Journal cover Journal topic
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 5.153
IF 5-year value: 5.460
IF 5-year
CiteScore value: 7.8
SNIP value: 1.623
IPP value: 4.91
SJR value: 2.092
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 123
Scimago H
h5-index value: 65
Volume 14, issue 11
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2343–2354, 2010
© Author(s) 2010. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2343–2354, 2010
© Author(s) 2010. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

  26 Nov 2010

26 Nov 2010

Modeling for transboundary water resources planning and allocation: the case of Southern Africa

D. Juízo1 and R. Lidén2 D. Juízo and R. Lidén
  • 1Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Faculdade de Engenharia, Av. de Moçambique, CP 257, Km 1.5, Maputo, Moçambique
  • 2Lund University, Department of Water Resources Engineering, P.O. Box 118, 22100 Lund, Sweden

Abstract. International water resources agreements for transboundary rivers in southern Africa are generally founded in system analysis models for water planning and allocation. The Water Resources Yield Model (WRYM) developed in South Africa has so far been the only model applied in official joint water resources studies aimed to form water-sharing agreements. The continuous discussion around the model performance and growing distress over it being South African, where it was originally developed, while South 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 options 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 applied as part of a Joint River Basin Study. A set of basin development scenarios was equally tested in the three models and the results compared. The results show that the three models all are possible tools for system analysis of river basins in southern Africa, although the structure and complexity of the models are different. The obtained 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 models. However, the large degrees of freedom in all system models cause even larger uncertainty in the results since the model developer can, intentionally or unintentionally, direct the results to favor certain water user. The conclusion of this study is therefore that the choice of model does not per se affect the decision of best water allocation and infrastructure layout of a shared river basin. The chosen allocation and prioritization principles for the specific river basin and the model developer's experience and integrity are more important factors to find the optimal and equitable allocation.

Publications Copernicus