Nexus and Security Thinking // Whose Nexus? Whose Security?

There is great importance and value in breaking the tendency to treat water energy and food policies in different silos. The nexus has proved an important and increasingly popular contribution to this. But what have we learned from the past? Previous concepts such as Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) were also promoting integrated approaches. While the nexus is providing important momentum to the implementation of such thinking in the policy debate, the debate does not seem to attract as much attention in global energy and food forums compared to international water meetings. The nexus can be considered to be framed around a scarcity narrative. This is shown by the fact that it came into existence during the time of the financial, energy and food crises of 2007 and 2008, where predictions of growing demand were coupled with concerns for the stability of supply in the face of climate change and questions concerning the long-term availability of non-renewable resources. #box:addon <>

Jeremy Allouche

is a research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, a member of the {http://steps-centre.org/|ESRC STEPS Centre} and co-author of {http://steps-centre.org/publication/nexus-nirvana-nexus-nullity-dynamic-approach-security-sustainability-water-energy-food-nexus/?referralDomain=working-paper|Nexus Nirvana or Nexus Nullity?}, a STEPS Centre working paper. <>

Maria Cooper

is an intern at the STEPS Centre. She is presently studying International Relations at the University of St. Andrews.

Another blog on the nexus by Jeremy Allouche on the politics of the nexus is available on {http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/jun/24/food-energy-water-politics-nexus|The Guardian website}.

#box Such a scarcity narrative has great implications on the perspective of security being proposed in the nexus. Security is easily associated with stability and the protection from danger. This entails a belief that in order to achieve security, change should be controlled rather than through adapting to circumstances outwith our control. Examples of this are numerous in the nexus discourse, with framings such as bringing the "situation under control" and "halting" or "curbing" climate change. That is, there is a tendency to see ecological change and transformations as threats, which should be mitigated by bringing about stability, and that this "stability" can be achieved through manipulating a few key variables. Water, energy and food systems are inherently dynamic complex systems, the security of which cannot be treated in a linear equilibrium fashion. With the nexus approach comes the necessity of treating tradeoffs — which means that we also need to consider the assumptions and bases behind the tradeoffs. This is where the perception of security becomes crucial. If the linear stability security thinking is employed to motivate the tradeoffs, the results and policy decisions that result might not be able to cater for the complexity of the situation at hand. It has been warned that a simplistic form of nexus thinking can lead to the commodification of resources, in turn leading to a down prioritisation of other long-term environmental externalities such as biodiversity or climate change. Policy makers need to accept the uncertainty associated with climate change and the complexity inherent in water, energy and food systems, and the limitations to enforce stability that this entails. An example of this is the Rasi Salai dam in North-eastern Thailand, where different perspectives on security can be analysed. The dam was proposed as an integrated way of reducing water scarcity whilst maximising farmer output to encourage economic growth in the region. However, the result of the dam was in fact quite the opposite. Only 1,600 hectares arable land out of the predicted 5,500 is being irrigated and the local population is experiencing more water scarcity now than before the construction of the dam. This is partly due to the fact that the dam was constructed on an underground salt dome, rendering the water increasingly saline and consequently unfit for irrigation. But it is also because the local population had been using the water in a more diverse and dynamic way than is now being catered for by the dam. Villagers in the region had used the river as a source of food, the local wetlands were an important source of herbal medicines as well as a place to grow rice and vegetables, and additional land was used for livestock raising. The construction of the dam, and the associated loss of ecosystems that this entailed, meant that the possibility for this diverse usage and its important support for local livelihoods was lost. As the case of the Rasi Salai Dam shows, the approach to security found in the nexus, fuelled by the perception of scarcity and prioritising solutions emphasising stability and control is not always successful. It is important to recognise the limitations of the stability and control-seeking approach. This means rebalancing governance control-oriented solutions to the incorporation of adaptive solutions where the limits to control are acknowledged. In water security, this may take the form of plural water storage systems, including natural wetlands, enhanced soil moisture, groundwater aquifers, ponds and tanks, and large or small dams/reservoirs, using each in the geographical, cultural and political circumstances it is most fit for. This calls for a critical reflection and awareness of what type of security and whose security is being promoted in the nexus.