1. The Second Symposium 20th Mar 2012
Conflict on Water Resources
Development between Multiple
Nations in the Nile River Basin
○ Masahiro ABE1, Kenji TANAKA2, Toshiharu KOJIRI2,
Toshio HAMAGUCHI2 , and Tetsuya SUMI2
1Dept. of Urban Management, Kyoto University
2Water resources Research Center, DPRI, Kyoto University
1

2. The Second Symposium 20th Mar 2012
Contents
1. Background
2. Methodology
3. Verification
4. Assessment of future climate
5. Water Resources Development
6. Conclusion
7. Database 2

3. Background
3

4. 100
Background and purpose
Brundi Ethiopia
(Irrigated area) / (Irrigation potential) (%)
90
Egypt Eritoria
80 Kenya Rwanda
70 Sudan and S.Sudan Tanzania
Uganda
60
1. The Nile River crosses borders among 11 countries.
50
40
Dependency30ratio in Egypt is 96.9%
20
100
Dependency ratio of total renewal water resources (%)
10 96.9
2. Observed discharge to Aswan High Dam is 72(Gt/year),
0
80 1900
77.3
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Agricultural water use in Egypt is 59(Gt/year)
60
40.9
3. According to aquastat (FAO), irrigated area has been
40 33.1
increased since 1980. In the end of 21st century, water
20
demand is supposed to be more8.2 than supply
10.1
0 0 0
0
Tanza…
D.R.C…
Ethiopia
Uganda
Brundi
Sudan
Egypt
Kenya
Rwanda
Identifying water shortage problem in the Nile and trying to solve it

5. Uniqueness of this research
To propose Hybrid of Conflict Analysis and Hydrological Model
The previous conflict analysis This method
Preference From knowledge and Based on output of hydrological model in
order assumption of researcher each scenario
Common Capable to make sure the consequence logically in the case when subjects
advantage make decision based on rational standard.
Disadvantage Results are strongly Capable to analyze with repeatability and
of the previous influenced by qualitative quantitative discussion due to objective
& uniqueness expression decision making of preference order
Conclusion part Qualitative discussion Qualitative and quantitative discussion
For contribution to decision making in international river basin management

6. Methodology
6

7. Procedure
1. Geographical data
(altitude, land-cover, routine-network)
2. Meteorological data 3. GCM output 4. Set scenarios
Input
GPCC, GSMaP etc MRI-AGCM Irrigated area
(1981-2004) (2075-2099) (2075-2099)
Bias
Collection
SiBUC & Hydro-BEAM Simulation
Discharge Runoff Runoff
(1981-2004) (Scenario #1) (Scenario #n) Output
Calibration
Observed
discharge data
(1998-2002) Conflict Analysis Discussion

8. Remote Sensing and GCM
8
(bougria-tif.blogspot.com) (Citation: Japan Meteorological Agency)

9. Input data
Product Parameter Spatial resolution Time resolution
SRTM30 Altitude 30 seconds -
GLCC ver.2 land cover 30 seconds -
ECOCLIMAP Soil 30 seconds -
SPOTVEGETATION NDVI 30 seconds -
GPCC Precipitation 1.0 degree Monthly
0.1 degree &
GSMaP Precipitation Hourly
0.25 degree
Temperature,
H08 0.5 degree Daily
Radiation, Humidity
Wind speed, Air 1.1 degree
JRA25 Reanalysis 6 hours
pressure (horizontal)
MRI-AGCM Meteorological 7 0.1875 degree
Hourly & 3 hours
(Japan) parameters (20km)

10. SiBUC & Hydro-BEAM
10

11. Land Scheme Model SiBUC (Simple Biosphere Model including Urban Canopy)
(Tanaka, K., 2004)
Categorize land surface into green, urban, and water body and
calculate water balance, radiation balance, and energy balance.
Boundary conditions are 7 meteorological elements
and 16 parameters are calculated every 1 hour
Boundary Condition: Tm em um FL,m(0) Ft,d(0) P
Zm (Reference Height)
Mc
Tbr Mbr Tc
Water level
Canopy
Tbw
Urban
Canopy Mg Tg
Mug Tug Ground
Twb W1 Surface Layer Stage1 Stage2 Stage3 Stage4 Stage5
Urban
Ground
Tdw Tdg W2 Root Zone Irrigation Maximum water level Minimum water level
Tdu
Water Drainage Optimal water level Present water level
Body W3 Recharge Zone
Precipitation
Schematic image of SiBUC Scheme of irrigation in SiBUC
Capable to estimate irrigated water requirement seasonally
11

12. Outputs of SiBUC January (1998~2002)

13. Outputs of SiBUC February (1998~2002)

14. Outputs of SiBUC March (1998~2002)

15. Outputs of SiBUC April (1998~2002)

16. Outputs of SiBUC May (1998~2002)

17. Outputs of SiBUC June (1998~2002)

18. Outputs of SiBUC July (1998~2002)

19. Outputs of SiBUC August (1998~2002)

20. Outputs of SiBUC September (1998~2002)

21. Outputs of SiBUC October (1998~2002)

22. Outputs of SiBUC November (1998~2002)

23. Outputs of SiBUC December (1998~2002)

24. Distributed Runoff Model Hydro-BEAM
(Hydrological River Basin Environmental Assessment Model)
Nile delta
(Kojiri, T., 2006)
Convert outputs of SiBUC to Hydro-BEAM.
Flow direction is determined by Altitude.
Aswan
Khartoum Atbara
Calculate discharge
Sennar
Kinematic wave model
Roseires
Surface runoff Bahr El-Ghazal
Sobat
Infiltration Bahr El-Jabal
Lake Victoria
Sub-surface runoff
Linear storage model
Schematic image of Hydro-BEAM

25. Conflict Analysis
25

26. What is “conflict analysis”?
Conflict analysis is an analytical method which is developed
expanding algorithm of metagame theory*
Fraser and Hipel (1979)
Conflict analysis consists of three elements… Howard (1971)
1. (Player) subject to play game
2. (Option) choice of player
3. (Preference) priority of option
Results show what kinds of events are possible to occur.
26

27. Algorithm of conflict analysis with example
Stability Table (with third party)
(r: rational, s: sequential stability, u: unstable)
Egypt × × E × E × × × × × × × × × ×
START
Total stability r r r r r u u u u u u u u u u
Player's stability 3 6 9 12 15 2 5 8 11 14 1 4 7 10 13 UI from NO
outcome q for q is rational for A (r)
Preference vector 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 12 15 player A?
YES
Unilateral improvement 2 5 8 11 14
UI for B NO
from A’s UI? q is unstable for A (u)
Ethiopia
YES
Player's stability r r r u u u r r r u u u u u u All UIs (Check for
for B preferred to simultaneous stability)
Preference vector 7 8 9 4 5 6 13 14 15 1 2 3 10 11 12 q by A? YES
NO
Unilateral improvement 7 8 9 7 8 9 13 14 15
Another UI q is sequentially
from q for A? stable for A (s)
4 5 6 YES NO
Others
Player's stability r r r r r r u u u u u u r r r
A(B): Player A(B) END
q: Event
Preference vector 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UI: Unilateral Improvement
Unilateral improvement 10 11 12 13 14 15
27

28. Algorithm of conflict analysis with example
Stability Table (with third party)
(r: rational, s: sequential stability, u: unstable)
Egypt × × E × E × × × × × × × × × ×
Total stability r r r r r u u u u u u u u u u
Player's stability 3 6 9 12 15 2 5 8 11 14 1 4 7 10 13
Preference vector 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 12 15
Unilateral improvement 2 5 8 11 14
Ethiopia
Player's stability r r r u u u r r r u u u u u u
Preference vector 7 8 9 4 5 6 13 14 15 1 2 3 10 11 12
Unilateral improvement 7 8 9 7 8 9 13 14 15
4 5 6
Others
Player's stability r r r r r r u u u u u u r r r
Preference vector 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Unilateral improvement 10 11 12 13 14 15
Coding for automatic analysis 28

29. Verification in the Nile Basin
29

30. Discharge at Aswan High Dam D.S. (m3/s) 12,000
11,000
0
Error bar means max and min 12,000
11,000
0
Simulation_mean value
Discharge at Atbara D.S. (m3/s)
10,000 100 10,000 Simulation_mean 100
Rainfall at the basin (mm/month)
Rainfall at the basin (mm/month)
Observation_max
9,000 9,000 Observation_max
Observation_mean Observation_mean
8,000 200 8,000 200
Observation_min Observation_min
7,000 7,000
6,000 300 6,000 300
5,000 5,000
4,000 400 4,000 400
3,000 3,000
2,000 500 2,000 500
1,000 Aswan D.S. 1,000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
600 Atbara 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
600
12,000 0 12,000 0
Aswan U.S.
Discharge at Aswan High Dam U.S. (m3/s)
11,000 11,000
Discharge at Sennar Dam D.S. (m3/s)
Simulation_mean
10,000 100 10,000 Simulation_mean 100
Observation_max
Rainfall at the basin (mm/month)
Rainfall at the basin (mm/month)
9,000
Observation_mean 9,000 Observation_max
8,000 Observation_min 200 8,000 Observation_mean 200
7,000 7,000 Observation_min
6,000 300 6,000 300
5,000 Sennar 5,000
4,000 400 4,000 400
3,000 3,000
2,000 500 2,000 500
1,000 1,000
0 600 0 600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
12,000 0
Discharge at Roseires Dam D.S. (m 3/s)
11,000
Roseires 10,000 100
12,000 0
Rainfall at the basin (mm/month)
9,000 Simulation_mean
Discharge at Owen Falls Dam D.S. (m3/s)
11,000
8,000
Observation_max 200
10,000 100 Observation_mean
Rainfall at the basin (mm/month)
7,000
9,000 Observation_min
6,000 300
8,000 200
Simulation_mean 5,000
7,000
Observation_max 4,000 400
6,000 300
Observation_mean 3,000
5,000
Observation_min 2,000 500
4,000 400
1,000
3,000
0 600
2,000 500
Owen Falls Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1,000
0 600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Error is around less than 10 %

31. Assessment of future climate
by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3
31

32. Impact assessment of climate change by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3
GCM* in the world (2075~2099)/(2003~1979) Ave. Monthly
multi-model A1B DJF
Number Model Name Resl. x Resl. y Country
1 BCC-CM1 192 96 China
2 BCCR-BCM2.0 128 64 Norway
3 CCSM3 256 128 USA
4 CGCM3.1(T47) 96 48 Canada
5 CGCM3.1(T63) 128 64 Canada
6 CNRM-CM3 128 64 France
7 CSIRO-Mk3.0 192 96 Australia
8 CSIRO-Mk3.5 192 96 Australia
9 ECHAM5/MPI-OM 192 96 Germany
10 ECHO-G 96 48 Germany/Korea
11 FGOALS-g1.0 128 60 China
12 GFDL-CM2.0 144 90 USA
13 GFDL-CM2.1 144 90 USA [-]
14 GISS-AOM 90 (Citation: IPCCUSA WG1)
60 AR4
15 GISS-EH 72 46 USA (2075~2099)–(2003~1979) Ave. Monthly
16 GISS-ER 72 46 USA
17 INGV-SXG 320 160 Italy
18 INM-CM3.0 72 45 Russia
19 IPSL-CM4 96 72 France
20 MIROC3.2(hires) 320 160 Japan
21 MIROC3.2(medres) 128 64 Japan
22 MRI-CGCM2.3.2 128 64 Japan
23 PCM 128 64 USA
24 UKMO-HadCM3 96 73 UK
25 UKMO-HadGEM1 192 145 UK
26 MRI-AGCM3.1S 1920 960 Japan
27 MRI-AGCM3.2S 1920 960 Japan
*GCM: Global Climate Model
(Citation: IPCC AR4 WG1) [℃]

33. Study of drought year by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3
Utilization of 24 GCM, 485 yearly samples,
by MRI-AGCM(2075-2099) and CMIP3(2080-2099)
600
500 Table. Drought year (yr) in the Nile Basin
Precipitation (mm/year)
Drought year Precipitation (mm/year) Total Runoff (Gt/year)
400
Average
369.3 207.3
300
precipitation
5yr drought 340.9 188.6
200 10yr drought 329.2 180.8
20yr drought 317.0 172.8
100 50yr drought 305.9 165.4
100yr drought 294.2 157.7
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Input of conflict analysis
Ave. 平均降水量
precipitation 10yr 50yr
10年渇水 50年渇水
5年渇水
5yr drought 20年渇水
20yr drought 100年渇水
100yr drought

34. Water Resources Development
in the end of 21st century
34

35. Setting of scenarios (basic elements)
1. 4 players
① Egypt, ② Sudan&S.Sudan, ③ Ethiopia,
④ Upstream countries in the White Nile
2. 11 options
Use residual irrigated area on 0%, 10%, … ,100% (11 ways)
3. 2 preference orders
① Amount of water use
② Residual amount of water in the Nile River
Total scenarios：14641 events 35

36. Water use depending on ratio of expanded irrigation area
100
Egypt Sudan&S.
Sudan Ethi a
opi U pstream countri
es
90
Calculated water use (Gt/year)
80
算定灌漑水使用量 (Gt/year)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ratio of expanded irrigation area (%)
農業開発度(%)
Calculate requirement for irrigation by hydrological model outputs. If water
use is more than total runoff (supply), the events are unfeasible.
36

37. 100
Analysis 1
Ratio of irrigated water resources development (%)
Egypt
90
Sudan&S.Sudan
80
Averaged ratio of expanded irrigated area of equilibriums
Ethiopia
70 in eachUpstream countries
return period of drought
MEAN
60 (Unit: %)
50 5yr drought 10yr drought 20yr drought 50yr drought 100yr drought
40 Egypt 54 60 46 38 51
30 Sudan&S.Sudan 52 57 44 37 47
20 Ethiopia 70 49 40 30 17
Upstream
10 countries 54 52 50 47 46
0 Average 57.5 54.5 45.0 38.0 40.3
0 1 2
5yr 10yr 3 4 5
20yr 50yr 100yr 6
The numbers in table indicate “the average of situation which
is possible to occur”.
As a result, in the case that all basin countries develop 40%
of remained potential field for irrigated area, some discussion
will be required on the water allocation for 20 years drought
situation.

38. Analysis 2 ~Visualization of equilibrium points~
Definition of quadrants Visualize the end of vectors
1.5 1.5
2
1 1
2 1
0.5 (Sudan&S.Sudan) (Egypt) 0.5
0 0
-0.5
-0.5
3 4
(Upstream -1
-1
(Ethiopia)
countries)
-1.5 -1.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Set 4 axes for each player Unit: ratio of expanded irrigated area

39. Analysis 2 ~Visualization of equilibrium points~
20 years drought 100 years drought
According to distribution map, Egyptian side
has substantial advantage rapidly, and
Ethiopian side has remarkable disadvantage

40. Analysis 3 ~Refinement~
Take off events whose difference between maximum and minimum
ratio is more than 70%
20 years drought 100 years drought

41. Analysis 3 ~Refinement~
After 70% refinement
5yr drought 10yr drought 20yr drought 50yr drought 100yr drought
Egypt 66 59 41 30 29
Sudan&S.Sudan 63 56 37 28 25
Ethiopia 62 48 43 34 25
Upstream countries 60 54 45 37 36
Average 62.6 54.6 41.2 32.3 28.8
Ratio of irrigated water resources development (%)
100 100
Ratio of irrigated water resources development (%)
Egypt Egypt
90 90
Sudan&S.Sudan Sudan&S.Sudan
80 Ethiopia 80 Ethiopia
70 Upstream countries 70 Upstream countries
MEAN MEAN
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5yr
1 10yr
2 20yr
3 50yr
4 100yr
5 6 0 1
5yr 2
10yr 3
20yr 4
50yr 5
100yr 6

42. Conclusion
1. Hybrid of Conflict Analysis and Hydrological Model is
proposed and applied to the whole Nile River Basin
for international river management.
2. Assessment of future climate is conducted in each
sub-basin by MRI-AGCM and CMIP3.
3. Plural equilibrium points are analyzed. As a result, in
the case of 20 years drought situation, 40% of
remained potential field for irrigated area is
recommended as the maximum ratio for all basin
countries. These recommended ratio depends on
cooperative return period of drought. 42

43. Database of JE-HydroNet
43

44. Database of JE-HydroNet (tentative)

45. Database of JE-HydroNet (tentative)
Summary of database
1. Purposes
(1) To introduce JE-HydroNet project to the public
(2) To share hydrological information between project members
2. Contents
(1) Introduction of JE-HydroNet
(2) Announcement of next symposium
(3) Reports of the previous symposium
(4) Download data (only for project members)
3. How to manage this website
(1) Need to discuss for the near future
45
Thank you for kind attention.