Masahiroabe..Nile .River basin Crisis

Conflict on Water Resources

Development between Multiple

Nations in the Nile River Basin○ Masahiro ABE1, Kenji TANAKA2, Toshiharu KOJIRI2,

Toshio HAMAGUCHI2 , and Tetsuya SUMI2

1Dept. of Urban Management, Kyoto University2Water resources Research Center, DPRI, Kyoto University

1

The Second Symposium 20th Mar 2012

2

Contents

1. Background

2. Methodology

3. Verification

4. Assessment of future climate

5. Water Resources Development

6. Conclusion

7. Database

The Second Symposium 20th Mar 2012

3

Background

3. According to aquastat (FAO), irrigated area has been increased since 1980. In the end of 21st century, water demand is supposed to be more than supply

Identifying water shortage problem in the Nile and trying to solve it

2. Observed discharge to Aswan High Dam is 72(Gt/year),

Agricultural water use in Egypt is 59(Gt/year)

1. The Nile River crosses borders among 11 countries.

Dependency ratio in Egypt is 96.9%

Background and purpose

96.9

77.3

0

40.9

33.1

8.2

0 0

10.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Eg

yp

t

Sudan

Eth

iop

ia

Ug

an

da

Ke

nya

D.R

.C…

Rw

an

da

Bru

nd

i

Ta

nza

…

De

pe

nd

en

cy r

atio o

f to

tal re

ne

wa

l w

ate

r re

sou

rce

s (

%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

(Irr

iga

ted

are

a)

/ (I

rrig

atio

n p

ote

ntia

l) (

%) Brundi Ethiopia

Egypt Eritoria

Kenya Rwanda

Sudan and S.Sudan Tanzania

Uganda

To propose Hybrid of Conflict Analysis and Hydrological Model

The previous conflict analysis This method

Preference

order

From knowledge and

assumption of researcher

Based on output of hydrological model in

each scenario

Common

advantage

Capable to make sure the consequence logically in the case when subjects

make decision based on rational standard.

Disadvantage

of the previous

& uniqueness

Results are strongly

influenced by qualitative

expression

Capable to analyze with repeatability and

quantitative discussion due to objective

decision making of preference order

Conclusion part Qualitative discussion Qualitative and quantitative discussion

For contribution to decision making in international river basin management

Uniqueness of this research

6

Methodology

GPCC, GSMaP etc

(1981-2004)MRI-AGCM(2075-2099)

Discharge(1981-2004)

Runoff(Scenario #1)

Runoff(Scenario #n)

Observed discharge data

(1998-2002)

1. Geographical data(altitude, land-cover, routine-network)

SiBUC & Hydro-BEAM

Conflict Analysis

Calibration

Simulation

Output

Discussion

Input2. Meteorological data 3. GCM output 4. Set scenarios

Irrigated area(2075-2099)Bias

Collection

Procedure

8

Remote Sensing and GCM

(bougria-tif.blogspot.com) (Citation: Japan Meteorological Agency)

Product Parameter Spatial resolution Time resolution

SRTM30 Altitude 30 seconds -

GLCC ver.2 land cover 30 seconds -

ECOCLIMAP Soil 30 seconds -

SPOTVEGETATION NDVI 30 seconds -

GPCC Precipitation 1.0 degree Monthly

GSMaP Precipitation0.1 degree &0.25 degree

Hourly

H08Temperature,

Radiation, Humidity0.5 degree Daily

JRA25 ReanalysisWind speed, Air

pressure1.1 degree(horizontal)

6 hours

MRI-AGCM (Japan)

Meteorological 7 parameters

0.1875 degree (20km)

Hourly & 3 hours

Input data

10

SiBUC & Hydro-BEAM

Canopy

Ground

Urban

Canopy

Urban

GroundTdg

Tdu

Water

Body

Tbw

Tdw

Mc

MbrTbr

Mug

Twb

Mg Tg

Tc

Tug

Surface Layer

Root Zone

Recharge Zone

W1

W2

W3

Zm (Reference Height)

Boundary Condition: Tm em um FL,m(0) Ft,d(0) P

11

Land Scheme Model SiBUC (Simple Biosphere Model including Urban Canopy)

(Tanaka, K., 2004)

Categorize land surface into green, urban, and water body and calculate water balance, radiation balance, and energy balance.

Boundary conditions are 7 meteorological elements and 16 parameters are calculated every 1 hour

Schematic image of SiBUC

Stage1 Stage2 Stage4 Stage5Stage3

Wate

r le

vel

Precipitation

Drainage

Irrigation Maximum water level

Optimal water level

Minimum water level

Present water level

Capable to estimate irrigated water requirement seasonally

Scheme of irrigation in SiBUC

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)January

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)February

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)March

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)April

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)May

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)June

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)July

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)August

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)September

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)October

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)November

Outputs of SiBUC (1998~2002)December

Convert outputs of SiBUC to Hydro-BEAM.

Flow direction is determined by Altitude.

Distributed Runoff Model Hydro-BEAM (Hydrological River Basin Environmental Assessment Model)

Calculate discharge

Surface runoff

Infiltration

Sub-surface runoff

Linear storage model

Kinematic wave model

(Kojiri, T., 2006)

Atbara

Sennar

Roseires

Sobat

Lake Victoria

Bahr El-Jabal

Bahr El-Ghazal

Khartoum

Aswan

Nile delta

Schematic image of Hydro-BEAM

25

Conflict Analysis

What is “conflict analysis”?

Conflict analysis is an analytical method which is developed expanding algorithm of metagame theory*

(Player) subject to play game

(Option) choice of player

(Preference) priority of option

2.

1.

3.

Conflict analysis consists of three elements…

26

Fraser and Hipel (1979)

Howard (1971)

Results show what kinds of events are possible to occur.

27

Egypt × × E × E × × × × × × × × × ×

Total stability r r r r r u u u u u u u u u u

Player's stability 3 6 9 12 15 2 5 8 11 14 1 4 7 10 13

Preference vector 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 12 15

Unilateral improvement 2 5 8 11 14

Ethiopia

Player's stability r r r u u u r r r u u u u u u

Preference vector 7 8 9 4 5 6 13 14 15 1 2 3 10 11 12

Unilateral improvement 7 8 9 7 8 9 13 14 15

4 5 6

Others

Player's stability r r r r r r u u u u u u r r r


Unilateral improvement 10 11 12 13 14 15

Stability Table (with third party)

(r: rational, s: sequential stability, u: unstable)

START

UI from

outcome q for

player A?

UI for B

from A’s UI?

All UIs

for B preferred to

q by A?

Another UI

from q for A?

q is rational for A (r)

q is unstable for A (u)

(Check for

simultaneous stability)

q is sequentially

stable for A (s)

END

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

q: Event

A(B): Player A(B)

UI: Unilateral Improvement

Algorithm of conflict analysis with example

28

Egypt × × E × E × × × × × × × × × ×

Total stability r r r r r u u u u u u u u u u

Player's stability 3 6 9 12 15 2 5 8 11 14 1 4 7 10 13

Preference vector 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 12 15

Unilateral improvement 2 5 8 11 14

Ethiopia

Player's stability r r r u u u r r r u u u u u u


Unilateral improvement 7 8 9 7 8 9 13 14 15

4 5 6

Others

Player's stability r r r r r r u u u u u u r r r


Unilateral improvement 10 11 12 13 14 15

Stability Table (with third party)

(r: rational, s: sequential stability, u: unstable)

Coding for automatic analysis

Algorithm of conflict analysis with example

29

Verification in the Nile Basin

Atbara

Sennar

Owen Falls

Aswan D.S.

Roseires

Aswan U.S.0

100

200

300

400

500

6000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

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

Dis

char

ge

at A

swan

Hig

h D

am U

.S.

(m3/s

)

Simulation_mean

Observation_max

Observation_mean

Observation_min

Rain

fallat th

e basin

(mm

/mo

nth

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

6000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000


Dis

char

ge

at A

swan

Hig

h D

am D

.S.

(m3/s

)

Simulation_mean

Observation_max

Observation_mean

Observation_min

Rain

fallat th

e basin

(mm

/mo

nth

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

6000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000


Dis

char

ge

at O

wen

Fal

ls D

am D

.S.

(m3/s

)

Simulation_mean

Observation_max

Observation_mean

Observation_min

Rain

fallat th

e basin

(mm

/mo

nth

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

6000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000


Dis

charg

e a

t R

ose

ires

Dam

D.S

. (m

3/s

)

Simulation_mean

Observation_max

Observation_mean

Observation_min

Rain

fallat th

e basin

(mm

/mo

nth

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

6000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000


Dis

ch

arg

e a

t S

en

nar

Dam

D.S

. (m

3/s

)

Simulation_mean

Observation_max

Observation_mean

Observation_min

Rain

fallat th

e basin

(mm

/mo

nth

)0

100

200

300

400

500

6000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000


Dis

ch

arg

e a

t A

tbara

D.S

. (m

3/s

)

Simulation_mean

Observation_max

Observation_mean

Observation_min

Rain

fallat th

e basin

(mm

/mo

nth

)

Error is around less than 10 %

Error bar means max and min value

31

Assessment of future climate

by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3

Number Model Name Resl. x Resl. y Country

1 BCC-CM1 192 96 China

2 BCCR-BCM2.0 128 64 Norway

3 CCSM3 256 128 USA

4 CGCM3.1(T47) 96 48 Canada

5 CGCM3.1(T63) 128 64 Canada

6 CNRM-CM3 128 64 France

7 CSIRO-Mk3.0 192 96 Australia

8 CSIRO-Mk3.5 192 96 Australia

9 ECHAM5/MPI-OM 192 96 Germany

10 ECHO-G 96 48 Germany/Korea

11 FGOALS-g1.0 128 60 China

12 GFDL-CM2.0 144 90 USA

13 GFDL-CM2.1 144 90 USA

14 GISS-AOM 90 60 USA

15 GISS-EH 72 46 USA

16 GISS-ER 72 46 USA

17 INGV-SXG 320 160 Italy

18 INM-CM3.0 72 45 Russia

19 IPSL-CM4 96 72 France

20 MIROC3.2(hires) 320 160 Japan

21 MIROC3.2(medres) 128 64 Japan

22 MRI-CGCM2.3.2 128 64 Japan

23 PCM 128 64 USA

24 UKMO-HadCM3 96 73 UK

25 UKMO-HadGEM1 192 145 UK

26 MRI-AGCM3.1S 1920 960 Japan

27 MRI-AGCM3.2S 1920 960 Japan

*GCM: Global Climate Model(Citation: IPCC AR4 WG1)

GCM* in the world

(Citation: IPCC AR4 WG1)

multi-model DJFA1B

(2075~2099)–(2003~1979) Ave. Monthly

(2075~2099)/(2003~1979) Ave. Monthly

[-]

[℃]

Impact assessment of climate change by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3

Study of drought year by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3

Drought year Precipitation (mm/year) Total Runoff (Gt/year)

Average

precipitation369.3 207.3

5yr drought 340.9 188.6

10yr drought 329.2 180.8

20yr drought 317.0 172.8

50yr drought 305.9 165.4

100yr drought 294.2 157.7

Table. Drought year (yr) in the Nile Basin

Utilization of 24 GCM, 485 yearly samples,

by MRI-AGCM(2075-2099) and CMIP3(2080-2099)

Input of conflict analysis

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 100 200 300 400 500

Pre

cip

itat

ion

(mm

/yea

r)

平均降水量

5年渇水

10年渇水

20年渇水 100年渇水

50年渇水Ave. precipitation

5yr drought

10yr

20yr drought

50yr

100yr drought

34

Water Resources Developmentin the end of 21st century

35

Setting of scenarios (basic elements)

1. 4 players

2. 11 options

3. 2 preference orders

① Egypt, ② Sudan&S.Sudan, ③ Ethiopia,

④ Upstream countries in the White Nile

Use residual irrigated area on 0%, 10%, … ,100% (11 ways)

① Amount of water use

② Residual amount of water in the Nile River

Total scenarios：14641 events

36

Water use depending on ratio of expanded irrigation area

Calculate requirement for irrigation by hydrological model outputs. If water

use is more than total runoff (supply), the events are unfeasible.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

算定灌漑水使用量

(Gt/

ye

ar)

農業開発度(%)

Egypt Sudan&S.Sudan Ethiopia Upstream countries

Ratio of expanded irrigation area (%)

Cal

cula

ted

wat

er u

se (

Gt/

year

)

Averaged ratio of expanded irrigated area of equilibriums

in each return period of drought

Analysis 1

5yr drought 10yr drought 20yr drought 50yr drought 100yr drought

Egypt 54 60 46 38 51

Sudan&S.Sudan 52 57 44 37 47

Ethiopia 70 49 40 30 17

Upstream countries 54 52 50 47 46

Average 57.5 54.5 45.0 38.0 40.3

The numbers in table indicate “the average of situation which

is possible to occur”.

As a result, in the case that all basin countries develop 40%

of remained potential field for irrigated area, some discussion

will be required on the water allocation for 20 years drought

situation.

(Unit: %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Egypt

Sudan&S.Sudan

Ethiopia

Upstream countries

MEAN

Rat

io o

f ir

rig

ated

wat

er r

eso

urc

es d

evel

op

men

t (%

)

5yr 10yr 20yr 50yr 100yr

Analysis 2 ~Visualization of equilibrium points~

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

2

Definition of quadrants

1(Egypt)

2(Sudan&S.Sudan)

3(Ethiopia)

4(Upstream countries)

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Visualize the end of vectors

Set 4 axes for each player Unit: ratio of expanded irrigated area

Analysis 2 ~Visualization of equilibrium points~

20 years drought 100 years drought

According to distribution map, Egyptian side has substantial advantage rapidly, and

Ethiopian side has remarkable disadvantage

Analysis 3 ~Refinement~

20 years drought 100 years drought

Take off events whose difference between maximum and minimum ratio is more than 70%

Analysis 3 ~Refinement~

5yr drought 10yr drought 20yr drought 50yr drought 100yr drought

Egypt 66 59 41 30 29

Sudan&S.Sudan 63 56 37 28 25

Ethiopia 62 48 43 34 25

Upstream countries 60 54 45 37 36

Average 62.6 54.6 41.2 32.3 28.8

After 70% refinement

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Egypt

Sudan&S.Sudan

Ethiopia

Upstream countries

MEAN

Rat

io o

f ir

rig

ated

wat

er r

eso

urc

es d

evel

op

men

t (%

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Egypt

Sudan&S.Sudan

Ethiopia

Upstream countries

MEAN

Rat

io o

f ir

rig

ated

wat

er r

eso

urc

es d

evel

op

men

t (%

)

5yr 10yr 20yr 50yr 100yr 5yr 10yr 20yr 50yr 100yr

1. Hybrid of Conflict Analysis and Hydrological Model is proposed and applied to the whole Nile River Basin for international river management.

Conclusion

42

2. Assessment of future climate is conducted in each sub-basin by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3.

3. Plural equilibrium points are analyzed. As a result, in the case of 20 years drought situation, 40% ofremained potential field for irrigated area is recommended as the maximum ratio for all basin countries. These recommended ratio depends on cooperative return period of drought.

43

Database of JE-HydroNet

Database of JE-HydroNet (tentative)

45

Database of JE-HydroNet (tentative)

Summary of database

1. Purposes

To introduce JE-HydroNet project to the public

To share hydrological information between project members(2)

(1)

2. Contents

3. How to manage this website

Introduction of JE-HydroNet

Announcement of next symposium(2)

(1)

Need to discuss for the near future(1)

Reports of the previous symposium

Download data (only for project members)(4)

(3)

Thank you for kind attention.

Masahiroabe..Nile .River basin Crisis

Technology