Bridging issue #63

What does the “nexus” really mean in practice?

The concept of the ‘nexus’ can often feel abstract and overused. As a result, people can dismiss it as just another buzzword—used frequently but without real substance or impact.

The nexus approach is about connections and has been promoted to encourage a more holistic perspective on development, particularly around natural resources. It can help emphasise the interdependence of resources and address synergies and trade-offs among their use.

Between 2012 – 2021, DFAT funded the Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio (SDIP), which aimed to improve the management of water, energy and food resources in three major Himalayan river basins – the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra – with a particular focus on benefits for women and girls. The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR SDIP) was one of seven partners working towards the broader portfolio goal. 

The goal of the ACIAR SDIP program was to maximise agriculture’s contribution to sustainable food systems in the EGP (Eastern Gangetic Plains of India, Bangladesh and Nepal), for improved food, energy and water security. At the local level, this meant promoting sustainable agricultural practices as the key pathway to resilient and inclusive farming systems. For any innovation, there needs to be a supportive enabling environment that allows farmers and communities to be able to access and implement these systems for improved profitability and sustainability. At higher levels, this needs effective institutions that can make the key ‘ingredients’ of sustainable systems available and accessible (both in physical, economic and social terms) to more people, and the understanding that scaling in time and place will impact on biophysical and socio-economic systems. It also requires longer term planning and strategies that recognize that if sustainable intensification is the preferred pathway that contributes to future food, energy and water security, transformational changes are required now that can ensure sustainable food systems in the future. 

Between 2017 and 2021, I worked with ACIAR to manage the ACIAR SDIP program. It was not always easy to explain “the nexus” to policy makers or bureaucrats, although having practical examples helped. But this is equally what makes it important to be able to work in the space and communicate what we mean by it. 

Ultimately it is not just about what we are talking about in nexus terms, but also why it is important that we promote working from a nexus perspective. We all know that it is difficult enough even within Australia and within a sector to get people from different disciplines or backgrounds working together. So in many of the places we work it is equally hard to make connections across different resource sectors, but as a donor Australia has an opportunity to create space for these connections to occur. 

Challenge: How do we communicate the nexus concept to others in a meaningful way?

Critical dimensions of the nexus

Taking a nexus approach helps us understand the complex and dynamic links between different sectors or resources and recognize that the decisions made about one will often affect the others.  

As an example, in north eastern India, several pieces of work under ACIAR SDIP looked at the connections between groundwater, energy and food in West Bengal. When major changes were made to energy and groundwater policies in 2011 to make it easier to access electricity, it was assumed that as had happened in other states of India, farmers would access more groundwater, and intensify and diversify their agricultural production. In fact, there was no noticeable change in production at a state level. One of the explanations (from both farmers and policy level analysis) was that there were other driving factors that constrained development related to agriculture and food policy – including rising input costs and stagnant returns, and so there was less incentive to change production patterns. In this case – you can’t just focus on water or energy alone, the food procurement side was lacking, which reduced the expected impact.

Also, although we might focus on the FEW nexus, there are other interacting elements related to resource use that may be more important for our partners or in different locations. For example, energy-water; water-energy-biodiversity; water-energy-environment; water-energy-land; water-food-energy-ecosystem; climate-land-energy-water nexus have all been mentioned by partners and described in the literature. The key idea is to promote and support connections and transdisciplinary approaches to research and development so that relevant areas are managed in an integrated way.

Challenge: How do we define the most critical elements of the nexus to make the approach relevant for others?

The importance of considering scale 

We tend to think about big picture examples of the nexus like hydropower trade-offs between electricity generation, large-scale irrigation and transboundary access issues. When we think of the energy-water nexus, a vision of that dam wall, powerlines, irrigation comes to us; but in reality the nexus plays out at many different scales, both spatial and temporal. 

High level policy and development settings do impact the nexus, but so do the decisions households or farmers make each season. At the household level in much of the world, managing household level FEW security is literally the critical element for survival, and often managed by women on a daily basis; so gender becomes critical to consider.

In ACIAR SDIP we tested and promoted conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification, and we know that these farming approaches save time, water and energy, while also increasing productivity and profitability. This approach is a way to empower farmers to balance the food-energy-water nexus at the farm level. As farmers choose what to do on their farm, those smaller decision-making units of fields and households add up when there are hundreds of millions of them.

In terms of scale we can think about the challenges of matching institutional or administrative settings with biological or geophysical systems, and the varied decision making and planning time frames that are in play (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2021). This is difficult even within sectors, and increasingly so when you consider the interactions between different sectors as is essential in the nexus space. This also contributes to increased uncertainty that must be dealt with.

Challenge: How do we identify the scale issues that are important in managing the nexus?

The way forward – what do we need to do for practical action?

Turning the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus concept from theory into action requires shifting the way we manage resources. Instead of managing food, energy and water as separate issues, we need to acknowledge the connections at multiple scales and ensure on ground action is designed in a way that does not improve one at the expense of the other.  

We have options in agriculture that can boost food production and save water and energy. We need to look for other technologies and approaches that can offer similar benefits; and to have an evidence base at the systems level to improve our understanding of trade-offs and synergies. It is critical that we have strong institutional support that ensures that resources, knowledge, and incentives are in place to scale up these solutions in a way that makes sense both environmentally and economically.

We need long term planning horizons; the decisions we make today shape our future food, energy and water security, and better outcomes will come from planning beyond short-term gains. The challenge of scale must be understood and addressed, since the nexus plays out at multiple levels, from national policies to the choices made by individual farmers and households. 

For real progress, we need to communicate the nexus concept in a way that resonates with decision-makers and practitioners alike, moving beyond abstract ideas to practical solutions. Agriculture can play a leading role as one of the integrating sectors that spans the critical elements of food, energy and water, providing a critical service globally. The more we break down silos and encourage collaboration across sectors, the better equipped we will be to tackle the complexity of managing food, water, and energy in a sustainable and equitable way.

Further reading

ACIAR SDIP Program Website ACIAR SDIP

Does increased access to groundwater irrigation through electricity reforms affect agricultural and groundwater outcomes? Evidence from West Bengal, India: https://research.aciar.gov.au/sdip/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ACIAR+SDIP+IWMI+WB+Final+Report.pdf

Enabling smallholder farmers to sustainably improve their food, energy and water nexus while achieving environmental and economic benefits. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119308524?via%3Dihub

Scale-related governance challenges in the water–energy–food nexus: toward a diagnostic approach https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-020-00888-6

A comparative analysis of water application and energy consumption at the irrigated field level https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037837741000154X

What we found

We found expensive and contentious Basin water reforms have mostly failed to improve outcomes for people and nature along the river system.

When the Basin Plan was adopted, governments cut funding to the independent Sustainable Rivers Audit and the National Water Commission, both of which were axed. They were replaced with far less effective monitoring systems undertaken by agencies with vested interests. Their success measures have focussed on inputs and not external outputs or outcomes. Measures such as the number of state Water Resource Plans accredited by the Commonwealth Government, or gigalitres of water entitlements acquired tell us nothing of whether the water reforms are actually restoring the environment and making peoples’ lives better.

Further, narrowly focussed science consultancies commissioned by government agencies are not delivering the knowledge needed to judge the outcomes of Basin water reforms. While it is nice to know that frogs bred when environmental water was put in a billabong, what Australians really need to know are overarching outcomes, such as whether threatened species populations are recovering^[i], and whether sufficient areas are being watered to maintain freshwater ecosystems.^[ii]

For this study, we developed our own monitoring system based on the stated objectives of the Water Act and Basin Plan. It involved 27 indicators of success across the themes of Indigenous, environmental and social wellbeing, economic performance and compliance with water laws. We used publicly available data spanning more than 40 years.

Troublingly, we found that after more than a decade of Basin Plan implementation 74% of success indicators were not met. This means there was either no improvement or worsening conditions. In particular, only two of 12 environmental indicators were met. Some key findings include:

• flows that governments agreed were required to achieve environmental outcomes were not met at 65% of assessed river gauge sites;
• 79% of Commonwealth environmental water releases from 2014–19 stayed in river channels rather than spilling out to rejuvenate floodplain wetlands;
• the abundance of waterbirds is declining;
• Indigenous rights over water are declining as a percentage of surface water, and water flows to Indigenous-controlled wetlands has not increased;
• the basic human right to access adequate, safe drinking water is not being met in many towns.

The findings are not all negative. We found irrigation communities are not necessarily suffering economically from buy-backs of water entitlements. For example, the period of most water buybacks coincided with marked increases in profits for irrigated farms.

Two environmental indicators show an upward trend. Populations of large-bodied freshwater fish are improving, coinciding with the end of commercial fishing. Pleasingly, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the Murray River have fallen.

The outcomes to date are a far cry from Prime Minister John Howard’s stated intention in 2008 for “once and for all” reform through the Water Act and associated programs.

What does this mean?

Advocates for the Basin Plan persist with two contradictory statements, saying that the reforms are delivering benefits now but that it will take a long time to work given the historical environmental damage. I say that after 12 years and $8 billion dollars expenditure that such wishful statements based on questionable evidence are not good enough.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is due for review in 2026. Our paper outlines options to achieve real outcomes.

Among our suggestions:

• River ecosystems could be mapped to measure direct outputs, for example to ensure Australia meets its Global Biodiversity Framework obligations this decade to manage at least 30% of these ecosystems in protected areas and restore at least 30% of degraded wetlands.
• Some basic interventions could directly improve environmental outcomes with existing environmental water, such as installing cold water mitigation devices on large dams.
• We should reinstate rights of Indigenous nations to own and manage water. And we should actually adopt direct measures to adapt to climate change in the revised Basin Plan.

We owe it to the communities that we serve to ensure that the next version of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based on sound science, focusses on environmental and socio-economic outcomes, and is transparent and accountable.

1. _{https://wentworthgroup.org/portfolio-item/prof-peter-cullen-ao-ftse/ > Science and politics – Speaking truth to power} 
2. _{https://www.publish.csiro.au/MF/fulltext/MF24193}
3. _{https://doi.org/10.1071/MF21057}
4. _{https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01692-x}

Over the last 12 years the Australian Government has commissioned CSIRO to lead multiple large multi-disciplinary water and agriculture resource assessments to provide information and data to improve the confidence of investors and regulators, better inform government expenditure and inform public debate across the north. With the completion of assessments in the Victoria (NT), Roper (NT) and Southern Gulf (NT/Qld) catchments in 2024, CSIRO has now evaluated eight large river catchments across Australia’s north, encompassing an area of over 620,000 km² or nearly three times the area of the State of Victoria. 

Of critical importance in areas such as the Victoria, Roper and Southern Gulf catchments, approximately 75, 73 and 60% (outside of Mount Isa) respectively of the population is Indigenous, compared to 3% for Australia as a whole. Many are Traditional Owners, living on the same lands their people have inhabited for tens of thousands of years, undertaking long-term protection of Country and culture. They include some of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia.

Although the Assessments found that it is physically possible to substantially increase the area of irrigated agriculture in each of the eight study areas, if the recent rate of irrigation development across northern Australia (i.e. a mean annual increase of about 1150 ha over the last 20 years) is a guide to the future, modest scales of water and agricultural development are considered most plausible. However, the risks and scale and nature of opportunities associated with water and agricultural development were found to be starkly different both within and across study areas, and consequently the spatial distribution of any development would be uneven.

Importantly these assessments were designed to inform consideration of development, not to enable any particular development to occur. As such, the Assessments inform – but do not seek to replace – existing planning, regulatory or approval processes. Furthermore the Assessments do not assume a given policy or regulatory environment. Policy and regulations can change, so this flexibility enables the results to be applied to the widest range of uses for the longest possible time frame. The outcome of no change in land use or water resource development is also valid. 

For more information on the Victoria, Roper and Southern Gulf water resource assessments please click on the links below:

Victoria River catchment video and publications

Roper River catchment video and publications

Southern Gulf catchments video and publications

Ms Kirsty Savage has dedicated most of her working life to supporting community, either working with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations or with the public service. Her commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal people means she has led both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal programs in the public service, including in her role as senior manager of the Aboriginal Water Program. 

Ms Savage worked with Traditional Owners across Victoria to lead and deliver Victoria’s Aboriginal Water Program, Water is Life, the first water strategy in Australia to set a pathway for sharing power and resources for water management with First Peoples. In the creation of Water is Life, Ms Savage tirelessly negotiated a pathway through the complex existing legal water-rights frameworks to deliver a roadmap for the future. It was Ms Savage who took the calls from community about their expectations in relation to self-determination and water policy and worked to articulate those expectations. Water is Life set a new benchmark for true partnership with Traditional Owners in policy development and design in Victoria. 

Ms Savage is trusted by both the Aboriginal community and by senior public servants and government ministers. She worked tirelessly to navigate a commitment in Water is Life to protect existing water rights while paving the way to recognise future water rights for Victorian Traditional Owners, based on their 40,000-plus years of connection to country. Ms Savage is a professional public servant, who has carried an enormous cultural load for her community. 

Ms Savage will leave a legacy of fundamental change to the way public servants and government officials think about the management of water resources in Victoria and how they work with Aboriginal Victorians in returning power and resources.

Rob shared key lessons from Sydney’s Places to Swim initiative, emphasizing that cities are living organisms, where systemic change happens collectively—across sectors, communities, and government. The discussion underscored swimming as a ‘Trojan horse’ for regenerating public spaces and reconnecting people with nature. Rob reinforced that public spaces belong to the people, urging advocacy, accountability, and action to ensure their regeneration. Rob’s insights sparked meaningful discussions on the essential ingredients for achieving a swimmable Birrarung, emphasizing public participation, policy shifts, and urban regeneration. Attendees engaged in thought-provoking dialogue on how Melbourne can embrace similar transformations, positioning the Birrarung as a focal point for environmental and community revitalization. 

The evening also marked the successful conclusion of Reimagining the Birrarung 2070 at the NGV, with guests enjoying a private tour of the exhibition before its closure.

Light canapés provided a relaxed setting for networking, allowing participants to connect over their shared vision for a healthier, swimmable river.

The event reinforced the growing momentum behind the Swimmable Birrarung movement, bringing together policymakers, urban planners, and community members eager to make Melbourne’s waterways a cornerstone of its liveability for generations to come.

FELLOWS AND FRIENDS EVENT – this event is free to attend

Registration link has been emailed to eligible Fellows and Friends.

Our Key Presenters:  

• Dr Rebecca Doble (2023), Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO
• Dr Ashlin Lee, Research Scientist, CSIRO
• Dr David Lemon (2013), Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO

Host:

• Rosie Wheen, CEO, Peter Cullen Trust

Event Details:

• What: National Workshop: AgWater2050
• Who: PCT Fellows and Friends
• When: Wednesday 12 March, 1.00-3.00pm AEDT 
• Where: Teams from wherever you are

Structure:

• A 30-minute introduction to the four Ag2050 scenarios and overview of activities from our presenters.  
• 2 x facilitated breakout sessions of 5-8 participants, with notetakers and facilitators in each session.  
• Open discussion around emerging “preferred futures” under Chatham House Rule.  
• 10-minute wrap up and where to from here.
• The position paper that will be generated from this Workshop will be publicly available under creative commons IP, de-identified and with no attributions to individuals or organisations.  It will meet Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) guidelines.
• This event will NOT be recorded.

Click HERE for more event information.

The Teams link to join the webinar will be shared with all registrants 24 hours prior to the event.

BIOS AND IMAGES

Rebecca Doble (2023) has over 25 years of experience in water, groundwater hydrology and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Much of this has been at CSIRO, where she has led research projects ranging from flood recharge estimation in the Murray-Darling Basin and Northern Australia, to water security and treatment technology for remote communities, and climate vulnerability and adaptation pathways for Ramsar wetlands. She is currently leading the water component of Ag2050, exploring sustainable and productive futures for Australian irrigated agriculture.

Ashlin Lee (Research Scientist, CSIRO) is a digital sociologist at the CSIRO, with research interests in the social implications of data and technology. Using social science and design methods to identify and respond to the opportunities and challenges of social and technical systems, Ashlin has worked across a diverse range of domains including digital agriculture, smart cities, health behaviours, artificial intelligence, and surveillance. Ashlin is also an honorary lecturer in Sociology in the School of Sociology, at the Australian National University (ANU), and a member of the Justice and Technoscience Lab  (JusTech) in the School of Regulation and Global Governance, also at the ANU.

David Lemon (2013) has spent almost 20 years building CSIRO’s research capability in water informatics which is now internationally recognised as world’s best practice. He designs and leads projects aimed at creating new environmental information products and developing models and systems for sharing and managing environmental information. David leads programs of research in social and strategic design. David is also developing the water component of Ag2050.