Water, Energy and Food Security Technology challenges of thinking in a Nexus perspective Submitted to IEEE Technology and Society in Asia Conference. Singapore. Oct. 26-28. 2012.
Neil Coles & Philip Hall Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology The University of Western Australia Perth, Australia
[email protected] and
[email protected]
Abstract—Water, energy and food are inextricably linked and underpin the development and expansionary nature of current global trade and productivity models. Global concerns about limited access to these three fundamentals for life are compounded by growing concerns about their future availability and sustainability. Adding more people to an increasingly urbanized planet will exert significant pressure on the level and complexity of trade-offs required among these three development goals; trade-offs that at the same time must act to minimize the potential to accelerate ecosystem degradation. This paper argues that realizing long-term water, energy and food security is possible; however, a “business as usual” approach cannot achieve this. A transformation in thinking and approach is necessary with the adoption of new management and development opportunities, which are enabled by innovative technology. A new approach, thinking in a Nexus perspective, is at the core to redefining our understanding of the inter-relationships between the water, energy and food security, and is a fundamental tenet to realizing the Green Economy. This paradigm shift is vital to achieving the sustainability development goals in an environment of global climate and economic change. Keywords—climate, water, food, energy, sustainability, Green Economy
I.
INTRODUCTION
Water, energy and food are inextricably linked and underpin the development and expansionary nature of current global trade and productivity models. The “forever” nature of this exploitative approach that relies on physically and environmentally limited resources presents a challenge to either find niche and technological innovations to continue this process, or target stability and zero growth as an alternative. As was recently suggested at the world economic forum “if “business as usual” water management practices continue for another two decades, large parts of the world will face a serious and structural threat to economic growth, human wellbeing and national security”. 1 Inappropriate governance structures and poor management – and thus inequalities in distribution – inevitably lead to increased waste, declines in efficiency, and reduction in essential services and maintenance of infrastructure which exacerbate and compound problems associated with access to water, sanitation, energy and food. 1
Water Security: the water-food-energy-climate nexus: The World Economic Forum water initiative. Ed. D. Waughray 2011. Island Press Washington DC.
These issues are compounded by growing concerns about their future availability and sustainability. 2 Of a burgeoning population in excess of 7 billion people:
0.9 billion people lack access to safe drinking water.
2.6 billion people do not have adequate sanitation.
1.3 billion people lack access to electricity.
2.7 billion people have no access to modern and healthy forms of cooking.
Close to 1 billion people are undernourished.2,3
Adding two billion more people to an increasingly urbanized planet will place significant pressure on energy, water and food demands. This will inevitably require increasing trade-offs among these three development goals that, at the same time, counter the potential to accelerate ecosystem degradation. This interconnectedness is demonstrated by the result of actions undertaken in one sector having either a positive or negative impact on the other two. However, a disconnected approach to both action and analysis is at the forefront of current and previous development strategies. If we continue down this path then in less than two decades 40% less freshwater resources will be available than we need for ensuring water, energy, and food security and to drive global development beyond basic poverty alleviation.2 In the previous one hundred years, global population tripled, but the demand for water increased seven fold.4 Given that water is critical for every aspect of life then if the trend continues, over-exploitation, trans-boundary conflicts and ecosystem degradation will continue exponentially. This is the challenge that faces the global community today; a challenge that cannot be dealt with in isolation by any country, for it is compounded by the many longstanding cross-border disputes that remain unresolved4. Therefore, the realization of long-term 2
Messages from the Bonn2011 Conference 2011: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus – Solutions for a Green Economy (http://www.waterenergy-food.org/documents/messages/bonn2011_nexus_messages.pdf 3 Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming 2011. Final Project Report. The Government Office of Science. London. 4 Cosgrove, WJ 2003. Water security and peace:A synthesis of studies prepared under the PCCP-Water for Peace Process. UNESCO.IHAP.WWAP No, 29.
water, energy, and food security for all is possible; but a transformation in thinking and approach is necessary with the adoption of new management and development opportunities, which are enabled by innovative technology. In addition to innovative technologies a new framework that enables assessment of the interconnectedness of environment and ecoservices, industry and economics, and social and national interests is required. The “triple bottom line” approach currently used by governments and industry for examining the effectiveness, efficiency and economics of decisions has proven to be limited in its understanding of their interconnectedness. The complex interrelated dynamics of these processes are affected by the decisions taken in assessing a relatively small sector of the planetary system. As we understand more of the ecosystem-ecoservices and planetary dynamics and interrelationships, so our policies and governance frameworks must reflect this understanding; this was identified as the NEXUS approach adopted at Bonn (2011) and recognized at the recent United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.5 II.
AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
A. What is the Nexus? A NEXUS approach adopts a transparent framework for assessing and determining the affect of trade-offs on the use of water for energy and food production, without compromising sustainability5. The nexus approach was an outgrowth of the Conference held in Bonn (2011)2 that considered the current sustainability of the “business as usual” approach and surmises – as did the recent world economic forum1 – that this model was flawed and destined for collapse in the medium to longer term. Hence there exists a window of opportunity to adapt to a changed regime that focuses more on the inter-related outcomes than on single issue, single industry or individual nation considerations. B. The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus The water, energy and food security nexus is the term adopted to highlight that the three sectors – water security, energy security and food security – are inextricably linked.7 An improved understanding of these linkages will enable increased efficiency, better trade-off outcomes, enhanced synergies and improved governance of resources. By developing a nexus approach in the context of increasing population, climate variability and land use change the demands for basic services and growing desires for higher living standards can be more appropriately addressed. The water, energy and food security nexus is neatly illustrated in Figure 1, which demonstrates how this approach can enhance water, energy, and food security even in a green economy by building cross-sector synergies.6
Figure 1. The water, energy and food security nexus.(Hoff 2011[1])
Adopting Hoff’s approach, the three main actors in the nexus are described below. Water security is defined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as "access to safe drinking water and sanitation" 7 , both of which have recently become a human right. While not part of most water security definitions yet, availability of, and access to, water for other human and ecosystem uses is fundamental from a nexus perspective. Water can be further delineated as consumptive and nonconsumptive in its use, and other classifications determined as blue, green, or grey water depending on the source and previous utilisation. 8 Energy security is defined by the United Nations as "access to clean, reliable and affordable energy services for cooking and heating, lighting, communications and productive uses".9 While not specifically stated, it is certainly implied that this can be achieved while respecting environment concerns. Food security is defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) as "availability and access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet the dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life".10 The emphasis on “access” in these definitions, implies that security is not about average availability of resources (e.g. annual), but incorporates reliability of supply to account for extreme situations such as droughts or price shocks, and relies on the resilience of the population affected. C. Thinking in a Nexus Perspective Thinking in a nexus perspective relies on an understanding of the cross-interdependencies between water, energy, food and other actors such as governance, regulation, and ecosystem services. To realize direct and indirect synergy potentials these actors need to be integrated transdisciplinary and transboundary in nature. The nexus perspective thus helps us to 7
5
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development “Rio+20”, Brazil, 20-22 June 2012 (http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.html) 6 Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) 2011: Understanding the Nexus; Background paper for the Bonn2011 Nexus Conference (http://www.waterenergy-food.org/documents/understanding_the_nexus.pdf)
UNDP: Millennium Development Goals, Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. 8 Hoekstra, AY, Chapagain, AK. Aldaya, MM. and Mekonnen, MM. 2011. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan. London.UK. 9 UN Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC), Summary Report and Recommendations, 28 April 2010, p. 13. 10 FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit 13–17 November 1996. Rome.
move beyond the traditional single disciplinary doctrine and focuses on the mutually beneficial potential of cooperation. Understanding the nexus, therefore, requires the development of alternative policies, strategies and investments to exploit synergies and mitigate tradeoffs among these three development goals. Industry and government are coming to realization that current regulatory11 and economic1 frameworks are inadequate and require revitalization with the active participation of and among government agencies, the private sector and civil society. In this way, unintended consequences can be avoided, and serendipitous outcomes harnessed more effectively. In sum, the nexus perspective provides an informed and transparent framework for sustainably meeting increasing demand.7 Hence it is important to incorporate the nexus perspective in future local, national and international planning activities that focus on the interaction with water, food, or energy at all levels. III.
WATER, F OOD, AND ENERGY SECURITY IN A CHANGING CLIMATE
A. Recent Issues and Challenges The ‘nexus’ debate is primarily a debate about natural resource scarcity, that will be exacerbated by changes in population and climate. As the world’s population continues to grow, the agricultural industry will need to reinvent itself to supply this ever burgeoning demand. Critically this must be achieved in the face of increasingly declining availability of prime land and water resources, urbanization, and losses to the energy sector as cheap access to fossil fuels decline and biofuel production is considered as an alternative. Some of the natural resources that support human wellbeing are renewable and seeming endless, such as solar energy. However, the vast proportion of the resources needed to generate fresh water, energy, and food for the world’s growing population are limited: resources such as land, soil, nutrients and fresh potable water. The quantity of available potable water is also difficult to measure in absolute terms, as there is a cyclic effect with water in the atmosphere, in clouds, in glaciers, in groundwater, lakes and river systems. So there is a constant state of flux in relation to where and how much water is available. In addition, quantifying the virtual water9 that is in transit through the food chain, in the population, in domestic and urban use, the flora and fauna, remains a theoretical exercise at best. Thus, quantifying what is available is difficult; suffice to state that it is limited, changes daily and apart from river systems and lakes, is normally abundant where there are smaller populations (e.g. the Polar regions, Canada, Greenland and Russia) and more heavily cycled (i.e. cyclones/hurricanes/ monsoons) in areas with large populations in the tropic and sub-tropics (e.g. southeast Asia, central America, Asian subcontinent, and central Africa). This natural land and water resource base is also, as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reminds us, degraded and
polluted by centuries of human mismanagement. 12 These pressures lead to the gritty political economy questions: ‘how are natural resources defined and managed, and for whose benefit?’ These questions require careful analysis and underpin the nature and certainty of what determines a sustainable resource use trade-off. Understanding the resources base and its functional dynamics is a key component of the nexus strategy. If the dynamics are understood then the activities that impinge on these processes can be evaluated and assessed in terms of ‘value adding’ or a ‘value loss’. This gain or loss is directly related to the ecosystem performance termed ‘ecoservices’ that are provided within this natural environment. If the key activity is purported to be loss making, i.e. polluting stream flow, then there is an ensuing penalty, either in the form of economic compensation, environmental restitution, or regulatory compliance that seeks to redress the balance within the ecosystem. Our current ‘triple bottom line” models focus on profit or loss, without concern for cumulative impacts or long term regional or global implications. The nexus framework proposes to redress these inequities. However, understanding the environment in which we now find ourselves with significantly changed landscapes, urbanization, polluted water systems and altered climates, raises two fundamental issues: ‘What is the natural environment?’, and ‘How do we want it to function in the future?’ These issues pose a conundrum in that, if systems have been severely degraded or changed, to what extent can they or should they be rehabilitated? Of primary consideration is do we have the tools and capabilities to monitor the changes in ‘real time’ as opposed to modelled futures, and snapshots of the past. Can we actually recover or sustain that which has been altered or lost? B. Opportunities for the Future Understanding the key interactions of major actors and drivers in natural systems can provide some answers. Linking these drivers with economic models and societal benefits, inherently suggests that we need to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach on multiple levels and scales. ‘Nexus’ thinking bears some similarities to previous efforts to holistically examine the impacts and offsets associated with human activities. For example, Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was intended as a cross-sectoral approach to managing freshwater needs for human health and sanitation against the demands for energy (e.g. hydropower) and food (e.g. crop irrigation).13 Economies of scale, linked with ecoservices provision, will be significant factors in determining the cost efficiency and investment required to provide a long term resource sustainability that ensures food, energy and water security. However, in practice IWRM has often not delivered the expected outcomes, as the application of the framework fails to address the underlying politics of resource allocation,
12 11
AWA-Deloitte 2011. State of the Water Sector Survey 2011. The view from the top. AWA-Deloitte. Sydney Australia.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx) Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) (http://waterwiki.net/index.php/IWRM) 13
perceived transboundary grievances, nationalist objectives and linkage to markets. The opportunity exists to rethink the political and management frameworks to provide for a more holistic assessment process for the allocation of resources. Part of this process is in understanding climate variability and monitoring the impacts of adaptive management strategies, through innovative approaches to science and technology. Clearly as part of the nexus thinking process these science-based approaches need to be linked with policy, governance, societal and economic objectives. C. Establishing a Connection between Climate Divergence and land use change on water quality Establishing a connection between climate divergence and rainfall delivery variability associated with extreme events (wet and dry) by using atmospheric synoptic characterization methodologies will enable an improved understanding of the impacts on soil and agriculture. Developing an effective analytical tool for understanding these events and their transitional behaviours is paramount, whilst recognizing that there may be both primary and secondary drivers associated with regional climate variability. In understanding the rainfall inputs and the interactions between surface, and subsurface runoff and the re-distribution of nutrient and contaminants is a significant step forward. By assessing delivery and transport mechanisms greater understanding of the dynamics of catchment systems can be gained, and therefore of the (eco-) services provided. Significant research has been completed within Australia and internationally regarding environmental agricultural contaminant (particularly nutrients) transport processes at a range of scales. 14 These studies have examined processes at both the “land management unit” scale (for example; a farm or an individual field) and the larger, catchment scale. Research has been undertaken on linking these two scales to examine the effects at the larger scale from activities at the smaller scale. However, the in-stream contaminant transport processes and pathways within the actual drainage systems which transport sediment and water-borne contaminants between these two scales are still very poorly understood. Additionally, computer modelling of farm to catchment processes is increasingly being used as the basis on which decision makers (including regulatory authorities) make their planning and policy decisions. The in-stream components of these models are also recognized as the most data-sparse components of the models. Therefore, this creates an opportunity for more innovative monitoring technologies to provide this data, in real time, through improved sensors and wireless networks. If landscape response times and flux changes in transportation are captured by these technologies, then they can be linked with synoptic characterization models to provide an effective forecasting tool. This approach will provide an enabling tool that land and water managers can use for identifying and analyzing the risk and forecasting the potential impact of short-to-medium term rainfall variably. By applying 14
Rivers, MR, Weaver, DM, Smettem KRJ and Davies PM (2011). Estimating future scenarios for farm-watershed nutrient fluxes using dynamic simulation modelling. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 36:420-23
‘nexus’ thinking to science, technology and policy, better land and water management outcomes can be achieved, and thus improved food, water and energy security. The research being undertaken now will focus on two broadacre farming areas as case studies; the dryland and irrigated agricultural sub-regions of southwestern Australia (SWA) and a comparable region in North America. The SWA case study will be used to develop the analytical tool and the North American case study will be used to demonstrate that synoptic characterization methodologies can be applied globally to understand and assess the risks associated with the potential impacts of short-to-medium term rainfall variability. These case studies will also provide the basis for tool validation as selected representative areas at risk of typical and extreme responses to climate change. In addition, sensor technologies are being developed to compliment the forecasting tool, which will provide input into the dynamics model that can estimate the likely losses and redistributions of nutrients, and therefore the resilience of the system in response to change. This poses an alternative view of resilience, that is: “a system’s ability to absorb disturbances and reorganise itself into a better configuration, whilst retaining its fundamental characteristics” 15. By adopting this view we start see the application of dynamic modelling in a catchment, ecosystem and global context. D. Synoptic Characterisation of Regional Climate Global climate change is having an increasingly dramatic impact on water and food security. Without appropriate understanding of the relevant atmospheric dynamics that deliver rainfall – and thus water resources – to regions that are water limited, 16 appropriate risk analysis and mitigation methodologies cannot be adopted. Historical synoptic data shows that recent climate variability displays greater divergence from the long term trend, suggesting that this variability can be analysed using the synoptic characteristics of the delivery mechanism rather than the occurrence of extreme events. If the variation in rainfall delivery and water availability associated with climate change and its potential impact on essential human activities – such as broadacre farming – is to be clearly understood, then we must consider the short and medium variability of atmospheric parameters from long term trends, not the long term trends themselves. Information gained through the synoptic characterization of regional climate, in conjunction with other data gathering activities, form the basis for studies that provide a large portion of the data required for evaluating and validating numerical regional and global scale climate models. Information from these studies indirectly assists in the evaluation of the impacts due to potential future climate changes on the regional hydrologic system.17
15
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. and Kinzig, A. (2004), “Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems”, Ecology and Society, vol. 9, no. 2. 16 The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO 2011, p12 17 Climatic Interpretations of Terrestrial Paleoecology, Study Plan Number R 3 1.5.13A, Rev 0, January 13 1992, p4-1, Prepared by the United States
An example is the synoptic characterization of all Great Lakes river-mouths being undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 18 This work is designed to help local and regional managers understand the entire spectrum of rivermouth types, as well as the key driving variables at work for local restoration applications. Through the development of initial indicator metrics of the ecological condition of foodwebs, it will facilitate regional, collaborative discussions to build broad-based scientific understanding and management applications. This research will provide powerful tools for management, as it is this understanding that will serve to guide an array of restoration activities, including identifying critical habitat needs, assuring alignment with fundamental ecosystem processes, and planning for effects of land use and climate change. E. Benefits to Society For benefits to accrue to the global community, an extremely cost-effective way is to take two complimentary approaches to better understanding and managing water quality issues in a changing climate. Most decisions regarding the status of natural resources (such as water quality) and the potential or actual impact on these resources by proposed management actions are underpinned by measurements of specific parameters that are seen as “indicators” of the health of the asset. However, while indicators such as these are highly variable in both space and time, the measurement and ongoing monitoring of these indicators are inherently limited in both of these aspects due to resource constraints in terms of time, money, people and equipment. Studies have been completed previously which illustrate the importance of the appropriate temporal frequency and spatial distribution of monitoring networks. It is clear from these studies that monitoring at too small a frequency or areal distribution can significantly misrepresent the true magnitude and effect of complex processes such as catchment-scale contaminant loss. 19 Implementation of monitoring equipment and schedules at the appropriate rates and densities to provide truly meaningful data and the use of conventional monitoring equipment can cost many thousands of dollars per year. However, by adopting a two pronged approach that seeks to understand the dynamics of climate inputs – rainfall in particular – and the causal effects of redistribution of water in the landscape, it is possible to achieve sustainable outcomes. The primary outcome of this development is a decision support toolkit that will inform investment, adaptation, resource condition assessment, and land and water management. This toolkit will provide land and water managers and key decision makers with an effective methodology for improved understanding of short-tomedium term rainfall variability and climate change by:
facilitating best management practice for land, water and productivity in marginal and dryland agriculture;
facilitating improved rural water supply systems;
optimizing opportunities for sustainable management of ecosystems such as rivers and landscapes and the productive resource base;
providing data for management, water government response;
analysis of the effect of rainfall variability on water run-off, groundwater recharge, water quality, soil condition, nutrient status and nutrient cycling under current and potential land uses in the soil-landscapes of SWA and a selected North American region; and
high frequency data collection undertaken to measure the temporal scale of these fluxes and, especially, the residence time of water and contaminants under a variety of weather and climatic conditions. IV.
improved water resource policy instruments and
CONCLUSION
Applying ‘nexus’ thinking to issues surrounding water, energy, and food security will ultimately encourage the development of improved land and water quality management plans and small and large-scale decision support systems which will provide greatly-increased levels of confidence in predicting water quality under changing climate scenarios. However, this will require the development of new tools and technologies to allow us to make the necessary water and contaminant flux measurements more representative and costeffective than has so far been the case. The development of reliable and robust sensor-based environmental monitoring networks, which will produce temporally and spatially representative datasets, will ultimately provide more reliable information for decision makers regarding water and nutrient transport under varying climate scenarios. A more fundamental understanding is required on the interactive dynamics to fully identify and understand the potential to unravel robustness (or resilience) of these landscapes, and thereby assess the relevant importance (at cost) of the ecoservices that are provided. Better monitoring technologies, data collection options and analytical tools will provide a framework for better decision making and risk management. This is at the heart of the nexus approach to managing the dynamic nature of inter-related goals and resources, the basic understanding that decisions in one sector will affect another. Without this type of holistic approach, providing secure sustainable access to water and food, while addressing our energy needs, will not be achievable. REFERENCES [1]
Geological Survey for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC 2O85 (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0318/ML031840511.pdf) 18 Characterization of Rivermouth Ecosystems, U.S. Geological Survey (http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/projects/accountability/rivermouth_ecosystems.html) 19 Wang, N., N. Zhang, et al. (2006). "Wireless sensors in agriculture and food industry—Recent development and future perspective." Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 50(1): 1-14.
H. Hoff, H., Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, November 2011.
