Modeling the water-energy-food nexus in the Indus River of Pakistan


Published on

Presented by Claudia Ringler of IFPRI at the Global Water Systems Project: Water in the Anthropocene Conference May 21-24th in Bonn, Germany.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Modeling the water-energy-food nexus in the Indus River of Pakistan

  1. 1. Modeling the water-energy-food nexus in the Indus Riverof PakistanY. C. Ethan Yang, CaseyBrown, Claudia Ringler andGhazi AlamGWSP Conference May 2013This study is supported by the Pakistan Strategy Support Program (PSSP)funded by USAID (
  2. 2. www.ifpri.orgBackground The annual energy deficit is about 4,500 MW inPakistan (MoWP, 2011) The feasible 800 sites on the Indus River have apotential of 59,794 MW for hydropower generation.However, only 6,720 MW (11% of the total) hasbeen developed (Siddiqi et al, 2012) In order to understand the impact of increasedhydropower generation on agricultural water useand food production, a modeling approach hasbeen used in this study
  3. 3. www.ifpri.orgDaily Power Outages9101038277242353916491824390 20 40 60 80 100OverallPunjabSindhKPKPercentage of Households0-6 Hours7-12 Hours13-18 Hours18+ HoursSource: IFPRI-IDS Household survey
  4. 4. www.ifpri.orgModel The Indus Basin Model Revised (IBMR), a flow-network model coded in GAMS-- has beenmodified into a multi-year version–Indus BasinModel Multi-Year (IBMY) to evaluate the Water-Food-Energy Nexus in the Indus Basin of Pakistan The basin irrigates approximately 18 million ha infour provinces; most irrigation is d/s of HP in thebasin; officially irrigation has precedence overenergy use The model includes the 3 major hydropowerreservoirs: Mangla (1000 MW), Tarbela (3478 MW)and Chashma (184 MW); and one major run-of-the-river station: Ghazi-Barotha (1450 MW)
  5. 5. www.ifpri.orgModel The node-link riverbasinmodel
  6. 6. 6/13Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringIBMR - Modeling structureTarbelaManglaGhazi-BarothaChashmaPotential reservoirPotential reservoir
  7. 7. www.ifpri.orgModel Objective functionNewly added
  8. 8. www.ifpri.orgModel--Hydropower Baseline Setting:• Inflow: 1961-2010 monthly flow from 9 tributaries• Reservoir storage and groundwater tables are carried onto the next year• Crop price: 2008-09 average price• Electricity price: 10 Rs. per KWH
  9. 9. www.ifpri.orgModel--Irrigation Agriculture partCrop production in Punjab Crop production in Sindh
  10. 10. www.ifpri.orgAlternative Scenarios• Alternative energy and irrigation policies– Baseline run– Maximum agricultural production– Maximum hydropower generation• Investment in New HP Storage/Production– Current storage– New storage (~12 MAF, 7,300 MW)
  11. 11. www.ifpri.orgResults Tradeoffs between irrigation and hydropowerexist2002503003504004505005500 1000 2000 3000Hydropowerprofit(billionRs.)Agricultural profit (billion Rs.)Current system With new storage4904955005055105155205255300 1000 2000 3000Hydropowerprofit(billionRs.)Agricultural profit (billion Rs.)With new storage2402502602702802903003102400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650Hydropowerprofit(billionRs.)Agricultural profit (billion Rs.)Current system
  12. 12. www.ifpri.orgResults Maximum agricultural profit050010001500200025003000Agriculturalprofit(billionRs.)Current New storage0100200300400500600Hydroelectircprofit(billionRs.)Current New storageAgricultural profit Hydroelectric profit
  13. 13. www.ifpri.orgResults Maximum hydroelectric profit050010001500200025003000Agriculturalprofit(billionRs.)Current New storage0100200300400500600Hydroelectircprofit(billionRs.)Current New storageAgricultural profit Hydroelectric profit
  14. 14. www.ifpri.orgConclusion Baseline result is close to maximumagricultural profit which reflects the waterallocation rules in the basin Even under current relatively low storage/HPdevelopment and u/s location of HP & d/slocation of irrigation, tradeoffs exist; newstorage could significantly increase tradeoffs To increase hydropower production withoutjeopardizing irrigation, adding new storageunder the current water allocation scheme isthe most recommended approach
  15. 15. www.ifpri.orgConclusion Model limitations• We did not model the entire energy market• We maximized annual hydropower production;maximizing winter production, where the deficit islargest, would result in a larger tradeoffs• While we maximized HP or IRR, we left the rulecurve unchanged. Changes in the rule curve infavor of HP would change final outcomes Future studies• Changes in HP rule curves• Climate change impact• Impact of change in water sharing policies