Transcript PowerPoint Template

Water Resources Management in
Ba River Basin under Future Development
and Climate Scenarios
Presented by:
Nguyen Thi Thu Ha
Bangkok, May 2009
Examination Committee:
Dr. Mukand S. Babel (Chairperson)
Dr. Roberto S. Clemente
LOGO
Dr. Sylvain Perret
Dr. Sutat Weesakul
Presentation Outline
1
Statement of the Problem
2
Objectives and Scope of the Study
3
Methodology
4
Results
5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Statement of the Problem
Rationale
-A proper water planning and management will be a major step in achieving
sustainable development (Bonn, 2001).
-System analysis tools are powerful to evaluate and propose the best water
management strategies.
- Good water resources management should be based on an understanding of
current demand/ supply and an awareness of possible future trends.
Future and Scenarios: Why?
-Scenarios: a systematic way of thinking about the future
-To get a better understanding of the possible implications of decisions
-To support decision-making process
Ba River Basin: Why?
-The largest river basin in the southern region of Central Vietnam
-Planning and management of water resources are currently done based on
sectoral approaches and administrative boundaries
-Future basin development, global warming and its impacts will put
pressure on water and land resources
Objectives of the Study
To develop a comprehensive simulation model to assess impacts of
current and future basin development, as well as climate change on
runoff, demand/ supply for Ba River Basin, Vietnam.
Objective 3
To simulate and assess climate change impacts
on river runoff, water supply and demand under
current and future basin development aiding for
long-term WRM&P
Objective 2
To simulate and assess impacts of current and
future basin development on water
demand/supply under different water type years
aiding for short-term WRM&P.
Objective 1
To calibrate and validate a comprehensive
simulation model of the Ba River Basin System.
Scope of the Study
1. Study area: Ba River Basin
2. Data collection: Hydro-meteorological data, water uses, river network,
water infrastructure and their operations.
3. The Ba river basin system model is developed by coupling NAM and
WEAP
4. Future basin development is based on the regional and sectoral plans
towards 2020
5. Different water years based on frequency analysis are applied for
scenarios of future basin development and water supply priorities for
short-term WRM&P
6. Daily CCCma-CGCM2 rainfall and evaporation SRES-A2 and B2 up to
2100 (from Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis) is used
for study of climate change impacts for long-term WRM&P
Study Area
13,094 Km2
Methodology
Data on water uses for all sectors
Meteorological data and
calibration parameters
Watershed and
Stream Delineation
Rainfall-Runoff Model (NAM)
Runoff for sub-basins
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Irrigation
Livestock
Domestic
Industry
Environment
Water infrastructures and their operation;
river network (connectivity)
Demand Estimations
Water allocation and planning model (WEAP)
Calibration
Validation
Ba River Basin System Model
Different water
patterns
Frequency
analysis of inflow
record
Short-term Water
Planning Scenarios
Current and future
basin developments
Long-term Water
Planning Scenarios
- River flow
- Water Shortages or coverage (user satisfaction)
- Energy production, Reservoir storages
- Environmental flow…
Climate change
scenarios
The bias corrected
CCCma-CGCM2,
daily evaporation
and rainfall
Methodology (cont’d)
Rainfall – Runoff Model (NAM)
To translate rainfall into flow in a river
via a set of linked mathematical
statements
River Basin Planning Model (WEAP)
- Current and future water demand/ supply,
water infrastructures’ operations
- Water development and management options
by means of scenario analyses
- WEAP software: water balance accounting; a
linear programming (LP) for water allocation
optimization based on supply priorities.
System Configuration
Calibration and Validation
Monthly observed vs. simulated runoff at Cung Son station
Calibration (2000-2004)
Monthly Observed vs. simulated runoff at An Khe station
Calibration (2000-2004)
1400
250
2
0.91
r
NSI (%) 78.2
VE (%) 14.3
3
150
1200
Q (m /s)
3
Q (m /s)
200
0.85
r2
NSI (%) 69
VE (%) 18.2
100
1000
800
600
400
50
200
Qobs
Nov-07
Sep-07
1000
Jul-07
1500
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Q (m3/s)
Nov-06
Sep-06
Jul-06
May-06
Mar-06
Jan-06
Sep-04
May-
Jan-04
Sep-03
May-
Jan-03
Sep-02
May-
Jan-02
Sep-01
0.91
r2
NSI (%) 86.9
VE (%) 17.3
2000
Nov-05
Sep-05
May-05
Mar-05
2500
0.96
r2
NSI (%) 87.2
VE (%) 28.2
100
500
50
Qsim
Qobs
Qsim
Oct-07
Jul-07
Apr-07
Jan-07
Oct-06
Jul-06
Apr-06
Jan-06
Oct-05
Jul-05
Apr-05
Oct-07
Jul-07
Apr-07
Jan-07
Jul-06
Apr-06
Jan-06
Oct-05
Jul-05
Apr-05
Oct-06
Time
Time
Qobs
Jan-05
0
0
Jan-05
3
Q (m /s)
Jan-05
300
Jul-05
350
500
Qsim
Monthly observed and simulated runoff at Cung Son station
Validation (2005 - 2007)
Validation (2005 - 2007)
150
May-
Time
Qobs
Qsim
1000 Monthly Observed and simulated runoff at An Khe station
200
Sep-00
Time
1500
250 0
May-
Jan-00
Sep-04
May-
Jan-04
Sep-03
May-
Jan-03
Sep-02
May-
Jan-02
Sep-01
May-
Jan-01
2000
Sep-00
May-
Jan-00
2500
Jan-01
0
0
Scenario Definition
Scenario
Description
Comment
S1
- Real water years (2000 – 2007)
Assessment of impacts of
- 2006 for all water demands
Current basin development
- Two reservoirs
(existing state of basin
- Water supply priority:
management and development)
+ “first come, first served” basis
+ In a given sub-basin: highest for domestic, followed by industry, hydropower,
irrigation and livestock.
Scenarios aiding for short-term water management and planning
S2
- 4 sub-scenarios following 4 water years: wet, normal, dry and very dry years.
Impacts of Future basin
- 2020 water demands.
development under operations
- Instream flow requirements (IFR) are proposed at 5 locations.
of water infrastructures and
- Additional infrastructure: 4 more reservoirs; 2 inter-basin transfer links.
water allocation do not take into
- Priorities: similarly to the scenario S1 and
account downstream water uses
+ 4 new reservoirs are operated based on only hydropower requirements without their
downstream water uses,
+ 2 transfer links are also operated without consideration of downstream water uses
S3
Based on the scenario S2, except for introduction of water allocation priorities:
Impacts of Future basin
- First to all domestic demand sites (highest priority)
development under operations
- Second to all industrial water uses.
of water infrastructures and
- Third to all hydropower generations, irrigation, livestock water uses and environmental water allocation take into
flow requirements at all sites.
account downstream water uses.
- Inter-basin water transfer links are set priority 4
- Filling reservoirs are set priority 5 (lowest priority)
S4
Based on the scenario S3 but irrigation efficiency is increased by 25%
Scenarios providing the aiding visions for long-term water management and planning
S5
Based on the scenario S1 but water years are replaced by predicted runoffs in 2000s,
Impacts of climate change under
2025s, 2050s and 2095s based on projected daily CCCma-CGCM2 rainfall and
current basin development.
evaporation for two IPCC emission scenarios of SRES-A2 and SRES-B2
S6
Based on the scenario S3 but water years are replaced by predicted runoffs in 2000s,
Impacts of climate change under
2025s, 2050s and 2095s based on projected daily CCCma-CGCM2 rainfall and
future basin development and
evaporation for two IPCC emission scenarios of SRES-A2 and SRES-B2.
introduction of water allocation
priorities.
IRR 6 TYA
IRR 7 TYA
IRR 12 KRH
IRR 13 KRH
IRR 1 BAK
Time
IRR 2 BAK
Sep-07
May-07
Jan-07
Sep-06
May-06
Jan-06
Sep-05
May-05
Jan-05
Sep-04
May-04
Jan-04
Sep-03
May-03
Jan-03
Sep-02
May-02
Jan-02
Sep-01
May-01
Jan-01
Sep-00
May-00
Jan-00
Unmet demand (10 6m3)
Sep-07
May-07
Jan-07
Sep-06
May-06
Jan-06
Sep-05
May-05
Jan-05
Sep-04
May-04
Jan-04
Sep-03
May-03
Jan-03
Sep-02
May-02
Jan-02
Sep-01
May-01
Jan-01
Sep-00
May-00
Jan-00
Unmet demand (10 6m 3)
S1: Reference Scenario (Current Situation)
Unmet demand
Monthly unmmet demand for the whole basin (Scenario S1)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time
Monthly unmet demands by irrigation demand sites (Scenario S1)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
S1: Reference Scenario (Current Situation)
Reservoir Storage and Hydropower
Monthly storage volume for Song Hinh reservoir (S1)
Monthly storage for IAYUN HA reservoir (S1)
Simulated IAYUN HA
IAyun Ha upper rule curve
Simulated Song Hinh
IAyun Ha low er rule curve
Tim e
Song Hinh low er rule curve
500
400
300
200
100
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Jul-07
Jan-07
Jul-06
Song Hinh upper rule curve
Simulation of hydropower generation of IAYUN HA and Song Hinh reservoir (S1)
2000
Jan-06
Jul-05
Jan-05
Jul-04
Jan-04
Jul-03
Tim e
Jan-03
Jan-00
Jul-07
Jan-07
Jul-06
Jan-06
Jul-05
Jan-05
Jul-04
Jan-04
Jul-03
Jan-03
Jul-02
Jan-02
Jul-01
Jan-01
Jul-00
Jan-00
0
Jul-02
50
Jan-02
100
Jul-01
150
Jan-01
200
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jul-00
Storage (10 6m 3)
250
Hydropower
Generation
(GWh/year)
Storage (10 6m 3)
300
2006
2007
Year
Simulated Hydropower Generation of IAYUN Ha
Simulated Hydropower Generation of Song Hinh
Target average annual energy of IAYUN Ha
Target average annual energy of Song Hinh
S2 and S3: Impact of future basin development
Without (S2) and with (S3) introduction of water supply priorities
Impact on water unmet demand for all sectors and irrigation sites
(106m3)
Unmet demand
Monthly water unmet demand for all demand sites during the dry year
(S2 vs. S3)
300
250
200
S2-3 Dry Year
S3-3 Dry Year
150
100
50
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Irrigation demand sites from upstream to downstream
S2-3 Dry Year undmet demand
S3-3 Dry Year unmet demand
Water requirement 2020s
IRR 19 HDC
IRR 18 HDC
IRR 17 TDC
IRR 16 SOH
IRR 15 SOH
IRR 14 BAH
IRR 13 KRH
IRR 12 KRH
IRR 11 KPA
IRR 10 APA
IRR 9 APA
IRR 8 APA
IRR 7 TYA
IRR 6 TYA
IRR 5 TYA
IRR 4 NAK
IRR 3 NAK
IRR 2 BAK
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
IRR 1 BAK
Unmet demand &
6 3
WR(10 m /year)
Unmet demand of irrigation sites during the dry year (S2 vs. S3)
S2 and S3: Impact of future basin development
Without (S2) and With (S3) introduction of water supply priorities
Impact on inter-basin transfer link and instream flow requirement
100
100
80
80
Coverage (%)
Coverage (%)
Water Transfer Coverage to the Kone river during
the dry year (S2 vs. S3)
60
40
60
40
20
20
0
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Water Transfer Coverage to the Ban Thach river during
the dry year (S2 vs. S3)
Jan
Aug
Feb
Mar
S2-3 Dry Year
S3-3 Dry year
Jun
Jul
Aug
S3-3 Dry year
Instream flow requirement coverage during the dry year
for scenario S3
Instream flow requirement coverage during the dry year
for scenario S2
100
80
80
Coverage (%)
100
Coverage (%)
May
Month
Month
S2-3 Dry Year
Apr
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Jan
Feb
Mar
IFR 2
IFR 3
May
Jun
Jul
Month
Month
IFR 1
Apr
IFR 4
IFR 5
IFR 1
IFR 2
IFR 3
IFR 4
IFR 5
Aug
S2 and S3: Impact of future basin development
Without (S2) and With (S3) introduction of water supply priorities (cont’d)
Impact on hydropower production and reservoir storage
1000
800
600
400
200
0
IAYUN HA
Song Hinh
Ka Nak
An Khe
Ba Ha
Krong Hnang
Reservoir
S2-3 Dry Year
S3-3 Dry Year
Tagert yearly energy
Monthly Storage Volume of An Khe Reservoir (S2 vs. S3)
17
Storage (10 6m 3)
Energy (GWh/year)
Simulated and Target Hydroelectricity Generation of reservoirs (S2 vs. S3)
15
13
11
9
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
S2-3 Dry Year
S3-3 Dry Year
Top of conservation
Top of inactive
S3 and S4: Impact of future basin development
No improvement (S3) and increase of irrigation efficiency (S4)
Impact on water unmet demand for all sectors and irrigation sites
Monthly water unmet demand for all demand sites during the dry year
(S3 vs. S4)
200
(106m3)
Unmet demand
250
S3-3 Dry Year
S4-3 Dry Year
150
100
50
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Unmet demand of irrigation sites during the dry year (S3 vs. S4)
150
100
50
Irrigation demand sites from upstream to downstream
S3-3 Dry Year
S4-3 Dry Year
IRR 19 HDC
IRR 18 HDC
IRR 17 TDC
IRR 16 SOH
IRR 15 SOH
IRR 14 BAH
IRR 13 KRH
IRR 12 KRH
IRR 11 KPA
IRR 10 APA
IRR 9 APA
IRR 8 APA
IRR 7 TYA
IRR 6 TYA
IRR 5 TYA
IRR 4 NAK
IRR 3 NAK
IRR 2 BAK
0
IRR 1 BAK
(106m3/year)
Unmet demand
200
S3 and S4: Impact of future basin development
No improvement (S3) and increase of irrigation efficiency (S4)
Impact on inter-basin transfer link and instream flow requirement
Water Transfer Coverage to the Kone river during
the dry year (S3 vs. S4)
80
80
Coverage (%)
100
Coverage (%)
100
60
40
60
40
20
20
0
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Water Transfer Coverage to the Ban Thach river during
the dry year (S3 vs. S4)
Aug
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Month
S3-3 Dry year
S4-3 Dry year
S3-3 Dry year
Coverage (%)
Coverage (%)
Mar
Apr
IFR 2
Aug
May
Jun
Jul
IFR 3
IFR 4
IFR 5
S4-3 Dry year
Aug
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Month
IFR 1
Jul
Instream flow requirement coverage during the dry year for
scenario S4
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Feb
Jun
Month
Instream flow requirement coverage during the dry year
for scenario S3
Jan
May
IFR 1
Apr
May
Month
IFR 2
IFR 3
IFR 4
Jun
IFR 5
Jul
Aug
S3 and S4: Impact of future basin development
No improvement (S3) and increase of irrigation efficiency (S4)
Impact on hydropower production and reservoir storage
Energy (GWh/year)
Simulated and Target Hydroelectricity Generation of reservoirs (S3 vs. S4)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
IAYUN HA
Song Hinh
Ka Nak
An Khe
Ba Ha
Krong Hnang
Reservoir
S3-3 Dry Year
S4-3 Dry Year
Tagert yearly energy
Monthly Storage Volume of An Khe Reservoir (S3 vs. S4)
Storage (10 6m 3)
17
15
13
11
9
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
S3-3 Dry Year
S4-3 Dry Year
Top of conservation
Top of inactive
Assessment of Climate Change Impacts
Future evaporation and rainfall projections
Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis
CCCma-CGCM2 SRES-A2 and B2
Future
evaporation
projections
Future
precipitation
projections
Multiplicative shift method
Local time series of daily weather up to 2100
Variations in normailzed dry seasonal rainfal anomalies
Year
Year
Climate Change Impacts on river flow, water deficits, etc.???
Ba River Basin System Model
2100
2095
2090
2085
2080
2075
2070
2065
2060
2055
2050
2045
2040
2035
2030
2025
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
2020
y = 0.5643x + 166.95
1200
2015
1250
2010
1300
2 per. Mov. Avg. (SRES-A2)
2005
1350
SRES-A2
2000
Linear (Scenario A2)
1400
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
1995
Scenario A2
1990
Evaporation (mm)
1450
Normalized rainfall anomalies
Future trend in annual evaporation of SRES-A2
Bias correction and validation of predicted daily CGM evap. & rainfall
Mean monthly evaporation of CCCma2 and observed one
(1978-2005)
180
350
Observed
300
Raw SRES-A2
250
Raw SRES-B2
Evaporation (mm)
160
200
150
100
140
120
100
Observed
80
Raw SRES-A2
60
Raw SRES-B2
40
50
20
0
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Jan
Nov Dec
Feb Mar
Apr May Jun
Month
Corrected SRES-A2 vs. Obs
NSI (%)
87.9
VE (%)
8
r2
0.86
Corrected SRES-B2 vs. Obs.
NSI (%)
89.4
VE (%)
-3
r2
0.88
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct Nov Dec
Month
1000
Mean monthly observed and simulated runoff at Cung Son station
(1990-2007)
800
Q (m3/s)
Rainfall (mm)
400
Mean monthly rainfall of raw CCCma2 and observed one
(1985-2007)
600
400
200
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Observed
Bias corrected SRES-A2
Raw SRES-A2
Raw SRES-B2
Bias corrected SRES-B2
S5 and S6: CC impact on stream flow (water availability)
current (S5) and future (S6) basin development
Change ratio of mean monthly runoff at the Cung Son station
between baseline period and 2050s (S5 vs. S6)
Change ratio of mean monthly runoff at the Cung Son station
between baseline period and 2025s (S5 vs. S6)
Chang ratio (%)
Change ratio (%)
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
-100%
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month
S5 with SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
-100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
S6 with SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
Change ratio of mean monthly runoff at the Cung Son station
between baseline period and 2095s (S5 vs. S6)
S5 with SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
Period
Change ratio (%)
150%
S6 with SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
Scenario S5
Dry
Scenario S6
Wet
Dry
Wet
100%
SRES-A2
50%
0%
2025s
-14%
40%
-24%
35%
-50%
2050s
-39%
18%
-39%
9%
2090s
-14%
-18%
-21%
-24%
-100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
S5 with SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
S6 with SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
S6: CC impact on water deficits
Future basin development and introduction of water supply priorities
Unmet demand (106m3)
Mean monthly unmet demand for baseline and projected periods with SRES-A2 for
all demand sites of scenario S6
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Baseline period
SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
Unmet demand of irrigation demand sites for baseline and projected prediods with SRES-A2 for scenario S6
160
140
120
100
80
60
Irrigation demand sties (from upstream to downstream)
Baseline period
SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
IRR 19 HDC
IRR 18 HDC
IRR 17 TDC
IRR 16 SOH
IRR 15 SOH
IRR 14 BAH
IRR 13 KRH
IRR 12 KRH
IRR 11 KPA
IRR 10 APA
IRR 9 APA
IRR 8 APA
IRR 7 TYA
IRR 6 TYA
IRR 5 TYA
IRR 4 NAK
IRR 3 NAK
0
IRR 2 BAK
40
20
IRR 1 BAK
Unmet demand (10 6m3)
180
S6: CC impact on inter-basin transfer and environmental flow
Future basin development and introduction of water supply priorities
Water transfer coverage to the Ban Thach river in the predicted
periods for SRES-A2 for scenario S6
Water transfer coverage to the Kone river in the predicted
periods for SRES-A2 for scenario S6
Coverage (%)
80
60
40
20
0
January February
March
April
May
June
July
August
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
January February
March
SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
April
May
SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
July
August
SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
Instream flow requirement coverage at IFR5 location for predicted periods
of SRES-A2 for scenario S6
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan
June
Month
Month
Coverage (%)
Coverage (%)
100
Feb
SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
Mar
Apr
May
Month
SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
Jun
Jul
Aug
SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
S6: CC impact on hydropower and reservoir storage
future basin development and introduction of water supply priorities
Mean annual hydroelectricity generation of reservoirs for the projected periods
with SRES-A2 for scenario S6
700
500
400
300
200
100
0
IAYUN HA
Song Hinh
SRES-A2-2025s (2020-2030)
Ka Nak
An Khe
Reservoir
SRES-A2-2050s (2045-2055)
Ba Ha
Krong Hnang
SRES-A2-2095s (2090-2100)
Monthly storage volume of Ba Ha Reservoir for the projected periods with
SRES-A2 for scenario S6
400
Storage (10 6m3)
Energy (GWh)
600
350
300
250
200
150
Jan
Feb
M ar
Apr
M ay
Jun
Jul
Month
SRES-A2-2025s
SRES-A2-2050s
Top of conservation
Top of inactive
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
SRES-A2-2095s
Dec
Conclusions
 A comprehensive system simulation model for Ba River Basin was developed by
coupling a rainfall- runoff model (NAM) and a water planning model (WEAP), it
is a powerful tool to aid in decision-making in ST and LT water resources
planning and management.
 Future water infrastructures developed in the basin are very sensitive to water
deficits and environmental flows.
 Introduction of water supply priorities is useful to assure the equitable allocation
proportions between upstream and downstream water users and meet fully for
prior water demand sectors (domestic and industrial) in case of water shortages.
 Improvement of irrigation efficiency can partially help in reducing water deficits
for all water use sectors including environmental flow requirements.
 Climate change impacts:
-
An increasing trend in annual evaporation
Dry seasonal rainfall anomalies are close to or below the equilibrium line
A decrease of runoff in the dry season; an increase of the wet season flow.
More water deficits; reduction in storages of reservoirs and decreases in hydropower
productions at hydropower schemes
Recommendations
 Operation rule curves of new reservoirs should be achieved
 Feasibility of inter-basin transfer links should be considered in
terms of no violations of water demands within basin but also
economic, environmental aspects and other benefits for the
received basins.
 More experiments of GCMs’ outputs should be applied to justify
the results
 More complex and sophisticated methods should be studied to
correct biases and to downscale the GCMs’ outputs into smaller
resolutions
Bangkok, May 2009
LOGO