Regional Report
Regional Process
Commission
Region: Asia-Pacific
ANNEX
Theme: Development

Coordinator: Asia-Pacific Water Forum

Pre-forum version
March 2018

8 th W ORL D W ATER FORUM | BRASÍ L I A -BRASI L , MARC H 1 8 -2 3 , 2 0 1 8
www.worldwaterforum8.org | secretariat@worldwaterforum8.org| office@apwf.org

1

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum

Theme: Development

Water, Development, and the Nexus
Theme Leader: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the PacificCo-leader: Mekong Region Futures Institute (MERFI)
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Asia

Contents
1

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1
Asia’s development gains ........................................................................................................... 3
1.2
Development Gains and the Water, Energy Food Nexus............................................................... 5
2 Case studies: Lessons learnt from Nexus studies in Asia....................................................................... 8
2.1
Myanmar .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2
Lower Mekong basin.................................................................................................................10
2.3
Indian groundwater ..................................................................................................................11
3 Action towards sustainable Nexus interactions ................................................................................12

Abstract
The past three decades have witnessed unprecedented growth in most parts of Asia with
substantial improvements for food security. However, many development investments havetriggered trade-offs, which creates increasingly awareness of the water, food, and energy
Nexus and its inherent cross-sector relationships. Applied research suggests that the futureachievement of development goals depends on the improved management of the Nexus. This
challenge unfolds into three main elements, an improved capacity to assess nexus interactions
and sustaonability outcomes, the governance of the Nexus, and the design of effective
incentives and policy instruments to navigate Nexus trade-offs. This paper describes casestudies in the Mekong basin, Myanmar and India to address these three challenges. Case study
results suggest that strategically investing in parallel in all three domains – assessment,
governance, and policy instruments – is likely to ensure a steady improvement of our ability to
manage water, food and energy trade-offs and realise more sustainable development
outcomes.

2

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum

1. Background
1.1.

Asia’s development gains

Thirty years ago, large parts of Asia were facing substantial development deficiencies whileduring the 1980s Japan and the so-called Tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South
Korea) already experienced unprecedented economic growth. Over the past two decades,
most of Asia’s economies have experienced substantial growth, particularly China andSoutheast Asia, with many countries graduating from least developed status, see Figure 1.

GN I per capita (Current US$)GNI per capita (Cirrent US$) with LDC graduation threshold
4000
3500
3000

2500
2000
Graduation
Threshhold

1500

1000
500

0
Bhutan
2000

Nepal
2004

Bangladesh Sri Lanka Afghanistan
2008

2012

2016

India

Pakistan

Graduation Threshhold

FIGURE 1 WORLD BANK DATABANK (COUNTRIES WITH MOST COMPLETE DATABASE)

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in South Asia increased from $443 per capita in the year
2000 nearly quadrupled to $1,640 in 2016, while in East Asia and the Pacific (excl. high income
countries) GDP increased in the same period from $958 to $6,586 per capita, see Figure 2.

3

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum
GDP Per Capita (Current US$)7000

US D Current

6000
5000
4000
3000

2000
1000
0

East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)South Asia

FIGURE 2WORLD BANK DATABANKThis economic growth facilitated a substantial drop in poverty in South Asia from about 40% of
the population in 2000 to 15% in 2013 and in East Asia and the Pacific from around 33% in2000 to 7% (2013). With significant case studies in Kazakhstan and Indonesia. In Kazakhstan
poverty rates decreased by at least 90% in rural and urban areas and in Indonesia, poverty
decreased by 32% in rural areas and 42% in urban areas.
Rural & Urban poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines
Indonesia & Kazakhstan (% of rural population)

70

Rural poverty Indonesia
Rural poverty Kazakhstan
Urban poverty Indonesia
Urban poverty Kazakhstan% of Population

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

FIGURE 3

2011

2012

2013

2014

WORLD BANK DATABANK

According to the 2015 FAO report on the state of food insecurity in the world, much of thissuccess is based on efficiency gains in the agricultural sector and the provision of energy accessfor the transition from primary to secondary and tertiary sector employment. Today in the Asia
Pacific region, urban electrification rates are high, however this is still more work required forrural energy access.

4Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum
ELECTRICITY ACCESS IN DEVELOPING ASIA - 2016
RegionChina
India
Southeast Asia
Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
MyanmarPhilippines
Singapore
Thailand
VietnamRest of developing Asia
Bangladesh
DPR Korea
Mongolia
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Other Asia
Developing Asia

Population without
electricity
millions
0
244
102
0
10
41
1
0
36
11
0
1
2
166
60
18
0
7
51
0
29

National
electrification rate
%
100%
81%
84%
100%
34%
84%
87%
100%
32%
89%
100%
99%
98%
66%
62%
26%
90%
76%
73%
99%
35%

Urban
electrification rate
%
100%
96%
94%
100%
97%
96%
97%
100%
59%
94%
100%
100%
100%
84%
84%
36%
98%
97%
90%
100%
66%

Rural
electrification rate
%
100%
74%
74%
99%
18%
71%
82%
99%
18%
85%
100%
98%
97%
56%
51%
11%
73%
72%
61%
98%
24%

512

86%

96%

79%

TABLE 1 IEA, WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2016

1.2.

Development Gains and the Water, Energy, and Food Nexus

Asia’s agricultural production increased by 52% between 2000 and 2016, this is largely due tosubstantial investments in irrigation improving food security (FAO 2015). As a consequence ofincreasing agricultural production, household income also increased, resulting in a drop inundernourishment from 17.6% (2000) of the population to 12.1% (2016). However, progresshas been made with significant variances between Asia’s sub regions (FAO 2015). Major gains
were made in South East Asia with a reduction in undernourishment by 53%, in Central Asia
47%, and in East Asia by 37%, however major challenges maintain to bottleneck progress inSouth Asia, while with still a significant 18% reduction, there is still much more work to bedone to ensure consistent reductions in undernourishment.

5

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) (3-year average)
22% of Population

20
18

16
14

12
10

8

1999-20012000-20022001-20032002-20042003-20052004-20062005-20072006-20082007-20092008-20102009-20112010-20122011-20132012-20142013-20152014-2016

Eastern Asia

Southern Asia

South-Eastern Asia

Central Asia

FIGURE 4 FAOSTATThe rapid changes in the Southern and Eastern parts of Asia constitutes a profoundimprovement in food security in the region. “Food security exists when all people, at all times,
have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO 2003). The
success in reducing hunger cannot deflect from the fact that still over half a billion people in
Asia suffer of undernourishment and hunger. Considering the commitment to the eliminationof hunger and malnutrition by 2030 in the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) the
challenge remains high.
Key factors contributing to food insecurity include:• Loss of fisheries, largely due to overfishing and the construction of dams and otherbarriers for fish migration;• Loss of arable land, largely due to urbanization;• Loss of land under food production, largely due to the rise of energy crops and othercash crops;• Increasing competition for water, largely due to urbanization and industrial water
uses; and• Loss of soil fertility combined with increasing fertilizer prices.
Placing food security into the context of these drivers highlights the relevance of water, foodand energy nexus interactions. Changes in water management can affect the availability ofwater for irrigation. Power generation investments can affect water demands (e.g. cooling)
and water availability for irrigated agriculture, but can also affect fish population (e.g.
hydropower) and the availability of land for food production (e.g. energy crops). Energy prices
can affect the (economic) efficiency of pumps for groundwater and surface water based
irrigation, and also affect the competitiveness of food crops against energy crops.

6Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum
Concurrently, some core development drivers impact on all three sectors at the same time,
including, for instance urbanisation dynamics and lifestyle changes.

FIGURE 5 NEXUS APPROACH (FAO)

The Nexus paradigm has been promoted to manage interactions between the water, food, andenergy sector to avoid trade-offs and facilitate synergies. Such a Nexus approach aims toreplace traditional sector optimisation, which is ‘silo-ised’ and risks sub-optimal societal
outcomes. Thereby, Nexus assessments identify combinations of sector investments that leadto improvements at the wider societal scale.
The challenge is to find strategies for managing the water, energy and food Nexus. While thescience community developed a variety of Nexus conceptualisations there is a need to
implement and analyse empirical Nexus assessments. Furthermore, cross-sector coordinating
government agencies (e.g. Ministry of Planning and Investment, Ministry of Finance) and its

7

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forumcommunity of supporting practitioners require practical tools or instruments that help
managing the impending trade-offs and synergies. Conventionally, a successful first step is tocompare case study results to derive possible trajectories and, thereby, determine effective
heuristics (or guidelines) for policy makers. Such heuristics should enable cross-sector
coordinating agencies to (a) safeguard critical levels of food security, water security, andenergy security, (b) expand these important sectors to facilitate growth across the wider
economy and, thereby reduce poverty and improve wellbeing, and (c) design investments sothat sustainable outcomes can emerge from Nexus interactions.
The objective of this paper is to assess a few case studies to identify Nexus relationships thatare critical for understanding food security dynamics. Ultimately, this assessment aims todeliver towards the longer agenda of developing practical guidelines for Nexus management.
This comparative assessment approach employs case studies from Myanmar, the lower
Mekong basin and India’s ground water realities. Key messages include that
- The sustainability of development outcomes depends on the ability to manage
cross-sector trade-offs resulting from interactions in the water, energy and food
Nexus;- Assessment methodology and underpinning data (incl. water accounting) requires
improvement and context-specific implementation;- Governance systems have the existing cross-sector coordination mechanisms that canbe improved to improve Nexus interactions;- Existing policy instruments need to be re-assessed against their Nexus-wide impacts
and new incentives need to be designed to improve development outcomes.

2. Case studies: Lessons learnt from Nexus studies in Asia
2.1.

Myanmar

The notion of an integrated water-energy-food (WEF) sector ‘nexus’ governance framework is
an attractive proposition in Myanmar, a least developed country (LDC) that has recently
emerged from economic isolation. Myanmar faces significant development challenges on
many social, economic and environmental fronts, both within and outside of the WEF sectors.
One such challenge is that less than one-third of the nation’s 54 million people have access toelectricity, and achieving 100% national electrification by 2030 is a central policy goal (ADB,2012).
The emergence of the nexus approach, and many subsequent ‘applications’, focus largely on
developed country contexts with well-established policy frameworks and institutionalarrangements. The aim of this case study is to assess whether adopting a nexus approach
would enhance the governance of water, energy and food in Myanmar, and advance efforts toachieve national policy goals. The results and recommendations draw upon interviews
conducted in 2016 with Myanmar’s national level policy-makers in sectors within and outsideof the WEF sectors, to understand sectoral priorities, governance arrangements, andcoordination mechanisms.

8

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water ForumIn Myanmar, national level modes of collaboration are largely dependent on two main factors:• Policy issues: Inter-sectoral points of collaboration for most sectoral ministries arearound policy specific issues (i.e. resettlement, disaster warning and response,
increasing farm income, irrigation canal improvement and food security).
• Mainstreaming: The Environmental Conservation Department (ECD) under the
Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Natural Resources (MONREC) and the
Public Health and Occupational Safety Department under the Ministry of Health(MOH) emerge as central players in interactions amongst ministries as their mandate is
to mainstream environmental protocols and health safety regulations amongst all
ministries.
Water governance in Myanmar is fragmented and governed in disparate components rather
than as a system. One reason for this fragmentation is because jurisdictional boundaries forgovernance are clearly defined within their agency mandates. For instance, the Department ofElectric Power Planning (DEPP) responsible for large dams and waterways has jurisdiction ofwaterways within five miles upstream and downstream of their dams yet, beyond five miles,
jurisdiction falls under the Directorate of Water Resources and Improvement of River Systems(DWIR). However, this is expected to change as the DWIR, despite its primary mandate toimprove river navigation has been given additional responsibilities to conserve water
resources.
Sectoral collaboration and integration is broadly regarded as positive, and institutional
integration has been on-going at different levels since the current administration took office,though integration not exclusively aligned the WEF sectors:• Ministerial level: Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry (MOECAF) now
merged with the Ministry of Mines (MOM) to form the Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environmental Conservation (MONREC)• Departmental level: Water Resources Utilization Department merged with the
Irrigation Department forming the Irrigation and Water Utilization and Management
Department• Further, donors emerge as key facilitators of collaboration on natural resource andeconomic development policy priorities, particularly The World Bank, AsianDevelopment Bank, and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency.
It was found in Myanmar that it is not entirely clear that studies implementing a nexus
approach can enhance understanding of pressing problems in developing countries in a policy
relevant manner, while not addressing issues pertaining to livelihoods and a broader array of
inputs and natural resources. Further, policy issues, mainstreaming and agency mandates may
bring actors together to improve governance in Myanmar rather than the WEF approach.
However, there is currently substantive ccollaboration and integration to improve governancein Myanmar as the country reforms which has created clear mandates and roles to allow
ministries to carry out their work coherent. It is seen that clear rules could also enhancecollaboration. E.g. DWIR could become a powerful central water institution because of the
new mandate.
While there are strong, existing sectoral and inter-sectoral connections amongst ministries.
SEI’s study concluded that rather than striving to create new links to enhance integration andcollaboration, policy efforts can build off existing links. Further, donors could emerge as central

9Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forumactors in policy issues and can play a coordinating role in strengthening these connections toimprove governance. Development efforts such as capacity building and funding could begeared towards improving these networks. Lastly, institutional structure in Myanmar is in flux.
Clear roles, goals and mandates (not overlapping) amongst ministries need to be establis hed
before recommending which sectors are to integrate.
2.2.

Lower Mekong basin

The Mekong basin is experiencing a phase with substantial influx of investments, largely driven
by the private sector, which facilitated a previously unexperienced increase in economic
growth. Given the sectoral focus of many of these development trajectories importantvulnerabilities have shifted. In order to understand these shifts the Mekong Region Futures
Institute (MERFI) applied the Nexus perspective in the lower Mekong basin. The mostsignificant Nexus relationship connects hydropower, fish, and irri gated agriculture. Mekongbasin countries strive for further economic development and policy makers aim to reduceenergy constraints to facilitate growth of secondary and tertiary sectors. The Mekong provides
substantial hydropower potential, which has already been realised in the upper basin, theLancang in China. Now hydropower is being increasingly realised by Lao PDR. The effect onfood security is projected to be substantial as the combination of barrier effect, flow changes,
and nutrient reductions is impacting on fish stocks and, thereby eroding a critical source ofprotein. Concurrently, irrigation expansions hold the potential to increase food security.
However, due to current market conditions energy crops are more competitive than foodcrops and were therefore able to increase their percentage in land use continuously over the
past decade, in particular cassava and sugarcane. Other cash crops contribute to the pressure
on food security, in particular rubber plantations. This translates into improve d energy andwater security but at the cost of declining food security.
The case study combined three hydrological models, a whole of basin model, a high-resolution
model for the Tonle Sap area and a flood plain model for the Mekong Delta. Additionally, anagent-based model was developed to simulate land use change, spatial poverty shifts,
livelihoods adaptation processes, and migration. The agent-based model was parameterisedby a large-scale household survey and several GIS layers to visualise changes in a dynamic map.
The case study, and its methodology, process and results are described in detail in Smajgl et al.
(2015) and Smajgl and Ward (2013).
The scientific analysis was embedded in a participatory process to ensure assessment remains
focused on actual policy needs and to make the policy uptake more likely. Participants
included senior staff from national line ministries and international donor organisations.
An important lesson learnt during this process was to emphasise the importance of the des ignof the engagement process, particularly in the context of multiple sectors (ministries) and thetransboundary context of the lower Mekong basin. Compared to other science driven
processes this policy driven process had substantially more influence on planning decisions.
The potentially most critical part was the development of a vision all sectors and countries
shared. It facilitated a solution focused discussion, which acknowledged cross-sector

10Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum
trade-offs. A second lesson learnt is that the participatory approach can create challenges forthe research team as it requires more flexibility than the traditional research approach
typically requires. An additional ‘internal’ challenge emerged with the transdisciplinary
approach any Nexus assessment requires; team members from different disciplines had tounderstand each other better to effectively investigate the cross-sector linkages. Hence, for anempirical Nexus assessment scientists need to apply a systems approach and need to beprovided with sufficient resources to ensure effective communication.
2.3.

Indian groundwater

Over the past decades, food security concerns have guided large investments in India’s ruralplanning. The uneven and uncertain distribution of rainfall many states experience constitutes
a major risk for crop failures. Ghosh et al. (2012) emphasises that investments in irrigation
infrastructure is a key strategy to alleviate rural poverty and ensuring food security. While
top-down investments established reservoir capacity to mitigate climate risks bottom-up
adaptation was largely energy driven. Over the past decade, the availability of cheap pumps
and increasingly reduced energy costs groundwater pumping has emerged as a major
adaptation strategy at the farm level. In Rajasthan and Gujarat aquifers are characterised bylimited porosity and connectivity, which delays the refilling of natural groundwater storage.
This link between food, water and energy has introduced an additional, long-term vulnerability
if not managed sustainably.
The MARVI program (Maheshwari et al., 2014) conducted an assessment of spatial andtemporal dynamics of groundwater aquifers in regards to water quantity and quality. Thishydrological information was then connected to farmers’ behaviour and underpinningincentives to develop a governance and monitoring approach that helps realising a moresustainable utilisation of groundwater in Rajasthan and Gujarat. This case study combinedhydrological modelling and sampling with household surveys and workshops. The workshops
involved farmers and focused on awareness raising, monitoring options, and on the design ofeffective village level institutions (or rules-in-use).
One of the main challenges in this context is the design of effective institutions as some statelevel legislation assigns ownership to land holders (connecting property rights of water to land
titles) while the Government of India assigns water rights to states. Considering the complexityof groundwater related dynamics this case study aimed to design a village-level governancescheme that introduces effective constraints and shifts current incentives of groundwater
users. Monitoring emerged as a central challenge considering the level of utilisation ofgroundwater pumps.
The participatory design of this study, which involved stakeholders from multiple levels (village
to state) identified the relevance of local champions to take the promising designs to the next

11

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forumstep of implementation. Currently, the results are being considered for upscaling across fourstates based on funding provided by the Government of India and the World Bank.

3. Action towards sustainable Nexus interactions
FAO’s position paper for the 7th World Water Forum (Facon and Wojciechowska 2015) lists six
key results areas (KRAs) for achieving improved food security outcomes for Asian communities
and for integrating food security better into a wider Nexus perspective:
1. Implementing sound and innovative water accounting and auditing to support
decision- making and management
2. Evolving risk management strategies for national food security policies under water
constraints and economic transitions
3. Implications for agricultural and rural water management of a renewed focus on
ensuring farmer and rural prosperity for managing socio-economic transitions
sustainably: plotting new futures for irrigation and drainage under long-term vision
4. Supporting investments boosting ecosystem and water productivity, maintaining water
quality across agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, irrigation and drainage-recognizing its
multiple services- and their supply chains and supporting rural transformations:
5. Managing the changing dynamics of the water- energy-food nexus
6. Capacity building
3.1.

Water Accounting

As water scarcity is a key issue of the water, energy and food Nexus, pressure on agriculture
water use to become more ‘efficient’ is increasing, but water conservation policies, strategies
and investments are often founded on a misunderstanding. Productivity and efficiency gains
do not necessarily mean that more production will be possible with less water. Additionally,effective and accurate monitoring is lacking in order to understand sectoral water use
intensities over time. Across Asia, many initiatives have started designing or implementing
improved monitoring schemes to effectively account for the various water uses at the river
basin and improve efficiency. Increasing efficiency in this context means that consumption isincreased as the service more precisely and uniformly matches water needs.
3.2.

Infrastructure Investments

The management of food security risks due to climatic or economic drivers requires moreinnovative solutions, particularly when water related incentives shift between food andenergy. Recent droughts and floods across the region have emphasised the need to put
effective infrastructure in place to mitigate food insecurity. Most attention received
infrastructure solutions in form of more reservoirs to reduce peak related effects. Further, inorder to address climate variables which have seen to have a significant impact on

12

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum
physical/human capital – such as roads, storage and marketing infrastructure, houses,
productive assets, electricity grids, and human health – which indirectly changes the economic
and socio-political factors that govern food access and utilization and can threaten the stabilityof food systems (FAO 2008). Clearly, improved development and higher income have enabledmost Asian countries to provide more effective responses in extreme situations and avoid
widespread famine however as the climate continues to change, our solutions will need to
evolve.
Currently the Asian Development Bank is implementing innovative approaches in Tajikistan to
improving food productivity and distribution such as agribusiness value chain development,
knowledge development for farmers on external markets and cultivating techniques, as well as
rehabilitated and constructed climate-resilient irrigation channels, river embankments, andrural water supply schemes to assist countries in tackling their infrastructure deficit to ensure
food security.
Further, economic influences can unfold in annual trends or in form of long term trends.
Annual fluctuation in the price of rice and other food crops can trigger substantial problems for
those households that have no subsistence production, particularly the urban poor. These
economic processes have also converted into trends that affect food security incrementally.
For instance, the growing difference between economic margins f armers generate from theproduction of rice and from energy crops (e.g. sugarcane or cassava) converts into anincreasing share of energy crops in agricultural production. Depending on population growthand productivity improvements these shifts can lead to a reduction in food production percapita. For instance, in 2006, total world production of cassava was around 226 million tonnes
with Africa as the main producer region, with Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo accounting for almost 70 percent of the world´s cassava (FAO,
2000). Cassava is also used as starch for myriad food products and industrial goods, including
cardboard, glue, laundry starch, textile, plywood, tapioca pudding, and alcohol (FAO, 2000;
FAO, 2002). The second important use of cassava is as a feed ingredient for pork, poultry,
cattle and fish farming. A number of projects have been designed to increase the production
and industrialization of cassava for income generation and food security for the lo w-income
population in rural Africa and Asia (FAO, 2001; Manyong et al., 2000). Since this crop is
important for food, feed, and the livelihood of people in the developing countries, there has
been concern about the impact of its use for biofuel feedstock on food security (Sidhu, 2011).
In terms of international trade, Thailand supplies around 80 percent of cassava on the world
market (FAO, 2001). Thailand, Viet Nam, Nigeria and especially China are among the countries
that are considering using cassava for bioethanol. Realizing that using food crops for biofuel
can contribute to increases in food prices, from 2007 onwards the Chinese government
stopped new plans for grain based ethanol, and looked as alternatives at cassava and sweetsorghum, considered in China as non-food crops (Huang et al., 2008). China´s increased
imports for cassava especially from Thailand, as biofuel feedstock instead of wheat and corn,
contributed to the increase in the price of cassava in 2008 (Rosenthal, 2011; Scott & Junyang,2012; Fengxia, 2007). Raw cassava exports from Thailand, the world’s largest exporter,

13

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forumswitched from EU for feed to China for biofuel: Thailand sent nearly 98 percent of its cassava
pellets exports to China in 2010, a fourfold increase over 2008 (Rosenthal, 2011; Sidhu, 2011).1
3.3.

Irrigation Investments

The need to have long-term visions and strategies in place that improve farmers’ livelihoods
remains a critical action for sustainable development in rural areas. Adequate investments in
irrigation and drainage are pivotal to a sustainable Nexus and resilient food production
systems. Many investments across Asia have focused on these investment needs. For instance,
the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain is critical to China’s agricultural economy and national food security.
Productivity is threatened by climate changes, including a significant overall increase intemperature and declining levels of humidity and precipitation over the past half -century(Yang et al., 2015; Hijioka et al., 2014). In five of the region’s provinces, a World Bank financed
project has promoted water-saving technologies and other improved practices – such as theuse of drought-resistant crop varieties – with the goal of improving water management onsome 500 000 ha of farmland. Irrigation facilities constructed as part of the project weretransferred to 1 000 water users’ associations, which were formed with government support
and participate in all water management decisions. The associations also provide platforms fortraining in new water management techniques. The project helped establish 220 f armer
associations and cooperatives and undertook a variety of research, experimental anddemonstration activities. The focus was on adaptation measures and water-saving
technologies, which were subsequently put into practice by farmers. Some 1.3 million f arm
families saw benefits in the form of reduced irrigation costs, less groundwater depletion andhigher water productivity.2
3.4.

Ecosystem Management

The management of agricultural areas as an integral part of the surrounding ecosystems is still
rarely acknowledges as the majority is focused on infrastructure based production
improvements. The expansion of agricultural area at the cost of important wetlands or forests
is still common and ecosystem services and their (economic) value for agriculture, for the
supply chain, and the broader society are still rarely integrated in the decision-making process.
For instance, the ADB and the Global Environment Facility have developed a program toensure food security in five Pacific Coral Triangle Initiative countries (Fiji, Papua New Guinea[PNG], Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Timor-Leste) by addressing the need to increase theresilience of coastal and marine ecosystems. It will support the introduction of more effective
management of coastal and marine resources to build their resilience in a period of increased
threats arising from human activities and climate change impacts. The technical assistance will1

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE -Repor t-5_Biofu
els_and_food_security.pdf
2 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf

14

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum
contribute toward halting or reversing the expected decline in ecosystem productivity causedby these stressors through more effective management that addresses land and waterinteractions and the management of threats to coastal habitats arising from local humanactivities. By maintaining productivity over a longer time frame, local community well-being
will be ensured.3
3.5.

Energy Technologies

FAO has recently launched a technical cooperation project with Pakistan and Bangladesh toassess the relationships and risks of solar powered irrigation and water scarcity. In recent
years, solar powered irrigation systems (SPIS) have become increasingly viable for countries asa reliable, clean-energy solution for agricultural water use, especially in areas withhigh-incident solar radiation. Further, a growing number of countries are promoting SPIS in theframework of national action plans against climate change as a way of reducing carbon
emissions in agriculture.
However, the conditions for SPIS vary from country to country, including biophysical andclimatic suitability, techno-economic feasibility, institutional arrangements, regulations andpolicy support, financing and economic viability. Recognising the specific context in eachcountry, FAO is seeking to explore how the promise of SPIS can be realised, whilst openly
addressing the risks and challenges that come with the technology – keeping in mind therelationships that exist within the nexus. Within the project, however, FAO is going further toalso explore the equity issues between groundwater resources and energy transformations.
When considering the Nexus in these contexts, it is necessary to turn attention to better
understanding how a technology, or energy transformation for the better can also effectnatural resources.
3.6.

Capacity Development

At the core of many of these development processes is capacity building, which is aprerequisite for sustainable development. This covers several of the domains addressed in thispaper, including the analytical capacity to conduct impact assessments and the evaluation anddesign of governance mechanisms and policy instruments most suitable for thecountry-specific context. Recent years have seen a substantial surge in capacity building
programs carried out in most Asian countries. For instance, the agrarian sector in Central Asia
undergoes radical transformations, involving restructuring of agriculture, transfer from large
state and collective farms to smaller private or leased farms. New masters of farm, who hadmoney, needed skills and recommendations for efficient crop production and development ofmultiple agrarian branches. To address the knowledge gap of farmers who must contend withcomplex changing dynamics (ie: climate, market access, price volatility, etc.) this initiative
seeks to establish a system for transferring knowledge and best practices, including scientificdevelopments, to farmers and their organizations in order to ensure growth of productivity
and risk management in agriculture. The system will permit to increase sharply efficiency offarmer’s production by merging their land and financial capacity and scientifically based
technology, recommendations and methods. ‘Extension services’ are being developed
3

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29078/climate-change-food-security.pdf

15

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum(production of manuals & guides, guidelines, online forecasting tools), along with ‘Provincial
information Centres’, with support from research centres and universities who provide zonal
recommendations and proposals.

4. Conclusion
Empirical evidence emphasises the relevance of trade-offs between investments in the water,food and energy sectors. Managing these trade-offs is a key challenge for achieving sustainable
development outcomes in Asia and beyond. Neglecting these trade-offs is likely to diminish thedevelopment potential of many investment opportunities or create even negative
development outcomes.
Recent case studies have shown that three domains need to be further improved to enhance
our ability to avoid cross-sector trade-offs and realise synergies. One domain is concerned withthe assessment and analysis of development projects. This assessment domain needs to beadvanced to improve the understanding trade-offs in particular contexts, which requires
improved integrated assessment methodology that allows for integrating water, food andenergy interactions. This is likely to establish further data requirements. Such advancements
need to be supported by an improved policy-science interaction that contributes to effective
evidence-based decision making.
The second domain relates to the governance system, which needs to account for water, food,and energy trade-offs. Case studies have shown that improved cross-sector planning andcoordination is partly possible within existing structures. In some instances, it might benefit
from additional inter-agency planning processes that focus on cross-sector effects andprovides the platform for negotiating sustainable outcomes. It seems pertinent to consider thewater, energy and food Nexus when implementing changes to the governance system tofurther improve cross-sector coordination.
Third, policy instruments or incentives are often defined to optimise single secto r outcomeswhile creating substantial losses in other sectors. These incentives include prices, taxes andsubsidies, and access rights. For instance, energy subsidies in India help realising energy
specific goals but result in unsustainable levels of groundwater use. Similarly, market
incentives that make hydropower investments highly profitable affect fish, the main protein
source for millions of households in the lower Mekong basin. Identifying the side -effects andadjusting incentives accordingly is a critical step in managing Nexus trade-offs.
So far, many unsustainable outcomes have emerged as unexpected and unintended side
effects from sector-focused investments. Strategically investing in parallel in all three domains– assessment, governance, and policy instruments – will ensure a steady improvement of ourability to manage water, food and energy trade-offs and realise more sustainable development
outcomes. Water accounting is an important activity supporting all three of these domains.

16

Asia-Pacific Regional Process Report
Regional Process Commission
Asia Pacific Water Forum

References
Asian Development Bank (ADB) 2012. Myanmar in Transition: Opportunities and Challenges.
Philippines: Mandaluyong City, 58 pp.
Biba. S. 2016. The goals and reality of the water-food-energy security nexus: The case of China
and its southern neighbours. Third World Quarterly 37(1), 51-70.
Closas, A., Rap, E. 2017. Solar-based groundwater pumping for irrigation: Sustainability,
policies, and limitations. Energy Policy 104, 33-37.
Cooke, S.J., Allison, E.H., Beard, T.D. Jr., Arlinghaus, R., Arthington, A.H., Bartley, D.M., Cowx,
I.G., Fuentevilla, C., Leonard, N.J., Lorenzen, K., Lynch, A.J., Nguyen, V.M., Youn, S.-J.,
Taylor, W.W., Welcomme, R.L. 2016. On the sustainability of inland fisheries: Finding afuture for the forgotten. Ambio 45(7), 753-764.
Facon, Thierry & Wojciechowska, Marisha. (2015). Successfully managing Asia’s transitions to achieve
food and nutrition security for all and build vibrant rural communities in a water secure andprosperous Asia-Pacific Region - A White Paper on Water and Food Security in the Asia-Pacific.
10.13140/RG.2.1.2814.8644.
FAO (2003). Trade Reforms and Food Security. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4671e/y4671e00.pdf
FAO. (2008). Climate change and food security: a framework document. Found at:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/15538-079b31d45081fe9c3dbc6ff34de4807e4.pdf
FAO (2015). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Found at:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf
Gain, A.K., Giupponi, C., Benson, D. 2015. The water-energy-food (WEF) security nexus: The
policy perspective of Bangladesh. Water International 40(5-6), 895-910.
Karlberg, L., Hoff, H., Amsalu, T., Andersson, K., Binnington, T., Flores-López, F., de Bruin, A.,
Gebrehiwot, S.G., Gedif, B., zur Heide, F., Johnson, O., Osbeck, M., Young, C. 2015.
Tackling complexity: Understanding the food-energy-environment nexus in Ethiopia’s
Lake Tana Sub-basin. Water Alternatives 8(1), 710-734.
Lele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., Goswami, S. 2013. Good governance for food, water and energy
security. Aquatic Procedia 1, 44-63.
Smajgl, A., Ward, J., 2013. The Water-Food-Energy Nexus in the Mekong Region: Assessing
development strategies considering cross-sectoral and trans-boundary impacts. Springer,
New York.
Smajgl, A., Ward, J., Foran, T., Dore, J., Larson, S., 2015. Visions, beliefs and transformation:
Exploring cross-sector and trans-boundary dynamics in the wider Mekong region. Ecology
and Society 20, 15.
Subramanian, S., Manjunatha, A.V. 2014. Demystifying the energy-water-soil-food nexus in
Indian Agriculture. Ecology, Environment and Conservation 20, S303-S312.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the contributions made by Caroline Amy Turner, Alex Smajgl, May Thazin
Aung and Michael Boyland. Caroline Amy Turner and Alex Smajgl co-authored Section 1. May
Thazin Aung and Michael Boyland co-authored Section 2.1, while Alex Smajgl authored
Sections 2.2, 2.3, and Section 4. Caroline Amy Turner and Alex Smajgl adapted Section 3 froman earlier FAO whitepaper (Facon, Thierry & Wojciechowska, Marisha. (2015). Successfully
managing Asia’s transitions to achieve food and nutrition security for all and build vibrant ruralcommunities in a water secure and prosperous Asia-Pacific Region - A White Paper on Water
and Food Security in the Asia-Pacific. 10.13140/RG.2.1.2814.8644.)17