FAO.org

Giovanni Muñoz a land and water development engineer, FAO Investment Centre talks about how developing scenarios around the water-energy-food nexus is a useful approach for strategic thinking and long-term planning.

What has been your experience with the approach?

FAO's land and water division first used a scenario approach for a Nile Basin project involving ten countries in discussions on Nile River water use. I thought it would be useful to apply a similar approach in an Aral Sea Basin project, involving five Central Asian countries and Afghanistan. These countries have been discussing how to share water resources for more than 20 years without coming to any substantial agreement, beyond allocating seasonal water volumes in what is considered a zero sum exercise.

We had five workshops in 2012, bringing in senior people from the countries' water, agriculture and energy sectors, and also representatives from the environment, NGOs, civil society and the ministries of Foreign Affairs. It was an extremely heterogeneous group. Our idea was to steer the conversation away from contentious issues and get people to focus on finding a common vision for the future and what they would need to do to achieve that. We used water as an entry point, but the interdependencies between the different sectors were clear. Participants realized it would not be conducive to limit the discussion to any one sector without properly considering the needs of the others.

The participants developed different scenarios around two main drivers: governance, which was defined as the capacity of institutions to deliver the goods and services needed for natural resources use; and economic revenue from natural resources. Some countries in the region, for example, depend on fossil fuel exports, so their economies are tied to international markets. The exercise got participants thinking about what would be important in each scenario and what policy adjustments would need to be made on natural resources use.

This was just the first phase. We need to secure the resources for a second phase so we can help the participants use those scenarios to improve strategic decision-making and investments in infrastructure and institutions at national level and to guide collaboration at regional level.

What are the main challenges in the Aral Sea Basin?

In Central Asia, most of the energy used by upstream countries is locally produced hydropower or imported fossil fuels, mainly from downstream countries − Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The downstream countries use water originating and stored in upstream countries to irrigate their crops. The challenge is the timing. For upstream countries that rely on water for electricity, water is released during the winter months, when energy demand is at its highest. But the water flows downstream at a time when it is not needed for irrigation. Downstream countries have limited capacity to store the water and there's often flooding. And then when summer comes there is not enough water to irrigate their crops. When the large reservoirs were built during the Soviet period, irrigation was prioritized, and winter energy needs were covered with energy supplied by the downstream countries. The system was centrally managed during that time.

What about regional collaboration? 

Basically the same discussion has taken place every year where countries just talk about how to divide up the actual volume of water and that's it, without considering how they could benefit more by working together. During the project’s workshops, people talked about different options for collaboration to solve upstream/downstream problems.

For example, about a third of the water consumed by downstream countries, particularly in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, is used to irrigate wheat. We're talking about a very arid region, almost desert-like. But in northern Kazakhstan, where they have good soils, they grow and export a huge amount of rainfed wheat. If they could agree on having a regional market for wheat, that would reduce irrigation requirements in the downstream countries. Those countries could then focus on more high-value crops or crops that require less water, reducing pressure on the system, and obtain their wheat from their neighbour.

Joint infrastructure ventures were also discussed. Upstream countries have invited downstream ones to build infrastructure together, something that has happened in other parts of the world. The water used to produce energy in the winter would flow to another nearby dam downstream where it would be stored until the summer for irrigation use in downstream countries. But it would require these countries to invest jointly in infrastructure and management. They haven't reached an agreement yet, but it could be a mutually beneficial situation for countries involved.

What would you like to see happen in the coming years?

My first wish would be to have the resources to continue the second phase before it's too late. We want to involve the same people who participated in the first phase. The scenarios can help countries better strategize and understand what their priorities are over the long term and where they need to invest. If we wait too long the relevance of the scenarios will decrease over time.

I think FAO is beginning to see the nexus approach as a very useful tool, especially for complex dialogues. As a water engineer, I take water as the entry point but I have realized that water conflicts are often solved outside of the water box. The issue of regional trade agreements on cereals, for example, would eliminate many of the water pressure issues in Central Asia. It's not a solution in the water domain, but it is a solution to water problems.