A Report On RIBASIM-Submitted Final

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
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Location and Study Area..................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Use of RIBASIM to analyse the Basin .................................................................................................................. 9
2.
Characterization of the Nile Water Resources .............................................................................................10

2.1The Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................... 11
3.
Problem Identification for the Present Situation .........................................................................................15
4.
Objective and Criteria (including the Work Plan) .........................................................................................16
5.
Nile RIBASIM Schematization ......................................................................................................................17

5.1 Reservoirs (Merowe Dam) ................................................................................................................................ 17
5.2 Karadobi Dam ................................................................................................................................................... 17
6.
Model data, calibration and assumption .....................................................................................................19
7.
Base case analysis including the water demands (for each water user) for the present and future situation
(Reference Case) ..................................................................................................................................................21

7.1 Water requirements for public and livestock water supply in present case ..................................................... 21
7.2 Water Demand for Irrigation in present case ................................................................................................... 22
7.3 Analysis of Problems in Present case (Base Case) ............................................................................................ 29
7.3.1 Public Water Supply ...................................................................................................................................... 29
7.3.2 Irrigation Water Shortage ............................................................................................................................. 30
7.3.3 Energy Production ......................................................................................................................................... 33
7.4 Water requirements for public and livestock water supply in present case in Future Case (Reference Case) . 33
7.4 Water Demand for Irrigation in future case (Reference Case) ......................................................................... 35
7.5 Analysis of problems in future situation 2030 .................................................................................................. 37
7.5.1 Public Water supply ....................................................................................................................................... 37
7.5.2 Irrigation Water Demand .............................................................................................................................. 39
7.5.3 Energy Production ......................................................................................................................................... 40
7.6 Comparison of Base case and Reference Case ................................................................................................. 41
7.6.1 Public Water Supply ...................................................................................................................................... 41
7.6.2 Irrigation Demand ......................................................................................................................................... 42
7.6.3 Energy............................................................................................................................................................ 43
8.
Scenario Conditions .....................................................................................................................................44

8.1 Proposed Objective ........................................................................................................................................... 45
9.
Formulations of possible measures for the future horizon (2030) ...............................................................46
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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 ................................................................ 47
Table 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
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Table 65Complete Analysis of all three cases ............................................................................................ 11
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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 11
riparian 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
Figure 1 Overview of the Nile Basin
The Nile extends over a wide band of latitude from 4S to 32N. 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.
Figure 2 Nile River Basin
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
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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 JulyAugust.
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
10
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Figure 3 Integrated Water Resource Management Framework
2.1The Stakeholders
The stake holder analysis is done based on this format
Power/influence of stakeholders
Meet their needs
Key player
Least important
Show consideration
Interest of stakeholders
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
11
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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.
12
Stakeholder
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Description
Scoring (3-high, 1-low)

Power
3
Urgency
3
Legitimacy
2
Stakeholder type
Aquaculture/Fisheries
Local industry who wish to maintain traditional

fishery or develop a new economic sector of
aquaculture using the lake
Definitive
Governmental Consortium
The lake management organisation, with

representatives from the three bordering countries
Definitive
Environmental NGOs
Local and larger groups concerned about the

environmental state of the lake
Dependent
Local people
Residents of the area
Dormant
Recreational Users
Primarily boat and property owners from other

places who visit the lake frequently
Dangerous
Tourism
Largest economic sector in region
Demanding
Universities/Research
centres
Researchers interested in the region
Discretionary
Consumers
People who would buy the fish produced in the

region
Demanding
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.
13
Stakeholder
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
How could these stakeholders influence the sustainable management of the region?
Aquaculture/
Fisheries
Positive
Important part of the local economy and an
influence on local government
Negative
Potential to overdevelop aquaculture and
put ecosystem and tourism at risk
Governmental
Consortium
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
How their Salience can be improved?
Production of scientific research and

reports, greater understanding of
objections and other perspectives
Collaboration with other stakeholders,
change to more inclusive lake governance,
increased community support, links to
NGOs at different scales
Local people
Power available to push for change
Depend on information, and require

motivation. Could be used
Awareness and Education. Greater role in

planning process
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.
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
Provide legitimacy to other groups through

focused research
Lack of urgency and connection to region

may affect results
Collaboration with other stakeholders
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
Universities/
Research centres
Consumers
Lacking
(Power,
Legitimacy,
Urgency)
U, L
L
P, L
P, U
P, L
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
14
3. Problem Identification for the Present Situation

Basin system
phenomena
Shortage of water
Insufficient food
Causes
Socio-econ. effects
Measures
Implications
-uneven rainfall
-increased demand
economic losses
reservoirs
- high costs
- hydropower
- environmental
effects
Water quality (as

shown in figure 4)
- Quantity of
domestic and
industrial effluents.
- Quantity of flow in
the canals, which in
turn depends on
irrigation demands.
Socio-econ. Effects
Health issues
Along the Nile basin
- environmental
effects
-Diseases
Table 1 Problem Identification
Agriculture
Crop Yield
Economy
Health Problems
Health Problems
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Food
insecurity
Dams
(reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Health Problems
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Population
Growth
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Health Problems
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams
(reservoirs)
Water
Shortage
Water Allocation and

Equity
Health Problems
Dams (reservoirs)
High Sediment Trap
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Dams(reservoirs)
(reservoirs)
Dams
Environmental
Effects
Dams (reservoirs)
Floods
Power Supply
Dams
(reservoirs)
Dams
(reservoirs)
Dams (reservoirs)
Figure 5 Problem Identification
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
net income of the farmers
- Improve income position of farmers

- Improve equity in income distribution
4. Increase the export production
- Export value
5. Support economic development in an economic
- Total annual benefits
development in an economically efficient way
- Total annual costs

- B/C ratio
- NPV
- Total capital required
- Foreign currency required
- Total construction costs
- Total O&M costs
- Sectorial value added
- GRP
16
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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 made
as 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)
Figure 6 Schematization of the Nile Basin showing Atbara

River Confluence
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.
Figure 7 Merowe Dam
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.
17
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
18
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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 was
calculated 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
19
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Figure 9 Results of Calibration
20
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
Egypt
25
25
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
Population
Population water
demand (McM)
Ethiopia
27,100,000.00

26,400,000.00
Egypt
72,000,000.00
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
31.2
Egypt
50
Table 6 Livestock details 2005
Country
Water Needed for Livestock(l/cap/day)
Ethiopia
20
20
Egypt
20
Table 7 Water needed for livestock 2005
21
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
10,600,000.00
Sudan and South

Sudan
31,200,000.00
50,000,000.00
77,380,000.00
227,760,000.00
365,000,000.0
Country
Ethiopia
Population
Population water demand
Livestock (McM)
Egypt
Table 8 Population and Water Demand of Livestock 2005
Then the total water demand was calculated per country as follows:
Country
Population
Population water demand (McM)
Population
Population water demand
Livestock (McM)
Total water demand PWS
(McM/year)
Total water demand PWS(m3/s)
Ethiopia
27,100,000.00
247,287,500.00
10,600,000.00
77,380,000.00
Sudan and South

Sudan
26,400,000.00
240,900,000.00
31,200,000.00
227,760,000.00
Egypt
72,000,000.00
1,471,680,000.00
50,000,000.00
365,000,000.00
324,667,500.00
468,660,000.00
1,836,680,000.00
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
Potential yield (kg/ha/yr)

Wheat Vegetables Sugarcane
Ethiopia
1160
40000
125000
Sudan and South Sudan 1600
40000
125000
Egypt
8000
40000
125000
Country
Table 11 Potential yield for wheat, vegetables and sugarcane 2005
Country
Total cereals/wheat
requirements per
year(Mton)
Ethiopia
Sudan and South

Sudan
Egypt
Total
6,109,455,882
5,951,647,058
16,231,764,705
28,292,867,647
22
Required
cereals/wheat area
(Mha)
Required Irrigation
Area (Mha)
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
5,266,772
3,719,779
2,028,970
11,015,522
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
Ethiopia
Sudan and
South Sudan
Egypt
Basin Level
Fir_Et_SmallScaleHumer
aMetemaIrr(P)
Total
Fir_Su_NewHalfaIrr
Fir_Su_GeziraMenagilSu
kiGeneidAbuNamaSel
Fir_Su_MainNile_Merow
eNasser_Irr
Total
Fir_Eg_ToshkaPumpSche
me
Fir_Eg_NileValleyDelta
Total
Total
Total irrigated area Total irrigated

% Area
2005 (ha) from
area 2005 (ha)
distribution
software
1800
0
1800
105000
650000
0
105000
650000
12.43%
76.92%
90000
90000
10.65%
845000
250000
845000
250000
100.00%
8.20%
2800000
3050000
3896800
2800000
3050000
3895000
91.80%
100.00%
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:
Country
Ethiopia
Ethiopia basin
(20%)
Sudan and South
Sudan
Egypt
Area equipped for

irrigation (ha)
Area currently irrigated

(ha)
Required
irrigation(ha)
289,530
5,266,772
57,906
5,266,772
1,863,000
845,000
3,719,779
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.
23
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Cropping pattern (2005)

Country
Wheat and vegetables (%)

Ethiopia basin (20%)
100
80
Egypt
90
Sugarcane (%)
20
10
Table 15 Cropping Pattern per country for the present situation 2005
Country Area Irrigated Wheat (ha) Area Irrigated Sugar cane (ha)
Ethiopia
Egypt
0
0
169,000
305,000
0
676,000
2,745,000
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.
Ref Eto (mm/day)
Month
January
February
Mar
April
May
June
July
Fir_Su_Gezir
aMenagilSuki
GeneidAbuN
amaSel
5.40
6.41
7.32
7.66
7.98
7.50
6.52
Fir_Su_New
HalfaIrr
Fir_Su_MainNile_
MeroweNasser_Irr
Fir_Eg_Toshka
PumpScheme
Fir_Eg_Nile
ValleyDelta
4.80
5.46
6.53
7.22
7.23
7.34
6.23
5.29
6.49
7.54
8.83
9.49
9.30
8.44
3.37
4.64
6.53
8.38
10.22
10.83
10.46
2.25
2.97
4.11
5.56
6.96
7.47
6.88
24
August
September
October
November
December
5.85
6.07
5.85
5.90
5.36
5.43
5.83
5.39
4.91
4.61
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
8.10
8.01
7.66
6.12
5.09
10.15
8.99
6.93
4.66
3.43
6.26
5.44
4.30
2.90
2.19
Table 17 Crop Evapo-transpiration per irrigation scheme in sudan and Egypt 2005
Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Kc
0.50
0.78
0.40
0.72
0.95
0.82
1.15
1.05
0.82
1.15
1.05
1.25
0.32
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
0.75
Table 18 Crop factors for Wheat,Vegetables and Sugarcane 2005
Type of
Crop
Wheat
Vegetables
Sugarcane
Calendar cropping plan

Sudan
Egypt
June
October
December
April
January
January
Table 19 Calendar of the cropping plan for Sudan and Egypt 2005
Ref Eto (mm/day)

Month
January
February
Mar
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Fir_Su_GeziraMena
gilSukiGeneidAbuN
amaSel
Fir_Su_New
HalfaIrr
Fir_Su_MainNile_
MeroweNasser_Irr
Fir_Eg_Toshka
PumpScheme
Fir_Eg_Nile
ValleyDelta
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.37
0.84
2.42
2.88
1.36
0.37
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.55
1.30
3.48
3.67
1.89
0.34
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.13
0.19
0.59
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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)
26
Crop
Wheat-Vegetables
Octobe
r
Startime
Area (% of Total
irr.area)
Month
January
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
August
Septembe
r
October
November
December
90
Evapotranspiration
Land Preparation
Land
Land
Prep
Prep .l
dose
(mm
(mm)
/day)
0
0
0
0
50
1.61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Effective Rainfall
Net water Requirements
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Effective
rainfall
(mm
/day)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
1.67
1.67
0.19
0
0
0
0
70
70
0
0
2.15
2.09
2.15
2.09
0.25
0.24
70
2.52
2.52
0.29
Length
(days)
Ref Eto
(mm
/day)
Kc
Crop
ET
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
2.25
2.97
4.11
5.56
6.96
7.47
6.88
6.26
1.15
0.32
0
0.78
0.95
1.05
1.05
0.75
2.59
0.95
0.00
4.34
6.61
7.84
7.22
4.70
30
5.44
0.00
50
1.67
31
30
4.3
2.9
0.5
0.72
2.15
2.09
0
0
31
2.19
1.15
2.52
Expected
rainfall
(mm
/day)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rainfall
effectiveness
(%)
Sub-NWR
(mm/day
) IRR net
NWR
(mm
/day)
NWR
(l/s.ha)
2.59
0.95
1.61
4.34
6.61
7.84
7.22
4.70
2.59
0.95
1.61
4.34
6.61
7.84
7.22
4.70
0.30
0.11
0.19
0.50
0.77
0.91
0.84
0.54
Table 21 Net water requirements for Wheat and Vegetables for "Fir_Nile Valley Delta"irrigation Scheme 2005
Crop
Startime
Area (% of Total
irr.area)
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Sugarcane
January
10
Evapotranspiration
Month
Length
(days)
Ref Eto
(mm/day)
Kc
Crop
ET
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
31
2.25
2.97
4.11
5.56
6.96
7.47
6.88
6.26
5.44
4.3
2.9
2.19
0.4
0.82
0.82
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
0.75
0.00
0.90
2.44
3.37
6.95
8.70
9.34
8.60
7.83
6.80
3.23
2.18
0.00
Land Preparation
Effective Rainfall
Net water Requirements
Land
Land Prep Expected
Rainfall
Effective Sub-NWR
Prep
NWR
NWR
.l
rainfall
effectiveness
rainfall
(mm/day)
dose
(mm/day) (l/s. ha)
(mm/day) (mm/day)
(%)
(mm/day)
IRR net
(mm)
0
0
0
70
0
0.90
0.90
0.10
0
0
0
70
0
2.44
2.44
0.28
0
0
0
70
0
3.37
3.37
0.39
0
0
0
70
0
6.95
6.95
0.81
0
0
0
70
0
8.70
8.70
1.01
0
0
0
70
0
9.34
9.34
1.08
0
0
0
70
0
8.60
8.60
1.00
0
0
0
70
0
7.83
7.83
0.91
0
0
0
70
0
6.80
6.80
0.79
0
0
0
70
0
3.23
3.23
0.37
0
0
0
70
0
2.18
2.18
0.25
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
28
NWR
(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
Month
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.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Ethiopia
2005
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
Sudan and
South Sudan
2005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Egypt
2005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Table 24 Shortage in Public Water Supply
29
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
The graph of the same is as follows:
Shortage in PWS
0.350
Discharge (m3/s)
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ethiopia
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Month
Sudan
Oct
Nov
Dec
Egypt
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:
30
Ethiopia
Month
2005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Sudan and
South Sudan
2005
21.96
432.64
1191.44
904.42
365.71
108.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.51
252.74
Egypt
2005
7.12
5.32
7.97
41.09
379.94
935.95
666.56
178.68
24.39
6.99
4.35
6.87
188.77
Table 25 Irrigation Shortage in Base case
The Graph of the same is shown in the following figure:
Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply

1400
Discharge (m3/s)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Ethiopia 2005
Egypt 2005
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
31
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Figure 13 Ribasim Graph showing Shortage in Irrigation in
Figure 14 Ribasim Graph showing time step shortage in Irrigation Water Supply
32
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
830.00
11
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.
Power (GWh)
Shortage in Energy
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Sudan
Egypt
Ethiopia
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
33
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
determining the required irrigation area. The population in Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, and
Ethiopia is indicated in table23.
Population*10^6 in 2030
Country
Ethiopia
48
44.8
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
Ethiopia
Egypt
Water Needed
(l/cap/day)
25
25
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.
Country
Population
Population water
demand (McM)
Ethiopia
48,000,000.00

44,800,000.00
Egypt
107,000,000.00
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
41
Egypt
90
Table 29 Livestock details 2030
Country
Water Needed for Livestock(l/cap/day)
Ethiopia
20
20
Egypt
20
Table 30 Water needed for livestock 2030
Country
Population
Ethiopia
13,100,000.00

41,000,000.00
Egypt
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
34
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Then the total water demand was calculated per country as follows:
Country
Population
Population water
demand (McM)
Population
Population water
demand
Livestock(McM)
Total water
demand
PWS(McM/year)
Total water
demand
PWS(m3/s)
Ethiopia
48,000,000.00

44,800,000.00
Egypt
107,000,000.00
438,000,000.00
408,800,000.00
2,187,080,000.00
13,100,000.00
41,000,000.00
90,000,000.00
95,630,000.00
299,300,000.00
657,000,000.00
533,630,000.00
708,100,000.00
2,844,080,000.00
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
Potential yield (kg/ha/yr)

Ethiopia
1160
40000
125000
40000
125000
Egypt
8000
40000
125000
Country
Table 34 Potential yield for wheat, vegetables and sugarcane 2030
Country
Total cereals/wheat
requirements per
year(Mton)
Required
cereals/wheat area
(Mha)
Ethiopia
Sudan and South

Sudan
Egypt
Total
10,821,176,470.6
10,099,764,705.9
24,122,205,882.4
45,043,147,058.8
9,328,600.4
6,312,352.9
3,015,275.7
18,656,229.1
35
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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,
Country
Sudan and South
Sudan
Egypt
2700.00
(Max)
Potential
irrigation
(FAO)
2,220,000.00
9,328,600.4
1,394,250.00
2,750,000.00
6,312,352.9
3,355,000.00 5,032,500.00
4,420,000.00
3,015,275.7
Irrigated
Areas (2005)
Estimated
irrigation
area (2015)
Estimated
irrigation
area (2030)
0.00
1800.00
845,000.00
929,500.00
3,050,000.00
Required
Irrigation
(ha)
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
Ethiopia basin
Sudan and
South Sudan
Egypt
Cropping Pattern base case (2005)

Area
Area Irrigated
Irrigated
Sugarcane (ha)
Wheat(ha)
0.00
0
Cropping pattern Reference case (2030)

Area Irrigated
Wheat(ha)
Area Irrigated
Sugarcane (ha)
2700.00
676,000.00
169,000.00
1,225,250.00
169,000.00
2,745,000.00
305,000.00
4,115,000.00
305,000.00
Table 37 Irrigated areas in base case and reference case 2030
Country
Ethiopia basin
Sudan and South
Sudan
Egypt
Cropping Pattern base case (2005) Cropping pattern Reference case (2030)
Wheat (%)
Sugarcane (%)
Wheat (%)
Sugarcane (%)
100
0
100
0
80
20
87.88
12.12
90
10
93.10
6.90
Table 38 Cropping patterns for 2030
36
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Then the irrigation area gap was calculated as the difference between required irrigation area and
estimated area as shown in the table below.
Country
Required irrigated Area

(based on population)
Estimated irrigated
Area for wheat
Irrigation area
gap
9,328,600.41
2,700.00
9,325,900.41
6,312,352.94
1,225,250.00
5,087,102.94
3,015,275.74
4,115,000.00
- 1,099,724.26
Ethiopia basin
Sudan and South
Sudan
Egypt
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)
Ethiopia
Fir_Et_SmallScaleHumera
MetemaIrr(P)
Total
Fir_Su_NewHalfaIrr
Fir_Su_GeziraMenagilSuki
GeneidAbuNamaSel
Fir_Su_MainNile_
Merowe Nasser_Irr
Total
Fir_Eg_ToshkaPump
Scheme
Fir_Eg_NileValleyDelta
Total
Total
1800
2,700.00
1800
105000
650000
2,700.00
173,250.00
1,072,500.00
12.43%
76.92%
90000
148,500.00
10.65%
845000
250000
1,394,250.00
362,295.08
100.00%
8.20%
2800000
3050000
3896800
4,057,704.92
4,420,000.00
5816950
91.80%
100.00%
Sudan and
South Sudan
Egypt
Basin Level
% Area
distributio
n
Table 40 Distribution of irrigated area per country for 2030
Country
Area Irrigated
Wheat (ha)
Area Irrigated Sugar

cane (ha)
Ethiopia
Ethiopia basin(20%)
Egypt
0
1,115,400
3,978,000
0
0
278,850
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.
37
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
0.000
June
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
Shortage in Public Water Supply

Discharge (m3/s)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Egypt
Dec
Oct
Sep
Nov
Month
Ethiopia
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
April
Mar
Feb
Jan
0
Sudan
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
38
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
7.5.2 Irrigation Water Demand

Similarly the results from Irrigation was obtained as follows:
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Sudan
and
Ethiopia
South
Sudan
2030
2030
0.00
738.77
0.00
1600.71
0.05
1895.47
0.04
1713.22
0.00
659.90
0.09
551.75
0.00
1.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.33
0.00
217.00
0.01
615.28
Egypt
2030
250.95
143.37
228.31
910.46
2714.28
4413.43
3805.54
943.27
270.62
188.83
119.98
183.49
1181.04
Table 43 Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply in Reference Case
The above table can be graphically represented as follows:
Discharge (m3/s)
Shortage in Irrigation Water Supply

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Jan
Feb Mar April May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct Nov Dec
Month
Ethiopia
Egypt
Figure 19 Shortage of Water for Irrigation in Reference Case
The results obtained from Ribasim is as follows:
39
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
830
9
0
0
830
40
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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.
Power (GWh)
Shortage in Energy
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Sudan
Egypt
Ethiopia
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
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Ethiopia
2005 2030
0.00 0.008
0.01 0.247
0.00 0.503
0.00 0.408
0.00 0.456
0.31 1.371
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000

2005
2030
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
Egypt
2005 2030
0.00 0.668
0.00 1.239
0.00 1.751
0.00 2.735
0.00 3.048
0.00 2.002
0.00 0.876
0.00 0.000
41
Month
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ethiopia
2005 2030
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277

2005
2030
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
Egypt
2005 2030
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000
Table 46 Comparative study of Shortage situation Public Water Supply
SHORTAGE COMPARISION CHART

Ethiopia 2005
Ethiopia 2030
Sudan 2005
Sudan 2030
Egypt 2005
Egypt 2030
DISCHARGE (M3/S)
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
JAN
FEB
MAR APRIL MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MONTH
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.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ethiopia
2005 2030
2005
2030
0.00 0.000
21.96
738.768
0.00 0.000
432.64
1600.709
0.00 0.046 1191.44
1895.474
0.00 0.036
904.42
1713.218
0.00 0.000
365.71
659.900
0.00 0.090
108.21
551.753
0.00 0.000
0.00
1.266
0.00 0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00 0.000
0.00
0.001
0.00 0.000
0.00
0.000
0.00 0.000
0.00
5.327
0.00 0.000
8.51
216.995
Egypt
2005
2030
7.12
250.950
5.32
143.371
7.97
228.309
41.09 910.458
379.94 2714.281
935.95 4413.434
666.56 3805.539
178.68 943.265
24.39 270.615
6.99
188.833
4.35
119.979
6.87
183.494
Table 48 Comparison of Shortage Situation
The graph of the table shows it even better to illustrate the situation.
42
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
SHORTAGE COMPARISON CHART

Ethiopia 2005
Ethiopia 2030
Sudan 2005
Sudan 2030
Egypt 2005
Egypt 2030
5000
DISCHARGE (M3/S)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
JAN
-1000
FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
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.
43
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
70
70
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:
44
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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 %
70
70
80
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.
45
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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
46
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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 water
demand for Public water supply. The table also shows the comparison with the reference case.
Country
Ethiopia
Cases
Population (Million)
Water Need (l/cap/day)
Population Water
Demand (MCM/year)
Livestock (Million TLU)
Water Need (l/cap/day)
Livestock Water
Demand (MCM/year)
Total Water Demand
PWS (MCM/year)
Total Water Demand
PWS (m3/s)
Sudan and South

Sudan
Egypt
New
New
New
Reference
Reference
Reference
Assumed
Assumed
Assumed
43.20
48.00
40.32
44.80
96.30
107.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
56.00
56.00
394.20
438.00
367.92
408.80
1968.37
2187.08
13.10
20.00
13.10
20.00
41.00
20.00
41.00
20.00
90.00
20.00
90.00
20.00
95.63
95.63
299.30
299.30
657.00
657.00
489.83
533.63
667.22
15.53
16.92
21.16
2625.37
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
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Eg_NileValley
Delta
1.73
2.81
4.29
5.87
5.32
0.28
3.59
4.61
6.27
4.89
0.97
0.05
Su_Gezira
5.46
4.83
1.88
4.14
5.74
8.08
5.84
0.32
0.40
4.29
5.53
5.39
MeroweNasser alternative
5.35
4.89
1.89
4.81
7.07
10.66
9.62
2.63
2.13
5.95
5.74
5.12
NewHalfa alternative
4.85
4.12
1.84
3.89
5.05
7.58
4.77
0.25
0.68
3.96
4.56
4.65
Toshka
Delta
2.59
4.39
6.81
8.85
7.82
2.02
5.47
7.47
10.37
7.89
1.55
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.
47
Karadobi
Month
Ref
Case
New
Target
Level (m.)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1146
1143
1140
1137
1135
1130
1125
1130
1135
1146
1146
1146
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Roseires
New
Ref
Target
Case
Level
(m.)
480
480
480
479
480
477
480
475
480
473
480
472
480
471
480
470
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
Khasmel Girba
Ref
Case
New
Target
Level (m.)
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
473
472
471
471
470
470
470
471
473
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
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Ethiopia
Ref
S1
case
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.41
0.41
0.46
0.46
1.37
1.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sudan
Egypt
Ref case
S1
Ref case
S1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
1.24
1.75
2.74
3.05
2.00
0.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
1.75
2.63
2.63
3.45
2.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
48
Month
Nov
Dec
Ethiopia
Ref
S1
case
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.25
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Sudan
Egypt
Ref case
S1
Ref case
S1
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.03
0.00
0.00
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:
With Strategy -1
4.00
Discharge (m3/s)
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Axis Title
Egypt-S1
Sudan-S1
Ethiopia-S1
Ethiopia Ref case
Sudan Ref case
Egypt Ref case
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
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Ethiopia
Sudan
Egypt
Ref case S1 Ref case
S1
Ref case
S1
0.00
0.00 738.77
448.63
250.95
293.45
0.00
0.00 1600.71 1335.21 143.37
163.80
0.05
0.05 1895.47 1786.42 228.31
261.58
0.04
0.04 1713.22 1495.52 910.46 1027.02
0.00
0.00 659.90
286.41 2714.28 2947.08
0.09
0.09 551.75
313.01 4413.43 4754.49
0.00
0.00
1.27
7.74
3805.54 4253.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
943.27 1290.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
270.62
290.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
188.83
205.99
49
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Ethiopia
Sudan
S1
0.00
0.00
5.33
0.00
0.00
0.00 217.00
119.63
0.01
0.01 615.28
482.71
Month
Nov
Dec
Total
Egypt
Ref case
S1
119.98
163.10
183.49
233.53
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.
Irrigation With Strategy -1

5000.00
Discharge (m3/s)
4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
-1000.00
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Axis Title
Egypt-S1
Sudan-S1
Ethiopia-S1
Ethiopia Ref case
Sudan Ref case
Egypt Ref case
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;
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Sudan
Egypt
Ethiopia
Ref case S1 Ref case S1 Ref case
S1
0
0
0
0
823.36 53.30
0
0
0
0
830
72.53
0
0
0
0
830
84.63
0
0
0
0
830
80.82
0
0
0
0
830
42.61
0
0
0
0
830
44.43
0
0
0
0
830
53.54
0
0
0
0
830
43.26
0
0
0
0
830
41.31
0
0
0
0
830
42.59
0
0
0
0
830
43.75
0
0
0
0
830
42.36
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
50
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
The Table shows that the energy shortage significantly reduces in Ethiopia only which can be
expressed graphically as follows
Discharge (m3/s)
Energy With Strategy -1

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Axis Title
Egypt-S1
Sudan-S1
Ethiopia-S1
Ethiopia Ref case
Sudan Ref case
Egypt Ref case
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
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ethiopia
Sudan
Egypt
Ref case S2 Ref case S2 Ref case S2
0.01
0.01
0.0
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.25
0.25
0.0
0.00
1.24
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.0
0.00
1.75
0.88
0.41
0.41
0.0
0.00
2.74
0.88
0.46
0.46
0.0
0.00
3.05
0.88
1.37
1.37
0.0
0.00
2.00
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
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
51
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
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.
With Strategy -2
3.50
Discharge (m3/s)
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Axis Title
Egypt-S2
Sudan-S2
Ethiopia-S2
Ethiopia Ref case
Sudan Ref case
Egypt Ref case
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. Thats why the result was tabled
as follows:
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ethiopia
Ref case S2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sudan
Egypt
Ref case
S2
Ref case
S2
738.77
38.32
250.95
101.67
1600.71 249.48 143.37
68.07
1895.47 755.42 228.31
121.54
1713.22 777.68 910.46
505.38
659.90
88.03 2714.28 1601.12
551.75 122.55 4413.43 2698.20
1.27
3.52
3805.54 2534.36
0.00
0.00
943.27
793.43
0.00
0.00
270.62
137.11
0.00
0.00
188.83
72.26
5.33
0.00
119.98
61.58
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.
52
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Irrigation With Strategy -2
Discharge (m3/s)
5000.00
4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
-1000.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Axis Title
Egypt-S2
Sudan and South Sudan Sudan-S2
Ethiopia Ethiopia-S2
Ethiopia Ref case
Sudan Ref case
Egypt Ref case
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.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Sudan
Egypt
Ethiopia
Ref case S1
Ref case S1
Ref case S1
0
0
0
823.36 53.30
0
0
0
0
830
0
72.53
0
0
0
830
0
84.63
0
0
0
830
0
80.82
0
0
0
830
0
42.61
0
0
0
830
0
44.43
0
0
0
830
0
53.54
0
0
0
830
0
43.26
0
0
0
830
0
41.31
0
0
0
830
0
42.59
0
0
0
830
0
43.75
0
0
0
830
0
42.36
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.
53
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Ethiopia
Ref case S3
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.41
0.41
0.46
0.46
1.37
1.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.25
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Sudan
Egypt
Ref case S3 Ref case S3
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.74
0.88
0.00
0.00
3.05
1.33
0.00
0.00
2.00
1.43
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
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.
With Strategy -3
3.50
Discharge (m3/s)
3.00
2.50
S3
2.00
S3
1.50
S3
Ref case
1.00
Ref case
0.50
Ref case
0.00
Jan
Feb
Mar April May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Axis Title
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:
54
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Ethiopia
Sudan
Egypt
S3
Ref case
S3
0.00
0 738.77 145.60 250.95
64.94
0.00
0 1600.71 199.59 143.37
150.43
0.00
0 1895.47 56.86
228.31
395.23
0.00
0 1713.22 228.73 910.46
922.30
0.00
0 659.90 480.15 2714.28 1033.55
0.00
0 551.75 581.08 4413.43 120.30
0.00
0
1.27
9.49
3805.54 764.37
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
943.27
628.39
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
270.62
805.21
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
188.83
212.39
0.00
0
5.33
12.93
119.98
36.79
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
Irrigation Shortage With Strategy -3

5000
4500
Discharge (m3/s)
4000
3500
S3
3000
S3
2500
S3
2000
Ref case
1500
1000
Ref case
500
Ref case
0
Jan
Feb
Mar April May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
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
55
Reference
Objective
Food
Security
Economic
Water
Security
Household
and Urban
Water
Security
Indicators/Criteria
Increased
agricultural yield
(kg/ha/yr)
Increased irrigation
efficiency (%)
Number of
Population
Shortage of Firm
Energy (GWh)
Increase capacity of
power production
(MW) from base
case
Shortage of water
irrigation (m3/s)
Shortage of water
PWS (m3/s)
Et
Su
Strategy 1
Eg
Et
Su
Strategy 2
Eg
Et
Su
Strategy 3
Eg
Et
Su
Eg
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
45
45
70
45
45
70
70
70
80
70
70
80
48.0
44.8
107.0
43.2
40.3
96.3
43.2
40.3
96.3
43.2
40.3
96.3
830
52
52
52
1600
1250
1600
1250
1600
1250
1.34
712.02
1112.8
1.34
490.05
1339.3
0.84
154.32
442.0
0.84
154.3
442.0
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
56
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Reference
Objective
Food
Security
Economic
Water
Security
Househol
d and
Urban
Water
Security
Indicators/Criter
ia
Increased
agricultural
yield (kg/ha/yr)
Increased
irrigation
efficiency (%)
Number of
Population
Shortage of Firm
Energy (GWh)
Increase
capacity of
power
production
(MW) from base
case
Shortage of
water irrigation
(m3/s)
Shortage of
water PWS
(m3/s)
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Et
Su
Eg
Et
Su
Eg
Et
Su
Eg
Et
Su
Eg
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
45
45
70
45
45
70
70
70
80
70
70
80
48.0
44.8
107.0
43.2
40.3
96.3
43.2
40.3
96.3
43.2
40.3
96.3
830
52
52
52
1600
1250
1600
1250
1600
1250
1.34
712.02
1112.8
4
1.34
490.05
1339.3
8
0.84
154.32
442.06
0.84
154.32
442.06
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:
57
Objective
Food Security
Economic Water
Security
Household and
Urban Water
Security
Indicators/Criteria
Increased agricultural yield
(kg/ha/yr)
Increased irrigation efficiency (%)
Number of Population
Total
Shortage of Firm Energy (GWh)
Increase capacity of power
production (MW) from base case
Shortage of water irrigation
(m3/s)
Total
Shortage of water PWS (m3/s)
HERBD/43584/227/45880/277
Reference
Et
Su
Eg
Et
Strategy 1
Su
Eg
Strategy 2
Et
Su
Eg
Strategy 3
Et
Su
Eg
0.50
0.40
0.00
0.50
0.40
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.64
0.90
0.68
0.06
0.64
0.90
0.65
0.00
0.88
0.90
0.59
0.00
0.64
1.00
0.71
1.00
0.64
1.00
0.68
0.00
0.88
1.00
0.63
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.63
0.09
0.40
0.63
0.06
0.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.23
0.03
0.13
0.88
0.35
0.11
1.00
0.67
0.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
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.
58
Assignment of Water Resources Development
HERBD/43584/227
Ethiopia
Reference
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Food Security
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Household and Urban Water

Security
Economic Water Security
Figure 30 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Ethiopia

Reference
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Food Security
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Household and Urban

Water Security
Figure 31 Radial Plot of Strategy with reference case for Sudan and South Sudan
59
HERBD/43584/227
Egypt
Food Security
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Security
Reference
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
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.
Food Security
Security
Reference Strategy 1
Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Ideal Case
1.9
2.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
0.1
1.1
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
5.0
Table 63 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Sudan

Food Security
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Security
Reference
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Ideal Case
Figure 33 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Sudan
60
Egypt
Food Security
Security
HERBD/43584/227
Reference
1.8
0.4
Strategy 1
1.9
0.3
Strategy 2
2.0
1.0
Strategy 3
2.0
1.0
Ideal Case
5.0
5.0
2.2
1.6
1.6
3.0
5.0
Table 64 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Egypt
Egypt
Reference
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Ideal Case
Food Security
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Security
Figure 34 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Egypt
Ethiopia
Reference
Food Security
Household and Urban Water Security
2.0
0.7
2.4
Strategy
1
2.1
0.3
0.3
Strategy
2
3.0
3.0
3.0
Strategy
3
3.0
3.0
3.0
Ideal
Case
5.0
5.0
5.0
Figure 35 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Ethiopia
61
HERBD/43584/227
Ethiopia
Reference
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Food Security
5.0
Strategy 3
Ideal Case
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Household and Urban

Water Security
Figure 36 Comparison with the Ideal Case for Ethiopia
62
HERBD/43584/227
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.
63
HERBD/43584/227
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
64
HERBD/43584/227
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 ;

65
HERBD/43584/227
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.
66
HERBD/43584/227
1) Solution
Year
Benefit
Cost
Cashflow
NPV (8%)
NPV
(10%)
Conclusion
0.00
100.00
-100.00
-92.59
-90.91
Discount rate
8.00%
10.00%
0.00
150.00
-150.00
-128.60
-123.97
Time horizon
30
30
0.00
100.00
-100.00
-79.38
-75.13
Present worth benefits
470.78
371.98
Present worth
4
0.00
50.00
-50.00
-36.75
-34.15
investment
425.73
391.89
60.00
10.00
50.00
34.03
31.05
Net Present Value
45.05
-19.90
60.00
10.00
50.00
31.51
28.22
Benefit Cost Ratio
1.11
0.95
60.00
10.00
50.00
29.17
25.66
Internal Rate of Return
9.31%
9.31%
60.00
10.00
50.00
27.01
23.33
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
45.05
-19.90
Total
NPV
67
HERBD/43584/227
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 low
discount 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.
68
HERBD/43584/227
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
Promising Strategies
Agricultural
Industrial
Antipollution
Mixed
Strategy
Strategy
strategy
Strategy
Water
water
water
Storage
conservation
storage
Irrigation
Strategy Components
Units
Water
Groundwater
Storage
use
canal
Pumps
improvemen
t
Impacts Criteria
Total Investment Cost
Total Benefits
m
euro/yr
m
euro/yr
Increased agricultural
m ton/
production
year
drinking water price
euro/m
3
purification
tax on water
use
purificatio
n
etc
etc
etc
etc
1.00
0.75
0.43
0.43
1.00
0.58
0.08
0.83
1.00
0.19
0.06
0.75
0.64
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
69
HERBD/43584/227
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.
70
Promising Strategies
Agricultural
Strategy
Components
Units
Weightage
Contribution to
Strategy
Goal
Irrigation
Industrial Strategy Antipollution strategy Mixed Strategy

Water Storage
Water Storage Groundwater use

Pumps
Impacts Criteria
Case I Case II Case III Case I Case II Case III Case I Case II
Total Investment Cost m euro/yr
water conservation
water storage
purification
purification
canal improvement tax on water use

Case
III
etc
Case I Case II Case III Case I Case II Case III Case I Case II Case III
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
m euro/yr
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
m ton/ year
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
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
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
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
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
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
14
12
0.63
0.54
0.70
0.45
0.69 0.65
0.67
Total Benefits
Increased agricultural
production
0.74 0.67 0.83 0.61 0.55
Table 65Complete Analysis of all three cases
11
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.
11

A Report On RIBASIM-Submitted Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Report On RIBASIM-Submitted Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Report on

Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan

Laura Basco Carrera

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

Characterization of the Nile Water Resources .............................................................................................10

Problem Identification for the Present Situation .........................................................................................15

Objective and Criteria (including the Work Plan) .........................................................................................16

Nile RIBASIM Schematization ......................................................................................................................17

Model data, calibration and assumption .....................................................................................................19

(Reference Case) ..................................................................................................................................................21

Scenario Conditions .....................................................................................................................................44

Formulations of possible measures for the future horizon (2030) ...............................................................46

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

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

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

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

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

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

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

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

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

1.1 Location and Study Area

Figure 1 Overview of the Nile Basin

1.2 Use of RIBASIM to analyse the Basin

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

2. Characterization of the Nile Water Resources

Components of Natural Resource System (NRS)

The chemical system and

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

Components of Socio-Economic System (SES)

Control variables Governed by legislative and regulating measures

Components of the administrative and Institutional System (AIS)

Coordinating bodies between the countries

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

Figure 3 Integrated Water Resource Management Framework

Meet their needs

Figure 4 Stake Holder Analysis

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

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

Scoring (3-high, 1-low)

Local industry who wish to maintain traditional

The lake management organisation, with

Local and larger groups concerned about the

Residents of the area

Primarily boat and property owners from other

Largest economic sector in region

Researchers interested in the region

People who would buy the fish produced in the

A Report on Nile Integrated River Basin Master Plan Using RIBASIM

Mediate between stakeholders, and make

Able to block progress, especially with

Build awareness in general population and

All NGOs may be vulnerable to actions of

How their Salience can be improved?

Production of scientific research and

Power available to push for change

Depend on information, and require

Awareness and Education. Greater role in

Able to support good management vocally