Modeling for Transboundary Water Resources Planning and Allocation D
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Modeling for transboundary water resources planning and allocation D. Juízo, R. Lidén To cite this version: D. Juízo, R. Lidén. Modeling for transboundary water resources planning and allocation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, European Geosciences Union, 2008, 5 (1), pp.475-509. hal- 00298931 HAL Id: hal-00298931 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00298931 Submitted on 19 Feb 2008 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 5, 475–509, 2008 Hydrology and www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/5/475/2008/ Earth System HESSD © Author(s) 2008. This work is distributed under Sciences 5, 475–509, 2008 the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Discussions Papers published in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions are under Water sharing in open-access review for the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences transboundary water resources systems D. Ju´ızo and R. Liden´ Modeling for transboundary water Title Page resources planning and allocation Abstract Introduction Conclusions References 1 2 D. Ju´ızo and R. Liden´ Tables Figures 1Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Faculdade de Engenharia, Av. de Moc¸ambique, CP 257, Km 1.5, Maputo, Moc¸ambique ◭ ◮ 2 Lund University, Department of Water Resources Engineering, PO Box 118, 221 00 Lund, ◭ ◮ Sweden Back Close Received: 9 January 2008 – Accepted: 11 January 2008 – Published: 19 February 2008 Correspondence to: D. Ju´ızo ([email protected]) Full Screen / Esc Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion 475 Abstract HESSD International water resources agreements for transboundary rivers in southern Africa are based on system analysis models for water planning and allocation. The Wa- 5, 475–509, 2008 ter Resources Yield Model (WRYM) developed in South Africa has so far been the ffi 5 only model applied in o cial joint water resources studies aimed to form water-sharing Water sharing in agreements. The continuous discussion around the model performance and grow- transboundary water ing distress over it being South African, where it was originally developed, while South resources systems Africa is one of the interested parties in the process, results in an increased controversy over the system analysis results that are often only meant to guide in selecting the op- D. Ju´ızo and R. Liden´ 10 tions for water resources management in a given set of scenarios. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the model performance of two other models; WAFLEX and WEAP21 in the Umbeluzi River Basin system where the WRYM was previously Title Page applied as part of a Joint River Basin Study. A set of basin development scenarios was Abstract Introduction equally tested in the three models and the results compared. The results show that 15 the three models all are possible tools for system analysis of river basins in southern Conclusions References Africa, although the structure and complexity of the models are different. The obtained Tables Figures level of satisfaction for specific water users could, however, vary depending on which model was used, which causes uncertainties. The reason for the diverse results is the ◭ ◮ structurally different ways of describing allocation and prioritization of water in the three 20 models. However, the large degrees of freedom in all system models cause even larger ◭ ◮ uncertainty in the results since the model user can, intentionally or unintentionally, di- rect the results to favor certain water users. The conclusion of this study is therefore Back Close ff that the choice of model does not per se a ect the decision of best water allocation and Full Screen / Esc infrastructure layout of a shared river basin. The chosen allocation and prioritization 25 principles for the specific river basin and the model user’s experience and integrity are Printer-friendly Version more important factors to find the optimal and equitable allocation. Interactive Discussion 476 1 Introduction HESSD Water resources systems are generally complex with both qualitative and quantitative factors governing water resources availability (Raju and Pillai, 1999). In southern Africa 5, 475–509, 2008 the high climatic variability further adds complexity. Both the large seasonal variations 5 and the interannual variations, with long dry spells, makes infrastructural solutions nec- Water sharing in essary to assure water availability at all times. The role of reservoirs in water resources transboundary water management in Southern Africa is highlighted by Van der Zaag and Bolding (2005). resources systems However, building infrastructures will not on its own ensure water availability and eq- uitable water allocation between countries and users of a particular river basin. The D. Ju´ızo and R. Liden´ 10 system of natural and regulated water resources must be optimized and managed for sustainable use of the water resources. In southern Africa, water resources allocation between different users and between different riparian countries is therefore commonly Title Page based on system analysis tools. System analysis tools are adequate to evaluate and Abstract Introduction propose the best management strategies towards maximization of benefits for a given 15 number of users under given objective functions in the catchment. As pointed out by Conclusions References Dent (2001) “. a model is a tool to help organize a negotiation or learning process Tables Figures in which its primary function is to provide a framework for thinking by enabling partici- pants to make their implicit assumptions explicit in a systematic manner”. Despite being ◭ ◮ a simplification of a complex water resources system, a system analysis model gives 20 the opportunity for decision makers to know beforehand the consequence of a chosen ◭ ◮ management option or scenario. These tools are therefore important instruments for authorities and governments to adopt policies for water resources management in both Back Close national and transboundary river basins. However, because the stakeholders or coun- Full Screen / Esc tries objectives often are conflicting it is necessary that the model or software used is 25 considered unbiased. Printer-friendly Version In southern Africa the countries have not yet agreed in the set of decision support tools that should apply in the optimization process. The experience from the already Interactive Discussion implemented joint system analysis studies in Umbeluzi and Incomati rivers in southeast 477 Africa (Consultec and BKS Acres, 2000; SWECO and Associates, 2005) has shown preference to the Water Resources Yield Model (WRYM) as the tool adopted for sys- HESSD tem analysis. The experience from these studies, however, shows that the results 5, 475–509, 2008 obtained from WRYM are not easily understood by the stakeholders, and government 5 representatives of different countries bear some suspicion about the results from the system analysis. The lack of trust in the system analysis tool has prevented a smooth Water sharing in negotiation on transboundary water resources allocation, focusing the discussion on transboundary water the nature and properties of the tools rather than the strategies that can be applied to resources systems optimize water resources allocation between countries. D. Ju´ızo and R. Liden´ 10 Water resources system analysts are challenged to produce a system analysis model that considers both the legal framework and the true behavior in the system. Stakeholders often share water resources at very local level and rely mostly on cus- Title Page tomary principles embodied in local level institutions (Van der Zaag and Bolding, 2005). Integrating small stakeholders in a large-scale river basin management thus needs har- Abstract Introduction 15 monization of local and regional interests. In the case a water release in a large basin targets the most downstream user, e.g. environment flow to the estuary, all the local Conclusions References water users along the river must have a corresponding objective not to use this wa- Tables Figures ter, otherwise the reserved water will gradually be allocated between the local users ffi starting with the most upstream community. This situation is even more di cult in ◭ ◮ 20 transboundary rivers. In such a situation the question is: how complex should a sys- tem analysis model be to handle this scale problem but at the same time be sufficiently ◭ ◮ transparent and uncomplicated to give stakeholders information for setting and accept- Back Close ing allocation criteria? This study examines the role that decision support tools play in the agreement pro- Full Screen / Esc 25 cess by evaluating three different system analysis model packages for water allocation for the same river basin, the Umbeluzi River in Swaziland and Mozambique. The ob- Printer-friendly Version jective is to compare these models in terms of complexity, reliability of results, trans- parency and to assess whether the model selection may affect the decision