypt Fir_Eg_ToshkaPumpSche

me

250000 250000 8.20%

Fir_Eg_NileValleyDelta 2800000 2800000 91.80%

Total 3050000 3050000 100.00%

Basin Level Total 3896800 3895000

Table 13 Current Irrigated area for the Nile River Basin 2005

However there is a difference between the area currently irrigated (2005) and the area that is

equipped for irrigation. For this the datas were taken from AQUASTAT as per the country and a

comparison was made based on it as follows:

CountryArea equipped for

irrigation (ha)

Area currently irrigated

(ha)

Required

irrigation(ha)

Ethiopia 289,530 - 5,266,772

Ethiopia basin

(20%)57,906 - 5,266,772

Sudan and SouthSudan

1,863,000 845,000 3,719,779

Egypt 3,422,178 3,050,000 2,028,971

Table 14 Comparision area equiped for irrigation, area currenlty irrigated and required irrigation per country 2005

From the above table we can conclude that currently Ethiopia is not irrigated at all along the nile basin

using the water from nile, whereas in Egypt the irrigated area is more than required areas. But Sudan

and south sudan has a lack of irrigation land even if they irrigate all the potential land similar to

Ethiopia.

Finally the irrigated are is divided into areas growing wheat and sugarcane using table 14 as a base.The area irrigated with wheat and sugarcane in each country is then given in table 15 below.




24

Country

Cropping pattern (2005)

Wheat and vegetables (%) Sugarcane (%)

Ethiopia basin (20%) 100 -

Sudan and South Sudan 80 20

Egypt 90 10Table 15 Cropping Pattern per country for the present situation 2005

Country Area Irrigated Wheat (ha) Area Irrigated Sugar cane (ha)

Ethiopia 0

Ethiopia basin (20%) 0 0

Sudan and South Sudan 676,000 169,000

Egypt 2,745,000 305,000

Table 16 Area Currently irrigated for egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan and South Sudan 2005

To ensure that the irrigated area is sufficient for covering the required food production in all the

countries, the average irrigation water requirements per country was calculated. The net irrigation

water requirements for the present situation were computed based on the Evapo-transpiration

(ETc), effective rainfall (Peff ) and land preparation using the following formula:

IRRnet = ETc - Peff + land Preparation--------1

Using the table 16 as the reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) and the crop factors (Kc) per

country per project, the evapotranspiration is calculated as follows

ETc = ETo*Kc

The crop factor for wheat, vegetables and sugarcane based on the country is shown in table

17, whereas the cropping calendar is shown in table 18. For the net water requirements, the

expected rainfall from table 19 was used and the rainfall effectiveness was assumed to be

70% for all irrigation schemes in Egypt and Sudan. Using above tables and the formula (1), the

net water demand was calculated, the result of which is shown in table 20 and 21 for different

crops.

Month

Ref Eto (mm/day)

Fir_Su_Gezir

aMenagilSuki

GeneidAbuN

amaSel

Fir_Su_New

HalfaIrr

Fir_Su_MainNile_

MeroweNasser_Irr

Fir_Eg_Toshka

PumpScheme

Fir_Eg_Nile

ValleyDelta

January 5.40 4.80 5.29 3.37 2.25

February 6.41 5.46 6.49 4.64 2.97

Mar 7.32 6.53 7.54 6.53 4.11

April 7.66 7.22 8.83 8.38 5.56

May 7.98 7.23 9.49 10.22 6.96

June 7.50 7.34 9.30 10.83 7.47

July 6.52 6.23 8.44 10.46 6.88




25

August 5.85 5.43 8.10 10.15 6.26

September 6.07 5.83 8.01 8.99 5.44

October 5.85 5.39 7.66 6.93 4.30

November 5.90 4.91 6.12 4.66 2.90

December 5.36 4.61 5.09 3.43 2.19

Table 17 Crop Evapo-transpiration per irrigation scheme in sudan and Egypt 2005

MonthKc

Wheat Vegetables Sugarcane

1 0.50 0.78 0.40

2 0.72 0.95 0.82

3 1.15 1.05 0.82

4 1.15 1.05 1.25

5 0.32 0.75 1.25

6 1.25

7 1.25

8 1.25

9 1.25

10 1.25

11 0.75

12 0.75

Table 18 Crop factors for Wheat,Vegetables and Sugarcane 2005

Type of

Crop

Calendar cropping plan

Sudan Egypt

Wheat June October

Vegetables December April

Sugarcane January January

Table 19 Calendar of the cropping plan for Sudan and Egypt 2005

Month

Ref Eto (mm/day)

Fir_Su_GeziraMena

gilSukiGeneidAbuN

amaSel

Fir_Su_New

HalfaIrr

Fir_Su_MainNile_

MeroweNasser_Irr

Fir_Eg_Toshka

PumpScheme

Fir_Eg_Nile

ValleyDelta

January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

April 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

May 0.37 0.55 0.09 0.00 0.00

June 0.84 1.30 0.13 0.00 0.00

July 2.42 3.48 0.19 0.00 0.00

August 2.88 3.67 0.59 0.00 0.00

September 1.36 1.89 0.05 0.00 0.00

October 0.37 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.00

November 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




26

Table 20Expected rainfall per irrigation scheme in Egypt 2005

Also, following formulas were used to calculate table 20 and 21 for different crop types

NWR=Sub-NWR (Sub-NWR>0)

NWR =0(Sub-NWR<0) And multiplying NWR (mm/day) times 0.116 for computing the NWR (l/s. ha)




Crop Wheat-Vegetables

Startime

Octobe

r

Area (% of Total

irr.area) 90

Evapotranspiration Land Preparation Effective Rainfall Net water Requirements

MonthLength

(days)

Ref Eto

(mm

/day)

Kc Crop

ET

Land

Prep

dose

(mm)

Land

Prep .l

(mm

/day)

Expected

rainfall

(mm

/day)

Rainfall

effectiveness

(%)

Effective

rainfall

(mm

/day)

Sub-NWR

(mm/day

) IRR net

NWR

(mm

/day)

NWR

(l/s.ha)

January 31 2.25 1.15 2.59 0 0 0 70 0 2.59 2.59 0.30

Feb 28 2.97 0.32 0.95 0 0 0 70 0 0.95 0.95 0.11

Mar 31 4.11 0 0.00 50 1.61 0 70 0 1.61 1.61 0.19

April 30 5.56 0.78 4.34 0 0 0 70 0 4.34 4.34 0.50

May 31 6.96 0.95 6.61 0 0 0 70 0 6.61 6.61 0.77

June 30 7.47 1.05 7.84 0 0 0 70 0 7.84 7.84 0.91

July 31 6.88 1.05 7.22 0 0 0 70 0 7.22 7.22 0.84

August 31 6.26 0.75 4.70 0 0 0 70 0 4.70 4.70 0.54

Septembe

r30 5.44 0 0.00 50 1.67 0 70 0 1.67 1.67 0.19

October 31 4.3 0.5 2.15 0 0 0 70 0 2.15 2.15 0.25

November 30 2.9 0.72 2.09 0 0 0 70 0 2.09 2.09 0.24

December

31 2.19 1.15 2.52 0 0 0 70 0 2.52 2.52 0.29

Table 21 Net water requirements for Wheat and Vegetables for "Fir_Nile Valley Delta"irrigation Scheme 2005




28

Crop Sugarcane

Startime January

Area (% of Total

irr.area) 10

Evapotranspiration Land Preparation Effective Rainfall Net water Requirements

MonthLength

(days)

Ref Eto

(mm/day)Kc

Crop

ET

Land

Prep

dose

(mm)

Land Prep

.l

(mm/day)

Expected

rainfall

(mm/day)

Rainfall

effectiveness

(%)

Effective

rainfall

(mm/day)

Sub-NWR

(mm/day)

IRR net

NWR

(mm/day)

NWR

(l/s. ha)

January 31 2.25 0.4 0.90 0 0 0 70 0 0.90 0.90 0.10February 28 2.97 0.82 2.44 0 0 0 70 0 2.44 2.44 0.28

March 31 4.11 0.82 3.37 0 0 0 70 0 3.37 3.37 0.39

April 30 5.56 1.25 6.95 0 0 0 70 0 6.95 6.95 0.81

May 31 6.96 1.25 8.70 0 0 0 70 0 8.70 8.70 1.01

June 30 7.47 1.25 9.34 0 0 0 70 0 9.34 9.34 1.08

July 31 6.88 1.25 8.60 0 0 0 70 0 8.60 8.60 1.00

August 31 6.26 1.25 7.83 0 0 0 70 0 7.83 7.83 0.91

September 30 5.44 1.25 6.80 0 0 0 70 0 6.80 6.80 0.79

October 31 4.3 0.75 3.23 0 0 0 70 0 3.23 3.23 0.37

November 30 2.9 0.75 2.18 0 0 0 70 0 2.18 2.18 0.25

December 31 2.19 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 70 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 22Net water requirements for Sugarcane for "Fir_Nile Valley Delta"irrigation Scheme 2005

The Net water requirement for all types of crops is calculated in table 22 below




29

MonthNWR

(mm/day)

January 2.42

Feb 1.10

Mar 1.79

April 4.60

May 6.82

June 7.99

July 7.36

August 5.01

September 2.18

October 2.26

November 2.10

December 2.27

Table 23 Total Net water Requirement for all types of crop 2005

Similarly, net water requirements for all the projects were calculated and then the values obtained

was entered in RIBASIM as shown in figure 10.

7.3 Analysis of Problems in Present case (Base Case)

After entering all the datas that was calculated into the Ribasim we get the following results in all

the water shortages in the present case.

7.3.1 Public Water Supply

The table below shows the summary of the results obtained.

MonthEthiopia

Sudan and

South SudanEgypt

2005 2005 2005

Jan 0.00 0.00 0.00

Feb 0.01 0.00 0.00

Mar 0.00 0.00 0.00

April 0.00 0.00 0.00

May 0.00 0.00 0.00Jun 0.31 0.00 0.00

Jul 0.00 0.00 0.00

Aug 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sep 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oct 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nov 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dec 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.03 0.00 0.00

Table 24 Shortage in Public Water Supply




30

The graph of the same is as follows:

Figure 10 Shortage in Public Water Supply

The Graph of the same was also obtained from the Ribasim software which is presented below.

Figure 11 Graph obtained from Ribasim

By observing the above graphs, we can say that the shortage is maximum only June for Ethiopia and

the rest two countries have no impact in the present case.

7.3.2 Irrigation Water Shortage

The irrigation conditions in the present condition was analysed and summarised as shown in the

table below:

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Month

Shortage in PWS

Ethiopia Sudan Egypt




31

MonthEthiopia

Sudan and

South SudanEgypt

2005 2005 2005

Jan 0.00 21.96 7.12

Feb 0.00 432.64 5.32

Mar 0.00 1191.44 7.97

April 0.00 904.42 41.09

May 0.00 365.71 379.94

Jun 0.00 108.21 935.95

Jul 0.00 0.00 666.56

Aug 0.00 0.00 178.68

Sep 0.00 0.00 24.39

Oct 0.00 0.00 6.99

Nov 0.00 0.00 4.35

Dec 0.00 8.51 6.87Total 0.00 252.74 188.77

Table 25 Irrigation Shortage in Base case

The Graph of the same is shown in the following figure:

Figure 12 Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply

The graph clearly shows the shortage of irrigation water supply in Sudan and Egypt whereas there is

no shortage in Ethiopia. Results from Ribasim is shown below

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Jan Feb Mar April May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Month

Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply

Ethiopia 2005 Sudan and South Sudan 2005 Egypt 2005




32

Figure 13 Ribasim Graph showing Shortage in Irrigation in

Figure 14 Ribasim Graph showing time step shortage in Irrigation Water Supply




33

7.3.3 Energy Production

The Results from Ribasim tells us that Ethiopia has power shortage in the present case as presented

in the table below

Month Sudan Egypt Ethiopia

1 0.00 0.00 823.36

2 0.00 0.00 830.00

3 0.00 0.00 830.00

4 0.00 0.00 830.00

5 0.00 0.00 830.00

6 0.00 0.00 830.00

7 0.00 0.00 830.00

8 0.00 0.00 830.00

9 0.00 0.00 830.00

10 0.00 0.00 830.0011 0.00 0.00 830.00

12 0.00 0.00 830.00

Total 0.00 0.00 829.33

Figure 15 Shortage in Energy in base case

The figure below shows the shortage graphically.

Figure 16 Shortage in Energy

The table and graph illustrates that Ethiopia has energy shortage in present case but the other two

has no shortages of energy.

7.4 Water requirements for public and livestock water supply in present case in Future

Case (Reference Case)

For the future situation, water demand is computed by translating population and livestock statistics

into food demand similar to the present case or base case of 2005. The food demand is used for

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700800

900


P o w e r ( G W h )

Month

Shortage in Energy

Sudan Egypt Ethiopia




34

determining the required irrigation area. The population in Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, and

Ethiopia is indicated in table23.

CountryPopulation*10^6 in 2030

Ethiopia 48


Egypt 107

Table 26 Population in Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, and Ethiopia 2030

The water needed per country is given in table 24 below.

Country

Water Needed

(l/cap/day)

Ethiopia 25

Sudan and South Sudan25

Egypt 56

Table 27 Water needed by the population in the four riparian countries 2030

The datas from table 23 and 24 was then used to calculate the total water demand for each riparian

countries. The result obtained is illustrated in table 24 below.


Population 48,000,000.00 44,800,000.00 107,000,000.00

Population water

demand (McM)438,000,000.00 408,800,000.00 2,187,080,000.00

Table 28 Population and Water Demand for the Riparian Countries 2030

Similarly, using the table 25 and 26 below the water demand for the live stocks was calculated and is

shown in table 27 below.

Country Livestock (in*10^6 TLU)

Ethiopia 13.1


Egypt 90

Table 29 Livestock details 2030

Country Water Needed for Livestock(l/cap/day)Ethiopia 20


Egypt 20

Table 30 Water needed for livestock 2030


Population 13,100,000.00 41,000,000.00 90,000,000.00

Population water

demand

Livestock(McM)

95,630,000.00 299,300,000.00 657,000,000.00

Table 31 Population and Water Demand of Livestock 2030




35

Then the total water demand was calculated per country as follows:


Population 48,000,000.00 44,800,000.00 107,000,000.00

Population water

demand (McM)

438,000,000.00 408,800,000.00 2,187,080,000.00

Population 13,100,000.00 41,000,000.00 90,000,000.00

Population water

demand

Livestock(McM)

95,630,000.00 299,300,000.00 657,000,000.00

Total water

demand

PWS(McM/year)

533,630,000.00 708,100,000.00 2,844,080,000.00

Total water

demand

PWS(m3/s)

16.92 22.45 90.19

Table 32 Total Water Demand 2030

The results were then used as the values for public water supply nodes in Ribasim.

7.4 Water Demand for Irrigation in future case (Reference Case)

Two assumptions were made for the computation of irrigated area.

1. Only wheat is considered to fulfil cereal requirement

2. Sugarcane is entirely for export and does not contribute to food of local population

For the agricultural water demand, the food demand for the population was calculated using

the datas in table 30 and table 23. Then using table 31 required Irrigation area was calculated

which is as shown in table 32.

Energy requirement per capita per day assuming light activity level (Kcal) 2100

Nutritional Value of 1000gm cereals / wheat (Kcal) 3400

Table 33 Energy Table 2030

Country Potential yield (kg/ha/yr)

Wheat Vegetables Sugarcane

Ethiopia 1160 40000 125000Sudan and South Sudan 1600 40000 125000

Egypt 8000 40000 125000

Table 34 Potential yield for wheat, vegetables and sugarcane 2030


Sudan

Egypt Total

Total cereals/wheat

requirements per

year(Mton)

10,821,176,470.6 10,099,764,705.9 24,122,205,882.4 45,043,147,058.8

Required

cereals/wheat area(Mha)

9,328,600.4 6,312,352.9 3,015,275.7 18,656,229.1




36

Table 35 Required Irrigation Area 2030

For the computation of the required irrigation area versus potential irrigation area we considered

that a country can only reach its potential irrigation area in the long term. Because it depends on set

of factors such as availability of labour force, financial and human resources capacity, infrastructure,

favourable political conditions and economic development.

Assuming that all the riparian countries experience an expansion of the current potential irrigated

area by 10% in the period 2005-2015 and by 50% in the period 2015-2030 and all the irrigation

schemes will be active. The table below shows the result,

CountryIrrigated

Areas (2005)

Estimated

irrigation

area (2015)

Estimated

irrigation

area (2030)

(Max)

Potential

irrigation

(FAO)

Required

Irrigation

(ha)

Ethiopia basin (20%) 0.00 1800.00 2700.00 2,220,000.00 9,328,600.4

Sudan and South

Sudan845,000.00 929,500.00 1,394,250.00 2,750,000.00 6,312,352.9

Egypt 3,050,000.00 3,355,000.00 5,032,500.00 4,420,000.00 3,015,275.7

Table 36 Irrigation developments for 2030

Estimated irrigation land for Egypt was more than maximum potential so the maximum potential

was taken for calculation purpose.

Assumptions considered for the computation of irrigated area in 2030 are only wheat is considered

as to fulfil cereal requirement and the other is sugarcane is entirely for export and does not

contribute to food for locals people. This implies that the area for wheat will increase and the area

of sugarcane remains the same as shown in table 34. Table 35 gives the cropping pattern in both

base case and reference case.

Country

Cropping Pattern base case (2005) Cropping pattern Reference case (2030)

Area

Irrigated

Wheat(ha)

Area Irrigated

Sugarcane (ha)

Area Irrigated

Wheat(ha)

Area Irrigated

Sugarcane (ha)

Ethiopia basin 0.00 0 2700.00 0

Sudan and

South Sudan 676,000.00 169,000.00 1,225,250.00 169,000.00

Egypt2,745,000.00 305,000.00 4,115,000.00 305,000.00

Table 37 Irrigated areas in base case and reference case 2030

Country

Cropping Pattern base case (2005) Cropping pattern Reference case (2030)

Wheat (%) Sugarcane (%) Wheat (%) Sugarcane (%)

Ethiopia basin 100 0 100 0

Sudan and South

Sudan80 20 87.88 12.12

Egypt 90 10 93.10 6.90

Table 38 Cropping patterns for 2030




37

Then the irrigation area gap was calculated as the difference between required irrigation area and

estimated area as shown in the table below.

CountryRequired irrigated Area

(based on population)

Estimated irrigated

Area for wheat

Irrigation area

gap

Ethiopia basin 9,328,600.41 2,700.00 9,325,900.41

Sudan and South

Sudan6,312,352.94 1,225,250.00 5,087,102.94

Egypt 3,015,275.74 4,115,000.00 - 1,099,724.26

Table 39 Irrigation Area Gap

Finally the distribution of irrigated area in 2030 was calculated, which is tabled below

Country Node Total irrigated

area 2005 (ha)

from software

Total irrigated

area 2030 (ha)

% Area

distributio

nEthiopia Fir_Et_SmallScaleHumera

MetemaIrr(P)

1800 2,700.00

Total 1800 2,700.00

Sudan and

South Sudan

Fir_Su_NewHalfaIrr 105000 173,250.00 12.43%

Fir_Su_GeziraMenagilSuki

GeneidAbuNamaSel

650000 1,072,500.00 76.92%

Fir_Su_MainNile_

Merowe Nasser_Irr

90000 148,500.00 10.65%

Total 845000 1,394,250.00 100.00%

Egypt Fir_Eg_ToshkaPump

Scheme

250000 362,295.08 8.20%

Fir_Eg_NileValleyDelta 2800000 4,057,704.92 91.80%

Total 3050000 4,420,000.00 100.00%

Basin Level Total 3896800 5816950

Table 40 Distribution of irrigated area per country for 2030

Country Area Irrigated

Wheat (ha)

Area Irrigated Sugar

cane (ha)

Ethiopia - 0

Ethiopia basin(20%) 0 0

Sudan and South Sudan 1,115,400 278,850

Egypt 3,978,000 442,000

Table 41 Irrigated area per crop in each country

7.5 Analysis of problems in future situation 2030

All the final values were then put into Ribasim and the following datas were observed.

7.5.1 Public Water supply

The shortage was increased related to base case in Egypt but remains same in Ethiopia and Sudan

which is shown in the table below.




38

Month Egypt Ethiopia Sudan

January 0.668 0.008 0.000

Feb 1.239 0.247 0.000

Mar 1.751 0.503 0.000

April 2.735 0.408 0.000

May 3.048 0.456 0.000June 2.002 1.371 0.000

July 0.876 0.000 0.000

August 0.000 0.000 0.000

September 0.000 0.000 0.000

October 0.000 0.000 0.000

November 0.000 0.000 0.000

December 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total 1.027 0.249 0

Table 42 Shortage in Public Water Supply in Reference Case

Figure 17 Graph showing shortage in Public Water Supply in Reference Case

Results obtained from Ribasim

Figure 18 Ribasim Graph showing Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply in Reference Case

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

J a n

F e b

M a r

A

p r i l

M a y

J u n

J u l

A u g

S e p

O c t

N o v

D e c

D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Month

Shortage in Public Water Supply

Egypt Ethiopia Sudan




39

7.5.2 Irrigation Water Demand

Similarly the results from Irrigation was obtained as follows:

MonthEthiopia

Sudan

and

SouthSudan

Egypt

2030 2030 2030

Jan 0.00 738.77 250.95

Feb 0.00 1600.71 143.37

Mar 0.05 1895.47 228.31

April 0.04 1713.22 910.46

May 0.00 659.90 2714.28

Jun 0.09 551.75 4413.43

Jul 0.00 1.27 3805.54

Aug 0.00 0.00 943.27

Sep 0.00 0.00 270.62

Oct 0.00 0.00 188.83

Nov 0.00 5.33 119.98

Dec 0.00 217.00 183.49

Total 0.01 615.28 1181.04

Table 43 Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply in Reference Case

The above table can be graphically represented as follows:

Figure 19 Shortage of Water for Irrigation in Reference Case

The results obtained from Ribasim is as follows:

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Month

Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply

Ethiopia Sudan and South Sudan Egypt




40

Figure 20 Ribasim Graph showing the Shortage Irrigation Water Supply in Reference Case

Figure 21 Ribasim graph showing a time step of shortage in irrigation water supply in Reference Case

7.5.3 Energy Production

Similar to shortage of Public Water Supply and Irrigation Water supply, shortage of energy in future

case was observed and summarised below in the table. The table shows that the shortage of energy

prevails only in Ethiopia and which should be taken into consideration while designing the strategies

for all the cases.

Month Egypt Sudan Ethiopia

1 0 0 823.36

2 0 0 830

3 0 0 830

4 0 0 830

5 0 0 830

6 0 0 830

7 0 0 830

8 0 0 8309 0 0 830




41

Month Egypt Sudan Ethiopia

10 0 0 830

11 0 0 830

12 0 0 830

Total 0 0 829.33

Table 44 Shortage in Energy in Reference Case

The graph showing the result is as follows which basically the same with base case.

Table 45 Shortage of Energy in Reference Case

7.6 Comparison of Base case and Reference Case

To know how the system will behave and what will be the change in scenario of water demand, a

comparative study of base case and reference case was used. This will also help in defining and

focusing our priority towards the projects and its measures.


In the table below, the highlighted values shows the changes in the situation, which clarifies that

actually the shortage of water will occur in both Ethiopia and Egypt and Sudan will remain

unaffected. The situation will be worst in Egypt comparing to Ethiopia.

Month


2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030

Jan 0.00 0 008 0.00 0.000 0.00 0 668

Feb 0.01 0 247 0.00 0.000 0.00 1 239

Mar 0.00 0 503 0.00 0.000 0.00 1 751

April 0.00 0 408 0.00 0.000 0.00 2 735

May 0.00 0 456 0.00 0.000 0.00 3 048

Jun 0.31 1 371 0.00 0.000 0.00 2 002

Jul 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0 876

Aug 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

0

100

200

300400

500

600

700

800

900


P o w e r ( G W h )

Month

Shortage in Energy

Sudan Egypt Ethiopia




42

Month


2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030

Sep 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

Oct 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

Nov 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

Dec 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

Table 46 Comparative study of Shortage situation Public Water Supply

Table 47 Comparative Study of Shortage Situation of Public Water Supply

7.6.2 Irrigation Demand

The table below shows a change in situation of water shortages in future based on base case. The

highlighted values mean the situation is getting worst and needs some attention. From table we can

conclude that the situation is getting worst for both Sudan and Egypt.

MonthEthiopia Sudan and South Sudan Egypt

2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030

Jan 0.00 0.000 21.96 738.768 7.12 250.950

Feb 0.00 0.000 432.64 1600.709 5.32 143.371

Mar 0.00 0.046 1191.44 1895.474 7.97 228.309

April 0.00 0.036 904.42 1713.218 41.09 910.458May 0.00 0.000 365.71 659.900 379.94 2714.281

Jun 0.00 0.090 108.21 551.753 935.95 4413.434

Jul 0.00 0.000 0.00 1.266 666.56 3805.539

Aug 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 178.68 943.265

Sep 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.001 24.39 270.615

Oct 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 6.99 188.833

Nov 0.00 0.000 0.00 5.327 4.35 119.979

Dec 0.00 0.000 8.51 216.995 6.87 183.494

Table 48 Comparison of Shortage SituationThe graph of the table shows it even better to illustrate the situation.

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

J A N F E B M A R A P R I L M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C

D I S C H A R G E ( M 3 / S )

MONTH

SHORTAGE COMPARISION CHARTEthiopia 2005 Ethiopia 2030 Sudan 2005

Sudan 2030 Egypt 2005 Egypt 2030




43

Figure 22 Shortage Comparison Chart for Irrigation

7.6.3 Energy

The situation remains the same for Energy, so the comparison study was not done.

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

J A N F E B M A R A P R I L M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C D I S C H A R G E ( M 3 / S )

MONTH

SHORTAGE COMPARISON CHARTEthiopia 2005 Ethiopia 2030 Sudan 2005

Sudan 2030 Egypt 2005 Egypt 2030




44

8. Scenario Conditions

Three strategic scenarios are proposed in this section depending on enhancing the irrigation

efficiency, reducing the population growth and the optimum usage of the potential reservoirs

(Karadobi & Merowe). These scenarios are presented as follows:

Scenario 1: scenario 1 aims of:

1. Reducing/controlling the population growth by 10 %.

2. Finding better solutions to reduce the evaporation loss.

3. Operating both of the two potential reservoirs together.

Scenario 2: scenario 2 aims of:



3. Enhancing the irrigation efficiency in the three countries to achieve

better agriculture as follows:

- Crop pattern: changing the crop time as per FAO, also taking into

consideration that the crops which require more water are planted

on wet seasons and those which require less water on dry season- Planting time: trying to find the best plant time during the year

which decreases the water consumption.

- The present and future irrigation efficiency is predicted to be:

Egypt Sudan Ethiopia

Current Efficiency % 70 45 45

Future Efficiency % 80 7070

Scenario 3: scenario 3 aims of applying all the above mentioned solutions.


2. Finding better solutions to reduce the evaporation loss.


4. Enhancing the irrigation efficiency in the three countries to achieve better

agriculture as follows:




45

- Crop pattern: changing the crop time as per FAO, also taking into

consideration that the crops which require more water are planted

on wet seasons and those which require less water on dry season

- The present and future irrigation efficiency is predicted to be:Egypt Sudan Ethiopia

Current Efficiency % 70 45 45

Future Efficiency % 80 70 70

8.1 Proposed Objective

The objectives of the above mentioned strategic scenarios are demanding a better living

standard for the three countries Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia as follows:

1. Mainly to provide sufficient amount of food that covers the three countries

needs/requirements.

2. More cooperation between the three countries by using the Egyptian

knowledge/experience in agriculture, using the water controlled by the Ethiopians to

cultivate more land area in the Sudan (which has the best fertile land suitable for

agriculture).

3. Enhancing the irrigation efficiency in the three countries to achieve better agriculture

by changing the crop patterns by finding another alternative of the crops which needs

a lot of water such as rice and sugar cane. Also by trying to find the best plant time

during the year which decreases the water consumption.




46

9. Formulations of possible measures for the future horizon (2030)

Infrastructure Measures

1. Construct more storm water networks and involve it after treatment in irrigation

2. Maintenance of the existing networks to prevent water leakage (water loss)3. Build more WTP and use its water for irrigation purposes

4. Modern irrigation systems should be used instead of using the surface irrigation, we can use

dripping ( sprinklers) irrigation

Soft measures

1. Optimum usage of water by reuse the irrigation water once and twice if it is still reusable.

2. Reuse of treated brackish water after treatment in WTP

3. Applying soft engineering instead of building dams and harming the environment

Policy measures

1. Optimum application of International agreements and policies

2. More cooperation and system understanding (locally) between the boarder countries.

3. More negotiation processes should be carried on between countries with the involve of

international organizations

4. Two child policy for controlling the population Control

5. Applying IWRM principals to achieve the optimum usage of water and ecosystem services




47

10. Design and analysis of alternative strategies

For the different alternatives, the population was supposed to be decreased by 10% to the assumed

data in the reference case which would result in less demand of public water supply and also food

demand. The following table shows the data assumed for estimating the populations and waterdemand for Public water supply. The table also shows the comparison with the reference case.

Country EthiopiaSudan and South

SudanEgypt

CasesNew

AssumedReference

New

AssumedReference

New

AssumedReference

Population (Million) 43.20 48.00 40.32 44.80 96.30 107.00

Water Need (l/cap/day) 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 56.00 56.00

Population Water

Demand (MCM/year)394.20 438.00 367.92 408.80 1968.37 2187.08

Livestock (Million TLU) 13.10 13.10 41.00 41.00 90.00 90.00

Water Need (l/cap/day) 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Livestock Water

Demand (MCM/year)95.63 95.63 299.30 299.30 657.00 657.00

Total Water Demand

PWS (MCM/year)489.83 533.63 667.22 2625.37

Total Water Demand

PWS (m3/s)15.53 16.92 21.16 22.45 83.25 90.19

Table 49 Assumed population and Public water supply

The cropping time was changed so as to prepare the land on when the water supply is less as it

demands less water and use the water to the full capacity when it is available. The table for net

irrigation demand looks like this

MonthEg_NileValley

DeltaSu_Gezira

MeroweNasser -

alternative

NewHalfa -

alternative

Toshka

Delta

January 1.73 5.46 5.35 4.85 2.59

February 2.81 4.83 4.89 4.12 4.39

March 4.29 1.88 1.89 1.84 6.81

April 5.87 4.14 4.81 3.89 8.85

May 5.32 5.74 7.07 5.05 7.82June 0.28 8.08 10.66 7.58 2.02

July 3.59 5.84 9.62 4.77 5.47

August 4.61 0.32 2.63 0.25 7.47

September 6.27 0.40 2.13 0.68 10.37

October 4.89 4.29 5.95 3.96 7.89

November 0.97 5.53 5.74 4.56 1.55

December 0.05 5.39 5.12 4.65 1.61

Table 50 Net Irrigation Demand after change in cropping time

Similarly, the table below shows the reservoir operation rules that was created for different projects.




48

Karadobi Roseires Khasmel Girba

MonthRef

Case

New

Target

Level (m.)

Ref

Case

New

Target

Level

(m.)

Ref

Case

New

Target

Level (m.)

January 1146 1146 480 480 473 473February 1146 1143 480 479 473 473

March 1146 1140 480 477 473 472

April 1146 1137 480 475 473 471

May 1146 1135 480 473 473 471

June 1146 1130 480 472 473 470

July 1146 1125 480 471 473 470

August 1146 1130 480 470 473 470

September 1146 1135 480 480 473 471

October 1146 1146 480 480 473 473

November 1146 1146 480 480 473 473

December 1146 1146 480 480 473 473

Table 51 Reservoir operation Rules adopted fir alternative strategies

Using the above table the strategies that were defined were applied to get the results which is

discussed below according to the respective strategies.

10.1 Strategy 1

Using this strategy is the cost effective measure as this only considers the reservoir operation and

promoting the population strategy. The following results were obtained in this strategy


As the population was assumed to be less compared to the reference case, it was assumed that only

regulation of reservoir would solve the problem but the table below shows a conflicting result i.e. it

actually helped to reduce the peak shortage in 4 months but it shifted to june and july which is

highlighted in the table below.

Month


Refcase S1 Ref case S1 Ref case S1

Jan 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.00 0.67 0.00

Feb 0.25 0.25 0.0 0.00 1.24 0.88

Mar 0.50 0.50 0.0 0.00 1.75 1.75

April 0.41 0.41 0.0 0.00 2.74 2.63

May 0.46 0.46 0.0 0.00 3.05 2.63

Jun 1.37 1.37 0.0 0.00 2.00 3.45

Jul 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.88 2.17

Aug 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sep 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00Oct 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00




49

Month


Ref

caseS1 Ref case S1 Ref case S1

Nov 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dec 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.13

Table 52 Comparison of Shortage in Public Water Supply with reference case and strategy 1

The situation can be better understood by looking into it graphically which is as follows:

Figure 23Comparative Chart for Public water shortage in reference case with strategy 1

The graph suggest that the scenario is getting worse than before for the Egypt.

10.1.2 Irrigation Water Supply

In this strategy no change was made to cropping but the required food production was reduced as

the population was reduced so we expect some changes in demand. The table below shows the

comparative study of both the case.

Month


Ref case S1 Ref case S1 Ref case S1

Jan 0.00 0.00 738.77 448.63 250.95 293.45

Feb 0.00 0.00 1600.71 1335.21 143.37 163.80

Mar 0.05 0.05 1895.47 1786.42 228.31 261.58

April 0.04 0.04 1713.22 1495.52 910.46 1027.02

May 0.00 0.00 659.90 286.41 2714.28 2947.08

Jun 0.09 0.09 551.75 313.01 4413.43 4754.49

Jul 0.00 0.00 1.27 7.74 3805.54 4253.46

Aug 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 943.27 1290.55

Sep 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 270.62 290.62

Oct 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 188.83 205.99

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Axis Title

With Strategy -1

Egypt-S1 Sudan-S1 Ethiopia-S1

Ethiopia Ref case Sudan Ref case Egypt Ref case




50

MonthEthiopia Sudan Egypt


Nov 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 119.98 163.10

Dec 0.00 0.00 217.00 119.63 183.49 233.53

Total 0.01 0.01 615.28 482.71 1181.04 1323.72

Table 53 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 1

The table suggests it actually helps sudan to reduce the shortage but increases the shortages in

Egypt which can be better illustrated in graph which is as belows.

Figure 24Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply in Reference case and Strategy1

10.1.3 Energy

Similarly for Energy the table was obtained as follows;

MonthSudan Egypt Ethiopia


Jan 0 0 0 0 823.36 53.30

Feb 0 0 0 0 830 72.53

Mar 0 0 0 0 830 84.63

April 0 0 0 0 830 80.82

May 0 0 0 0 830 42.61

Jun 0 0 0 0 830 44.43

Jul 0 0 0 0 830 53.54

Aug 0 0 0 0 830 43.26

Sep 0 0 0 0 830 41.31

Oct 0 0 0 0 830 42.59

Nov 0 0 0 0 830 43.75

Dec 0 0 0 0 830 42.36

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 829.45 53.76

Table 54Comparative Study of Irrigation Energy Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 1

-1000.00

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Axis Title

Irrigation With Strategy -1






51

The Table shows that the energy shortage significantly reduces in Ethiopia only which can be

expressed graphically as follows

Figure 25Comparative Study of Energy Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 1

10.2 Strategy 2

In this strategy, we are going to increase the cropping efficiency and also reduce the population

growth with operation rules for two potential dams only. And the results are grouped and discussed

below.

10.2.1Public Water Supply

For the public water supply we obtained following results :

Month Ethiopia Sudan Egypt


Jan 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.00 0.67 0.00

Feb 0.25 0.25 0.0 0.00 1.24 0.00

Mar 0.50 0.50 0.0 0.00 1.75 0.88

April 0.41 0.41 0.0 0.00 2.74 0.88May 0.46 0.46 0.0 0.00 3.05 0.88

Jun 1.37 1.37 0.0 0.00 2.00 0.54

Jul 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.88 0.00

Aug 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sep 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oct 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nov 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dec 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 55 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800900


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Axis Title

Energy With Strategy -1






52

This strategy was able to reduce the shortage to some extent but is still not able to eradicate the

problem which can be better explained by using a graph.

Figure 26 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 2


As we saw a reduction in shortage in public water supply with this strategy, if this works for reducing

or eliminating shortage in irrigation we could come to a conclusion. That’s why the result was tabled

as follows:



Jan 0.00 0.00 738.77 38.32 250.95 101.67

Feb 0.00 0.00 1600.71 249.48 143.37 68.07

Mar 0.05 0.05 1895.47 755.42 228.31 121.54

April 0.04 0.04 1713.22 777.68 910.46 505.38

May 0.00 0.00 659.90 88.03 2714.28 1601.12

Jun 0.09 0.09 551.75 122.55 4413.43 2698.20

Jul 0.00 0.00 1.27 3.52 3805.54 2534.36Aug 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 943.27 793.43

Sep 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 270.62 137.11

Oct 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 188.83 72.26

Nov 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 119.98 61.58

Dec 0.00 0.00 217.00 0.45 183.49 71.46

Table 56 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 2

The table suggests that actually the strategy is helping to reduce the peak demands in both sudan

and Egypt which is shown in the chart below.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Axis Title

With Strategy -2






53

Figure 27 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference Case and Strategy 2

10.2.3 Energy

As per Energy, all the conditions remained same with strategy only the table is shown below.

MonthSudan Egypt Ethiopia


Jan 0 0 0 0 823.36 53.30Feb 0 0 0 0 830 72.53

Mar 0 0 0 0 830 84.63

April 0 0 0 0 830 80.82

May 0 0 0 0 830 42.61

Jun 0 0 0 0 830 44.43

Jul 0 0 0 0 830 53.54

Aug 0 0 0 0 830 43.26

Sep 0 0 0 0 830 41.31

Oct 0 0 0 0 830 42.59

Nov 0 0 0 0 830 43.75

Dec 0 0 0 0 830 42.36

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 829.45 53.76

Table 57 Comparative Study of Energy Shortage in Reference Case and Strategy 2


In this strategy, we are considering that we increase efficiency, change the operation rules of all the

reservoirs and control the population growth. We are hoping to find a better result in this strategy, a

comparative study result is shown below.

-1000.00

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Axis Title

Irrigation With Strategy -2

Egypt-S2 Sudan and South Sudan Sudan-S2

Ethiopia Ethiopia-S2 Ethiopia Ref case

Sudan Ref case Egypt Ref case




54



Jan 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00

Feb 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.00

Mar 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00

April 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 2.74 0.88

May 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.00 3.05 1.33

Jun 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.43

Jul 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00

Aug 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sep 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oct 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nov 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dec 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07

Total 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.48

Table 58 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3

As expected the peak shortage was significantly reduced but it also created a new shortage in

December which is better described by the graph below.

Figure 28 Comparative Study of Public Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3


As new and modern technology with change in cropping pattern and reservoir regulations we are

hoping to better results. The table below shows a comparative study:

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Axis Title

With Strategy -3

S3

S3

S3

Ref case

Ref case

Ref case




55



Jan 0.00 0 738.77 145.60 250.95 64.94

Feb 0.00 0 1600.71 199.59 143.37 150.43

Mar 0.00 0 1895.47 56.86 228.31 395.23

April 0.00 0 1713.22 228.73 910.46 922.30

May 0.00 0 659.90 480.15 2714.28 1033.55

Jun 0.00 0 551.75 581.08 4413.43 120.30

Jul 0.00 0 1.27 9.49 3805.54 764.37

Aug 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 943.27 628.39

Sep 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 270.62 805.21

Oct 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 188.83 212.39

Nov 0.00 0 5.33 12.93 119.98 36.79

Dec 0.00 0 217.00 64.08 183.49 19.67

Table 59 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3

As per the results no difference was found from strategy 2 which is clearly shown in the graph below

Figure 29 Comparative Study of Irrigation Water Supply Shortage in Reference case and Strategy 3

10.3.3 Energy

No changes were made compared to Strategy 2 so no change is expected.

10.4 Scorecard for better decision making

As all the strategies were not able to satisfy all the demands, the method of scorecard was used to

identify the better project. For the scorecard system, first the criteria was analysed as per the

technical aspects and also based on the datas that can be directly expressed from our calculations

and outputs obtained from Ribasim which is shown in the table below

0

500

1000

1500

20002500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000


D i s c h a r g e ( m 3 / s )

Month

Irrigation Shortage With Strategy -3

S3

S3

S3

Ref case

Ref case

Ref case




56

Objective Indicators/Criteria

Reference Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3

Et Su Eg Et Su Eg Et Su Eg Et Su Eg

Food

Security

Increased

agricultural yield

(kg/ha/yr)

1,160.0 1,600.0 8,000.0 1,160.0 1,600.0 8,000.0 2,320.0 4,000.0 8,000.0 2,320.0 4,000.0 8,000.0

Increased irrigation

efficiency (%)45 45 70 45 45 70 70 70 80 70 70 80

Number ofPopulation

48.0 44.8 107.0 43.2 40.3 96.3 43.2 40.3 96.3 43.2 40.3 96.3

Economic

Water

Security

Shortage of Firm

Energy (GWh)830 0 0 52 0 0 52 0 0 52 0 0

Increase capacity of

power production

(MW) from base

case

0 0 0 1600 1250 0 1600 1250 0 1600 1250 0

Shortage of water

irrigation (m3/s)1.34 712.02 1112.8 1.34 490.05 1339.3 0.84 154.32 442.0 0.84 154.3 442.0

Household

and Urban

Water

Security

Shortage of water

PWS (m3/s)0.14 0.02 0.69 0.11 0.02 0.95 0.11 0.02 0.95 0.11 0.00 0.51

Table 60 Criteria and Values obtained from calculations and ribasim for all the countries with different strategies

The table was then given some colors to identify the worst scenario and the best scenario. In the table below red color means the worst case and green

means the best but the case is relative to the reference case and as discussed there is no scenario and strategy that is completely fulfilling all the demands.

The yellow was assumed as mean and light blue indicates that there was no change. The table illustrated below




57

ObjectiveIndicators/Criter

ia



Food

Security

Increased

agricultural

yield (kg/ha/yr)

1,160.0

0

1,600.0

0

8,000.0

0

1,160.0

0

1,600.0

0

8,000.0

0

2,320.0

0

4,000.0

0

8,000.0

0

2,320.0

0

4,000.0

0

8,000.0

0

Increased

irrigation

efficiency (%)

45 45 70 45 45 70 70 70 80 70 70 80

Number of

Population48.0 44.8 107.0 43.2 40.3 96.3 43.2 40.3 96.3 43.2 40.3 96.3

Economic

Water

Security

Shortage of Firm

Energy (GWh)830 0 0 52 0 0 52 0 0 52 0 0

Increase

capacity of

power

production

(MW) from base

case

0 0 0 1600 1250 0 1600 1250 0 1600 1250 0

Shortage of

water irrigation

(m3/s)

1.34 712.021112.8

41.34 490.05

1339.3

80.84 154.32 442.06 0.84 154.32 442.06

Househol

d andUrban

Water

Security

Shortage ofwater PWS

(m3/s)

0.14 0.02 0.69 0.11 0.02 0.95 0.11 0.02 0.95 0.11 0.00 0.51

Table 61 Coloured Representation of Score card

The score card was then standardised which is as follows:




58

Objective Indicators/CriteriaReference Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3


Food Security

Increased agricultural yield

(kg/ha/yr)0.50 0.40 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Increased irrigation efficiency (%) 0.64 0.64 0.88 0.64 0.64 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Number of Population 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 0.68 0.65 0.59 0.71 0.68 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.67

Economic WaterSecurity

Shortage of Firm Energy (GWh) 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

Increase capacity of power

production (MW) from base case 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Shortage of water irrigation

(m3/s)0.63 0.09 0.40 0.63 0.06 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 0.23 0.03 0.13 0.88 0.35 0.11 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 0.67 0.33

Household and

Urban Water

Security

Shortage of water PWS (m3/s) 0.80 0.95 0.74 0.11 0.95 0.54 1.00 0.95 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 62 Score Card showing the preference level of each objectives with strategies

In the above table, 1 means it is the best we could achieve within the three strategies in each country but it does not resemble that it was able to

completely eradicate the problem and 0 means it was not able to change anything from the reference case i.e. the worst case.

The radial plot of these were also made to graphically visualise all three strategies with reference to the countries based on the table shown above.



Assignment of Water Resources Development HERBD/43584/227

59

Figure 30 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Ethiopia

Figure 31 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Sudan and South Sudan

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Food Security

Economic Water SecurityHousehold and Urban Water

Security

Ethiopia


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Food Security

Economic Water SecurityHousehold and Urban

Water Security

Sudan and South Sudan





60

Figure 32 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Egypt

But this charts were not clearly showing if these were able to fulfil all the demands or not so a scale

of 1 to 5 was used where 5 means fulfilment of all the requirements and 1 means unsatisfactory

result. For this we used a table below and the results is clearly shown in the radial graph which is

thought to be clearer to the decision makers.

Sudan and South Sudan Reference Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Ideal Case

Food Security 1.9 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.0

Economic Water Security 0.1 1.1 2.0 2.0 5.0

Household and Urban WaterSecurity

2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 5.0

Table 63 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Sudan

Figure 33 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Sudan

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1Food Security


Security

Egypt


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Food Security


Security

Sudan and South Sudan

Reference Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Ideal Case




61

Egypt Reference Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Ideal Case

Food Security 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 5.0


Household and Urban Water

Security2.2 1.6 1.6 3.0 5.0

Table 64 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Egypt

Figure 34 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Egypt

Ethiopia ReferenceStrategy

1

Strategy

2

Strategy

3

Ideal

Case

Food Security 2.0 2.1 3.0 3.0 5.0


Household and Urban Water Security 2.4 0.3 3.0 3.0 5.0

Figure 35 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Ethiopia

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0Food Security


Security

Egypt





62

Figure 36 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Ethiopia

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0Food Security

Economic Water SecurityHousehold and Urban

Water Security

Ethiopia





63

11. Conclusion and Recommendation

11.1 Conclusion

As seen in the strategy analysis, we have reached to the conclusion that all the strategies that were

considered were not good enough to solve the problem. They were able to reduce the future problems

but a long list of measures, rules and regulations will have to be followed in order to attain the required

result as obtained from the model. But the real world cannot be modelled, the result obtained are

hypothetical and a factor of safety should be considered regarding the factors that cannot be

controlled by us like population growth, climate change e.tc.

11.2 Recommendations

As per the study results we strongly recommend the following things to be considered before going

for the project establishment,

All the riparian countries agree to implement the population growth measure as it is the heart

of this analysis,

Further, more strategies should be taken into considerations regarding environmental flows

and evaporation loss in the lake,

All the riparian countries should be equally benefited,

The strategy to be implemented depends on the amount of money available so a proper

source budget to be defined beforehand.




64

12. References

i. HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/

ii. HTTP://WWW.NILEBASIN.ORG/

iii. LECTURE NOTES OF EELCO VAN BEEK

iv. RIBASIM MANUAL

v. PROCEDURE PREPARED TO USE THE RIBASIM

vi. WWW.FAO.ORG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page











http://www.nilebasin.org/













65

13. Appendices

The assignments

HERBD 05 -River Basin Development 2014/2016

Topic: Water Resources Development

Assignment A of lecture 5:

A water resources development project has the following characteristics:

The project has a life time of 30 years

The construction time is 4 years (year 1, 2, 3 and 4).

Cost of construction: 400 k€, divided of the 4 years as follows: 100, 150, 100 and 50 k€.

The project start to generate benefits in year 5; these benefits are 60 k€ per year, are constant

over time and will last for 25 years (will end in year 29).

The operation and maintenance costs (O&M) are 10 k€ per year during the 25 years that the

project generates benefits.

After that the construction has to be removed; the cost of that removal is 100 k€, to be made in

year 30.

The discount rate that will be used in this project is 8%.Assignment:

a) Calculate the B/C ratio (discounted) of this project (using Excel)

b) Do the same for a discount rate of 10%

c) Provide your comments and conclusions on the difference between the results of a) and

b)

Assignment B of chapter 5:

Take the scorecard on the right. The scorecard distinguishes

8 criteria and 4 alternative promising strategies.

Assignment:

Apply a multi-criteria evaluation approach on this scorecard to select the ‘best’ strategy out of the 4

alternatives. This should be done for three conditions:

with equal weights for all criteria ;




66

with triple weights for the more environment and socio-related criteria (1) drinking water price,

(2) pollution and (3) fisheries); and

with triple weights for the economic criteria (1) total investment costs and (2) total benefits.

First select a standardization method and describe the approach and results of this standardization.

In your assignment report (maximum 2 pages) I like to see:

1. a very short description of your application and the results (for all three conditions);

2. your conclusions with respect to the outcome of the three conditions (e.g. are they different

and why is that?)

3. your own comments and judgment on this application, e.g. if you like the method, what

kind of advantages and disadvantage you see in applying MCEM, etc.




67

1) Solution

Year Benefit Cost Cashflow NPV (8%)NPV

(10%) Conclusion

1 €0.00 €100.00 -€100.00 -92.59 -90.91 Discount rate 8.00% 10.00%

2 €0.00 €150.00 -€150.00 -128.60 -123.97 Time horizon 30 30

3 €0.00 €100.00 -€100.00 -79.38 -75.13 Present worth benefits 470.78 €371.98

4 €0.00 €50.00 -€50.00 -36.75 -34.15

Present worth

investment 425.73 €391.89

5 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 34.03 31.05 Net Present Value 45.05 -€19.90

6 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 31.51 28.22 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.11 €0.95

7 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 29.17 25.66 Internal Rate of Return 9.31% 9.31%

8 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 27.01 23.33

9 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 25.01 21.20

10 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 23.16 19.28

11 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 21.44 17.52

12 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 19.86 15.93

13 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 18.38 14.48

14 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 17.02 13.17

15 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 15.76 11.97

16 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 14.59 10.88

17 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 13.51 9.89

18 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 12.51 8.99

19 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 11.59 8.18

20 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 10.73 7.43

21 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 9.93 6.76

22 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 9.20 6.14

23 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 8.52 5.58

24 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 7.88 5.08

25 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 7.30 4.61

26 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 6.76 4.20

27 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 6.26 3.81

28 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 5.80 3.47

29 €60.00 €10.00 €50.00 5.37 3.15

30 €0.00 €100.00 -€100.00 -9.94 -5.73

Total

NPV 45.05 -19.90




68

A) The B/C ratio for this case was calculated to be 1.11, IRR was 9.31 % with a discount rate of

8%.

B) The B/C ratio for this case was calculated to be 0.95, IRR was 9.31 % with a discount rate of

10%, and is found to be less than discount rate so it can be said that it is not feasible project.

C) It was found that with low discount rate the present worth of money was more than that of

high discount rate. Also, it was same with B/C ratio, ie the B/C ratio was more for lowdiscount rate and vice-versa. But the internal rate of return remained the same which is also

known as a efficiency indicator of investments. So with respect to B/C ratio and NPV the

project with low discount rate is preferred.




69

2) Solution

Case –I with equal weights for all criteria ;

Case –II with triple weights for the more environment and socio-related criteria

(1) drinking water price, (2) pollution and (3) fisheries); and

Case-III with triple weights for the economic criteria

(1) total investment costs and (2) total benefits.

First of all a standardized score card was made as follows

Strategy Components Units

Promising Strategies

Agricultural

Strategy

Industrial

Strategy

Antipollution

strategy

Mixed

Strategy

IrrigationWater

Storage

water

conservation

water

storage

Water

Storage

Groundwater

usepurification

purificatio

n

Pumps

canal

improvemen

t

tax on water

useetc

Impacts Criteria etc etc etc

Total Investment Cost

m

euro/yr 1.00 0.75 0.43 0.43

Total Benefitsm

euro/yr1.00 0.58 0.08 0.83

Increased agricultural

production

m ton/

year1.00 0.19 0.06 0.75

drinking water priceeuro/m

30.64 1.00 0.75 0.82

pollution ppm 0.23 0.16 1.00 0.50

power production MW 0.17 1.00 0.04 0.67

fisheries ton/yr 0.88 0.25 1.00 0.50

safety from flooding % 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00

Total 5.92 4.92 4.34 5.50




70

Conclusion

Strategy Case I Case II Case III

Agricultural ( 1) 0.74 0.67 0.83

Industrial (2) 0.61 0.55 0.63

Antipollution (3) 0.54 0.55 0.70

Mixed (4) 0.69 0.65 0.67

Total 2.58 2.43 2.83

Multi-criteria evaluation is a fundamental step of the rational decision-making process. The purpose

of evaluation is to gain reliable information on strengths, weaknesses and overall utility of each option.

It is undertaken to make a comparative assessment between the projects.

As per the conclusion above, it seems for all the given weightage Strategy I was found the best.

Strategy 2 and 4 had no significant changes in all the cases but strategy 3 has a huge change from case

I to Case III. While strategy 4 was found to be average with less variability in all the cases.

As the investment and benefit for Strategy I was more it was obvious to have great influence in Case

III . Also, overall the standard score card tells that Strategy I is already in higher position than other

strategies as the sum of its criteria is the highest among all the strategies. The standard score card

reveals that the decision will be somewhat like strategy 1>4>2>3, which was also seen in case I and II

but in cases III the order was 1>3>4>2. So, the decision makers are driven towards the first strategy.




11

Strategy

ComponentsUnits Weightage

Contribution to

Goal

Promising Strategies

Agricultural

StrategyIndustrial Strategy Antipollution strategy Mixed Strategy

Irrigation Water Storage water conservation water storage

Water Storage Groundwater use purification purificationPumps canal improvement tax on water use etc

Impacts Criteria Case I Case II Case III Case I Case II Case III Case I Case IICase

IIICase I Case II Case III Case I Case II Case III Case I Case II Case III

Total Investment Cost m euro/yr 1 1 3 0.125 0.071 0.250 0.13 0.07 0.25 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.11

Total Benefits m euro/yr 1 1 3 0.125 0.071 0.250 0.13 0.07 0.25 0.07 0.04 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.21

Increased agricultural

productionm ton/ year 1 1 1 0.125 0.071 0.083 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.06

drinking water price euro/m3 1 3 1 0.125 0.214 0.083 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.08 0 .09 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.07

pollution ppm 1 3 1 0.125 0.214 0.083 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.04

power production MW 1 1 1 0.125 0.071 0.083 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.06

fisheries ton/yr 1 3 1 0.125 0.214 0.083 0.11 0.19 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.04

safety from flooding % 1 1 1 0.125 0.071 0.083 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.08

Total 8 14 12 1 1 1 0.74 0.67 0.83 0.61 0.55 0.63 0.54 0.70 0.45 0.69 0.65 0.67

Table 65Complete Analysis of all three cases




I think this method is very useful during the feasibility study of the project when we

have very less data but have an idea about the preferences to be made in the project.

But this will not be a good method to decide when we have sufficient reliable datas.

While using this method, one should be very careful about the weightage given and

should consider various scenarios before coming to a conclusion. And also expert

advice will be essential while giving weightage. The only advantage is it can show us

how important one factor is compared to the other. But it only gives an idea not a

concrete solution as the preference can be manipulated, the results cannot be totally

relied on.

a report on ribasim-submitted final

Documents