Issuu on Google+

JORDAN WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT STUDY

Water demand management in Mediterranean countries: Thinking outside the water box! Jordan case study

Scenario Impact Analysis

Prepared for French Agency of Development (AFD)

September 2011

QUASIR , D-73760 Ostfildern

1


Table of Contents List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................iii Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1 1 Scenario impacts on the water balance ............................................................................................. 3 2 Scenarios with regionally comparative domestic water demand (scenarios CS and OE).................. 5 Water demand ................................................................................................................................... 5 Water value........................................................................................................................................ 7 Water losses ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3 Scenarios with continuous development of domestic water consumption (scenarios UBS norm and UBS GC) ..................................................................................................... 9 Water demand ................................................................................................................................... 9 Water value...................................................................................................................................... 11 Water losses ..................................................................................................................................... 12 4 Scenario with mixed assumptions on domestic water consumption (scenario IAA UBS) ............... 13 Water demand ................................................................................................................................. 13 Water value...................................................................................................................................... 15 Water losses ..................................................................................................................................... 15 5 Sectorial Scenario: agriculture (scenario ITA) .................................................................................. 16 Allocation.......................................................................................................................................... 18 Timing and reliability of water supply.............................................................................................. 19 Unaccounted-for water in agriculture.............................................................................................. 21 Different constraints in different farming systems .......................................................................... 22 6 Returns on investments in water demand management programs................................................ 24 6.1 Returns to investment in municipal water demand management............................................. 25 6.1.1 Scenarios with regionally comparative domestic water demand (scenarios CS and OE)........ 26 6.1.2 Scenarios with continuous development of domestic water consumption (scenarios UBS norm and UBS GC) ............................................................................................................................ 27 6.2 Returns to investments in water transfers between sectors (scenario IAA-UBS)....................... 28 ANNEX 1: Water demand by scenario and governorates ..................................................................... 30 ANNEX 2: Data on expected water supply ............................................................................................ 45 ANNEX 3: Calculation Tables of Cost-Benefit-Analyses......................................................................... 46 Addendum: Comparison of currently available data on water consumption in 2010 with scenario assumptions ..................................................................................................................................... 54

i


List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16:

Expected development of water resources........................................................................ 4 Impact of drivers and scenarios on the development of total water demand (in % of lowest expectable water demand) ..................................................................................... 5 Development of water demand under scenarios CS and OE1 ............................................. 6 Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy) under scenarios CS and OE ..................... 7 Water losses (UFW/NRW) under scenarios CS and OE ....................................................... 8 Development of water demand under scenarios UBS-norm and UBS-GC1 ...................... 10 Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy) under scenarios UBS-norm and UBS GC11 Water losses (UFW/NRW) under scenarios UBS-norm and UBS-GC................................. 12 Development of water demand under scenarios UBS-norm and IAA-UBS1...................... 14 Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy) under scenarios UBS-norm and IAA-UBS 15 Water losses (UFW/NRW) under scenarios UBS-norm and IAA-UBS ............................... 15 Potential availability of water for agriculture under the different scenario assumptions16 Estimated crop water requirements and calculated amounts of treated wastewater from all scenarios....................................................................................................................... 19 Difference between estimated agricultural water demand and water availability for agriculture under different scenario assumptions in MCM/year..................................... 21 WDM programs and costs considered in scenario cost-benefit-analyses........................ 24 Statements on Treated Wastewater effluents ................................................................. 28

List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5:

Potential range of water demand development, excluding agricultural water demand ... 4 Annual distribution of irrigation water in the Jordan Valley1 ........................................... 20 Aggregated discounted costs and benefits of WDM programs for municipal water, scenarios CS and OE ............................................................................................... 26 Aggregated discounted costs and benefits of WDM programs for municipal water, scenarios UBS norm and UBS GC........................................................................... 27 Development of discounted costs and benefits of water transfer programms, scenarios IAA-UBS, medium demographic and economic development ......................... 29

ii


List of Abbreviations

AWC

Aqaba Water Company

DOS

Department of Statistics

HCP

Higher Population Council

IDARA

Project “Instituting Water Demand Management In Jordan�

IRR

Internal rate of return, estimated rate of interest of an investment

JVA

Jordan Valley Authority

MCM

Million Cubic Meter

MWI

Ministry of Water and Irrigation

NGWA

Northern Governorates Water Administration (legal predecessor of AlYarmouk Water Company LLC (YWC) until mid-2010)

NPV

Net present value, value of a timeline of costs, benefits or the difference between both discounted to their present value.

NRW

Non Revenue Water (cf. UFW, water loss)

PMU

Performance Management Unit (MWI)

UFW

Unaccounted- for Water (cf. NRW, water loss)

UNSNA

United Nations System of National Accounts

WAJ

Water Authority of Jordan

YWC

Al-Yarmouk Water Company LLC (cf. NGWA)

iii


Introduction The team supported a workgroup from MWI, WAJ and JVA in the development of 5 scenarios. Two additional scenarios focused on potential shifts of water between its use in the domestic and agricultural sector and on different usages in agriculture as the only sector within which internal shifts of water are likely according to the workgroup. All scenarios were quantified under different assumptions on the external drivers “economic and demographic growth” (see box 1). The results from the scenarios and their impact analyses allow for statements on(1) the range of possible developments and (2) the relevance of influences of the externally determined drivers on the one hand and the impacts from decisions by water authorities on the other. The results provide a basis for the selection of best policies, but cannot determine optimal policies by themselves. The question about the optimal choice between alternatives has to be answered in the overall context of the interdependent policies from all sectors, which are related to water demand. This includes e.g. policies in rural, urban and industrial development as well as decisions on investments and priorities with regard to financial and political constraints. The impact analysis relies on the following principles and basic findings of the study: • Water is a scarce, but still only a single factor in the required set of conditions for creating living standards and value added in Jordan. • Jordan’s capacities in other goods, production factors, rights and services would allow for a consumption of more water than currently available. This holds in particular for agriculture, where not all comparative advantages of the location can be exploited. • All consumed water in Jordan contributes to the creation of value, except for water losses due to leakages in conveyance systems. • Jordan’s water policy focuses on the achievement of national social and economic goals. Water productivity and economic efficiency of water consumption are partial, subordinate criteria. • Maximal profits per unit of water and cost-coverage of water supply are thresholds, which require clearly specified compensation if chosen alternatives of water use lead to lower returns. However, they are not top priority criteria for the most efficient use of water with regard to the achievement of national overall objectives. Observations and assumptions that hold for the different sectors of water demand in all scenarios include: •

Municipal water demand, which includes water demand by resident households, tourism and small industries, generates wastewater, which is already partially treated and reused in agriculture. An increase in municipal water demand thus implies a growing potential of water for agriculture, which is the major consumer of treated wastewater. A preliminary estimate of potentially reusable water for agriculture was made on the basis of 50% of the supplied freshwater to the municipal sector. From this amount another 30 MCM/year, starting in 2020, was subtracted for the scheduled use in the upcoming nuclear power generation at AsSamra, governorate Zarqa.

-1-


BOX 1: Scenarios and Drivers A Scenarios with regionally comparative domestic water demand: Calculations considered an average nationwide water demand in private households of 100, 112 and 120 l/c/d. Basic question to answer: 1st Scenario “BAU”: Scenario “business as usual” presents a theoretical baseline that allows for an approximate evaluation of the ongoing and planned efforts of Jordan’s water authorities with regard to water demand management. Results of this scenario are presented in the "Intermediary Report" of this study, but will by agreement with the client not be pursued further on in the impact analysis. 2nd Scenario “CS”: Scenario “current situation” considers effects of ongoing measures in water demand management and basic expectations to the efficiency of their implementation. 3rd Scenario “OE”: Scenario “optimal efficiency” assumes the success of loss reductions at the highest currently discussed level and the implementation of Jordan’s “Green Code” measures for the reduction of domestic water needs according to the assumptions of the utilities. B Scenarios with continuous development of domestic water consumption: Calculations are based on results from trend models of Jordan’s three major utilities (NGWA, Miyahuna, AWC) and the respective assumptions on reductions in consumption and losses. 4th Scenario “UBS norm”: Scenario “normal assumptions of utility based specifications” calculates with an increase of domestic water demand from the current nationwide average of 70 l/c/d up to 88 l/c/d in 2025 and presumes reductions in water losses according to the prognoses by the utilities 5th Scenario “UBS GC”: Scenario “Green Code assumptions of utility based specifications” (1) considers the implementation of water-saving measures towards a decrease in domestic water demand from the current nationwide average of 70 l/c/d down to 69 l/c/d in 2025 and (2) calculates with the – more stringent – rates of MWI’s PMU in the reduction of water losses. C Scenarios with mixed or sectoral assumptions: Calculations of scenario “IAA-UBS" assume the coverage of an increase in domestic water consumption by water transfers from the agricultural sector. Scenario "ITA" focuses exclusively on potentials and consequences of water transfers in the agricultural sector. 6th Scenario “IAA - UBS”: Scenario “intersectoral reallocation - utility based specifications” starts from the assumptions of the 4th scenario “UBS-norm”, but assumes an increase of domestic water demand up to a nationwide average of 120 l/c/d in 2020. Water required for this development is taken from the share of water for agriculture. 7th Scenario “ITA”: Scenario “Intrasectoral Reallocation” focuses on potential alternative uses or allocations of water in agriculture. D Drivers: all scenarios were calculated for each possible combination of high and low demographic and economic growth as well as for a situation with medium developments in these both drivers. The "intermediary report" of this study (May 2011) provides detailed specifications of scenarios, drivers and assumptions

-2-


Water losses (NRW/UFW) comprise administrative and physical losses in municipal water supply. Administrative losses refer to unpaid, but still consumed water. This reduces the financial returns of the utilities and governmental water providers, but still contributes to the coverage of water demands. The share of administrative losses was calculated on the basis of the utilities’ assumptions on the distribution of losses between both types. The utilities calculate with reductions only with regard to physical losses, i.e. real water losses due to e.g. leakages between bulk head and water tabs. The reduction of physical losses is considered in the calculation of sectoral water demands. Water demand by industries and tourism varies according to the development of the drivers, but not between scenarios of the same calculation basis, i.e. scenarios with “regionally comparative domestic water demand” or “continuous development of domestic water consumption” (cf. box 1) Water demand by new energies, i.e. mining of oil shale and uranium, as well as water demand by nuclear power plant remains unchanged over all scenarios. The evaluation of water for new mining activities is included in the value of water for industry. Water for nuclear power plants is considered in the calculation of total water demands, but was not considered in the valuation of water use.

All scenarios indicated that the fulfillment of all water demands from agriculture is not possible within the limits of Jordan’s planned water supply. This suggests the separate analysis of impacts from varying water availabilities on the agricultural sector, which is done in chapter 5.Impact analyses about the agricultural sector in the other chapters are restricted to the valuation of water capacities, which remain after the coverage of demands from all other sectors, by current water values in agriculture. The valuation of water in this report relies on the findings of the preceding sub-report "Water Valuation in Jordan" in its final version from July 2011, which was prepared by the consultants as a part of this study. Data on costs for the cost-benefit-analyses (CBA, chapter 6) were taken from the sub-report "Preconditions for Successful Implementation", which also contains information on the interpretation of the calculated parameters and explains the choice of the applied rate of interest.

1 Scenario impacts on the water balance The MWI estimates that Jordan’s water supply will increase from currently 892 MCM/year up to 1,461 MCM/year in 2025 (cf. table 1). This amount includes already water from the anticipated Read Sea Project (JRSP) with contributions of 210 MCM/year in 2020 and 370 MCM/year in 2025. Recycled water, i.e. treated wastewater, makes up for a share of 117 MCM/year in 2010 and increases to 247 MCM/year in 2025.

-3-


Table 1: Expected development of water resources Year

2010

2015

Water Source

2020

2025

MCM/year

Red-Sea- Dead-Sea Project / Desalinated water Renewable Groundwater (abstraction for all uses) Desalination brackish water Non - Renewable Groundwater Surface water Peace Treaty Treated Wastewater Total Resources

405 57 74 189 50 117 892

380 82 154 197 50 165 1028

210 355 82 154 218 50 223 1292

370 329 82 154 229 50 247 1461

Source: MWI internal calculation, March 2011, details see table A2.1, annex 2

Under a medium development of the drivers and the assumption of a regionally comparative domestic water demand of 112 l/c/d in the national average, applied water policies by Jordan’s water authorities (scenario CS) would currently save about 16 MCM/year compared to an unchanged continuation of current developments in water demand (scenario “BAU”, cf. figure 1). This difference would increase to about 196 MCM/year in 2025. Figure 1:Potential range of water demand development, excluding agricultural water demand

Source: team calculations

The expectable range of water demand, except for water demand by agriculture, varies under the different assumptions of scenarios and drivers from currently between 315 and 527 MCM/year to about 519 and 919 MCM/year in 2025. This calculation ignores the results from scenario “BAU”,

-4-


which was judged by the scenario development group to be overcome due to the already decided and ongoing measures by the MWI. The comparison of consequences from developments in the drivers and from impacts of the scenarios on the total water demand shows a growing importance of the chosen scenario over the observed period. Developments in demographic and economic growth will determine most of the variations in actual water demand until 2020. However, the impacts from the implemented scenario will be of growing importance and nearly match the impacts from developments in the drivers already in 2025. Table 2: Impact of drivers and scenarios on the development of total water demand (in % of lowest expectable water demand) Impact

2010

2015

2020

2025

Drivers (demographic and economic growth, i.e. external influences that cannot be steered by water authorities) Scenarios (implementation of different actions and water policies which can be influenced by water authorities)

13,5%

17,6%

17,7%

17,7%

6,1%

12,2%

15,1%

17,1%

Source: team calculations

The scenario calculations provide also estimations of the occurring amounts of wastewater under the particular assumptions. The potential of treated wastewater was calculated on the basis of a ratio between influent to effluent of 2:1. However, the actual possibility to realize this potential depends on the development of Jordan's capacities for wastewater treatment. The question on how far Jordan can and would adapt its respective capacities is no subject of this study. Jordan's water strategy 2008-2022 stipulates an increase in treated wastewater from 117 MCM/year in 2010 to 165 MCM/year in 2015, 223 MCM/year in 2020 and 247 MCM/year in 2022, but does not provide information on the intended development of the treatment plants' overall design capacity. The calculated amounts of treated wastewater in the scenarios represent thus potentials, which may require a consistency check with data on existing and envisaged treatment plant capacities.

2 Scenarios with regionally comparative domestic water demand (scenarios CS and OE) Scenarios of this type deal with the question of impacts from an aspired, regionally comparable water provision of Jordanian households under different assumptions on water demand management. Water demand Scenarios CS and OE assume a water provision per capita that corresponds to regional standards. Differences in the demand per capita result from higher water use efficiency (“Green Code”) in households and have no effect on the living standard in Jordanian households. Scenario CS reflects the continuation of developments and loss reductions according to assumptions of the utilities, but ignores additional efforts in water demand management (“Green Code”). Scenario OE assumes the implementation of Green Code measures as well as a better success in loss reduction

-5-


according to the current specifications of the MWI. The improvements in water use efficiency and loss reduction would decrease the total freshwater water demand by about 97 MCM/year in 2015 and about 150 MCM/year in 2025 (cf. table3, line 12). The reduction of water requirements of municipal clients in scenario OE leads to a higher surplus of freshwater for other purposes under the assumption of a given development of water supply, but simultaneously to lower inflows to Jordan’s wastewater treatment facilities. This leads to a situation starting between 2015 and 2020, where the MWI’s current forecast would probably overestimate the potentially available treated wastewater (cf. table 3, lines 9 and 11). Table 3: Development of water demand under scenarios CS and OE1

year

2010

Water Demand 1

Municipal

MCM/year

2015

2020

2010

2015

2020

2025

476

527

573

422

379

397

424

(437-515)

(498-586)

(559-657)

(381-450)

(343-410)

(359-442)

(380-486)

Industry Tourism

64

90

107

117

64

90

107

117

(64-64)

(77-103)

(98-115)

(112-122)

(64-64)

(77-103)

(98-115)

(112-122)

13

21

26

29

13

21

26

29

(13-13)

(17-25)

(19-34)

(20-40)

(13-13)

(17-25)

(19-34)

(20-40)

0

0

20

70

0

0

20

70

30

30

30

30

Nuclear Reactors Freshwater TWW²

5

2025

422

(min-max)

4

MCM/year

(381-450)

(min-max)

3

Scenario OE

1

(min-max)

2

Scenario CS

Total (sum 1-4) (min-max)

7

499

587

709

819

499

490

580

670

(458-527)

(531-643)

(666-785)

(791-919)

(458-527)

(437-538)

(526-640)

(612-748)

Resources³(without TWW) 1 Remaining Water Resources

775

863

1069

1214

775

863

1069

1214

8

Freshwater

277

276

390

425

277

373

519

574

(248-317)

(220-332)

(314-433)

(325-453)

(248-318)

(325-426)

(459-573)

(496-633)

9

TWW²

217

248

246

271

217

200

182

197

(197-232)

(227-270)

(229-280)

(260-319)

(197-232)

(180-217)

(159-208)

(170-233)

(min-max)

(min-max)

10

Total (min-max)

11

12

For comparison: planned TWW by MWI³ Freshwater savings

494

524

636

696

494

573

701

771

(480-514)

(490-559)

(594-662)

(644-713)

(480-515)

(543-606)

(667-732)

(729-803)

117

165

223

247

117

165

223

247

0

97

130

149

0

(94-105)

(139-144)

(171-180)

(min-max) 1

Figures represent the situation under a medium demographic and economic development TWW = treated wastewater ³ Information from MWI, data file from 30.03.2011, cf. table 1 2

Source: team calculations

The surplus of water resources (cf. table 3, line 10) represents the supply capacities for water demands by agriculture. Both scenarios indicate remaining water resources in the range of the currently accounted water for agricultural purposes. However, this range is about 40% lower than

-6-


the calculated plant water requirements (cf. NWMP) of the observed cropping patterns. A detailed discussion on impacts and consequences for the agricultural and rural sector is given in chapter 5 here below. Water value The approximation of values of water use shows - based on the findings of the study’s part on water valuation and under the assumption of a similar water supply - an increase over the period from 2010 to 2025 by about 78.7 % under scenario CS and by about 75.8 % under scenario OE. The difference results from the lower municipal water demand and the respective higher water use for irrigation under scenario OE. The economic efficiency depends on the difference between the stated values and the required costs for the assumed supply. The assumption of a similar water supply implies equal costs in both scenarios. The only possibility to achieve a comparable efficiency in scenario OE would be, under given costs, to increase the value of water consumption in one or more of the sectors. A full coverage of the difference of 117 million JD in 2015, 157 million JD in 2020 and 180 million JD in 2025 by added value from the agricultural sector would demand an increase of the average water value in this sector from currently 0.59 JD/m³ to about 0.77 JD/m³ in 2015, 0.79 JD/m³ in 2020 and 0.80 JD/m³ in 2025. This holds under medium assumptions on the development in the drivers and varies according to the stated range of values in table 4 (on alternatives see chapter 4 on agriculture). Table 4: Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy) under scenarios CS and OE

year Municipal

Value1

Scenario CS

Scenario OE

JD/m³

Million JD/year 2015 2020 709 785

Million JD/year 2015 2020 565 592

2025 632

1.49²

(min-max)

Industry

77.63³

(min-max)

Tourism

107.004

(min-max)

Agriculture

0.595

2010 628

2025 854

2010 628

(568-671)

(651-767)

(742-873)

(834-979)

(568-671)

(520-610)

(562-658)

(620-725)

4,962

6,990

8,274

9,083

4,962

6,990

8,274

9,083

(4,9624,962)

(5,9768,004)

(7;6328;917)

(8;6799;487)

(4,9624,962)

(5,9768,004)

(7;6328;917)

(8;6799;487)

366

589

723

812

366

589

723

812

(366-366)

(478-700)

(532-940)

(5651,113)

(366-366)

(478-700)

(532-940)

(5651,113)

278

296

358

392

278

323

395

434

(270-290)

(276-317)

(335-380)

(363-415)

(270-290)

(306-342)

(376-412)

(411-452)

6,235

8,583

10,141

11,141

6,235

8,466

9,985

10,961

(6,186(7,421(10,492(10,492(6,186(7,314(9,1396,269) 9,747) 11,942) 11,942) 6,269) 9,620) 10,890) 1 average values per sector, cf, water valuation report, July 2011 2 value based on total costs of public network and opportunity costs ³ operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008 4 net value added per m³ in hotels and restaurants 5 operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, weighted by total operation surplus per type of crops

(10,31511,735)

(min-max)

Total (min-max)

Source: team calculations

The assumption of a linear increase in values between the 5-year intervals allows for a first approximation of the total value over the period from 2010 until 2025. The undiscounted values under medium assumptions on the drivers amount to about 145.8 billion JD under scenario CS and to

-7-


about 143.8 billion JD under scenario OE. The total value varies according to the development in the drivers by about 賊 8.5 % in both scenarios, i.e. between 133.6 and 158.7 billion JD in scenario CS and between 131.8 and 156.6 billion JD in scenario OE. These figures give a first indication about the upper limit of the total costs for water supply, including investments, over this period. However, evaluations of the efficiency of investments will require information on the timeline of monetary inflows and outflows. Water losses The estimation of water losses (NRW/UFW) in scenario CS relies on the current assumptions of the utilities, in scenario OE on the more ambitious specifications of the MWI. The present documents and files of the utilities imply that intended loss reductions focus on physical losses only, i.e. water lost due to technical imperfections in conveyance systems. Administrative losses will presumably remain on a constant percentage level until 2025. Table 5 shows the development of NRW per year over the period until 2025. Scenario CS would lead to increasing total losses due to the constant increase in administrative losses, which could not be compensated by the savings in physical losses. Physical losses, which constitute apotential additional source of water, increase slightly from 74 MCM/year in 2010 to 78 MCM/year in 2025. Scenario OE would lead to a decrease in administrative losses due to the decrease in municipal water consumption as a function of measures from the Green Code. The more stringent demands of the MWI with regard to loss reduction would simultaneously downsize physical losses from about 47 MCM/year in 2010 to 28 MCM/year in 2025. Table 5:

Water losses (UFW/NRW) under scenarios CS and OE

year Type of losses administrative (min-max)

physical (min-max)

Value of physical losses in JD1 (min-max)

2010

Scenario CS

Scenario OE

MCM/year 2015 2020

MCM/year 2015 2020

2025

2010

2025

52

60

68

76

52

50

56

62

(47-55)

(54-65)

(62-76)

(68-88)

(47-55)

(45-54)

(50-62)

(56-71)

74

77

79

78

74

49

36

24

(67-79)

(69-83)

(71-88)

(70-90)

(67-79)

(44-53)

(32-40)

(22-28)

Million JD/year 27.5 20.2

13.8

41.9 (37.8-44.7)

Million JD/year 43.3 44.5 (39.1-46.8)

(40.1-49.5)

44.2

41.9

(39.4-50.7)

(37.8-44.7)

(24.9-29.8)

(18.2-22.4)

(12.3-15.8)

1

based on the current average value of 0.59 JD/m続 for water use in the agricultural sector Source: team calculations

A valuation of physical losses gives an indication of potential benefits from investments in further loss reductions. The valuation would have to be based the water value per m続 in agriculture, since water demands from all other sectors are fully covered in both scenarios. The calculation on the basis of the current average value of 0.56 JD/m続 for water in the agricultural sector indicates that scenario CS would lead to an approximately constant annual loss of water with a value of more than 40 million

-8-


JD/year over the whole period. Scenario OE would allow for a decrease from 42 million JD/year in 2010 to 14 million JD/year in 2025. An additional important observation is the fact that the difference between medium and potential maximal losses increases from about 7% in 2010 to 15% in 2025, while the difference to potential minimal losses increases from 10% in 2010 to 11% in 2025 only. This holds, with only slight deviations, for both scenarios.

3 Scenarios with continuous development of domestic water consumption (scenarios UBS norm and UBS GC) Scenarios of this type deal with the question of impacts from the continuation of past developments in water demand under different assumptions on water demand management. The current forecasting models of the utilities NGWA, AWC and Miyahuna estimate developments in future water demands by extrapolation via simple trend models. However, the utilities calculate water demands on the basis of their own prognoses about population growth in their service areas. These demographic prognoses coincide only roughly with the official figures of the HCP. The scenario calculations adopted the utilities’ prognoses on the development of water demands in liters per capita and day (l/c/d), but multiplied these demands with the demographic prognoses of the HCP in order to assure the comparability between all scenarios. The results do not necessarily reflect water demands but rather water consumption, which is subject to limitations from e.g. purchasing power and water availability. However, these assumptions may be closer to reality than specifications of aspired water availabilities at least for the near future. Estimations for the 6 governorates, which are currently served by governmental instead of corporate utilities, rely on the assumptions of the utility NGWA due to the closer similarities of their settlement structures to the area of this utility compared to the urban areas of AWC and Miyahuna. Water demand The scenarios “UBS norm” and UBS GC” compare potential developments under different assumptions on the implementation of measures from the Green Code and different levels of success in the reduction of losses. The intended nationwide water savings would increase from 62 MCM/year in 2015 and 90 MCM/year in 2020 to about 109 MCM/year in 2025 (cf. table 6, line 12). The difference of water savings between the situations with medium and maximum developments of the drivers increases from 1.4% in 2015 to 7.5% in 2025. The difference between the medium and the minimum situation develops at a lower rate from 0.1% in 2015 to 1.3% in 2025. Reasons of the lower water demand in scenario USB-GC are the implementation of the “Green Code” and higher reduction of physical losses. The contribution of reductions in losses to these savings increases from 29.4% in 2015 to 37% in 2025, while measures of the “Green Code” contribute the remaining 70.6% and 63% (cf. table 6, line 12 and table 8). The development of municipal water requirements in both scenarios starts to interfere with the MWI’s current forecast of available treated wastewater already around 2015 (cf. table 6, lines 9 and 11). A higher efficiency of wastewater treatment, which increases the considered ratio of 50%

-9-


between TWW outflows and wastewater inflows, may decrease this gap to a certain extent. However, closing the gap under scenario UBS-GC in 2025 would require a recycling ratio of more than 76%, which considerably exceeds the average standard of 60%. The surplus of water resources (cf. table 6, line 10) represents the remaining water supply capacity for water demands by agriculture. Both scenarios lead to water amounts that are already in 2015 close to the currently billed water for irrigation of about 680 MCM/year, but fall significantly short of the potential real water requirement for the actually cropped areas of about 1000 MCM/year, which was estimated based on physiological crop water requirements. Development of water demand under scenarios UBS-norm and UBS-GC1

Table 6:

year

2010

Water Demand 1

Municipal

5

MCM/year

2015

2020

2025

2010

2015

2020

2025

258

320

379

433

258

257

289

324

(319-325)

(377-396)

(426-466)

(258-258)

(256-261)

(287-302)

(319-350)

Industry Tourism

52

78

91

100

52

78

91

100

(52-52)

(73-83)

(82-102)

(89-113)

(52-52)

(73-83)

(82-102)

(89-113)

6

10

18

19

6

10

18

19

(6-6)

(8-12)

(11-27)

(11-29)

(6-6)

(8-12)

(11-27)

(11-29)

Freshwater

20

70

20

70

TWW²

30

30

30

30

(min-max)

4

MCM/year

(258-258)

(min-max)

3

Scenario UBS-GC

1

(min-max)

2

Scenario UBS-norm

Nuclear Reactors

Total (sum 1-4) (min-max)

7

315

407

538

652

315

345

449

543

(315-316)

(400-419)

(520-574)

(626-709)

(315-316)

(337-356)

(430-481)

(519-592)

Resources³(without TWW) 1 Remaining Water Resources

775

863

1069

1214

775

863

1069

1214

8

Freshwater

460

456

561

592

460

518

650

701

(460-460)

(444-463)

(525-579)

(536-618)

(460-460)

(507-526)

(618-669)

(653-726)

9

TWW²

132

165

169

196

132

133

124

141

(132-132)

(163-168)

(164-181)

(189-218)

(132-132)

(132-137)

(119-135)

(135-159)

(min-max)

(min-max)

10

Total (min-max)

11

12

For comparison: planned TWW by MWI³ Freshwater savings

592

620

729

788

592

651

774

842

(592-592)

(612-627)

(706-743)

(753-807)

(592-592)

(643-658)

(753-788)

(812-861)

117

165

223

247

117

165

223

247

0

62

90

109

0

(62-63)

(90-94)

(107-117)

(min-max) 1

Figures represent the situation under a medium demographic and economic development TWW = treated wastewater ³ planned by MWI, cf. table 1 2

Source: team calculations

- 10 -


Water value The approximation of values of water use, based on the findings of the study’s part on water valuation, shows - under the assumption of a similar water supply - an increase over the period from 2010 to 2025 of about 92 % under scenario UBS-norm and of about 89 % under scenario UBS-GC. The overall value of water uses per year in scenario UBS-norm exceeds the one in scenario UBS-GC by 76 million JD in 2015, 109 million JD in 2020 and 131 million JD in 2025. Coverage of this difference by added value from the agricultural sectorin scenario UBS-GC would demand an increase of the average water value in this sector from currently 0.56 JD/m³ to about 0.68 JD/m³ in 2015, 0.70 JD/m³ in 2020 and 0.72 JD/m³ in 2025. This holds under medium assumptions on the development in the drivers and varies according to the stated range of values in table 7 (on alternatives see chapter 4 on agriculture). The assumption of a linear increase in values between the 5-year intervals allows again for a first approximation of the total value over the period from 2010 until 2025. The undiscounted values under medium assumptions on the drivers amount to about 121.6 billion JD under scenario UBSnorm and to about 120.3 billion JD under scenario UBS GC. The total value varies according to the development in the drivers by about ± 9 % in both scenarios, i.e. between 111.3 and 133.08 billion JD in scenario CS and between 110.0 and 131.7 billion JD in scenario OE. These figures give a first indication about the upper limit of the total costs for water supply, including investments, over this period. However, evaluations of the efficiency of investments will require information on the timeline of monetary inflows and outflows. Table 7:

Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy) under scenarios UBS-norm and UBS GC

year Municipal

Value1

Scenario UBS-norm

Scenario UBS-GC

JD/m³

Million JD/year 2015 2020 476 564

Million JD/year 2015 2020 383 431

2025 483

1.49²

(min-max)

2010 384

2025 645

2010 384

(384-384)

(475-484)

(561-590)

(635-695)

(384-384)

(382-389)

(428-451)

(475-521)

4,022

6,055

7,097

7,796

4,022

6,055

7,097

7,796

(4,0224,022)

(5,6596,451)

(6,3528,808)

(6,8758,808)

(4,0224,022)

(5,6596,451)

(6,3528,808)

(6,8758,808)

166

274

509

532

166

274

509

532

(166-166)

(220-328)

(313-752)

(321-802)

(166-166)

(220-328)

(313-752)

(321-802)

333

350

411

444

333

367

436

475

(333-333)

(345-353)

(398-419)

(424-455)

(333-333)

(363-371)

(424-444)

(457-485)

4,905

7,155

8,581

9,417

4,905

7,079

8,473

9,286

(4,905(6,707(7,645(8,285(4,905(6,632(7,5374,905) 7,607) 9,628) 10,730) 4,905) 7,531) 9,515) 1 average values per sector, cf, water valuation report, July 2011 2 value based on total costs of public network and opportunity costs ³ operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008 4 net value added per m³ in hotels and restaurants 5 operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, weighted by total operation surplus per type of crops

(8,15610,589)

Industry

77.63³

(min-max)

Tourism

107.004

(min-max)

Agriculture

0.59

5

(min-max)

Total (min-max)

Source: team calculations

- 11 -


Water losses The estimation of water losses (NRW/UFW) in scenario UBS-norm relies on the current assumptions of the utilities, in scenario UBS-GC on the more ambitious specifications of the MWI. The present documents and files of the utilities imply that intended loss reductions focus on physical losses only, i.e. water lost due to technical imperfections in conveyance systems. Administrative losses will presumably remain on a constant percentage level until 2025. Total losses would increase under medium assumptions about the drivers from about 78 MCM/year in 2010 to about 118 MCM/year in 2025 under scenario UBS-norm, but decrease to about 67MCM/year under scenario UBS-GC. Variations due to different developments in the drivers would cause nearly similar changes in both scenarios. Variations due to minimum assumptions in the development of the drivers amount to -0.3% in 2015 and -1.7% in 2025. Maximum assumptions A valuation of physical losses gives an indication of potential benefits from investments in further loss reductions. The valuation would have to be based the water value per m続 in agriculture, since water demands from all other sectors are fully covered in both scenarios. The calculation on the basis of the current average value of 0.56 JD/m続 for water in the agricultural sector indicates that scenario UBS-norm would lead to an increase in lost values from 25.7 million JD/year in 2010 up to 33.8 million JD/year in 2025. Losses would decrease under scenario UBS-GC from 25.7 million JD/year in 2010 down to 11.1 million JD/year in 2025 (cf. table 8). The difference between medium and potential maximal losses increases from about 0.1 % in 2015 to 7.8 % in 2025, while the difference to potential minimal losses increases from 0.3 % in 2015 to 1.6 % in 2025 only. This holds, with only slight deviations, for both scenarios. Table 8:

Water losses (UFW/NRW) under scenarios UBS-norm and UBS-GC

year Type of losses administrative (min-max)

physical (min-max)

Value of physical losses in JD1 (min-max)

2010

Scenario UBS-norm

Scenario UBS GC

MCM/year 2015 2020

MCM/year 2015 2020

2025

2010

2025

32

41

50

58

32

34

41

48

(32-32)

(41-42)

(49-52)

(57-63)

(32-32)

(34-35)

(41-43)

(47-52)

45

52

57

60

45

33

27

20

(45-45)

(52-53)

(57-60)

(59-64)

(45-45)

(33-34)

(27-28)

(19-21)

Million JD/year 18.9 15.2

11.1

25.7 (25.7-25.7)

Million JD/year 29.3 32.4 (29.3-29.8)

(32.2-33.9)

33.8

25.7

(33.3-36.4)

(25.7-25.7)

1

(18.9-19.2)

based on the current average value of 0.59 JD/m続 for water use in the agricultural sector Source: team calculations

- 12 -

(15.1-15.9)

(11.0-12.0)


4 Scenario with mixed assumptions on domestic water consumption (scenario IAA UBS) Scenario IAA-UBS deals with the question of impacts from a disproportional surge in municipal water demand, which bridges the gap between a continuous development in water consumption and the aspired, regionally comparable provision of Jordanian households with water. The major focus lies on the impact of the shift of water from agriculture to the municipal sector. Scenario IAA-UBS is based on the specifications of scenario “UBS-norm”, but assumes that domestic water demand sharply increases between 2015 and 2020 due to higher incomes and better water availability through improved water supply structures. The development of water losses corresponds to the prognoses of the utilities. Figures for scenario UBS-norm are added to the tables in this chapter for comparative purposes. Water demand The additional requirements of municipal water demand would increase the total demand to Jordan’s freshwater resources by about 70 MCM/year already in 2015. This amount more than doubles to 149 MCM/year until 2020,the year when municipal water demands would be adjusted to a regionally comparative level, and remains more or less constant afterwards (cf. table 9, line 5). Lower developments in the drivers would lead to an about 1.2% lower increase in 2025, higher developments to a 7.4% higher increase in municipal water demand for the same year. Recycling of wastewater from municipal water use lessens the impact on water availability for agriculture. The remaining water quantities would decrease by 32 MCM/year in 2015 and 74 MCM in 2020. This level would be maintained over the years afterwards (cf. table 9, line 10).

- 13 -


Development of water demand under scenarios UBS-norm and IAA-UBS1

Table 9:

year

2010

Water Demand

Scenario IAA-UBS

MCM/year

MCM/year

2015

2020

2025

2010

2015

2020

2025

1

1

Municipal

2

Industry

3

Tourism

4

Nuclear Reactors

258

320

379

433

258

385

527

573

(258-258)

(319-325)

(377-396)

(426-466)

(258-258)

(384-390)

(525-550)

(565-617)

52

78

91

100

52

78

91

100

(52-52)

(73-83)

(82-102)

(89-113)

(52-52)

(73-83)

(82-102)

(89-113)

6

10

18

19

6

10

18

19

(6-6)

(8-12)

(11-27)

(11-29)

(6-6)

(8-12)

(11-27)

(11-29)

Freshwater

20

70

20

70

TWW²

30

30

30

30

(min-max)

(min-max)

(min-max)

5

Scenario UBS-norm

Total (sum 1-4) (min-max)

7

315

407

538

652

315

472

687

792

(315-316)

(400-419)

(520-574)

(626-709)

(315-316)

(465-485)

(668-729)

(765-859)

863

1069

1214

775

863

1069

1214

Resources³(without TWW) 1 Remaining Water Resources

775

8

460

456

561

592

460

391

412

452

(460-460)

(444-463)

(525-579)

(536-618)

(460-460)

(378-398)

(370-431)

(385-480)

Freshwater (min-max)

9

TWW² (min-max)

10

Total

11

For comparison: planned TWW by MWI³

(min-max)

132

165

169

196

132

197

243

266

(132-132)

(163-168)

(164-181)

(189-218)

(132-132)

(196-201)

(238-258)

(258-293)

592

620

729

788

592

588

655

718

(592-592)

(612-627)

(706-743)

(753-807)

(592-592)

(594-579)

(629-669)

(678-738)

117

165

223

247

117

165

223

247

1

Figures represent the situation under a medium demographic and economic development TWW = treated wastewater ³ planned by MWI, cf. table 1 2

Source: team calculations

- 14 -


Water value The higher value of water use in the municipal sector compared to the water value in agriculture leads to an increase of the total value of water use by about 1 % under scenario IAA-UBS (cf. table 10). Table 10: Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy) under scenarios UBS-norm and IAA-UBS Value1 JD/m³ year Municipal

1.49²

(min-max)

Industry

Scenario UBS-norm Million JD/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 384 476 564 645 (384-384)

77.63³

(min-max)

Tourism Agriculture

(561-590)

(635-695)

(384-384)

(572-582)

(782-820)

2025 854 (841-920)

4,022

6,055

7,097

7,796

4,022

6,055

7,097

7,796

(4,0224,022)

(5,6596,451)

(6,3528,808)

(6,8758,808)

(4,0224,022)

(5,6596,451)

(6,3528,808)

(6,8758,808)

107.004

(min-max)

(475-484)

2010 384

Scenario IAA-UBS Million JD/year 2015 2020 573 785

166

274

509

532

166

274

509

532

(166-166)

(220-328)

(313-752)

(321-802)

(166-166)

(220-328)

(313-752)

(321-802)

0.595

333

350

411

444

333

331

369

405

(333-333)

(345-353)

(398-419)

(424-455)

(333-333)

(335-326)

(354-377)

(382-416)

4,905

7,155

8,581

9,417

4,905

7,233

8,760

9,587

(4,905(6,707(7,645(8,285(4,905(6,786(7,8244,905) 7,607) 9,628) 10,730) 4,905) 7,687) ( 9,814) 1 average values per sector, cf, water valuation report, July 2011 2 value based on total costs of public network and opportunity costs ³ operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008 4 net value added per m³ in hotels and restaurants 5 operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, weighted by total operation surplus per type of crops

(8,45310,912)

(min-max)

Total (min-max)

Source: team calculations

Water losses The higher use of water for municipal purposes implies simultaneously higher losses due to the unchanged percentage of NRW. Losses in scenario IAA-UBS exceed losses in scenario UBS-norm by 8 MCM/year in 2015 and 40 MCM/year in 2020 and the years afterwards. The difference in the value of physical losses grows to about 10 to 12 million JD/year in the same period (cf. table 11). Table 11: Water losses (UFW/NRW) under scenarios UBS-norm and IAA-UBS

year Type of losses administrative (min-max)

physical (min-max)

Value of physical losses in JD1 (min-max) 1

2010

Scenario UBS-norm MCM/year 2015 2020

2025

2010

Scenario IAA-UBS MCM/year 2015 2020

2025

32

41

50

58

32

49

68

76

(32-32)

(41-42)

(49-52)

(57-63)

(32-32)

(49-50)

(68-71)

(75-81)

45

52

57

60

45

62

79

78

(45-45)

(52-53)

(57-60)

(59-64)

(45-45)

(62-63)

(78-82)

(77-84)

Million JD/year 35.1 44.5

44.2

25.7 (25.7-25.7)

Million JD/year 29.3 32.4 (29.3-29.8)

(32.2-33.9)

33.8

25.7

(33.3-36.4)

(25.7-25.7)

(35.0-35.6)

based on the current average value of 0.56 JD/m³ for water use in the agricultural sector

- 15 -

(44.3-46.5)

(43.5-47.6)


Source: team calculations

5 Sectorial Scenario: agriculture (scenario ITA) Agriculture is the only sector of water demand where an intra-sectorial reallocation of water is likely. However, even in this sector reallocation of water would be restricted to exchanges within a given location (cf. diagnostic report, annex 3). The scenario calculations show that remaining water quantities of Jordan's scheduled supply capacities, which would be currently potentially available for agricultural purposes, are even under the most water consuming conditions not far away from the average irrigation water consumption stated by the MWI 2003-2009, which amounted to about 496 MCM/year (cf. table 11, intermediary report and MWI water budget 2009). This available amount of water for irrigation will even increase in the future and may reach a level between 644 and 861 MCM/year until 2025 (cf. table 12). Table 12: Potential availability of water for agriculture under the different scenario assumptions Year Scenario CS (min-max)

OE (min-max)

UBS-norm (min-max)

2010

2015

2020

2025

MCM/year 494

524

636

696

(480-514)

(490-559)

(594-662)

(644-713)

494

573

701

771

(480-515)

(543-606)

(667-732)

(729-803)

592

620

729

788

(592-592)

(612-627)

(706-743)

(753-807)

UBS-GC

592

651

774

842

(min-max)

(592-592)

(643-658)

(753-788)

(812-861)

IAA-UBS (min-max)

592

588

655

718

(592-592)

(594-579)

(629-669)

(678-738)

Min

494

524

639

696

(min)

(480)

(490)

(594)

(644)

Max

592

651

774

842

(max)

(592)

(658)

(778)

(861)

552,8

591,2

699

763

average

The combination of these findings, the analyses of the current situation (cf. diagnostic report, chapters 3.2.3 and 4.2) and model runs with different amounts of water by linear programming models on (a) agricultural systems (model SAWAS1) and (b) farming systems (model: FaSys2) identifies the actual bottlenecks in the handling of water demands from agriculture: 1) Allocation: Water for agriculture in the future will consist to a much larger share out of treated wastewater than it does nowadays. The majority of wastewater is produced by Jordan’s urban areas and flows downhill, i.e. to the Jordan Valley.

1

cf. Salman, A., Karablieh, E. and Fisher, F.: An Inter-Seasonal Agricultural Water Allocation System (SAWAS), Agricultural

2

cf. Nabulsi,A.H. (2007): Socio-Economic Impacts of Water Availability and Prices on Farming Systems -. The Case of the

Systems 68, 233-252, 2001 Eastern Jordan Valley. ISBN 978-3-8236-1501-9

- 16 -


2) Timing: Gaps between the formation of water quantities and the need for water in agriculture require storage facilities and an outflow management, which correspond to water requirements in agriculture. Both, centralized and de centralized water storage systems provide room for the improvement of water use efficiency in agriculture. 3) Reliability of water supply: inflows to Jordan’s surface water storage system are subject to substantial variations between the years. Precipitations below average and the resulting low levels in the filling of dams and reservoirs are turned over in the first place to agricultural water supply. Farmers are forced to adopt their cropping patterns, farm infrastructure and irrigation decisions to this insecurity. 4) Unaccounted-for water in agriculture: a calculation of crop water requirements (CWR) of the current production structure leads to a water demand that exceeds the billed irrigation water by more than 40%. Crop failures, irrigation by water transports from public water sources by tankers and water supply through precipitations make up for some parts of the difference, but the magnitude of the difference indicates that most of this unaccounted-for water bypasses the official water accounting systems. 5) Other uncertainty (“risks”) in agricultural production: significant variations in market prices and in the comparative advantage of individual crops, i.e. variations in the relation between market prices of specific crops, lead to cropping systems which are often sub-optimal with regard to the utilization of water resources. However, they are optimal with regard to the achievement of farmers’ goals, i.e. their chosen combination between maximal profitability and minimal risk. An important element in this observation is dynamics, i.e. farmers’ choices may not be optimal with regard to a specific year, but focus on the sustainability of farm operations over longer time spans. This holds in particular for investment decisions in perennial crops, e.g. fruit trees and olives, and farm infrastructure, e.g. irrigation systems, farm machinery and green houses. 6) Different constraints in different farming systems: Water is a scarce production factor for most Jordanian farming enterprises, but still just one of their constraints and in a lot of cases not the most decisive one. Access to capital, prices of production factors, market access and competition for resources of farming families by alternative employments in off-farm sectors often play an at least equally important role. The consequences of changes in water availability and quality depend much more on the interrelationships between these constraints in individual farming systems (i.e. systems that determine farmers’ overall economic success and thus livelihood) than on agricultural systems (i.e. cropping systems and the combination of agricultural uses of natural resources). 7) Climate change adds to demands for irrigation water: Lower precipitations increase the demand for surplus irrigation in currently rain-fed areas. Changes in rainfall patterns demand an extension of capacities for water storage and the related water conveyance infrastructure. Rising average temperatures may demand for re-scheduling of irrigation patterns in order to take advantage of earlier production periods (and the related advantage of higher prices for products). This may again pose new challenges to storage capacities. Rising water demands through higher evapotranspiration in fully irrigated agriculture are – in comparison - most probably negligible (cf. diagnostic report of this study) 8) Improvements in irrigation efficiency may have not much impact on the overall agricultural water demand. Jordan's agricultural potentials in terms of cultivable areas and economic opportunities are not used to its full capacities. Any reduction in water requirements per

- 17 -


dunum (1 dunum = 0.1 ha) would promote the expansion of agricultural areas if not counteracted by regulatory measures. The impacts of improved irrigation efficiencies unfold on the levels of (1) yields and related incomes from farming as well as with regard to (2) the economic justification of investments in freshwater generation or water savings in other sectors due to the achievable higher net returns - or from a slightly different perspective: value - per m³ of water in agriculture. Allocation Table 13 shows a comparison between crop water requirements per governorate as estimated in the NWMP and the expectable amounts of treated wastewater in Jordan’s governorates. Especially governorates in the highlands like Mafraq and Ma’an will not benefit from the overall increase in treated wastewater, even under the assumption of an equal efficiency of local wastewater treatment. Governorates in the Jordan Valley with similar situations, such as e.g. Balqa, receive already nowadays substantial amounts of treated wastewater via the water infrastructure around the central treatment plant at As Samra. Improvements in the efficiency of water recycling provide only a marginal potential for alleviating the gap between agricultural water demand and water availability in the highlands under the given conveyance infrastructure. The argument against investments in an infrastructure for the transfer of treated wastewater from other governorates is that only the governorate of Amman will produce more treated wastewater than probably required by its local agriculture. This water is already used nowadays for agriculture in the Jordan Valley, which has the advantages of an already existing conveyance system and lower conveyance costs due to the difference in altitude.

- 18 -


Table 13: Estimated crop water requirements and calculated amounts of treated wastewater from all scenarios year

2010 CWR

Governorate Ajloun Amman Aqaba Balqa Irbid Jarash Karak Madaba Mafraq Ma’an Tafilah Zarqa Jordan 1 2

1

TWW Average (min-max) MCM/year 12,2 3,1 (1.9-4.3) 73,8 75,7 (55.4-95.9) 31,1 10,6 (8.6-12.6) 289,1 11,2 (7.8-14.5) 141,5 26,5 (18.7-34.3) 30,7 4,6 (3.2-6.0) 69 6,2 (4.4-8.1) 5,6 4,1 (2.9-5.3) 162,3 8,1 (6.5-9.7) 106,7 3,1 (2.2-4.0) 23,4 2,3 (1.6-3.0) 130,1 26,4 (18.5-34.2) 1075,5 181,8 (131.8-231.7)

2015 CWR

1

TWW Average (min-max) MCM/year 11,1 3,4 (1.9-4.9) 73,3 82,5 (54.5-110.6) 30,4 15,2 (10.3-20.1) 275,8 12,0 (7.8-16.3) 135,6 28,9 (18.6-39.1) 29,4 5,1 (3.4-6.9) 67,3 6,7 (4.3-9.1) 5,5 4,4 (2.9-6.0) 161,3 8,7 (6.5-10.9) 101,2 3,3 (2.1-4.5) 22,5 2,5 (1.6-3.3) 126,1 28,4 (18.3-38.5) 1039,5 201,1 (132.1-270.0)

2020 CWR

1

TWW Average (min-max) MCM/year 10,0 3,8 (2.1-5.5) 72,1 92,7 (59.9-125.5) 29,8 20,2 (13.2-27.3) 251,2 13,5 (8.7-18.3) 122,8 32,8 (21.2-44.4) 26,8 5,8 (3.8-7.8) 63,9 7,5 (4.8-10.2) 5,4 5,0 (3.2-6.7) 159,6 9,7 (7.3-12.2) 98,2 3,7 (2.4-5.0) 21,0 2,8 (1.8-3.8) 122,1 31,8 (20.5-43.2) 982,9 229,3 (148.8-309.8)

crop water requirement according to NWMP, cf. diagnostic report, table 12 TWW = treated wastewater based on a recycling rate of 50% of water for municipal and touristic purposes

Source: team calculations

Timing and reliability of water supply Groundwater for irrigation is – basically - available “on demand”, water from treatment facilities and other sources provide a more or less constant flow, which requires storage for its availability in the relevant irrigation periods The implementation of storage facilities leads not only to additional demands to capital for the investments but also requires additional space. The latter may become a substantial factor in particular when those storage facilities are placed on-farm in farming systems with comparatively low land endowment and/or high potential returns per dunum. Central storage facilities for larger amounts of water are mostly available in the Jordan Valley and adjacent side valley (wadis). Timing of water distribution via the conveyance system connected to

- 19 -


King Abdullah Canal (KAC) has to respond to a multitude of combinations of farmers’ individual objectives, amongst which maximum profits and minimal risk may be the most important. The comparison between JVA’s intra-annual water distribution, the optimal water distribution for attaining maximum profits and the respective distribution for minimizing risk indicates the difficulty in managing centrally stored water resources (cf. fig. 2). Figure 2: Annual distribution of irrigation water in the Jordan Valley1

1

optimal water distribution for maximal gross margins and minimal risk calculated by LP model SAWAS for the Jordan Valley

Source: calculations by ATEEC/QUASIR

Improvements in the timing of water provision have no potential to reduce water demands in agriculture, but contribute to the economic efficiency of agricultural water use. Farmers react to discrepancies between their individual objectives and water availability by changes in their choice of crops, adaptations in their inputs of production means and/or the construction of own buffer capacities for water storage. Example calculations for the Jordan Valley with the SAWAS model3 indicate a potential increase in farmers’ profits of up to 18% through adapted timing of water provision under the assumption of constant water tariffs. However, this presupposes that farmers can rely on the timely and adequate provision with water throughout the vegetation period. Model calculations and observations in the Jordan Valley indicate a significant increase in the amount of low-revenue field crops, if farmers have to deal with insecurities in the consistency and reliability of water supply (field crops, such as e.g. barley, allow at least a minimization of losses through sale as fodder in a premature stage).

3

Calculation with SAWAS model by ATEEC

- 20 -


Storage of water and timing of water supply play a lower role in the highlands. However, increasing use of treated wastewater will raise the question of storage facilities and conveyance systems also in these governorates, even if the total amounts of treated wastewater are comparatively small. Alternative possibilities for storage of constant water flows, such as e.g. possibilities for the recharge of groundwater, i.e. aquifers, are under research (cf. e.g. project SMART (cf. http://www.iwrmsmart2.org/), but findings on their potential will be only available in the coming years. Unaccounted-for water in agriculture The NWMP (2004) estimated actual crop water requirements (CWR) about 44% higher than billed irrigation water by Jordan’s water authorities. Table 14 shows the difference between the potential water availability for agriculture under the different scenarios (cf. table 12) and the assumptions on real agricultural water demand in the NWMP and Jordan’s water strategy for the year 2022. The results indicate that • the amount of irrigation water, which cannot be covered from sustainable resources, ranges between 480 and 580 MCM/year in the current situation • this amount will decrease by a rate between 48 and 66% to a water quantity between 160 and 304 MCM/year until 2025 This allows for three major conclusions: 1) Agricultural water demand that exceeds sustainable water extraction is a significant but constantly diminishing problem over time. 2) The basic decision about approaches for bridging the gap is the decision on the acceptance and costs of structural change in rural areas and in the composition of farming systems over the period of lacking water quantities. 3) Programs for the improvement of irrigation efficiencies would help to increase yields and related profits from agriculture, but would most likely have no effect on the amount on unaccounted for water in agriculture. Table 14: Difference between estimated agricultural water demand and water availability for agriculture under different scenario assumptions in MCM/year Year

2010

2015

2020

2025

Estimated agricultural water demand1 Scenario² CS OE UBS-norm UBS-GC IAA-UBS

1072,3

1039,7

982,7

1000

578,3 578,3 480,3 480,3 529,3

515,7 466,7 419,7 388,7 447,7

346,7 281,7 253,7 208,7 272,7

304 229 212 158 225,75

Average Difference MaximalDifference Minimal Maximal Difference³

529,3 578,3 480,3

447,7 515,7 388,7

272,7 343,7 208,7

225,75 304 158

1

2010-2020 according to NWMP, 2025 according to Jordan’s water strategy for the year 2022 cf. diagnostic report, table 12

- 21 -


2

Figures under the assumption of medium developments of the drivers demographic and economic growth

Source: team calculations

The valuation of the gap between agricultural water demand and scheduled water supply with the average value per m³ in agriculture allows for an approximate estimation of maximum costs for solutions. Losses for entrepreneurs in the agricultural sector would currently amount to about 302 and 364 million JD per year, if they would have to abandon all water above the threshold of water supply. This amount would decrease to a value between 99.5 and 191.55 million JD/year in 2025. The undiscounted value of the losses on the level of farmers amount, under the assumption of a linear development in the five-years periods, to about 5.87 billion JD in average, with a range from 5.09 to 6.94 billion JD between minimum and maximum assumptions on water availability for agriculture. However, this estimation assumes unchanged structures in agricultural production and farming systems. Different constraints in different farming systems Agriculture in Jordan is private business. The choice of activities by farmers, including cropping patterns, is a result of their contribution to entrepreneurial criteria of economic success. Partial productivities, such as e.g. productivity per unit of water, are no decision criteria on the level of farming systems. Water is a scarce factor in the nationwide context, but may be second to scarcity in other production factors, such as e.g. capital or land, on the level of farming enterprises. Most agricultural enterprises are a part of more comprehensive family enterprises, so-called farming systems4. Decision making of entrepreneurs engaged in agricultural activities does not only rely on the partial efficiency of specific agricultural activities, but also -and probably even more - on the role and interdependencies of those activities within their overall structure of capacities and objectives. Water availability is a constraint for farming systems. Each change or intervention does not only change the profitability of specific activities but has an impact on the overall organization of the families' capacities and the resulting economic success. Regulating the choice of crops, e.g. through targeted water pricing, water quotas or encouragement of specific cropping patterns, leads inevitably to market distortions, i.e. favors farming systems with an adequate set of capacities in an artificial way. Research on farming systems in Jordan, i.e. analyses of agricultural activities and decisions as elements in the overall structure of objectives and capacities of agricultural entrepreneurs, focuses mostly on the Jordan Valley. The results are not directly transferable to farming systems in the highlands, but give an indication on the interrelations and effects. The model-based analyses of consequences of changes in water availability on the four major classes of farming systems in the Jordan Valley shows, amongst others, that: •

4

Current incomes from agriculture in farming systems (results from model FaSys) are – under an optimal combination of activities and capacities - about 59% lower than potential profits from the optimal combination of land and water in the Jordan Valley (results from model

The term "farming systems" is often used in references in a misleading way for agricultural activities. However, the latter does only consider agricultural elements and neglects farmers' decision criteria that result from interdependencies with other areas of his social and economic environment.

- 22 -


SAWAS). This indicates that constraints other than water and land play a significant role in the exploitation of Jordan's agricultural potentials. Current incomes from agriculture are significantly lower than potential profits from an optimal combination of activities within the limits of the given endowment in land, labor, capital and water and under the assumption of average prices for agricultural products. This holds in particular for the 22% of farming systems with low incomes (class 1), which rely mostly on the success of their agricultural activities and indicates their high willingness to sacrifice substantial parts of potential maximum profits for the minimization of risks from production and markets. All types of farming systems could realize higher incomes if a combination of more irrigation water and labor capacities would be available. However, capital endowment is a similar restriction for about 37% of the farming systems, which includes, beside the already mentioned farming systems class 1, also farming systems with mixed, middle incomes from agriculture and off-farm occupations (class 2). Land resources restrict a further increase in incomes of about 69% of the farming systems, which includes farming systems from class 1, 2 as well as farming systems with high incomes from mostly agricultural sources (class 3). The remaining 31% are farming systems with middle incomes from mostly off-farm occupations (class 4). A reduction of water availability for irrigation would lead to a decrease of vegetable production in all farming systems, but due to different reasons. Farming systems from classes 2, 3 and 4 rely nearly exclusively on the vegetable production, which is highly profitable in average, but also subject to a comparatively high risk from variations in market prices. Farming systems of the low income class 1, which rely simultaneously nearly exclusively on agriculture, would also have to reduce their production of perennials, which are of comparatively low profitability, but provide a comparatively stable basic income due to the lower variations of market prices between the years.

The results on farming systems in the Jordan Valley are not directly transferable to farming systems in the highlands, but emphasize the following conclusions: 1) Approaches for the improvement of economic water efficiency in irrigation must focus on the effects on economic success under the given resource endowment of Jordan's agricultural enterprises. 2) A partial focus on "efficient cropping patterns" in terms of returns per m³ will privilege farming systems with adequate resources, but probably endanger the sustainability of resource-poor farming systems. The promotion of partial and technical solutions, as e.g. efficient cropping patterns, will lead to a concentration of agriculture in large farming systems with a substantial amount of hired labor. 3) A commitment of all resources to the production of high-value crops, such as e.g. vegetables may be no sustainable production strategy for low-income farming systems, if the resulting profits are subject to high variations in market prices. Low variations in market prices and low annual production costs, as e.g. in perennials, may be essential for the resilience of such farming systems. 4) Agricultural water demands on the current level will exceed water availability until 2025, even if the gap gets smaller over time. It will depend on political decisions, if and how far this gap shall contribute to the restructuring of agricultural enterprises and rural regions.

- 23 -


6 Returns on investments in water demand management programs The differences between scenarios CS and OE as well as between USB-norm and USB-GC would presuppose the implementation of investment programs in water demand management. The following estimations of costs for these programs and the choice of the applied rate of interest of 6% were taken from the sub-report "Pre-conditions for Successful Implementation" of this study. The mentioned sub-report presents cost estimates of 5 programs for improvements in municipal water demand management and 2 programs that focus on agriculture. The cost benefit-analyses (CBA) consider 4 out of the 5 programs which focus on municipal water demand (cf. tab. 15). The 5th program, i.e. reduction of administrative water losses, was neglected due to (1) the unknown impacts of a better coverage in billing on water consumption and (2) the files of the utilities, which assign all expected reductions of unaccounted-for water to physical losses Costs for the 2 programs which focus on water demand management in agriculture were considered in the CBA of scenario IAA-UBS, which deals with water transfer between the agricultural and domestic sectors of water demand. The development of benefits, i.e. saved or transferred water, was calculated as linear in the 5-year intervals of the scenario calculations. Detailed tables of the CBA calculations are compiled in annex 3. The calculations of the following CBAs assume that costs of and benefits due to the programs start to take effect in 2013 and consider their development over the period of the scenario calculations, i.e. until the 2025. However, 2025 does not coincide necessarily with the end of the expected impacts of the programs. Negative outcomes of the presented CBAs do thus not automatically imply a lack of economic efficiency of the programs. Table 15: WDM programs and costs considered in scenario cost-benefit-analyses Program Municipal/Domestic Water Sector: 1) Implementation of Green Code 2) Water awareness Program for Jordanian citizens 3) Institutions and Policy development 4) Reduction of physical water losses 5) Reduction of administrative water losses Agricultural Water Sector: 6) Expansion/Improvement of treated wastewater use in irrigation 7) Improvement of Farm Irrigation Efficiency

Investment costs 124.0 mio. JD 4.7 mio JD

Considered for CBAs of scenarios CS vs. OE USB-norm vs. USB-GC

34.5 mio JD 517.6 mio JD 430.8 mio JD 130.6 mio JD 12.0 mio JD

- 24 -

not considered due to unknown effects on water demand IAA-UBS


The consultants are aware of the fact that all figures and information on the considered investment activities are approximate and do not reflect the full complexity of the individual programs. However, more precise figures could not be obtained within the framework of this study.

6.1 Returns to investment in municipal water demand management The four municipal WDM programs (cf. table 15) make up for a total investment volume of about 681 million JD and would entail additional costs for operation and maintenance (O&M costs) of about 168 million JD between 2013 and 2025. The costs until 2025, discounted at a rate of interest of 6% to their value in 2013, i.e. the assumed initial year of the programs, amounts to about 738.5 million JD (cf table A3.1, annex 3). Two different situations are conceivable for the valuation of saved water due to the programs. (a) Saved water from municipal water consumption can be profitably used in a different sector of water consumption. The average water value would then be equal to its water in agriculture, since demand from all other sectors – except nature – is satisfied in the scenario calculations. The appropriate value under the current conditions would be 0.59 JD/m³ (cf. Valuation Report of this study). (b) Water saving in municipal water consumption allows for the reduction of water provision. The current average costs of water supply in Jordan amount to about 0.35 JD/m³. However, those costs may even reach a level of about 0.9 JD/m³ for desalinated water from the intended RedSea-Dead-Sea project.

- 25 -


6.1.1 Scenarios with regionally comparative domestic water demand (scenarios CS and OE) The considered investments in municipal WDM would not pay off until 2025 under both assumptions on the value of water. •

Assumption (a): Alternative use of saved water in agriculture: The programs would yield a net present value (NPV) of - 143.7 million JD and an internal rate of return (IRR) of – 5% under a medium development of water demand. However, the range of possible variations due to a higher or lower development of water demands is large. Scenario calculations under the assumption of a high demographic and economic growth lead to an NPV of – 75.8 million JD and an IRR of – 2.5%. Calculations under the assumption of a low development in both drivers yield an NPV of – 207.2 million JD and an IRR of – 7.4% (cf. table A3.2, annex 3). Assumption (b): Reduction of required water provision: The programs would yield a NPV of – 385.7 million JD and an IRR of – 15.6% under a medium development of water demand due to the lower assumed value per m³. The range of possible variations extends from an NVP of – 345.4 million JD and an IRR of – 13.3% under the assumption of a strong development in the drivers to an NVP of – 423.3 million JD and an IRR of – 17.9% (cf. table A3.3, annex 3).

Figure 3 displays the development of the aggregated discounted costs and benefits until 2025. Reaching the break-even point in 2025, i.e. a balance between program costs and benefits from water savings, would require a water value of 0.733 JD/m³ in the case of a medium development in the drivers (within a range from 0.657 JD/m³ and 0.820 JD/m³ under the assumptions of strong or weak development in the drivers). Achieving these higher values would require (1) an increase of the average profitability per m³ in agriculture or (2) an increase in water provision costs. Figure 3: Aggregated discounted costs and benefits of WDM programs for municipal water, scenarios CS and OE, medium demographic and economic development

- 26 -


6.1.2 Scenarios with continuous development of domestic water consumption (scenarios UBS norm and UBS GC) Scenarios that assume a continuous development in domestic water consumption show even lower returns to the assumed investments in WDM programs due to the unchanged costs for the programs, but lower initial water consumption and the resulting lower potential for savings. •

Alternative use of saved water in agriculture: The programs would yield a NPV of – 330.2 million JD and an IRR of – 12.4 % under a medium development of water demand. A strong development in the drivers would yield an NPV of – 313.4 million JD and an IRR of – 11.5%, a weak development a NPV of – 332 million JD and an IRR of – 12.5%. (cf. table A3.4, annex 3). Reduction of required water provision: The NPV would amount tof – 496.3 million JD and an internal rate of return (IRR) of – 22.5% under a medium development of the drivers. A strong development in the drivers would yield an NPV of – 486.3 million JD and an IRR of – 21.4%, a weak development a NPV of – 497.3 million JD and an IRR of – 22.6%. (cf. table A3.5, annex 3).

Figure 4 displays the larger gap between costs and benefits for scenarios with a continuous development in domestic water consumption. Average water values that would allow for reaching the break-even point in 2025 amount to 1.067 JD/m³ under the assumption of a medium demographic and economic development. A strong development of these drivers would lead to a required value of 1.025 JD/m³, a weak one to a value of 1.072 JD/m³. Figure 4: Aggregated discounted costs and benefits of WDM programs for municipal water, scenarios UBS norm and UBS GC, medium demographic and economic development

- 27 -


6.2 Returns to investments in water transfers between sectors (scenario IAA-UBS) Scenario IAA-UBS examines transfers in water flows between the domestic and the agricultural sector. The scenario assumes an increase of the domestic water consumption from the current level to a regionally comparative consumption per capita until 2020. The related increase in water demand would have to be covered by freshwater, which reduces the available water for agriculture. In return, higher municipal water consumption produces more wastewater, which increases the potential of this alternative water resource for agriculture. The contemplated investments in extensions of wastewater treatment capacities, conveyance infrastructure and adapted irrigation management amount to 142.6 million JD (cf. tab. 15). The design capacity in terms of outflows for agricultural purposes of these investments fits within the estimations of scenario IAA-USB (cf. table 16). Table 16: Statements on Treated Wastewater effluents Year

Design capacity of scheduled investments1

2015 (min-max) 2020 (min-max) 2025 (min-max) 1

16.5

MWI estimate (worksheet Jan. 2011)

NWMP (2004)

Increase in TWW in MCM/Year 54 34

29.5

58

32

41.5

24

-

Scenario IAAUSB

65 (65-66) 148 (148-154) 140 (139-151)

source: sub-report "Pre-conditions for Successful Implementation" of this study

Costs and benefits in the CBA consider: • Costs (cf. table A3.6, annex 3): - Investment and O&M costs of the programs "expansion/Improvement of treated

wastewater use in irrigation" and "Improvement of Farm Irrigation Efficiency" - Opportunity costs (benefit foregone) of transferred water from the agricultural to the

municipal water sector • Benefits (cf. table A3.7, annex 3): - Value of added water to the municipal water sector - Value of additional treated wastewater for agricultural production Figure 5 shows the development of costs and benefits until 2025 under the assumption of a medium demographic and economic development. The break-even point, i.e. the year, where benefits equal costs and start to exceed them, would already be in 2015. The majority of costs would arise from benefits foregone in agriculture with a NPV of about 541 million JD. The balance between these opportunity costs and the benefits from additional treated wastewater for agriculture would amount

- 28 -


to a negative NPV of about - 413 million JD until 2025. The major beneficiary would be the sector of domestic water use with a net present value of about 1,366 million JD until 2025. The overall evaluation of the inter-sectoral water transfer and the related investment programs until 2025yields a NPV of about 847.6 million JD and an IRR of 68.1% under medium assumptions on the development of the drivers. These results are relatively robust to changes in the drivers with a NPV of 844.7 million JD and an IRR of 68.1% under a weak development and an NPV of 881.8 million JD and an IRR of 69.4% under a strong development, respectively. However, the mentioned costs and benefits do not consider secondary effects, which may unfold e.g. on the level of farming systems (cf. chapter 5). Potential consequences are changes in the types and composition of farming enterprises and the related impacts on rural development and outputs from agricultural production. Figure 5: Development of discounted costs and benefits of water transfer programms, scenarios IAA-UBS, medium demographic and economic development

- 29 -


ANNEX 1: Water demand by scenario and governorates

- 30 -


A1.1. Scenario CS ("Current Situation") A1.1.1 Municipal water demand (domestic, commercial, institutional, landscape, others) incl. NRW/UFW, without small industries and tourism Table A 1.1.1a: Medium municipal water demand, national average 112 l/c/d (demand according to PMU policy advice) medium population growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 64,008,176 11,262,405 8,020,453 18,075,669 177,655,257 63,906,233 27,032,566 9,904,389 15,132,074 5,551,357 7,437,502 13,702,173 421,688,255

2015 72,172,840 12,766,735 8,942,088 20,007,308 201,695,703 70,991,855 30,055,143 11,023,523 16,781,982 6,178,259 8,257,692 17,025,557 475,898,686

2020 79,891,222 14,199,675 9,808,942 21,828,755 223,970,302 77,738,990 32,932,562 12,088,559 18,353,917 6,774,868 9,038,829 20,373,315 526,999,938

high population growth 2025 86,982,898 15,530,770 10,598,078 23,444,947 244,807,365 83,683,815 35,474,647 13,032,601 19,731,426 7,303,603 9,725,887 22,738,307 573,054,342

2010 64,049,986 11,269,765 8,025,695 18,087,467 177,771,055 63,947,962 27,050,218 9,910,857 15,141,954 5,554,982 7,442,359 13,709,686 421,961,986

m続/year 2015 2020 73,151,409 83,133,915 12,939,469 14,775,344 9,063,061 10,206,573 20,280,898 22,719,676 204,468,472 233,133,610 71,958,695 80,903,263 30,464,373 34,272,857 11,173,576 12,580,455 17,010,638 19,101,196 6,262,359 7,050,548 8,370,136 9,406,706 17,854,018 22,808,431 482,997,104 550,092,573

low population growth 2025 93,433,408 16,681,553 11,383,310 25,191,204 263,072,313 89,903,089 38,110,800 14,000,938 21,198,145 7,846,273 10,448,639 25,986,110 617,255,784

2010 64,007,501 11,262,286 8,020,369 18,075,478 177,653,386 63,905,559 27,032,281 9,904,285 15,131,914 5,551,298 7,437,424 13,702,051 421,683,832

2015 72,152,704 12,763,618 8,939,913 19,999,166 201,595,253 70,967,401 30,044,896 11,019,813 16,776,085 6,176,178 8,254,867 16,380,047 475,069,942

2020 79,759,124 14,177,070 9,793,338 21,787,486 223,517,365 77,601,357 32,874,467 12,067,331 18,321,191 6,762,969 9,022,870 18,868,778 524,553,346

2025 85,954,439 15,348,360 10,473,615 23,160,249 241,795,046 82,681,717 35,050,143 12,876,785 19,494,818 7,216,278 9,609,489 20,991,305 564,652,245

Table A 2.1.1b: High municipal water demand, national average120 l/c/d medium population growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba

Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 68,390,460 11,955,025 8,582,028 19,364,677 189,741,728 68,285,930 28,885,253 10,583,217 16,169,058 5,931,836 7,947,228 14,202,556 450,038,994

2015 77,057,589 13,539,628 9,567,841 21,430,571 215,319,998 75,798,109 32,089,990 11,769,889 17,918,071 6,596,567 8,816,763 17,581,474 507,486,490

2020 85,246,697 15,047,740 10,494,827 23,378,264 239,007,101 82,947,484 35,139,115 12,898,555 19,583,539 7,228,818 9,644,445 20,980,086 561,596,671

2025 92,765,641 16,447,260 11,338,496 25,106,010 261,153,963 89,240,465 37,830,269 13,898,045 21,041,509 7,788,605 10,371,711 23,400,248 610,382,221

high population growth (situation A) m続/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 68,435,135 78,102,121 88,706,270 99,644,304 11,962,838 13,722,799 15,657,753 17,665,900 8,587,636 9,697,264 10,920,235 12,178,549 19,377,317 21,723,380 24,331,935 26,975,252 189,865,428 218,276,749 248,779,353 280,629,210 68,330,522 76,829,852 86,322,685 95,871,153 28,904,116 32,526,698 36,568,768 40,640,832 10,590,129 11,930,021 13,423,253 14,930,459 16,179,616 18,162,069 20,380,614 22,605,226 5,935,710 6,686,317 7,522,881 8,367,184 7,952,418 8,936,757 10,036,847 11,142,280 14,210,396 18,417,442 23,439,774 26,697,062 450,331,261 515,011,469 586,090,367 657,347,411

- 31 -

low population growth (situation C) 2010 68,389,738 11,954,899 8,581,937 19,364,472 189,739,729 68,285,209 28,884,948 10,583,106 16,168,887 5,931,773 7,947,144 14,202,429 450,034,272

2015 77,036,415 13,536,346 9,565,533 21,422,127 215,216,653 75,772,633 32,079,311 11,766,021 17,911,933 6,594,398 8,813,819 16,935,846 506,651,033

2020 85,106,372 15,023,832 10,478,169 23,334,614 238,531,064 82,801,849 35,077,630 12,876,083 19,548,923 7,216,221 9,627,555 19,474,618 559,096,930

2025 91,669,673 16,254,150 11,205,389 24,801,921 257,950,810 88,173,498 37,378,265 13,732,125 20,789,607 7,695,618 10,247,774 21,645,519 601,544,349


Table A 3.1.1c: Low municipal water demand, national average100 l/c/d medium population growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 57,690,796 10,263,943 7,210,903 16,217,470 160,231,731 57,592,582 24,361,784 8,925,810 13,637,185 5,002,870 6,702,696 12,980,834 380,818,603

2015 65,131,120 11,652,554 8,040,020 17,955,571 182,055,292 64,063,290 27,121,764 9,947,582 15,144,227 5,575,237 7,451,750 16,224,163 430,362,570

2020 72,170,915 12,977,128 8,820,189 19,595,026 202,293,664 70,230,568 29,751,657 10,920,891 16,581,328 6,120,467 8,165,790 19,498,610 477,126,233

2025 78,646,653 14,209,584 9,530,711 21,050,403 221,242,556 75,673,500 32,078,846 11,785,002 17,842,848 6,604,437 8,794,885 21,784,070 519,243,493

high population growth (situation B) m続/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 57,728,475 66,014,598 75,100,960 84,479,950 10,270,650 11,810,242 13,503,287 15,262,547 7,215,615 8,148,811 9,177,778 10,236,915 16,228,053 18,201,454 20,395,488 22,619,368 160,336,138 184,562,838 210,579,135 237,762,770 57,630,183 64,936,567 73,090,773 81,299,692 24,377,690 27,491,381 30,963,134 34,463,576 8,931,638 10,083,106 11,365,501 12,660,967 13,646,088 15,350,767 17,256,823 19,169,737 5,006,136 5,651,194 6,369,644 7,095,341 6,707,072 7,553,311 8,498,311 9,448,706 12,987,876 17,041,802 21,898,303 24,961,222 381,065,615 436,846,070 498,199,138 559,460,790

low population growth (situation D) 2010 57,690,187 10,263,834 7,210,827 16,217,299 160,230,044 57,591,974 24,361,527 8,925,715 13,637,042 5,002,817 6,702,625 12,980,720 380,814,612

2015 65,112,481 11,649,673 8,038,036 17,947,865 181,959,016 64,040,309 27,112,140 9,944,101 15,138,678 5,573,285 7,449,097 15,578,823 429,543,504

2020 72,050,678 12,956,400 8,806,103 19,557,189 201,874,028 70,104,469 29,698,448 10,901,457 16,551,325 6,109,572 8,151,172 17,995,417 474,756,259

2025 77,715,514 14,042,597 9,418,708 20,793,660 218,505,339 74,764,917 31,693,986 11,643,751 17,628,287 6,525,274 8,689,356 20,048,208 511,469,596

A1.1.2 Industrial Water Demand (small scale industries, large scale industries with own wells, new mining activities (oil shale, uranium)) Table A 4.1.2: Industrial Water Demand medium economic growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 168,359 16,729 12,531 1,061,753 2,476,668 7,279,686 61,946 965,337 8,195,015 1,824,528 8,964,259 32,889,901 63,916,711

2015 186,286 17,943 13,774 1,156,894 2,584,081 7,904,013 73,514 1,048,534 11,193,138 4,287,226 23,568,192 38,005,409 90,039,003

2020 217,209 20,437 15,982 1,354,772 2,917,524 9,237,665 89,995 1,225,719 15,038,255 6,974,225 26,500,964 42,993,569 106,586,315

2025 246,096 22,735 18,040 1,449,102 3,059,564 9,838,132 105,563 1,306,025 18,018,604 9,447,370 28,366,818 45,121,952 117,000,000

2010 168,359 16,729 12,531 1,061,753 2,476,668 7,279,686 61,946 965,337 8,195,015 1,824,528 8,964,259 32,889,901 63,916,711

high economic growth (situation A and C) m続/year 2015 2020 2025 215,684 242,067 276,925 20,516 22,276 24,830 15,906 17,729 20,175 1,331,327 1,503,482 1,584,541 2,920,859 3,139,518 3,219,196 9,082,833 10,227,977 10,708,209 87,374 104,944 126,058 1,205,102 1,357,465 1,422,254 12,684,703 15,997,737 18,442,688 4,753,890 7,078,472 9,132,912 26,045,732 27,243,419 28,172,691 44,736,221 47,924,886 49,076,364 103,100,148 114,859,971 122,206,842

- 32 -

low economic growth (situation B and D) 2010 168,359 16,729 12,531 1,061,753 2,476,668 7,279,686 61,946 965,337 8,195,015 1,824,528 8,964,259 32,889,901 63,916,711

2015 157,241 15,365 11,661 983,447 2,241,634 6,729,996 60,129 892,630 9,681,896 3,797,443 20,950,474 31,455,940 76,977,857

2020 192,745 18,600 14,257 1,208,214 2,698,446 8,259,720 75,677 1,095,647 14,092,781 6,874,080 25,776,258 38,006,235 98,312,659

2025 216,048 20,648 15,949 1,313,776 2,902,861 8,962,466 86,417 1,189,145 17,641,612 9,816,250 28,681,866 40,946,120 111,793,158


A1.1.3 Water Demand by Tourism Table A 5.1.3: Water Demand by Tourism medium economic growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

2015 106,345 8,469 3,439 3,393 2,533,813 72,444 31,077 11,586 16,678 6,488 8,503 18,229,259 21,031,495

2020 80,080 6,946 2,273 2,957 2,043,069 57,065 24,480 9,126 13,137 5,110 6,698 23,584,771 25,835,712

2025 96,421 8,898 2,438 3,939 2,587,131 70,948 30,435 11,347 16,333 6,354 8,328 26,157,429 29,000,000

2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

high economic growth (situation A and C) m続/year 2015 2020 2025 112,991 79,864 104,930 9,425 7,501 10,753 3,416 1,997 2,217 3,907 3,376 5,107 2,849,049 2,215,251 3,124,499 78,908 59,406 81,667 33,850 25,484 35,033 12,620 9,501 13,061 18,166 13,676 18,801 7,067 5,320 7,314 9,262 6,973 9,586 21,870,250 31,149,728 36,333,939 25,008,912 33,578,078 39,746,906

A1.1.4 Water Demand by Nuclear Power Plants Table A 6.1.4: Nuclear Power Plants (unchanged over all scenarios and situations) year

2010

2015

2020

2025

m続/year

Zarqa Aqaba Jordan

0 0 0

0 50,000,000 50,000,000 0 0 50,000,000 0 50,000,000 100,000,000

- 33 -

low economic growth (situation B and D) 2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

2015 99,928 7,523 3,474 2,881 2,221,362 66,103 28,357 10,572 15,218 5,920 7,759 14,584,982 17,054,078

2020 83,575 6,591 2,716 2,611 1,927,892 56,642 24,298 9,059 13,040 5,072 6,648 16,863,760 19,001,906

2025 91,828 7,487 2,812 3,031 2,176,159 63,307 27,157 10,125 14,574 5,669 7,431 17,755,978 20,165,557


A1.2. Scenario OE ("Optimized Efficiency") A1.2.1 Municipal water demand (domestic, commercial, institutional, landscape, others) incl. NRW/UFW, without small industries and tourism Table A 7.2.1a: Medium municipal water demand, national average 112 l/c/d (demand according to PMU policy advice) medium pop. year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 64,008,176 11,262,405 8,020,453 18,075,669 177,655,257 63,906,233 27,032,566 9,904,389 15,132,074 5,551,357 7,437,502 13,702,173 421.688.255

2015 57,718,202 10,570,360 7,095,275 15,547,031 158,584,451 56,464,743 23,927,648 8,786,580 13,322,896 4,924,211 6,578,597 15,368,308 378.888.301

2020 61,213,862 11,310,639 7,429,769 16,172,347 164,981,531 58,261,993 24,730,307 9,100,252 13,701,807 5,099,409 6,794,835 18,670,116 397.466.866

2025 65,824,951 12,224,916 7,911,870 17,815,063 176,323,375 61,226,938 26,028,098 9,595,886 14,355,897 5,376,579 7,147,171 20,611,760 424.442.503

2010 64,049,986 11,269,765 8,025,695 18,087,467 177,771,055 63,947,962 27,050,218 9,910,857 15,141,954 5,554,982 7,442,359 13,709,686 421.961.986

high pop m続/year 2015 2020 58,501,078 63,698,643 10,713,408 11,769,206 7,191,280 7,730,967 15,759,959 16,832,941 160,766,769 171,727,213 57,234,558 60,634,061 24,253,781 25,737,015 8,906,301 9,470,628 13,504,629 14,259,832 4,991,307 5,306,955 6,668,272 7,071,453 16,150,729 21,053,853 384.642.071 415.292.767

low pop 2025 70,706,022 13,130,718 8,498,060 19,143,234 189,462,811 65,776,347 27,961,881 10,308,724 15,422,831 5,775,986 7,678,200 23,659,731 457.524.544

2010 64,007,501 11,262,286 8,020,369 18,075,478 177,653,386 63,905,559 27,032,281 9,904,285 15,131,914 5,551,298 7,437,424 13,702,051 421.683.832

2015 57,701,743 10,567,742 7,093,526 15,540,328 158,502,875 56,444,352 23,919,106 8,783,488 13,317,977 4,922,477 6,576,237 14,748,524 378.118.376

2020 61,112,415 11,292,604 7,417,931 16,141,175 164,652,811 58,158,182 24,686,420 9,084,184 13,677,198 5,090,403 6,782,758 17,152,097 395.248.179

2025 65,047,162 12,081,367 7,818,974 17,597,413 174,171,406 60,494,725 25,717,056 9,481,317 14,183,965 5,312,383 7,061,736 18,929,726 417.897.231

Table A 8.2.1b: High municipal water demand, national average120 l/c/d Scenario status A and C: high WD (avg 120 l/c/d) year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an

2010 68,390,460 11,955,025 8,582,028 19,364,677 189,741,728 68,285,930 28,885,253 10,583,217 16,169,058 5,931,836 7,947,228

2015 61,556,211 11,185,166 7,586,632 16,645,701 169,108,679 60,220,781 25,519,380 9,371,116 14,209,067 5,251,798 7,016,216

2020 65,225,000 11,953,769 7,942,960 17,311,019 175,821,581 62,077,506 26,349,932 9,696,271 14,599,052 5,433,393 7,239,832

2025 70,094,327 12,910,023 8,457,781 19,066,263 187,834,307 65,192,628 27,714,012 10,217,468 15,285,663 5,724,851 7,610,107

Situation A (combined with high pop.) m続/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 68,435,135 62,390,916 67,872,220 75,291,502 11,962,838 11,336,516 12,438,381 13,866,550 8,587,636 7,689,273 8,264,941 9,084,390 19,377,317 16,873,465 18,017,725 20,487,072 189,865,428 171,433,116 183,006,252 201,826,010 68,330,522 61,041,317 64,604,091 70,035,657 28,904,116 25,867,007 27,422,230 29,772,619 10,590,129 9,498,731 10,090,784 10,976,328 16,179,616 14,402,766 15,193,413 16,421,437 5,935,710 5,323,318 5,654,464 6,150,043 7,952,418 7,111,801 7,534,471 8,175,411

- 34 -

Situation C (combined with low pop.) 2010 68,389,738 11,954,899 8,581,937 19,364,472 189,739,729 68,285,209 28,884,948 10,583,106 16,168,887 5,931,773 7,947,144

2015 61,538,937 11,182,417 7,584,779 16,638,764 169,024,867 60,199,592 25,510,499 9,367,900 14,203,959 5,249,994 7,013,764

2020 65,117,391 11,934,746 7,930,334 17,278,097 175,476,209 61,967,834 26,303,557 9,679,288 14,573,064 5,423,874 7,227,071

2025 69,266,697 12,758,476 8,358,512 18,834,006 185,547,957 64,414,119 27,383,288 10,095,643 15,102,876 5,656,589 7,519,267


Aqaba Jordan

14,202,556 450,038,994

15,815,275 403,486,022

19,147,604 422,797,919

21,129,617 451,237,046

14,210,396 450,331,261

16,603,732 409,571,958

21,550,677 441,649,649

24,215,931 486,302,949

14,202,429 450,034,272

15,195,396 402,710,869

17,628,851 420,540,317

19,441,538 444,378,968

Table A 9.2.1c: Low municipal water demand, national average100 l/c/d Scenario status B and D: low WD (avg 100 l/c/d) year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 57,690,796 10,263,943 7,210,903 16,217,470 160,231,731 57,592,582 24,361,784 8,925,810 13,637,185 5,002,870 6,702,696 12,980,834 380,818,603

2015 52,185,432 9,684,073 6,386,947 13,963,219 143,413,011 51,050,141 21,633,051 7,943,929 12,045,417 4,451,970 5,947,737 14,723,973 343,428,899

2020 55,431,515 10,383,519 6,689,966 14,530,869 149,354,811 52,761,653 22,395,499 8,241,047 12,408,363 4,617,947 6,153,340 17,981,783 360,950,313

2025 59,670,334 11,237,284 7,124,900 16,011,369 159,729,530 55,510,107 23,597,732 8,699,830 13,015,572 4,874,520 6,479,816 19,865,231 385,816,224

Situation B (combined with high pop.) m続/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 57,728,475 52,893,594 57,682,129 64,095,718 10,270,650 9,815,152 10,804,541 12,069,961 7,215,615 6,473,388 6,961,205 7,652,822 16,228,053 14,154,759 15,124,988 17,205,995 160,336,138 145,390,455 155,467,659 171,640,361 57,630,183 51,746,837 54,910,975 59,636,244 24,377,690 21,928,198 23,307,655 25,351,570 8,931,638 8,052,271 8,576,628 9,346,325 13,646,088 12,209,898 12,914,008 13,983,269 5,006,136 4,512,689 4,805,996 5,236,754 6,707,072 6,028,893 6,403,979 6,961,434 12,987,876 15,497,693 20,337,644 22,857,929 381,065,615 348,703,826 377,297,406 416,038,382

Situation D (combined with low pop.) 2010 57,690,187 10,263,834 7,210,827 16,217,299 160,230,044 57,591,974 24,361,527 8,925,715 13,637,042 5,002,817 6,702,625 12,980,720 380,814,612

2015 52,170,149 9,681,643 6,385,349 13,956,853 143,334,659 51,030,901 21,624,996 7,941,016 12,040,769 4,450,337 5,945,512 14,104,326 342,666,510

2020 55,338,951 10,366,909 6,679,265 14,502,219 149,050,097 52,666,293 22,355,200 8,226,299 12,385,741 4,609,681 6,142,248 16,464,822 358,787,724

2025 58,964,396 11,105,265 7,041,192 15,814,775 157,771,282 54,844,634 23,315,062 8,595,722 12,859,287 4,816,185 6,402,172 18,191,912 379,721,884

A1.2.2 Industrial Water Demand (small scale industries, large scale industries with own wells, new mining activities (oil shale, uranium)) Table A 10.2.2: Industrial Water Demand medium economic growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 168,359 16,729 12,531 1,061,753 2,476,668 7,279,686 61,946 965,337 8,195,015 1,824,528 8,964,259 32,889,901 63,916,711

2015 186,286 17,943 13,774 1,156,894 2,584,081 7,904,013 73,514 1,048,534 11,193,138 4,287,226 23,568,192 38,005,409 90,039,003

2020 217,209 20,437 15,982 1,354,772 2,917,524 9,237,665 89,995 1,225,719 15,038,255 6,974,225 26,500,964 42,993,569 106,586,315

2025 246,096 22,735 18,040 1,449,102 3,059,564 9,838,132 105,563 1,306,025 18,018,604 9,447,370 28,366,818 45,121,952 117,000,000

2010 168,359 16,729 12,531 1,061,753 2,476,668 7,279,686 61,946 965,337 8,195,015 1,824,528 8,964,259 32,889,901 63,916,711

high growth (scenarios A and C) m続/year 2015 2020 2025 215,684 242,067 276,925 20,516 22,276 24,830 15,906 17,729 20,175 1,331,327 1,503,482 1,584,541 2,920,859 3,139,518 3,219,196 9,082,833 10,227,977 10,708,209 87,374 104,944 126,058 1,205,102 1,357,465 1,422,254 12,684,703 15,997,737 18,442,688 4,753,890 7,078,472 9,132,912 26,045,732 27,243,419 28,172,691 44,736,221 47,924,886 49,076,364 103,100,148 114,859,971 122,206,842

- 35 -

low growth (scenarios B and D) 2010 168,359 16,729 12,531 1,061,753 2,476,668 7,279,686 61,946 965,337 8,195,015 1,824,528 8,964,259 32,889,901 63,916,711

2015 157,241 15,365 11,661 983,447 2,241,634 6,729,996 60,129 892,630 9,681,896 3,797,443 20,950,474 31,455,940 76,977,857

2020 192,745 18,600 14,257 1,208,214 2,698,446 8,259,720 75,677 1,095,647 14,092,781 6,874,080 25,776,258 38,006,235 98,312,659

2025 216,048 20,648 15,949 1,313,776 2,902,861 8,962,466 86,417 1,189,145 17,641,612 9,816,250 28,681,866 40,946,120 111,793,158


A1.2.3 Water Demand by Tourism Table A 11.2.3: Water Demand by Tourism medium economic growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

2015 106,345 8,469 3,439 3,393 2,533,813 72,444 31,077 11,586 16,678 6,488 8,503 18,229,259 21,031,495

2020 80,080 6,946 2,273 2,957 2,043,069 57,065 24,480 9,126 13,137 5,110 6,698 23,584,771 25,835,712

2025 96,421 8,898 2,438 3,939 2,587,131 70,948 30,435 11,347 16,333 6,354 8,328 26,157,429 29,000,000

2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

high growth (scenarios A and C) m続/year 2015 2020 2025 112,991 79,864 104,930 9,425 7,501 10,753 3,416 1,997 2,217 3,907 3,376 5,107 2,849,049 2,215,251 3,124,499 78,908 59,406 81,667 33,850 25,484 35,033 12,620 9,501 13,061 18,166 13,676 18,801 7,067 5,320 7,314 9,262 6,973 9,586 21,870,250 31,149,728 36,333,939 25,008,912 33,578,078 39,746,906

A1.2.4 Water Demand by Nuclear Power Plants Table A 12.2.4: Nuclear Power Plants (unchanged over all scenarios and situations) year

2010

2015

2020

2025

m続/year

Zarqa Aqaba Jordan

0 0 0

0 50,000,000 50,000,000 0 0 50,000,000 0 50,000,000 100,000,000

- 36 -

low growth (scenarios B and D) 2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

2015 99,928 7,523 3,474 2,881 2,221,362 66,103 28,357 10,572 15,218 5,920 7,759 14,584,982 17,054,078

2020 83,575 6,591 2,716 2,611 1,927,892 56,642 24,298 9,059 13,040 5,072 6,648 16,863,760 19,001,906

2025 91,828 7,487 2,812 3,031 2,176,159 63,307 27,157 10,125 14,574 5,669 7,431 17,755,978 20,165,557


- 37 -


A1.3, Scenario UBS ("Utility-Based Specifications ") and IAA-UBS (Inter-sectoral Reallocation based on UBS-norm) A1.3.1

Municipal water demand based on utilities' estimations about the development in consumption per capita

Table A 13.3.1a:

Municipal water demand UBS-norm – without Green Code, NRW according to estimations of utilities medium population growth

year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 37,345,255 6,480,440 3,853,368 12,980,704 109,993,500 37,073,082 15,681,686 5,745,404 8,778,768 3,220,273 4,314,560 12,297,121 257,764,162

Table A 14.3.1b:

2015 46,065,240 7,916,847 4,640,267 16,625,837 136,217,364 45,679,397 19,338,486 7,092,736 10,798,693 3,975,210 5,313,307 16,016,392 319,679,775

2020 54,698,915 9,340,353 5,418,014 20,263,997 160,084,266 54,189,375 22,955,885 8,426,255 12,794,322 4,722,385 6,300,607 19,660,280 378,854,654

2025 63,021,469 10,716,360 6,164,240 23,752,295 181,260,720 62,181,978 26,359,407 9,683,710 14,661,974 5,426,854 7,226,827 22,194,495 432,650,329

high population growth (situation A and B) m³/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 37,369,632 46,691,253 56,921,398 67,697,880 6,484,674 8,024,089 9,719,234 11,510,685 3,855,884 4,703,148 5,637,826 6,621,191 12,989,171 16,853,763 21,091,550 25,521,308 110,065,062 138,105,915 166,660,387 194,820,686 37,097,269 46,304,418 56,399,961 66,809,261 15,691,918 19,602,998 23,892,155 28,320,670 5,749,153 7,189,708 8,769,839 10,404,095 8,784,494 10,946,550 13,316,455 15,753,351 3,222,375 4,029,560 4,914,945 5,830,570 4,317,375 5,385,990 6,557,593 7,764,550 12,303,716 16,831,225 22,066,520 25,402,035 257,930,723 324,668,619 395,947,864 466,456,284

2010 37,344,861 6,480,372 3,853,327 12,980,568 109,992,344 37,072,691 15,681,521 5,745,344 8,778,675 3,220,240 4,314,515 12,297,014 257,761,471

2015 46,050,652 7,914,761 4,639,006 16,618,414 136,130,830 45,660,322 19,330,517 7,089,862 10,794,067 3,973,598 5,311,108 15,371,096 318,884,232

2020 54,605,519 9,325,212 5,409,155 20,225,132 159,729,473 54,087,919 22,913,117 8,410,654 12,770,136 4,713,638 6,288,854 18,156,839 376,635,648

2025 62,272,743 10,590,154 6,091,538 23,464,009 178,990,260 61,430,898 26,041,317 9,566,989 14,484,548 5,361,439 7,139,605 20,453,842 425,887,341

Municipal water demand UBS-GC – with Green Code, NRW according to specifications of MWI medium population growth

year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an

low population growth (situation C and D)

2010 37,345,255 6,480,440 3,853,368 12,980,704 109,993,500 37,073,082 15,681,686 5,745,404 8,778,768 3,220,273 4,314,560

2015 37,205,125 6,712,464 3,717,374 12,936,748 108,005,026 36,683,316 15,544,687 5,708,082 8,655,819 3,198,951 4,273,846

2020 42,345,354 7,625,569 4,144,400 15,022,469 118,925,993 41,010,582 17,407,355 6,405,419 9,645,016 3,589,339 4,782,832

2025 48,134,322 8,625,979 4,642,800 18,046,574 131,575,157 45,881,429 19,504,342 7,190,631 10,758,105 4,028,917 5,355,811

2010 37,369,632 6,484,674 3,855,884 12,989,171 110,065,062 37,097,269 15,691,918 5,749,153 8,784,494 3,222,375 4,317,375

Situation A (combined with high pop,) m³/year 2015 2020 2025 37,710,993 44,066,019 51,705,582 6,803,415 7,934,902 9,265,316 3,767,764 4,312,551 4,986,949 13,114,427 15,636,496 19,391,886 109,504,322 123,806,568 141,401,444 37,186,003 42,684,021 49,294,661 15,757,617 18,117,507 20,955,106 5,786,231 6,666,663 7,725,385 8,774,528 10,038,753 11,558,659 3,242,749 3,735,732 4,328,543 4,332,398 4,977,969 5,754,207

- 38 -

Situation C (combined with low pop,) 2010 37,344,861 6,480,372 3,853,327 12,980,568 109,992,344 37,072,691 15,681,521 5,745,344 8,778,675 3,220,240 4,314,515

2015 37,193,026 6,710,666 3,716,343 12,930,600 107,934,200 36,667,130 15,537,926 5,705,644 8,651,892 3,197,584 4,271,977

2020 42,272,894 7,613,195 4,137,610 14,993,064 118,668,025 40,933,273 17,374,718 6,393,492 9,626,639 3,582,653 4,773,845

2025 47,563,058 8,524,445 4,588,069 17,826,221 129,945,590 45,328,364 19,269,460 7,104,142 10,628,174 3,980,454 5,291,288


Aqaba Jordan

12,297,121

14,556,921

18,109,006

20,186,319

12,303,716

15,328,385

20,470,020

23,202,791

12,297,014

13,937,310

16,591,849

18,509,252

257,764,162

257,198,360

289,013,334

323,930,388

257,930,723

261,308,833

302,447,202

349,570,530

257,761,471

256,454,297

286,961,257

318,558,518

Table A 15.3.1c:

Municipal water demandIAA-UBS– inter-sectoral reallocation, based on UBS-norm medium pop,

year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 37,345,255 6,480,440 3,853,368 12,980,704 109,993,500 37,073,082 15,681,686 5,745,404 8,778,768 3,220,273 4,314,560 12,297,121 257,764,162

2015 57,312,818 10,098,645 6,620,431 17,194,495 163,560,348 56,268,582 23,821,681 8,737,137 13,301,736 4,896,831 6,545,057 16,245,064 384,602,825

2020 79,891,222 14,199,675 9,808,942 21,828,755 223,970,302 77,738,990 32,932,562 12,088,559 18,353,917 6,774,868 9,038,829 20,373,315 526,999,938

high pop 2025 86,982,898 15,530,770 10,598,078 23,444,947 244,807,365 83,683,815 35,474,647 13,032,601 19,731,426 7,303,603 9,725,887 22,738,307 573,054,342

2010 37,369,632 6,484,674 3,855,884 12,989,171 110,065,062 37,097,269 15,691,918 5,749,153 8,784,494 3,222,375 4,317,375 12,303,716 257,930,723

m³/year 2015 2020 58,090,718 83,133,915 10,235,349 14,775,344 6,710,052 10,206,573 17,430,101 22,719,676 165,818,138 233,133,610 57,036,600 80,903,263 24,146,734 34,272,857 8,856,315 12,580,455 13,483,394 19,101,196 4,963,627 7,050,548 6,634,374 9,406,706 17,062,985 22,808,431 390,468,387 550,092,573

low pop 2025 93,433,408 16,681,553 11,383,310 25,191,204 263,072,313 89,903,089 38,110,800 14,000,938 21,198,145 7,846,273 10,448,639 25,986,110 617,255,784

2010 37,344,861 6,480,372 3,853,327 12,980,568 109,992,344 37,072,691 15,681,521 5,745,344 8,778,675 3,220,240 4,314,515 12,297,014 257,761,471

2015 57,295,840 10,096,095 6,618,749 17,186,951 163,468,003 56,247,257 23,812,758 8,733,913 13,296,578 4,895,023 6,542,597 15,599,719 383,793,484

2020 79,759,124 14,177,070 9,793,338 21,787,486 223,517,365 77,601,357 32,874,467 12,067,331 18,321,191 6,762,969 9,022,870 18,868,778 524,553,346

2025 85,954,439 15,348,360 10,473,615 23,160,249 241,795,046 82,681,717 35,050,143 12,876,785 19,494,818 7,216,278 9,609,489 20,991,305 564,652,245

A1.3.2 Industrial Water Demand (small scale industries, large scale industries with own wells, new mining activities (oil shale, uranium)) Table A 16.3.2: Industrial Water Demand medium economic growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an

2010 136,454 13,559 10,156 860,542 2,007,319 5,900,125 50,206 782,398 6,641,992 1,478,765 7,265,458

2015 161,383 15,544 11,932 1,002,240 2,238,640 6,847,399 63,686 908,365 9,696,831 3,714,107 20,417,578

2020 186,313 17,530 13,709 1,162,065 2,502,526 7,923,671 77,194 1,051,369 12,899,167 5,982,190 22,731,384

2025 211,242 19,515 15,485 1,243,868 2,626,243 8,444,772 90,612 1,121,054 15,466,656 8,109,353 24,349,269

2010 136,454 13,559 10,156 860,542 2,007,319 5,900,125 50,206 782,398 6,641,992 1,478,765 7,265,458

high growth (scenarios A and C) m³/year 2015 2020 2025 173,848 214,130 257,108 16,537 19,705 23,053 12,820 15,683 18,732 1,073,089 1,329,966 1,471,147 2,354,300 2,777,187 2,988,823 7,321,035 9,047,570 9,941,906 70,426 92,832 117,037 971,349 1,200,801 1,320,474 10,224,250 14,151,445 17,122,889 3,831,778 6,261,549 8,479,341 20,993,639 24,099,268 26,156,592

- 39 -

low growth (scenarios B and D) 2010 136,454 13,559 10,156 860,542 2,007,319 5,900,125 50,206 782,398 6,641,992 1,478,765 7,265,458

2015 148,918 14,551 11,044 931,391 2,122,979 6,373,762 56,946 845,381 9,169,411 3,596,436 19,841,518

2020 160,420 15,481 11,866 1,005,590 2,245,903 6,874,522 62,985 911,901 11,729,349 5,721,262 21,453,447

2025 171,153 16,357 12,635 1,040,772 2,299,645 7,100,060 68,460 942,040 13,975,674 7,776,427 22,721,757


Aqaba Jordan

26,656,992 51,803,965

32,924,818 78,002,523

36,878,029 91,425,144

38,731,398 100,429,468

26,656,992 51,803,965

36,058,731 83,101,801

42,393,896 101,604,033

45,564,352 113,461,453

26,656,992 51,803,965

29,790,905 72,903,244

31,632,394 81,825,121

32,437,492 88,562,473

A1.3.3 Water Demand by Tourism Table A 17.3.3: Water Demand by Tourism medium economic growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 42,512 2,986 1,598 1,074 866,154 27,148 11,646 4,342 6,250 2,431 3,187 4,947,053 5,916,381

2015 49,402 3,934 1,598 1,576 1,177,081 33,654 14,437 5,382 7,748 3,014 3,950 8,468,391 9,770,167

2020 56,293 4,883 1,598 2,079 1,436,187 40,114 17,208 6,415 9,235 3,592 4,708 16,579,056 18,161,368

2025 63,183 5,831 1,598 2,581 1,695,293 46,490 19,943 7,435 10,703 4,163 5,457 17,140,426 19,003,104

2010 42,512 2,986 1,598 1,074 866,154 27,148 11,646 4,342 6,250 2,431 3,187 4,947,053 5,916,381

high growth (scenarios A and C) m続/year 2015 2020 2025 52,848 63,904 75,636 4,408 6,002 7,751 1,598 1,598 1,598 1,828 2,702 3,681 1,332,545 1,772,536 2,252,218 36,907 47,534 58,867 15,832 20,391 25,253 5,902 7,602 9,415 8,497 10,943 13,552 3,305 4,257 5,272 4,332 5,579 6,910 10,229,059 24,924,497 26,190,420 11,697,060 26,867,545 28,650,572

A1.3.4 Water Demand by Nuclear Power Plants Table A 18.3.4: Nuclear Power Plants (unchanged over all scenarios and situations) year

2010

2015

2020

2025

m続/year

Zarqa Aqaba Jordan

0 0 0

0 50,000,000 50,000,000 0 0 50,000,000 0 50,000,000 100,000,000

- 40 -

low growth (scenarios B and D) 2010 42,512 2,986 1,598 1,074 866,154 27,148 11,646 4,342 6,250 2,431 3,187 4,947,053 5,916,381

2015 45,957 3,460 1,598 1,325 1,021,618 30,401 13,041 4,862 6,999 2,723 3,568 6,707,722 7,843,274

2020 49,162 3,877 1,598 1,536 1,134,060 33,319 14,293 5,329 7,671 2,984 3,911 9,919,907 11,177,647

2025 52,171 4,254 1,598 1,722 1,236,359 35,967 15,429 5,752 8,280 3,221 4,222 10,087,852 11,456,827


A1.4. Scenario BAU ("Business as usual") A1.4.1 Municipal water demand (domestic, commercial, institutional, landscape, others) incl, NRW/UFW, without small industries and tourism Table A 19.4.1a:

Medium municipal water demand, national average 112 l/c/d (demand according to PMU policy advice) medium pop,

high pop

low pop

m続/year year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 59,811,404 7,787,907 6,863,777 30,484,433 191,715,024 71,421,039 31,602,041 9,203,270 19,706,958 6,340,147 9,594,189 7,661,044 452,191,233

Table A 20.4.1b:

2015 66,705,988 8,420,743 7,450,283 33,291,828 207,932,213 79,801,738 35,000,442 11,220,432 22,790,279 7,147,980 10,831,034 10,282,136 500,875,095

2020 73,131,721 9,010,544 7,996,903 35,908,310 223,046,585 87,612,524 38,167,741 13,100,422 25,663,924 7,900,879 11,983,770 12,724,985 546,248,309

2025 79,179,464 9,565,651 8,511,370 38,370,881 237,271,865 94,963,847 41,148,727 14,869,823 28,368,530 8,609,489 13,068,697 15,024,136 588,952,479

2010 63,376,485 8,198,130 7,252,664 32,967,308 205,737,760 75,335,996 33,390,808 9,413,424

2015 67,498,007 8,493,440 7,517,658 33,614,328 209,795,170 80,764,474 35,390,834 11,452,155 23,144,476 7,240,780 10,973,117 10,583,235 506,467,675

2020 75,767,119 9,252,441 8,221,090 36,981,414 229,245,473 90,815,978 39,466,752 13,871,466 26,842,498 8,209,667 12,456,544 13,726,876 564,857,319

2025 84,445,493 10,049,006 8,959,338 40,515,146 249,658,424 101,364,957 43,744,399 16,410,515 30,723,546 9,226,506 14,013,390 17,026,105 626,136,824

2010 59,810,857 7,787,857 6,863,731 30,484,211 191,713,739 71,420,375 31,601,771 9,203,110 19,706,713 6,340,082 9,594,091 7,660,836 452,187,372

2015 66,693,523 8,419,599 7,449,222 33,286,752 207,902,893 79,786,586 34,994,297 11,216,786 22,784,704 7,146,520 10,828,798 10,277,397 500,787,077

2020 73,031,748 9,001,368 7,988,399 35,867,603 222,811,433 87,491,002 38,118,464 13,071,173 25,619,215 7,889,165 11,965,835 12,686,979 545,542,384

2025 78,349,142 9,489,438 8,440,737 38,032,783 235,318,812 93,954,550 40,739,454 14,626,894 27,997,202 8,512,200 12,919,743 14,708,476 583,089,432

High municipal water demand, national average120 l/c/d

Medium pop year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba

2010 59,845,241 7,791,013 6,866,656 30,498,212 191,794,615 71,462,170 31,618,719 9,213,170 19,722,090 6,344,111 9,600,259 7,673,908 452,430,164

2015 70,271,070 8,830,966 7,839,169 35,774,702 221,954,949 83,716,694 36,789,209 11,430,587

2020 76,696,802 9,420,767 8,385,790 38,391,185 237,069,321 91,527,480 39,956,509 13,310,576

2025 82,744,546 9,975,874 8,900,256 40,853,755 251,294,601 98,878,803 42,937,494 15,079,977

Situation A (combined with high pop,) m続/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 63,410,323 71,063,088 79,332,201 88,010,574 8,201,236 8,903,663 9,662,664 10,459,229 7,255,542 7,906,544 8,609,977 9,348,224 32,981,086 36,097,203 39,464,289 42,998,021 205,817,351 223,817,906 243,268,209 263,681,160 75,377,126 84,679,430 94,730,934 105,279,913 33,407,487 37,179,602 41,255,520 45,533,166 9,423,324 11,662,309 14,081,620 16,620,670

- 41 -

Situation C (combined with low pop,) 2010 63,375,938 8,198,080 7,252,617 32,967,086 205,736,474 75,335,331 33,390,538 9,413,264

2015 70,258,605 8,829,822 7,838,108 35,769,627 221,925,629 83,701,542 36,783,065 11,426,940

2020 76,596,829 9,411,591 8,377,285 38,350,477 236,834,168 91,405,958 39,907,231 13,281,327

2025 81,914,224 9,899,661 8,829,623 40,515,658 249,341,548 97,869,507 42,528,221 14,837,048


Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

20,759,907 6,703,328 10,077,957 8,168,404 481,382,171

Table A 21.4.1c:

23,843,227 26,716,873 29,421,479 20,775,039 24,197,425 27,895,447 31,776,494 20,759,662 23,837,653 26,672,164 7,511,161 8,264,060 8,972,670 6,707,292 7,603,962 8,572,848 9,589,687 6,703,264 7,509,701 8,252,346 11,314,803 12,467,539 13,552,466 10,084,028 11,456,886 12,940,313 14,497,158 10,077,859 11,312,566 12,449,604 10,789,496 13,232,346 15,531,497 8,181,268 11,090,595 14,234,237 17,533,465 8,168,197 10,784,757 13,194,339 530,066,033 575,439,247 618,143,417 481,621,102 535,658,612 594,048,257 655,327,762 481,378,310 529,978,015 574,733,322

Low municipal water demand, national average100 l/c/d Medium Pop

year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 54,672,080 7,196,540 6,303,170 26,905,189 171,500,232 65,777,346 29,023,402 8,900,317 18,189,056 5,816,595 8,896,801 6,929,647 410,110,375

29,050,151 8,875,382 13,403,511 15,215,836 612,280,369

2015 61,566,665 7,829,376 6,889,675 29,712,583 187,717,421 74,158,044 32,421,803 10,917,480 21,272,377 6,624,428 10,133,646 9,550,739 458,794,237

2020 67,992,397 8,419,178 7,436,296 32,329,066 202,831,792 81,968,830 35,589,103 12,797,469 24,146,022 7,377,327 11,286,382 11,993,589 504,167,451

Situation B (combined with high pop,) 2025 74,040,140 8,974,284 7,950,762 34,791,636 217,057,073 89,320,153 38,570,089 14,566,870 26,850,628 8,085,937 12,371,309 14,292,740 546,871,621

2010 54,705,917 7,199,646 6,306,048 26,918,967 171,579,823 65,818,476 29,040,081 8,910,217 18,204,188 5,820,559 8,902,871 6,942,511 410,349,306

m続/year 2015 62,358,683 7,902,074 6,957,050 30,035,084 189,580,377 75,120,781 32,812,196 11,149,202 21,626,574 6,717,229 10,275,729 9,851,838 464,386,817

2020 70,627,796 8,661,074 7,660,482 33,402,169 209,030,681 85,172,284 36,888,114 13,568,513 25,324,596 7,686,115 11,759,156 12,995,480 522,776,461

2025 79,306,169 9,457,640 8,398,730 36,935,901 229,443,632 95,721,263 41,165,760 16,107,563 29,205,643 8,702,954 13,316,002 16,294,708 584,055,966

Situation D (combined with low pop,) 2010 54,671,533 7,196,490 6,303,123 26,904,966 171,498,946 65,776,681 29,023,133 8,900,157 18,188,811 5,816,531 8,896,703 6,929,440 410,106,515

2015 61,554,200 7,828,232 6,888,614 29,707,507 187,688,101 74,142,892 32,415,659 10,913,833 21,266,802 6,622,968 10,131,410 9,546,000 458,706,219

2020 67,892,424 8,410,002 7,427,791 32,288,358 202,596,640 81,847,309 35,539,826 12,768,220 24,101,313 7,365,613 11,268,448 11,955,582 503,461,527

2025 73,209,819 8,898,071 7,880,129 34,453,539 215,104,020 88,310,857 38,160,816 14,323,941 26,479,300 7,988,649 12,222,355 13,977,079 541,008,574

A1.4.2 Industrial Water Demand (small scale industries, large scale industries with own wells, new mining activities (oil shale, uranium)) Table A 22.4.2: Industrial Water Demand medium economic growth year Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela

2010 129,404 12,858 9,631 816,081 1,903,610 5,595,293 47,612 741,975 6,298,831 1,402,364

2015 179,645 17,303 13,283 1,115,655 2,491,968 7,622,262 70,893 1,011,157 12,794,140 6,134,401

2020 312,741 29,425 23,011 1,950,625 4,200,703 13,300,558 129,577 1,764,812 25,652,353 14,041,616

2025 570,519 52,706 41,821 3,359,420 7,092,919 22,807,520 244,724 3,027,728 47,772,125 27,901,625

high growth (scenarios A and C) m続/year 2010 2015 2020 194,105 272,469 485,140 19,287 25,918 44,645 14,447 20,093 35,532 1,224,122 1,681,835 3,013,213 2,855,415 3,689,857 6,292,085 8,392,940 11,474,141 20,498,466 71,419 110,378 210,324 1,112,962 1,522,379 2,720,572 9,448,246 18,024,303 36,061,969 2,103,546 8,005,484 18,186,366

- 42 -

low growth (scenarios B and D) 2025 921,954 82,666 67,169 5,275,339 10,717,522 35,650,354 419,679 4,735,044 67,400,405 36,405,792

2010 64,702 6,429 4,816 408,041 951,805 2,797,647 23,806 370,987 3,149,415 701,182

2015 88,683 8,665 6,577 554,654 1,264,258 3,795,648 33,912 503,434 7,460,490 4,141,719

2020 150,436 14,517 11,128 943,004 2,106,122 6,446,664 59,065 855,146 14,999,335 9,365,180

2025 262,093 25,049 19,348 1,593,776 3,521,538 10,872,606 104,835 1,442,584 27,401,508 17,908,353


Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

6,890,085 25,279,748 49,127,493

34,728,066 36,650,646 102,829,420

51,156,569 61,902,921 174,464,913

79,762,159 104,605,209 297,238,475

10,335,127 37,919,623 73,691,240

44,902,994 56,514,272 146,244,122

67,600,075 96,048,972 251,197,358

107,794,064 163,387,713 432,857,700

3,445,042 12,639,874 24,563,747

23,815,852 17,740,826 59,414,718

33,118,221 29,663,648 97,732,467

A1.4.3 Water Demand by Tourism Table A 23.4.3: Water Demand by Tourism medium economic growth years Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

2015 106,345 8,469 3,439 3,393 2,533,813 72,444 31,077 11,586 16,678 6,488 8,503 18,229,259 21,031,495

2020 80,080 6,946 2,273 2,957 2,043,069 57,065 24,480 9,126 13,137 5,110 6,698 23,584,771 25,835,712

high growth (scenarios A and C) 2025 96,421 8,898 2,438 3,939 2,587,131 70,948 30,435 11,347 16,333 6,354 8,328 26,157,429 29,000,000

2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

m続/year 2015 112,991 9,425 3,416 3,907 2,849,049 78,908 33,850 12,620 18,166 7,067 9,262 21,870,250 25,008,912

2020 79,864 7,501 1,997 3,376 2,215,251 59,406 25,484 9,501 13,676 5,320 6,973 31,149,728 33,578,078

A1.4.4 Water Demand by Nuclear Power Plants Table A 24.4.4: Nuclear Power Plants (unchanged over all scenarios and situations) year

2010

2015

2020

2025

m続/year

Zarqa Aqaba Jordan

0 0 0

0 50,000,000 50,000,000 0 0 50,000,000 0 50,000,000 100,000,000

- 43 -

2025 104,930 10,753 2,217 5,107 3,124,499 81,667 35,033 13,061 18,801 7,314 9,586 36,333,939 39,746,906

low growth (scenarios B and D) 2010 93,963 6,600 3,531 2,373 1,914,414 60,004 25,740 9,597 13,814 5,374 7,043 10,934,208 13,076,661

2015 99,928 7,523 3,474 2,881 2,221,362 66,103 28,357 10,572 15,218 5,920 7,759 14,584,982 17,054,078

2020 83,575 6,591 2,716 2,611 1,927,892 56,642 24,298 9,059 13,040 5,072 6,648 16,863,760 19,001,906

2025 91,828 7,487 2,812 3,031 2,176,159 63,307 27,157 10,125 14,574 5,669 7,431 17,755,978 20,165,557

48,794,734 49,672,826 161,619,251


- 44 -


ANNEX 2: Data on expected water supply

Table A 2.1:

Projection of Jordan’s water resources

Year

2010

Red Dead Conveyance Project / Desalinated water Renewable GW (Abstraction for all uses) Groundwater safe yield Return Flow Over abstraction Desalination brackish water Abu Zighan Deir Alla Area Hisban-kafrein Mujib Zara Maen at Suweimeh1 Non - Renewable Groundwater Disi Jafr Lajjoun fossil water Surface water New dams Water harvesting Yarmouk River to Jordan other Peace Treaty2 Treated Wastewater3 Total Resources 1 surface water that requires desalination 2 Water Strategy 2 Report: Water use efficiency in Jordan, CEC

405 275 54 76 57 10

47 74 61 7 6 189

30 159 50 117 892

Source: data provided by MWI, March 2011

- 45 -

2015 2020 MCM/year 210 380 355 275 275 54 54 51 26 82 82 10 10 5 5 20 20 47 47 154 154 122 122 18 18 14 14 197 218 5 25 3 4 30 30 159 159 50 50 165 223 1.028 1.292

2025 370 329 275 54 0 82 10 5 20 47 154 122 18 14 229 35 5 30 159 50 247 1.461


ANNEX 3: Calculation Tables of Cost-Benefit-Analyses

- 46 -


Table A3.1: Estimated costs of municipal water demand management programs in Jordanian Dinar (JD) Project:

Implementation of Green Code

Year

Year

2013

Reduction of physical water losses

Awareness Programme

Institutional Development

Total costs

Total costs discounted (6%)

0

Investment Cost JD 31,000,000

Operation Cost JD 1,000,000

Investment Cost JD 129,388,500

Operation Cost JD 2,000,000

Investment Cost JD 1,562,050

Operation Cost JD 78,103

Investment Cost JD 11,489,167

Operation Cost JD 566,667

JD 177,084,486

JD 177,084,486

2014

1

31,000,000

2,000,000

129,388,500

3,000,000

1,562,050

156,205

11,489,167

850,000

179,445,922

169,288,605

2015

2

31,000,000

3,000,000

129,388,500

4,000,000

1,562,050

234,308

11,489,167

1,303,333

181,977,358

161,959,200

2016

3

31,000,000

3,500,000

129,388,500

5,000,000

234,308

1,303,333

170,426,141

143,093,074

2017

4

4,000,000

6,000,000

234,308

1,303,333

11,537,641

9,138,892

2018

5

4,500,000

7,000,000

234,308

1,303,333

13,037,641

9,742,484

2019

6

5,000,000

8,000,000

234,308

1,303,333

14,537,641

10,248,463

2020

7

5,000,000

9,000,000

234,308

1,303,333

15,537,641

10,333,419

2021

8

5,000,000

9,500,000

234,308

1,303,333

16,037,641

10,062,214

2022

9

5,000,000

10,000,000

234,308

1,303,333

16,537,641

9,788,604

2023

10

5,000,000

10,500,000

234,308

1,303,333

17,037,641

9,513,730

2024 2025

11 12

5,000,000 5,000,000

11,000,000 11,500,000

234,308 234,308

1,303,333 1,303,333

17,537,641 18,037,641

9,238,610 8,964,155

15,753,333

848,772,673

738,455,937

Total:

124,000,000

Total investment volume: Total operation costs (O&M): Discount rate of interest:

53,000,000

517,554,000

96,500,000

4,686,150

680,707,650 JD 168,065,023 JD 6%

- 47 -

2,811,690

34,467,500


Table A3.2: Cost-Benefit-Analysis: Comparison of Scenarios with regionally comparative domestic water demand (scenarios CS and OE) Assumptions: 1) Domestic water demand with nationwide average of 112 l/c/d (medium), 120 l/c/d (max) and 100 l/c/d (min) 2) saved water used for agricultural purposes, average value: 0.59 JD/m続 3) Discount rate of interest: 6% Program costs, WDM (cf. Table A3.1) total

discounted

Benefits (value of saved water) medium

Year

min. (situation D)

discounted

Cash Flow Benefits-Costs) max (situation A)

discounted

discounted

medium discounted

min discounted

max discounted

2013

177,084,486

177,084,486

19,092,819

19,092,819

17,099,916

17,099,916

20,750,738

20,750,738

-157,991,667

-159,984,570

-156,333,748

2014

179,445,922

169,288,605

38,185,638

36,024,187

34,199,831

32,263,992

41,501,475

39,152,335

-133,264,419

-137,024,613

-130,136,270

2015

181,977,358

161,959,200

57,278,457

50,977,623

51,299,747

45,656,592

62,252,213

55,404,248

-110,981,578

-116,302,608

-106,554,953

2016

170,426,141

143,093,074

61,118,874

51,316,585

54,735,274

45,956,791

66,857,435

56,134,792

-91,776,489

-97,136,283

-86,958,282

2017

11,537,641

9,138,892

64,959,292

51,453,843

58,170,801

46,076,723

71,462,658

56,605,118

42,314,951

36,937,831

47,466,226

2018

13,037,641

9,742,484

68,799,709

51,411,145

61,606,328

46,035,832

76,067,880

56,842,345

41,668,661

36,293,348

47,099,861

2019

14,537,641

10,248,463

72,640,127

51,208,423

65,041,855

45,851,941

80,673,102

56,871,354

40,959,960

35,603,478

46,622,891

2020

15,537,641

10,333,419

76,480,544

50,863,930

68,477,382

45,541,370

85,278,325

56,714,957

40,530,511

35,207,951

46,381,538

2021

16,037,641

10,062,214

78,721,330

49,390,736

70,328,824

44,125,175

88,406,655

55,467,429

39,328,522

34,062,960

45,405,215

2022

16,537,641

9,788,604

80,962,115

47,921,351

72,180,267

42,723,389

91,534,986

54,179,417

38,132,747

32,934,785

44,390,813

2023

17,037,641

9,513,730

83,202,900

46,460,065

74,031,710

41,338,920

94,663,316

52,859,501

36,946,335

31,825,191

43,345,772

2024

17,537,641

9,238,610

85,443,686

45,010,668

75,883,153

39,974,298

97,791,647

51,515,420

35,772,057

30,735,688

42,276,809

2025

18,037,641

8,964,155

87,684,471

43,576,496

77,734,596

38,631,713

100,919,977

50,154,137

34,612,341

29,667,558

41,189,982

848,772,673

738,455,937

874,569,961

594,707,871

780,789,684

531,276,652

978,160,406

662,651,790 -143,748,066

-207,179,285

-75,804,147

- 5.0%

- 7.4%

- 2.5%

0.820 JD/m続

0.657 JD/m続

Total Net Present Value (NPV) Internal rate of return (IRR) NPV = 0 at water value

0.733 JD/m続

- 48 -


Table A3.3: Cost-Benefit-Analysis: Comparison of Scenarios with regionally comparative domestic water demand (scenarios CS and OE) Assumptions: 1) Domestic water demand with nationwide average of 112 l/c/d (medium), 120 l/c/d (max) and 100 l/c/d (min) 2) saved water reduces required water supply, average value: 0.35 JD/m続 3) Discount rate of interest: 6% Program costs, WDM (cf. Table A3.1) total

discounted

Benefits (value of saved water) medium

Year

min. (situation D)

discounted 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total

Cash Flow Benefits-Costs) max (situation A)

discounted

discounted

medium discounted

min discounted

max discounted

177,084,486

177,084,486

11,326,249

11,326,249

10,144,018

10,144,018

12,309,760

12,309,760

-165,758,237

-166,940,468

-164,774,726

179,445,922

169,288,605

22,652,497

21,370,280

20,288,036

19,139,656

24,619,519

23,225,961

-147,918,325

-150,148,949

-146,062,644

181,977,358

161,959,200

33,978,746

30,240,963

30,432,053

27,084,419

36,929,279

32,866,927

-131,718,238

-134,874,781

-129,092,274

170,426,141

143,093,074

36,256,959

30,442,042

32,470,078

27,262,503

39,661,190

33,300,300

-112,651,032

-115,830,571

-109,792,774

11,537,641

9,138,892

38,535,173

30,523,466

34,508,102

27,333,649

42,393,102

33,579,307

21,384,574

18,194,757

24,440,415

13,037,641

9,742,484

40,813,387

30,498,137

36,546,127

27,309,392

45,125,014

33,720,035

20,755,653

17,566,908

23,977,551

14,537,641

10,248,463

43,091,601

30,377,878

38,584,151

27,200,304

47,856,925

33,737,244

20,129,415

16,951,841

23,488,781

15,537,641

10,333,419

45,369,814

30,173,518

40,622,176

27,016,067

50,588,837

33,644,466

19,840,099

16,682,648

23,311,047

16,037,641

10,062,214

46,699,094

29,299,589

41,720,489

26,175,951

52,444,626

32,904,407

19,237,375

16,113,737

22,842,193

16,537,641

9,788,604

48,028,373

28,427,920

42,818,803

25,344,383

54,300,415

32,140,332

18,639,316

15,555,779

22,351,728

17,037,641

9,513,730

49,357,653

27,561,056

43,917,116

24,523,088

56,156,205

31,357,331

18,047,326

15,009,359

21,843,602

17,537,641

9,238,610

50,686,932

26,701,244

45,015,430

23,713,567

58,011,994

30,559,995

17,462,633

14,474,956

21,321,384

18,037,641

8,964,155

52,016,212

25,850,464

46,113,743

22,917,118

59,867,783

29,752,454

16,886,309

13,952,963

20,788,299

848,772,673

738,455,937

518,812,689

352,792,805

463,180,321

315,164,116

580,264,648

393,098,519 -385,663,132

-423,291,821

-345,357,417

- 15.6%

- 17.9%

- 13.3%

0.820 JD/m続

0.657 JD/m続

Net Present Value (NPV) Internal rate of return (IRR) NPV = 0 at water value

0.733 JD/m続

- 49 -


Table A3.4: Cost-Benefit-Analysis: Comparison of Scenarios with continuous development of domestic water consumption (scenarios UBS norm and

UBS GC) Assumptions: 1) Domestic water demand with increasing nationwide average from 70 l/c/d in 2010 to 88 l/c/d in 2025 2) saved water used for agricultural purposes, average value: 0.59 JD/m続 3) Discount rate of interest: 6% Program costs, WDM (cf. Table A3.1) total

discounted

Benefits (value of saved water) medium

Year

min. (situation D)

discounted

Cash Flow Benefits-Costs) max (situation A)

discounted

discounted

medium discounted

min discounted

max discounted

2013

177,084,486

177,084,486

12,302,122

12,302,122

12,291,994

12,291,994

12,475,058

12,475,058

-164,782,364

-164,792,492

-164,609,428

2014

179,445,922

169,288,605

24,604,243

23,211,550

24,583,988

23,192,442

24,950,117

23,537,846

-146,077,055

-146,096,164

-145,750,760

2015

181,977,358

161,959,200

36,906,365

32,846,533

36,875,982

32,819,493

37,425,175

33,308,272

-129,112,667

-129,139,707

-128,650,928

2016

170,426,141

143,093,074

40,137,574

33,700,281

40,093,553

33,663,320

40,984,878

34,411,694

-109,392,793

-109,429,754

-108,681,380

2017

11,537,641

9,138,892

43,368,783

34,352,138

43,311,124

34,306,467

44,544,581

35,283,481

25,213,246

25,167,575

26,144,588

2018

13,037,641

9,742,484

46,599,992

34,822,225

46,528,695

34,768,947

48,104,285

35,946,320

25,079,741

25,026,464

26,203,836

2019

14,537,641

10,248,463

49,831,201

35,129,031

49,746,266

35,069,154

51,663,988

36,421,073

24,880,568

24,820,691

26,172,610

2020

15,537,641

10,333,419

53,062,411

35,289,534

52,963,836

35,223,976

55,223,691

36,726,909

24,956,115

24,890,558

26,393,490

2021

16,037,641

10,062,214

55,279,579

34,683,092

55,036,559

34,530,618

57,972,221

36,372,489

24,620,877

24,468,404

26,310,274

2022

16,537,641

9,788,604

57,496,747

34,032,236

57,109,282

33,802,896

60,720,750

35,940,519

24,243,632

24,014,292

26,151,915

2023

17,037,641

9,513,730

59,713,915

33,343,938

59,182,005

33,046,923

63,469,280

35,440,914

23,830,209

23,533,193

25,927,185

2024

17,537,641

9,238,610

61,931,083

32,624,522

61,254,728

32,268,227

66,217,809

34,882,716

23,385,912

23,029,616

25,644,106

2025

18,037,641

8,964,155

64,148,251

31,879,716

63,327,451

31,471,803

68,966,339

34,274,158

22,915,561

22,507,648

25,310,003

848,772,673

738,455,937

605,382,266

408,216,917

602,305,465

406,456,261

632,718,172

425,021,448 -330,239,019

-331,999,676

-313,434,489

- 12.4%

- 12.5%

- 11.5%

1.072 JD/m続

1.025 JD/m続

Total Net Present Value (NPV) Internal rate of return (IRR) NPV = 0 at water value

1.067 JD/m続

- 50 -


Table A3.5: Cost-Benefit-Analysis: Comparison of Scenarios with continuous development of domestic water consumption (scenarios UBS norm and

UBS GC) Assumptions: 1) Domestic water demand with increasing nationwide average from 70 l/c/d in 2010 to 88 l/c/d in 2025 2) saved water reduces required water supply, average value: 0.35 JD/m続 3) Discount rate of interest: 6% Program costs, WDM (cf. Table A3.1) total

discounted

Benefits (value of saved water) medium

Year

min. (situation D)

discounted

Cash Flow Benefits-Costs) max (situation A)

discounted

discounted

medium discounted

min discounted

max discounted

2013

177,084,486

177,084,486

7,297,869

7,297,869

7,291,861

7,291,861

7,400,458

7,400,458

-169,786,617

-169,792,625

-169,684,028

2014

179,445,922

169,288,605

14,595,737

13,769,564

14,583,722

13,758,228

14,800,917

13,963,129

-155,519,042

-155,530,377

-155,325,476

2015

181,977,358

161,959,200

21,893,606

19,485,232

21,875,583

19,469,191

22,201,375

19,759,145

-142,473,969

-142,490,010

-142,200,056

2016

170,426,141

143,093,074

23,810,425

19,991,692

23,784,311

19,969,766

24,313,063

20,413,717

-123,101,382

-123,123,308

-122,679,357

2017

11,537,641

9,138,892

25,727,244

20,378,387

25,693,040

20,351,294

26,424,752

20,930,878

11,239,495

11,212,402

11,791,986

2018

13,037,641

9,742,484

27,644,063

20,657,252

27,601,768

20,625,647

28,536,440

21,324,088

10,914,768

10,883,163

11,581,604

2019

14,537,641

10,248,463

29,560,882

20,839,256

29,510,497

20,803,736

30,648,128

21,605,721

10,590,792

10,555,272

11,357,258

2020

15,537,641

10,333,419

31,477,701

20,934,469

31,419,225

20,895,579

32,759,817

21,787,149

10,601,051

10,562,161

11,453,731

2021

16,037,641

10,062,214

32,792,970

20,574,715

32,648,806

20,484,265

34,390,300

21,576,900

10,512,501

10,422,051

11,514,686

2022

16,537,641

9,788,604

34,108,240

20,188,615

33,878,388

20,052,566

36,020,784

21,320,647

10,400,010

10,263,962

11,532,043

2023

17,037,641

9,513,730

35,423,509

19,780,302

35,107,969

19,604,107

37,651,268

21,024,271

10,266,573

10,090,377

11,510,542

2024

17,537,641

9,238,610

36,738,778

19,353,530

36,337,551

19,142,168

39,281,751

20,693,137

10,114,920

9,903,558

11,454,526

2025

18,037,641

8,964,155

38,054,047

18,911,696

37,567,132

18,669,714

40,912,235

20,332,127

9,947,541

9,705,559

11,367,972

848,772,673

738,455,937

359,125,073

242,162,578

357,299,852

241,118,121

375,341,289

252,131,367 -496,293,359

-497,337,816

-486,324,569

- 22.5%

- 22.6%

- 21.4%

1.072 JD/m続

1.025 JD/m続

Total Net Present Value (NPV) Internal rate of return (IRR) NPV = 0 at water value

1.067 JD/m続

- 51 -


Table A3.6: Estimated costs of water transfer and supportive agricultural water demand programs in Jordanian Dinar (JD) Project: Year

2012 2013 2014 2015

Expansion of TWW availability for agriculture

Opportunity costs for water transfer from agriculture to municipal use

Total costs, discounted (6%)

Investment Cost

Operation Cost

Investment Cost

Operation Cost

medium

min

max

medium

min

max

JD

JD

JD

JD

JD

JD

JD

JD

JD

JD

32,638,761

0

4,000,000

0

0

0

0

36,638,761

36,638,761

36,638,761

32,638,761

500,000

4,000,000

50,000

22,982,760

22,977,875

23,293,118

56,765,585

56,760,977

57,058,376

32,638,761

625,000

4,000,000

100,000

30,643,679

30,637,167

31,057,491

60,526,380

60,520,584

60,894,670

32,638,761

781,250

150,000

38,304,599

38,296,458

38,821,863

60,347,309

60,340,474

60,781,613

976,563

150,000

48,124,823

48,091,455

49,246,566

39,011,710

38,985,280

39,900,236

1,220,703

150,000

57,945,046

57,886,452

59,671,269

44,324,179

44,280,393

45,614,113

1,220,703

150,000

67,765,270

67,681,448

70,095,972

48,738,133

48,679,042

50,381,186

1,220,703

150,000

77,585,494

77,476,445

80,520,675

52,510,380

52,437,857

54,462,444

1,220,703

150,000

87,405,717

87,271,442

90,945,378

55,699,424

55,615,178

57,920,252

1,220,703

150,000

86,492,247

86,191,412

90,550,644

52,005,945

51,827,881

54,408,104

1,220,703

150,000

85,578,777

85,111,382

90,155,909

48,552,136

48,291,145

51,107,982

1,220,703 1,220,703

150,000 150,000

84,665,308 83,751,838

84,031,352 82,951,323

89,761,174 89,366,440

45,322,697 42,303,295

44,988,737 41,905,464

48,007,136 45,093,580

150,000 1,800,000

82,838,368 4,686,150

81,871,293 2,811,690

88,971,705 34,467,500

39,480,499 645,587,672

39,027,096 643,660,108

42,356,046 667,985,739

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total:

Adapted irrigation management

130,555,044

1,220,703 13,869,141

Total investment volume: Total operation costs (O&M): Discount rate of interest: Water value in agriculture:

12,000,000

142,555,044 JD 15,669,141 JD 6% 0.59 JD/m続

water value in municipal/domestic use: 1.49 JD/m続

- 52 -


Table A3.7: Cost-Benefit-Analysis: water transfer and supportive agricultural water demand programs (scenario IAA-UBS) Assumptions: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Domestic water demand rises to a nationwide average of 112 l/c/d until 2020, average value of domestic water: 1.49 JD/m続 Required freshwater is taken from agricultural sector, resulting additional wastewater is treated up to design capacity of investment programs Resulting treated wastewater /TWW) is used in agriculture, average value: 0.59 JD/m続 Discount rate of interest: 6% Discounted costs (cf. Table A3.6)

Discounted benefits from additional water for domestic water use

Discounted Benefits from use of additional TWW in agriculture

Discounted Cash Flow: Benefits-Costs

JD medium

min

max

medium

min

max

Design capacity

medium

min

max

-36.638.761

-36.638.761

-36.638.761

3.500.647

3.493.618

3.947.277

6.931.292

15.280.202

15.271.360

15.842.001

82.317.664

8.173.694

29.047.245

29.036.818

29.709.744

98.511.459

8.926.103

66.181.948

66.141.630

67.537.326

112.608.249

9.567.146

74.593.587

74.526.795

76.561.283

124.793.547

10.107.019

82.013.028

81.922.889

84.519.380

130.125.642

135.238.582

10.555.121

88.353.536

88.242.907

91.331.260

138.280.036

144.101.323

10.920.112

93.713.481

93.584.970

97.101.184

129.288.129

128.838.442

135.354.597

11.140.121

88.422.305

88.150.682

92.086.614

120.681.773

120.022.660

127.136.368

11.300.235

83.429.872

83.031.750

87.328.621

48,007,136

112.635.484

111.792.094

119.414.830

11.406.530

78.719.317

78.209.887

82.814.224

45,093,580

105.113.433

104.108.740

112.160.085

11.464.586

74.274.724

73.667.862

78.531.091

70.081.077

69.389.446

74.467.505

847.610.968

844.670.615

881.777.511

68.1%

68.1%

69.4%

Year 2012

36,638,761

36,638,761

36,638,761

0

0

0

0

2013

56,765,585

56,760,977

57,058,376

54.755.855

54.744.218

55.495.276

5.510.377

2014

60,526,380

60,520,584

60,894,670

68.875.289

68.860.651

69.805.379

2015

60,347,309

60,340,474

60,781,613

81.220.860

81.203.598

2016

39,011,710

38,985,280

39,900,236

96.267.554

96.200.806

2017

44,324,179

44,280,393

45,614,113

109.350.619

109.240.042

2018

48,738,133

48,679,042

50,381,186

120.644.142

120.494.912

2019

52,510,380

52,437,857

54,462,444

130.308.794

2020

55,699,424

55,615,178

57,920,252

138.492.793

2021

52,005,945

51,827,881

54,408,104

2022

48,552,136

48,291,145

51,107,982

2023

45,322,697

44,988,737

2024

42,303,295

41,905,464

2025

39,480,499

39,027,096

42,356,046

98.082.052

96.937.018

105.344.028

11.479.523

Total

645,587,672

643,660,108

667,985,739

1.365.716.778

1.360.848.860

1.422.281.388

127.481.862

Net Present Value (NPV) Internal rate of return (IRR)

- 53 -


Addendum: Comparison of currently available data on water consumption in 2010 with scenario assumptions The MWI provided preliminary data from the utilities NGWA (governorates Irbid, Jarash, Ajlun and Mafraq), AWC (governorate Aqaba) and about the performance of the major wastewater water treatment plants on 22.07.2011, i.e. about one month after the submission of the draft version of this report. The counterparts at MWI requested a comparison between those data and the calculated scenario assumptions. Water demand assumptions for 2010 - i.e. the first year of the scenario analysis - do not differ within the scenario classes (cf. BOX 1: Scenarios and Drivers, p. 2 of this report), which allows for their aggregated presentation in the following tables. - Utility NGWA, northern governorates The total water consumption in 2010 corresponded much more to the assumptions by the utility, which is reflected in scenarios of classes B and C (cf. table AD1), than to the scenarios of class A, which assume domestic water demands on a regionally comparative level. This finding was expected since changes from the domestic water consumption in the preceding years to the much higher regional level were not likely. An adaptation of domestic water demands in the northern governorates to a regionally comparative level, which was defined by the PMU with 112 l/c/d nationwide, would require about 71% annually more water for this region. The small discrepancies in the figures on municipal water use between the preliminary data on water consumption in 2010 and the scenario assumptions result predominately from the different assumptions on the population. The scenario calculations rely on the officially authorized demographic figures of Jordan's Higher Population Council (HCP), while the provided preliminary figures of the MWI on 2010 state the internally used figures of NGWA. Larger differences occur with regard to industrial water consumption, whereby the consumption in 2010 was closer to estimations based on growth prognoses by the MWI (scenario class A) than to those based on prognoses of NGWA (scenario classes B and C). The data on consumption by tourism in 2010 corresponded exactly to the prognosis of NGWA.

- 54 -


Table AD1: Data on water consumption 2010 and corresponding scenario medium results, northern governorates, utility NGWA. Governorate

sector

MWI 20111

Scenario classes A B and C (scenarios CS + OE) (scenarios UBS norm, UBS GC, IAA-UBS) m³ 48,299,145 28,161,653 168,359 136,454 93,963 42,512 48,561,467 28,340,619 32% 32% 1,095,268 1,095,268 113 63

Irbid

Municipal² Industry³ Tourism Total UFW4 population lcd/resident

27,421,627 173,246 42,512 27,637,385 33% 1,088,100 61

Jarash

Municipal² Industry³ Tourism

3,758,020 22,019 2,986

8,686,300 16,729 6,600

3,868,487 13,559 2,986

Total UFW4 population lcd/resident Municipal² Industry³ Tourism Total UFW4 population lcd/resident

3,783,025 30% 183,400 52 2,827,905 10,156 1,598 2,839,659 34% 140,600 49

8,709,629 30% 184,603 108 6,014,959 12,531 3,531 6,031,022 33% 141,488 111

3,885,031 30% 184,603 54 2,902,973 10,156 1,598 2,914,727 33% 141,488 51

Municipal² Industry³ Tourism Total UFW4

8,870,564 1,138,258 1,074 10,009,895 63%

11,128,815 1,061,753 2,373 12,192,941 62%

9,100,095 860,542 1,074 9,961,710 62%

287,300 71

289,252 103

289,252 73

Ajlun

Mafraq

population lcd/resident

Total NGWA 44,269,963 75,495,058 45,102,088 In % 100% 171% 102% 1 source: internal information from MWI, 22.07.2011 ² includes water consumption by residents, commercial enterprises, governmental, educational an health institutions and for worship purposes ³ includes water consumption by small and large scale industries with and without own water wells 4 water losses, i.e. unaccounted-for water, non-revenue water

- 55 -


- Utility AWC, governorate Aqaba The provided data on water consumption in Aqaba show significant deviations to the scenario assumptions. However, the fact that these preliminary figures on 2010 state the improbable per capita consumption of 0.37 l/c/d indicate that this information is at least not complete, which precludes further analyses. TableAD2: Data on water consumption 2010 and corresponding scenario medium results, governorate Aqaba, utility AWC Governorate

sector

MWI 20111

Scenario classes A B and C (scenarios CS + OE) (scenarios UBS norm, UBS GC, IAA-UBS) m³ 9,363,836 8,219,008 32,889,901 26,656,992 10,934,208 4,947,053 53,187,945 39,823,053 22,7% 22,7% 134,079 134,079 112 90

Aqaba

Municipal² 37,159 Industry³ 5,331,276 Tourism 45,884 Total 5,414,318 4 UFW 21,0% population 133,200 lcd/resident 0.37 1 source: internal information from MWI, 22.07.2011 ² includes water consumption by residents, commercial enterprises, governmental, educational an health institutions and for worship purposes ³ includes water consumption by small and large scale industries with and without own water wells 4

water losses, i.e. unaccounted-for water, non-revenue water

- Utility Miyahuna, governorate Amman and governorates without private utilities The request for data on these governorates was not answered by MWI until end of August, 2011. Information on estimations used in the scenario analyses with regard to these governorates are documented in annex 1 of the report "Scenario Impact Analysis".

- 56 -


- Treated Wastewater The data provided by MWI on the 25 major treatment plants state 110.74 MCM effluents of treated wastewater in 2010 (cf. table AD3). However, the provided data state 2 treatment plants, i.e. AsSamra WSP and Aqaba Mech., where effluents exceed the amount of influents. This indicates the necessity of a further revision of these data. The comparison with scenario assumptions is thus of preliminary nature only. TableAD3: Data on influents and effluents of wastewater treatment plants 2010 influent Wastewater Treatment Plant AS-SAMRA WSP AS-SAMRA MECH AQABA MECH. AQABA W.S.P RAMTHA MAFRAQ W.S.P MADABA MA'AN IRBID JERASH KUFRANJA ABU-NUSIER SALT BAQA' KARAK TAFILA WADI AL SEER FUHIS WADI ARAB WADI HASSAN WADI MOUSA TALL - MANTAH AKADEER AL- LAJJOUN AL- JIZA TOTAL

effluent MCM

7,37 76,80 3,59 2,46 1,27 0,73 1,89 1,16 2,97 1,34 1,01 0,94 1,93 3,73 0,64 0,50 1,32 0,81 3,75 0,41 1,11 0,11 1,43 0,31 0,26 235,67

14,87 64,70 3,80 2,45 0,99 0,60 1,75 1,12 2,62 1,27 0,94 0,92 1,80 3,52 0,61 0,44 1,18 0,79 3,48 0,35 1,03 0,11 1,06 0,26 0,07 110,74

The terms of reference for the scenario calculations do not include the task of a precise assignment of wastewater to the individual treatment plants. Such an assignment is possible based on the calculated wastewater formation per governorate and the existing and planned conveyance infrastructure to treatment plants, but will require a separate study (see also added clarification in chapter 1).

- 57 -


Table AD4 displays the estimated potential of treated wastewater for the different scenario classes on the level of the governorates in 2010. The assumed ratio between effluent and influent in the scenario calculations amounted to 50%, which is close to the ratio of 47% achieved in 2010. The calculated potential of 132 MCM of treated wastewater in 2010 under the assumptions on water demand by the utilities (scenario classes B and C) is within the limits of Jordan's existing wastewater treatment capacities. The calculation of the wastewater potential under the assumption of a regionally comparative water consumption (scenario A) serves as an indicator for the then required treatment capacities, provided that a full recycling of wastewater is an objective. Table AD4: Scenario estimations of the treated wastewater potential 2010 Scenario class A (scenarios CS + OE) Irbid Jarash Ajlun Mafraq Amman Zarqa Balqa Madaba Karak Tafiela Ma'an Aqaba Jordan

32,05 4,90 4,02 9,94 89,78 31,98 13,53 4,96 7,57 2,78 3,72 12,32 217,56

- 58 -

Scenario classes B and C (scenarios UBS norm, UBS GC, IAA-UBS) MCM 18,69 2,51 1,94 7,39 55,43 18,55 7,85 2,87 4,39 1,61 2,16 8,62 132,02


EW2_wk1_D2-1_2