Therefore focusing on allocating water between the countries for new consumptive water uses will neither allow the countries nor the basin to exploit comparative advantages. Under such a scheme one country may forgo water for a less productive use in another country. In such a situation the benefit of the water to the overall basin would not be maximized.

over 99% of the mean annual flow of the Okavango reaches, and is consumed in, the Okavango Delta.

all the alternatives and projections investigated in the TDA would fail to create net benefits, leaving in question whether there would really be any benefits that could be shared. In other words, what the analysis demonstrates is the need for a more economic attractive set of alternatives.

However, the prospect of large increases in the human diversion and storage of water from the river implies at least the future prospect that the River may become a congestible resource, one that is rival in consumption – i.e. that the use of water by an upstream riparian country will affect the downstream uses and values.

Under optimistic assumptions the picture improves somewhat as net returns to irrigation, particularly in Angola improve.  But even still the net returns to the basin remain negative under the low (-$260 million) and medium (-$1 billion) alternatives.  In other words the loss to ecosystem goods and services exceeds that of the benefits from water supply, hydropower and irrigation (see Figure 4b).  Again, for these alternatives no country has benefits to share from these alternatives. Only, with the full implementation of the large Cuchi irrigation scheme in Angola under the high water withdrawal alternative (and under the optimistic projection) do net returns to the basin move into positive territory (approximately $215 million).  Under this scenario, Angola generates positive net returns on the order of $1.2 billion (see Figure 1b).  Botswana experiences losses of $1.2 billion and gains of about $50 million for a net loss of $1.15 billion (see Figure 3b). It would seem there are net gains to be had under the optimistic portrayal of the high water withdrawal alternative.

shows that the projects investigated represent a net present cost of around $2 billion.  To generate a range of net returns from a loss of $2.9 billion (conservative) to a gain of $250 million (optimistic) from such a sizeable investment in a relatively underdeveloped region makes little economic sense.

Problem: 1 if you show large benefits then you can use more of the water!- create employment etc Problem 2: if you show large benefits then you have to share those benefits! – is that politically feasible? Can OKACOM sell that?