Afghanistan Water Resources Development (AWARD) Technical Assistance Project - Technical and Implementation Support Consultancy (TISC)

Grant No. TF093637-AF/ Contract No. MEW/957/QBS

INVESTMENT PLAN FOR KABUL RIVER BASIN

January 2013

AWARD - TISC

Grant No. TF093637-AF/ Contract No. MEW/957/QBS

AFGHANISTAN

KABUL BASIN INVESTMENT PLAN

Report submitted by LANDELL MILLS LTD

This report was prepared at the request of the Ministry of Energy and Water. The views expressed are those of the Consultants and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Afghanistan or the World Bank.

KEY DATA

Name of Project: AWARD - TISC (Grant No. TF093637-AF/ Contract No. MEW/957/QBS) Contractor: Landell Mills Limited, Bryer-Ash Business Park, Bradford Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8HE, UK Tel: +44 1225 763777 Fax: +44 1225 753678 www.landell-mills.com

in association with Mott MacDonald (www.mottmac.com) Contracting Authority: Ministry of Energy and Water, Islamic Government of Afghanistan Beneficiary: Ministry of Energy and Water Primary Location: Kabul Secondary Locations: Nationwide

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Recipient Copies Format Eng. Farhad, Director of Water Projects 10 English – electronic and hard copies

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Version Status Date Kabul Basin Investment Plan Version 3 6.02.13 Name Position Date Prepared by: Georg Petersen River Basin Planner 30.01.13 Devaraj de Condappa River Basin Modeller (WEAP) Laura Forni WEAP/LEA Specialist Checked by: Jelle Beekma Senior Consultant, Landell Mills Limited 31.01.13 Simon Foxwell Backstopping Director, Landell Mills Limited 31.01.13

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the General Director of Planning, Mme. Zia Gul, Director of Water Projects, Eng. Farhad, and other staff of the MEW Department of Planning, as well as His Excellency the Deputy Minister Eng. Ziaie, for their cooperation and support to the team.

Page i AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... III 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1.1. Context ...... 1 1.2. Analysis ...... 1 1.3. Results ...... 3 1.4. Conclusions and Recommendations...... 8 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ...... 13 2.1. Motivation of this Analysis ...... 13 2.2. Main Characteristics of the River Basin ...... 17 2.3. Critical Issues ...... 26 2.4. Future Targets ...... 30 2.5. Development Options ...... 31 3. WATER RESOURCES AVAILABILITY AND DEMAND FOR YEAR 2030 ...... 33 3.1. Water Resources Availability for Year 2030 ...... 33 3.2. Demands for Year 2030 ...... 36 4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 43 4.1. Modelling Framework ...... 43 4.2. Hydrological Scenarios Modelling ...... 47 4.3. Reference Case...... 47 4.4. Future Scenarios ...... 49 4.5. Result Database ...... 63 4.6. Approach and Assessment Criteria for Investment ...... 63 4.7. Performance Assessment ...... 68 4.8. Robustness Aspects ...... 69 4.9. Assumptions ...... 70 4.10. Investment Tranches ...... 71 4.11. Development Sequence ...... 71 4.12. Limitations and Uncertainties ...... 72 4.13. Partnership and Stakeholder Involvement ...... 73 5. SCENARIO ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 76 5.1. Reference Case...... 76 5.2. Overview of the Scenarios ...... 77 5.3. Priority for Coverage of Domestic Water Demand ...... 80 5.4. Analysis of Investment Tranches ...... 80 5.5. Asset Performance (Individual) ...... 144 5.6. Sensitivity Analysis ...... 149 5.7. Development Schedule...... 151 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 175 6.1. Conclusions ...... 175 6.2. Recommendations ...... 178 APPENDIX 1: REFERENCES ...... 181 APPENDIX 2: STAKEHOLDERS AND CONTACTS ...... 184 APPENDIX 3: EXISTING HYDRAULIC ASSET DETAILS ...... 187 APPENDIX 4: PROPOSED HYDRAULIC ASSET DETAILS ...... 188 APPENDIX 5: FINANCIAL PARAMETERS USED IN WEAP ...... 191

Page ii AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank AEIC Afghan Energy Information Center AIMS Afghanistan Information Management Service ANDS Afghanistan National Development Strategy ARTF Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund AUWSSC Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation AWARD Afghanistan Water Resources Development (Project) BGR Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Germany CASA 1000 Central Asia South Asia Electricity Transmission and Trade Project CE Civil Engineer CIA Central Intelligence Agency CPHD Center for Policy and Human Development CSO Central Statistics Organization CTAP Civilian Technical Assistance Programme DSS Decision Support System EIRP Emergency Irrigation Rehabilitation Programme ESHA European Small Hydropower Association FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GAMS General Algebraic Modelling System GCMs Global Climate Models GD-P General Directorate of Planning GIS Geographic Information System GWSP Global Water System Project IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KDSS Kabul River Decision Support System KM Kabul Municipality LEA Large Ensemble Approach LML Landell Mills Limited MAIL Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock MECO Montreal Engineering Co. MEW Ministry of Energy and Water MoEC Ministry of Economy MoF Ministry of Finance MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MoIC Ministry of Industries and Commerce MOM Management, Operation and Maintenance MoPH Ministry of Public Health MoRRD Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development MoUD Ministry of Urban Development NB Net Benefit NEPA National Environment Protection Agency NGO Non-Governmental Organization

Page iii AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

NPP National Priority Program O&M Operation and Maintenance RB River Basin RBA River Basin Agency RBP River Basin Planning RCMs Regional Climate Models RCUWM Regional Centre on Urban Water Management RFP Request for Proposal SBA Sub Basin Agency SCoW Supreme Council of Water TA Technical Assistance TISC Technical Implementation Support Consultancy TOR Terms of Reference TL Team Leader TS Technical Secretariat USGS United States Geological Service WB World Bank WEAP Water Evaluation and Planning WFP World Food Program WRPU Water Resources Planning Unit

Page iv AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. CONTEXT

The Afghanistan Water Resources Development (AWARD) Technical Assistance Project was prepared through a World Bank Water Resources Development Proposal which was approved by the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) in December 2008. The grant became effective upon the signing of the ARTF Grant No. TF0903637 on 23 March 2009, and follows Conditions for Grants made by the World Bank out of various funds. The Technical Implementation Support Consultancy (TISC) was contracted by the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) in January 2011 and the team was mobilized in late February 2011.

The investment plan for the Kabul River basin details the analysis of a set of development opportunities which may potentially be implemented in the basin. The investments were analysed and described based on information given in different feasibility studies that have previously been established through various consultancies. Potential investments for which sufficient data were not available have not been included in the analysis but may be considered at a later time once studies have been carried out and the information required for analysis becomes available.

The socioeconomic situation in the Kabul basin as well as in Afghanistan as a whole has been considered in the analysis. Potential transboundary aspects including water demands or power import/export could not be considered due to a lack of available information and unclear long term plans. However, the influence of various combinations of infrastructure on the flow at the border is shown. There also may be potential for benefit sharing in-between the different basins in Afghanistan which could not be considered either due to lack of detailed information.

1.2. ANALYSIS

The analysis was carried out using a combined approach of logical assumptions, water resources modelling and database analysis. The logical assumptions are based on report findings as well as stakeholder inputs (which for example led to prioritising domestic water demands) as well as economic considerations and data embedded in the analysis. For testing the different water resources allocation options under the various different scenarios of asset combinations, their operation, priorities and runoff conditions, WEAP modelling software (Yates et al., 2005) was used.

Due to a large number of possible investment combinations that all influence each other in combination with various management option and uncertainty of hydrologic regimes in the future, a large number of runs was carried out in which the various parameters were varied. An automated batch file was developed for the running of these combinations, referred to as the Large Ensemble Approach (LEA). The LEA was used to generate a database for analysing the various basin development scenarios. The scenarios cover domestic and industrial water use, irrigation, hydropower development options, and three hydrological regimes. The database allows for analysis of various development paths and can be adapted at any moment to the new reality if different sequences of projects are implemented.

Flood aspects were not considered due to insufficient data availability regarding discharge-flood relations as well as insufficient information of flood impacts on economics. The LEA results were

Page 1 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

analysed using Tableau (Tableau Software, 2012), software that allows for the multidimensional analysis of large databases in a semi-automated approach.

Additional to the LEA, sensitivity was tested for different irrigation efficiencies, since irrigation is by far the major water user and effects of improving efficiency will significantly reduce water withdrawals. Sensitivity was also analysed for the price of domestic water in view of the fact that in absence of water supply systems, high prices are actually paid for alternative water supply and the price used in the LEA (0.50 US$/m3) causes the water supply projects to have relatively low net revenue. Lastly the reliability of the reservoirs was tested for extreme conditions of three consecutive dry years, which according to available data occurred only three times during the last century.

The scenario analysis simulates conditions for the year 2030 and includes various possible combinations of new schemes1: • Shatoot dam, a multipurpose scheme on Maidan River • Gulbahar dam, a multipurpose scheme on Panjshir River • Baghdara dam, a hydropower scheme on Panjshir River for which two options were evaluated, Baghdara A2, with negligible storage and Baghdara D1 with considerable storage • Sarubi II run-of-river, a hydropower scheme on Kabul River • Shal dam, a hydropower scheme on Konar River • Konar A dam, a hydropower scheme on Konar River • Gambiri scheme, a hydropower and irrigation scheme on Kunar River • Kama scheme, a hydropower and irrigation scheme on Kunar River

The schemes in the year 2030 are represented by developed conditions with the reservoirs partly filled as it would occur under routine operation. The new schemes are assumed to be operational and generating revenues, resulting in a return of investment. Incurred Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs and capital costs are being annualised. In addition to the 2030 scenario, the best possible development paths were assessed based on covering domestic water needs and best net benefit, leading to recommendations for sequencing of the investments.

Parameters considered in the scenario modelling and analysis include:

• Different flow scenarios (hydrological conditions reflecting future uncertainties). To characterise the monthly and inter-annual variability in streamflow the median flow as well as two mild variations are simulated. The median flow represents a flow with a probability of occurring every 2 years and to represent the most likely flow every year. The two mild deviations from the median labelled Dry 5 and Dry 10 represent typical variations of streamflows drought with a probability of occurring every 5 or 10 years respectively. • Irrigation condition alterations have been considered through sensitivity runs in order to assess the effects of different irrigation efficiencies. • Different priorities for water allocation of the different schemes (i.e. different operational rules) as well as their combinations were used to test different development options. This includes priority shifts between domestic water supply, hydropower generation, irrigation water supply and filling the reservoirs.

1 The investment plan does not analyse the technical feasibility of each scheme.It is assumed at this stage that all schemes are technically feasible.

Page 2 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

• Different water allocation rules were tested in line with the different prioritization, e.g. to what level a reservoir would need to be filled before release could take place, etc. • While crop related activities could change in the future, there is no detailed information available in this regard. Cropping patterns and crop management were respectively kept standard as they are currently in use (yields were increased by 20% where irrigation systems are improved). • A plant factor for depicting the actual productive time of the power generating assets considering maintenance needs and downtimes. • Population estimates have been included in the analysis to obtain domestic water demand needs for Old- and New Kabul City. Possible different projections in per capita water consumption have not been further tested. • Available funding limits have been utilized in the database analysis to filter different sets of ideal investments, i.e. to determine which structures provide the highest benefit under different funding conditions.

In addition to the technical parameters, reliable data for the economic assessment was collected by the team economist who has worked closely with stakeholders in Afghanistan to quantify the relevant costs and benefit data for this study. The data was used to identify the investment option with the highest total net benefit, the highest agricultural net benefit change, and the highest hydropower revenue under various streamflow regimes.

To ensure that the selected options satisfy high levels of performance of the different sectors investigated, an initial “optimal bundle” of options was identified that would perform well under the various varied parameters of the system and hence constitute the “optimal bundle of investment options”. Based on this pre-selection, robust options were selected by considering the performance of the optimal bundle under the different streamflow regimes, i.e., Median, Dry 5 and Dry 10. The selected option would be providing the highest performance under median streamflow conditions while satisfying the optimal bundle conditions under the other streamflows (robustness).

For each investment option, the impact on the flow at the outlet of the basin is provided which provides data for the government to use in trans-boundary negotiations with Pakistan. While some investment options have a seasonal impact on flow, all have an insignificant impact on the annual floow.

1.3. RESULTS

The results of scenarios with new combinations of infrastructure were compared to the Reference Case. The Reference Case is the situation in which no new projects are developed and the demands for domestic water and electricity are projected to the year 2030. Comparisons were made for change in Net-benefit, Change in Agricultural Benefit, Coverage of Domestic Water for Kabul and total hydropower production. The analysis of the investment options lead to sets of results that were further evaluated. Investment options were grouped in budget tranches to enable decision makers to select investment options that fit the financing situation. This will enable the government, for example, to lobby for funding at donor conferences, and then, based on the level of donor commitments, to choose the appropriate investment option, based on the development priorities.

Page 3 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

≤ 0.5 BUS$: Although net benefits for the Baghdara A2 and Kama schemes are higher than for the Shatoot dam, the construction of the Shatoot dam is the preferred option in this tranche because domestic water delivery to Old Kabul city has the highest priority (as confirmed by MEW and stakeholders and also recommended as the priority for water users by ourselves). The costs for Gulbahar, which is the other domestic water supply option are much higher and therefore cannot be considered in this tranche. Other potential sources for water supply, for which no finalised feasibility studies were available, have not been considered

For higher investment tranches, the Shahtoot Dam was maintained as an initial investment in the basin because of the priority of the supply of domestic water to Old Kabul city and the likely increased pressure on the nearby lower Logar Aquifer. While Gulbahar is also an option for supplying water to Old Kabul city in tranches above 1.5 BUS$, it is a scheme planned primarily for New Kabul city and the amount planned for Old Kabul City is negligible, while Shatoot covers 87% of the demand for Old Kabul city, thus Shatoot remains the initial investment. The optimum scheme combination of subsequent tranches thus depends on the preferences set for additional development priorities, i.e. for maximum net benefit, electricity production, water supply to New Kabul city or change in agricultural benefit. The government has not indicated which of these development priorities is preferred so we have listed the best performing infrastructure combinations for each priority below:

≤1.0 BUSD: • Highest net benefit and increase in agricultural benefit: Shatoot, Gambiri, Kama • Highest electricity production: Shatoot, Baghdara D1

≤1.5 BUSD: • Highest net benefit and highest electricity production: Shatoot, Gambiri, Konar A • Highest increase in agricultural benefit: Shatoot, Gambiri, Kama, Baghdara A2

≤2.0 BUSD: • Highest net benefit, electricity production and increase in agricultural benefit: Shatoot, Gambiri, Kama, Konar A • Supply of domestic water to New Kabul city: Shatoot, Gulbahar

≤2.5 BUSD: • Highest net benefit and electricity production: Shatoot, Gambiri, Kama, Baghdara D1, Konar A • Domestic supply to New Kabul city and increase in agriculture benefit: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri and Kama

≤3.0 BUSD: • Highest net benefit: Shatoot, Gambiri, Kama, Baghdara D1, Konar A • Electricity Production: Shatoot, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Konar A • Domestic water supply to New Kabul city and agricultural benefit: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri, Kama, Konar A

Page 4 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

≤3.5 BUSD: • Highest net benefit and electricity production: Shatoot, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Gambiri, Kama, Konar A • Domestic water supply to New Kabul city and increase in agricultural benefit: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri, Kama, Konar A

≤4.0 BUSD: • For all criteria: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Gambiri, Kama, Konar A

>4.0 BUSD • Highest net benefit and increase in agricultural benefit, with loan financing: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Gambiri, Kama, Konar A • Highest net benefit and increase in agricultural benefit, with grant financing: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Gambiri, Kama, Shal • Electricity Production: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Gambiri, Kama, Shal

The best investment combinations for the various budget tranches are summarised below.

Table 1: Best investment combinations for various budget tranches Investment Tranche Total Net Electricity Domestic Water Increase in Benefit production Coverage agricultural benefit < 0.5 BUS$ Baghdara A2 Baghdara A2 Shatoot Kama

0.5- 1.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot, Shatoot, plus either Shatoot Gambiri Baghdara D1 of the other three Gambiri Kama (i.e. No specific Kama solution) 1.0- 1.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot, plus either Shatoot Gambiri of the other four (i.e. Gambiri Konar A No specific solution) Kama Baghdara A2 1.5- 2.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri Gulbahar Gambiri Kama Kama Konar A Konar A 2.0-2.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri Gulbahar Kama Gambiri Baghdara D1 Kama Konar A 2.5-3.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri Baghdara D1 Gulbahar Kama Surubi II Gambiri Baghdara D1 Konar A Kama Konar A Konar A 3.0-3.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Baghdara D1 Gulbahar Surubi II Gambiri Gambiri Kama Kama Konar A Konar A

Page 5 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Investment Tranche Total Net Electricity Domestic Water Increase in Benefit production Coverage agricultural benefit 3.5-4.0 BUS$ Shatoot Gulbahar Baghdara D1 Gambiri Kama Konar A > 4.0 BUS$ With loan: Shatoot Shatoot, Gulbahar, With loan: Shatoot Gulbahar plus any combination Shatoot Gulbahar Baghdara D1 of the others (i.e. No Gulbahar Baghdara D1 Surubi II specific solution) Baghdara D1 Gambiri Gambiri Gambiri Kama Kama Kama Konar A Shal Konar A

With grant: With grant: Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Gulbahar Baghdara D1 Baghdara D1 Surubi II Surubi II Gambiri Gambiri Kama Kama Shal Shal

In addition optimum development sequences were assessed for the the best investment combinations in the above given budget tranches. Optimum development sequences were based on the assumption that funds from a given investment tranche would not be spent instantly but over a period of time, i.e. that the investments identified in the assessment would be implemented in a sequence. The sequence of construction is recommended to be based on (i) priority to satisfying domestic water demand and (ii) cost benefit considerations. Shatoot is the most logical choice for the first step. The further steps should follow the investment tranches as these are established based on economic considerations and provided in the table below:

Table 2: Recommended sequence of construction per investment tranche Investment Investment option* Year Year 2020 Year 2025 Year 2030 tranche 2018 ≤ 0.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 Shatoot Kama Gambiri ≤ 1.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Baghdara Baghdara D1 2 D1 Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Konar A 2 Shatoot Konar A Gambiri Shatoot Shatoot Baghdara Kama Gambiri ≤ 1.5 BUS$ Gambiri 3 A2 Kama 3 Baghdara A2 Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama Shatoot Konar A Kama Gambiri ≤ 2.0 BUS$ 1,Konar A 2 Shatoot, Gulbahar 6 Shatoot Gulbahar Shatoot, Gambiri 3 Shatoot Konar A Baghdara Gambiri ≤ 2.5 BUS$ Kama 1 D1 Konar A 2 Kama

Page 6 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Investment Investment option* Year Year 2020 Year 2025 Year 2030 tranche 2018 Baghdara D1 2 Shatoot, Gulbahar 6 Shatoot Gulbahar Kama Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama 3 Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Gambiri Gulbahar 5 Gambiri 3 Konar A 2 Shatoot Shatoot Konar A Baghdara Gambiri Gambiri 3 D1 ≤ 3.0 BUS$ Kama 1 Kama Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 2 Shatoot Shatoot Konar A Baghdara Surubi II Surubi II D1 Baghdara D1 2 Konar A 2 Shatoot Shatoot Konar A Baghdara Gambiri Gambiri 3 D1 Surubi II Kama 1 Kama Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 2 ≤ 3.5 BUS$ Surubi II Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Kama Gulbahar 6 Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Baghdara Gulbahar 6 Kama D1 Gambiri 3 Gambiri ≤ 4.0 BUS$ Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Baghdara Gulbahar 6 Kama D1 Gambiri 3 Gambiri Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 > 4.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Baghdara Gambiri Gulbahar 6 Shal D1 Surubi II Gambiri 3 Kama Kama 3 Baghdara D1 1 Surubi II Shal * Numbers after each scheme = the operational rules

Page 7 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

1.4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.4.1. Conclusions

The main findings are:

1. Securing the supply of domestic water to the existing Old Kabul city is a priority for any investment in the basin. Projection of the population, consumption rate and connection rate have shown that less than 30% of the demand from the connected population of the city can be satisfied in year 2030 with the supply from neighbouring aquifers. This supply would even reduce further to 12% only if analysed in combination with the likely future water withdrawals for the Aynak mine from one of the main aquifers supplying the city.

2. Options for further development could be to tap farther aquifers or to develop surface water resources. At the time of this work no finalised studies were available for further groundwater exploitation but two projects were available for surface water exploitation: construction of a dam on the Maidan river, Shatoot dam for about 360 MUS$, and another dam on the Panjshir river, Gulbahar dam for about 1,400 MUS$. This analysis concludes that given a priority of domestic water supply in the exisiting Kabul city Shatoot should be a priority scheme for any investment in the basin due to its relative low cost and its reliable supply of domestic water which will, combined with the groundwater supply, cover almost 90% of the domestic water demands of the connected population. Gulbahar scheme was judged to be a good complement to Shatoot, since it is a very reliable source of water that would supply New Kabul city. It is advised in this study that the water supply from Gulbahar should also be connected to the existing (Old) Kabul city since Gulbahar would supplement the supply to Old Kabul city in case Shatoot fails under severe and extended drought.

3. In addition to the social benefit, investing in Shatoot and Gulbahar also has an economic benefit. It was shown that the benefit per volume of water from domestic water (about 0.21 US$/m3 at Gulbahar) is about 8 to 9 times greater than hydropower (about 0.03 US$/m3). The Shatoot asset has a poor net benefit but this is not due to prioritised allocation to domestic water supply but to the scarcity and high variability of the Maidan river flow which has lead to a large reservoir in comparison to the annual volume projected to be withdrawn. Further reservoir calculations under different hydrological scenarios should be carried out to better determine the required storage volume (see the Bulk Kabul Water Supply scoping study) which might result in a reduced reservoir volume and lower costs. Economic performance of Shatoot improves if analysed in conjunction with the start of Aynak mine operations. Relative timing of the two projects is important in order to minimise the effects of the mining on the domestic water supply of the existing Kabul city. Further analysis is needed to identify the best combination and phasing of the two projects, preferably in combination with other options for water supply to Kabul city as well. It should be considered however that timing is becoming a pressing issue.

4. The net benefit of Gulbahar is relatively small as well, which is due to its high investment cost and the relative small amount of water allocated to domestic water supply. Should it be possible technically to convey more than 100 Mm3/year from Gulbahar to Old and New Kabul city, substantial greater benefits could be generated at Gulbahar for a little reduction in benefit from agriculture and hydropower. Moreover, additional domestic supply from

Page 8 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Gulbahar would improve the reliability of the domestic water coverage under extended drought.

5. The performance of the new assets and their combinations were assessed in a multi- criteria analysis for four metrics: (i) coverage of domestic demand from Old and New Kabul city, (ii) change in total net benefit (as compared to the case where no new infrastructures would be built, referred to as Reference Case), (iii) change in agricultural net benefit (as compared to the Reference Case) and (iv) total amount of electricity produced from hydropower. The advised combination of new infrastructures for each of the four metrics is: • for best coverage of domestic demand: Shatoot and Gulbahar for an investment cost of about 1,800 MUS$, • for greatest increase in total net benefit: i) in case of a financing with a loan: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Gambiri, Kama and Konar A 2 for an investment cost of about 3,800 MUS$, ii) in case of a financing with a grant: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Gambiri, Kama and Shal for an investment cost of about 5,800 MUS$, • for greatest increase in agriculture net benefit: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri and Kama for an investment cost of about 2,400 MUS$ (the solution advised above for the greatest increase in total net benefit b i) generates the same high agriculture benefit but for a greater investment cost), • for greatest electricity production: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Gambiri, Kama and Shal for an investment cost of about 5,800 MUS$ (this solution only produces the greatest increase in total net benefit if the financing is with a grant, option b ii)).

6. In terms of individual net benefit, the best performing asset is the hydropower scheme Konar A, followed by the other hydropower plants Shal, Baghdara D1 and Baghdara A2. But these infrastructures are single purpose. For multipurpose, the best performing in terms of net benefit are Kama and Gambiri, which bring benefit in electricity production but also in irrigation. Shatoot and Gulbahar, which are the only domestic supply schemes through surface water in the basin, perform poorly in comparison for reasons explained in point 3. However, their net benefit performance is largely dependent on domestic water price and would be significantly boosted if international level prices were used. The worst performing asset is Surubi II which has a negative net benefit in case of a financing with a loan. This report considered the two options, A2 (negligible storage) or D1, for Baghdara. Option D1 performs better due to the ability to modify the flow and produce electricity in a more efficient way. The two options Shal and Konar A were also investigated for hydropower along the Konar River and Konar A performs better.

7. Investment in the Konar River is of great interest since any new scheme built in this region would benefit from the high flow of the river. This is particularly the case in this analysis for Konar A, Gambiri and Kama. Moreover, the performance of these schemes is reliable / robust due to the relatively small variability of the Konar River.

8. This study provides insight into beneficial interactions between new schemes. Further optimisation of the asset operation for a particular combination would be required but the preliminary results from this study are:

Page 9 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

• Along the Panjshir and Kabul river: there is a cascading effect with the chain Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Naghlu, Surubi I and Surubi II since the electricity production get successively increased. The beneficial effect of Baghdara D1 in combination with Gulbahar is specifically interesting since in the scoping study for strategic option in the Kabul Basin (WB/IBRD 2010), the Baghdara dam showed consistently poor performance; • Along the Konar river: there is also a cascading effect with Konar A and Kama since the water released during winter by Konar A for electricity production can be used for power generation once more at Kama during this period when the irrigation demand is limited; • The combination of Baghdara D1 and Konar A, which are both reservoirs dedicated to electricity production, has the highest potential for increase the electricity production during winter.

9. The target for electricity production of 7,500 GWh/year as assessed by Fichtner (2012) was considered in this analysis. This target is never reached by any of the combinations identified. The production of electricity maximally increases from about 580 GWh/year in the Reference Case to about 6,300 GWh/year for the solution producing the highest amount of electricity. Hydropower can be a major source of electricity production to reach the target, but not the only one and it should therefore be used in combination with other power sources such as thermal power stations and through import (as is already the case under the present conditions with imports form Uzbekistan).

10. The analysis underlines that proposed design for the following new schemes could be improved: • Gulbahar: as mentioned in point 3, if possible technically, the supply of domestic water to New and Old Kabul city should be greater than 100 Mm3/year. Possible values are 150 Mm3/year to secure further the supply under normal hydrologic conditions or 200 Mm3/year for a more reliable supply under drought. Further study should be carried out to examine the feasibility of conveyance of a larger volume and to define more exactly this volume. • Shatoot: the simulations under normal conditions showed that Shatoot reservoir never filled up to its storage capacity of 250 Mm3. Further opertational reservoir studies are recommended. • Gambiri: the technical specifications used for Gambiri were those mentioned in the available feasibility study at the time of this report, in particular a maximum diversion of 50 m3/s from Konar River. This amount appeares low compared to the river capacity. The proposed maximum diversion is now 100 m3/s in the current design stage but no written document was available to support this value at the time of this study. • Shal: the value proposed for its live storage (174 Mm3) is very small compared to the river flow, hence it is not possible to operate the reservoir so as to buffer the flow and produce more electricity in winter. An alternative design with a greater live storage should be more valuable.

1.4.2. Recommendations

The results depend strongly on the data in the feasibility studies. In a portfolio review undertaken under AWARD (2012) many of the feasibility studies were found to be below standard. Thus additional study is required before implementation.

Page 10 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Considering data availability, the analysis had to make a number of assumptions and simplifications as described in the respective report sections. In addition, only those investment options for which sufficient data (feasibility studies) were available have been considered. It is recommended that with more information becoming available the analysis be revised in order to consider the additional information. The main aspects that would benefit from an update include: • Inclusion of specific investments for which feasibility study results become available; • New findings regarding potential changes in catchment hydrology, i.e. runoff, based on anthropogenic activities and climate change; • Political aspects that have an influence on the water utilization in the basin, i.e. that would impact on priorities; • External factors that can have an influence on the basin, with power transfer into- or from other basins as well as power transfer to Pakistan being the most likely scenarios; • Global aspects that could lead to changes on the food or energy market • Price changes.

In addition to the above potential new information, periodic updating of the analysis, especially reflecting developments that have actually been put in place, is recommended.

It should be noted that due to the complexity and uncertainty involved in the future development of the basin the scenarios were tested under operational conditions. Depending on what assets will finally be implemented and in what sequence as well as with what management and priorities, it will be important to conduct detailed studies for the finally agreed assets where their interaction with already existing assets, mainly during the construction and commissioning phase, is assessed in detail. The main aspects here include flow requirements during early construction (river diversion and closure) as well as impounding of the reservoir.

Flood related information, especially with regards to socioeconomic impacts of flood events, is not available in the basin and has respectively not been included in the investment plan. It is recommended that a respective study that uses flood modelling to derive flood risk zones under different discharge events and also studies socioeconomic impacts of flood events is conducted and that the results will be used to update the river basin investment plan by considering flood retention as a potential priority for the reservoirs. Providing flood retention would require reservoirs being as empty as possible which is contrary to the other sectors’ needs of having full reservoirs, i.e. for hydropower production, irrigation water, and domestic water supply. Nevertheless, if occurring frequently, avoiding floods and related costs of flood damage may be more beneficial than other services that a dam can provide. It is therefore further recommended that after such a study has been conducted the investment analysis should be revised under consideration of the flood impact information. Structural integrity of the new assets under flood events is another point for consideration and for which detailed studies related to flooding would be recommended.

Information about groundwater and especially groundwater recharge in the basin is scarce. Groundwater has therefore been included in the model with strong simplifications. With groundwater being an important resource especially for Kabul City, it is recommended that a better understanding of the groundwater and especially its recharge is necessary. Upon availability of such data and depending on the results of such a study, the investment plan should be updated accordingly.

Page 11 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Considering the operation of the investment assets that will finally put in place, it is recommended that a detailed study is carried out to optimize the assets with regards to their agreed function within the overall river basin system. At the current stage the investment plan has ensured that the recommended assets are robust to work under a variety of flow conditions and optimized based on the currently available knowledge. Nevertheless fine tuning, regarding the dams and schemes operation through detailed studies would be necessary to optimize benefits from the individual assets. This should include flood considerations as described above.

Finally, while additional studies are recommended as stated above, this should not delay the government in implementation of this Investment Plan, as they can be undertaken in parallel. We therefore recommend that the government undertakes the following steps (some of which can be undertaken in parallel):

1. Prepare Investment Plans for other basins in order to determine the total infrastructure needs and priorities for the whole country. Under AWARD an investment plan for the Panj- Amu basin will be produced (by February 2013), while information for an investment plan may be available from the Master Plan currently being developed by ADB for the Helmand Basin. This would leave investment plans for the Northern and Hari Rod-Murghab basins still to do. A knowledge base has been set-up for these basins under AWARD therefore the information is available to complete these plans.

2. While it has been agreed that domestic water supply for Old Kabul City is the main priority, it has not been decided by the government or stakeholders what the next priority should be. Therefore the government should decide on which of the following is the priority for the Kabul basin (and other basins): net benefit, water supply for New Kabul city, hydropower production, or agricultural production.

3. Present the investment plan(s) to donors.

4. Based on the agreed development priorities, and the funding commitments from the donor (as well as central government), the appropriate set of infrastructure options can be decided upon.

5. Based on the chosen set of infrastructure options, undertake transboundary negotiations with Pakistan.

6. Prepare a financing plan for each of the schemes within the investment option chosen, in co-ordination with the relevant donors and central government.

7. Implement the schemes according to the timeline presented in the plan(s).

Page 12 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

2.1. MOTIVATION OF THIS ANALYSIS

The Afghanistan Water Resources Development (AWARD) Technical Assistance Project was prepared through a World Bank Water Resources Development Proposal which was approved by the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) in December 2008. The Grant became effective upon the signing of the ARTF Grant No. TF0903637 on 23 March 2009, and follows Conditions for Grants made by the World Bank out of various funds. The Technical Implementation Support Consultancy (TISC) was contracted by the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) in January 2011 and the team was mobilized in late February 2011. The project was conceived to enhance and develop principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), a primary theme for practitioners, institutions and government agencies alike.

Water resources endowment in Afghanistan is significant on an annual per capita basis, with five major river basins: Kabul, Panj-Amu, Hari Rod-Murghab, Northern and Helmand (see figure below), with numerous key rivers contributing to the total yield. However, measurements show that there is considerable seasonal variability in rainfall-runoff causing frequent periods of local and widespread drought and flood. Hence, the need for infrastructure investment for development of storage and delivery systems is vital for securing long term water supplies and retaining floodwaters to support economic development and poverty reduction.

Figure 1: Afghanistan river basins (source: Procedure on the framework for water resources management in the river basins, MEW May 2011)

Page 13 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Key to Afghanistan’s economic development and poverty reduction efforts is an increase in significant scale investments in effective and sustainable water resources development and management. The river basin perspective and integrated water resources management approaches have been adopted by the Afghanistan government for water resources development since 2002. This is reflected in the new water law of 2009 and the institutional structure of the Ministry, which at sub national level is subdivided into basin agencies.

Transitioning from the Vision of “River Basin Planning (RBP) perspective and IWRM approaches” to a Mission or program with concrete Actions has not yet been fully realized. This is understandable amidst the uncertainties and variability of adjustable government and donor priorities, evolving policies, complications in coordination and tenuous security environment. Although being addressed by numerous government and external development initiatives over time, there has not been a cohesive, comprehensive follow-up to the prospectus offered by the likes of the Water Resources Projects Atlas planning initiative, as one example. Following the ANDS (Afghanistan National Development Strategy) initiative and the Kabul Conference in July 2010, the MEW is involved in the ARD Cluster in developing the National Priority Program (NPP) for National Water and Natural Resource Development and is committed to investments in multi- purpose water resources infrastructure.

Putting the RBP and IWRM vision principles into effect as actions under the National Priority Program (NPP) and parallel programs within the MEW will serve to satisfy the future demands of water resources in a sustainable manner. Considering the complexities of such ambitious undertakings (policy, technology and socio-economics), to achieve the desired results, there are key considerations and issues to be addressed as a matter of course, including;

• Balancing and phasing the priorities and benefits of rehabilitation and small water sector projects with quick yield focus, with those of longer term yielding medium and larger projects implementation; • Analysis and prioritization of projects and preparation of implementation plans to an internationally acceptable standard within a multi-sectoral basin framework; • Improve effectiveness of coordination across water-related sector institutions to ensure shared-vision planning, development, and management of water across related institutions; • Enhance the technical, managerial and human resourced development capacity in MEW (and related line ministries) for integrated water resources management and project preparation.

2.1.1. Available Information

This investment plan focuses on the Kabul basin and builds on earlier works done. In the 1970s a large basin analysis and master planning was carried out by MECO (1978). This plan also formed the basis of the scoping study of the WB (IBRD/WB 2010) in which the most promising options were investigated through an economic optimization of net benefit in GAMS. The costs for the economic data used in the WB scoping study were largely based on prices from the MECO study escalated to 2004 costs using a GDP deflator of 2.37. Because costs have such a strong influence on the final outcome of the optimised infrastructure, the report states that getting more reliable cost data should be a priority.

Toosab and RCUWM (2006) in the Integrated Water Resources Management, Kabul River Basin report, review further infrastructure development options using some of the newly carried out pre-

Page 14 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

feasibility studies. They also updated various costs and prices and scoped a number of alternative options. Feasibility studies for specific projects were used for project specific assessments.

Information on domestic water supply and demand of Kabul city has been collected from Beller et al 2004. This report investigates the use of aquifers in and around Kabul city and options to enhance the recharge of aquifers. The report also studies the demand of the Kabul city and master plan for water supply targeted 2015. The options to supply water to New Kabul city is investigated in the Master plan for Kabul Metropolitan Area by JICA (2009). Based on the master plan, JICA (2012) has conducted a series of studies on water storage facilities to supply water to the New Kabul city.

The present and future power development of the basin is reported in Norconsult and Norplan (2004). Fitchner, 2012, has updated the 2004 master plan for demand forecast and the generation and transmission plan.

2.1.2. Management Options and Issues under IWRM Approach

There are many definitions of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), essentially all using the same principles. The GWP, in 2002, defined IWRM as: "a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems”.

The water sector in Afghanistan is going through institutional reforms aiming at IWRM in river basin planning. It should be noted though that IWRM is a flexible and common sense approach to water management. Reform strategies should recognize that the water sector in Afghanistan is of crucial importance and has generally been managed using administrative territorial boundaries rather than natural catchment areas. This introduces a number of very specific challenges and local needs.

IWRM builds on the Dublin principles established during the International Conference on Water and Environment in Dublin in 1992 and takes into account that: • Water is a finite and vulnerable resource essential for life and the environment; • Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels, and decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level; • Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water; • Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good; • The most appropriate geographical entity for the planning and management of water resources is the river basin, including surface and groundwater; • IWRM in basins is an iterative “learning by doing” management cycle and regular evaluation of the process and readjustment of the strategy and goals will be required.

Other guiding principles are: • In order to effectively carry out all the tasks related to integrated water management a separation is needed between constitutional tasks (policies, legislations), organizational tasks (planning, management, regulation) and operational tasks (water delivery, maintenance of systems, rehabilitation);

Page 15 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

• The environment is recognized as a water user and its rights should not be compromised; • Setting priorities for water use in general requires that all sub sectors should be balanced in such a way that they do not compromise other uses; • In case of emergencies, drinking water is the first priority since it involves the difference between life and death. Providing water for environment is also very important since once destroyed or dead it cannot (easily) recover and its services could be lost forever. These are typical prerequisite demands, followed by irrigation, industry, hydropower, fisheries and others, which are negotiable.

2.1.3. IWRM and Management in Afghanistan and the Kabul River Basin

The water sector reforms started with the 2002 Kabul understandings and have since achieved considerable progress including establishment of a policy coordination body, the Supreme Council of Water (SCoW), and its supporting technical secretariat (2005). This was followed by the promulgation of a new water law (2009) and three required procedures for its implementation (2011). In this report we have used the procedure for Integrated Water Resources Management in Basins (MEW, 2011) as reference for the official sub basins. The MEW and the provincial water management departments were restructured to enable better implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management. The restructuring was started in 2011 and is still ongoing.

The figure below shows the new organogramme of the MEW. The importance of the river basin organisations, here referred to as authorities, can be deduced from the grading of its managers (grade 1) which is the same as for general directorates. The basins’ prominent position in the organogramme, directly reporting to the Deputy Minister of Water, also indicates the importance of basin planning.

Figure 2: The organogramme of the Ministry of Energy and Water (Source MEW, 2012)

Page 16 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The sub-ordinate levels of the basin organisation (i.e. under the river basin authority) are referred to as sub basin offices. The MEW has delineated the sub basins as much as possible according to hydrological boundaries. However, in certain cases this was not possible and administrative boundaries had to be mixed with natural hydrologic boundaries. Nevertheless the basins and sub basins form a good planning basis for integrated water resources management. Recognition of the basin principle underlying the water resources planning and management process is a significant step and puts Afghanistan among the world leaders in implementing Integrated Water Resources Management in Basins with regards to domestic and irrigation water but also with regard to the upcoming industrial water requirements that are expected to contribute to the necessary economic growth. In line with the provision of water quantity, water quality, especially through avoiding pollution, will be a challenge. It needs to be understood that in this regard a “polluter” is a significant water user as polluted water can, depending on the extent and type of pollution, not be used by other water users anymore.

Collection and treatment of sewage, both liquid and solid waste, will be of major importance in order not to further reduce the available water resources through pollution. So far efforts in this regard have not resulted in respective plans, and thus have not been considered in this study.

The balance that needs to be found in the Kabul River basin, considering both the harnessing of available water resources as well as the avoidance of pollution, includes the water needs of a variety of stakeholder groups, including: • Population with domestic water needs • Riparian population with flood protection needs • Irrigated agriculture for food production • Industry with processing water needs • Mining activities with processing water needs • Hydropower producers for energy generation • The environment with the need to maintain minimum flow requirements

Polluters that reduce the availability of usable water resources include: • Population with pit latrines leading to groundwater contamination • Population producing solid waste that without collection and treatment pollutes surface water • Population producing solid waste that without proper disposal contaminates groundwater through leaching • Industry that discharges untreated processing water • Mining that discharges untreated processing water

2.2. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RIVER BASIN

2.2.1. Physical characteristics

Afghanistan is a landlocked country with a total area of about 652,000 km². It is bordered by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan to the north, China to the northeast, Pakistan to the east and Iran to the west. The country has a harsh climate of the continental type and the severity of winter is accentuated by the high altitude of much of the country. Winter and spring are the seasons of most variable weather and most of the annual precipitation occurs from November to

Page 17 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

May. Summers are warm to very hot with little or no precipitation or streamflow, except in rivers and streams fed by melting snow and glaciers.

Monsoon influence can occur in the easternmost part of Afghanistan. It is also the most easterly country to experience the influence of the Mediterranean Sea, which is the source of most of the depressions that bring the winter precipitation and cause erratic rainfall in spring. Snowfall is concentrated in the central mountains and the higher ranges in the northeast. Overall the weather pattern with regards to precipitation is highly variable throughout the basin. The average basin discharge is about 19,900 Mm3 annually. An overview of the hydro-meteorological conditions and of the snow coverage is given in the figures below, as well as an overview of the principlan sub- basins.

Figure 3: Climate profile for Kabul River basin (Kabul Atlas, AWARD, 2012)

Page 18 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 4: Snow coverage in the Kabul River basin (Kabul Atlas, AWARD, 2012)

Figure 5: The Kabul River basin, its sub-basin divisions (left) and sub-basin office locations as well as administrative basin units (right) (Kabul Atlas, AWARD, 2012)

The Kabul River Basin is located in the eastern part of Afghanistan. The Kabul River flows in a general west to east direction, joining the Indus River in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province.

Page 19 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The basin drains around 12% of Afghanistan. The basin generates almost 40% of Afghanistan’s total runoff. The basins surface water resources supply approximately 28% of the total irrigated area in Afghanistan (IBRD/World Bank, 2010). The basin accounts for 35% of Afghanistan’s population, and has the fastest population growth rate in the country. The basin includes the Kabul urban area, which is one of the biggest engines of economic growth in the country. The basin also includes a large fraction of the installed energy generation capacity (IBRD/World Bank, 2010).

The Kabul River basin was digitized with a size of total 85,971 km2 and the area can be boardly divided in three parts. • The central area of Kabul River and its tributaries including the Afghan part of the Kunar River (52,976km2) • Southern part of Shamal and Khoram area that drains directly to the Indus River Basin (18,053 km2) • Pakistan part of Kunar River (14,941 km2)

The modelling analysis focuses primarily on the central area of the Kabul Basin. All the proposed infrastructure that have feasibility studies and financial analysis belong to the central part of the Kabul Basin (see development options in section 2.5). The Southern part of Shamal and Khoram area has no major infrastructures planned at the time of producing this investment plan report. The Pakistan part of Kunar River is outside the scope of the study.

In describing the Kabul River basin in detail as well as for the purpose of this investment planning we distinguish between the following hydrological units and respective terminology: • Sub basins as delineated by MEW in their procedures for IWRM in river basins (2011); • Catchment sub divisions of the modelling areas according to the gauging stations in the basin.

The Kabul Basin is divided into the following eight sub-basins (see figure above) based on climate, hydrology, and physiography as per IWRM procedure 2011.

1. The Medium Kabul sub basin, contains three small rivers, the Maidan, Paghman, and Qargha, which all originate upstream of Kabul city. These rivers join at different confluences throughout Kabul city and flow through the centre of Kabul city. The Maidan river is formed by numerous small streams west of Kabul city. The River changes its name to Kabul River before it enters the city and flows across the city where it is joined by the Paghman and Qargha tributaries and then flows further until Naghlu dam where it flows into the Panshir River.

The main water projects and users of the Kabul River are Qargha reservoir, Shatoot irrigation and water supply to Maidan Shar and Tangi Saidan. When the Maidan river reaches Kabul city it has little or no water due to high water withdrawal for irrigation. The annual average flow is approximately 140 Mm3 at Maidan, 490 Mm3 at Tangi Gharu, and 3,400 Mm3 at Naghlu (see figure below). Only 15% of flow at Naghlu is contributed by the Kabul River. After the confluence with the Panshir river the river continues as Kabul River.

Page 20 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 6: Historical hydrographs in the Medium Kabul sub-basin. Mind the difference in vertical scale.

2. The Logar sub basin drains a dry and hilly watershed south of the Kabul city. a. The Logar watershed comprises approximately 75 percent of the drainage area of the Logar-Kabul area. There is modest but significant irrigated agriculture along the Logar River valley and in the river valleys upstream of Kabul. b. The main water users are a) Chak e Wardak dam for hydro power production b) narrow strips of irrigated land along the river and c) Kole Hasmat Khan wetland South of Kabul. c. The average annual flow is 230 Mm3 at Kajab and 300 Mm3 at Sangi Naweshta (see figure below).

Figure 7: Historical hydrographs in the Logar sub-basin.

3. The Ghorband sub basin is formed by the Ghorband River flowing until its confluence with the Panjshir River. The average annual flow at Ghorband River is 730 Mm3 at Pule Ashawa

Page 21 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

(see figure below). After the confluence with the Panshir River the river is referred to as Panshir River.

Figure 8: Historical hydrographs in the Ghorband sub-basin.

4. The Panjshir Sub Basin is formed by the Panjshir River and its tributaries, Salang, and Shatul rivers. - The upper portion of this watershed consists of steep mountain valleys in the Hindu Kush mountain range, which reaches over 6,000 meters above sea level and remains snow covered throughout the year - The southern portion of the Panjshir watershed opens onto the broad and gently sloping fertile Shomali Plain which has some of the most important irrigated land in the basin. - Although the drainage area of the Panjshir River at Shukhi is smaller at approximately 84 percent compared with the Upper Kabul River, its average annual streamflow is over 6 times as large - Average annual runoff of Panjshir River is 1,710 Mm3 at Gulbahar (see figure below). - Below their confluence, the Panjshir and Ghorband Rivers together are named Panshir River and flow down to the Naghlu dam. The combined flow is 3,080 Mm3 observed at Sukhi.

Figure 9: Historical hydrographs in the Panjshir sub-basin.

5. The Laghman Sub Basin includes the Alishang and Alingar rivers, which after their confluence are referred to as Laghman River. The Laghman River, drains into the Kabul River at Darunta dam where the valley begins to widen. The average annual flow is 1,850 Mm3 (see figures below).

Page 22 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 10: Historical hydrographs in the Laghman sub-basin.

6. The Kunar Sub Basin is formed by the Valley of the Kunar River. The river originates from the Karakoram range south of Wakhan corridor in Pakistan. This a glacier fed river and it maintains a high flow in the summer. Due to the high flow, several projects are proposed in the Kunar sub basin. The average annual flow is 12,130 Mm3 at Asmar and 14,830 Mm3 at Pul e Kama (see figure below). The present water users are Konari irrigation, Gambiri irrigation, Sigi irrigation and Kama irrigation along the river.

Figure 11: Historical hydrographs in the Konar sub-basin.

7. The Lower Kabul Sub Basin extends downstream from the Naghlu basin and after confluence of the Ghorband, Panshir, Medium Kabul and Logar Sub Basins and flows to the Pakistan border. The Lower Kabul Sub Basin has the Laghman and Konar Rivers as tributaries. It comprises two large watersheds to the north or left bank of the main stem of the river. a. There are numerous small tributaries on the right bank, including the Surkhrud near Jalalabad, which, with a population of approximately 120,000, is the only large city in the Lower Kabul subbasin. b. As the main stem of the river continues eastward, the valley widens into a broad plain that comprises the second largest and second most agricultural area in the Kabul River basin c. Three dams and reservoirs have been constructed in the Lower Kabul area, mainly for hydropower purpose. Naghlu dam and Sarobi dam just below the confluence of Upper Kabul and Panjshir Rivers and further below Darunta dam, just upstream form Jalalabad City. The latter dam also has an important irrigation function.

Page 23 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

d. Streamflow in the lower basin comes predominately from the two large, mountainous sub-basins, namely the Laghman and the Konar, whose higher snow- and glacier-covered areas reach nearly 6,500 meters above sea level. e. Except for the high mountain areas to the north, the climate of this lower region is influenced by the southwest monsoon, complemented by a few days each year of hard frost or freezing temperatures. f. The average annual flow is 6,000 Mm3 at Darunta and is 19,900 Mm3 at Dakah before the Pakistan border.

Figure 12: Historical hydrographs in the Lower Kabul sub-basin. Mind the difference in vertical scale.

8. The Shamal and Khuram Sub Basin (which includes the Gomal area) is formed by several small tributaries, and they all flow directly to the Indus River in Pakistan.

The topography of the basin is shown in the figure below. The northern areas of the catchment consist of high mountains and steep slopes, while the southern portions drains mainly low mountain ranges, foothills, and plains. The main flow contribution originates from the Northern tributaries which are largely fed by snowmelt and glaciermelt water. The glaciers in the upper river reaches of the river basins represent a long term asset that stabilizes the water supply within and between years and are a source of steady streamflows. The future role of the glaciers will depend on their rate of retreat or expansion – a process associated to climate change and atmospheric pollution observed in some regions of the world.

Page 24 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 13: Topography and elevation in the Kabul River basin (Kabul Atlas, AWARD, 2012)

The lower eastern portion of the basin towards the Pakistani border includes extensive but rapidly diminishing forests (11,800 km2) that comprise nearly 93 percent of the country’s forest area. Rangeland (32,700 km2) is limited to approximately 13 percent of the national total, as is rainfed agriculture (1,140 km2), which accounts for only 3.5 percent of the country’s total rain-fed agricultural area. Irrigated land in the basin, with intensive cultivation of one or two crops per year, is currently estimated to be 4,100 km2, or nearly 25 percent of the estimated 15,600 km2 of the irrigated area in Afghanistan. The four existing hydroelectric power stations in the Kabul River basin (Mahipar, Naghlu, Sarubi, and Darunta) form the core of the country’s hydro power system (IBRD/World Bank, 2010).

2.2.2. Population and Economy

Aside from two major urban centres, the basin population in the Kabul River basin is rural. A population overview is given in the table below. The population is highly dependent upon irrigated agriculture.

Table 3: Kabul River Basin Population, from census data published by Central Statistic Organization of Afghanistan (CSO, 2012) Province* Population Kabul ** 3,818,700 Kapisa 413,000 Parwan 620,900 Wardak 558,400 Logar 367,000

Page 25 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Province* Population Nangarhar 1,409,600 Laghman 417,200 Panjsher 143,700 Konar 421,700 Nooristan 138,600 Chitral (Pakistan) 318,689 Source: http://www.infopak.gov.pk/districtPK.aspx Total 8,627,489 *Khost, Paktiya and Paktika Provinces which are part of the Indus basin but do not drain into the Kabul River are not shown here ** Numbers are inconsistent depending on source, e.g. numbers shown by JICA and CSO for Kabul differ.

For Kabul city, JICA (2009) and JICA (2012) provide detailed information on the population projections for Old and New Kabul City. The reports envision a population of 5.0 million for Old Kabul City and 1.5 million for New Kabul City for 2025. For the purpose of this study the growth has been linearly extrapolated to show population numbers of 5.2 million for Old Kabul City and 1.9 million for New Kabul City for 2030. Combined the cities will house 6.5 million and 7.1 million people in 2025 and 2030 respectively.

The Gross Domestic Product for Afghanistan is estimated at about US$ 1,000 per capita (CIA, 2012). This is very low compared to world averages and in addition disguises the acute income disparities in-between the population.

A reported 38% of the people still live below the poverty line (CIA, 2012). The lowest 10% of income earners generate 3.8% of national income while the top 10% generate 24% of national income. The current wage of a worker is about $5/day, which amounts to $1560/year. The salary of skilled (experienced) labourers may be about twice as much.

The unemployment rate is approximately 35% (estimated from CIA, 2012).

2.3. CRITICAL ISSUES

Sustainable water resource use is a key factor for long lasting development. Currently a strongly unsustainable situation exists in the Kabul River Basin with the upper catchments degrading, groundwater levels dropping and pollution of water sources increasing. Sustainable water management would be a prerequisite to the long-term viability of both urban and rural communities in the basin.

There are a number of issues that are becoming increasingly critical in the Kabul River basin: • Competition of stakeholders for water resources: - Drinking water supply for urban centres in need of a stable year-round water supply of high quality - Organized sewage treatment and waste disposal - Flood control with the need for low level in reservoirs before the flood season - Hydropower with the need for timely flow (peak needs in winter) - Irrigation water with a need for timely flows (peak needs in summer) - Industry with the need for process water and discharging of effluents and pollutants - Environmental requirements with a need for environmental flows to maintain wetlands, water quality, fish populations, ecosystem services and recreation potential.

Page 26 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

- Groundwater recharge is essential for sustainable supply • Population growth leading to increased water demand as well as increased pressure on land resources • Mismanagement leading to upper catchment degradation which results in increased runoff in the precipitation period accompanied by increased erosion and respective sediment intrusion in the watercourses • Pollution due to wastewater discharge from domestic and industrial sources rendering water quality unsuitable for drinking and/or irrigation use and fishing • Climate change or climate variations with potential impacts on glacier flow. Climate change is not well understood in the Kabul River basin which leads to the need for robust and resilient planning • Transboundary water need / potential water conflict (including Konar River upper catchment located in Pakistan)

From a purely economic perspective, most public institutions are still relatively weak while the underlying legal/regulatory environment is equally fragile. This, in turn, has greatly inhibited private investment, particularly with respect to the extensive but largely undeveloped mineral resources in the country. Government resources are further constrained by the absence of an effective tax regime. Revenue “leakages” from illegal opium exports are equally debilitating. Even the parallel influx of external public funding can sometimes undermine the integrity of the public financial sector and can, in effect, simply delay the indigenous development of a sustainable long-term socio- economic development trajectory.

2.3.1. Degraded infrastructures and uncoordinated development

Afghanistan’s economy is constricted by instability and conflict which exacerbates its levels of poverty, and has resulted in a very low level of development of water resources and very low levels of water-related services, including water supplies, hydropower, and storage.

The country faces tremendous stresses internally and is at a critical point in its strategy on water resources development since the newly rehabilitated and reconstructed infrastructure is insufficient to meet the growing demands of the communities for domestic/industrial water supply, hydropower and irrigation.

Further to the general situation the basin features some key hydraulic assets that include hydropower as well as irrigation schemes (partly multipurpose). A list of existing hydraulic assets in the Kabul River basin is shown in the table below. Similarly to the choice of new development options (see section 2.5), only medium and large existing hydropower infrastructures (greater than 10 MW following the EHSA (2004) classification) were considered (except for Chak-e-Wardak for which information has been readily available and due to the relative importance of this scheme for storage (22Mm³)).

Table 4: Existing large hydraulic assets (plus Chak-e-Wardak)

Scheme River Purpose Year Pi Pa Q S A (ha) Source (MW) (MW) (MCM/yr) (MCM) Norconsult, Mahipar Kabul Hydropower 1966 3X22 53 485 ROR NA 2004 Norconsult, Naghlu Kabul Hydropower 1967 4x25 75 3560 496 NA 2004

Page 27 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Scheme River Purpose Year Pi Pa Q S A (ha) Source (MW) (MW) (MCM/yr) (MCM) Norconsult, Sarubi Kabul Hydropower 1957 2x10 20 3560 6.5 NA 2004 Norconsult, Hydropower 2004 Darunta Kabul and 1967 3X3.85 7.5 5920 40 23075 Gambiri Irrigation Feasibility, 2008 Chak-e- Norconsult Logar Hydropower 1938 3x1.2 0.9 235 22 Wardak (2004)

Pi – Installed power, Pa – Actual power, Q - Average annual stream flow, S – Storage, Irrigated area – A, ROR – Run of river

2.3.2. Water Availability and Scarcity, Competing Stakeholder Needs

Surface water availability in the Kabul River basin is dependent on seasonal runoff resulting from glacier melt, snowmelt, rain and catchment baseflow. Suitability of the water, in addition, depends on the state of the water courses with regards to pollution levels and respective usability for different purposes. Availability is generally high in spring and summer when snowmelt in the upper catchments leads to runoff of meltwater. With catchment degradation the runoff characteristics of the rivers may become increasingly extreme which can lead to increased floods (numbers and intensities) in the summer months and increased droughts after the snowmelt season due to decreased retention potential of the upper catchments.

With the continued and expanding use of groundwater, levels are gradually dropping. With periodic droughts, a reported 60-70% of the Karezes are no longer in use while a reported 85 percent of the shallow wells have dried up. Between 1965 and 2005, i.e. over a period of 40 years, the groundwater table in Kabul has dropped by 6.5m (BGR, 2005). The need to compensate for this by digging deeper wells or fetch water from other sources is expected to have negative social and economic consequences.

Low water availability is not only a quantitative problem but also a timing problem. The timely availability of water in a basin can to some extent be controlled by dams and reservoirs which store the water and release it with a delay and a different flow regime depending on dam size and operation schedule. Conflicts may arise not only based on water quantity demanded by competing stakeholders but also by different timing needs. Hydropower production for example needs reservoirs as full as possible at any time and discharges the water based on electricity consumption needs (i.e. in winter). Irrigation water users on the other hand need timely water supply only during the growing season. Flood control would require the reservoirs to be as empty as possible to provide flood retention.

2.3.3. Upper Catchment Degradation

Degradation in the upper catchments caused by the increasing population has lead to unsustainable conditions with overuse of natural resources through deforestation and overgrazing. The decreased ground cover is expected to cause reduced water retention capacity resulting in increased and more imminent runoff which in return may lead to more extreme streamflow conditions with increase in flood and drought situations along the rivers. Floods and droughts can have serious impacts on the communities through destruction of crops, housing and infrastructure,

Page 28 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

loss of property, livestock and life and interruption of business life through primary and secondary impacts.

2.3.4. Pollution of Water Resources

Pollution is observed in both surface water and groundwater resources. Surface water is polluted by uncontrolled domestic waste and sewage disposal. Raw industrial effluents and the more widespread use of chemical fertilizers may play a large role in the future and should also be addressed now (IUCN, 1994). Groundwater quality suffers from wastewater leaching into the underground from unsanitary open pits and leakage from septic tanks (BGR, 2005). While being costly, interventions to deal with water resource degradation will be unavoidable to maintain long term sustainability.

2.3.5. Climate Change

The complex topography with different natural conditions like high-altitude and arid areas and the mesoscale weather systems of different influences (Mediterranean and monsoon) of the central Asia region need to be taken into account in Afghanistan. The Global Climate Models (GCMs) typically perform poorly over the region, a fact that needs to be taken into consideration when discussing and judging climate change projections. Importantly, the GCMs, and to a lesser extent Regional Climate Models (RCMs), tend to overestimate the precipitation for the arid and semi-arid areas in the north (IPCC, 2007).

The regional climate change model suggests that in general in the arid region of Central and South East Asia, the average annual temperature would rise and average annual precipitation would decrease (IPCC, 2007) as shown in the figures below. This could result in an increase in crop water requirements and other demands while the basin will have less annual river flow. However no quantitative data is available for this kind of analsyis. Climate change could have a major impact in Afganistan since the rivers are fed by snow and glaciers. Therefore, we have carried out sensitivity analysis to address the issue of climate change with varying flow regimes and with a sequence of dry flow in the model.

Figure 14: Temperature anomalies with respect to 1901 to 1950 for the central Asian land region for 1906 to 2005 (black line) and as simulated (red envelope) using Multi Model Data (MMD models)

Page 29 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

incorporating known data for the same time period. Temperatures projected by MMD models for the A1B scenario (orange envelope) are shown for 2001 to 2100. The bars at the end of the orange envelope represent the range of projected changes for 2091 to 2100 for the B1 scenario (blue), the A1B scenario (orange) and the A2 scenario (red). (IPCC, 2007)

Figure 15: Temperature and precipitation changes over Asia from the MMD-A1B simulations. Top row: Annual mean, DJF and JJA temperature change between 1980 to 1999 and 2080 to 2099, averaged over 21 models. Middle row: same as top, but for fractional change in precipitation. Bottom row: number of models out of 21 that project increases in precipitation. (IPCC, 2007)

2.3.6. Transboundary Water Management

The Kabul River basin is located in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Konar catchment, which is part of the basin, features the particularity of receiving part of its runoff from Pakistan, while just downstream of the confluence between Konar- and Kabul River the waters flow back into Pakistan.

2.4. FUTURE TARGETS

Future targets in the Kabul Basin aim to conserve water resources and to provide water in sufficient quantity, quality, and timing for all of the actual and potential water users in the Basin. The aim will largely be met by construction of several dams in the different sub-basins which in combination can provide the required water storage and flood retention capacity. In addition, water resources conservation, especially through reduction of pollution of surface- and groundwater resources, will be an important issue. The primary goal over the coming years is the provision of sufficient water quantities, although the rapidly growing population with increasing domestic and

Page 30 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

irrigation water demands will make it very difficult to achieve this goal. An overview of the currently planned projects is shown below.

2.5. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

Several development projects have been identified in the Kabul River basin. The project options are listed in the table below, and an overview is shown in the figure below. The listed dams cater for different and mostly mixed purposes. The new schemes considered here are only those for which detailed information, i.e., recent feasibility studies with cost information, was available at the time of this study. This is to ensure an equal and confident level of analysis. This implies in particular that the schemes Kajab (Logar River), Gat (Logar River), Totumdara (Ghorband River) and Laghman (Laghman River) were not investigated in this report due to unavailability of a feasibility study.

We have generally concentrated on larger schemes with a significant influence on the basin hydrology and with potentially large benefits. For example water supply and sanitation schemes for small towns have not been dealt with individually, but were grouped under rural water supply. Equally small hydropower projects are not included in the investment analysis. According to the ESHA (2004) hydropower schemes that produce less than 10 MW are considered small. We have used this limit to exclude the smaller schemes, which have negligible influence on the total hydropower production in the basin.

Table 5: Project options in the Kabul River basin – reservoirs (with existing feasibility studies) S S Q A C Source and Scheme River Purpose P (MW) t l (Mm3) (Mm3) (Mm3/a) (ha) (MUS$) stage of study Domestic, Shatoot Irrigation, 255 Pooyab (2011) Maidan 4.5 250 236.5 170 362 Dam Hydropow 7 Feasibility study er Irrigation, Yekom (2010) Gulbahar hydropow 54,0 Norconsult(2004) Panjshir 116 490 405 1725 1,437 Dam er, 00 JICA (2012) domestic Feasibility study Hydropow Baghdara er Fichtner (2007) Panjshir 165 1.9 1.8 3022 NA 475 A2 Dam Pre-feasibility study

Hydropow Baghdara er Fichtner (2007) Panjshir 244 400 275 3022 NA 547 D1 Dam Pre-feasibility study

Technopromexport Surubi II – Hydropow Kabul 105 ROR ROR 4077 NA (1988) Stage 1 er Feasibility study 1,058 Technopromexport Surubi II – Hydropow Kabul 23 ROR ROR 4077 NA (1988) Stage 2 er Feasibility study Hydropow CES (2009) Shal Dam Konar 798 1,874 174 11577 NA 1,819 er Feasibility study MECO(1978/79); Konar A Hydropow Konar 366 1,680 1000 11577 NA 876 Norconsult (2004) Dam er Pre-feasibility study Irrigation Gambiri 600 Toossab (2008) Kunar Hydropow 23 ROR ROR 13070 253 Scheme 0 Feasibility study er Irrigation Mahab Godss Kama 620 Kunar Hydropow 45 ROR ROR 14829 341 (2008) Scheme 0 er Feasibility study

Page 31 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

P – Installed power, Qt - Average annual stream flow on site, St – Total Storage, Sl – Live storage, Irrigated area – A, ROR - Run off River, C – Total Investment cost (Capital Cost + Land Acquisition and Resettlement + Contingencies and Administration).

All proposed options have different benefits and impacts. With the final operation schedules not fixed, the impacts of the schemes are difficult to discuss but the following list of competing stakeholders and their requirements can form a guideline for a future full assessment.

Primary needs related to the dams include:

• Reservoir use - Water for human consumption as domestic water - Water for agricultural use through irrigation - Water for energy production through hydropower • Downstream use - Water for downstream domestic users - Water for irrigation - Water for industrial users - Water for the environment through maintaining an environmental flow component - Floodwater control through flood retention - Transboundary water needs

Figure 16: Overview of assessed potential water infrastructure projects

Page 32 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

3. WATER RESOURCES AVAILABILITY AND DEMAND FOR YEAR 2030

3.1. WATER RESOURCES AVAILABILITY FOR YEAR 2030

Two types of water resources are considered for future conditions: surface water (rivers) and groundwater.

3.1.1. Surface Water resource

The flow of the rivers in the Kabul basin is modelled through a semi-distributed river schematic, itself based on the flow gauge stations in the basin. The flow in the river increases from upstream to downstream, between segments formed by the gauge stations. The streamflow values are based on historical observations from 1965 to 1979 before the period of conflicts, turmoil and war started. Three streamflow regimes are considered here to represent the future flows: a Median streamflow regime, extended by regimes for Dry 5 and Dry 10 scenarios. The median (50% chance of occurrence, every 2 years) was used instead of the average to ensure that it covers the most frequent streamflow conditions.

Two annual deviations from the median, which are assumed to have negative impact (less water) and labelled Dry 5 and Dry 10, are defined as being respectively the probable drought occurring every 5 and 10 years (see table below) and supposed to be representative of future conditions. These deviations were estimated with the empirical stochastic distribution of annual flows and adjusted according to the average monthly flow. The estimations at the stations Gulbahar (Panshir River) and Maidan River are illustrated in the figure below. No wet regime was examined since flooding is not included in the analysis due to unavailability of flood damage data.

Table 6: Estimated variability of the hydrological regime in the Kabul River basin Hydrological regime Definition Why? 3 consecutive dry years The driest sequence of 3 years To represent a continuous measured in the historical time- drought over 3 years series Dry 10 Probable annual drought To represent a year of drought occurring every 10 years Dry 5 Probable annual drought To represent a year of mild occurring every 5 years drought. Median Annual Median calculated with Most likely yearly streamflow the historical time-series

Page 33 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 17: Empirical drought curve at two stations in the Kabul basin

A time series of climate data on annual precipitation anomalies in Afghanistan and the vicinity of Afghanistan (MRRD 2004 in CPHD, 2011) shows that severe droughts are generally characterised by three consecutive dry years. During the last century there were three of such sequences, around 1900, around 1970 and again by the end of the 20th century. The sequence of the 1970s occurred during the period for which hydrologic data are available. We have used the actual data of these years to analyse the water supply with new water supply projects under serious drought conditions. This also provides an indication of conditions that could potentially occur more frequently as a result of climate change.

Figure 18: Long term rainfall pattern in Afghanistan and vicinity. Source: CPHD (2011).

The dry conditions were chosen as three consecutive dry years in three strategic locations in the basin. These conditions were identified using the streamflow data at these three locations: • Flow of the Panjshir River at Gulbahar, which will be used to examine the new reservoir Gulbahar: the driest observed sequence is 1975-76 to 1977-78. • Flow of the Maidan River at Maidan, which will be used to examine the new reservoir Shatoot: the driest observed sequence is 1976-77 to 1978-79. • Flow of the Konar River at Asmar, which will be used to examine the new reservoirs Shal and Konar A: the driest observed sequence is 1961-62 to 1963-64.

The sequence identified for each station is represented in the figure below. The Maidan River is clearly having the largest variability and most critical dry sequence.

Page 34 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 19: Historical streamflow (left) and 3-years moving total (right) at three locations in the basin. The line in black is the Median streamflow. The driest sequence is circled in red.

3.1.2. Groundwater resource

Little information was available on the groundwater resource. In theory, a variable streamflow regime, as described above, should be associated with variability in the groundwater resource. In particular, reports (e.g. KfW / Beller at al. 2004; USGS 2009) describe qualitatively a strong link between river flows and groundwater recharge. However, there is no quantitative data on this link hence the groundwater recharge was assumed to remain constant with varying streamflows. Respectively, it was decided to avoid expressing the variation of groundwater recharge as an arbitrary function of the variation in streamflows.

Aquifer information was obtained from the available literature (e.g. KfW / Beller at al. 2004; USGS 2009), and the groundwater resource was represented in the modelling as a bucket with a safe extraction rate, replenishment rate (groundwater recharge) and a maximum withdrawal rate (safe exploitation). The major systems were those supplying Old Kabul city with groundwater, namely the Upper Kabul / Allauddin aquifer, the Lower Logar / Bagrami aquifer and the Paghman / Afshar aquifer.

Page 35 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

3.2. DEMANDS FOR YEAR 2030

Two particular types of demands for year 2030 are considered: the water demand (domestic, irrigation and mining) and the energy demand.

3.2.1. Domestic Water Demands

The Domestic water is essentially of two categories: rural and urban. The rural demands are scattered geographically by nature but are agglomerated per sub-basin for modelling purpose. The trend for rural water requirements are taken from Toossab (2006), with a per capita requirement of 60L/day, and the total demand for year 2030 at the basin level is about 50 Mm3/year.

The urban demand in the year 2030 is principally from the Old- (existing) and New Kabul city, and to a smaller extent from other towns in the basin. The trend for smaller towns, in particular Jalalabad, is taken from Toossab (2006) with a per capita requirement of 100 L/day.

For Old Kabul city, demographic growth is based on JICA (2009) with an average annual growth of 1.3%. JICA´s projections reach the year 2025 and have been extended in this report to the year 2030 using the same growth rate (see figure below), resulting in 5.2 million inhabitants. The growth rate reduces significantly from year 2008 (3.9 million) to 2025 (5.0 million) as JICA (2009) suggests measures to control demographic growth. This could also be due to more decentralised development in provincial and other towns leading to a reduction in the pace of demographic growth in Old Kabul city. This is a critical assumption and needs to be confirmed in the coming years as the growth rate has a severe effect on the urban water demand.

Concerning New Kabul city, JICA (2012) predicts a population of 1.5 million inhabitants by year 2025 and extrapolating these values leads to a population of 1.9 million in year 2030 (see figure below). A portion of the population of Old Kabul city could be shifting to the new city, which is another possible cause for a decreasing pace of demographic growth in the old Kabul city. The total for the metropolitan area composed by Old and New Kabul city for year 2030 is 7.1 million persons. In the old city only the portion of the population connected to municipal water is considered in the modelling.

The increase in domestic water demand due to population growth and, also based on growth in per capita requirement and better pipe connections (KfW / Beller at al., 2004; JICA, 2009 and 2012), is shown in the figures below. The New Kabul city was originally planned to have been started by 2012 with the number of inhabitants to be supplied with water increasing to 350,000 by the year 2015 (JICA, 2012). It is now obvious that the actual development will fall behind the timeline shown by in JICA (2012). However in the absence of more detailed information, the JICA (2012) predictions were used in the investment plan. The model can be updated in the future when a new timeline is available.

Page 36 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 20: Projection for population in Old and New Kabul city, and the total for both cities. The data from JICA, up to year 2025, have been extended in this work up to year 2030.

Figure 21: Population connected to municipal water in Old and New Kabul city (left) and municipal connection rate (right).

Figure 22: Domestic water demand for the connected population of Old and New Kabul city. The per capita water requirement for Old Kabul city is the agglomerate of the house connections and public taps.

The table below summarises the calculation of the domestic water demands. The total urban water demand is expected to reach about 200 Mm3/year in year 2030.

Page 37 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 7: Parameters used to model the Domestic Water demands in Kabul River basin in year 2030 Description Connected Demand Values Water loss in Water loss References population (L/cap/day) conveyance (%) in treatment (%) OLD KABUL CITY House 75% of 120 25 5 KfW / Beller at Connection connected al. (2004) population JICA (2009) Public Taps 25% of 50 25 5 KfW / Beller at connected al. (2004) population JICA (2009) NEW KABUL CITY House 100% of 120 20 5 JICA (2012) connection connected population RURAL AREAS Rural demands 60 Toossab (2006)

JALALABAD AND OTHER SMALL TOWNS House 100 Toossab (2006) Connection

Box 1: How the domestic demand is represented in the model: • 60% of total population in Kabul being connected by municipal water (piped), the rest being supplied informally by private tankers and groundwater hand pumps is unaccounted for. • The serviced population is further sub-divided into house connections and public taps (complementary to 100%). • The source of the water is the three neighbouring groundwater aquifers: Upper Kabul (a.k.a. Allaudin), Lower Logar (a.k.a. Bagrami) and Paghman (a.k.a. Afshar) aquifers. • There are losses in the city pipe distribution system due to leakages, ageing of equipment and illegal connections. • There are also losses during the water treatment process. • Scattered rural demands agglomerated per sub-catchment.

3.2.2. Irrigation Water Demand

Irrigation is the largest water consumer in Afghanistan accounting for approximately 90% of all water use. Therefore the correct assessment of irrigation water demand is of crucial importance. The irrigation water demand was calculated using the crop water requirements of the feasibility studies verified by our own CROPWAT calculations and found generally to be well represented. However, there were a few deviations found. In case of large deviations between the feasibility study and our verifications we used the verified data. The crop water requirements are shown in the figure below.

Page 38 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 23: Crop water requirement calculated with CROPWAT (mm per month)

The final water withdrawal is dependent on the irrigation requirement and the project irrigation efficiency. Irrigation efficiency is strongly related to the irrigation technique and the infrastructure conditions. It is also related to precipitation, with lower efficiencies found in areas with higher rainfall (Wolters, 1991). Wolters shows project irrigation efficiencies between 20% and 50% under the climatic conditions prevalent in the Kabul Basin. The FAO aquastat database (http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat /wateruse/index5.stm) shows country wide irrigation efficiencies between 16% and 50% worldwide for the year 2000.

For Afghanistan aquastat assumes an efficiency of 38% countrywide in 2000. In the Kabul basin it can be expected that irrigation efficiency is lower since water is available in relatively large quantities and precipitation is relatively high for Afghanistan. Moreover the condition of the infrastructure is poor and efficiency is affected by leakage from unlined canals, the deteriorated status of water control structures and the use of flood irrigation as irrigation technology, in combination with poor on-farm water management. The feasibility studies use values of 20-30% for the current project irrigation efficiency. This is in line with the above. The feasibility studies mention a post-project irrigation efficiency in newly developed areas between 35 to 40%. In this investment plan we assume a gross project irrigation efficiency of 25% for the non-developed areas and of 30- 40% in the developed areas according to the respective feasibility studies.

Using the above crop water requirements and irrigation efficiencies gross water withdrawal for the existing irrigation areas under current conditions is approximately 17,700 m3/ha for the 167,000 ha taken into consideration. This is in line with the data discussed in the GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008). GWSP (2008) mentions a water abstraction of 15,000- 20,000 m3/ha in Egypt where infrastructure is more developed and better maintained than in Afghanistan. For the newly developed areas the water withdrawals are lower, leading to an average combined gross water withdrawal of 17,300m3/ha for 192,500 ha of command areas. Consequently a change in irrigation

Page 39 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

in the basin in year 2030 (as compared to the time of this study, year 2012) is considered to be the result of: • a change in command area due to schemes under consideration (described in Table 5); • an improvement of irrigation efficiency due to rehabilitation (Shatoot) or construction of new irrigation water distribution systems in the context of the new schemes (Gulbahar, Kama, Gambiri). The consequence would be a reduction of the withdrawals (or gross irrigation water demand) and thus better water availability and a potentially larger irrigated area in months with limited water availability

Due to the high withdrawals by irrigation the effect of different irrigation efficiencies will be assessed by a sensitivity analysis. This will give an indication of the potential economic gains that could be made by specific investment in improving irrigation efficiency.

It was assumed that the cropping patterns in the existing and new developed areas would be the same as the ones prevailing at the time of this study, in year 2012. This assumption was introduced to avoid any bias across the various projects in the cost / benefit analysis from agriculture production. It was also assumed that the present cropping pattern is in balance with a sophisticated system of social preferences, limitations of transport and market systems and other factors that are not well understood and likely to continue into the future. Therefore it was supposed that the patterns of new irrigation schemes will stay the same as in nearby existing irrigated areas; in particular the new crops proposed in the feasibility studies were not included because these vary widely across the feasibility studies and do not always seem to reflect the most appropriate choice from climatic and soil conditions.

The table below summarises the calculation of the irrigation water demands.

Table 8: Parameters used to model the irrigation water demands in the Kabul River basin in year 2030 Item How is it represented? References Total irrigation • Demand based on command area, cropping patterns, • Toossab (2006) requirement monthly crop water requirement and irrigation efficiency • Yekom (2010) • Small irrigated areas agglomerated per sub-catchments. • Pooyab (2011) • Large irrigated areas considered as punctual • Toossab (2008) Command areas The command areas of specific schemes are taken from • Mahab Godss feasibility report. (2010) MAJOR ITEM • Landsat images for area Shamoli and Irrigated areas Areas along Logar Kapisa plains downstream the river (Tangi along the Kabul basin in Wardak, Karwar, Panjsher river Nangrahar Surkab) province, along Kabul and Konar rivers

Cropping pattern • The cropping patterns are based on existing ones, taken from feasibility reports. • Each crop has a monthly irrigation requirement.

MAJOR ITEM

Page 40 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Item How is it represented? References Winter crops: Summer Crops: Perennial Crops: • Wheat • Maize • Orchard Grapes • Winter • Rice Vegetables • Summer Vegetables

Irrigation Efficiency Agglomerates Conveyance and Application efficiency. Irrigation Return • Return of irrigation water to the rivers due to losses in Flow irrigation canals (as expressed with the irrigation efficiency)

3.2.3. Mining Water Demand

The only predominant new mine scheme considered in this study is the Aynak Mine, along the Logar River. At the time of this study the only information available on this new scheme are from Toossab (2006) and Hagler Bailly (2010). The source of water supply for the mine (32 Mm3/year plus a non-described amount of secondary processing water) is not clear at this stage and may be taken from either the Logar River or from groundwater. For the purpose of this study two scenarios were uses, 1) the water was assumed to be withdrawn from the Logar River and 2) the water is withdrawn form the Lower Logar aquifer and reduces water availability for Kabul city. Details of the mine scheme are not assessed in the study due to unavailability of economic data. In addition to the water demand, discharge of polluted processing water into Logar River may be an issue, which could not be assessed due to unavailability of data.

3.2.4. Overview of the Total Water Demand

The figure below summarises all the water demands considered for year 2030, taking the irrigation corresponding to the situation in year 2012 (167,000 ha). This underestimates the irrigation demand since some of the new infrastructures examined in this work (Table 5) should augment irrigated areas. Nevertheless, irrigation demand is by far the greatest demand in the basin, even using the values of year 2012.

Figure 24: Total water demands for year 2030. The Irrigation water demand is the one for year 2012, i.e. without any new irrigated areas.

Page 41 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

3.2.5. Electricity Demand

The projection for electricity was based on the Draft Final Report for the Afghan Power Sector Master Plan (Fichtner 2012) which estimated the electricity demand for the whole of Afghanistan up to the year 2032. This report presents a net energy demand, which is the requirement by the users, and a gross energy demand, which is the amount of electricity which should be produced by the power generation plants, before distribution and losses; the gross demand was considered afterwards in the analysis. The value representative of the Kabul basin is equal to about 7,500 GWh/year and was derived by summing the gross demand for the provinces included in the basin, namely Kabul, Kapisa, Konar, Laghman, Logar, Nangarhar, Nooristan, Panjshir, Parwan and Wardak (see figure below).

For year 2030

Province GWh/yr Kabul 5,822 Kapisa 121 Konar 159 Laghman 156 Logar 138 Nangahar 465 Nooristan 41 Panjshir 42 Parwan 316 Wardak 220 Total 7,481

Figure 25: Projection of Gross Electricity demand (production from Electricity Plants) in the Kabul basin.

The former report Norconsult and Norplan (2004) estimated the electricity demand in the basin as about 3,200 GWh/year in the year 2030. This is more than two times smaller than the projection from Fichtner (2012) mentioned above. It could be possible therefore that the final draft report from Fichtner overestimates the demand or the study from Norconsult and Norplan underestimates it, or both.

The final draft calculation from Fichtner yields a total gross energy demand for Afghanistan equal to 4,017 GWh/year for the year 2012. The report Norconsult and Norplan estimates 2,424 GWh/year for the same, while the total electricity produced by hydropower, termal and importation was equal to 3,086 GWh in year 2011 (AEIC, 2012). Referring to the current electricity shortage in Afghanistan, hence the deficiency in the current electricity production, it appears that the recent final draft from Fichtner (2012), with its projection of 7,500 GWh/year for year 2030, is more accurate than the former report from Norconsult and Norplan (2004), which seems to underestimate the future energy demand.

Page 42 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This section details the method of the assessment approach for the investment options that could be included in the Investment Plan for the Kabul River Basin.

The Investment Plan aims to provide insight into best combinations of the various infrastructure options described in section 2.5. The options are evaluated against four metrics, 1) net benefit as compared to a reference case (the without projects scenario in 2030), 2) against maximum hydropower production, 3) against satisfaction of domestic water supply and 4) against agricultural benefits. In order to account for the limited data availability and the questionable quality of data for some of the feasibility studies as clearly demonstrated in the portfolio review conducted under AWARD (Landell Mills, 2012), hydrological regimes, management practices and combinations of various infrastructure optiones were systematically varied. Influence of irrigation efficiency, water pricing for domestic water and extreme droughts was investigated by sensitivity analysis.

In order to evaluate the various investment options on an equal footing, the benefits are calculated for comparable conditions and in the most unbiased manner. These comparable conditions mean that all projects are assumed to be in equilibrium conditions and that we run all combinations only for one year. Therefore the Investment Plan does provide the relative benefits of the various projects, but not the exact influence of financing and sequencing of financing. It needs to be underscored here that the Investment Plan is not a Financing Plan. The Investment Plan is a source for the Government to select the best combinations possible; a Financing Plan has to be developed by the Ministry of Finance in coordination with the appropriate line ministry on the basis of this choice. A financing plan needs to further distinguish between sources of financing such as revenues for the investments, central budget and donor funding.

We have provided snap shots in time for the best combinations. These snap shots provide a slightly more detailed impression of financing consequences. The use of two financing scenarios, namely one without interest (represented as a Grant) and one with a 5% annual interest, also provides additional information on financial consequences of choices.

The various investment options were evaulauted for different hydrological scenarios and operational rules. The calculations of hydrological performance and economics were done using the water allocation modelling software WEAP and its economic application. The following sections provide details on the calculations done in support of the Investment Plan.

4.1. MODELLING FRAMEWORK

The modelling setup was based on GIS information and data pertaining to streamflows, water demands, existing and planned infrastructures in the Kabul basin. This information was extracted from the knowledge base on the Kabul basin which has been established within the Water Resources Planning Unit (WRPU) in the context of the AWARD project. The framework includes the WEAP (Water Evaluation and Planning) modelling software which was used to generate input data for the financial and technical analysis to draft the investment plan.

Page 43 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

4.1.1. GIS

For practical purposes the central part of the Kabul Basin was delineated in GIS as determined by gauging stations. This gives us the best basis for calibration of the current situation in a model that will be used to simulate the interaction between the various proposed projects and the economic benefits related to it.

4.1.2. WEAP model

The modelling software WEAP is a modelling tool which integrates: • Water resources availability, such as hydrological modelling; • Water management practices driven by water demands, environmental requirements, physical networks of infrastructure such as reservoirs, canals, and diversions; • Financial routines for water infrastructure developments.

WEAP software was chosen for the analysis because of the following reasons: • Large international user base and active user forum; • Free to users in developing countries (e.g. MEW); • Relatively easy to set up and use; • Models irrigation systems well, models conjunctive use, and if needed, can be linked to a distributed groundwater model and has rainfall-runoff routines, now including snowmelt, built in.

It is an object oriented model. Each object can be a river, a catchment (in case of hydrological modelling), a groundwater system, a water demand (e.g. domestic, irrigation, industry, hydropower), a reservoir, a canal, run of river etc. The objects are organised spatially in a chain of supplies and uses, forming a schematic of the natural system being modelled. The schematic of the Kabul basin is illustrated in Figure 16.

Each development infrastructure option is modelled in WEAP where physical and financial implications of each combination of investment options are represented by turning them on and off. In addition, a set of water management decision simulations are represented via the use of priority combinations (see box below).

Box 2: Water allocation priority in WEAP An important parameter in WEAP is the water allocation priority for each water use object. This priority characterises, for instance, how important it is to satisfy particular water demands or storage in reservoirs. WEAP uses a linear program to maximise satisfaction of requirements for water demand, minimum streamflow requirement and hydropower, subject to allocation priorities, supply preferences, mass balance and other constraints. WEAP attempts to satisfy first the water uses having the highest priorities – in case of equal priority it satisfies the demands equally. The allocation priority typically depends on the position in the basin, e.g., without any particular agreements upstream user demands may consume / divert water without consideration for downstream user demands hence in such a context upstream demands would have a higher priority in WEAP. Depending on policies or agreements between users, e.g. domestic water demands and environmental flows could have higher priorities than others.

WEAP software was used to define key assumptions for this study that feed into the different scenarios. The model contains several key assumptions described as follows: • Irrigation Efficiencies: efficiency of canal irrigation systems.

Page 44 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

• Irrigation Return Flow: part of the irrigation water which returns to the river, due to proximity to the river, irrigation in cascade sequences. • Cost and benefit information for the modelled infrastructure development as well as agricultural production input and output prices and quantities per unit of land. • Hydropower Plant Factor: percentage of each month that hydropower plant is running, as will be explained just below.

The definition of the Plant Factor used in WEAP is the percentage of each month that the hydropower plant is running. The plant factor more precisely presents: • Ageing infrastructure: the maximum operational capacity was taken smaller than the initial capacity due to ageing infrastructure as well as unexpected breakdowns. • Monthly release management for seasonal production of electricity in a reservoir. • Regular maintenance.

4.1.3. Large Ensemble Approach (LEA)

In order to analyse the various scenarios, including considering cause-consequence chains and interrelations, a Large Ensemble Approach (LEA), has been carried out that includes a large number of WEAP simulations covering a variety of potential developments, their combinations and operational rules under different hydrological scenarios.The objective of the LEA analysis was to identify the best investment options (best possible combinations of new infrastructure and operations under a set of criteria measures) and then single out each sector’s option that is robust under various conditions.

The large number of potential new options explored in the LEA is compared to a Reference Case where no new infrastructures development occurs (see section 4.3). The outputs of the LEA were analysed using Tableau software. The variables were varied within specific intervals: • New water infrastructure, as introduced in Table 5 and described in section 4.4.3, switched on or off to form potential combinations of new infrastructures. • Priority for water allocation: the priority at each demand / reservoir is a function of the location in the basin and 'competing' demands in the vicinity, hence the priority coefficient varied per spatial cluster; a particular set of water allocation rules was selected every time a new scheme was switched on, as described in Section 4.4.3. • Hydrological regimes: 3 possible values used, Median, Dry 5 and Dry 10, as described in section 3.1.1.

Changing the priority of water allocation explores the various management options of storing water in the reservoir and allocating water in priority to irrigation or hydropower. Supplying domestic water is imposed as the highest priority for each new scheme in the basin. Irrigation and hydropower are typically competing demands due to peak electricity demand in winter and peak irrigation demand in summer.

The combinations of all possible values introduced above form the entire ensemble of input possibilities for the LEA modelling approach. The LEA process is based on running WEAP for each chosen matrix of input combinations of water infrastructures as well as water allocation combinations under different climate. In total 24,576 runs were carried out in the LEA. This automatic process exports the results for each run creating a large database of about 100 monthly and annual output tables for each run. The algorithm that modifies, runs and export WEAP results

Page 45 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

also stores all the output data in a large file which is then analysed in Tableau software described in section 4.6.3.

The year 2030 is represented by developed conditions with the reservoirs partly filled; the new structures operational and generating revenues. The initial investment costs are composed of the capital costs (structures, equipments), the costs for engineering works (supervision, mobilisation and de-mobilisation), the price-quantity contingencies and the land acquisition, and resettlement costs. These, together with the incurred O&M costs, are being annualised for the cost-benefit analysis. Though the analysis is projected in the year 2030, the above rates of the year 2012 were used as the best available information.

The costs and benefits calculated in the Reference Case serve as a reference to estimate the change, or incremental economic metrics.

Water quality issues and pollution have not been included in this assessment, assuming that pollution will be successfully prevented. If water will be polluted it may not be suitable for domestic or irrigation use resulting in less water available than estimated in the study.

4.1.4. Sensitivity analysis

The net benefit of the various investment options depends strongly on assumptions that determine the total water withdrawal of the projects, as well as by the price setting of outputs. The reliability of the investment options depends on performance under extreme conditions.

Following the LEA, the following sensitivity analyses were investigated through various runs of the WEAP model: • higher tariff for domestic water (results in section 5.6.1), • higher irrigation efficiencies (results in section 5.6.2), • extended drought of 3-years, as defined in section 3.1.1 (results in sections 5.4.1 to 5.4.10).

Various scenarios for prices of outputs are worked out in a separate optimisation report. The prices for agricultural products are dependent on various factors which are difficult to predict, such as the development of transport networks and post harvest technology. Moreover, instead of producing certain crops, a country can always import various food products. The prices for electricity are largely set by the international market, especially since it is likely that Afghanistan will be connected to an international grid under the CASA 1000 project. Therefore if the local price would largely exceed the international market price, the country would opt to import electricity instead of producing it locally. However for domestic water there is no alternative and in case the water is scarce the cutomer is willing to pay a much higher price. On the basis of this analysis we also conducted a sensitivity analysis for the price of domestic water.

The change in net benefit of the Shatoot and Gulbahar projects was analysed for varying water tariffs (0.50 US$/m3, 0.75 US$/m3, 1.00 US$/m3)

Supply of domestic water is essential and the investment prioritised would largely suffice for the water supply of Kabul city under the various hydrological scenarios. Due to the modelling framework chosen, the results do not give insight in the effects of various consecutive dry years. The effect of consecutive dry years on domestic water supply and reliability of reservoirs was

Page 46 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

simulated through manual runs using observed river flows during sequences of three consecutive dry years.

4.2. HYDROLOGICAL SCENARIOS MODELLING

Two approaches were followed for modelling the hydrology: a single year in the LEA and a sequence of 3 consecutive years in sensitivity runs.

In the LEA, the range of variation in dry flow (Dry 5 and Dry 10) is not extreme since the focus of this study is the Median flow, i.e., the most likely streamflow regime in the basin based on historical data (see table below). Moreover, the Dry 5 or Dry 10 flow is assumed to succeed a sequence of normal (i.e., Median) flows, i.e., the initial storage of the reservoirs explored in this work (existing and proposed) is supposed to be in equilibrium under the Median flow. These two dry flows are used to model a drier year in a normal period and not a succession of dry years.

In the sensitivity analysis, a sequence of three dry years was identified in section 3.1.1 at three strategic locations in the basin, namely Panjshir river at Gulbahar (for Gulbahar), Maidan river at Maidan (for Shatoot) and Konar river at Asmar (for Konar A, Shal, Gambiri and Kama) (see table below).

Table 9: Values of the Median, Dry 5, Dry 10 and the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years at 3 locations in the basin used in the modelling. Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Year of the modelling dry sequence 1 2 3 Panjshir river Annual flow 1,700 1,350 1,250 1,552 1,068 1,315 @ Gulbahar (Mm3/year) Frequency of Every 2 Every 5 Every 10 Every 3 Every 22 Every 6 occurence years years years years years years Maidan river Annual flow 136 85 64 85 64 98 @ Maidan (Mm3/year) Frequency of Every 2 Every 5 Every 10 Every 5 Every 10 Every 3 occurence years years years years years years Konar river @ Annual flow 11,820 10,020 9,390 8,680 10,020 9,630 Asmar (Mm3/year) Frequency of Every 2 Every 5 Every 10 Every 16 Every 5 Every 8 occurence years years years years years years

4.3. REFERENCE CASE

The Reference Case as defined here will serve as a reference in the analysis of comparing different future scenarios. It represents the basin with the currently existing infrastructure projected to the year 2030, i.e. with the domestic growth in demands for year 2030 defined above, but without any of the potential assets development examined in this study (Table 5).

4.3.1. Modelling of exising infrastructures

The set of existing infrastructures included in the modelling is summarised in the table below. The modelling parameters of these schemes were tuned so as to reproduce the average electricity production and water storage which were measured. The measurements were obtained from the

Page 47 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Afghan Energy Information Center and are compiled in the figure below. The parameters in the model WEAP for the plant factor and the rule for filling Naghlu reservoir were tuned to approximate the average of the measurements.

Table 10: Representation of existing (in year 2012) hydropower infrastructures How it is represented Major items Through dams with a reservoir or run of river schemes. • Naghlu Dam: 100 MW operational (equal to full capacity) Plant Factor of the hydropower facilities, expressed as a • Mahipar run of river: 53 MW operational (initial percentage, represent the combination of: capacity = 66 MW) • ageing infrastructures: running capacity smaller than • Surubi I Dam: 22 MW operational (equal to full initial, capacity) • regular O & M / contingencies, • Darunta Dam: 4.5 MW operational (full • monthly releases management for seasonal production capacity = 11.5 MW) of electricity (i.e. high production during winter).

The Plant Factor of existing infrastructures is calibrated to reproduce the average measured production of electricity.

Calibrated water allocation rule for Naghlu: 1. Hydropower 2. Filling the reservoir.

Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 Plant Factor 30% 35% 35% 35% 35% 40% Plant Factor 0% 9% 26% 40% 43% 43% Month 456789 Month 456789 Plant Factor 90% 90% 90% 80% 50% 30% Plant Factor 17% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Page 48 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 Plant Factor 70% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Plant Factor 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 60% Month 456789 Month 456789 Plant Factor 80% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% Plant Factor 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% Figure 26: Observed versus modelled storage in Naghlu and electricity production at Naghlu, Mahipar, Surubi I and Darunta. In dotted lines the measurements obtained from the Afghan Energy Information Center, in black the average of the measurements and in red the modelled signal under the Median streamflow. The suitable operation rule for Naghlu reservoir and the tuned values for the Plant Factors are shown next to the graphs.

Regarding the operation of the Naghlu reservoir, the allocation rule giving higher priority to produce electricity than filling the reservoir reproduced better the observed water elevation. This setting was kept throught the analysis. Except for Surubi I, the value of the Plant Factor is relatively low. The values of these parameters were kept constant throughout the modelling, i.e., in the Reference Case as well as in the LEA.

4.3.2. Modelling of the Reference Case

The irrigation demand will be based on the values in the year 2012 except for the irrigated areas near Shatoot which are supposed to have reduced due to reduction in agricultural land in favour of further urbanisation of Old Kabul city; the value of this reduction in area is taken from the feasibility study of the Shatoot scheme (Pooyab, 2011).

The Reference Case will be assessed under the three single-year varying streamflows Median, Dry 5 and Dry 10. Some infrastructure developments, from year 2012, not examined in this work, are considered under the Reference Case. These are: • An augmentation of the domestic supply to the connected population of Old Kabul city from neighbouring groundwater resources, from 16.4 Mm3/year (45,000 m3/day) to 43.8 Mm3/year (120,000 m3/day) (Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation, Personal Communication, 2011). • A reduction in leakage in the domestic water pipe system of the Old Kabul city, from 30% to 25% (Beller et al, 2004 and Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation, Personal Communication, 2011). • An augmentation of the connected population in the Old Kabul city (i.e. the population supplied by municipal water) from 30% to 60%, as well as an increase in individual house connections from 60% to 75% (JICA 2009, 2012). • The construction and operation of the Aynak Mine.

Additionally in the Reference Case, it is assumed for the water allocation among the various demands in the basin that there is no upstream / downstream institutional coordination. It means that the respective upstream users as they are projected for year 2030 withdraw water without consideration for downstream demands.

4.4. FUTURE SCENARIOS

For the purpose of the Investment Plan, a variety of development scenarios were tested and analysed based on combinations of the different potential development schemes listed in Table 5 for which feasibility studies exist. The scenarios cover domestic water use, irrigation and hydropower while flood aspects were not considered due to insufficient data availability on discharge-flood relations as well as economic flood impacts.

Page 49 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

4.4.1. Overview

The schemes for proposed infrastructures with different sets of water allocation combination and hydrological scenarios are systematically tested by running each combination of schemes with the hydrological scenarios and water allocation rules in the large number of runs of the LEA. Additional sensitivity analyses, for which no batch processing was necessary due to the nature of the assessment, were tested individually with manual runs.

Initial conditions were used for objects having a "memory" (reservoirs and groundwater). Reservoirs were in “hot-start” conditions, i.e., partly full as expected under normal operating conditions, with an initial storage defined as being the storage in equilibrium in the long normal run (few years in the Panjsher and Konar River, 15 years in the Maidan River) in the month of October (first step of the calculation) under the Median flow regime. The withdrawal from groundwater objects is limited by an amount smaller than the groundwater recharge based on recommendations from Bellet et al. (2004). As a consequence the groundwater is managed sustainably and only the surface reservoirs may reach constraining conditions.

As a model time horizon, the scenarios were run at a monthly time step for a time period of one year with the a “hotstart” situation. All parameters were fixed during the runs and the analysis examined the results for one single year, the projection year 2030. This approach does not consider transient regimes or specific development paths (e.g., infrastructure A is built, then B etc.) to avoid externally-related biases (e.g., political and / or donors preference, security, etc.). Instead, it focuses on examining if the construction of new infrastructures in combination with other infrastructure assets, with a particular set of water management and allocation rules to domestic, irrigation and hydropower sectors, is advantageous under operational conditions or not (e.g. in term of net benefits, satisfaction of water demands, electricity production etc.). The advantage of this approach is its robustness. It does not depend on any assumption for the path / timeline of development or whether certain schemes are built in a certain order in time.

The different potential infrastructure assets were considered by turning “on” or “off” the respective demand or infrastructure. Two values are possible (“on” or “off”). Priority for domestic water allocation, irrigation water allocation, hydropower production or reservoir filling is controlled by a priority coefficient. The priority coefficient takes integer values from 1 to 99. The lower its value, the higher the priority.

An overview of the parameters used in the scenario analysis for the year 2030 and LEA run is shown in the table below. Details are provided in the following paragraph. The WEAP model is set up with some switches as described in the Table. These switches activate or deactivate the respective parameter during the LEA and lead to a total of 24,576 runs. When a particular situation or new scheme is switched on, the associated parameters become active. The domestic demand associated to New Kabul city is only considered if Gulbahar is switched on: it is proposed to supply the new city with several sources, namely the Panjsher Fan Aquifer, Salang and Gulbahar (JICA, 2012), but only Gulbahar could be included in this work as no detailed report with costs estimation was available for the options Panjsher Aquifer and Salang at the time of this work.

Page 50 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 11: Parameters for year 2030 used in scenario modelling Total Number of number of possible combinati Demand Switch Variable combinations ons, for each including parameter “on/off” Streamflow Streamflow Monthly streamflow 3 3 regime Rural Domestic Values for Population and per capita water 1 1 Supply year 2030 demand Urban Domestic Values for Population and per capita water 1 1 Supply year 2030 consumption Old (existing) Kabul Values for Connected population and per 1 1 Domestic Supply year 2030 capita water consumption New Kabul Domestic Included in Gulbahar scheme

Supply Aynak mine Values after Annual water withdrawal 1 1 full developmen t Gulbahar scheme Off 1 8 On Different priorities for water 7 allocation to Shamoli & Kapisa Irrigation, Hydropower and storing water in the reservoir Baghdara scheme Off 1 4 (Option A2 or option On Different priorities for water 3 D1)* allocation to Hydropower and storing water in the reservoir Shatoot scheme** On 1 1 Surubi II scheme Off 1 2 On 1 Hydropower reservoir Off Technical characteristics of the 1 4 upstream of the Konar dam, reservoir and hydropower river (Shal or Konar A) On Different priorities for water 3 allocation to Hydropower and storing water in the reservoir Gambiri scheme Off 1 8 On Different priorities for water 7 allocation to Irrigation demands, Gambiri hydropower and Diversion to Darunta Kama scheme On 1 4 Off Different priorities for water 3 allocation to Irrigation demands and Kama hydropower * There are two options for the scheme Baghdara ** As a result of the priority to meet domestic water demand Shatoot was always kept on in the LEA, other options were explored in manual runs. Further description is provided in Section 5.4.1

Page 51 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

4.4.2. Background configuration of the LEA

The specific combinations of parameters and settings are the base for the LEA simulations that form the database for investigating investment options for the investment plan. The section 4.4.3 below details the configuration for each case and shows the schematic in WEAP. Once a new scheme is switched on, different annual priority rules for water allocation are considered among the following competitive uses: • irrigation (if applicable), for which the demand is highest during summer • hydropower, for which the demand is highest during winter • storing water in the reservoir (if applicable) for later use

Supplying domestic water is always the first priority (i.e., for Shatoot and Gulbahar) and therefore is never varied. For each demand / reservoir, the priority is a function of the location in the basin and 'competing' demands in the vicinity. Hence the priority coefficient is varied per spatial cluster (e.g., Gulbahar and its attached demands, Shatoot and its attached demands, at Baghdara filling vs hydropower etc.). Having the reservoir as higher priority than irrigation or hydropower all the year, i.e., filling the reservoir is of higher priority, would mean that the reservoir would only release water when it is full which does not provide a benefit in the assessed situation. Respectively, cases where the reservoir has higher priority were not considered in the LEA analysis.

As was explained before (section 4.1.2), the plant factor for hydropower infrastructures as used in WEAP represents the combined effects of (i) ageing infrastructures, (ii) management of monthly release from reservoirs (if applicable) and (iii) regular maintenance. The values for new schemes are inspired by the values calibrated for modelling existing hydropower plants in the basin (cf. section 4.3.1) but the monthly values for reservoirs were chosen so as to produce more electricity in winter. Precisely, the plant factor is defined as follows: • Ageing infrastructure: the maximum possible value of the plant factor in any month is taken as 90%. • Monthly release management for seasonal production of electricity in a reservoir (if applicable): two patterns were accounted to define the monthly variation of the plant factor. First the outflow of reservoirs is high in the middle of the high flow season once the reservoirs are full; hence the plant factor should be maximum (90%) so as to produce electricity with this outflow. Second, the electricity demand is high during winter (December to February) hence the value of the plant factor was decreased after the high flows season, to store water, and increased again during winter, to facilitate production of electricity. • Regular maintenance: in case of a reservoir, the low value of plant factor in-between the high flow season and the winter allows for regular maintenance; based on calibrated values for existing plants (in particular Naghlu) this low value is taken equal to 30%. In case of a run-of-river, maintenance would occur during low flow seasons. • For run of rivers, the plant factor is constant throughout the year as there is no water storage to manage. Based on calibrated values for the existing plant Surubi I, it is taken equal to 80%.

A minimum flow requirement has been added downstream of each new reservoir to ensure that the natural flow is not too disturbed by the new scheme. Defining a minimum flow is a complex task which requires a holistic study for every new infrastructure. This is beyond the scope of this work therefore the simple method of Tennant (1976) based solely on the hydrological pattern is adopted here. Tennant defined several impact stages on the streamflows, from optimum to severely

Page 52 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

degraded (see table below). The category ‘Fair or degraded’ was chosen in this work referring to the high development need in the basin. A minimum flow equal to 10% during the low flow season and 30% during the high flow season was imposed downstream of every new scheme.

Table 12: Minimum streamflow based on the Tennant (1976) method, of a percentage of the mean annual flow Impact on the Recommended minimum flow streamflow Low flow season High flow season Optimum 60% to 100% Outstanding 40% 60% Excellent 30% 50% Good 20% 40% Fair or degraded 10% 30% Poor or minimum 10% Severe degradation < 10%

Costs from investment on planned infrastructure were included under the financial routines embedded in WEAP.

4.4.3. Details of options examined in the LEA

The new schemes introduced in Table 5 are examined in the LEA. The details of each scheme as modelled in WEAP are presented in the Boxes below.

Page 53 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Box 3: Gulbahar scheme The Gulbahar multipurpose project is proposed on the Panjsher river, upstream of the confluence with the Ghorband river and near the village Gulbahar. Its purpose is to supply domestic water principally to New Kabul City and to some northern parts of Old Kabul city, Shamoli plain and Kapisa irrigation and to produce electricity. JICA (2012) studied the supply of domestic water to New Kabul City solely and suggests conveying the water to Paymonar where the treatment plant would be built. Paymonar being close to the northern part of Old Kabul City, the supply to Old Kabul City (the connected population) was considered in this analysis as well. This water is conveyed by pipe (JICA, 2012) with an assumed total volume of 100 Mm3/year (Yekom, 2010). The existing irrigation in Shamoli plain and Kapisa would benefit from the scheme with the development of about 11,000 additional hectares with improved irrigation efficiency (40% instead of 25% in existing areas) (Yekom, 2010), leading to a total of 54,000 hectares. The third purpose of the Gulbahar scheme would be to produce electricity. Since the project will continue to use Gulbahar the existing irrigation canals located along the scheme Panjsher river downstream of the dam site, the water released for irrigation can also be used to produce electricity; hence the water is used

twice in this dual purpose.

The minimum flow requirement imposed downstream, after the dam and the irrigation diversion, is as follows:

250 Median Flow @ 200 Gulbahar Minimum Flow 150 (Tennant, 1976)

100 (m3/s) (m3/s)

50 5.4 m3/s 16.1 m3/s 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

The annual minimum requirement is 340 Mm3/year.

Seven priority rules with different priority settings for water allocation as applied in WEAP (see Section 5) were examined for Gulbahar as follows:

Page 54 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Priority rule number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Priority setting for: Domestic 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Irrigation 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 Hydropower 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 Reservoir 4 4 5 6 4 5 6 Minimum Flow 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 The priority starts at 3 to account for existing water uses (irrigation and rural domestic supply) upstream of Gulbahar which would withdraw water without accounting for Gulbahar downstream. These withdrawals are small compared to the river flow.

As the water can be used for dual purposes during its course, i.e. first being turbined and later on diverted for irrigation, the plant factor was chosen as a function of the priority setting: Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 Priority rule 30% 30% 40% 70% 90% 50% 1 Priority rule 30% 30% 40% 70% 90% 50% 2 to 4 Priority rule 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 5 to 7*

Month 4 5 6 7 8 9 Priority rule 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 70% 1 Priority rule 90% 90% 90% 90% 30% 30% 2 to 4 Priority rule 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 5 to 7* * in this case the plant factor is constant as the release through the turbines follow the pattern for irrigation and the maintenance occurs in the months when there is little to no irrigation demand.

Page 55 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Box 4: Baghdara scheme

There are two options for this scheme, i.e. a small reservoir (1.9 Mm3) located some kilometres downstream of the station Sukhi which functions as a run-of-river (option A2) or a larger reservoir (400 Mm3) located further downstream (option D1). The sole purpose is hydropower.

The minimum flow requirement imposed downstream, after the dam and the irrigation diversion, is as follows:

400 350 Median Flow @ 300 Sukhi 250 Minimum Flow (Tennant, 1976) 200

(m3/s) (m3/s) 150 100 9.4 m3/s 28.3 m3/s 50 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

The different priority settings for water allocation are:

Option A2 D1 Priority rule 1 1 2 Hydropower 9 8 8 Reservoir 8 8 9 Minimum Flow 8 8 8

In the case of option A2, there is not much room to operate the reservoir, hence the highest priority is given to fill this small reservoir, which will be filled-up almost instantaneously, to keep the high head for hydropower.

The Plant Factor was as follows:

Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Option A2 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% D1 30% 40% 50% 70% 90% 50% 50% 90% 90% 90% 30% 30%

Page 56 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Box 5: Shatoot scheme

The scheme is suggested on the Maidan river, just upstream of the Old Kabul city. Its purpose is to supply Domestic Water to Old Kabul City and irrigation schemes downstream of the dam as well as to maintain a minimum streamflow after the irrigation withdrawal. The water allocated to Old Kabul City (the connected population) is the first priority and has a required volume of 97 Mm3/year (Pooyab 2011). The existing irrigation downstream is expected to reduce due to urbanisation in the vicinity of Old Kabul city (Pooyab 2011). As a third purpose, not mentioned in the feasibility study, hydropower was included as well in this study as an additional benefit.

The minimum flow water requirement imposed downstream of the dam and the irrigation diversion is based on the hypothetic natural flow of the Maidan river at the station Tangi Saidan, i.e. without the current water diversion for irrigation. The value chosen for this diversion is the estimation calculated by Pooyab (2011) and the minimum flow requirement is as follows:

20 Median Natural 15 Flow @ Tangi Saidan 10 Minimum Flow (Tennant, 1976) (m3/s)

5 0.5 m3/s 1.5 m3/s

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

The minimum flow requirement amounts to a volume of 26 Mm3/year. It is noteworthy that imposing this minimum flow would improve the flow of the Maidan after Tangi Saidan, hence in Kabul city, since the median monthly flow at this station can currently drop below 0.3 m3/s during the low flow season.

The priority settings for water allocation are:

Priority rule Mini. Flow downstream Domestic Irrigation Hydropower Reservoir 1 3 3 4 4 4

The priority starts at 3 to account for existing water uses (irrigation and Maidan Shar urban domestic supply) upstream of Shatoot which would withdraw water without accounting for Shatoot downstream. Supplying domestic water and maintaining a minimum flow downstream of the dam and of the irrigation were given the same priority. The remaining uses, i.e. irrigation, storing water and hydropower, were given the same lower priority since the primary allocation (domestic and minimum flow) diverts almost all the water available in the reservoir.

Page 57 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The Plant Factor was as follows:

Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plant 30% 30% 40% 60% 70% 90% 90% 90% 90% 30% 30% 30% Factor

Page 58 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Box 6: Surubi II scheme

Two staggered run-of-river schemes are suggested to be built on the Kabul river, downstream of the existing Surubi 1. The sole purpose is hydropower and consequently only one priority rule was investigated:

Priority rule number 1 Priority setting for: Hydropower 13

The Plant Factor was taken constant and equal to 80% for both stages.

Page 59 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Box 7: Hydropower reservoir upstream of the Konar river

There are two options for large reservoirs close to each other for hydropower production upstream of the Konar river. The sole purpose is hydropower. The first is referred to as ‘Konar A’ and the second is called Shal (Table 5). Shal has a small live storage as compared to its capacity (174 Mm3 vs. 1,874 Mm3), hence it operates almost like a run-of river scheme.

The minimum flow requirement imposed downstream of the two possible dams is as follows:

1 200 Median Flow @ 1 000 Asmar

800 Minimum Flow (Tennant, 1976) 600 (m3/s) (m3/s) 400 37.3 m3/s 200 111.8 m3/s

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

The annual minimum requirement is 2,354 Mm3/year.

The different priority settings for water allocation are:

Option Konar A Shal Priority rule 1 2 1 Hydropower 1 1 1 Reservoir 1 2 1 Minimum Flow 1 1 1

In the case of Shal, there is little volume to operate due to the small live storage, hence only one operation rule is explored, with a same priority for filling the reservoir and producting electricity.

The Plant Factor was as follows:

Month 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Option Shal 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Konar A 30% 30% 40% 70% 90% 50% 50% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Page 60 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Box 8: Gambiri scheme

The objective is to divert water from the Konar river through the Gambiri canal for three uses. According to discussions with different stakeholders, in particular MEW and Toossab, the proposed maximum diversion is 100 m3/s in the current design stage. However no written document was available to support this value at the time of this study. The maximum diversion amount eventually chosen in this study was the one mentioned in the feasibility study Toossab (2008), i.e. 50 m3/s. The project is designed to generate electricity with a new run of river plant (23 MW) and to convey the water from the canal back to the river. The second purpose is to irrigate existing lands in Shigi and the two new areas, Greater Gambiri and Lesser Gambiri. The third use is to divert part of the canal water into Darunta reservoir for irrigation along the Jalalabad canal and further production of electricity at Darunta.

The minimum flow requirement imposed downstream of the diversion on the Konar river is as follows:

1 200 Median Flow Konar @ Asmar 1 000 + Pech @ 800 Chaghasaray Minimum Flow 600 (Tennant, 1976) (m3/s) (m3/s) 400 129.0 m3/s 200 43.0 m3/s

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

The annual minimum requirement is 2,715 Mm3/year.

The different priority settings for water allocation are:

Priority rule number 1 2 3 4 5 Gambiri Hydropower 4 4 4 5 5 Irrigation 4 5 5 4 4 Diversion to Darunta 4 5 6 5 6 Minimum Flow 3 3 3 3 3

Irrigation refers to the three irrigation areas Shigi, Greater Gambiri and Lesser Gambiri. The case where the Diversion to Darunta would be the highest priority is not examined since this would entail that all the canal water would be diverted to Darunta, hence with no electricity production at Gambiri hydropower and no coverage of the irrigation demands.

The Plant Factor was taken constant and equal to 80%.

Page 61 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Box 9: Kama scheme

Similar to the Gambiri scheme, this projects aims at diverting water from the Konar river. The intake is proposed to be near Pol-e-Kama, before the confluence with Kabul river. The diversion amount is 121.5 m3/s at maximum with a minimum streamflow of the Konar imposed right after the diversion. The project has two purposes. The first is to generate electricity with a new run of river plant (45 MW) built along a canal conveying the water from the Kama canal to the Kabul river. The second purpose is to irrigate existing lands near Pol-e-Kama and extended lands in Gerdab and Goshta.

The minimum flow requirement imposed downstream of the diversion on the Konar river is as follows:

1 200 Median Flow 1 000 Konar @ Pol-e- Kama 800

600 Minimum Flow

(m3/s) (m3/s) (Tennant, 1976) 400 132.6 m3/s 200 44.2 m3/s

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

The annual minimum requirement is 2,793 Mm3/year.

The different priority settings for water allocation are:

Priority rule number 1 2 3 Priority setting for: Kama Hydropower 19 19 20 Irrigation 19 20 19 Minimum Flow 18 18 18

Irrigation refers to the three irrigation areas Pol-e-Kama, Gerdab and Goshta.

The Plant Factor was taken constant and equal to 80%.

Page 62 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

4.4.4. Stepped Development

The analysis of the LEA identifies the best combination of new infrastructures for the year 2030. The path of development to reach this target was also investigated. The path is a function of the variation of the demands in the basin, in such a way that infrastructures construction schedule will attempt to satisfy these demands increasing with time. The development was examined with four time steps for the years 2018, 2020, 2025 and 2030. The results are presented in Section 5.7.

4.5. RESULT DATABASE

The results from each of the assessments and considered scenarios are compiled in an output database. The LEA consists of external Visual Basic Scripts which operated all WEAP scenario inputs and outputs. The WEAP model contains a database of the results for each run, which were then exported in the large output database.

4.6. APPROACH AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR INVESTMENT

4.6.1. Approach

As previously highlighted, many water management challenges exist in the Kabul River Basin and management strategies seeking to respond to these challenges are being identified and developed. In this context, the ability to assess which strategies are the most likely to produce positive outcomes is critical to decision making related to future water sector investments. There are many metrics that could be used to assess the performance of a particular strategy or combination of strategies. These include standard engineering metrics such as supply reliability, environmental metrics related to water quality or ecosystem condition, and metrics related to the broad economic or social welfare gains that may accompany a water resource investment. In this analysis we have adopted a more limited cost benefit approach that focuses on the direct cost of realizing any particular investment strategy and direct benefits associated with any enhanced ability to deliver water under that strategy. While this approach, which is consistent with data and time constraints imposed on this project, will not produce any assessment of changes in the general welfare of the water users in various sectors, the analysis will shape an understanding of the long-term effects of the investments relative to the current state of affairs. The assessments of the costs and benefits from each potential investment are based on identifying the investment costs for each development and capturing their benefits in different sectors.

More specifically, the assessment criteria for modelling the different investment plans are based on the annual benefits and costs from each of the sectors: agricultural, hydropower and urban water demand in order to compare the net benefits from each scenario and their combinations. For each of the development scenarios the financial analysis was undertaken by evaluating the increase in benefits from the infrastructure development for one specific year which is defined by a particular set of assumptions about future hydrologic and water demand conditions.

In the analysis, we are assuming a fixed level of development for 2030. Here, one of the key assumptions in representing the investment plans in WEAP is that new infrastructure is considered as fully constructed and in operation. No construction period is considered and benefits are materialised during the assessed operation. The costs are uniformly annualised over the expected project lifetime (50 years)

Page 63 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Two financing options for the investment costs (civil engineer works, equipments, land acquisitions, resettlements, administrative and financial costs, contingencies) are considered: • a loan based on a 50 year term and an interest rate of 5% p.a: the annualised loan cost respectively includes the annual repayment of the loan as well as the interest; • or a grant: the annualised cost includes the investment cost divided by 50 in order to show the economic use of the funding.

These two annualisation approaches may not be the current situation of cash flows but they allow an annual comparison of the amortised costs of investments versus the benefits from the different affected sectors. In both cases, WEAP calculates annual investment costs from each one of the planned infrastructures as well as the annual O&M costs. While this approach ignores the actual temporal sequence of which individual investment strategies may be implemented, it has the advantage of relative analytical simplicity and of providing a metric that can be easily compared across strategies: namely, assuming that a given strategy has been realised, likely as the result of some capital investment annualised over some planning horizon, what will be the annual balance between the amortized cost and benefit flows. To compensate this, specific manual runs of WEAP were conducted with the identified investment option in the LEA to provide stepped development “snapshots”.

The economic assessment of development scenarios requires reliable data sets. The team economist has worked closely with stakeholders in Afghanistan in order to quantify the relevant costs and benefit data for this study. These data were one of the main sources for performing the economic assessment. In addition, data collection from previous modelling efforts, such as the construction of Kabul River Decision Support System (KDSS) (IRBD/World Bank, 2010), is used for input data collection.

The financial assessment of agricultural production was performed by calculating the production costs and benefits before and after the investment plans. Due to the lack of information regarding off-farm water delivery costs for irrigation it is assumed that these costs and benefits do not vary with water supply fluctuations. In order to better represent the estimated yield from the investment plans, it is estimated that with an adequate and timely water supply for irrigation the model increases yields by 20% (see figure below). Because of the lack of information regarding the sensitivity of the agricultural system to changes in water the loss in production from water shortages is approximated by reducing the total regional agricultural revenue by the minimum percentage amount of water demand that it is met in a critical vegetative period. This is fairly consistent with the extensive international data available regarding yield responses to water (Doorenbos et al., 1979).

Page 64 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 27: Illustrative yield response to water (Doorenbos et al., 1979)

Under this scope of work, social improvements such as changes in health, livelihoods and poverty reduction are not captured to any significant extent. The true socio-economic value of providing more and better potable water to the population also defies adequate quantification. In addition, other social aspects such as job generation or migration are not considered as a socio-economic benefit. Future model improvements can be considered in order to account for such changes as well as quantifying the economic value of such services.

4.6.2. Criteria for selection of investment options from the LEA

The approach implemented for the selection of a single optimal and robust investment option from the LEA output database is based on two steps: 1. The economic viability of a development option, i.e. the best possible combination of assets considering economically, environmentally and politically feasible aspects (Optimal Bundle Selection). 2. A sufficient robustness of the recommendation to acknowledge the uncertainties related not only to modelling aspects, but also, to exogenous factors such as climate to avoid regret-options and maintain decision-making flexibility.

The robustness of the finally recommended development options was achieved by using a structured approach that tests prioritised development options for a range of streamflow variations, and selects options where optimal results under median streamflows have little variation with respect to changes in regimes (see Section 4.2). By doing so, it was checked that the options performing the best under the most likely streamflows regime, i.e., the median, were stable under variable streamflows and “no regret” solutions were achieved.

The selection of performant options (step 1) was realised under the LEA methodology which tested the performance of options under a set of criteria. The metrics of performance were evaluated by segmenting each criterion in three discrete levels (high, medium, low). The options that are within high levels for all metrics constitute the optimum set of investment options of performance. Each one of the criteria designed for the distribution of the levels of performance measures were as follows:

Page 65 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

1) Total Net Benefit for each Investment Combination:

(1.1) NB = ∑ + ∑ −∑ −

+

(1.2)

(1.3)

Total Net Benefit (1.1), referred to as Total NB, contains the total agricultural net benefits plus the total energy revenue from hydropower production and the domestic water tariffs from Old and New Kabul city minus the cost of investments (1.3) and the costs of domestic water supply (water treatment cost for Shatoot and Gulbahar, and pumping cost to convey water to Old and New Kabul city for Gulbahar). Agricultural net benefit (1.2) was calculated by multiplying output prices, yield and regional areas for each crop to the minimum water demand coverage for the months during each crop growing season under the new developments. Investment costs (capital costs, engineers supervision and mobilisation, price-quantity contingencies, land acquisition and resettlement) as well as O&M costs were calculated on an annual basis considering loan or grant based financing.

2) Hydropower production for the region of study: WEAP calculates hydropower production and its corresponding revenues for the active infrastructures in the system.

3) Agricultural net benefit (1.2), referred to as Ag NB, related to agricultural production from the implementation of new investment options at different levels of priority combinations for water distribution between sectors.

4) Coverage of urban domestic water demand from Old and New Kabul city

Each metric actually considers assessing the value for a given investment combination i and the change on those metrics (∆Mtci where Mtci = Total NBi, Ag NBi or hydropower production for i) as it compares to the Reference Case, as defined below:

∆ = − (1.4) Mtci Mtci MtcRC

With MtcRC being the metric values in the Reference Case. In this manner, the selection of the optimal bundle of development options and its corresponding water management combinations ensure that the investment combination i was eventually improving the economy of the Reference Case. Old and New Kabul water demand coverage is not included as one of the metrics since evaluating the urban coverage was a better metric than the urban tariffs. Therefore, Old Kabul water demand coverage is included as one of the metrics for the selection of the optimal bundle described below but it is not considered as one of the metrics for the second step of the process for robustness.

Page 66 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

4.6.3. Evaluation and Analysis of the LEA Results

The Tableau software (Tableau Software, 2012) is the tool used for evaluation of the performance of the system as well as the assessment of robustness.

Optimal bundle selection: In order to select a set of options that satisfy all the high levels of performance, the methodology described above was implemented in a Tableau. A graphical representation of output produced from the LEA in WEAP is performed in Tableau where a grid- shape graphical representation is used for the selection of the optimal bundle that satisfies the highest level of performance on the four criteria measures (see figure below). The intent here is to have a selective set of options that would perform well under the central tendency (i.e. around the median) of the system and hence constitute the “optimal bundle of Investment options”.

Figure 28: Diagram of determining the Optimal Bundle.

The robust option for all streamflows regimes was the one that provided the highest performance under each one of the metrics for the median streamflows while satisfying the optimal bundle conditions under the other streamflows. Finally, additional to the LEA, the robust solutions are subject to a risk analysis through a sensitivity analysis.

Selection of best option under each metric: Determining the optimal bundle of options allows the selection of a set of investment infrastructure combinations that perform high in all metrics: total net benefit, agricultural net benefit, hydropower production and Kabul coverage. The challenge now is the selection of the single investment option since it is sensitive to different environmental and management parameters. In other words, all the options in the optimal bundle are within high levels for each metric (and sector, hydropower, agriculture, urban and total net benefit); however, there is no single option that can provide the best level of performance for all metrics. Therefore, the next selection step is to identify the options that provide the best level of performance under each metric. By doing so, we selected the investment option i with the highest total net benefit change, the highest agricultural net benefit change, and the highest hydropower revenue under the

Page 67 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

most likely streamflow regime, i.e., the median, while performing well under the 2 other dry regimes Dry 5 and Dry 10. Priority for domestic water supply coverage for Old Kabul city (connected population) is the highest ranking decision criteria in the assessment. Once the optimal bundle is selected, best single and robust option is designated under each one of the metrics.

4.7. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

During the analysis the modelling outputs were classified in three categories “Low”, “Medium” and “High” with respect to different performance criteria metrics to define the best performing solutions. The optimal bundle provides a selection of combinations that are ranked high (or highest) for all the metrics. Robustness is measured using the four metrics; i.e. total net benefit, hydropower production, agricultural net benefit and domestic water coverage to Old and New Kabul cities, as explained above. The selection of the criteria measures was drafted based on specific sectorial development focus and future targeted expectations described below.

4.7.1. Economic criterion

The economic metric used to assess the economic performance is the total net benefit (Total NB) as defined by equation (1.1). The definition of the three levels of performance was based on the range of values taken by ∆NB (NBi – NBRC) under the Median streamflow in all the runs of the LEA. Total ∆NB ranges from –61.0 to +200.0 MUS$/year for a loan financing; therefore, the three levels of performance were defined as follows: • Low: ∆NB < +26.0 MUS$/year for a loan; ∆NB < +129.3 MUS$/year for a grant; • Medium: +26.0 ≤ ∆NB < +113.0 MUS$/year for a loan; +129.3 ≤ ∆NB < +250.8 MUS$/year for a grant; • High: ∆NB ≥ +113.0 MUS$/year for a loan; ∆NB ≥ +250.8 MUS$/year for a grant.

Table 13: Performance metric levels Performance metric levels Criteria (metric) High Medium Low Change in total net With loan ∆NB ≥ 113.0 26.0 ≤ ∆NB < 113.0 ∆NB < 26.0 benefit metric (MUS$/year) With grant ∆NB ≥ 250.8 129.3 ≤ ∆NB < 250.8 ∆NB < 129.3 Change in agricultural net benefit

metric (MUS$/year) ∆NBAg ≥ 70.0 31.1 ≤ ∆NBAg < 70.0 ∆NBAg < 31.1 Hydropower metric (GWh/year) Prod ≥ 4,419 2,495 ≤ Prod < 4,419 Prod < 2,495 Old and New Kabul cities domestic water coverage (%) 66 ≤ Coverage ≤ 100 33 ≤ Coverage < 66 0 ≤ Coverage < 33

4.7.2. Hydropower criterion

The hydropower criterion aims at obtaining a level of energy security for the region. The objective is to have an annual production within a standard and acceptable range of hydropower generation. Transboundary energy market options are not explored in the assessment. The hydropower production should attempt to satisfy the internal gross energy demand of the basin mentioned in Section 3.2.5, i.e., 7,500 GWh/year, solely from hydropower

This target is never met since the range of electricity production is 572 to 6,343 GWh/year. This range was divided into three equal categories:

Page 68 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

• Low: Production < 2,495 GWh/year. • Medium: 2,495 ≤ Production < 4,419 GWh/year. • High: Production ≥ 4,419 GWh/year.

4.7.3. Old and New Kabul cities domestic water coverage

The third metric is the coverage of the total urban domestic demand for New Kabul City and the connected population of the Old Kabul City, which should reach almost 200 Mm3/year in year 2030, for a connected population of about 5 million people. The coverage can span from 0 to 100% therefore the categories that were chosen to classify the urban domestic coverage were: • Low: Coverage < 33%, • Medium 33 ≤ Coverage < 66%, • High 66 ≤ Coverage ≤ 100%.

4.7.4. Agriculture criterion

The metric examined for agriculture was the change in agricultural net benefit ∆NBAg as compared to the Reference Case as defined below:

∆ = − NBAgi NBAgi NBAgRC

with NBAg being defined by Equation (1.2), i the particular Investment option being examined and NBAgRC the agricultural net benefit in the Reference Case. This was to ensure that the investment option i was eventually improving the agricultural economy of the Reference Case.

The metric ∆NBAg ranges from –7.9 to +109.0 MUS$/year therefore the three categories were defined as follows:

• Low: ∆NBAg < 31.1 MUS$/year,

• Medium: 31.1 ≤ ∆NBAg < 70.0 MUS$/year,

• High: ∆NBAg ≥ 70.0 MUS$/year.

4.8. ROBUSTNESS ASPECTS

The LEA outputs were analysed and examined to ensure that the selected option is not only the best under the median streamflow but also that it is also robust under the two dry years Dry 5 and Dry 10. Sensitivity analyses are carried out in addition to the LEA and pertain to the (i) uncertainty for the values of the irrigation efficiency and urban domestic water tariff, as well as to (ii) the effect of extended drought, as explained in section 4.1.4. Since the LEA analysis is carried out for one year following a normal period of median flows conditions, the additional extended drought analysis is a complement.

The objective of these two steps is to coin robust solutions. This selection acts as a kind of “insurance” for possible unfavorable future changes in streamflow as may be caused by anthropogenic influences in the upper catchments (catchment degradation) or climate change. As it is likely that it is not the first ranked option under median current conditions that is chosen, there is a theoretical cost of robustness related to this approach that is accepted in order to ensure the selected option functions under a variety of conditions.

Page 69 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

4.9. ASSUMPTIONS

Several assumptions had to be made in the modelling and analysis approach. Assumptions have been made based on best knowledge and feedback from stakeholders

Agriculture: • Intermediate technology (some mechanisation) • Baseline yields as a “consensus” across feasibility studies. • Yields increased by 20% with improved irrigation • On-farm unit prices and costs from Landell Mills Limited/ADB, 2009 • Irrigation efficiency of 25% in existing areas, and 30-40% in newly developed areas in accordance with the specific feasibiklity studies • Current cropping patterns as per respective feasibility study. • Future cropping patterns after new projects are the same as the current ones. • The irrigated areas are augmented as per feasibility studies. • Input and output prices are the same for all regions • Agricultural input costs and benefits are calculated based on units of land ($/ha) not on units of water as it could be expected on a hydrological model • Losses in agricultural revenues from water shortages are calculated using water demand coverage output from WEAP as a proxy for percentage revenue gains and land production. • Total land production is the sum of the land production for the following irrigated regions: Shomali and Kapisa, Shatoot Irrigation, Shigi, Great Gambiri, Lesser Gambiri, Jalalabad e Olya, Jalalabad e Sofla, Pol e Kama Irrigation 1, Gerdab, Goshta • Each irrigated region land production revenue is adjusted to the minimum water demand coverage of each crop to represent revenue losses from shortages in water and adjust those losses to the revenue calculations in WEAP that are based on land units

Hydropower: • Hydropower capacity as per respective feasibility studies. • Projected kWh tariff of 0.08 US$/kWh as a “consensus” value (see ‘Guidelines for Preparing & Evaluating an Economic Feasibility Study for Potential Water Development Projects’, Landell Mills Limited/AWARD, November 2012) and assumed equal between basin locations. • The benefit from hydropower is reduced by the loss of electricity supposed to occur during transmission to consumers. This loss is taken equal to 15% for year 2030 (Norconsult 2004). • Total Hydropower production is the sum of: - for new hydropower schemes: Shal, Konar A, Kama, Gulbahar, Gambiri, Baghdara option D1, Baghdara option A2, Surubi II stage 2, Surubi II stage 1, Shatoot - for existing hydropower schemes: Naghlu, Mahipar, Surubi I, Darunta, Chak-e-Wardak.

Potable Water: • Capacity for annual supply as per respective feasibility studies. • The amount of domestic water reaching the consumers from supply sources (e.g., Shatoot and Gulbahar) is reduced by the loss supposed to occur during water treatment and conveyance. This loss due to treatment is equal to 5% and the loss during the conveyance is taken equal to 25% and 20% for Old and New Kabul cities respectively for year 2030 (Beller et al. 2004, JICA 2009).

Page 70 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

• Urban domestic water tariff value of 0.50 US$/m3 as a “consensus” value (see ‘Guidelines for Preparing & Evaluating an Economic Feasibility Study for Potential Water Development Projects’, Landell Mills Limited/AWARD, November 2012), assumed equal between basin locations.

General • Basic capital costs as per respective feasibility studies. • Capital costs assume a standard 10% for engineering & construction supervision + 10% for contingencies (and no financing cost). • All investments are constructed and operational • Monetary value of investment costs are amortised on an annual basis over the expected project lifetime (50 years) with two approaches: with a 5% interest loan or with a grant. • Benefits from domestic water, irrigation, hydropower from each investment are materialised instantly.

Finances

See in Appendix 5.

Net Benefits • Total net benefits are calculated as the difference between the benefits from total energy revenue, irrigation benefit and old Kabul piped urban tariffs and the costs from total investment costs, pumping costs to old Kabul from Gulbahar pipeline and pumping cost from old Kabul piped from Shatoot. • Total investment costs are equal to the sum of total capital cost, total O&M costs and total land acquisition and resettlement costs. • Land acquisition and resettlement costs consist on the sum of the following costs depending on the type of investment: - Reservoir flood losses - Contingencies costs - Administration costs - Land acquisition - Resettlement costs - Environmental costs

4.10. INVESTMENT TRANCHES

Investment options were assessed in tranches in order to enable decision makers to select investment options that fit a certain budget. The investment tranches spanning from 0.5 BUS$ to more than 4.5 BUS$ were considered, with a step of 0.5 BUS$.

Investments were analysed regarding best benefits based on these investment tranches to find the best set of investments for a given investment tranche.

4.11. DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE

Optimum development sequences have been assessed based on the assumption that funds from a given investment tranche would not be spent instantly but over a period of time, i.e. that the

Page 71 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

investments identified in the assessment would be implemented in a sequence. In order to identify in which order the investments should be implemented a two step test sequence was established and used for analysis.

Question 1: is there a shortage of domestic water supply? -> Yes -> implement the asset that best satisfies the domestic water demand first -> No -> ask Q2

Question 2: which scheme has the highest net benefit -> Implement the scheme with the highest net benefit first

Questions about power- or food demand were specifically not asked as while there is information about hydropower demand, there is no information about food supply constraints. The analysis assumes that the respective decisions would be covered by cost/benefit aspects.

The test was applied for four development time steps (i.e. 2018, 2020, 2025 and 2030), considering the respective conditions and demands at the respective step in time. The first time step is 2018 to allow time for construction from the date of this report (2012).

4.12. LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

The assessments carried out to develop the investment plan (including economic assumptions, hydrologic assumptions and LEA model assumptions) are limited and carrying uncertainties related to the quality of the input data and resulting from the assumptions made to best depict mechanisms and interconnections. While care was taken to use the best available data and the analysis was carried out with due diligence, it needs to be understood that the results can only be as good as the present state of information and knowledge. For example, we cannot guarantee the reliability of the information in the feasibility studies provided to us. Indeed, some of these have been found to be weak based on a portfolio review conducted under the AWARD project in 2012. The results therefore contain unceratainties and limitations in their accuracy and applicability. It needs to be understood that during implementation of the recommendations constant monitoring will be necessary to be able to consider developments that are different from the assumptions (e.g. different population growth and demand numbers).

4.12.1. Limitations

Agricultural Sector

WEAP contains a detailed description of the input use, crop yield, input and output prices for agricultural production per irrigated sector/region. This information is a function of the regional production land, i.e. the farm fields in command areas which are actually producing based on water availability. Therefore, the minimum water demand coverage per year is used as a proxy to approximate the land production under water shortages as well as the revenues created. This type of analysis fails to capture the socio-economic decisions that farmers make under shortages which are based on cropping pattern change, input use change as well as fallowing land. Changes in cropping decisions and fallowing land affect return flows and hence the hydrology.

Page 72 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Hydropower Production

Hydropower production is driven by the expectation that all power produced in a given month can be sold at a fixed price of 0.08 US$/KWh. The implicit assumption in this formulation is that the demand exists to consume all of the electricity generated and that no other lower cost source of electricity is available to satisfy that demand.

Urban water sector

In most simulations and hereby, satisfaction of the water demand in Kabul city is represented as a constraint on water allocation. Stated another way, water delivery to Kabul has a higher priority than any other option. In WEAP this can be represented as providing the highest priority for water allocation to Old and New Kabul cities. However, WEAP would be able to assess the water supply levels versus the water demanded at different levels of water demand priority for Kabul. In this manner, the model can assess the trade-offs from relaxing the constraint to Kabul.

WEAP simulates the percentage of the water demands that are met and hence estimates the level of water demand shortages under different levels of priority allocation for all sectors. In addition, WEAP is run under the LEA and through sensitivity runs, which take into account the financial, hydrological, and performance effects of the different levels of priority between sectors under varying streamflows regimes. In this manner, te modelling approach selects the options that are under an optimal framework of performance but also selecting the options that are robust under the different streamflows.

4.12.2. Uncertainties

The approach followed in this study is part of one of the latest streams of ideas for robust decision making2. We have considerd the major uncertainties related to water resources management, in particular, future stream flows and operational rules of selected schemes. Apart from the systematic approach of varying these values, we have also carried out a sensitivity analysis for particularly important parameters such as irrigation efficiency, price of domestic water, and the occurrence of successive dry years. Nevertheless, all results of the assessment have to be treated with care with consideration of their sensitivity and, at the time of implementation, have to be adapted to best and updated knowledge at the time. In addition, uncertainty cannot be taken into account in its totality, as many other uncertain parameters are present.

4.13. PARTNERSHIP AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Stakeholders can be categorised as follows:

• National: Ministries and Government departments who are involved in decision making and implementation.

• Basin: Water users (farmers, residents, villagers), basin and sub basin councils, NGOs who are working at the community levels.

2 “Shaping the Next one Hundred Years” http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1626.pdf

Page 73 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Various stakeholders were consulted during the development of the investment plan. On the 28th of November 2012 a formal stakeholder consultation was conducted at national level, using a scheduled meeting of the Supreme Council of Water as part of preliminary stakeholder’s participation. Further details are as follows:

1. Supreme Council of Water (SCoW) The SCoW is chaired by the Vice President of Afghanistan and includes as members senior staff from a number of line Ministries (MEW, MAIL, Ministry of Urban Development, MRRD, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Mines and Industries, Ministry of Economy and the Mayor of Kabul) with a remit covering water issues. The main findings from this draft investment plan were presented to the SCW on 28th November 2012.

2. Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) The Deputy Minister and Planning Director of MEW was consulted for key decision making and scope of any change of the project. The MEW is interested to know the net benefits and impacts in the basin for different water infrastructure projects and their social environmental and trans-boundary impacts.

3. Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation (AUWSSC) AUWSSC is responsible for production and distribution of water to Kabul city. The WRPU team received important information on water tariffs, water losses, ground water exploitation, the present status of sewage disposal etc. This information was incorporated in the river basin planning model.

4. Kabul River Basin Agency: The meeting was held with the Director of Kabul RBA, Eng Maroof on 10.04.2012. He confirmed that the Investment plan will be interesting to their line of work as they are involved in the following three tasks. • Renovation of irrigation structure • Flood protection • Development of water resources.

Kabul RBA has provided important information on the present structure of the Kabul basin at institutional level. They also provided information on the status on flood protection, water abstraction from the rivers and groundwater.

5. Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA) JICA water team is working on three projects to plan water supply for New Kabul City. The team has shared information of their review of Gulbahar’s feasibility study and pre-feasibility study on Salang and on Panjshir Fan Aquifer. The study of Salang and the Panjshir Fan Aquifer is still in the draft form, so the results are not included in the investment plan.

6. Support for coordination on river basin planning As part of capacity building, AWARD has supported the MEW to coordinate between AWARD, the Helmand Basin Project and the Water Supply Improvement Project, to use WEAP for MEW wide basin modelling efforts as agreed in various meetings.

Informal meetings were also held with various line Ministires related to water management, and other stakeholders, as provided in APPENDIX 2: Stakeholders and contacts. In addition to the

Page 74 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

above stakeholder involvement it is recommended that MEW also undertake discussions with secondary stakeholders to inform them and gain feedback on the recommended investments contained in the plan.

Page 75 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5. SCENARIO ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

5.1. REFERENCE CASE

The Reference Case is defined as a projection of the year 2030 without construction of any of the new infrastructures explored in this assessment (see Section 4.3). Assessed combinations of new infrastructures examined in the LEA and sensitivity runs are compared to the Reference Case. The basic results for the Reference Case are summarised in the table below. The coverage of the old city domestic water demand (population connected to the municipal pipe system) is critical as less than 30% of the water demand is covered (about 0.9 million peoples out of 3.1 million). This coverage does not change with varying streamflows since, in the Reference Case, it is supplied by groundwater and this water resource is assumed being independent from streamflow regimes (see Section 3.1.2). The coverage of the New Kabul city domestic water demand is nill since the only infrastructure examined in this study that should supply this domestic water is the proposed Gulbahar scheme, which is not constructed in the Reference Case. It is reminded that there are other water supply projects for the New City (e.g., Panjshir Fan aquifer and Salang dam examined by JICA) but these were not included in this work since studies are ongoing and no finalised results were available at the time of this work. The equivalent coverage of the total demand from Old and New Kabul city is poor and smaller than 20%.

Table 14: Basic results for the Reference Case Streamflo Total Old Kabul city New Kabul city Total Old and New w regime hydropowe domestic water domestic water Kabul city domestic r water production Demand Populati Demand Populatio Demand Populatio (GWh/year) satisfaction on satisfactio n covered satisfactio n covered (%) covered n (%) (million) n (%) (million) (million) Median 577 27 0.9 0* 0* 18 0.9 Dry 5 517 27 0.9 0* 0* 18 0.9 Dry 10 491 27 0.9 0* 0* 18 0.9 * Other water supply projects were not included here since finalised results were not available at the time of this work.

The Hydropower production pattern in the Reference Case under the Median flow is illustrated in the figure below. It is the same as the one calibrated for the existing infrastructures (see section 4.3.1). Naghlu and Surubi I are the largest producing hydropower plants and the total electricity production at the basin scale is 572 GWh/year, far below the production target of 7,500 GWh/year (see Section 3.2.5).

Page 76 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 282 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Total 572

Figure 29: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow in the Reference Case

5.2. OVERVIEW OF THE SCENARIOS

The span of the performance metrics change in total NB, electricity production and change in agriculture NB under the Median flow is shown in the figures below. Logically, the change in total NB tends to increase with greater electricity production. The performance category of the four metrics defined in section 4.7 is based on these spans.

Figure 30: Span of the change in total net benefits ∆NB (y-axis) under the Median streamflow regime for all the investment options (x-axis). The colour is a function of ∆NB (increasing with darker tone).

Page 77 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 31: Span of the electricity production (y-axis) under the Median streamflow regime for all the investment options (x-axis). The colour is a function of ∆NB (increasing with darker tone).

Figure 32: Span of the change in agriculture net benefits ∆NBAg (y-axis) under the Median streamflow regime for all the investment options (x-axis). The colour is a function of ∆NB (increasing from yellow to brown)

At maximum, the electricity production equals 6,343 GWh/year, which is below the target for electricity production of 7,500 GWh/year. These results show that it will not be possible to attain the electricity production target with the examined set of new infrastructures. Importation (from

Page 78 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

other Afghan provinces and other countries) as well as production from other energy sources will be required to cover the projected demand.

Analysis results are broad and cover a wide range of conditions. The results are presented in the table below.

Table 15: Summary of results Investment Total Net Electricity Domestic Water Agriculture Tranche Benefit Production Coverage < 0.5 BUS$ Shatoot 0.5- 1.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot, Shatoot, plus either of Shatoot Gambiri Baghdara D1 the other three (i.e. No Gambiri Kama specific solution) Kama 1.0- 1.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot, plus either of Shatoot Gambiri the other four (i.e. No Gambiri Konar A specific solution) Kama Baghdara A2 1.5- 2.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri Gulbahar Gambiri Kama Kama Konar A Konar A 2.0-2.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri Gulbahar Kama Gambiri Baghdara D1 Kama Konar A 2.5-3.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri Baghdara D1 Gulbahar Kama Surubi II Gambiri Baghdara D1 Konar A Kama Konar A Konar A

3.0-3.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Baghdara D1 Gulbahar Surubi II Gambiri Gambiri Kama Kama Konar A Konar A 3.5-4.0 BUS$ Shatoot Gulbahar Baghdara D1 Gambiri Kama Konar A > 4.0 BUS$ With loan: Shatoot Shatoot, Gulbahar, plus With loan: Shatoot Gulbahar any combination of the Shatoot Gulbahar Baghdara D1 others (i.e. No specific Gulbahar Baghdara D1 Surubi II solution) Baghdara D1 Gambiri Gambiri Gambiri Kama Kama Kama Konar A Shal Konar A

Page 79 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

With grant: With grant: Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Gulbahar Baghdara D1 Baghdara D1 Surubi II Surubi II Gambiri Gambiri Kama Kama Shal Shal

5.3. PRIORITY FOR COVERAGE OF DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND

The priority, as determined by MEW, other stakeholders and ourselves, for all water infrastructure development is to satisfy as much as possible the domestic water demand for Old Kabul City which is already experiencing scarcity in the year 2012. It has been shown that, due to population growth, the situation would worsen in the Reference Case (year 2030). Therefore the investment options assessed in this report were selected with a piority to satisfy the domestic demand of Old Kabul City.

Among the new infrastructures analysed in this report, two schemes are planned to supply domestic water to old Kabul, namely Shatoot and Gulbahar. Shatoot has the smallest initial investment cost (362 MUS$), about four times smaller than Gulbahar (1,437 MUS$). Morevoer Gulbahar is expected to deliver water principally to the emerging New Kabul City and to a negligible extent to the old city, while Shatoot is dedicated to the old city (covering 87% of water demand). Therefore, due to these two elements and the priority to satisfy Old Kabul domestic water demand, the analysis concludes that the initial investment to be implemented in the basin should be Shatoot.

Shatoot will nevertheless not satisfy all the domestic water demand of the connected population of the old city. The demand will rise to about 117 Mm3/year in year 2030 (Figure 12) while Shatoot is expected to supply about 97 Mm3/year raw domestic water. In addition to this, New Kabul city is expected to develop, therefore Gulbahar is required to supplement the supply to the old city as well as to provide water to the new city (see Section 5.4.4).

5.4. ANALYSIS OF INVESTMENT TRANCHES

5.4.1. Investment tranche less than 0.5 BUS$

For an investment of 0.5 BUS$ at maximum, only one of the following schemes Shatoot, Baghdara A2, Kama or Gambiri could be built. From the performance analysis, the advisable scheme is Baghdara A2 for the largest increase in total net benefit or the largest electricity production, Shatoot for a significant improvement in domestic water coverage at Old Kabul city or Kama (with the operation rule n°1 which is an equal priority between irrigation and hydropower) for the largest increase in agriculture net benefit (see table below).

Page 80 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 16: Figures at the basin scale under the Median streamflow for an investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to net Priority to Priority to Priority to benefit of the hydropower water supply agriculture Kabul basin generation in coverage to NB in Kabul Kabul basin Kabul City basin Best infrastructure solutions Baghdara A2** Baghdara A2** Shatoot Kama 1

The total investment cost (MUS$) 475 475 362 341 Hydropower in the basin 1,429 (+874) 1,429 (+874) 575 (-2) 836 (+282) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 29.6 32.9 -0.8 23.7 net benefit With grant 46.1 64.4 11.8 31.4 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net benefit 0 0 -1.2 26.6 (MUS$/year) Old Kabul City Demand 27 27 87 27 connected satisfaction (%) population Population 0.9 0.9 2.7 0.9 domestic water covered (million) New Kabul City Demand 0* 0* 0* 0* domestic water satisfaction (%) Population 0* 0* 0* 0* covered (million) Total Old- and Demand 18 18 54 18 New Kabul City satisfaction (%) domestic water Population 0.9 0.9 2.7 0.9 covered (million) Performance Hydropower Low Low Low Low (see section Urban Low Low Medium Low 4.7) domestic water Ag NB change Low Low Low Low Total NB Medium Medium Low Low change Robustness For which Median Median 3 streamflows 3 streamflows streamflows is the investment option robust?** * Other water supply projects were not included here for New Kabul city since finalised results were not available at the time of this work ** We judge options to be robust if they are robust for at least two out of the three streamflows used for simulations (i.e. median, dry 5 and dry 10), although robustness for all three streamflows is obviously preferred. Thus Baghdara A2 listed above is not robust. In theory therefore Kama would be the robust option with the highest net benefit and highest hydropower generation. However, we include Baghdara here so that it can be compared with the metrics of other options, since only one of the schemes can be built in this tranche.

Page 81 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

As outlined in the section above, supply of domestic water to Old Kabul City is the main priority to be considered when choosing investment options. The coverage of the domestic water of Old Kabul city is critical in the Reference Case which shows that with the present water sources and expansion of the withdrawals from the available aquifers to the safe yield limit (43.8 Mm3/year) coverage of the domestic water of Old Kabul city will only amount to 27%. Shatoot is the only new asset which would improve significantly this situation. It is therefore advised to build Shatoot in this investment tranche. For higher investment tranches, the Shahtoot Dam is also maintained as an initial investment in the basin because of the priority of the supply of domestic water to Old Kabul city and the likely increased pressure on the nearby lower Logar Aquifer. While Gulbahar is also an option for supplying water to Old Kabul city in tranches above 1.5 BUS$, it is a scheme planned primarily for New Kabul city and the amount planned for Old Kabul City is negligible, while Shatoot covers 87% of the demand for Old Kabul city, thus Shatoot remains the initial investment. The optimum scheme combination of subsequent tranches thus depends on the preferences set for additional development priorities, i.e. for maximum net benefit, electricity production, water supply to New Kabul city or change in agricultural benefit. The government has not indicated which of these development priorities is preferred so we have listed the best performing infrastructure combinations for each priority.

In terms of performance, Shatoot’s settings for water allocation give priority equally to domestic water supply and minimum flow requirements. Second priority is equally irrigation, hydropower and filling the reservoir. Shatoot very significantly improves the situation for Old Kabul City, improving coverage from 27% (Reference Case) to 87%. The supplied population from Old Kabul City would increase from 0.9 million (Reference Case) to 2.7 million. Its performance specifically for Old Kabul City can be classied as high. However, the performance of Shatoot in terms of total urban domestic water coverage (old and new city) is medium since Shatoot is not planned to supply water to the new city and the total coverage for the old and new city is 54%.

The importance of the Shahtoot dam for domestic water supply increases even more considerably if we do not take the project in isolation but take into account the pressure on groundwater resources from other projects, in particular the Aynak mine. The Aynak mine is projected to withdraw its water resources from the Baghrami aquifer which is connected to the Lower Logar Aquifer (although it may instead or partially abstract from the Logar River). The total water requirement of the Aynak mine of 32 Mm3 annually exceeds the safe yield of the Lower Logar aquifer, which is estimated at 25.5 Mm3 annually. Therefore the Aynak mine will maximally withdraw 25.5 Mm3 from the Aquifers projected to supply domestic water to Kabul city. In absence of the Shatoot project or any other aquifer being developed for water supply, this would reduce the domestic water supply coverage to 12%.

Obviously a 12% coverage of domestic water supply would be disastrous for the development of the economy of old Kabul city. With full development of Shatoot and the use of the aquifers by the Aynak mine domestic water supply coverage would increase to 70%. An illustration of the effect of the Aynak mine on old Kabul domestic water supply for two different starting dates of Aynak mine operations is shown in the figures below. The figures clearly show the strong effect on domestic water supply as well as the effect of timing of the Aynak operations (here illustrated as assumed to start in 2015 or 2018) relative to the start of the Shahtoot operations. From comparision of the two figures it may be concluded that the importance of Shatoot increases with the start of operartions of Aynak mine and if Shatoot is contructed relatively early in the process the reduction of domestic coverage can best be accounted for.

Page 82 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

100%

90% From Surface Water Shatoot

80%

70% Aynak Mine developed in 2015 60%

50%

40%

30%

20% Coverageof Domesic Water Demand (Old city)

10%

0% 2012 2015 2018 2025 2030

Figure 33: Effect of Aynak mine water withdrawals on the Kabul Water Supply, assuming operation of the Aynak mine starts in 2015.

100%

90% From Surface Water Shatoot

80%

70% Aynak Mine developed in 2018 60%

50%

40%

30%

20% Coverageof Domesic Water Demand (Old city) 10%

0% 2012 2015 2018 2025 2030

Figure 34: Effect of Aynak mine water withdrawals on the Kabul Water Supply, assuming operation of the Aynak mine starts in 2018.

It should also be taken into consideration that the price of water used for mining operations can be much higher than for domestic water supply. Therefore the development of both the Aynak mine and the Shahtoot dam can benefit from cross subsidising and significantly increasing the economic feasilbility of the Shatoot storage dam project.

Page 83 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The performance of Shatoot for other aspects than domestic water supply is classified as low using our criteria (see section 4.7) and only results in a small change in total net benefit as compared to the Reference Case, mainly due to a decrease in agriculture net benefit due to reduced flows during the months of agricultural peak water requirement and in hydropower production due to a reduced inflow into Naghlu reservoir.

The purely economic performance of the scheme is classied as low (see table below). The change in total NB as compared to the Reference Case is approximately zero when financing with a loan, but is positive in case of a grant. The benefit from domestic water is the largest benefit and is equal to 27.9 MUS$/year (this benefit takes into account losses during the treatment process and in the Old Kabul City pipe system). As explained below, the agriculture net benefit is smaller than in the Reference Case because of the choice of priority for domestic water allocation and environmental flows. The benefit at the basin scale is slightly reduced as compared to the Reference Case since the operation of Shatoot leads to a reduction of Maidan River flow towards Naghlu reservoir.

However it needs to be emphasised that economic benefits such as a more productive population and lower health costs due to supply of safe drinking water have not been accounted for in the analysis due to unavailability fo reliable data. Inclusion of the direct benefits from a better water supply will significantly increase the actual net benefit of the project. These can partly be accounted for by putting a higher value on water, which we have done in any case as part of our sensitivity analysis (see section 5.6.1). Here we find that if the price of domestic water is increased to 1.00 US$/m3, then the net benefit increases to 27.9MUS$/yr with a loan and 40.5MUS$/yr with a grant (which is higher than for Kama, the other robust option in this tranche).

Table 17: Economic benefit of the Shatoot scheme (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot With Loan Without Loan Agriculture -1.2 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 0.0 12.6

The net benefit from the agriculture schemes around Shatoot would reduce by about 1.2 MUS$/year as compared to the Reference Case. This is due to two facts: (i) a large amount of water is diverted to Old Kabul city for domestic water supply and (ii) the minimum flow requirement imposed downstream of the dam and of the diversion for irrigation constraint further the amount of water available for irrigation.

In case of varying streamflows, the performance logically stays in the Low category for all the metrics, except for domestic water supply. It is noteworthy that the supply of domestic water is stable even during the flow Dry 10 with highest priority given to domestic water allocation as well as to maintaining a minimum flow downstream (see figure below). However the net benefit from agriculture reduces even further in the Dry 5 and Dry 10 flows as compared to the Reference Case as maintaining a minimum flow further constraints the supply of water to irrigation. The change in

Page 84 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

total NB decreases under Dry 5, due to decrease in agriculture net benefit, but increases under Dry 10 due to the release of the water stored in Shatoot reservoir (see figure below).

Figure 35: Performance under varying streamflows.

The storage quantities in reservoirs are shown in the figure below. It is reminded that the initial storage of existing and proposed reservoirs is supposed to be in equilibrium under the Median flow. The two dry flows Dry 5 and Dry 10 are used to model one drier year in a normal period and not a succession of dry years (see further below for successive droughts). The storage quantities logically reduce for the Dry 5 and Dry 10 flow regimes. The storage quantity at Naghlu reduces as compared to the Reference Case since the inflow in the reservoir is smaller with the diversion for urban domestic water supply at Shatoot. The storage at Shatoot never reaches the capacity and at maximum it equals little more than half of the capacity.

Figure 36: Storage in the reservoirs for the investment option Shatoot. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure.

Page 85 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Implementation of Shatoot results in little difference in the streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin as compared to the Reference Case (see figure below). Annually the flow is reduced by 84 Mm3 under the Median flow which is due to (i) the 97 Mm3/year being diverted at Shatoot for domestic water supply but (ii) being partly counterbalanced by an imposed minimum flow downstream of Shatoot, hence less water being allocated to irrigation downstream Shatoot. This reduction is concentrated in the month of June due to Naghlu reservoir, which takes a little more time to fill up in June as compared to the Reference Case. With drier flows, the reduction in streamflow at the outlet of the basin as compared to the Reference Case becomes less prominent as the initial storage in Shatoot is released to satisfy the minimum flow requirement downstream and Naghlu propagates this additional release. The modelling of Naghlu reservoir has been tuned as per past observation (cf. section 4.3.1) and is not optimised in this work for any new infrastructures upstream. For example in this case, Naghul does not store the additional water from Shatoot during dry flows to turbine it during winter.

Figure 37: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option Shatoot. The number mentioned in the graph is the change instreamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case.

In terms of the reliability of the Shatoot reservoir for supply of domestic water, in case of a single year of dry flow (Dry 5 or Dry 10), following a sequence of “normal” years, the coverage of domestic water is not impacted, as was stated above. This is however not the case for the continuous period of drought defined as a hypothetical case of three consecutive dry years: 1. a Dry 5 annual flow (inflow to Shatoot reservoir 96 Mm3/year), 2. followed by a Dry 10 annual flow (inflow to Shatoot reservoir 71 Mm3/year), 3. and finally a dry flow occurring every 3 years (inflow to Shatoot reservoir 111 Mm3/year).

At the beginning of the sequence, the storage in the reservoir is at equilibrium for a sequence of Median annual flows and equal to 114 Mm3, quite below the capacity of 250 Mm3. It reduces then reaching the inactive storage at the end of the 2nd year (see figure below). The 3rd being also a dry year it doesn’t recover as water is continued to be diverted to Old Kabul city and maintenance of a minimum flow downstream. The supply of domestic water as well as the satisfaction of the minimum flow is ensured in the 1st year and almost all the 2nd except except for the two last months where it drops to 40% as the storage in the reservoir is at the inactive level. In the following months of the 3rd year until March all the inflow to the reservoir is diverted to these two demands and the coverage increases with augmenting inflow. The coverage is re-established in the following months with augmenting inflow and storage in the reservoir but the situation is not secured as the storage is very low at the end of the 3rd year. To summarise, Shatoot is quite reliable if following a normal sequence of flow (ie Median flow) there are two years of drought in the magnitude of a Dry 5 flow followed by a Dry 10, but the situation becomes critical if the 3rd year is also a drought.

Page 86 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 38: Storage in the reservoir Shatoot, and coverage of the domestic water demand from the connected population of Old Kabul city and of the Minimum Flow requirement under the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3)

5.4.2. Investment tranche less than 1.0 BUS$

Selection of the best solutions

In this tranche the budget is not enough to build Gulbahar therefore there is no specific solution performing better than Shatoot alone (Medium category for urban domestic demand).

Table 18: Figures at the basin scale under the Median streamflow for an investment smaller than 1.0 BUS$. The number in bracket for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to net Priority to Priority to water Priority to benefit of the hydropower supply coverage agriculture Kabul basin generation in to New Kabul NB in Kabul Kabul basin City basin Best infrastructure solutions Shatoot, Shatoot No better solution Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Baghdara D1 (cannot build Gambiri 3, Kama 3 2 Gulbahar) Kama 3

The total investment cost (MUS$) 956 908 956 Hydropower in the basin 983 (+406) 1,580 (+1,003) 983 (+406) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 38.8 32.8 38.8 net benefit With grant 72.0 64.4 72.0 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net benefit 50.1 -1.2 50.1 (MUS$/year) Urban Water Coverage Same as for Shatoot alone (investment tranche < 0.5 MUS$) Performance Hydropower Low Low Low (see section 4.7) Urban Medium Medium Medium domestic water Ag NB Medium Low Medium change Total NB Medium Medium Medium change Robustness For which 3 streamflows 3 streamflows 3 streamflows streamflows

Page 87 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Priority to net Priority to Priority to water Priority to benefit of the hydropower supply coverage agriculture Kabul basin generation in to New Kabul NB in Kabul Kabul basin City basin is the investment option robust?

In case the investment in the basin is at maximum 1.0 BUS$, there are two advisable infrastructure combinations: • If the priority is on Total NB change and agricultural NB change: the best combination is [Shatoot, Gambiri and Kama], for a total initial cost of 956 MUS$, with Gambiri operated with the priority allocation rule n°3 (1st minimum flow requirement, 2nd hydropower, 3rd irrigation and 4th diversion to Darunta reservoir) and Kama with the priority rule n°3 (1st minimum flow requirement, 2nd irrigation and 3rd hydropower). The change in total net benefit as compared to the Reference Case is equal to +38.8 MUS$/year with a loan, or +72.0 MUS$/year with a grant, and the agriculture net benefit is +50.1 MUS$/year. The hydropower production is about 974 GWh/year, which is 419 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case. The solution is robust in the Low category for the hydropower metric and Medium category for the three metrics urban domestic water, agriculture NB change and total NB change. • If the priority is on Hydropower: Baghdara D1 should be built in association with Shatoot, and operated with the rule n°2 (1st equally minimum flow requirement and hydropower, 2nd filling the reservoir). The increase in total net benefit as compared to the Reference Case is equal to +32.8 MUS$/year with a loan, or +64.4 MUS$/year with a grant, and the change in agriculture net benefit is the same as for Shatoot alone (i.e. a reduction of about 1.2 MUS$/year) since Baghdara D1 has no agriculture component. The hydropower production is about 1,580 GWh/year, which is about 1,000 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case. The solution is robust in the Low category for the hydropower and change in agriculture NB metrics, and in the Medium category for urban domestic water and total NB change.

Details on the best solution for increase in total NB and agriculture NB: [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3]

The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Table 19: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3] Scheme Shatoot Gambiri 3 Kama 3 Priority for water 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow allocation 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower 2. Irrigation 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 3. Hydropower 2. Hydropower 4. Diversion Darunta 2. Reservoir

It is not possible to build Gulbahar in this investment tranche hence only Shatoot is the new infrastructure supplying domestic water to the connected population of Old Kabul City. The situation in terms of urban domestic water satisfaction is the same as for the previous investment category where only Shatoot is advised to be built.

Page 88 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The target for hydropower production is not met with this best option for an initial investment less than 1.0 BUS$. The performance in terms of electricity production is low as the total annual production is 983 GWh/year under the Median flow. Naghlu and Kama are the largest producing plants (see figure below). The monthly production is not significantly impacted with the run of river schemes Kama and Gambiri.

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 269 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambiri 159 Kama 249 Total 983

Figure 39: Monthly and annual electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]

The agricultural performance is rated as Medium, with an increase in agriculture net benefit of about 50.1 MUS$/year under Median flow. The satisfaction of irrigation demand is equal to 85% annually which is just slightly better than 84% in the Reference Case (see figure below). The increase in the agriculture water demand represents an augmentation of agriculture production as compared to the Reference Case, due to more irrigated areas with the scheme Kama and the creation of new irrigated areas with Gambiri. The shortage in August and July does not improve with [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] since this shortage occur in the Shamoli plain.

Figure 40: Agriculture water demand, supply and demand satisfaction in the Reference Case with the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3].

Page 89 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] is robust under varying streamflow as the electricity production, the agriculture net benefit and the total net benefit change little for the Dry 5 and Dry 10 streamflows (see table below). The performance of this combination stays in the category low hydropower metric and medium domestic water, agriculture NB change and total NB change. This stability is due to the schemes Gambiri and Kama which are located along the Konar river with its relative small variability in flow. The very little variation in agriculture net benefit is due to the decrease at Shatoot while the agriculture net benefit does not vary at Kama and Gambiri.

Table 20: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Electricity production 983 (+406) 911 (+394) 879 (+388) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 38.8 37.3 37.2 net benefit With grant 72.0 70.6 70.4 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 49.6 49.6 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic budget for Shatoot is the same as in the case where it is the only new scheme built (investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The schemes Gambiri, operated with the water allocation rule n°3 (priority first for hydropower, followed by irrigation and lastly for diversion to Darunta reservoir), and Kama, operated with the water allocation rule n°3 (priority first for irrigation then for hydropower), each have a positive economic budget (see figure below). Kama 3 has the highest change in net benefit, with the highest revenue from agriculture. Gambiri 3 has a similar increase in net benefit for the agriculture but its revenue from hydropower is smaller.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gambiri 3 With Loan Without Loan With Loan With Grant Agriculture -1.2 Agriculture 25.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Reservoir -1.7 O&M Canal -3.1 Total 0.0 12.6 Total 18.4 27.2 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Kama 3 With Loan With Grant Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 17.0 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M Canal -1.6 Total 21.5 33.4 Figure 41: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the Median flow

The situation for the storage in the reservoirs is the same as for when Shatoot is built alone. The streamflow at the outlet of the basin decreases slightly in the month of June and July (see figure below), due to irrigation of additional lands in Gambiri and Kama schemes. This variation is however negligible compared to the natural inter-annual variation of streamflows. In the case of

Page 90 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Dry 5 or Dry 10, the storage in Shatoot and Naghlu compensates for the drier flow and the is no difference in the flow as compared to the Reference.

Figure 42: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]. The number mentioned in the graph is the change streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

Details on the best solution for hydropower: [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2]

The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Table 21: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2] Scheme Shatoot Baghdara D1 2 Priority for water 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow allocation 1. Minimum flow 1. Hydropower 2. Irrigation 2. Filling reservoir 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir

The situation in terms of urban domestic water satisfaction is the same as for the previous investment category where only Shatoot is advised to be built.

The performance in terms of electricity production is low with a total annual production of about 1,600 GWh/year under the median flow. The additional production from Baghdara D1 is however significant as compared to the Reference Case, with a seasonal pattern for production and in particular an increase in winter production (see the figure below). This is due to the plant factor chosen for Baghdara D1 in the WEAP modelling, with an operation aiming at generation for winter season. The operation of Baghdara D1 also has a positive impact on the downstream Naghlu reservoir/dam, resulting in an increase in production as compared to the Reference Case.

Page 91 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 314 Shatoot 11 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Darunta 54 Baghdara D1 960 Total 1,580

Figure 43: Monthly and annual electricity production from Hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2]

Since Baghdara D1 has no agriculture component, the agricultural performance is low, the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone.

The performance of the investment option [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2] is quite variable under varying streamflows. The change in total NB decreases from the median to Dry 5 regime with the reduction in electricity production (see table below).

Table 22: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Electricity production 1,580 (+1,003) 1,422 (+905) 1,352 (+861) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 32.8 25.6 22.5 net benefit With grant 64.4 57.1 54.1 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net -1.2 -1.9 -2.0 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic budget for Shatoot is the same as in the case where it is the only new scheme built (investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The economic budget of Baghdara D1 is significantly positive with revenue from hydropower (see figure below).

Page 92 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot With Loan Without Loan Change in NB (MUS$/year) Baghdara D1 2 Agriculture -1.2 With Loan With Grant Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 65.3 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -5.3 -1.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Capital Cost -24.7 -9.0 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M -4.5 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 30.8 49.8 Total 0.0 12.6 Figure 44: Economic budget of [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the median flow

The storage in reservoirs is shown in the figure below. The storage in Naghlu is influenced by the reservoir Baghdara D1 upstream, with in particular an increase during winter, due to releases from Baghdara D1, and a decrease during summer for the regimes Dry 5 and Dry 10 as Baghdara D1 releases less water during this period to fill-up. The operation of Naghlu is taken the same as was observed in the past, therefore the reservoir does not make use of the additional water available in winter neither readjust its hydropower pattern in summer to account for the filling of Baghdara D1. Moreover, the allocation rule n°2 for Baghdara D1 is fixed along the year, which causes the storage in the reservoir to hit the inactive zone during winter. A suitable use would be obtained by further optimising this set of infrastructure, for instance with an allocation rule changing every month as a function of the inflow and the requirement for electricity production, but this tuning is beyond the scope of this work. The total storage in the basin (Naghlu, Shatoot and Baghdara D1) is almost double with the construction of Baghdara D1.

Figure 45: Storage in the reservoirs for the investment option [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2]. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure. The storage for Shatoot is the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone.

Page 93 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The impact on the streamflow at the outlet of the basin is a decrease of streamflow (see figure below) but to an insignificant magnitude in comparison with the inter-annual variation of the river flow. The flow in Dry 5 and Dry10 is almost not modified as compared to the Reference Case at the cost of water stored in the basin, especially at Naghlu.

Figure 46: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2]. The number mentioned in the graph is the change in streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

The reliability of the reservoir Baghdara D1 to produce electricity is examined with the sequence of 3 dry years defined for the Panjshir River: 1. a dry flow occurring every 3 years (inflow to Baghdara D1 reservoir 2,640 Mm3/year), 2. followed by a very dry flow occurring every 22 years (inflow to Baghdara D1 reservoir 1,950 Mm3/year), 3. and finally a dry flow occurring every 6 years (inflow to Baghdara D1 reservoir 1,930 Mm3/year).

The combination advised above is with water allocation rule n°2 for Baghdara D1, which gives higher priority to hydropower over filling the reservoir. It was shown that although this rule implies a greater electricity production at the basin scale (ie with production at Naghlu downstream) and therefore a greater benefit, it is less stable to varing streamflow since filling the reservoir has low priority. As a consequence the operation rule n°1 (same priority for filling than hydropower) was considered as well for these 3 years runs.

Under the rule n°2 the reservoir gets emptied in the 2nd year and the storage equals the inactive zone for most of the year (see figure below). Under the rule n°1 the storage never reaches the inactive zone and is substantially greater. In term of electricity production, the difference is not as prominent for the annual production though the production is slightly greater and more stable under the rule n°1 (see table below). The difference is predominantly during winter: on the one hand the rule n°2 enables a greater production part of the winter but on the other hand this production it is not stable under dry flow and it can drop below the one of the rule n°1 in case of continued drought.

Page 94 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 47: Storage in the reservoir Baghdara D1 and production of electricity under the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules.

Table 23: Annual electricity production at Baghdara D1 under the Median flow, the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules. Electricity Median 3-years dry period production Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (GWh/year) Baghdara D1 2 960 927 736 735 Baghdara D1 1 962 933 754 846

To summarise this reliability analysis, the operation rule n°2 for Baghdara D1 (higher priority for hydropower than for filling the reservoir) is advisable for normal (with isolatated drought years) or wet periods to enable production during winter and greater water releases from Baghdara D1 reservoir for further production at the downstream Naghlu dam. However in case of continuous dry period the operation rule n°1 (same priority for hydropower and filling the reservoir) is more reliable. It is obvious that this operation policy should be adjusted as per actual conditions.

5.4.3. Investment tranche less than 1.5 BUS$

Selection of the best solutions

Table 24: Figures at the basin scale under the median streamflow for an investment smaller than 1.5 BUS$. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to Priority to Priority to Priority to net benefit of hydropower water supply agriculture the Kabul generation in coverage to NB in Kabul basin Kabul basin New Kabul basin City Best infrastructure solutions No better Shatoot Shatoot solution (cannot Gambiri 3 Gambiri 3 build Gulbahar) Kama 3 Konar A 2 Baghdara A2

The total investment cost (MUS$) 1,491 1,431 Hydropower in the basin 3,077 1,857 (+1,280) (GWh/year) (+2,500 GWh/year) Change in total With loan 122.0 68.3 net benefit With grant 173.9 118.1

Page 95 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

(MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net benefit 23.6 50.1 (MUS$/year) Urban Water coverage Same as for Shatoot alone (investment tranche < 0.5 MUS$) Performance Hydropower Medium Low (see section 4.7) Urban Medium Medium domestic water Ag NB change Low Medium Total NB Medium Medium change Robustness For which 3 streamflows 3 streamflows streamflows is the investment option robust?

In the investment tranche less than 1.5 BUS$, there is no better solution for domestic supply than Shatoot being built alone since the fund is not enough to build Gulbahar in addition to Shatoot. The infrastructure [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] is the best solution for the increase in total NB and electricity production while the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2] is the best solution for increase in agriculture NB.

Details on the best solution for total NB change and hydropower: [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Konar A 2]

The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Table 25: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Konar A 2] Scheme Shatoot Gambiri 3 Konar A 2 Priority for water 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Hydropower allocation 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower 1. Minimum flow 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 2. Reservoir 2. Hydropower 4. Diversion Darunta 2. Reservoir

The coverage of the urban water demand is the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone, with in particular a supply of domestic water to about 2.7 million inhabitants in Old Kabul city (87% of the connected population).

The performance in terms of electricity production is medium and production is about 3,077 GWh/year under the median flow, which is 2,500 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case. The target for energy production of year 2030 (7,480 GWh/year) is not met with this option. Konar A is by far the largest producing plant and has a strong seasonal pattern with an increased production during the winter season (see figure below). This winter production is controlled by the particular value of the Konar A plant factor.

Page 96 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 269 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambiri 159 Konar A 2,343 Total 3,077

Figure 48: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]

The agriculture performance is low with an increase in agriculture net benefit of about 23.6 MUS$/year under median flow. The satisfaction of the agriculture demand is the same as in the Reference Case with however a small increase in agriculture water demand which is supplied, i.e irrigated areas, due to new irrigated areas with the Gambiri scheme (see figure below).

Figure 49: Agriculture water demand, supply and demand satisfaction in the Reference Case and with the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri3 and Konar A 2].

The investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] is robust under varying streamflow as the electricity production, the agriculture net benefit and the total net benefit change little for the Dry 5 and Dry 10 streamflows (see table below). The performance of this combination stays in the category low agriculture NB change, medium domestic water change, medium hydropower change and medium total NB change. This stability is due to the schemes Gambiri and Konar A which are located along the Konar River which has a relative small variability in flow. The very little variation in agriculture net benefit is due to the decrease at Shatoot while the agriculture net benefit does not vary at Gambiri.

Page 97 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 26: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] under varying streamflow. The number in bracket for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 3,077 (+2,500) 2,975 (+2,457) 2,922 (+2,431) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 122.0 118.6 117.0 net benefit With grant 173.9 170.4 168.8 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 23.6 23.0 23.0 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic budget for Shatoot is the same as in the case where it is the only new scheme built (investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$). Both the schemes Gambiri, operated with the water allocation rule n°3, and Konar A, operated with the water allocation rule n°2, have individually a positive economic budget (see figure below). The increase in net benefit for Konar A 2 is large with important new revenue from hydropower. This increase is much smaller for Gambiri 3, for which the main revenue is from agriculture.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gambiri 3 With Loan Without Loan With Loan With Grant Agriculture -1.2 Agriculture 25.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Canal -3.1 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 18.4 27.2 Total 0.0 12.6 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Konar A 2 With Loan With Grant Hydropower 159.3 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -12.0 -4.4 Capital Cost -36.0 -13.1 O&M -6.6 Total 104.7 135.2 Figure 50: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the Median flow

The situation of the storage in reservoirs is shown in the figure below. The storage at Naghlu and Shatoot is the same as in the case when Shatoot is built alone (Section 5.4.1). The storage in Konar A decreases importantly during the winter due to the chosen water allocation rule n°2, for which releasing water through the turbines has a higher priotity than storing water. As for the previous cases, this operation could be improved in a further study, in particular with a monthly pattern to maximise the generation of electricity during winter. The total storage in the basin (Shatoot, Naghlu and Konar A) increases significantly with the construction of Konar A.

Page 98 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 51: Storage in the reservoirs for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure. The storage for Shatoot and Naghlu is the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone.

The impact on flow at the outlet of the basin is significant seasonally but insignificant on the annual flow. The flow is strongly increased in the months of January and in particular February, with a flow two to three times higher, which is due to the releases from the dam Konar A to produce electricity during winter. On the contrary, the river flow is diminished during the months of April to June, which is due to the filling of the reservoir Konar A. This pattern becomes even more prominent with drier flows. Annually, the release and storage at Konar A reservoir compensate each other and there is eventually an unsignificant reduction of streamflow due to the increased irrigation at Gambiri (see figure below).

Figure 52: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]. The number mentioned in the graph is the change in streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

The reliability of the reservoir Konar A and Gambiri is examined with the sequence of 3 dry years defined for the Konar River: 1. a dry flow occurring every 16 years (inflow to Konar A reservoir 8,680 Mm3/year), 2. followed by Dry 5 (inflow to Konar A reservoir 10,020 Mm3/year), 3. and finally a dry flow occurring every 8 years (inflow to Konar A reservoir 9,630 Mm3/year).

Similarly to the analysis for Baghdara D1 (combination [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2], investment tranche smaller than 1.0 BUS$), the operation rule n°1 (same priority for filling than hydropower) for Konar A is also investigated.

The performance of Gambiri is constant during the 3 years of the dry spell, since its technical specifications is significantly below the flow of the Konar river, even during the very dry flow of the 1st year. Hence there are two conclusions possible: (i) Gambiri is extremely reliable or (ii) the technical specifications (diversion of 50 m3/s) of the available feasibility study at the time of this work (Toossab, 2008) are underrated. Discussions with different stakeholders, in particular with the

Page 99 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

MEW and Toossab, indicate that the proposed maximum diversion is 100 m3/s in the current design stage.

The storage of Konar A under the continuous three dry years for the operation rule n°2 is not very different than after one single dry year and therefore the electricity production is quite stable as well (see figure and table below). The comparison of the operation rule n°1 and n°2 shows that the storage is significantly greater under the rule n°1 but the electricity production is greater under the rule n°2, especially in winter, and is stable during the continuous 3 dry years. Eventually Konar A appears extremely reliable under continuous drought, even with the operation rule n°2 giving higher priority for hydropower than filling the reservoir.

Figure 53: Storage in the reservoir Konar A and production of electricity under the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules

Table 27: Annual electricity production at Konar A under the Median flow, the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules. Electricity Median 3-years dry period production Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (GWh/year) Konar A 2 2,343 2,225 2,283 2,274 Konar A 1 2,218 2,068 2,151 2,141

Details on the best solution for total NB change and hydropower: [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2]

The details for this solution are the same as for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] (Section 5.4.2) except with additional electricity production with the construction of Baghdara A2 and a consequent increase in total NB change. It is reminded that Baghdara A2 functions similarly to a run-of-river scheme hence it has no significant storage neither does it modify the river flow. The priority for water allocation in this combination is reminded in the table below.

Table 28: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2] Scheme Shatoot Gambiri 3 Kama 3 Baghdara A2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow water allocation 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower 2. Irrigation 1. Reservoir 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 3. Hydropower 2. Hydropower 2. Hydropower 4. Diversion Darunta 2. Reservoir

Page 100 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The performance in terms of electricity production is low with a total of 1,857 GWh/year under the median flow, which is 1,280 more than in the Reference Case. Baghdara A2 is the most producing plant and almost doubles the production of the [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] solution. The monthly pattern for production is also more contrasted, following the flow pattern of the Panjshir river.

The investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2] (see figure below) has inherited the robustness of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] with a little more variability at Baghdara A2 along the Panjshir River, hence in electricity production (see table below).

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 269 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambiri 159 Kama 249 Baghdara A2 874 Total 1,857

Figure 54: Monthly and annual electricity production from hydropower in the median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2]

Table 29: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Electricity production 1;857 (+1,280) 1,691 (+1,174) 1,627 (+1,136) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 68.3 60.5 58.1 net benefit With grant 118.1 110.2 107.9 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 49.6 49.6 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic budget for the individual schemes Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3 is the same as in the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]. Additional to these is the positive budget of Baghdara A2 with its revenue from electricity which increases the total NB change (see the figure below).

Page 101 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gambiri 3 With Loan Without Loan With Loan With Grant Agriculture -1.2 Agriculture 25.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Canal -3.1 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 18.4 27.2 Total 0.0 12.6 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Kama 3 Baghdara A2 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 59.5 Hydropower 17.0 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.8 -1.7 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -21.3 -7.8 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M -3.9 O&M Canal -1.6 Total 29.5 46.1 Total 21.5 33.4 Figure 55: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the Median flow

5.4.4. Investment tranche less than 2.0 BUS$

Selection of the best solutions

Table 30: Figures at the basin scale under the median streamflow for an investment smaller than 2.0 BUS$. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to Priority to Priority to Priority to net benefit of hydropower water supply agriculture the Kabul generation in coverage to NB in Kabul basin Kabul basin New Kabul basin City Best infrastructure solutions Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot, Gambiri 3 Gulbahar 6 Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Konar A 2 The total investment cost (MUS$) 1,832 1,799 1,832 Hydropower in the basin 3,369 981 (+404) 3,369 (+2,793) (GWh/year) (+2,793) Change in total net With loan 146.5 19.5 146.5 benefit (MUS$/year) With grant 210.2 82.0 210.2 Change in agriculture net benefit 50.1 58.2 50.1 (MUS$/year) Old Kabul City Demand 87 connected satisfaction population (%) domestic water Population 2.7 covered Same as for (million) Same as for Shatoot alone Shatoot alone New Kabul City Demand 87 domestic water satisfaction (%) Population 1.6 covered

Page 102 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

(million) Total Old- and Demand 87% New Kabul City satisfaction domestic water (%) Population 4.3 covered (million) Performance Hydropower Medium Low Medium (see section 4.7) Urban Medium High Medium domestic water Ag NB change Medium Medium Medium Total NB High Low High change Robustness For which 3 streamflows Median & Dry 3 streamflows streamflows is 5 the investment option robust?

For an initial investment of maximum 2.0 BUS$, it is possible to build Gulbahar in addition to Shatoot for a total investment cost of 1,799 MUS$ and therefore to cover better the domestic demand from the connected population of old Kabul city and additionally of the population of New Kabul City. Gulbahar does not lead to much improvement in supply of the old city as it mainly supplies New Kabul City. The total coverage (Old- and New Kabul City) improves from 18% (0.9 million people) to 87% (4.3 million people) compared to the Reference Case. The best operation policy for Gulbahar is the allocation rule n°6 (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd irrigation, 3rd equally hydropower and filling the reservoir). The increase in total net benefit as compared to the Reference Case is 19.5 MUS$/year (with loan) and in agriculture net benefit is 58.2 MUS$/year. The hydropower production is about 981 GWh/year, which is 404 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case.

In case the priority is on the economic and hydropower metrics, the advisable infrastructure combination is [Shatoot, Gambiri, Kama and Konar A], for a total initial cost of 1,832 MUS$. Gambiri should be operated with the allocation rule n°3 (1st minimum flow requirement, 2nd hydropower, 3rd irrigation and 4th diversion to Darunta reservoir), Kama with the rule n°1 (1st minimum flow requirement, 2nd equality between irrigation and hydropower) and Konar A with the rule n°2 (1st equally hydropower and minimum flow requirement, 2nd filling the reservoir). The increase in agriculture net benefit is not as great for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Konar A 2] as for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] under the median flow, but it is more stable under varying streamflow, and eventually [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Konar A 2] is advised for improvement in agriculture.

Details on the best solution for domestic supply: [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]

If the priority is on satisfying as much as possible the domestic water demand, the investment option [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] is advisable. The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Page 103 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 31: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] Scheme Shatoot Gulbahar 6 Priority for water 1. Domestic 1. Domestic allocation 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow 2. Irrigation 2. Irrigation 2. Hydropower 3. Hydropower 2. Reservoir 3. Reservoir

Concerning the coverage of the domestic water demand of Old Kabul City, it improves very little as compared to the case when Shatoot is built alone: the coverage stays equal to 87% (2.7 million people). The progress is much more visible for New Kabul City with zero coverage in the Reference Case compared to 87% (1.6 million people) coverage with the construction of Gulbahar. In the WEAP model the priority for water allocation is the same to supply domestic water to Old- and New Kabul City, therefore both demands are satisfied equally, to a magnitude of 87%. In the model, Gulbahar predominantly provides water to the new city, which is in line with the JICA (2012) study which plans that Gulbahar will principally supply the new city and only a small part of the old city.The total coverage of the new and old city improves dramatically as well from 18% in the Reference Case (0.9 million people) to 87% (4.3 million people) when [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] are built.

The electricity performance is in the low category with a production of 981 GWh/year under the Median flow. Gulbahar generates most of the electricity, followed by Naghlu. The production at Naghlu is a little increased as compared to the Reference Case. The production pattern is seasonally varying with high production during the summer and less in the winter. Under the rule n°6 Gulbahar does not attempt to produce electricity during the winter as its priority is to satisfy irrigation after the supply of domestic water (see figure below).

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 310 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gulbahar 365 Total 981

Figure 56: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6]

The agriculture performance is medium with an increase in agriculture net benefit of about 58.2 MUS$/year under the median flow. The pattern of the agriculture water demand is significantly different compared to the Reference Case due to the construction of Gulbahar which will supply irrigation water to the Shomali and Kapisa irrigated plains, which are the largest irrigated schemes

Page 104 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

in the basin. The coverage is improved during the late summer months though it is worse during the spring due the little water available in Gulbahar reservoir and the minimum flow requirement imposed downstream of the irrigated scheme. Eventually the annual satisfaction of irrigation is better with this investment option (89%) as compared to the Reference Case (84%). There is a small increase in agriculture water demand as the irrigated area is increased after the construction of Gulbahar (see figure below).

Figure 57: Agriculture water demand, supply and demand satisfaction in the Reference Case and with the investment option [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6].

The combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] is not stable under varying streamflows and is only robust for the flow Dry 5 in the category low for hydropower and low for total NB change, medium for agriculture NB change and high for domestic water (see table below). In particular the total net benefit becomes smaller than in the Reference Case for the Dry 5 and Dry 10 streamflows (with a loan).

Table 32: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] under varying streamflow. The number in bracket for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case. Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 963 (+387) 830 (+313) 794 (+304) (GWh/year) Change in With loan 19.5 -10.9 -23.9 total net With grant 82.0 51.6 38.7 benefit (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 58.2 33.0 21.6 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic budget for Shatoot is the same as in the case where it is the only new scheme built (investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The scheme Gulbahar operated with the allocation rule n°6 has a positive change in total net benefit as compared to the Reference Case under the median flow (see figure below). Its main revenue is from agriculture, followed by domestic water and lastly from hydropower. In the case of an investment with a loan, the annualised capital cost is important therefore the net benefit is very sensitive to the flow and becomes negative in case of Dry 5 or Dry 10 flow as explained above. Providing domestic water is the second benfit for Gulbahar (30.7 MUS$/year) but this is associated with pumping costs to convey the water to Old- and New Kabul

Page 105 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

City treatment plant with associated costs (9.6 MUS$/year), therefore the net benefit is respectively reduced (21.2 MUS$/year). It is interesting to examine if the economic budget of Gulbahar would improve if it would not provide domestic water to New Kabul City and would use the additional water for electricity or agriculture production – this is examined in section 5.5 and we find that in fact producing electricity at Gulbahar will never be as profitable as supplying domestic water, even with high pumping costs, unless there is a substantial increase in the electricity tariff (which is unlikely since the tariff is then likely to be above world prices and it would be better then to import). This finding reinforces the decision to impose supply of domestic water as a first priority based on social needs, but also economic needs.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gulbahar 6 With Loan Without Loan With Loan Without Loan Agriculture -1.2 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Agriculture 59.6 Hydropower 0.8 Hydropower 24.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 O&M Domestic -5.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 Total 0.0 12.6 O&M -9.2 Total 17.7 67.7 Figure 58: Economic budget of [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case under Median flow)

The situation of the storage in reservoirs is shown in the figure below. The storage at Shatoot is the same as in the case when Shatoot is built alone (section 5.4.1). The storage in Naghlu is influenced by the reservoir Gulbahar upstream, with in particular an increase during winter, due to releases from Gulbahar during summer under the Median flow (for irrigation). However, the storage reduces drastically in summer in case of Dry 5 or Dry 10, reaching the inactive storage, since Gulbahar releases less water during this period to replenish the reservoir and the operation of Naghlu is kept the same as was observed in the past, in particular with less priority to fill the reservoir as compared to producing electricity. At Gulbahar, the reservoir levels are drawn down for release of irrigation water in summer resulting in low levels almost all the year. This results in high vulnerability to varying streamflow as shown above with the unstable economic performance. If robustness would be the first criteria then a solution giving a higher priority to filling the reservoir would have been selected, at the cost of benefit generation under the median flow (see extended drought analysis below).

Page 106 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 59: Storage in the reservoirs for the investment option [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure. The storage for Shatoot is the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone

The implementation of the investment option would result in a slight decrease of streamflow at the outlet of the basin (see figure below) concentrated under the Median flow in the month of June and July for three reasons: (i) the high flows of the river are impacted by the filling of the reservoir Gulbahar and Naghlu, (ii) irrigation demand at Gulbahar peaks during these two months and (iii) the constraint for minimum flow downstream of Gulbahar and of the diversion for irrigation to Shamoli plain limits the impact during the low flow season. In case of occurrence of one year of drier flow, the storage in Naghlu compensates and there is little impact at the outlet. It is reminded that the operation of Naghlu reservoir here is based on historical observations and is not optimises to account for the presence upstream of Gulbahar.

Figure 60: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]. The number mentioned in the graph is the change in streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case.

The reliability of the reservoir Gulbahar is examined with the sequence of 3 dry years defined for the Panjshir River: 1. a dry flow occurring every 3 years (inflow to Gulbahar reservoir 1,552 Mm3/year), 2. followed by a very dry flow occurring every 22 years (inflow to Gulbahar reservoir 1,068 Mm3/year), 3. and finally a dry flow occurring every 6 years (inflow to Gulbahar reservoir 1,315 Mm3/year).

The sequence of 3 consecutive dry years was also imposed to Shatoot, as was applied for the case Shatoot alone (cf. section 5.4.1), in order to gauge the capacity of the system [Shatoot and Gulbahar] to supply domestic water in a regional dry hydrological spell.

The combination advised above is with water allocation rule n°6 for Gulbahar which, after supplying domestic water and satisfying the minimum flow requirement downstream, gives higher priority to irrigation over filling the reservoir and hydropower. It was shown that although this rule

Page 107 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

implies a greater total and agriculture net benefit under the median flow, it is less stable under varing streamflow since filling the reservoir has low priority. As a consequence the operation rule n°5 (same priority for irrigation than filling the reservoir, last hydropower) was considered as well for these 3 years runs.

The storage in the reservoir logically hits often the inactive storage under the operation rule n°6, in particular almost all of the 2nd year, as it is already reaching this low level under Median flow (see figure below). Under the operation rule n°5 it is significantly greater all along the year and in particular never reaches the inactive level. In terms of domestic supply to the connected population of Old Kabul city, Gulbahar improves the coverage at the end of the 2nd year / beginning of 3rd year as compared to the case of Shatoot alone (see figure below), though not up to the normal level (87%). The operation rule of Gulbahar has no impact on this coverage. The difference in supply of domestic water to the New city for the two operation rules is in the winter month of the 2nd year: while the supply is not affected under the rule n°5, it is reduced under the rule n°6 since the reservoir is at the inactive level and the 2nd year is a severe drought. For both operation rules the supply to the New city is reduced at the end of the 2nd year / beginning of the 3rd since more of the 100 Mm3 of water diverted from Gulbahar for domestic supply are allocated to Old Kabul city so as to supplement the supply deficit from Shatoot in these months. Eventually the rule n°5 ensures a better coverage of the domestic demand under droughts period.

Page 108 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 61: Situation for the reservoir Gulbahar under the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules.

The satisfaction of a minimum flow downstream of the reservoir and of the diversion for irrigation has the same high priority as supply for domestic water at Gulbahar. The minimum flow is satisfied throught the dry spell under the rule n°5 while there are shortages under the rule n°6.

The critical season for coverage of the irrigation demand of Shamoli plain and Kapisa region is April – May for winter wheat and the summer months for the other crops (summer crops such as vegetables or maize, and perennial crops such as grape and orchards). The rule n°5 tends to be better for winter wheat, while the rule n°6 tends to be better for the other crops though the coverage is highly fluctuating. In terms of reliability, the rule n°5 is better: it does not ensure a full coverage, i.e. the supply of irrigation water to all of the command areas, but the supply is significantly more reliable. In practical terms, the rule n°5 implies a coordinated management of the cropping patterns in the command areas (in particular cropped lands vs. fallow lands) with the operation of the reservoir (i.e. its water releases) as a function of the storage.

The electricity production is greater as well with the operation rule n°5 (see figure above and table below). Eventually, Gulbahar is a reliable scheme under a severe 3-years drought. Its operation rule n°6 (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd irrigation, 3rd equally hydropower and filling the reservoir) has the greatest performance under a “normal” regime (ie. a Median flow or 1 year of Dry 5) but it is advisable to operate it under the protective rule n°5 (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd equally irrigation and filling the reservoir, 3rd hydropower) for better reliability.

Table 33: Annual electricity production at Gulbahar under the Median flow, the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules Electricity Median 3-years dry period production Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (GWh/year) Gulbahar 6 365 352 242 274 Gulbahar 5 391 384 320 335

It is noteworthy that the analysis above for a single year and especially for an extended drought shows that the allocation of 100 Mm3/year from Gulbahar reservoir for domestic water supply is not enough. Taking the assumption that it would be technically possible to augment this supply (e.g., conveyance pipe, pumps) the allocated amount could be increased for a better coverage of the domestic water from Old and New Kabul city. For instance an allocation of 150 Mm3/year might cover all the demand under a “normal” regime and 200 Mm3/year might secure further the coverage under extended drought spell, when Shatoot fails. This additional allocation of 50 or 100

Page 109 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Mm3/year is a small amount compared to the median flow of the Panjshir river (about 1,700 Mm3/year) and would have little negative impact on the irrigation coverage or electricity produced. Moreover, as will be shown in section 5.5, domestic water is actually a rentable use of water, more than hydropower.

Details on the best solution for economic and hydropower performances: [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]

The priority for water allocation in this combination is reminded in the table below.

Table 34: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] Scheme Shatoot Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow 1. Hydropower water allocation 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower 2. Irrigation 1. Minimum flow 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir 2. Hydropower 4. Diversion Darunta 2. Reservoir

The coverage of the domestic water for Old Kabul City is 87% and is similar to the case where only Shatoot is built.

The hydropower performance is in the medium category with the large production from Konar A operated by the allocation rule n°2. The annual production however is below the target of 7,500 GWh/year under the Median flow despite winter production at Konar A 2 being increased. The electricity generation is relatively homogenous for Kama 1 and Gambiri 3 as these two schemes are run of river (see figure below).

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 269 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144

Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambi ri 159 Konar A 2,343 Kama 293 Total 3,369

Figure 62: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2]

The Agriculture performance is the same as for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] (investment less than 1.0 BUS$) and is medium. The increase in agriculture net benefit is about 50.1 MUS$/year under the median flow as compared to the Reference Case. The satisfaction of

Page 110 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

irrigation demand is annually 85% which is a little better than in the Reference Case (84%) (see figure below). There is an increase in the agriculture water demand due to additional irrigated areas in Gambiri scheme and augmentation in Kama scheme.

Figure 63: Agriculture water demand, supply and demand satisfaction in the Reference Case with the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2].

The investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] is robust under varying streamflow as the electricity production, the agriculture net benefit and the total net benefit change little for the Dry 5 and Dry 10 streamflows (see table below). The performance of this combination stays in the category medium for domestic water, medium for agriculture NB change and medium for hydropower, as well as high for total NB change. This stability is due to the schemes Gambiri, Kama and Konar A which are located along the Konar River which has a relative small variability in flow. The agriculture net benefit decreases a bit more under dry flow than for the option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] (investment smaller than 1.0 BUS$) due to the filling of Konar A upstream during dry flow.

Table 35: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, and Konar A 2] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Electricity production 3,369 (+2,793) 3,253 (+2,736) 3,192 (+2,702) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 146.5 140.4 135.9 net benefit With grant 210.2 204.1 199.6 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 47.9 45.7 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic budget for Shatoot is the same as in the case where it is the only new scheme built (Investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The scheme Konar A operated with the allocation rule n°2 has a highly positive net benefit of 104.7 MUS$/year (with a loan) due to high revenue from hydropower. The next beneficial scheme is Kama operated with the water allocation rule n°1, with revenue mainly from agriculture, and then Gambiri operated with rule n°3 (see figure below).

Page 111 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gambiri 3 With Loan Without Loan With Loan With Grant Agriculture -1.2 Agriculture 25.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Canal -3.1 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 18.4 27.2 Total 0.0 12.6 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Kama 1 Konar A 2 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 159.3 Hydropower 19.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -12.0 -4.4 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -36.0 -13.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M -6.6 O&M Canal -1.6 Total 104.7 135.2 Total 24.4 36.3 Figure 64: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case under Median flow)

The storage in the basin is the same as for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche less than 1.5 BUS$). The pattern for the impact on flow at the outlet of the basin is the same as for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] with a greater reduction of streamflow due to additional irrigation at Kama (see figure below). However, the reduction in annual streamflow is negligible.

Figure 65: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2]. The number mentioned in the graph is the change in streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case.

In terms of reliability under the sequence of 3 dry years, the situation for Konar A and Gambiri is the same as to the one explained for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.5 BUS$). The impact on Kama is illustrated in the figure below. The operation rule of the upstream Konar A has an influence and the rule n°2 (1st equally hydropower and minimum flow requirement, 2nd filling the reservoir) is better for Kama. Regarding irrigation, there is no impact on the Pol-e-Kama irrigation since this area is located before the main canal of Kama gets diverted into 2 branches: one for the run-of-river plant and the other for the irrigation at Gerdab and Goshta (cf. section 4.4.3). At Gerdab and Gostha, the critical period for supply of irrigation water is March – April for winter wheat, April – May for vegetables and summer for maize. There is little impact at Gerdab. At Gostha and under the rule n°1 for Konar A, the irrigation coverage is reduced in March – April hence the wheat production is affected, and little reduced in April – May, so little impact on the production of vegetables and not reduced in summer, so no impact on maize. The negative effects of the drought at Gostha irrigation are mitigated if Konar A is operated under the rule n°2 since the reservoir releases more water.

Page 112 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 66: Coverage of the irrigation demand and production of electricity at Kama under the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules for Konar A

The minimum flow requirement in the Konar River downstream of the Kama diversion is always satisfied. The electricity production at Kama is impacted by the dry spell (see table below) but to a small magnitude. The operation of Konar A under the rule n°2 mitigates the impact of the drought and improves Kama’a stability (see figure above). Eventually, Kama is reliable under a severe drought of 3 years and, similarly to the conclusion for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.5 BUS$), the operation rule n°2 for Konar A is advisable for greater performance of Konar A and improved reliability at Kama.

Table 36: Annual electricity production at Kama under the Median flow, the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules for Konar A Electricity Median 3-years dry period production Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (GWh/year) Kama (Konar A 2) 293 253 275 272 Kama (Konar A 1) 275 235 253 250

Page 113 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5.4.5. Investment tranche less than 2.5 BUS$

Selection of the best solutions

Table 37: Figures at the basin scale under the median streamflow for an investment smaller than 2.5 BUS$. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to Priority to Priority to Priority to net benefit hydropower water agriculture of the Kabul generation in supply NB in Kabul basin Kabul basin coverage to basin New Kabul City Best infrastructure solutions Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri 3 Gulbahar 6 Kama 1 Gambiri 3 Baghdara D1 2 Kama 3 Konar A 2 The total investment cost 2,379 2,393 (MUS$) Hydropower in the basin 4,374 1,389 (GWh/year) (+3,798) (+812) Change in total With loan 180.4 59.4 net benefit With grant 263.1 142.6 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 109.7 benefit (MUS$/year) Urban water coverage Same as for Shatoot alone Same as for [Shatoot and (investment tranche < 0.5 Gulbahar 6] (investment MUS$) tranche < 2.0MUS$) Performance Hydropower Medium Low (see section Urban Medium High 4.7) domestic water Ag NB Medium High change Total NB High Medium change Robustness For which 3 streamflows Median & Dry 5 streamflows is the investment option robust?

In case the priority is on the Economic or Hydropower metrics, the advisable infrastructure combination is [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] for a total investment cost of 2,379 MUS$.

In case the priority is to satisfy as much as possible the urban domestic water demand (Old- and New Kabul City), the advised investment option for less than 2.5 BUS$ is [Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] for a total investment cost of 2,393 MUS$. The result for coverage of the

Page 114 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

urban domestic demand is the same as for the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche less than 2.0 BUS$), i.e., a total coverage of 87% (4.3 million people). This combination is also the best if the priority is on agriculture NB.

Details on the best solution for economic and hydropower performances: [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2]

The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Table 38: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] Scheme Shatoot Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum 1. Hydropower 1. Minimum flow water 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower flow 1. Minimum 1. Hydropower allocation 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 2. Irrigation flow 2. Filling reservoir 2. Hydropower 4. Diversion 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir 2. Reservoir Darunta

The coverage of the domestic water for Old Kabul City is 87% and is the same as the case where only Shatoot is built. The hydropower performance is in the medium category with the large production from Konar A operated by the allocation rule n°2, followed by the production at Baghdara D1 operated by the allocation rule n°2. The annual production, equals to 4,374 GWh/year, is however below the target 7,500 GWh/year under the median flow. In contrast, generation during winter at Konar A 2 was found to be higher.

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 314 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambiri 159 Konar A 2,343 Kama 293 Baghdara D1 960 Total 4,374

Figure 67: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2]

The agriculture production is the same as for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 1 and Konar A 2] (Investment less than 2.0 BUS$) since Baghdara D1 does not create any additional agriculture revenue.

Page 115 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] has inherited the robustness of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] with a little more variability at Baghdara D1 along the Panjshir River, hence in electricity production (see table below). The performance of this combination stays in the category medium for domestic water, agriculture NB change and hydropower, as well as high for total NB change.

Table 39: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference CaseTitle Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Electricity production 4,374 (+3,798) 4,153 (+3,636) 4,043 (+3,553) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 180.4 167.0 159.3 net benefit With grant 263.1 249.7 242.0 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 47.9 45.7 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economics of the individual schemes is the same as in the solution [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2], except for the additional scheme Baghdara D1 2. The hydropower schemes Konar A and Baghdara D1 have the highest net benefit owing to revenue from hydropower (see figure below).

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gambiri 3 With Loan Without Loan With Loan With Grant Agriculture -1.2 Agriculture 25.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Canal -3.1 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 18.4 27.2 Total 0.0 12.6 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Kama 1 Konar A 2 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 159.3 Hydropower 19.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -12.0 -4.4 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -36.0 -13.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M -6.6 O&M Canal -1.6 Total 104.7 135.2 Total 24.4 36.3 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Baghdara D1 2 With Loan With Grant Hydropower 65.3 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -5.3 -1.9 Capital Cost -24.7 -9.0 O&M -4.5 Total 30.8 49.8 Figure 68: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the Median flow

The storage in the basin is shown in the figure below. The comments for Naghlu and Baghdara D1 2 are the same as for the combination [Shatoot and Baghdara D1] (investment tranche less than 1.0 BUS$).

Page 116 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 69: Storage in the reservoirs for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2]. Naghlu is only considered in the Reference Case. The storage for Shatoot is the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone.

The impact on flow at the outlet of the basin is significant seasonally and similar to the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A2] (see figure below).

Figure 70: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] (in red) and the Reference (in black). The number mentioned in the graph is the change instreamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

In terms of reliability under a continuous drought of 3 years, the case for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] is the combination of the situation for [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.0 BUS$) and [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). Therefore the rule n°1 for Baghdara D1 (same priority for hydropower and filling the reservoir) is preferable to the n°2 (first hydropower then filling the reservoir), advised above for normal, for reliable production under a drought period while the rule n°2 for Konar A (first hydropower then filling the reservoir) is still the best operation rule even under drought.

Page 117 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Details on the best solution for urban domestic supply and agriculture NB: [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]

For an investment smaller than 2.5 BUS$, the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] is advisable to satisfy as much as possible the urban domestic demand and provide higher agriculture revenue. The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Table 40: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] Scheme Shatoot Gulbahar 6 Gambiri 3 Kama3 Priority for 1. Domestic 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow water allocation 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower 2. Irrigation 2. Irrigation 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 3. Hydropower 2. Hydropower 3. Hydropower 4. Diversion Darunta 3. Reservoir 2. Reservoir

The details on the satisfaction of the domestic demand are the same as for combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (Section 5.4.4).

The electricity performance is in the low category with a production of 1,389 GWh/year under the Median flow. Gulbahar 6 is producing most of the electricity followed by Naghlu. In comparison the production is higher in summer. Gulbahar is under the allocation rule n°6 which does not attempt to produce electricity during the winter as its priority is to satisfy irrigation after the supply of domestic water (see table below).

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 310 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gulbahar 365 Gambiri 159 Kama 249 Total 1,389

Figure 71: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambir 3, Kama 3]

The agriculture performance is high under the median flow with an increase in agriculture net benefit of about 109.7 MUS$/year; however, as it will be shown below, this performance is not robust for drier flows. The pattern of the agriculture water demand is different compared to the Reference Case due to the construction of Gulbahar which will supply irrigation water to the Shomali and Kapisa irrigated plains, the largest irrigated schemes in the basin. In addition Gambiri and Kama are supplied. The total irrigation water demand is consequently greater. The coverage is

Page 118 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

improved during the late summer months though it is worse during the spring due the little water available in Gulbahar reservoir and the minimum flow requirement imposed downstream of the irrigated scheme. However, eventually the annual satisfaction of irrigation is better with this investment option (90%) as compared to the Reference Case (84%) (see figure below).

Figure 72: Agriculture water demand, supply and demand satisfaction in the Reference Case and with the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambir 3, Kama 3]

The combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] is not stable under varying streamflow with a notable decrease of the agricultural revenue with drier flows (see table below).

Table 41: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambir 3, Kama 3] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 1,389 (+812) 1,232 (+715) 1,176 (+685) (GWh/year) Change in With loan 59.4 27.6 14.1 total net With grant 142.6 110.8 97.3 benefit (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 109.7 84.6 73.2 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic budget for Shatoot is the same as in the case where it is the only new scheme built (investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$). In case of a financing of the infrastructure with a loan, the most beneficial scheme in this combination is Kama 3 (see figure below). If financing with a grant, Gulbahar 6 is more beneficial. This change as a function of the financing option is due to the high cost of Gulbahar, which becomes even more costly when financed with a loan. The main revenue of Gulbahar 6 is from agriculture, followed by domestic water and lastly from hydropower. For the allocation rule n°6, the revenue from agriculture is very sensitive to change in streamflow, due to the operation of the reservoir (filling the reservoir has a low priority in this rule n°6), and the change in total NB becomes negative in case of Dry 5 or Dry 10 (with a loan).

Page 119 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gulbahar 6 With Loan Without Loan With Loan Without Loan Agriculture -1.2 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 Agriculture 59.6 Hydropower 0.8 Hydropower 24.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 O&M Domestic -5.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 Total 0.0 12.6 O&M -9.2 Total 17.7 67.7 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Gambiri 3 Kama 3 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 25.0 Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 17.0 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M Canal -3.1 O&M Canal -1.6 Total 18.4 27.2 Total 21.5 33.4 Figure 73: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 3]

The situation in term of water storage is the same as the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]. So is the impact on the streamflow at the outlet of the basin, with a further reduction in the median streamflow due to the additional irrigated areas in Gambiri and Kama (see figure below). The magnitude of the reduction is however insignificant compared to the inter-annual variation of the river flow.

Figure 74: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] (in red) and the Reference (black). The number mentioned in the graph is the change in streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

In terms of reliability under a continuous drought of 3 years, the case for [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 3] is the same as [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). The operation rule n°6 for Gulbahar (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd irrigation, 3rd equally hydropower and filling the reservoir) has the greatest performance under a “normal” regime (ie. a Median flow or 1 year of Dry 5) but it is advisable to operate Gulbahar under the protective rule n°5 (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd equally irrigation and filling the reservoir, 3rd hydropower) for a more reliable domestic water and irrigation supply, as well as electricity production.

Page 120 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5.4.6. Investment tranche less than 3.0 BUS$

Selection of the best solutions

Table 42: Figures at the basin scale under the Median streamflow for an investment smaller than 3.0 BUS$. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case. Priority to net Priority to Priority to Priority to benefit of the hydropower water agriculture Kabul basin generation in supply NB in Kabul Kabul basin coverage to basin New Kabul City Best infrastructure solutions Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri 3 Surubi II Gulbahar 5 Kama 1 Baghdara D1 2 Gambiri 3 Baghdara D1 2 Konar A 2 Konar A 2 Konar A 2 The total investment cost 2,379 2,842 2,928 (MUS$) Hydropower in the basin 4,374 (+3,798) 4,804 (+4,228) 3,498 (GWh/year) (+2,921) Change in total With loan 190.4 130.8 122.6 net benefit With grant 273.1 229.6 224.5 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 -1.2 62.2 benefit (MUS$/year) Water coverage (%) Same as for Shatoot alone Same as for [Shatoot and (investment tranche < 0.5 MUS$) Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche < 2.0MUS$) Performance Hydropower Medium High Medium (see section Urban Medium Medium High 4.7) domestic water Ag NB Medium Low Medium change Total NB High Medium Medium change Robustness For which 3 streamflows Median & Dry 5 Median & Dry 5 streamflows is the investment option robust?

If the prioriy is on total NB change, the best solution is the same as in the previous investment tranche less than 2.5 BU$, i.e., [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Konar A 2]. The advisable combination for hydropower is [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] for a total investment cost of 2,842 MUS$. For urban domestic water or agriculture NB, the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] is selected, for an investment cost of 2,928 MUS$.

Page 121 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Details on the best solution for hydropower: [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]

The rule for water allocation is summarised in the table below.

Table 43: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] Scheme Shatoot Surubi II Baghdara D1 2 Konar A 2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1. Hydropower 1. Minimum flow 1. Hydropower water allocation 1. Minimum flow 1. Hydropower 1. Minimum flow 2. Irrigation 2. Filling reservoir 2. Reservoir 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir

The satisfaction of the urban domestic demand is the same as for the solution with Shatoot alone (investment tranche smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The electricity production is high with 4,804 GWh/year, 4,228 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case. The reservoirs Baghdara D1 and Konar A create a particularly beneficial production pattern which is increasing the generation in winter compared to the Reference Case. Konar A has the greatest production, followed by Baghdara D1 and Surubi II.

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 314 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Surubi II 882 Bagh D1 960 Konar A 2,343 Total 4,804

Figure 75: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment Option [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]

The agriculture performance is poor, the same as in the case when Shatoot is built alone (investment tranche smaller than 0.5 BUS$) since Surubi II, Baghdara D1 and Konar A do not have any irrigation scheme.

The performance of the combination is relatively robust with varying streamflow, inheriting the stability from Konar A (see table below).

Page 122 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 44: Performance of the investment [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] under varying streamflow. The number in bracket for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 4,804 (+4,228) 4,587 (+4,069) 4,468 (+3,977) (GWh/year) Change in With loan 130.8 119.5 113.2 total net With grant 229.6 218.3 212.0 benefit (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net -1.2 -1.9 -2.0 benefit (MUS$/year)

Individually, Konar A is the scheme performing the best economically, followed by Baghdara D1 (see figure below). Surubi II, due to its high investment cost (1,058 MUS$), has a negative net benefit in case of an investment with a loan while it is positive with a grant.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Surubi 2 With Loan Without Loan With Loan With Grant Agriculture -1.2 Hydropower 60.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -9.7 -3.5 Hydropower 0.8 Capital Cost -48.3 -17.6 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 O&M -8.8 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Total -6.8 30.0 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 0.0 12.6 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Baghdara D1 2 Konar A 2 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Hydropower 65.3 Hydropower 159.3 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -5.3 -1.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -12.0 -4.4 Capital Cost -24.7 -9.0 Capital Cost -36.0 -13.1 O&M -4.5 O&M -6.6 Total 30.8 49.8 Total 104.7 135.2 Figure 76: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]

The situation for the storage in the basin is the same as the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$).

In terms of reliability under a continuous drought of 3 years, the case Baghdara D1 is the same as for [Shatoot and Baghdara D1 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.0 BUS$) and the case for Konar A is the same as for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.5 BUS$). Therefore the rule n°1 for Baghdara D1 (same priority for hydropower and filling the reservoir) is preferable to the n°2 (first hydropower then filling the reservoir), advised above for normal or wet conditions, for reliable production under a drought period while the rule n°2 for Konar A (first hydropower then filling the reservoir) is still the best operation rule even under drought.

Details on the best solution for urban domestic water and agriculture: [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]

For this combination the rule for water allocation is as stated in the table below.

Page 123 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 45: Priority for water allocation for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] Scheme Shatoot Gulbahar 5 Gambiri 3 Konar A 2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1. Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Hydropower water allocation 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower 1. Minimum flow 2. Irrigation 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 2. Reservoir 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir 4. Diversion Darunta 2. Reservoir 3. Hydropower

The coverage of the urban domestic demand is the same as the set [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment smaller than 2.0 BUS$). The electricity production is medium with a total of about 3,500 GWh/year, mainly from Konar A and then Gulbahar. The production at Gulbahar is largely during the summer, following the releases for irrigation as irrigation has higher priority than hydropower.

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 299 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambiri 159 Gulbahar 391 Konar A 2,343 Total 3,498

Figure 77: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]

The agriculture performance is medium with an increase in agriculture net benefit of about 62.2 MUS$/year under the Median flow (for a loan). The agriculture water demand is increased compared to the Reference Case due the construction of Gulbahar and Gambiri which will supply water to additional irrigated areas. The coverage is improved during the late summer months but it is worse the rest of the time; annually the coverage is worse than during the Reference Case (80% instead of 84%). This is due to (i) the operation rule of Gulbahar, which has the same priority to fill the reservoir and to supply to irrigation, and (ii) the minimum flow imposed downstream of Gulbahar and of the irrigation diversion to Shamoli plain. The agriculture NB is however greater than in the Reference Case because more irrigation water is supplied due to Gambiri (see figure below).

Page 124 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 78: Agriculture water demand, supply and demand satisfaction in the Reference Case and with the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]

The set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] is relatively stable with varying streamflow (see table below). In particular the operation of Gulbahar under the rule n°5 is more robust than with the rule n°6 (compare with the table in section 5.4.4 showing the Performance of the investment option [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] under varying streamflow), since irrigation and filling the reservoir have the same priority, therefore there is more water stored in the reservoir and available for drier flows.

Table 46: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 3,498 (+2,921) 3,331 (+2,813) 3,267 (+2,776) (GWh/year) Change in With loan 122.6 113.4 102.7 total net With grant 224.5 215.2 204.5 benefit (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 62.2 60.2 52.1 benefit (MUS$/year)

The storage at Naghlu is influenced by Gulbahar upstream and its operation rule n°5 (see figure below). Its storage is increased under the Median flow since Gulbahar releases water during summer, after the peak flows, but also throughout the year for irrigation and mainting a minimum flow. Nevertheless it never reaches storage capacity to follow the operation pattern observed in the past. When the regime is drier the storage is severely reduced since Gulbahar releases less water to maintain a certain storage. The variation of the storage in Gulbahar reservoir is indeed quite stable under varying streamflow, unlike the operation rule n°6. In the LEA analysis the performance assessment forcusses first on the metrics value (e.g. total NB change) under the Median flow and secondly gauged the robustness. If robustness would be the first criteria then a solution giving a higher priority to filling the reservoir (e.g. the rule n°5) would have been selected, at the cost of benefit generation under the Median flow. The total storage increased by about six times and is influenced largely by the larger reservoir, Konar A.

Page 125 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 79: Storage in the reservoirs for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure. The storage for Shatoot is the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone.

The flow at the outlet of the basin is the one of the combination Konar A 2 with Gambiri 3, i.e., with augmented flow in winter but reduced in spring, with a further impact in summer due to Gulbahar 6 (see figure below). The impact on the annual stays negligible.

Figure 80: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]. The number mentioned in the graph is the change in streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

With respect to performance under a continuous drought of 3 years, the option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] is reliable with the operation rule n°5 for Gulbahar (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd equally irrigation and filling the reservoir, 3rd hydropower), as was explained for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$), and the rule n°2 for Konar A (first hydropower then filling the reservoir), as was explained for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.5 BUS$).

Page 126 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5.4.7. Investment tranche less than 3.5 BUS$

Table 47: Figures at the basin scale under the Median streamflow for an investment greater than 3.5 BUS$. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to net Priority to Priority to Priority to benefit of the hydropower water agriculture Kabul basin generation in supply NB in Kabul Kabul basin coverage to basin New Kabul City Best infrastructure solutions Shatoot Shatoot Gambiri 3 Gulbahar 6 Kama 1 Gambiri 3 Baghdara D1 2 Kama 1 Surubi II Konar A 2 Konar A 2 The total investment cost 3,437 3,269 (MUS$) Hydropower in the basin 5,256 3,775 (GWh/year) (+4,679) (+3,199) Change in total With loan 173.6 168.6 net benefit With grant 293.1 282.3 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 109.7 benefit (MUS$/year) Water coverage (%) Same as for Shatoot alone Same as for [Shatoot and (investment tranche < 0.5 MUS$) Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche < 2.0MUS$) Performance Hydropower High Medium (see section Urban Medium High 4.7) domestic water Ag NB Medium High change Total NB High High change Robustness For which 3 streamflows 3 streamflows streamflows is the investment option robust?

The best solution for change in total NB and hydropower is [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Surubi II, Konar A2] for an investment cost of 3,437 MUS$. It is the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Konar A2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$) to which Surubi II is added. In case of a loan, it reduces a little the change in total NB (from 190.4 to 183.6) but it increases the production of electricity (from 4,373 to 5,256 GWh/year). The change in total NB is however greater in case of a financing with a grant since the scheme Surubi II has a negative net benefit in case of a loan but a positive net benefit in case of a grant.

Page 127 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

For urban domestic water and agriculture, the recommended set of investments is [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] with an investment cost of 3,269 MUS$. The combination Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2 along the Konar River is selected once more as it is particularly beneficial for agriculture and generation of electricity. Gulbahar adds the supply of domestic water and agriculture production.

Details on the best solution for total NB and hydropower: [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Surubi II, Konar A 2]

The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Table 48: Priority for water allocation for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Surubi II, Konar A 2] Scheme Shatoot Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Surubi II Baghdara D1 2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1. Minimum 1. Minimum 1. Hydropower 1. 1. Minimum water 1. Minimum flow flow 1. Minimum Hydropower flow allocation flow 2. Hydropower 2. Irrigation flow 1. 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir Hydropower 2. Hydropower 4. Diversion 2. Filling 2. Reservoir Darunta reservoir

The satisfaction of the urban domestic demand is the same as for solution with Shatoot alone (investment tranche smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The hydropower performance is high under the Median flow with a total production of 5,256 GWh/year, 4,679 more than in the Reference Case. Konar A has the largest production, followed by Baghdara D1 and Surubi II (see figure below).

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 314 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambiri 159 Kama 293 Surubi II 882 Baghdara D1 960 Konar A 2,343 Total 5,256

Figure 81: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2, Baghdara D1 2 and Surubi II]

The agriculture production is the same as for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (Investment less than 2.0 BUS$) since Baghdara D1 and Surubi II do not create any additional agriculture revenue.

Page 128 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The investment option has inherited the robustness of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] with a little more variability at Baghdara D1 along the Panjshir River and Surubi II along the Kabul River, hence in electricity production (see table below). The performance of this combination stays in the category Medium for domestic water and agriculture NB change, and high for total NB change and hydropower.

Table 49: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2, Baghdara D1 2 and Surubi II] under varying streamflow. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Electricity production 5,356 (+4,679) 5,021 (+4,504) 4,894 (+4,404) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 173.6 159.8 150.5 net benefit With grant 293.1 279.3 270.0 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 50.1 47.9 45.7 benefit (MUS$/year)

In term of individual economic performance, Konar A and Baghdara D1 have the highest net benefit owing revenue from hydropower (see figure below). As mentioned, Surubi II has a negative net benefit in case of a loan, and a positive net benefit in case of a grant. As a consequence, Surubi II reduces the increase in total NB of the solution [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$) in case of a loan but it enables additional electricity production, hence a better classification of the set [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2, Baghdara D1 2 and Surubi II] in term of hydropower performance as compared to the same set without Surubi II.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gambiri 3 With Loan Without Loan With Loan With Grant Agriculture -1.2 Agriculture 25.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Canal -3.1 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Total 18.4 27.2 Total 0.0 12.6 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Kama 1 Konar A 2 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 159.3 Hydropower 19.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -12.0 -4.4 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -36.0 -13.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M -6.6 O&M Canal -1.6 Total 104.7 135.2 Total 24.4 36.3 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Baghdara D1 2 Surubi 2 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Hydropower 65.3 Hydropower 60.0 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -5.3 -1.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -9.7 -3.5 Capital Cost -24.7 -9.0 Capital Cost -48.3 -17.6 O&M -4.5 O&M -8.8 Total 30.8 49.8 Total -6.8 30.0 Figure 82: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2, Baghdara D1 2 and Surubi II] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under Median flow

Page 129 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The storage in the basin and the impact on the streamflow is the same as the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$) since Surubi II is a run-of-river scheme, therefore does not impact on the storage neither the river flow.

In terms of reliability under a continuous drought of 3 years, the case for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2, Baghdara D1 2 and Surubi II] is the same as for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 and Baghdara D1 2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$). Therefore the rule n°1 for Baghdara D1 (same priority for hydropower and filling the reservoir) is preferable to the n°2 (first hydropower then filling the reservoir), advised above for normal or single dry year conditions, for a reliable production under a drought period while the rule n°2 for Konar A (first hydropower then filling the reservoir) is still the best operation rule even under extended drought.

Details on the best solution for urban domestic water and agriculture: [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A2]

The priority for water allocation in this combination is shown in the table below.

Table 50: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A2] Scheme Shatoot Gulbahar 6 Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1.Domestic 1. Minimum flow 1. Minimum flow 1. Hydropower water 1. Minimum 1. Minimum flow 2. Hydropower 2. Irrigation 1. Minimum flow allocation flow 2. Irrigation 3. Irrigation 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir 2. Irrigation 3. Hydropower 4. Diversion 3. Reservoir 2. Hydropower Darunta 2. Reservoir

The combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] has a high performance in terms of urban domestic water supply. The details are the same as for combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche 2.0 BUS$).

The hydropower performance is in the medium category with an annual production equal to 3,775 GWh/year, 3,199 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case. The production pattern at Gulbahar 6 follows the water releases for irrigation as the priority for this reservoir is to satisfy irrigation after domestic water (see figure below).

Page 130 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 310 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambiri 159 Kama 293 Gulbahar 365 Konar A 2,343 Total 3,775

Figure 83: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2]

The agriculture performance is high with an increase in agriculture net benefit of about 109.7 MUS$/year. The pattern of the agriculture water demand is significantly increased compared to the Reference Case due the construction of Gulbahar which will supply irrigation water to the Shomali and Kapisa irrigated plains, the largest irrigated schemes in the basin, plus the newly irrigated areas at Gambiri and Kama. The coverage is improved during the late summer months though it is worse during the spring due to the little water available in Gulbahar reservoir and the minimum flow requirement imposed downstream of the irrigated scheme. The annual satisfaction of irrigation is better (90%) as compared to the Reference Case (84%) (see figure below).

Figure 84: Agriculture water demand, supply and demand satisfaction in the Reference Case and with the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2

The investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] is relatively stable due to the set Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2, but Gulbahar operated by the rule n°6 is more sensitive to the varying streamflow (see table below).

Page 131 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 51: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] under varying streamflow Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 3,775 (+3,199) 3,575 (+3,058) 3,487 (+2,996) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 168.8 132.3 114.5 net benefit With grant 282.3 246.0 228.2 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 109.7 83.0 69.4 benefit (MUS$/year)

The most beneficial scheme in this combination is Konar A operated by the allocation rule n°2 with high net benefit from hydropower. The next beneficial scheme is Kama with the allocation rule n°1, with revenues predominantly generated from agriculture followed by hydropower, and then Gambiri. Kama benefits from the buffered releases from Konar A as with Konar A upstream it can generate the same agriculture revenue that Kama operated with the rule n°3 plus additional electricity (see figure below).

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gulbahar 6 With Loan Without Loan With Loan Without Loan Agriculture -1.2 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 Agriculture 59.6 Hydropower 0.8 Hydropower 24.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 O&M Domestic -5.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 Total 0.0 12.6 O&M -9.2 Total 17.7 67.7 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Gambiri 3 Kama 1 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 25.0 Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 19.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Canal -1.6 O&M Canal -3.1 Total 24.4 36.3 Total 18.4 27.2 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Konar A 2 With Loan With Grant Hydropower 159.3 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -12.0 -4.4 Capital Cost -36.0 -13.1 O&M -6.6 Total 104.7 135.2 Figure 85: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, and Konar A 2] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the Median flow.

The storage for Naghlu and Gulbahar 6 is the same as for the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). The storage for Konar A 2 is the same as for the set [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.5 BUS$). The difference is in the total storage in the basin, wich is a little smaller than for the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2], due to the operation rule n°6 of Gulbahar (see figure below).

Page 132 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 86: Total reservoir storage in the basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure.

The seasonal impact on flow at the outlet of the basin is noticeable. It is composed of the sum of the total flows of the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 3.0 BUS$) further impacted by the implementation of Kama and its irrigation scheme (see figure below). However the effect on the annual flow stays insignificant with a variation smaller than 5%.

Figure 87: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (in red) and the Reference (in black). The number mentioned in the graph is the change in the streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case.

In terms of reliability under a continuous drought of 3 years, the case for [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A2] is the combination of the situation for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$) and [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). The operation rule n°6 for Gulbahar (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd irrigation, 3rd equally hydropower and filling the reservoir) has the greatest performance under a “normal” regime (ie. a Median flow or 1 year of Dry 5) but it is advisable to operate Gulbahar under the protective rule n°5 (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd equally irrigation and filling the reservoir, 3rd hydropower) for a more reliable domestic water and irrigation supply, as well as electricity production.

Page 133 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5.4.8. Investment tranche less than 4.0 BUS$

Table 52: Figures at the basin scale under the Median streamflow for an investment greater than 4.0 BUS$. The number in bracket for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to net Priority to Priority to Priority to benefit of the hydropower water supply agriculture Kabul basin generation in coverage to NB in Kabul Kabul basin New Kabul basin City Best infrastructure solutions Shatoot, Shatoot, Shatoot, Shatoot, Gulbahar 6 Gulbahar 7 Gulbahar, plus Gulbahar 6 Gambiri 3 Gambiri 3 any of the Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Kama 1 other four Kama 1 Baghdara D1 2 Baghdara D1 2 schemes (i.e. Baghdara D1 2 Konar A 2 Konar A 2 no specific Konar A 2 solution) The total investment cost 3,816 3,816 3,816 (MUS$) Hydropower in the basin 4,744 (+4,168) 4,746 (+4,170) 4,744 (+4,168) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 201.0 189.8 201.0 net benefit With grant 333.7 322.5 333.7 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 109.7 99.3 109.7 benefit (MUS$/year) Urban Water coverage Same as for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche < 2.0MUS$) Performance Hydropower High High High (see section Urban High High High 4.7) domestic water Ag NB High High High change Total NB High High High change Robustness For which Median & Dry Median & Dry Median & Dry streamflows 5 5 5 is the investment option robust?

For an investment of 4.0 BUS$ or less, the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6/7, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Konar A 2] is preferred, for a total investment of 3,816 MUS$. The operating rule of Gulbahar is a function of the objective: If the priority is on hydropower, the rule n°7 (1st equally minimum flow requirement and urban domestic water, 2nd irrigation, 3rd hydropower, 4th filling the reservoir is selected, while the rule n°6 is suited to the others purposes (1st equally minimum flow requirement and urban domestic water, 2nd irrigation, 3rd equally hydropower and filling the reservoir). There is no specific solution performing better for urban domestic water since the two options selected contain Shatoot and Gulbahar. Eventually the difference in performance between the two options is negligible, with 2 additional GWh/year being produced by the set with Gulbahar 7

Page 134 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

but for a total net benefit smaller by 2.1 MUS$/year. Therefore, on a practical standpoint the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Konar A 2] is advisable for the tranche.

The performance in term of electricity production is lower than in the previous tranche of 3.5 BUS$. However it is reminded that our selection process aims at identifying the solution which also performs well for the other metrics, not only one (electricity production here). This is for practical reasons as investment rarely aims at a single purpose. As a consequence, [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Konar A 2] does not produce as much electricity as [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Surubi II, Konar A2] identified for less than 3.5 BUS$ but it performs substantially better for domestic supply to New Kabul city and agriculture production with the construction of Gulbahar instead of Surubi II.

Details on the best solution: [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2]

This results for [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] are those of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (previous investment tranche smaller than 3.5 BUS$) to which Baghdata D1 2 is added. The priority for water allocation is as in the table below.

Table 53: Priority for water allocation for the solution [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] Scheme Shatoot Gulbahar 6 Baghdara Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 D1 2 Priority for 1. Domestic 1.Domestic 1. Minimum 1. Minimum 1. Minimum 1. Hydropower water 1. Minimum 1. Minimum flow flow flow 1. Minimum allocation flow flow 1. 2. Hydropower 2. Irrigation flow 2. Irrigation 2. Irrigation Hydropower 3. Irrigation 2. Hydropower 2. Reservoir 3. Hydropower 2. 2. Filling 4. Diversion 3. Reservoir Hydropower reservoir Darunta 2. Reservoir

The coverage of urban domestic demand is high for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2]. The details are the same as for combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche 2.0 BUS$).

The hydropower performance is high with an annual production equal to 4,744 GWh/year, 4,168 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case (see figure below). Baghdara D1 and Gulbahar are both located along the Panjshir River and it is the first instance in which they are associated. Gulbahar is located upstream and impacts positively on the electricity production at Baghdara D1. Moreover, these two infrastructures also interact with Naghlu and Surubi I located further downstream and impact positively on their electricity production as well. However, the interaction between these four schemes is not optimised in this setting and it would require further tuning of the plant factor and rule for filling the reservoir, especially at a monthly time step to maximise the production during winter. The association of Baghdara D1 and Konar A has the advantage of generating much more electricity during winter than in the Reference Case. Konar A has the greatest production followed by Baghdara D1.

Page 135 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 310 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambi ri 159 Kama 293 Gul bahar 351 Baghdara D1 983 Konar A 2,343 Total 4,744

Figure 88: Monthly electricity production from hydropower under Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2]

The agriculture performance is the same as the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (previous investment tranche smaller than 3.5 BUS$). In term of economic performance under varying streamflow, the combination is relatively sensible since it is in the high category for the four metrics only for the Dry 5 flow (see table below).

Table 54: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] under varying streamflow Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 4,744 (+4,168) 4,473 (+3,955) 4,344 (+3,853) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 201.0 159.8 139.1 net benefit With grant 333.7 292.5 271.8 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 109.7 83.0 69.4 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic performance of the individual asset is the same as in the [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (previous investment tranche smaller than 3.5 BUS$), except for the additional scheme Baghdara D1 (see figure below). The economic performance of Baghdara D1 2 is a little better than in the previous tranches where it was selected as it is associated with Gulbahar and its electricity production is increased. The performance could be improved further by tuning the water allocation rule, especially at a monthly time step to make best use of the upstream/downstream interaction between Gulbahar and Baghdara, as well as for the following schemes Naghlu and Surubi I downstream.

Page 136 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gulbahar 6 With Loan Without Loan With Loan Without Loan Agriculture -1.2 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Agriculture 59.6 Hydropower 0.8 Hydropower 24.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 O&M Domestic -5.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 O&M -9.2 Total 0.0 12.6 Total 17.7 67.7 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Gambiri 3 Kama 1 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 25.0 Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 19.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Canal -1.6 O&M Canal -3.1 Total 24.4 36.3 Total 18.4 27.2 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 2 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Hydropower 159.3 Hydropower 66.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -12.0 -4.4 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -5.3 -1.9 Capital Cost -36.0 -13.1 Capital Cost -24.7 -9.0 O&M -6.6 O&M -4.5 Total 104.7 135.2 Total 32.4 51.4 Figure 89: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, and Konar A 2] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the Median flow.

The storage for Gulbahar 6 is the same as for the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). The storage for Konar A 2 is the same as for the set [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.5 BUS$). The difference is in the storage at Baghdara D1, Naghlu and in the total storage in the basin (see figure below). The storage at Baghdara D1 is reduced for Dry 5 and Dry 10 during early summer since Gulbahar fills- up during spring. It increases again in late summer due to the plant factor chosen for Baghdara D1, which reduces from month of August. The storage at Naghlu is further reduced in summar as a combined impact of the upstream reservoirs Gulbahar and Baghdara D1. The reservoirs operation could be improved for a better hydropower production in a further analysis specific to this combination.

Page 137 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 90: Total reservoir storage in the basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure.

The impact on flow at the outlet of the basin (see figure below) is very similar to the option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] of the previous investment tranche.

Figure 91: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (in red) and the Reference (in black). The number mentioned in the graph is the change in the streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

In terms of reliability of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2], there are basically two systems: • the infrastructures along the Konar river (Gambiri, Kama and Konar A) for which the situation is the same as [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$), ie the system Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 is reliable under a severe 3-years drought period; • and the infrastructures along the Panjshir river, i.e., Gulbahar and Baghdara D1, which will be investigated hereafter.

For the same reasons discussed for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$), it is advisable to operate Gulbahar with the rule n°5 (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd equally irrigation and filling the reservoir, 3rd hydropower) for a reliable supply of domestic water and irrigation, as well as electricity production.

There are two ways of operating Baghdara D1: with the rule n°2 (higher priority for hydropower than for filling the reservoir) as advised above for a normal (Median flow or 1 year of Dry 5) or with the rule n°1 (same priority for hydropower and filling the reservoir). As compared to the case when Gulbahar does not exist upstream (cf. figure in section 5.4.2 “Storage in the reservoir Baghdara D1 and production of electricity under the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules”), the storage is less because Gulbahar is operated in a conservative way with the rule n°5, restricting water realeases and therefore aggravating the effects of the continuous

Page 138 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

drought (see figure below). Under normal regime, the presence of Gulbahar upstream is beneficial for electricity production at Baghdara D1, but this is not anymore the case with extended drought as the storage in Baghdara D1 is less (see table below). When comparing both rules for operating Baghdara D1, the rule n°1 is more reliable, as it was for [Shatoot and Baghdara 2] (investment tranche smaller than 1.0 BUS$).

Figure 92: Storage in the reservoir Baghdara D1 and production of electricity under the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules.

Table 55: Annual electricity production at Baghdara D1 under the Median flow, the sequence of 3 consecutive dry years (Year 1, 2 and 3) and two operation rules. Electricity Median 3-years dry period production Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (GWh/year) Baghdara D1 2 983 949 717 726 Baghdara D1 1 974 952 751 865

5.4.9. Investment tranche less than 4.5 BUS$

The solution for this tranche is the same as the previous one (investment smaller than 4.0 BUS$). There is no better advisable infrastructure for an investment between 4.0 to 4.5 BUS$.

5.4.10. Investment tranche greater than 4.5 BUS$

Table 56: Figures at the basin scale under the Median streamflow for an investment greater than 4.5 BUS$. The number in brackets for electricity production is the increase in production as compared to the Reference Case Priority to net Priority to Priority to Priority to benefit of the hydropower water agriculture Kabul basin generation in supply NB in Kabul Kabul basin coverage to basin New Kabul City Best With loan Shatoot Shatoot Shatoot, Shatoot infrastructure Gulbahar 6 Gulbahar 6 Gulbahar, Gulbahar 6 solutions Gambiri 3 Gambiri 3 plus any Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Kama 3 combination Kama 1 Baghdara D1 2 Baghdara D1 1 of the others Baghdara D1 2 Konar A 2 Surubi II (i.e. No Konar A 2 With grant Shatoot Shal specific Shatoot Gulbahar 6 solution) Gulbahar 6 Gambiri 3 Gambiri 3

Page 139 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Kama 3 Kama 3 Baghdara D1 1 Baghdara D1 1 Surubi II Surubi II Shal Shal The total With loan 3,816 5,816* 3,816 investment With grant 5,816 5,816 cost (MUS$) Hydropower in With loan 4,736 (+4,160) 6,258 (+5,681) 4,736 (+4,160) the basin With grant 6,258 (+5,681) 6,258 (+5,681) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 201.0 176.9 201.0 net benefit With grant 379.2 379.2 371.0 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 109.7 109.7 109.7 benefit (MUS$/year) Water coverage (%) Same as for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche < 2.0MUS$) Performance Hydropower High High High (see section Urban High High High 4.7) domestic water Ag NB change High High High Total NB High High High change Robustness For which Median & Dry 5 Median & Dry 5 Median & Dry streamflows is (loan) (loan) 5 (loan) the 3 streamflows 3 streamflows 3 streamflows infrastructure (grant) (grant) (grant) option robust? * Note. The initial total investment cost for a lona or grant is the same. The extra interest cost pais on a loan reduces the net benefit, but has no impact on the initial cost.

The advisable solution for total or agriculture net benefits is a function of the financing approach (loan or grant). If a series of grants is considered, the best solutions contain the hydropower schemes Shal and Surubi 2, namely the best infrastructure combination is [Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri, Kama, Baghdara D1, Surubi II and Shal] for an investment cost of 5.8 BUS$. This combination generates a high amount of electricity (greater than 6,000 GWh/year, as compared to 577 GWh/year in the Reference Case), but stays below the electricity demand for the basin (7,500 GWh/year).

However, if the financing of investment is through a serie of loans, then the net benefits (revenues minus annulised costs) of Shal and Surubi II decrease and these schemes are not anymore the best for net benefit and Konar A is the advisable hydropower scheme to invest in. The best combination of infrastructure in term of net benefits (total and agriculture) is [Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri, Kama, Baghdara D1 and Konar A 2]. Interestingly, the cost of this combination is 3.8 BUS$, hence there is no need to invest beyond this value in the basin if funding is through a serie of loans. Obviously the energy production stays below the target for electricity production in case of financing with a loan.

Page 140 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

If the priority is however on electricity production, then [Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri, Kama, Baghdara D1, Surubi II and Shal] is advisable irrespective of the financing option (loan or grant).

Details on the solution: [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 1, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Surubi II, Shal]

In the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 1, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Surubi II, Shal] all the possible new infrastructures examined in this work are built. The total investment is 5,816 MUS$. It generates an amount of electricity which is among the highest of all the combinations explored in the LEA. It is however not the solution producing the greatest electricity (6,343 GWh/year) since the selection process in Tableau makes sure that the performance is as high as possible for the four metrics, not only one metric (hydropower in this case). The increase in total NB is not the maximum in case of a financing with a loan. Hence the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Surubi II, Shal] is advisable if the priority is on electricity production and/or if the financing is with a series of grants.

The priority for water allocation is summarised in the table below.

Table 57: Priority for water allocation for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 1, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Surubi II, Shal] Scheme Shatoot Gulbahar Baghdara Gambiri 3 Kama 3 Surubi II Shal 6 D1 1 Priority 1. Domestic 1.Domestic 1. Minimum 1. Minimum 1. Minimum 1. 1. for water 1. Minimum 1. Minimum flow flow flow Hydropowe Hydropowe allocatio flow flow 1. 2. 2. Irrigation r r n 2. Irrigation 2. Irrigation Hydropowe Hydropowe 3. 1. Minimum 3. Hydropowe 2. r r flow Hydropowe r Hydropowe r 1. Filling 3. Irrigation 1. r 3. reservoir 4. Diversion Reservoir 2. Reservoir Darunta Reservoir

The coverage of urban domestic demand is high and the details are the same as for combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche 2.0 BUS$).

The hydropower performance is high with an annual production equal to 6,258 GWh/year, 5,681 GWh/year more than in the Reference Case (see figure below). This is the largest production investigated in this study, nevertheless still smaller than the target for electricity production of 7,500 GWh/year. Shal is by the far the most productive unit, generating itself a bit more than 3,000 GWh/year. Its monthly production pattern is following the streamflow, with in particular a small generation during winter which is due to the very small live storage in the reservoir Shal (174 Mm3 for a total storage of 1,874 Mm3). As a consequence its operation is similar to a run of river scheme. The production at Baghdara D1 1 during winter is small as well. Similarly to the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 4.0 BUS$), the interaction between the five schemes Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Naghlu, Surubi I and Surubi II is not optimised in this setting and it would require further tuning of the plant factor and rule for filling the reservoir, especially at a monthly time step to maximise the production during winter. The total electricity generation is significantly smaller in winter as compared to summer hence the seasonal pattern is not as useful as for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 4.0 BUS$).

Page 141 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Plant (GWh/year) Naghlu 321 Darunta 54 Mahi par 92 Surubi I 144 Chak-e-Wardak 4 Shatoot 11 Gambi ri 159 Kama 252 Gul bahar 351 Surubi II 891 Baghdara D1 977 Shal 3,001 Total 6,258

Figure 93: Monthly electricity production from hydropower in the Median flow for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 1, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Surubi II, Shal]

The agriculture performance is high and is the same as the set [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 3] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$). In terms of economic performance under varying streamflow, the combination is relatively sensible since Shal does not have a large live storage to buffer varying streamflows (see table below).

Table 58: Performance of the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 1, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Surubi II, Shal] under varying streamflow Median Dry 5 Dry 10 Total electricity production 6,258 (+5,681) 5,794 (+5,277) 5,577 (+5,086) (GWh/year) Change in total With loan 176.9 124.9 100.4 net benefit With grant 379.2 327.2 302.6 (MUS$/year) Change in agriculture net 109.75 84.6 73.2 benefit (MUS$/year)

The economic performance of the individual asset is compiled in the figure below. The scheme with the greatest net benefit is Shal with large revenues from hydropower. However, there is a significant difference if the financing is with loan or with a grant, due to the high investment cost of Shal. The net benefit of Shal becomes smaller than Konar A if implemented with a loan. The next beneficial asset is Baghdara D1. As discussed previously, Surubi II has a negative economic performance in case of a loan.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot Gulbahar 6 With Loan Without Loan With Loan Without Loan Agriculture -1.2 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 27.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 Agriculture 59.6 Hydropower 0.8 Hydropower 24.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 O&M Domestic -5.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 O&M Reservoir -1.7 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 Total 0.0 12.6 O&M -9.2 Total 17.7 67.7

Page 142 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Gambiri 3 Kama 3 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Agriculture 25.0 Agriculture 26.6 Hydropower 10.8 Hydropower 17.1 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -2.6 -0.9 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -3.1 -1.1 Capital Cost -11.3 -4.1 Capital Cost -15.6 -5.7 O&M Hydropower -0.5 O&M Hydropower -1.8 O&M Canal -3.1 O&M Canal -1.6 Total 18.4 27.2 Total 21.6 33.5 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shal Baghdara D1 1 With Loan With Grant With Loan With Grant Hydropower 204.1 Hydropower 66.7 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -20.0 -7.3 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -5.3 -1.9 Capital Cost -79.6 -29.1 Capital Cost -24.7 -9.0 O&M -14.5 O&M -4.5 Total 89.9 153.1 Total 32.3 51.3 Change in NB (MUS$/year) Surubi II With Loan With Grant Hydropower 60.6 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -9.7 -3.5 Capital Cost -48.3 -17.6 O&M -8.8 Total -6.2 30.6 Figure 94: Economic budget of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 1, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Surubi II, Shal] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case) under the Median flow.

The storage for Gulbahar 6 is the same as for the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). The storage for Baghdara D1 1 is impacted by Gulbahar 6 upstream and Naghlu is in turn impacted by Gulbahar 6 and Baghdara D1 1. It is reminded that the operation of the successive infrastructures Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Naghlu, Surubi I and Surubi II, could be improved further beyond this work at a monthly time step. The storage of Shal is not function of the streamflow and varies little along the year, due to the little live storage of this scheme. Such a design is questionable since it does not allow any buffering of the streamflow. Konar A in comparison produces less electricity annually, due to a smaller installed capacity, but it has a greater live storage and therefore enables specific electricity generation in winter and diminishing impact of drier flows. The total storage in the basin is largely influenced by the one at Shal reservoir.

Page 143 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 95: Total reservoir storage in the basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 1, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Surubi II, Shal]. Only Naghlu is considered for the existing (Reference Case) infrastructure.

The impact on flow at the outlet of the basin is not as apparent as in any option with the asset Konar A (see figure below). Shal has a very small live storage hence its impact on the streamflow is marginal. Under the Median flow, i.e., in an equilibrium state, the flow is reduced in June and July due to the filling of Gulbahar and Baghdara D1. It is reminded that Naghlu is operated as was observed in the past hence is controlled by hydropower production at the cost of its storage, in particular during the occurrence of a year with dry flow. The additional irrigated areas at Gulbahar, Gambiri and Kama implies a reduction of the annual flow of about 0.7 Bm3/year under the Median flow, which is insignificant compared to the Median annual flow (19.4 Bm3/year) and the inter- annual variation..

Figure 96: Streamflow at the outlet of the Kabul basin for the investment option [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Surubi II, Shal] (in red) and the Reference (in black). The number mentioned in the graph is the change in the streamflow in Mm3/month as compared to the Reference Case

In terms of reliability of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Surubi II, Shal] under a continuous drought of 3 years, only the operation of Shatoot, Gulbahar and Baghdara D1 is influencial since Shal reservoir has a very small live storage hence a negligible capacity to buffer the flow. Therefore the reliability of this solution is the same as for [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Baghdara D1 2, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] (investment tranche smaller than 4.0 BUS$), i.e., Gulbahar should be operated by the rule n°5 (1st domestic water and minimum flow requirement, 2nd equally irrigation and filling the reservoir, 3rd hydropower) and Baghdara D1 by the rule n°1 (same priority for hydropower and filling the reservoir) for a reliable performance under a severe 3-years drought.

5.5. ASSET PERFORMANCE (INDIVIDUAL)

The figure below summarises the individual economic performance of the potential new asset, as per their selection during the analysis of the LEA, for different investment tranches, considering

Page 144 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

that the performance of the schemes is a function of the water allocation rule as well as the association upstream/downstream of infrastructure. In addition to Shatoot, the schemes Gambiri and Kama are selected in almost every investment tranches. The next successful schemes are Konar A, Gulbahar and Baghdara D1. The combination of Kama, Gambiri and Konar A, located along the Konar River, appears to be particularly beneficial and is very often selected.

Page 145 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Page 146 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 97: Assessment of the performance of each new asset by reporting the change in total net benefit under the median flow for each scheme when it was selected as part of a best combination for the different investment tranches. The costs values include the finance costs with a loan

In the potential new assets examined in this study, there are two sets of mutually exclusive infrastructures: • Baghdara A2 or Baghdara D1: the option A2 only appears for one instance (investment tranche ≤ 1.5 BUS$) while the option D1 has been selected for several tranches since the economic performance of option D1 is better. Therefore the advisable option for Baghdara hydropower scheme is D1. • Konar A or Shal: due to the high investment cost of Shal, it has only been selected for the last investment tranche (greater than 4.5 BUS$). On the contrary Konar A is advised for several tranches. In case the investment is through a loan, the economic performance of Shal is worse than Konar A, but it becomes better with a grant representation. Therefore Konar A is advisable to be built in association with the other new assets for investment smaller than 4.5 BUS$. For a larger investment, Shal is only worthy if it will be financed through a grant.

In terms of economic performance and implementation with a loan, the most performing schemes are the hydropower infrastructures with in particular Konar A, followed by Baghdara D1. The other assets (Gulbahar, Kama, Gambiri, Shatoot) have smaller net benefit but they are mulipurpose, on the contrary of the hydropower schemes. Shatoot has a zero net benefit, due to the scarcity of the flow of Maidan River and the imposed environmental flow, but it would strongly improve the domestic water shortage in Kabul City. Surubi II is the scheme with the worst economic performance with a negative net benefit of -6.8 MUS$/year.

In case of an implementation with a grant (see figures throughout section 5.4), the assessment for economic performance is the same except for the fact that Shal becomes the scheme with the highest net benefit, followed by Konar A. The net benefit of Surubi II becomes positive but it stays as the least performing new hydropower asset.

The values of the economic metrics for Gulbahar are not very high. However, similarly to Shatoot, it provides an essential social service with supplying domestic water which is the prime priority in the basin. As stated in Section 5.4.4, the economic performance of Gulbahar might be hindered by supplying domestic water to New Kabul City, as it is associated with high pumping costs.

As shown in the table below, the revenue for hydropower per unit of water (as a function of the flow and the head in Gulbahar reservoir) is about 0.025 US$/m3. A similar unit of hydropower revenue

Page 147 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

is calculated for other reservoirs in the basin. Gulbahar generates a net benfit (benefit minus cost of pumping and treating water) of about 21.2 MUS$/year from domestic water (see the figure below for the case with New Kabul City), for a supply of 100 Mm3/year, thus the average unit revenue is 0.212 US$/m3 with domestic water, about ten times the unit revenue from hydropower.

Table 59: Electricity revenue modelled by WEAP at Gulbahar for two water allocation rules. The rule n°5 produces the greatest generation of electricity at Gulbahar and the rule n°6 produces the greatest increase in total net benefit for the Gulbahar scheme, as compared to the Reference Case. Water allocation Electricity Electricity Volume water Unit revenue rule produced revenue turbined (US$/m3) (GWh/year) (MUS$/year) (Mm3/year) 5 391 26.6 1,028 0.026 6 352 23.9 1,109 0.022

With New Kabul City Without New Kabul City Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB Gulbahar 6 Gulbahar 6 With Loan Without Loan With Loan Without Loan Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 0.0 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 6.8 Agriculture 51.4 Agriculture 70.8 Hydropower 23.9 Hydropower 24.9 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul 0.0 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -2.1 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 O&M -9.2 O&M -9.2 Total 8.6 58.6 Total 12.5 62.4 Figure 98: Economic budget of [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case), under the Median flow, with or without New Kabul City

As a consequence, producing electricity at Gulbahar will never be as profitable as supplying domestic water, even with high pumping costs, unless there is a substantial increase in the electricity tariff – conversely, one could also imagine a substantial increase in urban water tariff and supplying domestic water will stay profitable compared to producing electricity.

The other possibility to yield greater revenue than domestic water supply is agriculture. Therefore the hypothetical cases where Gulbahar only provides domestic water to Old Kabul City in association with Shatoot is examined for the water allocation rule n°6 which generates the highest agriculture revenue (see figure above). The increase in total NB is indeed greater by about 4 MUS$/year without New Kabul City with larger revenue from agriculture. However this additional revenue from agriculture is more succeptible to change with varying streamflow or climate, while revenue from domestic water would be in comparison more stable.

Eventually, this analysis shows that the supply of domestic water to New Kabul City is not always a loss of revenue for Gulbahar, more often an additional benefit. Moreover, providing domestic water is essential and should be prioritised.

Page 148 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5.6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

5.6.1. Domestic water

In the analysis the unit tariff of 0.50 US$/m3 has been considered for domestic water. The senstivity analysis examines the sensitivity of the results for two alternative tariffs: 0.75 US$/m3 and 1.00 US$/m3.

Only the two assets Shatoot and Gulbahar are concerned by this analysis. With a loan representation, Shatoot becomes beneficial with a tariff of 0.75 US$/m3.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot With Loan Without Loan Agriculture -1.2 0.50 US$/m3 27.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.75 US$/m3 41.8 1.00 US$/m3 55.7 Hydropower 0.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Reservoir -1.7 0.50 US$/m3 0.0 12.6 Total 0.75 US$/m3 14.0 26.5 1.00 US$/m3 27.9 40.5 Figure 99: Change in Net Benefit for Shatoot based on change in domestic water price

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Gulbahar 6 With Loan Without Loan 0.50 US$/m3 29.9 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 0.75 US$/m3 44.8 1.00 US$/m3 59.8 0.50 US$/m3 0.8 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.75 US$/m3 1.2 1.00 US$/m3 1.6 Agriculture 59.6 Hydropower 24.8 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 O&M -9.2 0.50 US$/m3 17.7 67.7 Total 0.75 US$/m3 33.0 83.0 1.00 US$/m3 48.4 98.4 Figure 100: Change in Net Benefit for Gulbahar based on change in domestic water price

5.6.2. Irrigation efficiency

The analysis was carried out with some specific values for irrigation efficiency, as summarised in section 3.2.2. This choice is very uncertain therefore a sensitivity analysis was conducted with this parameter for a combination of values in the Reference Case and when new asset are constructed, as summarised in the table below.

Page 149 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Table 60: The two sensitivity runs on the Irrigation Efficiency. Run Reference Case Shatoot Gulbahar Kama and Gambiri 1 35% 45% 50% 40% 2 45% 55% 60% 50%

For the case of Shatoot, the efficiency was taken as equal to 35%. As stated in the feasibility study by Pooyab (2011), this represents the existing network distribution network (modelled with an efficiency of 25%, as for all irrigation infrastructures in the Reference Case) improved with a new main canal. Two additional modelling runs were conducted wth a better efficiency in the Reference Case (35% and 45%) and consequently when Shatoot is built (45% and 55%). The analysis examines the impact on the net benefit of the asset. There is logically a change with a better efficiency, the revenue from agriculture after Shatoot is built stays below the value in the Reference Case but the gap reduces. The scheme becomes slightly beneficial (with a loan) for the irrigation efficiency 35% in Reference Case and 45% for Shatoot.

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Shatoot With Loan Without Loan 35% -0.7 Agriculture 45% -0.2 Domestic Water 27.9 35% 0.7 Hydropower 45% 0.7 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -4.5 -1.7 Capital Cost -15.3 -5.6 O&M Domestic -5.9 O&M Reservoir -1.7 35% 0.4 13.0 Total 45% 1.0 13.6 Figure 101: Sensitivity of the Shatoot net benefit to the irrigation efficiency (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case)

With respect to Kama and Gambiri, the agriculture performance does not change with a better efficiency. This is due to the fact that (i) the flow of the Konar river and the canal capacity of Kama and Gambiri schemes are large enough to satisfy fully the irrigation demand, even for the efficiency of 30% chosen for Kama and Gambiri schemes, and (ii) the run of river plants at Gambiri and Kama are already operating at full operational capacity (with a Plant Factor of 80%) with an efficiency of 30%, so they cannot turbine any additional volume of water with a better efficiency.

Concerning Gulbahar, two water allocation rules have been selected in the analysis above. Predominantly the operation rule n°6 which gives higher priority to irrigation, than to hydropower and filling the reservoir. For this rule, there is a significant increase of Total and Agriculture net benefit for an improvement of the irrigation efficiency (see figure below). The other allocation rule is n°5 which gives equal priority to irrigation and filling the reservoir, and then to hydropower. Interestingly, the augmentation of Total and Agriculture net benefit becomes less important with an improvement of the irrigation efficiency. This trend occurs for three reasons: (i) the irrigation water demand decreases with better irrigation efficiency, hence the benefit of adding a reservoir decreases in theory, (ii) Gulbahar is operated by the operation rule n°5 which gives same priority to irrigation than filling water and eventually the increase in Agriculture revenue compared to the Reference Case is smaller with better irrigation efficiency, and (iii) there is more water stored in Gulbahar reservoir but this extra volume is not used to produced additional electricity since in the rule n°5 producing electricity has less priority than filling.

Page 150 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Change in NB (MUS$/year) Change in NB (MUS$/year) Gulbahar 6 Gulbahar 5 With Loan Without Loan With Loan Without Loan Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (New Kabul) 29.9 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 Domestic Water (Old Kabul) 0.8 50% 72.0 50% 36.0 Agriculture Agriculture 60% 79.1 60% 35.7 50% 25.6 50% 25.8 Hydropower Hydropower 60% 25.5 60% 24.7 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to New Kabul -9.3 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 Pumping & treatment cost Gulbahar to Old Kabul -0.3 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 Land Acquisition & Resettlement -15.9 -5.8 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 Capital Cost -62.8 -22.9 O&M -9.2 O&M -9.2 50% 30.9 80.8 50% -5.0 45.0 Total Total 60% 37.8 87.8 60% -6.4 43.6 Figure 102: Sensitivity of Gulbahar under two water allocation rule to the irrigation efficiency (change in the net benefit as compared to the Reference Case).

5.7. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

The sequencing suggested for the construction of the infrastructure is generally as follow: 1. Build first the infrastructures which satisfy as much as possible the domestic water demand. 2. Build the infrastructure which has the highest individual change in total net benefit.

The first time step is 2018 to allow time for construction from the date of this report (2013).

This section advises scheduling for construction, keeping the same water allocation rule suggested for year 2030. Obviously this water allocation rule is indicative and should actually be flexible during the course of construction. The following paragraphs consider a financing representation with a loan.

Table 61: Recommended sequencing for the construction of the infrastructure Investment Investment Year 2018 Year 2020 Year 2025 Year 2030 tranche option < 0.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot < 1.0 BUS$ Shatoot, Shatoot Kama Gambiri Gambiri 3, Kama 3 Shatoot Shatoot Baghdara D1 Baghdara D1 2 < 1.5 BUS$ Shatoot, Shatoot Konar A Gambiri Gambiri 3, Konar A 2 Shatoot Shatoot Baghdara A2 Kama Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama 3 Baghdara A2 < 2.0 BUS$ Shatoot, Shatoot Konar A Kama Gambiri Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2 Shatoot, Shatoot Gulbahar Gulbahar 6 < 2.5 BUS$ Shatoot, Shatoot Konar A Baghdara D1 Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama

Page 151 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 2 Shatoot, Shatoot Gulbahar Kama Gambiri Gulbahar 6 Gambiri 3 Kama 3 < 3.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Gambiri Gulbahar 5 Gambiri 3 Konar A 2 Shatoot Shatoot Konar A Baghdara D1 Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 2 Shatoot Shatoot Konar A Baghdara D1 Surubi II Surubi II Baghdara D1 2 Konar A 2 < 3.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Konar A Baghdara D1 Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama Surubi II Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 2 Surubi II Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Kama Gulbahar 6 Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 < 4.0 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Baghdara D1 Gulbahar 6 Kama Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 < 4.5 BUS$ No specific solution > 4.5 BUS$ Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Konar A Baghdara D1 Gulbahar 6 Kama Gambiri Gambiri 3 Kama 1 Konar A 2 Baghdara D1 Shatoot Shatoot Gulbahar Baghdara D1 Gambiri Gulbahar 6 Shal Kama Surubi II Gambiri 3 Kama 3 Baghdara D1 1 Surubi II Shal

Page 152 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5.7.1. Zero Investment: Reference Case and Coverage of Domestic Water Demand of Old Kabul city

This paragraph investigates the coverage of domestic water of Old Kabul city in case none of the new assets examined in this work that have a domestic water supply component (Shatoot and Gulbahar) are built. As was explained before, all the scenarios examined as well as the Reference Case suppose several background parameters for the domestic demand of the old city and its supply. These are reminded in the table below and pertain to the population, increase in the portion of the population being connected to the municipal water, a portion being house connections (the rest being public taps), the per capita consumption, the augmentation of the groundwater supply and the losses in the pipe distribution system. These trends were interpolated to estimate values in the time steps 2018, 2020 and 2025.

Table 62: Parameters used to assess the domestic demand and supply of Old Kabul City Parameter Value range Reference Population • 4.3 million in year 2012 JICA (2009) • 5.2 million in year 2030 Portion of Old Kabul City being • 30% in year 2012 JICA (2009, 2012) connected to the municipal water • 60% in year 2030 Portion of the municipal water • 60% in year 2012 JICA (2009, 2012) connexions being house connexions • 75% in year 2030 (the rest being public taps) Per capita requirement For House Connexions: Beller et al. (2004) • 60 L/day in year 2012 JICA (2009) • 120 L/cap/day in year 2030

For Public Taps: • 25 L/cap/day in year 2012 • 50 L/cap/day in year 2030. Augmentation of the supply from • 16.4 Mm3/year (45,000 Afghanistan Urban Water groundwater m3/day) in year 2012 Supply and Sewerage • 21.9 Mm3/year (60,000 Corporation, Personal m3/day) in year 2015 Communication (2011) • 43.8 Mm3/year (120,000 m3/day) in year 2018 Losses in the pipe distribution • 30% in year 2012 Beller et al. (2004) system • 25% in year 2030 JICA (2009) Losses during water treatment 5% Pooyab (2011) process

In the Reference Case, the supply of the domestic water is solely from groundwater. The coverage is maximum and equal to 70% (1.4 million people covered out of a connected population of about 2.0 million) in year 2018 after full development of the groundwater supply, surrently being undertaken by the Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Company (see figure below). It reduces afterwards since: • on the one hand the volume of supply stays the same and is equal to 43.8 Mm3/year, • on the other hand the demand increases with: - greater connected population (demographic increase and better connection rate); - greater share of the connected population being individual house connexions; - increasing daily per capita requirement.

Page 153 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 103: Coverage of the Domestic Water Demand from the connected population of Old Kabul City in the Reference Case. The figure on the bar chart is the population supplied with domestic water (in million).

In the Reference Case, no infrastructure is considered for the supply of domestic water to the New Kabul city so the coverage is virtually nill.

5.7.2. Investment smaller than 0.5 BUS$: a better coverage of Old Kabul city Domestic Water Demand

Shatoot is considered as the best option for this tranche due to the priority setting for domestic water supply to the Old Kabul city. The results of this section will apply for the development sequences of all the investment tranches examined below.

Referring to the previous section on the Reference Case, it is advisable to build Shatoot by year 2018 to provide better coverage of the demand from the Old city in the following years. Shatoot would then complement the groundwater supply and the sum will cover all of the domestic demand from the Old city up to year 2025 (respectively 2.0 and 2.6 million people in year 2018 and 2025). The rise in supplied population is due to demographic growth as well as the increase in the share of connected population. The supply from Shatoot will increase gradually as per the demand to complement the groundwater. The coverage decreases after 2025 to the value of 87% in year 2030 (2.7 million out of 3.1 million connected population). There is only a slight increase in the population being supplied from year 2025 to 2030 since the per capita requirement has increased. Compared to the Reference Case, the benefit from Shatoot is clear in terms of securing the water supply to the connected population of Old Kabul City, especially from year 2025.

Page 154 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 104: Coverage of the Domestic Water Demand from the connected population of Old Kabul City when Shatoot is built in year 2018. The figure on the bar chart is the population supplied with domestic water (in million).

In terms of total net benefit, the value is significantly negative in the year Shatoot is commissioned (2018) since the scheme is not generating the full net benefit from domestic water as the demand from the connected population of Old Kabul City is not sufficient in year 2018. As this demand rises, the domestic net benefit and the total net benefit increases as well.

Figure 105: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of Shatoot

The variation in agriculture net benefit is slightly negative, close to 0; after construction of Shatoot in year 2018 since water becomes diverted for domestic purpose to Old Kabul City and a minimum flow requirement is imposed downstream of the dam and of the irrigation diversion. The decrease in agriculture net benefit becomes more prominent with time since more water is diverted for domestic purposes to Old Kabul City, until the maximum diversion in year 2030 when the decrease in agriculture net benefit equals 1.2 MUS$/year.

5.7.3. Investment smaller than 1.0 BUS$

There are two advisable infrastructure combinations for an investment at maximum equal to 1.0 BUS$:

Page 155 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

• [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] for the greatest increase in total net benefit or in agriculture net benefit, • [Shatoot, Baghdara D1 2] for the largest electricity production.

Case of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]:

Shatoot should be built first in year 2018 for domestic supply. The next infrastructure with the highest increase in total net Benefit is Kama, which should be built in year 2020, followed by Gambiri in year 2025.

The situation for domestic coverage is the one detailed in the previous section (only Shatoot built). The increase in electricity production is mainly after the construction of Kama in the year 2020 followed by a moderate increase after construction of Gambiri in year 2025 (see figure below). The production however always stays much smaller than the projection for electricity demand.

Figure 106: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]. The existing infrastructures refer to the infrastructures considered in the Reference Case. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5

The variation in agriculture net benefit becomes positive once Kama is built in year 2020 (see figure below). This increase is strengthened once Gambiri is commissioned in year 2025. There is a small decrease in the agriculture net benefits from year 2025 to 2030 due to the reduction of agriculture benefits at Shatoot with more water being allocated to Domestic Water at the cost of irrigation.

Page 156 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 107: Change in agriculture net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]

The change in total net benefit also improves after construction of Kama in year 2020 as it becomes positive and continues to increase with Gambiri in year 2025 (see figure below). The change in total net benefit increases from year 2025 to 2030 due to greater domestic water benefit at Shatoot.

Figure 108: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]

Case of [Shatoot, Baghdara D1 2]:

Baghdara D1 should be built in year 2020 following the commission of Shatoot in 2018. The situation for the domestic coverage is the same as in the previous section (only Shatoot built). The increase in electricity production is significant (almost 3 times the production from the existing infrastructures in the Reference Case) but much below the target for electricity production.

Page 157 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 109: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Baghdara D1 2]. The existing infrastructures refer to the infrastructures considered in the Reference Case. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5.

The change in agriculture net benefit is the same as the case when Shatoot is built alone (previous section). The change in total net benefit becomes positive after the construction of Baghdara D1 in year 2020 and its value increases gradually with greater profits at Shatoot for domestic water.

Figure 110: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Baghdara D1 2]

5.7.4. Investment smaller than 1.5 BUS$

There are two advisable infrastructures combinations for an investment at maximum equal to 1.5 BUS$: • [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] for the greatest increase in total net benefit or in electricity production, • [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2] for the greatest increase in agriculture net benefit.

Page 158 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Case of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]:

The infrastructure following the construction of Shatoot having the highest increase in total net benefit is Konar A, which should be built in year 2020. Moreover Konar A will greatly improve the production of electricity. The next scheme should be Gambiri in year 2025.

The situation for domestic coverage is the same as the case with Shatoot alone (investment tranche smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The increase in electricity production after the construction of Konar A in the year 2020 is substantial, but still below the target for electricity production (see figure below). The production increases a little after construction of Gambiri in year 2025 but stays below the target.

Figure 111: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination Shatoot, Gambiri 2 and Konar A 2. The target for electricity production is described in Section 3.2.5.

The variation in agriculture net benefit stays negative after Konar A is built since this scheme is purely for hydropower (see figure below). The variation becomes positive once Gambiri is built in year 2025. The agriculture net benefit decreases a little towards year 2030 due to reduction of irrigation coverage in Shatoot in favour of domestic water supply.

Figure 112: Change in agriculture net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule combining [Shatoot, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]

Page 159 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The total net benefit increases significantly after construction of Konar A in year 2020 with revenues from hydropower (see figure below). The net benefit continues to improve with Gambiri in year 2025 and in year 2030 with more benefits from domestic water supply at Shatoot.

Figure 113: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Konar A 2

Case of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2]:

Baghdara A2 has the highest increase in total net benefit hence it should be commissioned in year 2020, followed by Kama in year 2025 and Gambiri in year 2030. The development of the electricity production is summarised in the figure below.

Figure 114: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2]. The existing infrastructure refers to the infrastructure considered in the Reference Case. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5.

The variation in agriculture net benefit is the same as for the combination [Shatoot, Kama 3 and Gambiri 3]. The case for the total net benefit is a gradual increase with time with the succession of new infrastructures (see figure below).

Page 160 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 115: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3 and Baghdara A2]

5.7.5. Investment smaller than 2.0 BUS$

There are two combinations recommended for this investment tranche: • [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] to supply domestic water to New Kabul city, • or [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2] for the other metrics.

Case of [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]:

It is recommended to build Gulbahar by year 2020 to satisfy the need of the growing New Kabul city. Gulbahar provides domestic water to the new city and a little to the old city. The coverage for the new city is shown in the figure below. The maximum population which can be supplied with a unit requirement of 120 L/cap/day is 1.6 million, which covers all the demand until year 2025 but 87% of the demand in year 2030.

Figure 116: Coverage of the Domestic Water Demand from the New Kabul City when Gulbahar is built in year 2020. The figure on the bar chart is the population supplied with domestic water (in million).

The augmentation of the coverage for the old town is negligible and therefore the situation is virtually the same as for the case when Shatoot is built alone. This is in line with the study JICA (2012) which plans that Gulbahar will predominantly supply the new city and only a small part of the old city. Eventually the coverage of the domestic demand is the same in the old and new city

Page 161 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

and equals 87%, which makes in total (old and new city) a supplied population of 4.3 million (out of 5.0 million connected people) in year 2030.

There is an increase in electricity production after the construction of Gulbahar in the year 2020 (see figure below). However the total production is significantly smaller than the target for electricity production. There is a slight decrease in electricity production after year 2020 as more water get diverted at Gulbahar for domestic supply, with rising population in New Kabul city.

Figure 117: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5

The variation in agriculture net benefit increases significantly after Gulbahar is built since this scheme is supplying the largest irrigated area in the basin (see figure below). The net benefit decreases slightly after year 2020 with more water being diverted to domestic water.

Figure 118: Change in agriculture net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]

The benefit from domestic water supply is not at the maximum in year 2020 as the demand from the New Kabul City is not fully developed at that stage. As a consequence, the initial operation of Gulbahar could be modified to allocate less than 100 Mm3/year to domestic water and distribute the additional water to irrigation or hydropower. Following the year 2020, the variation in total net benefit increases with years as the benefit from domestic water increases.

Page 162 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 119: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]

Case of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Konar A 2]:

The infrastructure following the construction of Shatoot having the highest increase in total net benefit is Konar A, which should be built in year 2020. It should be followed by Kama in year 2025 and Gambiri in 2030.

The situation for domestic coverage, when only Shatoot is built, is detailed in Section 5.7.1. The increase in electricity production is drastic after the construction of Konar A in the year 2020 (see figure below). The increase continues after construction of Kama in year 2025 and Gambiri in year 2030.

Figure 120: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]. The target for electricity production is described in Section 3.2.5

The variation in agriculture net benefit is similar to the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3] (investment tranche smaller than 1.0 BUS$) since Konar A is purely for hydropower (see figure below).

The total net benefit increases significantly after construction of Konar A in year 2020 with benefits from hydropower (see figure below) and continues to improve with Kama and Gambiri respectively in year 2025 and 2030.

Page 163 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 121: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]

5.7.6. Investment smaller than 2.5 BUS$

There are two combinations recommended for this investment tranche: • [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] for total net benefit or electricity production, • or [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] for domestic supply to New Kabul city or agriculture net beneft.

Case of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]:

The advised sequence based on the individual asset net benefit, following implementation of Shatoot in year 2018, is Konar A in 2020, Baghdara D1 and Kama in 2025, and Gambiri in 2030. Kama is advised in year 2025 at the same time as Baghdara so as to develop further irrigation in the basin.

The electricity production is drastically augmented after the construction of Konar A in year 2020 and futher improved with the implementation of Baghdara D1 in 2025. Nevertheless the production stays much below the target.

Figure 122: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]. The existing infrastructure refers to the

Page 164 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

infrastructure considered in the Reference Case. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5.

The situation in term of augmentation of agriculture net benefit is similar to the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3] (investment tranche smaller than 1.0 BUS$) except for the respective years of construction (here year 2025 for Kama and 2030 for Gambiri). The augmentation for the total net benefit is drastic as well after construction of Konar A and further improves with Baghdara D1 and Kama in year 2025, and eventually Gambiri in 2030.

Figure 123: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]

Case of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]:

As detailed for the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (previous section 5.7.5), Gulbahar should be built in year 2020. It should be followed by Kama in year 2020 and Gambiri in year 2030.

The situation for domestic coverage is the same as for the combination [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]. The increase in electricity production is moderate in this set (see figure below).

Figure 124: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]. The target for electricity production is described in Section 3.2.5.

Page 165 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The increase in agriculture net benefit is drastic in this combination of new infrastructures, in particular with the implementation of Gulbahar in year 2020 and continues to augment with the construction of Kama and Gambiri (see figure below). This combination leads to the greatest increase in agriculture production among all the options explored.

Figure 125: Change in agriculture net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3]

The total net benefit increases moderately after the successive implementation of the new assets (see figure below).

Figure 126: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination Shatoot, Gulbahar 7, Gambiri 3 and Baghdara A2

5.7.7. Investment smaller than 3.0 BUS$

For this investment tranche, three combinations are possible: • [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] for total net benefit, • [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] for electricity production, • and [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2] for domestic supply to New Kabul city and agriculture net benefit.

The case for [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] has already been detailed in previous section 5.7.6.

Page 166 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Case of [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]:

The suggested schedule is, following Shatoot in year 2018, Konar A in 2020, Baghdara D1 in 2025 and Surubi II in 2030.

The case for agriculture net benefit is the same when Shatoot alone is built since the other assets do not have any agriculture component. The increase in electricity production is substantial, in particular after the construction of Konar A in year 2020, but nevertheless always below the target for electricity production (see figure below).

Figure 127: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5.

The augmentation of the change in total net benefit is substantial after the commission of Konar A and continues to increase with the implementation of Baghdara D1 in year 2025 (see figure below). The net benefit increases slightly from year 2025 to 2030 due to the negative budget of Surubi II counterbalanced with increased benefits at Shatoot from domestic water.

Figure 128: Change in agriculture net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Surubi II, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]

Page 167 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Case of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]:

Similarly to the combination [Shaoot and Gulbahar 6], Gulbahar should be built in year 2020 for supply of domestic water to the New Kabul city. It should be followed by Konar A, which has the greatest individual net benefit, in year 2025 and finally Gambiri in year 2030.

The situation for domestic coverage is the one detailed for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). There is a significant increase in electricity production after the commission of Konar A in the year 2025 which is improved a little after implementation of Gambiri in year 2030.

Figure 129: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]. The target for electricity production is described in Section 3.2.5.

The variation in agriculture net benefit becomes positive after Gulbahar in 2020. It decreases a little in 2025 due to greater domestic water supply at Shatoot and Gulbahar, but increases after Gambiri in 2030.

Figure 130: Change in agriculture net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]

Page 168 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The total net benefit increases significantly after construction of Konar A in year 2025 with revenues from hydropower (see figure below). The net benefit of Gulbahar 5 stays negative until year 2030 due to restricted releases from the reservoir to supply irrigation since in the allocation rule n°5 irrigation and filling the reservoir has the same priority. Konar A is the scheme significantly improving the net benefit of the whole system.

Figure 131: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 5, Gambiri 3 and Konar A 2]

5.7.8. Investment smaller than 3.5 BUS$

There are two set sof infrastructure advised for an investment smaller than 3.5 BUS$: • [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Surubi II and Konar A 2] for a better increase in total net benefit and large electricity production, • or [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2] for supply of domestic water to New Kabul city and agriculture production.

Case of [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Surubi II and Konar A 2]:

The advised schedule of construction following Shatoot in year 2018 is Konar A2 in 2020, Baghdara D1 and Kama in year 2025 (to increase agriculture production at the same time as electricity), and Gambiri and Surubi II in 2030.

The case for domestic water is the same as when Shatoot is built alone (investment tranche smaller than 0.5 BUS$). The electricity production is drastically augmented after the construction of Konar A in year 2020 and futher improved with the implementation of Baghdara D1 in 2025 and Surubi II in 2030. Nevertheless the production stays below the target.

Page 169 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 132: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2, Surubi II and Konar A 2]. The target for electricity production is described in Section 3.2.5.

The situation in term of augmentation of agriculture net benefit is similar to the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 3] (investment tranche smaller than 1.0 BUS$) except for the respective years of construction (here year 2025 for Kama and 2030 for Gambiri). The augmentation for the total net benefit is drastic as well after construction of Konar A and further improves with Baghdara D1 and Kama in year 2025, and eventually Gambiri in 2030. Interestingly the net benefit reduces a little after implementation of Surubi II since this asset has a negative net benefit, though it augments the electricity production.

Figure 133: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]

Case of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]:

The construction sequence, following Shatoot and Gulbahar respectively in year 2018 and 2020, should be Konar A in 2025, and Kama and Gambiri in 2030. The situation for domestic coverage is the same as [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$).

There is an increase in electricity production after the construction of Gulbahar in year 2020 followed by a much substantial augmentation after the commissioning of Konar A in the year 2025

Page 170 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

(see figure below). The production further increases after Kama and Gambiri in 2030. The operation of Kama under the allocation rule n°1 (equal allocation priority to hydropower and irrigation) is advisable with the construction of Konar A upstream, which releases water during winter for electricity that can be in turn turbined at Kama. Nevertheless the total electricity production stays below the electricity target.

Figure 134: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5.

The variation in agriculture net benefit stays is the same as for [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$) except for the construction dates of Gambiri and Kama (by year 2030).

The total net benefit increases significantly after construction of Konar A in year 2020 with revenues from hydropower and continues with Gambiri and Kama in year 2030 (see figure below).

Figure 135: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1 and Konar A 2]

Page 171 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

5.7.9. Investment smaller than 4.0 BUS$

For an amount smaller than 4.0 BUS$, the advised set of infrastructures is [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]. Following Shatoot in year 2018 and Gulbahar in 2020, the construction schedule should be Konar A and Kama in 2025, and Baghdara D1 and Gambiri in 2030 to balance additional electricity production with agriculture expansion.

The coverage of the domestic demand is the same as for [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6] (investment tranche smaller than 2.0 BUS$). The electricity production increases substantially after construction of Konar A in year 2025, Baghdara D1 in 2030 and to a smaller extent after Gulbahar, Kama and Gambiri.

Figure 136: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]. The target for electricity production is described in Section 3.2.5.

The situation in term of agriculture net benefit is the same as for [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3 and Kama 3] (investment tranche smaller than 2.5 BUS$) except for the construction dates of Gambiri and Kama, respectively (by year 2025 and 2030). The total net benefit augments drastically after implementation of Konar A in 2025 and is further strengthened with Baghdara D1, Kama, Gulbahar and Gambiri.

Page 172 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 137: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2]

5.7.10. Investment smaller than 4.5 BUS$

There is no better advisable infrastructures than the one detailed in the previous section for an investment between 4.0 to 4.5 BUS$.

5.7.11. Investment greater than 4.5 BUS$

As was explained previously, the two advisable combinations for this investment tranche are [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] or [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Baghdara D1 1, Surubi II and Shal]. The case of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 1, Baghdara D1 2 and Konar A 2] was detailed in the previous section 5.7.9.

Case of [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Baghdara D1 1, Surubi II and Shal]:

Following Shatoot in year 2018, the construction schedule should be Gulbahar and Shal in 2020, Baghdara D1 and Kama in 2025, and finally Gambiri and Surubi II in 2030, for a balanced creation of net benefits, as well as electricity and agriculture production.

The situation for domestic coverage is the same as for the set [Shatoot and Gulbahar 6]. The electricity production is dramatically increased with the commission of Shal by year 2020, being the closest to the target for electricity production among all the combination investigated in this investment plan. Nevertheless the production is below the target and continues to stay below with the implementation of the other assets in following years.

Page 173 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Figure 138: Development of electricity production under the Median flow for the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Baghdara D1 1, Surubi II and Shal]. The target for electricity production is based on Section 3.2.5

The augmentation of the net benefit is drastic as well after the construction of Shal by 2020 and continues with implementation of Baghdara D1 and Kama by 2025, and eventually with Gambiri by 2030 (Surubi II reduces a little the basin-wide benefit).

Figure 139: Change in total net benefit under the Median flow for the development schedule of the combination [Shatoot, Gulbahar 6, Gambiri 3, Kama 3, Baghdara D1 1, Surubi II and Shal]

Page 174 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. CONCLUSIONS

This report describes the development of the Kabul River Basin in Afghanistan with respect to population, domestic water and (hydro)power demands and points to some critical issues. On the basis of these demands and analysis of simulations of various infrastructure options with the WEAP model, an investment plan for hydraulic assets is proposed for the basin. The analysis and evaluation of the different investment options including their management under different priorities and different streamflow regimes forms the basis of an evaluation of investment options and the recommendation of best investment combinations and timing. The results propose a ranking of the development options based on water supply priority, net benefit considerations and best options for hydropower production and increased agricultural benefits. The results also provide an implementation plan, showing which investments to implement in which order under different funding scenarios. Based on the methodology used in the analysis, the recommended solutions are robust under different streamflow conditions that represent potential future changes in the regional climate.

The main findings are:

1. Securing the supply of domestic water to the existing Old Kabul city is a priority for any investment in the basin. Projection of the population, consumption rate and connection rate have shown that less than 30% of the demand from the connected population of the city can be satisfied in year 2030 with the supply from neighbouring aquifers. This supply would even reduce further to 12% only if analysed in combination with the likely future water withdrawals for the Aynak mine from one of the main aquifers supplying the city.

2. Options for further development could be to tap farther aquifers or to develop surface water resources. At the time of this work no finalised studies were available for further groundwater exploitation but two projects were available for surface water exploitation: construction of a dam on the Maidan river, Shatoot dam for about 360 MUS$, and another dam on the Panjshir river, Gulbahar dam for about 1,400 MUS$. This analysis concludes that given a priority of domestic water supply in the exisiting Kabul city Shatoot should be a priority scheme for any investment in the basin due to its relative low cost and its reliable supply of domestic water which will, combined with the groundwater supply, cover almost 90% of the domestic water demands of the connected population. Gulbahar scheme was judged to be a good complement to Shatoot, since it is a very reliable source of water that would supply New Kabul city. It is advised in this study that the water supply from Gulbahar should also be connected to the existing (Old) Kabul city since Gulbahar would supplement the supply to Old Kabul city in case Shatoot fails under severe and extended drought.

3. In addition to the social benefit, investing in Shatoot and Gulbahar also has an economic benefit. It was shown that the benefit per volume of water from domestic water (about 0.21 US$/m3 at Gulbahar) is about 8 to 9 times greater than hydropower (about 0.03 US$/m3). The Shatoot asset has a poor net benefit but this is not due to prioritised allocation to domestic water supply but to the scarcity and high variability of the Maidan river flow which has lead to a large reservoir in comparison to the annual volume projected to be withdrawn. Further reservoir calculations under different hydrological scenarios should be carried out to better determine the required storage volume (see the Bulk Kabul Water Supply scoping

Page 175 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

study) which might result in a reduced reservoir volume and lower costs. Economic performance of Shatoot improves if analysed in conjunction with the start of Aynak mine operations. Relative timing of the two projects is important in order to minimise the effects of the mining on the domestic water supply of the existing Kabul city. Further analysis is needed to identify the best combination and phasing of the two projects, preferably in combination with other options for water supply to Kabul city as well. It should be considered however that timing is becoming a pressing issue.

4. The net benefit of Gulbahar is relatively small as well, which is due to its high investment cost and the relative small amount of water allocated to domestic water supply. Should it be possible technically to convey more than 100 Mm3/year from Gulbahar to Old and New Kabul city, substantial greater benefits could be generated at Gulbahar for a little reduction in benefit from agriculture and hydropower. Moreover, additional domestic supply from Gulbahar would improve the reliability of the domestic water coverage under extended drought.

5. The performance of the new assets and their combinations were assessed in a multi- criteria analysis for four metrics: (i) coverage of domestic demand from Old and New Kabul city, (ii) change in total net benefit (as compared to the case where no new infrastructures would be built, referred to as Reference Case), (iii) change in agricultural net benefit (as compared to the Reference Case) and (iv) total amount of electricity produced from hydropower. The advised combination of new infrastructures for each of the four metrics is: • for best coverage of domestic demand: Shatoot and Gulbahar for an investment cost of about 1,800 MUS$, • for greatest increase in total net benefit: i) in case of a financing with a loan: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Gambiri, Kama and Konar A 2 for an investment cost of about 3,800 MUS$, ii) in case of a financing with a grant: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Gambiri, Kama and Shal for an investment cost of about 5,800 MUS$, • for greatest increase in agriculture net benefit: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Gambiri and Kama for an investment cost of about 2,400 MUS$ (the solution advised above for the greatest increase in total net benefit b i) generates the same high agriculture benefit but for a greater investment cost), • for greatest electricity production: Shatoot, Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Surubi II, Gambiri, Kama and Shal for an investment cost of about 5,800 MUS$ (this solution only produces the greatest increase in total net benefit if the financing is with a grant, option b ii)).

6. In terms of individual net benefit, the best performing asset is the hydropower scheme Konar A, followed by the other hydropower plants Shal, Baghdara D1 and Baghdara A2. But these infrastructures are single purpose. For multipurpose, the best performing in terms of net benefit are Kama and Gambiri, which bring benefit in electricity production but also in irrigation. Shatoot and Gulbahar, which are the only domestic supply schemes through surface water in the basin, perform poorly in comparison for reasons explained in point 3. However, their net benefit performance is largely dependent on domestic water price and would be significantly boosted if international level prices were used. The worst performing asset is Surubi II which has a negative net benefit in case of a financing with a loan. This report considered the two options, A2 (negligible storage) or D1, for Baghdara. Option D1 performs better due to the ability to modify the flow and produce electricity in a more

Page 176 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

efficient way. The two options Shal and Konar A were also investigated for hydropower along the Konar River and Konar A performs better.

7. Investment in the Konar River is of great interest since any new scheme built in this region would benefit from the high flow of the river. This is particularly the case in this analysis for Konar A, Gambiri and Kama. Moreover, the performance of these schemes is reliable / robust due to the relatively small variability of the Konar River.

8. This study provides insight into beneficial interactions between new schemes. Further optimisation of the asset operation for a particular combination would be required but the preliminary results from this study are: • Along the Panjshir and Kabul river: there is a cascading effect with the chain Gulbahar, Baghdara D1, Naghlu, Surubi I and Surubi II since the electricity production get successively increased. The beneficial effect of Baghdara D1 in combination with Gulbahar is specifically interesting since in the scoping study for strategic option in the Kabul Basin (WB/IBRD 2010), the Baghdara dam showed consistently poor performance; • Along the Konar river: there is also a cascading effect with Konar A and Kama since the water released during winter by Konar A for electricity production can be used for power generation once more at Kama during this period when the irrigation demand is limited; • The combination of Baghdara D1 and Konar A, which are both reservoirs dedicated to electricity production, has the highest potential for increase the electricity production during winter.

9. The target for electricity production of 7,500 GWh/year as assessed by Fichtner (2012) was considered in this analysis. This target is never reached by any of the combinations identified. The production of electricity maximally increases from about 580 GWh/year in the Reference Case to about 6,300 GWh/year for the solution producing the highest amount of electricity. Hydropower can be a major source of electricity production to reach the target, but not the only one and it should therefore be used in combination with other power sources such as thermal power stations and through import (as is already the case under the present conditions with imports form Uzbekistan).

10. The analysis underlines that proposed design for the following new schemes could be improved: • Gulbahar: as mentioned in point 3, if possible technically, the supply of domestic water to New and Old Kabul city should be greater than 100 Mm3/year. Possible values are 150 Mm3/year to secure further the supply under normal hydrologic conditions or 200 Mm3/year for a more reliable supply under drought. Further study should be carried out to examine the feasibility of conveyance of a larger volume and to define more exactly this volume. • Shatoot: the simulations under normal conditions showed that Shatoot reservoir never filled up to its storage capacity of 250 Mm3. Further opertational reservoir studies are recommended. • Gambiri: the technical specifications used for Gambiri were those mentioned in the available feasibility study at the time of this report, in particular a maximum diversion of 50 m3/s from Konar River. This amount appeares low compared to the river capacity.

Page 177 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

The proposed maximum diversion is now 100 m3/s in the current design stage but no written document was available to support this value at the time of this study. • Shal: the value proposed for its live storage (174 Mm3) is very small compared to the river flow, hence it is not possible to operate the reservoir so as to buffer the flow and produce more electricity in winter. An alternative design with a greater live storage should be more valuable.

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

The results depend strongly on the data in the feasibility studies. In a portfolio review undertaken under AWARD (2012) many of the feasibility studies were found to be below standard. Thus additional study is required before implementation.

Considering data availability, the analysis had to make a number of assumptions and simplifications as described in the respective report sections. In addition, only those investment options for which sufficient data (feasibility studies) were available have been considered. It is recommended that with more information becoming available the analysis be revised in order to consider the additional information. The main aspects that would benefit from an update include: • Inclusion of specific investments for which feasibility study results become available; • New findings regarding potential changes in catchment hydrology, i.e. runoff, based on anthropogenic activities and climate change; • Political aspects that have an influence on the water utilization in the basin, i.e. that would impact on priorities; • External factors that can have an influence on the basin, with power transfer into- or from other basins as well as power transfer to Pakistan being the most likely scenarios; • Global aspects that could lead to changes on the food or energy market • Price changes.

In addition to the above potential new information, periodic updating of the analysis, especially reflecting developments that have actually been put in place, is recommended.

It should be noted that due to the complexity and uncertainty involved in the future development of the basin the scenarios were tested under operational conditions. Depending on what assets will finally be implemented and in what sequence as well as with what management and priorities, it will be important to conduct detailed studies for the finally agreed assets where their interaction with already existing assets, mainly during the construction and commissioning phase, is assessed in detail. The main aspects here include flow requirements during early construction (river diversion and closure) as well as impounding of the reservoir.

Flood related information, especially with regards to socioeconomic impacts of flood events, is not available in the basin and has respectively not been included in the investment plan. It is recommended that a respective study that uses flood modelling to derive flood risk zones under different discharge events and also studies socioeconomic impacts of flood events is conducted and that the results will be used to update the river basin investment plan by considering flood retention as a potential priority for the reservoirs. Providing flood retention would require reservoirs being as empty as possible which is contrary to the other sectors’ needs of having full reservoirs, i.e. for hydropower production, irrigation water, and domestic water supply. Nevertheless, if occurring frequently, avoiding floods and related costs of flood damage may be more beneficial

Page 178 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

than other services that a dam can provide. It is therefore further recommended that after such a study has been conducted the investment analysis should be revised under consideration of the flood impact information. Structural integrity of the new assets under flood events is another point for consideration and for which detailed studies related to flooding would be recommended.

Information about groundwater and especially groundwater recharge in the basin is scarce. Groundwater has therefore been included in the model with strong simplifications. With groundwater being an important resource especially for Kabul City, it is recommended that a better understanding of the groundwater and especially its recharge is necessary. Upon availability of such data and depending on the results of such a study, the investment plan should be updated accordingly.

Considering the operation of the investment assets that will finally put in place, it is recommended that a detailed study is carried out to optimize the assets with regards to their agreed function within the overall river basin system. At the current stage the investment plan has ensured that the recommended assets are robust to work under a variety of flow conditions and optimized based on the currently available knowledge. Nevertheless fine tuning, regarding the dams and schemes operation through detailed studies would be necessary to optimize benefits from the individual assets. This should include flood considerations as described above.

Finally, while additional studies are recommended as stated above, this should not delay the government in implementation of this Investment Plan, as they can be undertaken in parallel. We therefore recommend that the government undertakes the following steps (some of which can be undertaken in parallel):

1. Prepare Investment Plans for other basins in order to determine the total infrastructure needs and priorities for the whole country. Under AWARD an investment plan for the Panj- Amu basin will be produced (by February 2013), while information for an investment plan may be available from the Master Plan currently being developed by ADB for the Helmand Basin. This would leave investment plans for the Northern and Hari Rod-Murghab basins still to do. A knowledge base has been set-up for these basins under AWARD therefore the information is available to complete these plans.

2. While it has been agreed that domestic water supply for Old Kabul City is the main priority, it has not been decided by the government or stakeholders what the next priority should be. Therefore the government should decide on which of the following is the priority for the Kabul basin (and other basins): net benefit, water supply for New Kabul city, hydropower production, or agricultural production.

3. Present the investment plan(s) to donors.

4. Based on the agreed development priorities, and the funding commitments from the donor (as well as central government), the appropriate set of infrastructure options can be decided upon.

5. Based on the chosen set of infrastructure options, undertake transboundary negotiations with Pakistan.

Page 179 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

6. Prepare a financing plan for each of the schemes within the investment option chosen, in co-ordination with the relevant donors and central government.

7. Implement the schemes according to the timeline presented in the plan(s).

Page 180 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

APPENDIX 1: REFERENCES

AEIC, 2012, Afghan Energy Information Center http://www.afghaneic.org/

Aquastat, Irrigation water use per country in the year 2000 http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/irrwatuse.htm accessed 17-01-2013.

Beller et al. 2004. Feasibility Study for the Extension of the Kabul Water Supply System. CAWSS. Financed by KfW

BGR, 2005, Hydrogeology of the Kabul Basin

Central Statistics Organization (CSO), (Provincial) Population Estimates, 2011-12, CSO, Kabul, 2012

CES, 2009. Consultancy Services for Kunar Hydropower Development, Afghanistan, Shal Hydropower Project. MEW, Kabul

CIA, The World Factbook – Afghanistan (Economy), CIA, Washington, D.C., 2012. (Data for 2011)

CPHD 2011, Afghanistan Human Development Report 2011, The Forgotten Front: Water Security and the Crisis in Sanitation. 259 pp.

Doorenbos, J., et. al., Yield Responses to Water, FAO, Rome, 1979

FAO, 2012, http://www.fao.org/nr/water/infores_databases_cropwat.html

Favre, R., Kamal, G.M., 2004, Watershed Atlas of Afghanistan, AIMS

Fichtner, 2007, Feasibility Study for Baghdara Hydropower Project, MEW, Afghanistan

Fitchner, 2012, Power Sector Master Plan, Draft Final Report

GWP, 2002 Global Water Partnership, toolbox, http://www.gwptoolbox.org/ accessed January 2013.

Hagler Bailly, 2010, ESIA of Aynak Copper Project, Screening Report. Kabul, Afghanistan

IBRD/World Bank, 2010, Scoping Strategic Options for the Development of the Kabul River Basin, A Multisectoral Decision Support System Approach

IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IUCN, 1994, Pollution and the Kabul River, an Analysis and Action Plan

Page 181 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

JICA, 2009, The Study for the Development of the Masterplan for the Kabul Metropolitan Area in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

JICA, 2012, Feasibility Study on Urgent Water Resources Development and Supply for Kabul Metropolitan Area

Kabul River Basin Atlas, AWARD, 2012

Landell Mills Limited. 2009. Afghanistan Water Resources Development Project: Cost of Production, Model Budgets, and Economic Analysis Tables, Vol. II, Appendix J, ADB PPTA No. 7088-AFG, Asian Development Bank, Kabul.

Landell Mills Limited, 2012, Guidelines for Preparing & Evaluating an Economic Feasibility Study for Potential Water Development Projects, AWARD/MEW

Landell Mills Limited, 2012. Portfolio Review, 137 pp. AWARD/MEW

Mahab Godss, 2008, Feasibility Study of Kama Irrigation and Hydropower Project (KIHP), Stage I, Pre-Feasibility, MEW, Afghanistan

Mahab Godss, 2010, Feasibility Study of Kama Irrigation and Hydropower Project (KIHP), Stage II, Feasibility Report, MEW, Afghanistan

MECO, 1978/1979, Kabul River Valley Development Project, Master Plan Report, MWP, Afghanistan

Norconsult and Norplan (2004). Power Sector Master Plan. Ministry of Water & Power: Kabul, Afghanistan.

Pooyab, 2011, Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study of Shatoot Storage Dam, MEW, Afghanistan

Tableau Software, 2012, http://www.tableausoftware.com/

Technopromexport, 1988, Sarobi-2 Chain of Hydropower Stations on Kabul River, Feasibility Report

Tennant, D.L. (1976). Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries, 1, 6-10.

Toosab, 2008, Gambiri Irrigation Project, Feasibility Study, Final Report, MEW, Afghanistan

Toossab and RCUWM (2006). Integrated Water Resources Management. Kabul river basin, Toossab Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran

USGS, 2009, Conceptual Model of Water Resources in the Kabul Basin, Afghanistan, Scientific Investigation Report 2009-5262

United Nations, World Food Program (WFP) Provincial Profiles, NRVA, Kabul, 2005

Page 182 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Wolters, 1992 Influences on irrigation efficiency, PhD Theses, Wageningen, 150 pp

Yates, D., Sieber, J., Purkey, D. R., and A. Huber-Lee. (2005). "WEAP21--A Demand-, Priority-, and Preference-Driven Water Planning Model: Part 1, Model Characteristics," Water International, 30: 487-500.

Yekom, 2010, Gulbahar Storage Dam Project Feasibility Studies, Technical Report

Page 183 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

APPENDIX 2: STAKEHOLDERS AND CONTACTS

Ministry Person Designation Contact Email /Interest Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) Water infrastructure, electricity production and demand MEW Shojaudin Deputy Minister [email protected] Ziaie MEW Mrs Zia Gul Director of Planning 0799620031 [email protected] Saljuki MEW M Akhtar Director of Policy 0799406220 [email protected] Hafiz MEW Saif Qargha CTAP/Advisor 0700610846 [email protected] MEW Sultan General Director of WM 0799605011 [email protected] Mahmood Mahmoodi MEW A. Khlmi Prog. Manager(EIRP) 0700052977 [email protected] MEW Eng. Halim Director of Water Law 0799324338 [email protected] MEW Eng. Mirwais PCC 0799390317 [email protected] "Mirzad" Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation (AUWSSC) Production and distribution of water for Kabul city AUWSSC Eng Dad Director General 0798002277 [email protected] Mohammad Baheer AUWSSC Sayed Operation Manager 0799313251 [email protected] Najibullah Masoumayer AUWSSC Ramin Mehri Technical Manager 0785334758 [email protected] Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) Water supply, water demand, sources, existing and projected development, effluent disposal MoUD Mohammad Minister Yusuf Pashton MoUD Mohammad Technical Advisor 0795022491 [email protected] Noor MoUD Mari Ebadi Technical Advisor Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MoRRD) Riparian population, small irrigation and canal scheme MoRRD Mohammad Minister Ehshan Zia

MoRRD Ghulam Project Manager 0700250716 [email protected] Qader MoRRD M. Naeem Technical Advisor 0799337058 [email protected] Dastagir Ministry of Irrigation, Agriculture and Livestock (MAIL) Agriculture production and yield, cropping patterns, potential effect from the reservoirs upstream and irrigation schemes, irrigation efficiency, water requirement, discharge MAIL Mohammad Minister Asif Rahimi

Page 184 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

MAIL Naseer Director of Irrigation 0799314064 [email protected] Ahmad Fayez Ministry of Mines (MoM) Mining activities, water disposal, groundwater contamination etc MoM Eng. Naim Director, Groundwater 0700222799 Tookhi MoM S. Parwiz National Project Consultant 0797324272 [email protected] Noorzad MoM Robin Environmental Advisor 0794628532 [email protected] Grayson Ministry of Industries and Commerce (MoIC) Existing and planned industries, industry effluent, potential effect from the scheme upstream

Kabul River Basin Agencies (RBA) and 12 sub basin agencies (SBA) Flood protection and development of water resources. RBA,SBA Eng Maroof Director 0798830861 [email protected] Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) Water quality of the rivers, organic and inorganic pollution from household and industries, present treatment facilities. There is also a sedimentaion department on sediment load in rivers and reservoirs. MoPH Mohammad Head of WatSan department 0795414096 [email protected] Ali Akbari Ministry of Economy (MoEc) They have a NGO department with relewance to flood relief MoEc Abdul Director 0778687558 [email protected] Hashem Hekmat AYNAK Copper mines, sources of water abstraction, and discharge AYNAK Vaughan Team Leader, Aynak Compliance 0794364089 [email protected] Smith Monitoring Project KFW Kabul water supply extension project KFW Katharina Project Manager 0796083873 [email protected] Heiss KFW Mandy Project Manager [email protected] Zeckra National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA) Environmental law and EIA NEPA Ghulam Head of Climate Change 0797387299 [email protected] Hassan Amiri Kabul Municipality (KM) Responsible for water supply, waste water, flood, and overall development of Kabul city KM Eng. Engineer 0799419128 Besmllah Mangal Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) For transboundary water issues MoFA Mohammad Director of Border Affairs 0700299062 [email protected] Farooq Baraki

Page 185 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA) For water supply to new Kabul city JICA Masami Director, CTI Engineering Katayama JICA Kenji Nagata Advisor for MEW

Page 186 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

APPENDIX 3: EXISTING HYDRAULIC ASSET DETAILS

Scheme River Purpose Main technical characteristics Reference Condition Mahipar Kabul Hydropower Commissioned in 1966. Initial (Norconsult, The current capacity 3 x 22 MW. 2004) operational capacities Average streamflow on site is 485 for the three turbines Mm3/year (years 1959-60 to 1979- are 22 MW, 15 MW 80). and 16 MW. Naghlu Kabul Hydropower Commissioned in 1967. Nominal (Norconsult, Only three units installed capacity is 4 x 25 MW. 2004) operational, rehabilitation efforts Storage capacity is 496 Mm3, are ongoing average streamflow on site is 3,560 Mm3/year (years 1959-60 to 1979-80). Sarubi Kabul Hydropower Commissioned in 1957. Initial (Norconsult, The units can still be capacity was 2 x 10 MW. 2004) operated close to Preparations were made for their original output doubling this capacity at a future (20 MW) stage, by excavating a second headrace tunnel from the intake to the existing surge chamber, and adding two more units in a future powerhouse adjacent to the present one.

Storage capacity is 6.5 Mm3, average streamflow on site is 3,560 Mm3/year (years 1959-60 to 1979-80). Darunta Kabul Hydropower Commissioned in 1967. Initial (Norconsult, All units require spare capacity was 3 x 3.85 MW. 2004) parts and rehabilitation. At Storage capacity is 40 Mm3, present, only 2 units average streamflow on site is are in operation, with 5,920 Mm3/year (years 1959-60 to capacity 7.5 MW. 1974-75). (other sources state 4 MW current capacity) Chak e Logar Hydropower Commissioned in 1938. Initial (Norconsult, At present two units Wardak and Irrigation capacity was approximately 3 x 2004) are operating, at 0.8 1.2 MW. The plant operates at 60 and 0.9 MW Hz on a separate local network.

Storage capacity is 22 Mm3, average streamflow on site is 235 Mm3/year (years 1963-64 to 1978- 79). * no sufficient information available about other existing schemes, e.g. smaller hydropower installations, water intakes, irrigation schemes, etc.

Page 187 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

APPENDIX 4: PROPOSED HYDRAULIC ASSET DETAILS

Scheme River Purpose Main technical Reference Stage of study characteristics Shatoot Maidan • Domestic • Storage capacity: 250 Pooyab (2011) Detailed design Dam water supply Mm3 except for the • Irrigation • Live storage: 236.5 Mm3. hydropower • Hydropower • Improvement of existing capacity which irrigation is examined in • Hydropower: 4.5 MW this study after a request from Average streamflow on site is the client. 170 Mm3/year Gulbaha Panjshir • Multipurpose • Storage capacity: 490 Yekom (2010) Feasibility r Dam : Irrigation, Mm3 study hydropower, • Live storage: 405 Mm3. Norconsult domestic • Improvement of existing (2004) water supply irrigation and (100 development of JICA (2012) 3 Mm /year) additional 11,036 ha for Kabul (total intended irrigated (part 4 of (old or new) area 70,000 ha; this is Feasibility calculated considering Study on double cropping. Urgent Water Physical area is 54,000 Resources ha. Development • Hydropower: 116 MW and Supply for • Average streamflow on Kabul site is 1,725 Mm3/year Metropolitan (years 1962-63 to 1974- Area) 75).

Assumptions: - Irrigation water demand 11,700 m3/ha/year (resulting in 819 Mm3/year - Kabul city water demand 100 Mm3/year - Hydropower demand 1684 Mm3/year - If required, irrigation water will be turbined prior to releasing it into the irrigation canals Resulting in competing demands above available flow – needs prioritization or management

Page 188 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Baghdar Panjshir • Hydropower Two options are proposed. Fichtner (2007) Pre-feasibility a Dam study Option A2, similar to a run of river: • Storage capacity: 1.9 Mm3 • Live storage: 1.8 Mm3 • Hydropower: 165 MW

Option D1 (preferred): • Storage capacity: 400 Mm3 • Live storage: 275 Mm3 • Hydropower: 244 MW

Average streamflow on site is 3,022 Mm3/year Surubi II Kabul • Hydropower Two successive run of river Technopromex Feasibility Dam schemes. port (1988) study

Stage 1: 105 MW, Head: 131 m

Stage 2: 23 MW, Head: 30.5 m

Average streamflow on site is 4,077 Mm3/year (years 1959- 60 to 1979-80). Shal Konar • Hydropower • Storage capacity: 1,874 CES (2009) Feasibility Dam Mm3 study • Live storage: 174 Mm3. • Hydropower: 798 MW

Average streamflow on site is 11,577 Mm3/year Konar A Konar • Hydropower • Storage capacity: 1 680 MECO Pre-feasibility Dam Mm3 (1978/79); study • Live storage: 1,000 Mm3. Norconsul • Hydropower: 366 MW (2004) • Annual streamflow same as Shal Dam Gambiri Kunar • Irrigation • Diversion of 50 m3/s to Toos Ab (2008) Pre-feasibility Scheme • Hydropower canal systems. study • Improvement of existing irrigation and development of additional 6,000 ha. • Part of the diverted flow is conveyed to Darunta reservoir for hydropower

Page 189 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

production and Jalalabad canal. • Hydropower: 23 MW. Kama Kunar • Irrigation • Diversion of 121.5 m3/s Mahab Godss Feasibility Scheme • Hydropower to canal systems. (2008) study • Improvement of existing irrigation and development of additional 6,200 ha. • Hydropower: 45 MW. New • Domestic • Assumed population for JICA (2009, Kabul water supply 2030 of 2 million with 100% 2012) city of the population being (Dehsab connected to municipal z and water (water demand of 88 Barikab) Mm3/year) Aynak Kabul • Industrial Water consumption Hagler Bailly Mine water supply estimated with 25.5 (2010) 3 • Industriall Mm /year excluding attached process processing (i.e. more to be water expected… total 32 3 discharge Mm /year)

Page 190 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

APPENDIX 5: FINANCIAL PARAMETERS USED IN WEAP

Variable Description Benchmark Comment Representation (Value used for in WEAP the IP) Exchange rate Afs. per 1 US$ 50 Afs./1 US$ Feasibility Study Values in dollars values vary from based on this 49 to 52. exchange rate Discount rate Time-value of 8% per annum WB, ADB, bi- One year run in money = interest laterals, etc. have the LEA so it is not rate historically used used 10-12% Inflation Annual rate-of- Use constant Avoids predicting One year run in change in the (current) prices for an unknown. the LEA so it is not general price level project duration used Investment costs Is composed by Two ways to (1) the capital Annualise the cost, (2) engineers investment cost supervision and over the project mobilisation, (3) lifetime (50 years): price-quantity (1) With an annual contingencies, (4) loan over 50 years land acquisition at 5% interest. and resettlement (2) With a grant for with the investment costs are uniformly spread over 50 years. Capital cost Total Cost of Infrastructure Infrastructure Part of the capital for each option dependent option dependent investment cost infrastructure development (Dams, Hydro- electric plants, pumping stations, treatment plants, canals) Operation and Cost of operation Infrastructure Infrastructure Considered as a maintenance cost and maintenance option dependent option dependent fixed annual cost of hydraulic assets of 1% of total capital cost Pumping cost/m3 Variable cost of 0.044 US$/m3 Used for Gulbahar Considered as pumping (based on JICA FS variable cost of (2012)) pumping based on modeled water supplied on the transmission link. Treatment cost/m3 Costs at .50/kg. for 0.050 US$/m3 Used for Shatoot Variable cost of chlorine, $400/mo. FS water treatment for labour, & based on modeled 0.08/kwh water supplied on

Page 191 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013

Variable Description Benchmark Comment Representation (Value used for in WEAP the IP) the transmission link. Eng. supervision, de- 10% of all capital Does not include Part of the mobilization, etc.. and annual O&M security costs investment cost costs Land acquisition and Infrastructure Infrastructure Part of the resettlement option dependent option dependent investment cost Price-quantity 10% of all capital Does not include Part of the contingencies and annual O&M security costs investment cost costs Incremental net farm Mirab irrigation 20% increase in Values taken from Applied to those benefit fees is considered yield and input use Shatoot, Gulbahar, scjemes when Gambiri, and development is Kama FS activated Rate of development Time until Benefits are projected change assumed to be 100% realized fully materialized Value of potable 0.50 US$/m3 Sustenance for all Considered as water/m3 life is difficult to variable benefit of monetize providing water to Kabul Value of groundwater 0.25 US$/m3 Information Used for provided by Reference Case AUWSSC ( Afghan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation) Value of National (social) 0.08 US$/KWh 0.12 US$/KWh is The value in electricity/KWh value difficult to often used as an WEAP is 0.08 monetize international price, US$/KWh (based but stakeholders on discussion at have MEW). Included recommended as electricity 0.08 based on the revenue on local/regional hydropower plants context

Page 192 AWARD - TISC / LML / Kabul Basin Investment Plan / January 2013