Training Unit 01: Introduction to the Water-Energy-Food ... · dam construction impacts local water security or fisheries at a downstream village; global trade and food poli- cies

NEXUS Water-Energy-Food Dialogues Training Material

Training Unit 01: Introduction to the Water-Energy-Food Security (WEF) NEXUS

This project is co-funded by the European Union

Published by Nexus Regional Dialogue Programme (NRD)

c/o Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

Registered offices: Bonn and Eschborn, Germany

Global Nexus Secretariat (GNS)Sector Programme Sustainable Water PolicyDivision Climate Change, Environment & Infrastructure (G310)Department Sector and Global ProgrammesDeutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, Germany

+49 228 44 60-1878 [email protected] www.nexus-dialogue-programme.eu www.water-energy-food.org

@NEXUSPlatform #Nexusplatformwww.facebook.com/nexusresourceplatform/

ProgrammeThe Nexus Regional Dialogue Programme (NRD) is a programme funded by the European Union and the German Federal Ministryfor Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

AuthorsIan McNamaraAlexandra NaudittSantiago PenedoLars Ribbe

TH Köln - University of Applied Sciences Institute for Technology and Resources Management in the Tropics and Subtropics (ITT)Betzdorfer Str. 2D- 50679 Köln, Germany

Design / LayoutAntonia Fedlmeier, Cologne

Cover photo creditsFotolia

URL linksResponsibility for the content of external websites linked in this publication al-ways lies with their respective publishers. GIZ expressly dissociates itself fromsuch content.

GIZ is responsible for the content of this publication.

Bonn 2018

Content | 3

Pages in this handbook are denoted as either “Required”, “Optional” or “Interactive”. When this material is taught in workshops, we recommend that all slides denoted “Required” are included, and the moderator of the workshop decides which of the “Optional” slides are most suitable to include, based on both the context of the workshop and the expertise of the participants.

Pages marked as “Interactive” provide workshop participants with the opportunity to discuss the topics with the moderator and other participants. We recommend that all “Interactive” slides are included in the workshops.

Content

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Importance of the Nexus1.2 The WEF Nexus approach1.3 Variations of the WEF Nexus model

2. WEF INTERCONNECTIONS2.1 Individual resource securities2.2 Interconnections: Trade-offs and competition, resources use efficiency, synergies2.3 Pool of case studies

3 ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION3.1 Nexus Assessment3.2 Nexus Tools 3.3 Policy and Governance Instruments for Implementation

56

1117

232559

77

9294

101123

Optional InteractiveRequired

4 | Introduction

THE NEXUS REGIONAL DIALOGUES PROGRAMME HUMAN CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

This training module was designed and developed within the scope of the Nexus Regional Dialogues Programme Phase I (2016 – 2018), which is jointly funded by the European Union and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The objective of the programme is to foster the water-energy-food security Nexus approach on municipal, national, ministerial and regional policy levels. It aims at promoting dialogue and a stronger cross-sec-toral collaboration between the water, energy, agricultural and environmental sectors in decision-making processes. The programme involves five regional Nexus dialogues, which are active in the Niger Basin, Southern Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Asia (Aral Sea region) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The regional dialogues involve various stakeholders, including national and regional policy makers, the private sector, academia and civil society in order to support the formulation and adaptation of concrete Nexus policy recommendations and action plans. An additional aim is to foster future investment plans for multi-purpose infrastructure and corresponding capacity development. The strength of the programme lies in the mutual exchange of experiences, lessons-learned, research and activities between the different regions, which also brings added-value to the broader international discussion on the WEF Nexus.

For its operationalisation, the Nexus approach challenges existing structures, policies and procedures at global, regional and national levels and hence, needs to overcome various barriers such as sectoral governance frameworks and arrangements, power imbalances, or conflicting perceptions, interests and practices. In cooperation with the Institute for Technology and Resources Management in the Tropics and Subtropics (ITT) of the TH Köln (University of Applied Sciences), the GIZ Nexus Regional Dialogues Programme developed two training modules that present hands-on tools and instruments on how to approach these challenges in practice:1. Introduction to the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Security Nexus2. WEF Nexus case studies from Europe and Germany

The workshop participants learn about different perspectives, needs, priorities and values of other sectors and their interconnections in an interactive and participatory way. This helps to identify common objectives and entry points for future collaborative work. The training modules are designed in a way that provides the participants with the opportunity to apply Nexus thinking to concrete examples within the context of regional case studies.

In light of emerging global challenges such as climate change, increasing urbanisation, population growth and advancing degradation of ecosystems, a collaborative and sensitive approach such as the Nexus is essential to meet increasing water, energy and food security demands in the long-term. With its capacity development activities, the Nexus Regional Dialogues Programme aspires to enable and support Nexus pioneers in multiplying and mainstreaming the Nexus con-cept within their respective contexts and environments and thus, support and strengthen capacities in striving for a sustainable future.

For more information, please visit:www.water-energy-food.org www.nexus-dialogue-programme.eu

or follow us on:@NEXUSPlatform #Nexusplatformwww.facebook.com/nexusresourceplatform/

Background | 5

Background1.1 Importance of the Nexus

1.2 The WEF Nexus approach

1.3 Variations of the WEF Nexus model

1

6 | Background

In order to understand the relevance of water, energy and food security, we first contemplate the importance of each of the three securities for development: • A good diet is fundamental for the wellbeing of all humans and strongly impacts individual development and

health• Water is crucial for humans, for virtually all sectors and for the environment• Industry and services depend on energy, and without energy, the standard of living is low

Furthermore, it is important to understand that action to achieve water, energy or food security may be taken at different scales (from local to global), and they may impact on each other. For example, the establishment of a multi-national energy grid or pipeline construction may impact the feasibility of a local biomass plant; upstream dam construction impacts local water security or fisheries at a downstream village; global trade and food poli-cies impact local production and marketing.

The third important point made here is that to increase the level of security in any of the domains we often need to increase resources use, which will often have external effects. These externalities are often not sufficiently considered when evaluating the comparative advantage of one measure over an alternative. An example of this is the land required and the downstream impacts on the flow regime caused by reservoirs built for hydropower generation.

Required

1.1

Background | 7

At the global level, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the areas of action which are tar-geted in order to reach “the future we want”. The SDGs 2, 6, and 7 directly address the demand for improving water, energy and food security.

Although these three highlighted SDGs directly address these securities, all other SDGs are linked in one way or another to improving water, energy and food security. Some examples of this are:• Health (SDG 3) is directly related to the access to enough good quality food and water• Resilience to natural hazards (11) depends on the way we manage water• Consumption and production patterns (12) will determine our energy demands• Education (4) and partnerships (17) will determine how to reach future WEF security

Therefore, water, energy and food security are prevailing development concerns.

United Nations General Assembly (2015), ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

Required

8 | Background

At present, a significant percentage of the global population are a long way from attaining water, energy or food security. For example, on top of the 1.1 billion people referenced in the slide that have no access to electricity, approximately a further 1.4 billion have what is classed as an unreliable access to electricity.

We need to intensify our efforts in order to bring water, energy and food security to these people in the coming decades. At the same time, the world population is likely to increase to over 8 billion by 2030 and 9.5 or even 10 billion by 2050, while economic development and consumption patterns are likely to change, leading to even higher water, energy and food demands per capita. We therefore face the combined challenge of compen-sating for the unmet current demands and meeting additional future demands.

Global change, including climate change, adds a certain degree of uncertainty to the future availability and demand of natural resources.

CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) (n.d.), ‘Food Security’, Available from: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#theme=food-security

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2014) ‘International Decade for Action WATER FOR LIFE 2005-2015’, Available from: http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/water_and_energy.shtml

Required

Background | 9

The WEF Nexus means that the three sectors are inextricably linked, and that actions in one area more often than not have impacts in one or both of the others. A Nexus approach aims to reduce trade-offs and enhance the efficiency of the entire system rather than increasing the productivity of specific sectors, often at the expense of other sectors. Therefore, we need to integrate the sectors into a Nexus perspective to meet the common global challenges.

FAO (2014), ‘The Water-Energy-Food Nexus - A new approach in support of food security and sustainable agriculture’, Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations, pp.1–11.

Merrey, D. (2015) ‘Critical Roles of Water in Achieving the Proposed SDGs: a Nexus Perspective (Water-Energy-Food-Climate Change)’, [Power-Point presentation], Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/130191.3%20MERREY-Critical%20role%20of%20water-SDGs-Nexus_revised2.pdf

United Nations University (UNU) (2013), ‘Water Security & the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief’, Hamilton.

Required

10 | Background

While the quest for development and the growing demands for energy, water and food will likely require an intensification in resources use, the achievement of one goal may negatively impact the performance of another goal. The increase of one security domain often has trade-offs with another security domain.

This slide provides two simple examples. As energy production based on fossil fuels is water intensive (cooling requirements), the increased energy production may be at the cost of water security. The second example refers to the potential impact of agricultural intensification. The positive effect on food security may be com-pensated by reduced water security as the downstream water is unfit for certain purposes due to water quality deterioration.

These trade-offs are the reason why a Nexus approach is needed: in order to systematically address what is often hidden or not being considered in planning and management, given that a “silo” approach (i.e. single mindedly pursuing individual goals) has no means to consider these types of externalities.

Figures:LaB (2010), ‘Fertilizers and their Impact on Watershed Ecology’, Available from: http://lab.visual-logic.com/2010/02/864/U.S. Department of Energy (2006), ‘Energy Demands on Water Resources’, Report to Congress on the Interdependence of Energy and Water

Required

Background | 11

The Nexus approach presents a conceptual approach to better understand and systematically analyse the interactions between the natural environment and human activities, and to work towards a more coordinated management and use of natural resources across sectors and scales. The Nexus approach helps to balance different resource user goals and interests, while maintaining the integrity of ecosystems.

The WEF Nexus emerged as a necessary reaction to failures of sector-driven management strategies. It represents the current need to engage in knowledge-based debates about the consequences of increasing interconnections between natural resources and the tools to improve the securities of water, energy and food at the same time. The presumption is that academia and policymaking lack such ‘integrated view’ on use issues of natural resources.

FAO (2014), ‘The Water-Energy-Food Nexus - A new approach in support of food security and sustainable agriculture’, Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations, pp.1–11.

Required

1.2

12 | Background

The Bonn conference in 2011 is the watershed moment for promoting the WEF concept, as it put the WEF Nexus high on the international agenda. After this conference, the concept was adopted and promoted by many actors of policy, economy and academia. As a consequence, the Rio+20 summit, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and other high level global political agreements concerning sustainable development acknowledge the need for an integrated approach in addressing water, energy and food concerns.

Hoff, H. (2011), ‘Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus’, Stock-holm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden.

Required

Background | 13

The “original” Nexus concept (Hoff, 2011) looked at the security of water supply, food and energy from a water perspective: water is a state variable and at the same time a control variable of change, and is placed in the centre of the Nexus. It also emphasised external driving forces such as urbanisation, population growth and climate change, which all exert pressure to the system.

The concept presented here (GIZ, 2016) is a more integrated approach, where the ecosystem is located at the centre. The three resources are equally allocated to it. The three ‘supply securities’ of water, energy and food depend on ecosystems and they interact with each other. The resources land, water and energy (atmosphere) are part of this ecosystem and must be used and protected in a balanced manner.

There are numerous other Nexus frameworks guiding the assessment of the complex Nexus related intercon-nections, some of which are introduced later in this handbook.

GIZ (2016), ‘Water, Energy & food Nexus in a Nutshell’, Available from: www.water-energy-food.org/fileadmin/user_upload/files/2016/documents/nexus-secretariat/nexus-dialogues/Water-Energy-Food_Nexus-Dialogue-Programme_Phase1_2016-18.pdf

Required

14 | Background

The WEF security Nexus approach aims at better understanding the links between these three sectors in order to improve both planning and development. Thus, it contributes to improving well being and reducing poverty.

By addressing trade-offs with other sectors and emphasising the identification of synergies, the Nexus approach provides support for better decision making. This approach shows the mutual benefits of cooperation (between ministries, sectors, stakeholders, etc.). The WEF Nexus has emerged as an important conceptual framework for improving resource governance. By accounting for the complex interdependencies between water, energy, and food systems, such an approach can support decision-makers in managing resource trade-offs across different economic sectors and actors.

Required

Background | 15

This figure demonstrates how the SDGs are related to each other, with many of the 17 SDGs linked to land use/ agriculture, water and energy, highlighting them as crucial issues. A crucial question which can be answered by the WEF Nexus approach is how much does attaining one goal mean trade-offs or synergies for another goal?

The WEF Nexus has become central to discussions and a fundamental topic regarding the development and subsequent monitoring of the SDGs and the “Agenda 2030“. The SDGs call for governments to prepare new targets and action for sustainable water use, energy use and agricultural practices for promoting inclusive development. The Nexus approach highlights the interdependencies of water, energy and food security and the natural resources that underpin security of water, soil and land. “Sustainable thinking” is the key driving force behind undertaking the Nexus approach so that interdependent sectors should work in a more integrated manner to achieve the “future we want”. The importance of the WEF Nexus concept has been fundamentally supported and anchored by the Rio+20 summit.

Although the importance assigned to a specific goals may differ among countries, a sustainable achievement of water, energy and food security from the foundation for economic development, social welfare and ecological integrity in all countries.

In a similar sense as described above, the Nexus approach can be applied also to other development challenges beyond the SDGs: The Sendai Framework refers to managing risks related to natural hazards which impact water food and energy security alike. Reducing water related hazard, for example, will provide synergies regarding the production risk in agriculture. The Paris Agreement refers to actions towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. Many Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) need to be scrutinised regarding their potential impacts on either water, energy and food security – and may relate to trade-offs or synergies.

Hoff, H. (2011), ‘Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus’, Stock-holm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden.

Merrey, D. (2015) ‘Critical Roles of Water in Achieving the Proposed SDGs: a Nexus Perspective (Water-Energy-Food-Climate Change)’, [PowerPoint presentation], Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/130191.3%20MERREY-Critical%20role%20of%20water-SDGs-Nexus_revised2.pdf

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (2017), ‘Exploring connections between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-ment’, Policy Brief, Stockholm.

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Draft resolution referred to the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda by the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session. UN Doc. A/70/L.1 of 18 September.

Required

16 | Background

A fundamental problem is that each goal (water, energy and food security) is represented and promoted by dif-ferent institutions (often ministries or authorities), thus an underlying problem for Nexus implementation is the existing sectoral governance system. Therefore, new approaches are required in order to integrate between sectors. Key questions here are who undertakes this integration and how is it achieved?

This figure provides some ideas. For example:• Join ministries: while there are few examples of creating a separate WEF ministry, there are a number of

examples of two sectors being joined• Develop competence within a sectorial institution to build interfaces with neighbouring sectors and institu-

tions• Cooperation with civil society and stakeholders is of fundamental relevance as all three security areas are

closely related to many different parts of society

Governments can support Nexus activities by harmonising public policies, creating awareness for Nexus issues, quantifying and addressing trade-offs between water, energy or food security, creating incentives to develop aligned strategies and providing investments for projects which prove to contribute to achieve a Nex-us-oriented development goal.

Methods for Nexus implementation are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) (2012), ‘A Nexus Approach for Humans and Nature?’, Global Water News, No. 14. Available from: http://www.gwsp.org/fileadmin/documents_news/Interview_Scholz.pdf

Weitz, N., Nilsson, M. & Davis, M. (2014), ‘A Nexus Approach to the Post-2015 Agenda: Formulating Integrated Water, Energy, and Food SDGs’, SAIS Review of International Affairs, vol. 34, No. 2, Summer-Fall 2014, pp. 37-50.

Required

Background | 17

Required

1.3

18 | Background

The following slides present variations of how to visualise the Nexus concept. The intention of this handbook is not that these following slides are taught in detail, but rather that they are used to provide an indication of the different ways that the Nexus concept can be visualised. The four variations presented illustrate that:• The water, energy and food sectors are always at the core of modelling Nexus interconnections• There is no standard or ‘most correct’ way to model the Nexus interconnections• Given that each Nexus problem is different, the best way to visualise these interconnections is not always be

the same for each problem

Required

Background | 19

This concept uses “Land“ instead of “Food“, as presented in the European Report on Development (2012).

European Report on Development (2012), ‘Confronting scarcity: Managing water, energy and land for inclusive and sustainable growth’, Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/erd-consca-report-20110101_en_0.pdf

VARIATIONS OF THE CONCEPT Optional

The work of Biggs et al. (2015) integrates the notion of Environmental Livelihood Security (ELS) within the WEF Nexus. ELS refers to the “challenges of maintaining global food security and universal access to fresh-water and energy to sustain livelihoods and promote inclusive economic growth, whilst sustaining key envi-ronmental systems functionality, particularly under variable climatic regimes’’ (Biggs et al., 2014). This concept also considers external influencing factors such as climate change, population growth, and governance, which all affect the attainment of ELS.

Biggs, EM., Boruff, B., Bruce, E., Duncan, JMA., Duce, S., Haworth, BJ., Horsley, J., Curnow, J., Neef, A., McNeill, K., Pauli, N., Van Ogtrop, F. & Imanari, Y., (2014), Environmental livelihood security in Southeast Asia and Oceania: a water-energy-food-livelihoods nexus approach for spatially assessing change. White paper. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 114p. [doi: 10.5337/2014.231]

Biggs, EM., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, JMA., Horsley, J., Pauli, N., McNeill, K., Neef, A., Ogtrop, FV., Curnow, J., Haworth, B., Duce, S. & Imanari, Y. (2015), ‘Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods’, Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 54, pp. 389–397.

20 | Background

This approach adds the component “forests“ to the Nexus triangle.

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2017), ‘Food-Energy-Water-Nexus’, University of Nebraska, Available from: https://www.unl.edu/nc-few/food-energy-water-nexus

Optional

VARIATIONS OF THE CONCEPT

This concept places people, landscape and ecosystems in the centre.


Background | 21

Interactive

22 | Background

Required

Interconnections | 23

Interconnections2.1 Individual resource securities

2.2 Interconnections: Trade-offs and competition,

resources use efficiency, synergies

2.3 Pool of case studies

2

24 | Interconnections

Required

In the second chapter, we address the interconnections, trade-offs and synergies between the individual Nexus components. We first introduce the individual water, energy and food security aspects in order to later look at the interconnections between them.

We provide insights into the relationships and trade-offs between the following individual components:• Water needed for food: overexploitation• Implications of agricultural activities for water resources: diffuse pollution, surface and groundwater quality

deterioration, groundwater exploitation• Water needed for energy generation• Energy needed for water resources exploration• Food and agricultural products used for energy generation• Energy needed in agricultural activities and food production processes

and highlight potential trade-offs and synergies accompanying these interconnections.

Finally, we use some case studies to illustrate such trade-offs and synergies in the many regions, including Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Africa and Central Asia.

Required


RequiredRequired

2.1


RequiredRequired


Required

Water, energy and food security are fundamental to development. Still, many people in the world live without water, energy and/or food security. Depending on the indicator used to define these terms, this number varies from 1 to 1.5 billion people. In some parts of the world there are acute food, water and energy crises. It is projected that the world will face increased risk of hunger, water scarcity and energy crises because of the increased demand from increased population, and from environment and climate change.

Food Security: Estimates suggest that food production needs to increase by approximately 77% in developing countries and 24% in developed countries to meet the demands in 2050

Water Security: Poor quality water in the Middle East and North Africa costs between 0.5% and 2.5% of GDP- Competition over water resources could cause an 18% global reduction in the availability of water for agricul-ture by 2050

Energy security: It is estimated that in 2030, 1.2 billion people will still lack access to electricity

FAO (2012), ‘World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 Revision’, ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) and Iowa State University (ISU), 2011. World Agricultural Outlook. Available online at http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook/2011/

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010), ’World Energy Outlook 2010’, Paris, France.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012), ‘Environmental Outlook to 2050’, OECD, Paris.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2014), ‘Water, food and energy nexus challenges’, Available from: http://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/references/water-food-and-energy-nexus-challenges-wbcsd-2014.pdf

World Health Organization (WHO) (2017), ‘Drinking-water fact sheet’, Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs391/en/

Required


Required

A general definition and infographic showing the idea of water security are displayed on this slide (UN Water 2013a; UN Water, 2013b). This definition of water security is designed to be all-encompassing, thus creating a working platform for all interest groups and stakeholders. Key aspects of water security are: • Access to safe and sufficient drinking water at an affordable cost • Protection of livelihoods, human rights, and cultural and recreational values• Preservation and protection of ecosystems in water allocation and management systems • Water supplies for socio-economic development and activities• Collection and treatment of used water to protect human life and the environment from pollution • Collaborative approaches to transboundary water resources management within and between countries • The ability to cope with uncertainties and risks of water-related hazards • Good governance and accountability, and the due consideration of the interests of all stakeholders

UN Water (2013a), ‘What is Water Security’, Available from: http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic/

UN Water (2013b), ‘Water Security & the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief‘, Available from: http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-global-water-agenda/


Required

This figure is taken from the 2015 OECD report on Water Security. The publication suggests that water issues must be placed within the core of the existing debate of human security. They act as a central link across the range of securities, including political, health, economic, personal, food, energy, and environmental securities. The natural endowment with water resources and planned water resources development provide huge opportu-nities for society, economy and ecosystems and thus contribute to growth, wealth and well-being.

Furthermore, water related hazards represent a potential risk to societies; if they coincide with exposure and vulnerability they lead to losses and damages and prevent sustainable growth. Thus, investments which increase coping capacities are crucial in order to reduce the risk of potential disasters to take place.

Sadoff, C.W., Hall, J.W., Grey, D., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Ait-Kadi, M., Brown, C., Cox, A., Dadson, S., Garrick, D., Kelman, J., McCornick, P., Ringler, C., Rosegrant, M., Whittington, D. & Wiberg, D. (2015), ‘Securing Water, Sustaining Growth: Report of the GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth’, University of Oxford, UK, 180pp.

Optional


Required

This slide presents the worldwide increases in water withdrawals, water consumption and population, com-pared to their levels in 1900. It also plots the projected growth of these values until 2025.

What is immediately evident is that there is a two-fold effect contributing to increased water demand: the increase in global population and the increase in water consumption per capita. A lesser pronounced trend is also evident: that the water withdrawals that are not later consumed are also increasing.

At the global scale, the current water withdrawals are significantly below the total water availability, but the problem is the spatial and temporal distribution of water. Two-thirds of the world population could be living in conditions described as “water stressed” by 2025 if current consumption patterns continue (UN Water, n.d.). Furthermore, population growth is often higher in regions which already face water stress.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012), ‘A Glass Half Empty: Regions at Risk Due to Groundwater Depletion Why is this issue important?’, Available from: https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=76

UN Water (n.d.), ‘Water Scarcity’, Available from: http://www.unwater.org/water-facts/scarcity/


Required

This figure shows the water consumption patterns in different regions of the world for the year 2005. According to the United Nations World Water Assessment Programme, irrigation accounts for nearly 70% of total water withdrawal. In the Middle East and North Africa and Subsahara region, this figure is greater than 80%. For South America, this figure is greater than 60%, as in this region a greater percentage of water is used for indus-trial and municipal uses.

United Nations World Water Assessment Programme, 2012, ‘Facts and Figures: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk’, Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002154/215492e.pdf

Optional


Required

This figure provides some estimates of future water demands. According to OECD (2012), the future water demand at the global scale will increase due to significant growth of water demand for energy production, domestic and manufacturing purposes. According to this modelled scenario, water demand for irrigation may even decrease due to efficiency gains.

The figure also highlights the differences in projected water demand between countries at different levels of development. For example, in the OECD countries, which are predominantly regarded as developed countries, water demand is expected to decrease.

OECD (2012), ‘OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050’, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en


Required

This map shows the projected change of water stress in the period of 2000 to 2025. In particular, many regions in Northern Africa, the Middle East and South Asia are expected to face significant increases in water stress.

Water stress is defined as the ratio of total freshwater withdrawals (circa 2000) to annual renewable freshwater supply (1960-1990 climatological norm), a quantity often referred to as the water withdrawal ratio (WWR). This provides an assessment of freshwater availability in a typical year relative to recent levels of demand for fresh water. High levels of water stress indicate that socioeconomic demand for freshwater approaches (or exceeds) the annual renewable supply. The projected change in water stress is calculated as the ratio of projected water stress to present water stress during a 10-year time frame centred on the year 2025, and based on the IPCC A1B scenario of economic and environmental change, as presented in the Fourth Assessment Report.

Luck, M., Landis, M. & Gassert, F. (2015), ‘Aqueduct Water Stress Projections: Decadal Projections of Water Supply and Demand Using CMIP5 GCMs’, Technical Note. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Available at: wri.org/publication/aqueduct-water-stress-projections


Required

This figure provides an example on how to quantify water security as a composite of five different indicators. With the 2013 “Asian Water Outlook”, the Asian Development Bank proposed and analysed national water security, focussing on five key dimensions, i.e. household, economic, urban, environmental and resilience to water related disasters. Until now, similar statistics are only available for few countries in the world. They are helpful to compare different countries and to identify the reasons behind bad performance regarding specific subsets of water security composite indices, which in turn can inform decision making, necessary investments or capacity development.

Asian Development Bank, 2013: ‘Asian Water Development Outlook: Measuring water security in Asia and the Pacific’, Mandaluyong City, Philip-pines: Asian Development Bank, 2013, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30190/asian-water-development-outlook-2013.pdf


Required

SDG 6 lists the key targets related to water security. This slide presents the key messages of this goal in an abridged form, highlighting the key message for each target. SDG 6 addresses crucial aspects of water security, including water security for people, ambient water quality, water use efficiency, the protection of water related ecosystems and integrated water resources management (IWRM). Aside from SDG 6, SDG 11 also addresses some water-related issues, with targets that relate to the protection against natural hazards, including hydro-meteorological hazards such as floods, droughts, and storms.

UN (n.d.), ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs


Interactive


Required

A simple definition of energy security is provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy security is crucial to ensure long and short term economic development, other sustainable development needs, and social stability. According to the IEA, three components are crucial to consider when assessing energy security: reliability, affordability and accessibility to supplies.

Some authors also refer to the four “A’s” of energy security: Availability (geological and physical elements); Accessibility (geopolitical elements); Affordability (economic elements); and Acceptability (social and environ-mental elements). In this manner, energy security is defined for societies at the national or regional context.

International Energy Agency (IEA) (n.d.), ‘Energy Security‘, Available from: https://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/


Required

This map displays the energy use per capita at the national level, using statistics from 2010. In general, the developed and energy-rich countries have the highest consumption per capita. The least developed countries, particularly in Africa, consume just a fraction of what is consumed by countries such as the United States of America, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iceland and Australia.

Burn (2012), ‘How much energy is the world using’, Available from: http://burnanenergyjournal.com/how-much-energy-are-we-using/


Required

The previous slide displayed the energy consumption per capita in 2010. The two graphs presented here show both the historical increase and projected future increases in energy consumption. The first graph separates the world into OECD and non-OECD countries, highlighting that it is in the non-OECD countries where energy demands are expected to show a sharper increase in the future. The second graph further separates these non-OECD countries according to world region.

Note that these graphs should be considered in conjunction with the map presented on the previous slide. The most developed countries still tend to consume significantly more energy per capita than less developed countries. The graphs on this slide show total energy consumption, which also accounts for populations.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2017), ‘International Energy Outlook 2017’, Available from: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2017).pdf


Required

The top graph separates world energy consumption according to source, with historical data from 1990 to 2015 and predictions from 2015 to 2040 (EIA, 2017). Today approximately 80% of the total energy produced is derived from fossil sources. The projection suggests a levelling off of global coal use, and a pronounced increase in the use of renewable energies to fulfil the void left in projected global energy demand.

The second graph provides a breakdown of the different renewable energies that made up the global share of renewable in 2010 (REN 21, 2012). It is worth noting that the renewable share (16.7% at the time) was almost evenly divided into traditional biomass and what is termed “modern renewables”.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2017), ‘International Energy Outlook 2017’, Available from: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2017).pdf

REN21 (2012), ‘Renewables 2012: Global Status Report’, Paris.


Required

This figure shows the contribution of major sectors to global energy use. Transportation, industry and residen-tial demands each consume approximately one quarter of the total use. Commercial, non-energy and other uses account for 21% altogether. Even though this figure is from 2008, the shares of individual sectors of the total global demand is not changing significantly from year to year.

Quinn, J. (2011), ‘Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy in the Global Context’, [Powerpoint presentation], U.S. Brazil Industrial Energy Efficiency Workshop, Available at: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4841560/

Optional


Required

The figure shows one assumption about “peak oil“, where the maximum annual production of oil and gas (plotted on the y-axis) will be reached sometime in the near future. It is not clear exactly how soon this will occur, given the development of fracking technologies, but eventually we will not be able to satisfy growing demand by fossil fuels alone. This means that a very large energy gap will develop towards the middle of this century, and we require an energy source to satisfy these demands. Thus we have a few decades left to develop renewable or alternative sources of energy or develop other scenarios of energy efficiency.

Campbell, CJ. (2003), ’The Essence of Oil & Gas Depletion’, Multiscience, London.


Required

This map presents energy access and security, determined at the country level, according to calculations made by the World Economic Forum. The energy access and security index was calculated by looking at three aspects:• Self-sufficiency (diversification of import counterparts and energy imports)• Diversity of supply (diversity of total primary energy supply)• Level and quality of access (electrification rate, quality of electricity supply and population using solid fuels

for cooking)

The high performing countries are located in Northern America, Western Europe, Australia and few countries in Asia. The worst performing countries are typically located in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the MENA and LAC regions, most countries are medium or poor performers, with Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and a several Gulf countries being an exception.

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2016), ‘Global Energy Architecture Performance Index Report 2016’, Geneva. Available from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Energy_Architecture_Performance_Index_2016.pdf


Required

This figure shows the development of CO2 emissions during the period 1971-2014. Globally, fossil fuels are the main source of energy and the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In the period shown, the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption more than doubled. CO2 emissions are the main culprit for climate change, which heavily impacts the water cycle as well as biomass and food production.

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2017), ‘Key world energy statistics’, France, Available from: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf


Required

It is estimated that in 2015, approximately 2.8 billion people had no access to modern energy services. Of these, over 1.1 billion did not have access to electricity. Thus, the key development goal for many regions is to provide access to energy. Current estimates show that air pollution due to unclean energy sources are responsible for the death of 4.3 million people every year. In addition, energy production is the main source of greenhouse gases.

Therefore, the promotion of renewable energies and increased energy efficiencies are seen as crucial. The SDG 7 targets aim to work towards a sustainable, energy-secure world.



RequiredInteractive


Required

This slide provides a common definition for food security that was used during the World Food Summit in 1996 and is continued to be seen as appropriate today. There are many causes of food insecurity. Low agricultural production is identified as one of these, as agricultural production is often prone to shocks such as those caused by natural hazards, in particular droughts. This is often combined with a low ability to buy food products on international markets and a high rate of post harvest losses due to insufficient logistics such as transport, storage and cooling.

The impacts of food insecurity are diverse. The most apparent effects are stunted growth and chronic nutri-tional deficiencies, while more indirect consequences of food insecurity are social unrest and migration.

FAO (2006), ‘Food Security’, Policy Brief, June 2006, Issue 2, Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-0e6f36f27e0091055bec28e-be830f46b3.pdf


Required

Food security is a multi-dimensional concept. The four basic dimensions of food security are: • Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied through

domestic production or imports (including food aid)• Food access: Access by individuals to adequate resources for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious

diet• Utilisation: Utilisation of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state

of nutritional well-being• Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to adequate food at all

times. The stability dimension also refers to access and availability, in the sense that community and house-hold should not risk losing food access and availability in any circumstances

FAO (2006), ‘Food Security’, Policy Brief, June 2006, Issue 2, Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-0e6f36f27e0091055bec28e-be830f46b3.pdf


Required

This map shows the percentage of the population in each country that is affected by undernourishment from 2014 to 2016. The lightest shade of red refers to 5-15% of the population being affected by undernourishment. In total, approximately 793 million people in the world still lack sufficient food for conducting an active and healthy life. Even though the MDG target to prevent undernourishment between 2000 and 2015 was achieved in many countries, it failed in others. Thus, more efforts are necessary to continue reducing the existing levels of undernourishment. In addition to systematic development challenges, natural and human-induced disasters and political instability have contributed to protracted crises, and have increased vulnerability and food insecu-rity among large sections of the population.

FAO (2008a), ‘An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security’, Practical Guide, Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf

FAO (2015a), ‘FAO Hunger Map 2015: Millennium Development Goal 1 and World Food Summit Hunger Targets’, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4674e.pdf


Required

This map shows the net trade in food. In this map, net food trade is defined as the net difference between food exports and food imports, presented as a percentage of the total food consumption within that country. Also, countries facing undernourishment (defined as having 20% or more of the population being undernourishment) are shown with a hatched line pattern.

There are a number of important points of reference. Firstly, there are only a few net exporters of food; the main countries being USA, Canada, Ukraine, Argentina and Australia, with a number of other South American and South East Asian economies also net exporters of food. In Europe, only a few countries such as France and Germany are net exporters of food, with many other countries being net importers. The most striking pattern in the map is the reliance of the entire African continent on food imports, especially the North African region. The other notable pattern is the reliance of both China and India have on food imports despite the scale of their own domestic agricultural output.

The British Geographer (n.d.), ‘Spatial Patterns of Food’, Available from: http://thebritishgeographer.weebly.com/spatial-patterns-of-food.html


Required

This figure shows the growth of food production between 1961 and 1999 (with 1961 as the base year for all statistics), from which the global increase in agricultural production was 140% (more than population growth). It shows that most of this production increase can be attributed to development in Asia. However in Africa, the production of food actually dropped in that time, partially explaining the food security challenge in many of its countries.

It can be relevant and interesting to ask questions such as:• Why does food production experience spikes of growth and decline? • What has enabled Asia to increase its food production by so much? • Why has European food production fallen since the 1980s? • In contrast, why has US food production increased over the whole time period? • Finally, and very importantly, why has African food production declined over the 40 year period despite inde-

pendence, development and billions of dollars of multilateral aid support?


Optional


The yield gap refers to the difference between two levels of yield. On this slide, these two levels are the observed yields and the attainable yields (the best yield achieved through skilful use of the best available tech-nology) for maize, wheat and rice. The yield gaps are presented as a percentage of the attainable yield. (FAO, 2015b; Mueller et al., 2012)

This figure shows the yield gap for major cereals at a global scale. For example, it shows that in parts of Africa, achieved yields are a mere 10% of the attainable yield. This figure for USA, Canada, Western Europe and some parts of China and India is typically >80%. The situation in Central Europe, Latin America and Central Asia is rather mixed and varies widely. Overall, this figure shows that many regions in the world are still far from approaching attainable yield. Increasing yields are possible through agricultural management practices such as water and nutrient provision and disease control.

FAO (2015b), ‘Yield gap analysis of field crops: Methods and case studies’, FAO, Rome, Italy. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4695e.pdf

Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, R. & Foley, J.A. (2012), ‘Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water manage-ment, Nature, vol. 490, pp. 254-257.

Optional


Required

This slide emphasises the problem of food waste. Next to large scale crop failure and destruction of harvest on the field contributing to the yield gap, post-harvest losses are often very significant! It is estimated that worldwide approximately 1/3 of global food production is wasted. In developing countries this is often due to a lack of storage, transport and refrigeration. In industrial countries it is often because retailers and consumers are actually throwing away food.

Oxfam Australia (2012), ‘What’s wrong with our food system?’, Available at: https://www.oxfam.org.au/2012/05/whats-wrong-with-our-food-system/


Required

Aside from producing essential food, agriculture provides an important source of income and employment, and thus contributes to social stability, among other things. In less developed countries, farmers often are smallholders with the “family farm” being the typical unit of production, often on less than 1 ha property. Family and smallholder farming is identified as a key step in eradicating global food insecurity. These farms involve organising agricultural activities, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production, and is predominantly reliant on family labour.

FAO (2014a), ‘Family Farmers: Feeding the world, caring for the earth’, Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/mj760e/mj760e.pdf


Required

Family and smallholder farms help to mobilise local economic activities. Their roles are vital in achieving the SDGs and should be acknowledged in national and international policies.

In order to support family farming in poor countries, the following strategies are recommended:• On-farm investments for increasing productivity and developing resilience• Collective investments in productive assets• Investing in risk management strategies• Improving smallholders’ access to input markets• Investing to develop markets that favour smallholders• Increasing smallholders’ access to financial services• Investing in enabling institutions for social protection, tenure protection, etc.


HLPE (2013), ‘Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-6_Investing_in_smallholder_agriculture.pdf


Required

This graph presents the breakdown of farmland areas held by different parties from an 81 country global subset, and divided according to world region. Note that the y-axis is a measure of the total plots of land, not the total land area occupied for farming.

80% of the farmland in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia is managed by smallholders (defined as an area of up to 10 hectares). There are 450 million smallholder farmers in the developing world, and 73% of the holdings are land areas of less than 1 ha. Smallholder agriculture is the foundation for food security in many countries and an important part of the socio/economic/ecological landscape in all countries. Strengthening the resilience of smallholder agriculture to climate change impacts is an important step towards eradicating global poverty.

Income is important for smallholders’ access to food, manufactured goods and services of all kinds. The value of the production per hectare is therefore an important parameter, especially when exploitations are “small”. The intensity of employment is also an important contributing factor, as smallholder agriculture is labour-inten-sive.


FAO (2016), ‘The State of Food and Agriculture’, Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6132e.pdf

Optional


Required

This slide lists the key targets of SDG 2. SDG 2 puts food security as its centre and refers to ending hunger and malnutrition but also to increase productivity. Resilient agricultural practices refer to developing coping mechanisms to deal with shocks, which include water-related shocks such as drought, floods and storms.



Interactive


Required

2.2


Required

In this context, we would like to re-emphasise the relevance of the underlying conceptual framework of the WEF security Nexus, as already presented in Chapter 1. Different Nexus concepts focus on varying intercon-nections and feedbacks. Note that numerous other Nexus frameworks exist.

The concept presented here (GIZ, 2016) is an integrated approach, where the ecosystem is located at the centre. The three resources are equally allocated to it. The three ‘supply securities’ of water, energy and food depend on ecosystems and they interact with each other. The resources land, water and energy (atmosphere) are part of this ecosystem and must be used and protected in a balanced manner.



Required

In this section we provide some examples on the relationships between water and food. The key questions addressed are:• How much water is needed for food production and security?• What are the implications of agricultural activities on the quantity and quality of water resources?

First, we provide insight related to globally and regionally varying water demand for food production. In 2014, approximately 69% of the global water withdrawal was used for irrigation. The vast majority (96%) of global water withdrawals are from freshwater sources, i.e. lakes, rivers and underground sources. (FAO, 2014b)

After a general overview on the increase in water demand due to population growth and development, we introduce the concepts of the “water footprint” and “virtual water” to illustrate the challenges related to the use of water in food production.

Trade-offs to be highlighted:Irrigation: Food production vs. water scarcity (demand higher than availability)Food production vs. deteriorated water quality (diffuse pollution with nutrients and pesticides)

FAO (2014b), ‘Water Withdrawal’, Prepared by AQUASTAT, Available from: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/infographics/Withdrawal_eng.pdf


Required

This map from Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012) shows the spatial distribution of the total yearly water consump-tion (over the period 1996-2005) and its spatial distribution in the world in order to illustrate the large impact of agricultural production on water resources. They calculated an average global annual freshwater withdrawal of 9.1 Gm3/y (74% green (rain), 11% blue (groundwater), 15% grey (reuse)).

Hoekstra, A.Y. & Mekonnen, M.M. (2012), ‘The water footprint of humanity’, PNAS, vol. 109, No. 9, pp. 3232-3237


Required

The map separates water uses into irrigation, domestic, and industrial purposes for various river basins in the world. The size of the circle is representative of the total water quantity used. It is evident that in most regions, agriculture is by far the biggest water user.

Sadoff, C.W., Hall, J.W., Grey, D., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Ait-Kadi, M., Brown, C., Cox, A., Dadson, S., Garrick, D., Kelman, J., McCornick, P., Ringler, C., Rosegrant, M., Whittington, D. and Wiberg, D. (2015), ‘Securing Water, Sustaining Growth: Report of the GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth’, University of Oxford, UK, 180pp


Required

To provide an idea about the dynamics in water consumption over time and increasing water shortage, Kummu et al. (2010) illustrate the growth of population under water shortage for the period 1900-2005, compared to the increase in world reservoir capacity, increase in irrigated area, increase in abstraction of groundwater and global trade of agricultural products (as an indicator of virtual water flows). Since the 1970s, the number of people living under water stress has doubled to amount to 3.5 billion people. During the same period, the irri-gated area doubled to 300 x 106 ha. Abstraction of groundwater has also sharply increased over this timeframe.

Kummu, M., Ward, P. J., De Moel, H., & Varis, O. (2010), ‘Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia’, Environmental Research Letters, 5. 034006.

Optional


Required

This figure shows the volume of water needed in the production of different agricultural goods.

Virtual water is the amount of water needed for the production of food and other products. This concept allows countries under water stress to consider importing products of high water consumption instead of producing them within the country, which would allow the available water resources to be used for other purposes.

Water Footprint Network (2018), ‘Virtual Water Inside Products’, Available from: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/multi-media


Required

About one-fifth of the globally available water resources is used in agricultural production for products that are exported. This map from Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012) plots a virtual water (as defined on the previous slide) balance per country. The total volume of international virtual water flows related to trade in agricultural and industrial products was 2,320 Gm3/y (68% green, 13% blue, 19% grey). Consumption of cereal products has the largest contribution to the water footprint of the average consumer (27%), followed by meat (22%) and milk products (7%).



Required

This map, presented in OECD (2017), shows the global distribution of water pollution hazard, including the effects of nutrient and pesticide loading, mercury deposition, salinisation, acidification, and sediment and organic loading.

Agricultural production worldwide leads to severe surface and groundwater water quality degradation. Farms discharge large quantities of agrochemicals, organic matter, drug residues, sediments and saline drainage into water bodies. The resultant water pollution poses severe risks to aquatic ecosystems, human health and productive activities (UNEP, 2016).

OECD (2017), ‘Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions’, OECD Publishing, Paris.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2016). ‘A Snapshot of the World’s Water Quality: Towards a global assessment’, Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).


Required

This figure presents the global distribution of net anthropogenic nitrate inputs (NANI) at the scale of the world’s watersheds, as calculated by Billen, Garnier & Lassaletta (2013).

Agricultural production worldwide leads to severe surface and groundwater water quality degradation due to diffuse source indirect pollution, for example from pesticides and nutrients (nitrate and phosphorus). These stem from fertilisers and livestock which are leached into the water bodies, especially during wet periods. Due to the high spatial and temporal variability of diffuse pollution, it is difficult monitor and to manage. As its exact sources (and the “polluters”) often cannot be detected, there is political resistance to work on solutions.

85% of the net anthropogenic input of reactive nitrogen occurs on only 43% of the land area.

Modern agriculture based on the use of synthetic fertilisers and the decoupling of crop and animal production is responsible for the largest part of anthropogenic losses of reactive nitrogen to the environment.

Billen, G., Garnier, J. & Lassaletta, L. (2013) ‘The nitrogen cascade from agricultural soils to the sea: modelling nitrogen transfers at regional water-shed and global scales’, Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20130123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0123

Optional


Required

In this section we provide some examples on the interconnections between water and energy.

Key questions addressed are: • How relevant are water resources for energy generation and security? • What are the implications of energy production on the quantity and quality of water resources?

Water is used for extraction, mining, processing, refining, cooling power plants and residue disposal of fossil fuels, as well as for growing crops for biofuels and hydropower. The water quantity needed varies in the energy sector, with oil and gas production requiring much less water than oil from tar sands or biofuels.

Energy is required for water abstraction, pumping for irrigation, wastewater treatment and also for treating and distributing safe drinking water. The energy intensity required to access a cubic meter of water varies: accessing local surface water requires far less energy than pumping groundwater, reclaiming wastewater or desalinating seawater. Irrigation is more energy intensive than rain-fed agriculture, and drip irrigation is even more intensive because the water must be pressurised.

Many forms of energy production through fossil fuels are highly polluting in addition to being water demanding, especially extraction from tar sands and shale and extraction through hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, return flows from power plants to rivers are warmer than the water that was taken in, and/or are highly polluted and can consequently compromise other downstream usage, including ecosystems.

Highlighted trade-offs :• Changes in seasonal downstream water availability due to hydropower generation• Hydropower impacts on water quality and aquatic life

continued on next page...


The following table summarises the different energy-related activities involving water resources and their impacts on them.

Energy Element Implications for Water Quantity Impacts on Water Quality

Energy Extraction and Production

Oil and Gas Exploration Water for drilling, completion, and fracturing

Impact on shallow groundwater quality

Oil and Gas Production Large volume of produced, impaired water

Produced water can impact surface and groundwater

Coal and Uranium Mining Mining operations can generate large quantities of water

Tailings and drainage can impact surface water and ground-water

Electric Power Generation

Thermo electric (fossil, biomass, nuclear, solar thermal)

Surface water and groundwater for cooling and scrubbing

Thermal and air emissions from impact surface waters and ecology

Hydro electric Reservoirs lose large quantities to evaporation

Can impact water temperatures, quality, ecology

Solar PV and Wind None during operation; minimal water use for panel and blade washing

Refining and Processing

Traditional Oil and Gas Refining Water needed to refine oil and gas End use can impact water quality

Biofuels and Ethanol Water for growing and refining Refinery waste water treatment

Synfuels and Hydrogen Water for synthesis or steam reforming Wastewater treatment

Energy Transportation

Energy Pipelines Water for hydrostatic testing Wastewater requires treatment

Coal Slurry Pipelines Water for slurry transport; water not returned

Final water is poor quality; requires treatment

Barge Transport of Energy River flows and stages impact fuel delivery

Spills or accidents can impact water quality

Murray, M. (2008), ‘The Water Energy Nexus’, [Powerpoint Presentation], Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, Univer-sity of California Santa Barbara, May 8-9, 2008

... continued from previous page


Required

This figure shows the installed hydropower potential as a fraction of the undeveloped hydropower potential in each continent. Furthermore, it displays the difference between installed capacity and generation in the year 2009.

Hydropower often leads to trade-offs with food production (water for irrigation) and the aquatic environment. Hydropower is currently the largest renewable source for power generation in the world, meeting 16% of global electricity needs in 2010. Africa (92%), followed by Asia (80%), Australasia/Oceania (80%) and Latin America (74%) have the highest untapped hydropower potentials, although only two-thirds of this potential is believed to be economically feasible.

World Water Development Report (WWDR), 2014, ‘Water and Energy’, Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002257/225741E.pdf


Required

Spang et al. (2014) estimate that approximately 52 billion cubic meters of fresh water is consumed annually for global energy production. They gathered global statistical data to show how much water is used by country for energy production. The United States of America and China consume by far the most water for electric power generation. Fossil fuels consume significant proportions of water in most countries and nuclear fuel production plays a minimal role overall.

Spang, E.S., Moomaw, W.R., Gallagher, K.S., Kirshen, P.H. & Marks, D.H. (2014), ‘The water consumption of energy production: an international comparison’, Environmental Research Letters, (9) 105002


Required

Graham et al. (2017) highlight the need to increase water use efficiency in water treatment and irrigation. They found that seawater desalination is becoming increasingly energy efficient due to the use of energy recovery devices, higher-permeability membranes and more efficient pumps.

Graham, E.J.S., Baktian, N., Camacho, L.M., Chellam, S., Mroue, A., Sperling, J.B., Topolski, K. & Xu, P. (2017), ‘Energy for Water and Desalina-tion’, Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Reports, vol. 4, Iss. 3, pp. 109–116, DOI 10.1007/s40518-017-0076-2


Required

In this section we provide some examples on the interconnections between food (land) and energy. The key questions addressed are: • How much energy is needed for food production and security? • To what extent should agricultural products contribute to energy generation?

The increased food security that has resulted from agricultural mechanisation and automatisation has strongly increased the energy demand. The food production and supply chain claims approximately 30% of total global energy demand (Popp et al., 2014).

Agricultural products versus biofuels is an important trade-off: The use of agricultural land for biofuels will further stress food production agriculture. The FAO projected that biofuel production by 2030 will require 35 million hectares of land, an area approximately the size of France and Spain combined (FAO, 2008b). By 2050, there is a projected 60% increase in required food production (FAO, 2012), and achieving this increase will be difficult because of rising energy prices, depletion of aquifers available for water withdrawal, and the continuing loss of farmland to urbanisation.

The energy sector can also have negative impacts on the food sector when mining for fossil fuels, deforestation for biofuels reducing land for agriculture, ecosystems and other land uses.

FAO (2008b), ‘Climate change, biofuels and land’, Available from: http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/010/i0142e/i0142e05.pdf

FAO (2012), ‘World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 Revision’, ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M. & Fári, M. (2014), ‘The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 32, pp. 559-578.


Required

The left three columns of this figure show the indicative shares of final energy consumption for both high and low GDP countries, as well as the global average. Energy is required in every step of the food chain: produc-tion (crops, livestock, fisheries), processing and distribution, as well as in retail, preparation and cooking.

Each step has a carbon footprint associated with it, which is measured in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and accounts for almost 20% of global GHG emissions. The fourth column separates the energy into green-house gas emissions instead of energy inputs, and the fifth column divides these greenhouse gas emissions into CO2, CH4 and N2O.

Direct energy uses in agriculture are: electricity, mechanical power, fuels. Indirect energy uses in agriculture are: energy required to produce fertilisers and pesticides, as well as for producing equipment and machines.

FAO (2011), ‘”Energy-smart” food for people and climate’, Issue Paper, Rome, Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2454e/i2454e00.pdf


Required

Bioenergy is energy from organic matter (biomass), i.e. all materials of biological origin that are not embedded in geological formations (fossilised). Data show that in 2013, 14% of global final energy consumption was from bioenergy. (World Energy Council, 2016)

The graph on the left shows the global primary supply of biomass resources in 2013. The historical increases in ethanol and biodiesel production are shown on the two graphs to the right. Biofuels rely on about 2-3% of the global water and land used for agriculture, which could feed about 30% of the malnourished population (Rulli et al., 2016).

Rulli et al. (2016) evaluated the impacts of biofuels on food security and water resources. They provided a global assessment of biofuel crop production, reconstructed global patterns of biofuel crop/oil trade and deter-mined the associated displacement of water and land use. They also found that: • Bioethanol is mostly produced with domestic crops, while 36% of biodiesel consumption relies on interna-

tional trade, mainly from Southeast Asia• Between 2000 and 2008, the consumption of bioethanol doubled in the USA and underwent a five-fold

increase in Brazil• In 2013, approximately 86 million tonnes of biofuels were consumed globally, including 65 million tonnes of

bioethanol and 21 million tonnes of biodiesel• In 2013, 1.91 × 106 TJ/y of bioethanol and 0.82 × 106 TJ/y of biodiesel energy were produced worldwide,

claiming an area of approximately 41.3 million ha, which accounts for about 4% of the global arable area• Biofuel production consumed 216 billion m3 of water, which corresponds to about 3% of the global water

consumption for food production• The land footprint of biodiesel is on average more than 100% greater than that of bioethanol. These values,

however, vary substantially, depending on the crop and geographic location

Rulli, M.C., Bellomi, D., Cazzoli, A. De Carolis, G. & D’Odorico, P. (2016), ‘The water-land-food nexus of first generation biofuels’, Nature Scientific Reports, vol. 6, Article number: 22521.

Steenblik, R. (2007), ‘Biofuels - At What Cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in selected OECD countries’, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Available from: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/biofuels_oecd_synthesis_report.pdf

World Energy Council (2016), ‘World Energy Resources: Bioenergy 2016’, Available from: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Bioenergy_2016.pdf


Required

2.3


Required


Required

The Reventazón River Basin contains 2 main rivers: the Agua Caliente River (29.3 km length) flows into the Reventazón River (163.5 km), which discharges into the Caribbean Sea.

The Reventazón River Basin is vital to the economic and social development of Costa Rica. The river is the drinking water source for 25% of the population of Costa Rica’s greater metropolitan area. The following are produced in high quantities in the basin: hydropower, cement, vegetables, sugar cane, milk, meat, coffee, banana, macadamia and flowers.

Due to its relevance, this is the only basin of Costa Rica that has a legally regulated administrator: The Com-mission for the Ordering and Management of the Reventazón River Basin.

Jouravlev, A., Rodriguez, A. & Peñailillo, R. (2017), ‘National cases in LAC: Costa Rica & Brazil’, [Powerpoint Presentation], Bonn.

Vargas, M.B. & Lee, T.L. (2017), ‘El Nexo entre el agua, la energía y la alimentación en Costa Rica: El caso de la cuenca alta del río Reventazón’, Serie Recursos Naturales e Infraestructura, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Santiago.

Optional


Required

The equilibrium of this basin has been threatened by anthropogenic degradation processes and the inadequate use of the natural resources, mainly soil and water.

13% of the soil is in the basin is considered to be overused, which produces serious erosion problems. More than 94 tonnes of solid waste are produced within the basin, of which 26% is not collected. Furthermore, approximately 772 tonnes of sediments per year are deposited at the bottom of the dams of hydropower plants. The inexistence of urban waste water treatment plants, the over-application of chemical fertilisers and pesti-cides, and the bad disposal of solid residues in farms and cities have made the Reventazón River the second most contaminated river of Costa Rica.



Optional


Required

Water and Energy• Priority allocation of water for energy production: The priority use of the water resources of the Reven-

tazón River basin is for hydropower generation, which is undertaken by both public and private companies. This water use for hydropower competes with the other productive activities of the basin, mainly with food production (in the north of the basin), industrial production, and the demands of the ecosystems. Recurrent periods of drought have exacerbated this situation, as they have caused decreased flows and a prolonged dry season.

• Interdependency between Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE) and the Costa Rican Institute for Canals and Sewage (AyA): The dam El Llano was built to supply water for the hydropower plant Río Macho. In 1987, due to the lack of sources to fulfil the drinking water demand in the great metropolitan area, the AyA built an inter-basin water transfer (Orosi aqueduct), which transports 2.1 m3/s to the greater metropolitan area, providing for 25% of the water demand in that area. This situation creates an interdependency between the energy production and the drinking water production sectors. However, this dependency must be con-tinuous. Although the required water volume is not currently very high, municipal demand for water and for energy will likely increase in the future.

• Environmental externalities and mitigation measures: The hydropower plants and dams impact the aquatic ecosystems and the water quality within the basin. The cleaning processes can generate large quantities of suspended sediments. To prevent these impacts, protection areas for the water sources were acquired, and basin management practices was defined.

Competition exists between water use for hydropower generation and the minimum flow requirements to main-tain biological functions within the river. Infrastructure should be operated so that minimum environmental flows are maintained; however, some operators have not respected these rules. The responsible government agency is currently planning to legislate these required minimum flows.

Environmental impacts have been evident in the construction of the hydropower projects Cachí, Angostura, La Joya and Reventazón, where the lodging of complaints by environmental and social groups delayed the construction of those projects. In some cases, the environmental impacts were mitigated and compensated through environmental management plans associated with the environmental impacts studies.

continued on next page...

Optional


Energy and Food Production• Modernisation of irrigation systems: There is an incentive to modernise irrigation systems (eg. drip and sprinkler irrigation)

to increase water use efficiency. Such improvements would decrease the water requirements per hectare, increasing water availability, enabling the cultivation of new agricultural areas and optimising the number of harvests per year. However, such advances would also signify an increase in energy consumption requirements and could increase contamination due to the use of more agrochemicals and increased wastewater discharges.

• Energy costs of new irrigation water sources: Water resources for agricultural uses are scarce in the northern part of the basin. Potential solutions include long-distance water transfers, which may increase irrigation costs and energy needs, and could also pose environmental problems.

Water and Food Production• Lack of irrigation infrastructure: Although the National Department of Irrigation and Drainage (SENARA) has implemented 22

small irrigation projects in the upper and middle regions of the basin, the agricultural water demands of these areas are not fulfilled due to the lack of irrigation infrastructure or modern irrigation technologies. This, in addition to the climate variability, has limited the number of harvests per year and the variety of crops.

• No wastewater reuse: There are no wastewater treatment plants within the basin, meaning that wastewater is discharged directly into the rivers. This situation, combined with the overuse of agrochemicals, leads to a loss in water quality and limits the reuse of this water for food production.

• Illegal use of water: There is an illegal use of the water resources from some agricultural producers and other water users, making it difficult to precisely quantify the water demands of the basin. Given the lack of hydrological studies covering the region, it is difficult to estimate water supplies and requirements.

Water, Energy and Food Production• Water confined to specific uses: It is difficult to obtain multiple water uses for the water resources, which has created non-op-

timal situations. For example, one administrator has a water concession of 1 m3/s for hydropower generation on the river Birris, and although part of this discharge is not utilised, it is not possible to use the water for other purposes.

• Limitations in current basin management: Sometimes, the Nexus-related institutions plan their investments and actions inter-nally, without proper communication with other institutions that are affected by their decisions. By failing to carry out effective coordination between institutions, it has been difficult to optimise the use of water resources and achieve synergies.

• Achieving irrigation potential: Although hydropower production is a non-consumptive use, there are conflicts for the water use between some irrigation projects. Agreements for shared use of water resources between the stakeholders could improve the situation. Increasing water use efficiency for irrigation would enable the enlargement of agricultural production areas and inten-sify production, improving the profitability for producers. However, this could also lead to an increase in the energy demand, with a possible impact in the food prices.

• Conservation and soil management: Soil conservation and management actions, sustainable agriculture, and the protection of headwaters and recharge areas undertaken by the sectorial institutions have enabled a reduction of 20% in sediments in dams and reservoirs. This is one of the most visible achievements of the basin management plan. This has benefitted hydropower generation, water quality and agricultural producers. However, due to the topographic conditions, the pluvial regime of the zone and inadequate agricultural and livestock practices, high levels of sedimentation still persist (50% of the sediments are from natural processes and 50% from human activities), and this increases the costs of energy production.

... continued from previous page


Required

The Aral Sea basin is shared by eight countries in central Asia, with water discharging into the Aral Sea via two major rivers. The climate is sharply continental, and the lowland areas are characterised by high evaporation rates. Water reservoirs and hydropower plants have been built in the basin, and major canals serve irrigation, though the condition of the irrigation infrastructure is poor, and agricultural water use efficiency is also low (Granit et al., 2012).

Keskinen et al. (2016) developed a “Nexus triangle” concept summarising key Nexus interconnections and the relevance of each Nexus sector in different transboundary river basins. This slide presents the Nexus triangle for Central Asia, with key connections and impacts as well as current levels of security described with text. The asterisk assigned to the ‘F’ indicates that food sector also includes a very important non-food crop, i.e. cotton.

The purpose of presenting the Aral Sea Basin case study is to show how water can be inequitably distributed within a basin as a result of overexploitation of water resources. In the mountainous areas of the upstream countries a large quantity of water is available. Downstream countries, such as Uzbekistan, are abstracting a large portion of the available water resources for unsustainable irrigation uses (e.g. cotton for exporting). Upstream countries use the water to produce hydropower, controlling the release of the water based off set quotas, which is often not compatible with downstream irrigation needs.

Granit, J., Jägerskog, A., Lindström, A., Björklund, G., Bullock, A., Löfgren, R., de Gooijer, G. & Pettigrew, S. (2012), ‘Regional Options for Addressing the Water, Energy and Food Nexus in Central Asia and the Aral Sea Basin’, Water Resources Development, vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 419-432.

Keskinen, M., Guillaume, J.H.A., Kattelus, M., Porkka, M., Räsänen, T.A. & Varis, O. (2016), ‘The Water-Energy-Food Nexus and the Transboundary Context: Insights from Large Asian Rivers’, Water, vol. 8, Iss. 5, doi:10.3390/w8050193

Optional


Required

This slide highlights the stark difference in water resources availability and uses in the upstream and down-stream countries of the basin.

Due to irrigation, the groundwater levels have risen sharply in some irrigation areas, for example some parts of Turkmenistan have seen groundwater levels rise by 2.5 m. Given the high evaporation rates in the lowlands of the basin, intensive soil salinisation has resulted, thus affecting agriculture. (Granit et al., 2012)

There is also a projected reduction in long-term glacial runoff due to climate change impacts (Granit et al., 2012).

Granit, J., Jägerskog, A., Lindström, A., Björklund, G., Bullock, A., Löfgren, R., de Gooijer, G. & Pettigrew, S. (2012), ‘Regional Options for Addressing the Water, Energy and Food Nexus in Central Asia and the Aral Sea Basin’, Water Resources Development, vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 419-432.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2006), Water withdrawal and availability in Aral Sea basin. Available from: http://envsec.grid.unep.ch/centasia/index.php

Optional


Required

After the altering of the natural water flows and intense use of surface water resources, the Aral Sea basin has shrunk to approximately 10% of its former surface area, and less than 10% of its former volume. Conse-quences of this geographic alteration have been the collapse of the fishing industry, compromised drinking water, soil salinisation and the proliferation of dust storms due to the formation of a man-made desert. These dust storms carry and spread sand and dust that has been contaminated by human activities (eg. use of pesti-cides and fertilisers). (UNEP, 2014)

Despite these environmental consequences, parties are currently unable to resolve disputes or work in cooper-ation, with some parties concerned that serious conflicts could evolve, potentially war (Collado, 2015).

Collado, R.E. (2015), ‘Water War in Central Asia: the Water Dilemma of Turkmenistan’, Geopolitical Monitor, Available from: https://www.geopoliti-calmonitor.com/water-war-in-central-asia-the-water-dilemma-of-turkmenistan/

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2014), ‘The future of the Aral Sea lies in transboundary co–operation’, Available at: https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=108

Optional


Required

The Mallarauco Valley is an area of 238 km2, located approximately 70 km west of Santiago de Chile. It is an alluvial valley enclosed by mountains of medium height, and forms part of the Maipo Basin, within the sub basin Puange-Melipilla, at the west side of the Mapocho river, several kilometres before this river connects with the Maipo river. Previously, this valley had a low agricultural production, which was the cultivation of cereals (mainly wheat) at a rate of one harvest per year. (Díaz, 2016)

To increase water availability for agricultural production, an artificial channel (Canal Mallarauco) was built towards the end of the 19th century. By enabling a permanent water supply (the granted water rights are 20 m3/s, but the average flow is 5.0 m3/s) to the valley, large-scale irrigation of the valley became possible. The other significant advance to enable agricultural development was the introduction of drip irrigation technologies in recent decades. This enabled the agricultural exploitation of hill sides with pronounced slopes, thus changing the landscape of the valley. For example, analysis of satellite imagery indicates that the agricultural area of the valley increased by approximately 1,200 hectares during the period 1975-2008, predominantly on the hill sides. This agricultural growth was also fostered by subsidies from the government to support private agricultural investment in the country. (Díaz, 2016; Tesser, 2013)

Díaz. S, (2016), ‘Assessment of the Water-Energy-Food-Nexus in the Mallarauco Valley’, Master Thesis. ITT, TH Köln.

Tesser, C.E.E. (2013), ‘El agua y los territorios hídricos en la Región Metropolitana de Santiago de Chile. Casos de estudio: Tiltil, Valle de Mallar-auco y San Pedro de Melipilla’, Santiago, Chile.

Optional


Required

There is a high dependency on the Mallarauco Canal to supply the water needed for potable water, food pro-duction and energy generation within the valley.

AgricultureAgricultural areas have replaced many hillside areas which were originally covered by native flora. These areas are predominantly used for fruit crops of high profitability (lemons, oranges, avocados, etc.). In the lower regions of the valley, almost all available land is exploited for diverse agricultural needs, including vegetable crops and livestock production.

These developments have created benefits for the inhabitants of the valley, such as a decrease in poverty, improved job opportunities, improved access to health services, improvements in public infrastructure and improvement in sanitary conditions (Núñez, 2014).

HydropowerA small hydropower plant (without an accompanying reservoir) was built in 2011 to take advantage of the water in the Canal Mallarauco, and it provides electricity for the local grid. The machine and operation room were built 15 m below the soil level in order to be incorporated adequately with the local landscape. The process to comply with all the environmental and sectorial regulations to build this plant was a long joint project that took approximately eight years.

Drinking WaterThe La Higuera aquifer extends over the valley, and three extraction wells are used for the drinking water supply. This extracted water is purified and chlorinated, and its quality is routinely monitored.


Núñez., R (2014), ‘Cambios en el Mundo Rural de la Comuna de Melipilla desde los Significados Atribuidos por sus Actores, frente a la Modernidad en su Espacio Local’, Santiago, Chile.

Optional


Required

Vulnerability from increasing water consumption upstream in the Maipo BasinGiven the extreme dependence on the water resources provided by Canal Mallarauco, this stable situation of prosperity could be seriously threatened if the upstream water consumption in the Maipo Basin increases to a point which results in an inadequate quantity of water being diverted into Canal Mallarauco. Exacerbating this risk is are projected changes in water availability resulting from climate change.

This upstream area of the Maipo Basin (i.e. before the point at which water is extracted for Canal Mallarauco) includes the metropolitan region of Santiago de Chile. By 2030, within the upstream areas of the Maipo Basin, water demand is predicted to increase for drinking water (15% increase), industry (165%), mining (300%), forestry (67%) and tourism (321%) (DGA, 2007).

Water quality deteriorationAn important impediment for the agricultural development of the Maipo Basin is water quality. According to the Chilean Sanitary Code, the cultivation of vegetables of raw consumption that are irrigated with water with a contamination higher than 1000 faecal coliforms per 100 ml of water is prohibited.

The water quality deteriorates further downstream in the valley, since many households illegally discharge wastewater directly into the channels, due to the inexistence of a sewage system. As a consequence of dimin-ished water quality, there are limitations on agriculture types in the valley, despite the suitable weather and soil, and sufficient water supply.

Dirección General de Aguas (DGA) (2007), ‘Estimaciones De Demanda De Agua y Proyecciones Futuras. Zona II. Regiones V a XII y Región Metropolitana’, Santiago, Chile.


Optional


Required

The Mallarauco Valley is a system where the components of the WEF Nexus are constantly interacting. Water is necessary to produce energy, to produce drinking water, to irrigate the agricultural areas and for livestock needs. Energy is required constantly to pump water for drip irrigation, to produce drinking water, and for all the processes associated with meat and milk production. The area produces large quantities of food, of which the majority is exported to outside the study area. The WEF interconnections are affected by external forces such as consumption patterns, climatic conditions and contamination.

(A more detailed explanation of this form of Nexus flux diagram is presented in Chapter 3).


Optional


Required

From 1982 to 1987, the water table in Central Punjab was falling an average of 18 cm per year. That rate of decline accelerated to 42 cm per year from 1997 to 2002, and to 75 cm per year from 2002 to 2006. Ground-water extraction has increased considerably to meet water demand for agriculture, food, population and industry. With the increase in irrigation from groundwater, the area under canal irrigation has been decreasing.

Flammini, A., Puri, M., Pluschke, L. & Dubois, O (2014), ‘Walking the Nexus Talk: Assessing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in the Context of the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative’, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Optional


Required

The percentage of gross cropped area for rice increased from 6.9% to 35.9%, which enormously contributed to the staggering depletion of groundwater resources (Flammini et al., 2014). Work by Mukherji (2012) mapped the rice-wheat crop areas (denoted in grey on the map on the right) against the most unsustainable rates of groundwater depletion (red on the map on the left), to correlate the agricultural practices with measured groundwater levels.

The Central Water Board carried out 21 artificial groundwater recharge projects in the state (Gupta, 2009), and a further 582 million rupees (equivalent to approximately 9 million USD) has been assigned to a government project to address groundwater depletion (Government of the Punjab, 2016).


Government of the Punjab (2016), ‘Rs. 582 Million For Aquifer Groundwater Recharge Project Soon by the Punjab Government’, Planning and Development Department, Available from: http://www.pndpunjab.gov.pk/node/981

Gupta, S. (2009), ‘Ground Water Management in Alluvial Areas’, Central Ground Water Board, New Dehli, Available from: http://www.cgwb.gov.in/documents/papers/incidpapers/Paper%2011-%20sushil%20gupta.pdf

Mukherji, A. (2012), ‘Innovations in managing the agriculture-groundwater and energy nexus’, [Powerpoint Presentation], International Water Man-agement Institute, Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/CPWF/innovations-in-managing-the-agriculturegroundwater-and-energy-nexus

Optional

92 | Assessment and Implementation

Assessment and Implementation3.1 Nexus Assessment

3.2 Nexus Tools

3.3 Policy and Governance Instruments

for Implementation

3

Assessment and Implementation | 93

Required

Chapter 3 introduces tools on assessment, and further discusses the governance and implementation of the WEF Nexus. This chapter aims at presenting the participants with:1. An understanding of the need for a Nexus assessment and its main objectives2. Different types of tools (qualitative and quantitative) to assess the Nexus between different sectors3. Implementation and intervention instruments (using case studies to highlight effective implementation

examples)


Required

3.1


Required

Assessing the Nexus requires approaches and tools tailored to the specific Nexus trade-off or conflict to be addressed, and there is no unique way of performing this. Flammini et al. (2014) provides an overview of the general approach on how to assess Nexus complexity.

After a qualitative system analysis, we should quantitatively evaluate the system components according to selected Nexus sustainability indicators. The type of method and selected Nexus sustainability indicators to be used will depend on the system being analysed.

However, the objective of a Nexus assessment typically consists of building a shared understanding of:• The current state and pressures on natural and human resources systems• Expected demands, trends and drivers on resources systems• Interconnections between water, energy and food systems• Different sectoral goals, policies and strategies in regard to water, energy and food; this includes an analysis

of the degree of coordination and coherence of policies, as well as the extent of regulation of uses• Planned investments, acquisitions, reforms and large-scale infrastructure• Key stakeholders, decision-makers and user groups

This assessment is necessary not only to understand the interconnections between the different sectors, but also to identify potential response options (e.g. new policies, regulations, incentives, technical interventions, etc.) to reduce trade-offs and maximise synergies. It is important to mention that the assessment process should always be accompanied by a dialogue to include stakeholders in each step of the process to identify societal priorities and create ownership.



Required

A context analysis includes collecting data on both the status of the ecosystem as well as socio-economic aspects and generating information by interpreting and analysing this data. Where possible, the use of mean-ingful Nexus sustainability indicators is a great support for decision-making processes. Information on pressure on Nexus aspects, and its graphical visualisation, can also be used for a qualitative participatory analysis.

The following slide shows the importance of data, information and monitoring.



Required

Available data and appropriate monitoring are paramount for Nexus assessment since they provide neces-sary information on system behaviour over time and space related to specified management objectives. Data are needed to gain a deeper understanding of natural and anthropogenic processes within the environment. However, monitoring can be expensive and time-intensive, meaning that it needs to be carefully designed to attain already selected objectives and avoid what Ward et al. (1986) call the “data-rich but information-poor” syndrome. Therefore, collected data has to be systematically analysed to transform it into information and knowledge useful for management and decision-making.

Monitoring includes the measurement of all physical variables such as climate (e.g. precipitation, temperature, humidity, solar radiation), hydrology (e.g. streamflow, snow cover, groundwater level) and topography as well as socio-economic factors such as population, GDP, energy and water access, food production, etc.

The information should represent the spatial and temporal variability of the variables being analysed, while at the same time minimising the costs required to attain this information. This is of particular importance in devel-oping countries, where financial constraints are a limiting factor that need to be taken into consideration when designing a monitoring network. The design of a sound monitoring concept is not only necessary to understand the current status of a system, but is also a necessary tool for assessing the impacts of measures or interven-tions designed to improve the system.

Ward, R. C., Loftis, J. I. M. C., Collins, F., & Graham, B. (1986), ‘The “Data-rich but Information-poor” Syndrome in Water Quality Monitoring’, Environmental Management, 10(3):291-297

Optional


Required

The application of tools will depend on the reference system, because data is typically available at different, and not always compatible, scales. The development of scenarios should also be accompanied by a stake-holders dialogue.

This dialogue can take place at the local, regional, national or transboundary level, involving key deci-sion-makers and experts to discuss the design and scope of the interventions. For instance, at the national level this exercise typically involves representatives from different ministries (e.g. water, energy, agriculture, environment, etc.) and civil society as well as those from different backgrounds. This process is the basis of a comprehensive inter-ministerial policy dialogue.



Required

The quantitative analysis and the use of tools relies on monitored data which usually address different spatial scales. This slide presents typical scales for Nexus related resources.

To enable a Nexus assessment at the desired scale, it is therefore necessary to make the data comparable.

Optional


Required

No single tool can address the complexities of all the different Nexus challenges across contexts, scales and stakeholders. Daher et al. (2017) reviewed existing tools and strategies, and highlighted the need to address the role of different spatial and sectoral scales in Nexus thinking.

Examples concerning the role of scales are:• Global Scale: What are the global impacts on food prices of allocating corn for ethanol production in major

corn producing countries?• Regional Scale: What are the impacts of the regional free trade agreements on food security?• National Scale: What are the impacts of increased food subsidies on national water security?• Local Scale:

- Urban City Scale: What are the implications to food security of promoting water reuse for urban agri-culture?

- Farm Scale: How would policies set to incentivise farmers to increase food production impact water quality?

- Business/Industry Scale: What are the implications for long term sustainability of business operations of investing in water efficient technologies?

Addressing questions such as these and understanding the scale of analysis is part of the Nexus assessment.

Daher, B., Saad, W., Pierce, S.A., Hülsmann, S. & Mohtar, R.H. (2017), ‘Trade-offs and Decision Support Tools for FEW Nexus-Oriented Manage-ment’, Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep, vol. 4, Iss. 3, pp. 153-159.

Optional


Required

There are different methods of how to approach Nexus conflicts and trade-offs. There are reasons related to policy and governance for these differences.

While visualisation tools help to qualitatively conceptualise the main components and their respective rele-vance in the system, Nexus assessment tools usually evaluate the weight of each component in a quantitative manner based on Nexus indicators, and compare them to the other components. Models typically use monthly time series for variables such as water, yields, agricultural areas, climate and energy production to simulate determined target variables depending on different inputs. They can be used to assess the sensitive compo-nents of a system (where changes in one component cause significant changes in the others) and to simulate future scenarios for decision support in planning.

Regional, national and local regulations play a strong role in how resources are managed. Therefore it is important to assess the existing policy framework. Policy framework tools assess these regulations and poli-cies, with the aim to identify policies or missing policies which hinder a sustainable Nexus planning process.

Governance analysis tools aim at assessing the institutions and persons involved in Nexus decisions as well as the (missing) communication processes hindering a sustainable Nexus planning process.

3.2


Required

Dai et al. (2017) published a review of different quantitative Nexus assessment tools. They analysed 35 macro-level methods and categorised them depending on the type of Nexus assessed. The models were then further categorised according to their method type (quantitative analysis, simulation model or integrated model) and the Nexus challenge level that they address (understanding, governing and implementing).

Dai, J., Wu, S., Han, G., Weinberg, J., Xie, X., Wu, X., Song, X., Jia, B., Xue, W., Yang, Q. (2018), ‘Water-energy nexus: A review of methods and tools for macro-assessment’, Applied Energy, vol. 210, pp. 393-408.

Optional


Required


Required

Meza, F.J., Vicuna, S., Gironás, J., Poblete, D. Suárez, F. & Oertel, M. (2015), ‘Water–food–energy nexus in Chile: the challenges due to global change in different regional contexts’, vol. 40, Nos. 5-6, pp. 839-855. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2015.1087797


Required

This visualisation tool was developed to provide decision support at the river basin scale but can also be applied to different scales.

The approach used by Meza et al. (2015) provides a visual representation of the WEF Nexus fluxes empha-sising the relative relevance of flows or fluxes between the different components at a river basin scale. It is a simple and straightforward method allowing to, directly or indirectly, incorporate dynamic driving forces, such as global environmental changes (as opposed to the widely used Venn diagrams).

This framework attempts to raise awareness and support stakeholder discussions thanks to its descriptive and visual representation of the Nexus. Each component is presented as a box connected by arrows representing the flows.

The size of the arrows is used to communicate magnitudes of the supply (or demand), whereas competition is represented by several arrows coming from the same source. The relative size of each subdivision and its change over time can be seen as an indicator of sensitivity of each system. A Nexus that does not change substantially under global change could be interpreted as non-vulnerable or even resilient, if adjustments over time occur without major external intervention as a driving force.



Required

Meza et al. (2015) applied this concept to several river basins in Chile. Here, a brief example of the Nexus interconnections diagram for the Maipo Basin in central Chile is shown. Located within the basin is Santiago, the capital with a population of 6 million. The region has a Mediterranean climate with mean temperatures of 20°C in summer and 10°C in winter. Mean annual precipitation is 280 mm. Snow accumulation occurs above 1,500 m altitude during winter. The main economic activities in the basin include industry, commerce and services along with an export-oriented agricultural sector.

The figure (without the arrows with dotted lines) depicts the current status of the Nexus in the basin, while the arrows with dotted lines represents the changes to the system in a future scenario with changes and pressures added to the system. For instance, more energy will be required for pumping, treating and distributing water for cities. Agriculture has to be more efficient using water in order to reduce the pressure on water resources or the potential of groundwater use needs to be explored. Also, the basin has a potential to generate hydropower. This example shows the potential of this tool to visually assess future management scenarios.



Required


Required

The FAO proposes a method to carry out a WEF Nexus assessment in order to: • Understand the interconnections between water, energy and food systems in a given context• Evaluate the performance of a technical or policy intervention in this given context

The overall objective of the WEF Nexus assessment is to inform Nexus-related responses in terms of strate-gies, policy measures, planning and institutional set-up or interventions.

Given that a lack of data is often a barrier for assessing the Nexus, the FAO proposes a rapid appraisal based on indicators using data already collected at the national (or sub-national) level and available from international organisations. Based on this methodology, the FAO prepared an interactive tool “Nexus Assessment 1.0“ (included in the overview matrix under the “governing“ level) which aims at quantitatively assessing the Nexus as well as possible interventions.

This interactive tool can be accessed at: http://www.fao.org/energy/water-food-energy-nexus/water-ener-gy-food-nexus-ra/en/ (available in Arabic, English, French and Spanish).



Required

Five categories are represented on the chart: Water (W), Energy (E), Food/Land (F), Labour (L) and Capital (C). Each are given a performance score on a scale from 1 (centre) to 5 (outer). A high score indicates that the inter-vention has a high impact on the respective Nexus component, while a score close to 1 means the impact is low. 0 means that the intervention was not assessed for that particular Nexus component. The area of the polygon is a measure of the overall performance of the intervention. The smaller the size of the polygon, the smaller the impact of the intervention on the Nexus aspects.

This figure shows the example of a real intervention to better depict the method. The results indicate that the specific intervention “On-grid wind energy for water desalination for agriculture” has a very low impact on energy resources (it is using renewable energy and energy is used efficiently), a low impact on water resources (it is using no freshwater and the treated water is transformed efficiently into food), a high impact on food/land (in this case because the area occupied by the plant was considered, and land use is not efficient) and it is using labour and capital quite efficiently. All these ‘efficiency considerations’ are assessed from a Nexus resource perspective, meaning how much of the specific resource is needed per unit of one or more of the other resources (e.g. how much energy per unit of water, how much money per unit of water, how much labour per unit of energy, etc.). The highest impact, according to the diagram, is on food/land.

The overall performance of the intervention is combined into one single index, which corresponds to the area of the polygon on the spider chart. For example, in this case the overall performance is 25.6.



Required

With this method, different interventions can be easily compared to support decision-making. Three examples of interventions and their respective impacts on Nexus aspects are presented. This assessment does not suggest which interventions are better than others in absolute terms, but it does highlight the trade-offs and for which aspects the intervention is adding pressure to the different components of the system.



Required

The normalised scores are derived by assigning a value between 0 and 1, where 0 represents the logical minimum value and a score of 1 represents the conditions for that sub-index which are sufficient to meet basic needs. Each sub-index for the individual sectors, as well as the overall FEW Index value, is calculated using an unweighted geometric mean.

This online resource is available at: https://www.prgs.edu/pardee-initiative/food-energy-water/interactive-index.html

Willis, H.H., Groves, D.G., Ringel, J.S., Mao, Z., Efron, S. & Abbott, M. (2016), ‘Developing the Pardee RAND Food-Energy-Water Security Index: Toward a Global Standardized, Quantitative, and Transparent Resource Assessment’, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

Optional


Required

The “Climate, Land use, Energy and Water strategies (CLEWs)” research project is led by the KTH Royal Insti-tute of Technology (Department of Energy Technology) in collaboration with a number of leading international institutions including FAO, IAEA, IIASA, SEI, UNDESA and UNECE. It is also included in the tools overview at the “implementing” level.

The aim of the CLEWs research project is to develop an integrated system approach to assess interconnec-tions between different resource sectors, to determine the effect that changes in one sector might have on the others, identify counter-intuitive feedbacks, to provide insights regarding the trade-offs between conflicting uses and help highlight potential synergic solutions to overcome them. It has been applied for designing strategies in support of decision-making, policy assessment and harmonisation and scenario development.

It is a module-based approach which has been implemented in several regions such as Mauritius and Burkina Faso, as well as for global resource modelling using the open source energy modelling system (OSeMOSYS). It can combine the energy model LEAP, water model WEAP and land use model AEZ (Agro-Ecological Zoning). The tool, however, has extensive data requirements including technical and economic parameters for the energy, water and land use sectors and requires expert involvement.

A TEDx talk on CLEWs can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awTs5zH-4G8


Department of Energy Technology (n.d.), ‘CLEWs - Climate, Land, Energy and Water strategies to navigate the nexus’, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Available from: https://www.kth.se/en/itm/inst/energiteknik/forskning/desa/researchareas/clews-climate-land-energy-and-water-strat-egies-to-navigate-the-nexus-1.432255


Required

Understanding the main interconnections between the different CLEW resources is of key importance for decision-makers to develop adequate policies accordingly. The CLEWs approach aims to systematise the inter-connections while also considering the impact of climate change. This example presents a diagram developed for Burkina Faso showing the main interconnections between the different resources. The example shown is qualitative, and different tools are needed to quantify these interconnections (shown on the right under the heading “Quantifiable Interlinkages”). For example, a proposed intervention was to diversify energy consump-tion by considering Jatropha as a biofuel alternative. Using marginal land for this purpose would reduce compe-tition between energy and food production. In order to quantify the energy potential, a GIS analysis could be conducted.

General data about the case study and the country:Almost 40% of the population in Burkina Faso live with food insecurity and 42% have limited access to safe drinking water. The population increased from 8 million to 17.3 million from 1985 to 2011. Population growth coupled with rapid urbanisation has led to increased stress on water, energy and land resources.

Burkina Faso relies on traditional farming as the pillar of its economy. A fragile natural environment combined with energy, food and cotton price fluctuations can have negative impacts on the country‘s economy. Therefore, there is a strong need to efficiently use the available land resources and assess the interconnections between the sectors. Although the land area under cultivation has increased over the past decades, productivity has decreased over the same time period. The net effect of these two trends is an increase in overall agricultural production, yet this increase is smaller than the population growth rate, thus indicating a potential decrease in food security.

Hermann, S., Welsch, M., Segerstrom, R. E., Howells, M. I., Young, C., Alfstad, T., Rogner, H.-H. and Steduto, P. (2012), ‘Climate, land, energy and water (CLEW) interlinkages in Burkina Faso: An analysis of agricultural intensification and bioenergy production’, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 36, Iss. 4, pp. 245–262. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2012.01463.x


Required

The Transboundary River Basin Nexus Approach (TRBNA) was developed under the UNECE Water Conven-tion, with the aim to inform, support and promote transboundary cooperation and to assist countries by:• Identifying interconnections (trade-offs and impacts) across sectors and countries as well as incoherencies in

governance• Proposing actions to reduce negative impacts, minimise trade-offs and take advantage of existing comple-

mentarities and win-win opportunities• Providing evidence of benefits from improved cooperation at the national and transboundary levels

This six step methodology is also included in the tools overview at the “implementing” level.

de Strasser, L., Lipponen, A., Howells, M., Stec, S., Bréthaut, C. (2016), ‘A Methodology to Assess the Water Energy Food Ecosystems Nexus in Transboundary River Basins’, Water, vol. 8, Iss. 2, 59. doi:10.3390/w8020059.


Required


Required

Simulation models are widely used to assess the Nexus at the “understanding“ level. Models can be used to simulate physical processes such as groundwater recharge, rainfall-runoff generation and climate, as well as socio-ecological systems such as food production and water requirements, water and energy demand, reser-voir use for energy generation and irrigation.

There is a large scope of available simulation models to assess the interconnections between the different sectors. The appropriate selection will depend on: (i) the system to be analysed (which must also consider the spatial and temporal scales); (ii) the expected outcome; (iii) available data; and (iv) know-how.


Required

The Blue Nile is extremely important for the basin because it contributes approximately 84% of the total flow of the main Nile. There is a high potential for transboundary cooperation in utilising this resource-rich river. The river originates at the outlet of the Lake Tana in the Ethiopian highlands and joins the White Nile in Khartoum. After joining the White Nile, the river continues its path through Sudan and Egypt, discharging into the Mediter-ranean Sea.

The three riparian countries (Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt) face common challenges in regard to water, food and energy securities. However, each country has different needs and uses of the available resources.

An example for implementing a Nexus approach is the new GERD, which is causing tension between the three countries. Egypt is very sensitive to developments occurring upstream, since the Nile is its lifeline, constituting 97% of its water resources. Therefore, the construction of the dam is of strategic importance for the country. This case study offers an example of the potential for transboundary cooperation to avoid conflict. The potential for cooperation includes international trade, financial and technical cooperation.

Al-Saidi, M. & Roach, E. (2017), ‘The Blue Nile – Growth and Conflict along Transboundary Waters’, in Al-Saidi, Mohammad, Ribbe, Lars (Eds.). Nexus Outlook: assessing resource use challenges in the water, energy and food nexus. Nexus Research Focus, TH-Koeln, University of Applied Sciences

Optional


Required

The figure shows the most important developments in the Blue Nile basin since 1858.


Optional


Required

The major WEF Nexus interconnections include: • Irrigation and hydro-energy production reduce water losses by evaporation• Water losses affect water availability for irrigated agriculture and hydro-energy generation• The locations of irrigation water abstraction define the interconnection between irrigation water supply and

hydro-energy generation

Basheer, M. (2017), ‘Quantifying and evaluating the sensitivity of WEF nexus to cooperation in transboundary basin: The Blue Nile Basin’, Master Thesis. ITT, TH Köln

Optional


Required

Simulation models were used to quantify and evaluate the sensitivity of WEF Nexus in the Blue Nile Basin to cooperation between Ethiopia and Sudan. This slide illustrates how different simulation models were combined to quantify these interconnections in this project.

The modelling framework was designed using R for the evaluation of satellite rainfall products. HEC-HMS, HEC-GeoHMS, CropWat, New Local Climate (New_LocClim) and RiverWare were used to model the hydrology, irrigation water requirements and water allocation in the study area.


Optional


Required

Three types of cooperation were assessed: unilateral action, coordination and collaboration. In the unilateral action scenario, it was assumed that Ethiopia operates the GERD to maximise its annual energy generation regardless of the implications for irrigated agriculture and hydropower downstream in Sudan. Likewise, in the coordination scenario, Ethiopia was assumed to maximise the annual energy generated by the GERD, but pro-vide information to Sudan in advance on the expected flow in the Blue Nile at the Ethiopian-Sudanese border (i.e. GERD outflow). Coordination would enable Sudan to operate Roseires Dam at its maximum possible full supply level without being concerned about unexpected releases from the GERD that could cause the dam to be overfilled. In the collaboration scenario, it was assumed that Ethiopia would release, as a minimum, the water demands of Sudan in addition to maximising energy generation from the GERD, and that it would share information with Sudan on the GERD outflow.

Trade-offs and synergies between the different WEF sectors can be evaluated using cost-benefit analysis. The results of such analyses are imperative to improve decision-making for more efficient utilisation of the available water, energy, and food resources. In this case study, Basheer (2017) found that the economic gain throughout the Blue Nile basin increases when the cooperation level between Ethiopia and Sudan is raised to to collabora-tion. However, the results show that the economic gain of each riparian country does not necessarily follow the same pattern as the economic gain of the basin.


Optional


RequiredInteractive


Required

3.3


Required


Required

Stakeholders should be involved and invited to participate in each step of the process. Their level of engage-ment during the dialogue will depend on several factors, including:• The willingness of stakeholder groups to take part in the dialogue• The capacity of stakeholders to make a meaningful contribution• Political will and political freedom to engage stakeholders

Some topics will only allow for a limited participation by external stakeholders. Monetary and fiscal issues are typical examples of these topics.

When considering the time required for stakeholder participation, rather than having policies ratified through an often cumbersome exercise, it might be better to focus on implementation while incorporating adequate feedback mechanisms by the different stakeholders in monitoring and assessing progress.

Strong emphasis should be put on inviting stakeholders from a broad range of sectors, including economy and finance, as well as from different levels of governance, such as mayors of medium and large-sized cities, farmers’ rights organisations, representatives from energy and water utilities, irrigation agencies, national government representatives, and the private sector (e.g. hydropower companies, mining industry).


Optional


Required

The design of an effective MSP defined by FAO (n.d.):• Selecting Participants: Conducting a stakeholder mapping exercise will ensure that you do not miss any

important groups affected by the issue. Select people at approximately the same level of authority and maintain a gender balance

- Suggested Tool: Stakeholder Mapping (http://www.fao.org/capacity-development/resources/practi-cal-tools/capacity-assessment/stakeholder-mapping-tool/en/)

• Facilitation: Local facilitators should have had prior training in facilitation techniques and use the local lan-guage. They should make sure that women have a voice and that the meeting is truly participatory

- Suggested Tool: MSP Facilitation Guidelines (http://www.participatorymethods.org/task/facilitate)• Structure and set up: Having a permanent platform for multi-stakeholder consultations will ensure that the

benefits of MSPs continue beyond the scope of the project or programme • Process: During meetings, minimise long plenary presentations by experts and maximise group work and

discussions. Different people should have the opportunity to take the floor and report back to plenary - Suggested Tool: Socratic Questions (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/capacity_building/

LM4_v2_WEB_Light.pdf#page=166)

FAO (n.d.), ‘Facilitating Effective Multi-stakeholder Processes’, Available from: http://www.fao.org/capacity-development/resources/practical-tools/multi-stakeholder-processes/en/


Required

Phase 1: Initiate the process• Clarify common objectives and the scope of the initiative• Carry out an initial situation analysis (i.e. who are the key stakeholders? What are their interests, fears,

expectations, issues and power relationships? What politics are involved?)• Establish a coordination team• Select milestones

Phase 2: Build sustainable collaboration• Build consensus on a shared future vision• Ensure that consultations and decision making processes are inclusive and participatory• Create trust by sharing each other’s values, concerns and interests• Communicate outcomes to stakeholders regularly

Phase 3: Manage collaboration• Develop detailed and concrete action plans• Secure resources and support• Develop capacities and build on the existing talents of each stakeholder• Establish management mechanisms (with built-in conflict resolution mechanisms)



Required


Required

Important points to consider for a policy framework that addresses the Nexus:• Horizontal (cross-sectoral) and vertical (between levels of government) coordination is essential.

However, an ideal coordination may be costly and impractical• Institutional relationships are to be considered• The capacities of local government institutions need to be strengthened

Different types of interventions can be used to manage the Nexus:• Institutional policies to integrate the Nexus perspective• Economic instruments to align incentives and exploit synergies• Information generation and sharing among sectors to support integration• Investments to exploit win-win opportunities• Capacity development to strengthen institutional capacity

Rasul, G., 2016, Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia, Environmental Development, Volume 18, Pages 14-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.00

Scott, A. (2017) Making governance work for water–energy–food nexus approaches. Working Paper. London: Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) (cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Working-paper_CDKN_Making-governance-work-for-water-energy-food-nexus-ap-proaches.pdf)


Required

Al-Saidi and Elagib (2017) show policy instruments available to implement the Nexus approach. These depend on the specific characteristics of the basin, region or country. In this table, options for institutional arrangements and participation forms are presented.

Al-Saidi, M. & Elagib, N. (2017), ‘Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food nexus’, Science of the Total Environ-ment, vol. 574, pp. 1131-1139.


Required

Many governments adopt the approach of organising the policy areas according to ministerial sectors, which is increasingly performed in decentralised agencies.

Positive coordination aims to generate the maximum possible benefits for the involved parties. This form of coordination generally takes place with numerous units, often coordinated at a superior political level. Nega-tive coordination is primarily focussed on separate departmental interests. In this case, a department would examine whether a specific decision affects its own entity, and also whether possible interests of other depart-ments are also affected. The coordination effort is typically higher for positive coordination.

Blumstein, S., Kramer, A. & Carius, A., 2017, ‘Coordination of Sectoral Interests in the Nexus Between Water, Energy and Agriculture: Mechanisms and Interests in Germany’, Adelphi


Required

There are multiple instruments and mechanisms that have been employed at the city level to ensure coordina-tion both within the city’s administrative system as well as between the city and other actors. This list here is not comprehensive and the names of different mechanisms can vary from case to case. It should also be kept in mind that most of these instruments address both horizontal and vertical cooperation to some degree.

Between administrative units within one city• Inter-departmental working groups

- Very common instrument for inter-sectoral collaboration - Includes ad-hoc as well as long-term institutionalised working groups - Experts from various departments come together to discuss a specific policy projects and processes,

their implications for other departments, potential synergies, etc.• Merging of sectoral departments

- If there are many overlapping issues between two (or more) departments, it may be worthwhile to merge the departments

- This form of merging promotes more long-term exchanges between disciplines, mutual understanding of other professional points of view and inter-disciplinary ways of thinking

• Steering committees / task forces - Very similar to inter-departmental working groups but normally established temporarily for only one

specific project


RequiredBetween cities / municipalitiesTo avoid trade-offs and generate synergies between sectors, cities also need to coordinate their activities with actors outside their administrative structures – these can be other administrative units (such as neighbouring cities or municipalities), private actors or the broader public.• Inter-municipal authorities / associations

- Formal bodies that have representatives from a group of municipalities - The primary objective of these bodies is to coordinate joint interests with regard to specific issues

(such as shared resources or a national policy initiative that would affect them) - These bodies are also used to coordinate joint interests vis à vis higher political levels. They therefore

also act as an instrument for vertical coordination• Peer-to-peer learning

- Provides a way to exchange ideas, learn from best practices in other cities and replicate this best practice in another city

• River Basin Commissions - As natural resource systems (such as river or lake basins) often cross administrative borders, their use

and protection requires cross-administrative coordination - There are also usually regional (e.g. provincial) and national actors (e.g. water ministry) involved.

River basin commissions therefore also act as an instrument of vertical coordination

Between cities and other actors• Public consultation processes

- Engagement with the broader public is necessary for policy coordination - Provide information about which members of the public would be affected by different political activities

and projects. This develops an understanding of which different sectors and interests have to be coordinated within the administrative system

- Facilitate implementation of administrative decisions and help avoid public opposition through early consultation. Therefore can also be partly classified as vertical coordination

• Public-private networks - Voluntary collaboration between cities and private actors (companies, research organisations, NGOs,

etc.) either covering a specific urban topic or organised based on a geographical boundary - Are a relatively new form of coordination - Coordination is ensured through negotiation and bargaining, with no direct control imposed by the city

government• Special purpose associations

- A special purpose association is a combination of independent cities and counties that execute certain tasks which are assigned to them by state law or national law or which they can execute on their own on a voluntary basis

- They are responsible for a certain activity in a clearly defined territory

GIZ (2017), ‘The Urban Nexus Guide - Module 3: Strengthening Horizontal and Vertical Governance Structures’, [Powerpoint presentation].


Required

Vertical coordination between different levels is realised through various different mechanisms. Those listed on this slide are only some of the examples available (and these examples often also have different names in different national contexts).

Dialogue processes and consultations can serve as strong mechanism for vertical integration by:• Building relationships and trust between national and local actors• Clarifying mandates, policies and institutional arrangements• Identifying opportunities and obstacles for the implementation of national development targets and policies at

the local level• Facilitating coordinated representation of interests from the local to the national level



RequiredOptional


RequiredInteractive


Required

138 | References

FULL REFERENCE LIST

CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUNDBiggs, EM., Boruff, B., Bruce, E., Duncan, JMA., Duce, S., Haworth, BJ., Horsley, J., Curnow, J., Neef, A., McNeill, K., Pauli, N.,

Van Ogtrop, F. & Imanari, Y., (2014), Environmental livelihood security in Southeast Asia and Oceania: a water-energy-food-live-lihoods nexus approach for spatially assessing change. White paper. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 114p. [doi: 10.5337/2014.231]

Biggs, EM., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, JMA., Horsley, J., Pauli, N., McNeill, K., Neef, A., Ogtrop, FV., Curnow, J., Haworth, B., Duce, S. & Imanari, Y. (2015), ‘Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods’, Envi-ronmental Science and Policy, vol. 54, pp. 389–397.

CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) (n.d.), ‘Food Security’, Available from: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#theme=food-security

Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) (2012), ‘A Nexus Approach for Humans and Nature?’, Global Water News, No. 14. Available from: http://www.gwsp.org/fileadmin/documents_news/Interview_Scholz.pdf

European Report on Development (2012), ‘Confronting scarcity: Managing water, energy and land for inclusive and sustainable growth’, Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/erd-consca-report-20110101_en_0.pdf

FAO (2014), ‘The Water-Energy-Food Nexus - A new approach in support of food security and sustainable agriculture’, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp.1–11.

Hoff, H. (2011), ‘Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus’, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden.


LaB (2010), ‘Fertilizers and their Impact on Watershed Ecology’, Available from: http://lab.visual-logic.com/2010/02/864/

Merrey, D. (2015) ‘Critical Roles of Water in Achieving the Proposed SDGs: a Nexus Perspective (Water-Energy-Food-Climate Change)’, [PowerPoint presentation], Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/130191.3%20MERREY-Critical%20role%20of%20water-SDGs-Nexus_revised2.pdf

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (2017), ‘Exploring connections between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, Policy Brief, Stockholm.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2014) ‘International Decade for Action WATER FOR LIFE 2005-2015’, Available from: http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/water_and_energy.shtml

United Nations General Assembly (2015), ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

United Nations University (UNU) (2013), ‘Water Security & the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief’, Hamilton.

U.S. Department of Energy (2006), ‘Energy Demands on Water Resources’, Report to Congress on the Interdependence of Energy and Water

Weitz, N., Nilsson, M. & Davis, M. (2014), ‘A Nexus Approach to the Post-2015 Agenda: Formulating Integrated Water, Energy, and Food SDGs’, SAIS Review of International Affairs, vol. 34, No. 2, Summer-Fall 2014, pp. 37-50.

CHAPTER 2 - INTERCONNECTIONSAsian Development Bank, 2013: ‘Asian Water Development Outlook: Measuring water security in Asia and the Pacific’, Manda-

luyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2013, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30190/asian-wa-ter-development-outlook-2013.pdf

Billen, G., Garnier, J. & Lassaletta, L. (2013) ‘The nitrogen cascade from agricultural soils to the sea: modelling nitrogen transfers at regional watershed and global scales’, Phil Trans R Soc B 368: 20130123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0123


Burn (2012), ‘How much energy is the world using’, Available from: http://burnanenergyjournal.com/how-much-energy-are-we-using/

Campbell, CJ. (2003), ’The Essence of Oil & Gas Depletion’, Multiscience, London.

Collado, R.E. (2015), ‘Water War in Central Asia: the Water Dilemma of Turkmenistan’, Geopolitical Monitor, Available from: https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/water-war-in-central-asia-the-water-dilemma-of-turkmenistan/


4

References | 139

Dirección General de Aguas (DGA) (2007), ‘Estimaciones De Demanda De Agua y Proyecciones Futuras. Zona II. Regiones V a XII y Región Metropolitana’, Santiago, Chile.

FAO (2006), ‘Food Security’, Policy Brief, June 2006, Issue 2, Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-0e6f36f27e-0091055bec28ebe830f46b3.pdf

FAO (2008a), ‘An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security’, Practical Guide, Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf

FAO (2008b), ‘Climate change, biofuels and land’, Available from: http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/010/i0142e/i0142e05.pdf

FAO (2011), ‘”Energy-smart” food for people and climate’, Issue Paper, Rome, Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2454e/i2454e00.pdf

FAO (2012), ‘World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 Revision’, ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.


FAO (2014b), ‘Water Withdrawal’, Prepared by AQUASTAT, Available from: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/infographics/With-drawal_eng.pdf

FAO (2015a), ‘FAO Hunger Map 2015: Millennium Development Goal 1 and World Food Summit Hunger Targets’, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4674e.pdf

FAO (2015b), ‘Yield gap analysis of field crops: Methods and case studies’, FAO, Rome, Italy. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4695e.pdf

FAO (2016), ‘The State of Food and Agriculture’, Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6132e.pdf

Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) and Iowa State University (ISU), 2011. World Agricultural Outlook. Available online at http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook/2011/



Government of the Punjab (2016), ‘Rs. 582 Million For Aquifer Groundwater Recharge Project Soon by the Punjab Government’, Planning and Development Department, Available from: http://www.pndpunjab.gov.pk/node/981

Graham, E.J.S., Baktian, N., Camacho, L.M., Chellam, S., Mroue, A., Sperling, J.B., Topolski, K. & Xu, P. (2017), ‘Energy for Water and Desalination’, Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Reports, vol. 4, Iss. 3, pp. 109–116, DOI 10.1007/s40518-017-0076-2

Granit, J., Jägerskog, A., Lindström, A., Björklund, G., Bullock, A., Löfgren, R., de Gooijer, G. & Pettigrew, S. (2012), ‘Regional Options for Addressing the Water, Energy and Food Nexus in Central Asia and the Aral Sea Basin’, Water Resources Develop-ment, vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 419-432.

Gupta, S. (2009), ‘Ground Water Management in Alluvial Areas’, Central Ground Water Board, New Dehli, Available from: http://www.cgwb.gov.in/documents/papers/incidpapers/Paper%2011-%20sushil%20gupta.pdf



International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010), ’World Energy Outlook 2010’, Paris, France.

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2017), ‘Key world energy statistics’, France, Available from: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

International Energy Agency (IEA) (n.d.), ‘Energy Security’, Available from: https://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/


Keskinen, M., Guillaume, J.H.A., Kattelus, M., Porkka, M., Räsänen, T.A. & Varis, O. (2016), ‘The Water-Energy-Food Nexus and the Transboundary Context: Insights from Large Asian Rivers’, Water, vol. 8, Iss. 5, doi:10.3390/w8050193

Kummu, M., Ward, P. J., De Moel, H., & Varis, O. (2010), ‘Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia’, Environmental Research Letters, 5. 034006.

Luck, M., Landis, M. & Gassert, F. (2015), ‘Aqueduct Water Stress Projections: Decadal Projections of Water Supply and Demand Using CMIP5 GCMs’, Technical Note. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Available at: wri.org/publication/aque-duct-water-stress-projections

Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, R. & Foley, J.A. (2012), ‘Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management, Nature, vol. 490, pp. 254-257.

140 | References

Mukherji, A. (2012), ‘Innovations in managing the agriculture-groundwater and energy nexus’, [Powerpoint Presentation], Interna-tional Water Management Institute, Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/CPWF/innovations-in-managing-the-agriculture-groundwater-and-energy-nexus

Murray, M. (2008), ‘The Water Energy Nexus’, [Powerpoint Presentation], Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Man-agement, University of California Santa Barbara, May 8-9, 2008

Núñez., R (2014), ‘Cambios en el Mundo Rural de la Comuna de Melipilla desde los Significados Atribuidos por sus Actores, frente a la Modernidad en su Espacio Local’, Santiago, Chile.

OECD (2012), ‘OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050’, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en

OECD (2017), ‘Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions’, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Oxfam Australia (2012), ‘What’s wrong with our food system?’, Available at: https://www.oxfam.org.au/2012/05/whats-wrong-with-our-food-system/

Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M. & Fári, M. (2014), ‘The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 32, pp. 559-578.

Quinn, J. (2011), ‘Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy in the Global Context’, [Powerpoint presentation], U.S. Brazil Industrial Energy Efficiency Workshop, Available at: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4841560/

REN21 (2012), ‘Renewables 2012: Global Status Report’, Paris.

Rulli, M.C., Bellomi, D., Cazzoli, A. De Carolis, G. & D’Odorico, P. (2016), ‘The water-land-food nexus of first generation biofuels’, Nature Scientific Reports, vol. 6, Article number: 22521.

Sadoff, C.W., Hall, J.W., Grey, D., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Ait-Kadi, M., Brown, C., Cox, A., Dadson, S., Garrick, D., Kelman, J., McCornick, P., Ringler, C., Rosegrant, M., Whittington, D. & Wiberg, D. (2015), ‘Securing Water, Sustaining Growth: Report of the GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth’, University of Oxford, UK, 180pp.

Spang, E.S., Moomaw, W.R., Gallagher, K.S., Kirshen, P.H. & Marks, D.H. (2014), ‘The water consumption of energy production: an international comparison’, Environmental Research Letters, (9) 105002

Steenblik, R. (2007), ‘Biofuels - At What Cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in selected OECD countries’, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Available from: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/biofuels_oecd_syn-thesis_report.pdf

Tesser, C.E.E. (2013), ‘El agua y los territorios hídricos en la Región Metropolitana de Santiago de Chile. Casos de estudio: Tiltil, Valle de Mallarauco y San Pedro de Melipilla’, Santiago, Chile.


United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2006), Water withdrawal and availability in Aral Sea basin. Available from: http://envsec.grid.unep.ch/centasia/index.php

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012), ‘A Glass Half Empty: Regions at Risk Due to Groundwater Depletion Why is this issue important?’, Available from: https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=76

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2014), ‘The future of the Aral Sea lies in transboundary co–operation’, Available at: https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=108

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2016). ‘A Snapshot of the World’s Water Quality: Towards a global assessment’, Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

UN Water (2013a), ‘What is Water Security’, Available from: http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic/

UN Water (2013b), ‘Water Security & the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief‘, Available from: http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-global-water-agenda/

UN Water (n.d.), ‘Water Scarcity’, Available from: http://www.unwater.org/water-facts/scarcity/

United Nations World Water Assessment Programme, 2012, ‘Facts and Figures: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk’, Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002154/215492e.pdf

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2017), ‘International Energy Outlook 2017’, Available from: https://www.eia.gov/out-looks/ieo/pdf/0484(2017).pdf


Water Footprint Network (2018), ‘Virtual Water Inside Products’, Available from: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/multi-media

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2014), ‘Water, food and energy nexus challenges’, Available from: http://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/references/water-food-and-energy-nexus-challenges-wbcsd-2014.pdf

References | 141

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2016), ‘Global Energy Architecture Performance Index Report 2016’, Geneva. Available from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Energy_Architecture_Performance_Index_2016.pdf

World Energy Council (2016), ‘World Energy Resources: Bioenergy 2016’, Available from: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Bioenergy_2016.pdf

World Water Development Report (WWDR), 2014, ‘Water and Energy’, Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/imag-es/0022/002257/225741E.pdf

CHAPTER 3 - ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATIONAl-Saidi, M. & Elagib, N. (2017), ‘Towards understanding the integrative approach of the water, energy and food nexus’, Science of

the Total Environment, vol. 574, pp. 1131-1139.



Blumstein, S., Kramer, A. & Carius, A., 2017, ‘Coordination of Sectoral Interests in the Nexus Between Water, Energy and Agricul-ture: Mechanisms and Interests in Germany’, Adelphi

Daher, B., Saad, W., Pierce, S.A., Hülsmann, S. & Mohtar, R.H. (2017), ‘Trade-offs and Decision Support Tools for FEW Nexus-Ori-ented Management’, Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep, vol. 4, Iss. 3, pp. 153-159.


de Strasser, L., Lipponen, A., Howells, M., Stec, S., Bréthaut, C. (2016), ‘A Methodology to Assess the Water Energy Food Ecosys-tems Nexus in Transboundary River Basins’, Water, vol. 8, Iss. 2, 59. doi:10.3390/w8020059.

Department of Energy Technology (n.d.), ‘CLEWs - Climate, Land, Energy and Water strategies to navigate the nexus’, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Available from: https://www.kth.se/en/itm/inst/energiteknik/forskning/desa/researchareas/clews-climate-land-energy-and-water-strategies-to-navigate-the-nexus-1.432255




Hermann, S., Welsch, M., Segerstrom, R. E., Howells, M. I., Young, C., Alfstad, T., Rogner, H.-H. and Steduto, P. (2012), ‘Climate, land, energy and water (CLEW) interlinkages in Burkina Faso: An analysis of agricultural intensification and bioenergy produc-tion’, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 36, Iss. 4, pp. 245–262. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2012.01463.x


Rasul, G., 2016, Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia, Environmental Development, Volume 18, Pages 14-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001

Scott, A. (2017) Making governance work for water–energy–food nexus approaches. Working Paper. London: Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) (cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Working-paper_CDKN_Making-gover-nance-work-for-water-energy-food-nexus-approaches.pdf)

Ward, R. C., Loftis, J. I. M. C., Collins, F., & Graham, B. (1986), ‘The “Data-rich but Information-poor” Syndrome in Water Quality Monitoring’, Environmental Management, 10(3):291-297

Willis, H.H., Groves, D.G., Ringel, J.S., Mao, Z., Efron, S. & Abbott, M. (2016), ‘Developing the Pardee RAND Food-Energy-Water Security Index: Toward a Global Standardized, Quantitative, and Transparent Resource Assessment’, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

Documents

Training Unit 01: Introduction to the Water-Energy-Food ... · dam construction impacts local water security or fisheries at a downstream village; global trade and food poli- cies