15. Living in Oceania

The Pacific region consists of twenty-two Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) and is home to 12.3 million people, which is 0.15% of the global population (Fig. 15.1). The PICTs constitute the largest ecosystem in the world, covering almost half the globe’s sea surface (Seidel and Lal 2010). For the 12 million Pacific Islanders, the Pacific Ocean is their major economic, social, and cultural lifeline (Charlton et al. 2016; Seidel and Lal 2010).

A map of the coast in 22 P I C T Ss marks the proportions of households. The legends are, % pop less than 1, between 1 and 5, between 5 and 10, and more than 10 kilometers from the coast. The regions are Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. The major proportion of households is less than 1 kilometer.

The Pacific region is characterized by scattered nations composed of numerous islands of varying size, geological and hydrologic characteristics, and includes a variety of island types, ranging from the large, high volcanic islands to the tiny low-lying coral atolls; from the island with abundant surface water and groundwater to those that have no natural surface water systems, or very limited groundwater and are completely dependent upon rainwater catchments such as Niue and Tuvalu (Carpenter and Jones 2004; Dixon-Jain et al. 2014; Duncan 2011). Also see Chap. 2.

Globally, water, energy, and food are the most vital resources for societies, and these are key to human survival, wellbeing, and growth. While these resources may be considered renewable and readily available, demands for these resources has increased rapidly due to increasing population, uncertain climatic future and climate change impacts, and a shift towards increasingly urbanized lifestyles (Endo et al. 2017; Taniguchi et al. 2017). The increased demands are causing unsustainable pressures globally on water, energy, and food resources, presenting communities with an increasing number of trade-offs (Endo et al. 2017), potential conflicts over competing uses of these resources (Fader et al. 2018), and an urgent need for its safeguard and management (da Silva and de Moraes 2018). The situation in the Pacific is no different and given the geophysical characteristics of islands and its size, the trade-offs and conflicts amongst these resources are rather real and apparent.

To manage these trade-offs, it is essential to manage water, energy, and food through a nexus approach, a paradigm that has existed for some time now. However, a WEF approach uptake and practice are fairly new to the Pacific region. The WEF nexus illustrates debates around ‘resource scarcity’ and promotes an integrated approach in resource management, which accounts for co-benefits and trade-offs in policies related to energy, agricultural, and water sectors (Karatayev et al. 2017). It demonstrates the inter-linkages between the three resources calling for a policy nexus for its management.

PICTs are heavily dependent on natural resources for their economic development and likely to remain so for the near future, making resource management an issue of critical importance for economic development (Bell, Matthews et al. 2016; Bell, Taylor et al. 2016; Chand 2001). It is the scarcity of the resources and management into an uncertain climatic future (Chap. 11), that makes the WEF nexus approach in PICTs an important consideration in current and future resource planning and decision making.

Historically, PICTs contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions has been considered insignificant compared to large global polluters (Bogner et al. 2008), nonetheless, PICTs have been the planet’s most vulnerable nations to the effects of climate change (Althor et al. 2016; Mcleod et al. 2019; Salem 2020) PICTs have historically been reliant on fossil fuel sources to attain energy requirements (Bijay et al. 2013; Michalena and Hills 2018), which is having an enormous impact on their economies (Mani et al. 2020; Michalena et al. 2018). The transport sector in the region uses approximately 75% of fossil fuel consumption and is the largest contributor to the regions GHG emissions (Holland et al. 2014; Newell et al. 2017; Nuttall et al. 2014). An analysis of the Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of PICTs illustrates that most of the emissions from PICTs are from the transport and energy sector (Mani et al. 2020) with many PICTs opting to focus on emission reduction in these two sectors by 2030 as the core of their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (Goundar et al. 2017; Holland et al. 2014; Mani 2020; Michalena et al. 2018; Newell et al. 2017). The PICTs have demonstrated a willingness to transition to a low carbon economy for overall sustainable development. The security of water, energy, and food resources has been a long, where studied, deliberation in isolation and it is critical now these three resources need to be studied together in a nexus approach in PICTs context.

PICTs have traditionally been classified as “high” or “low,” with further classification into volcanic islands, atolls, and raised limestone islands (Carpenter and Jones 2004). The high islands primarily consist of rugged volcanic mountains surrounded by fringing or barrier reefs. Some islands also exhibit a fringe of low-lying coastal plains surrounding the mountainous interior (Forbes et al. 2013). Atolls consist of limestone reef deposits laid down on an underlying volcanic cone. In most cases, the portion of atolls above sea level is usually not more than a few meters high and have an area of a few square kilometres, for example, Kiribati and Tuvalu. It is the challenges associated with island size, remoteness, extreme vulnerability, and associated resource constraints that further contributes to “islandness” context of PICTs (Campbell, 2009; Kelman 2018, Malua and UNCTAD 2003). The PICTs smallness constitutes a major constraint on its resource management use of limited land for various resources—water, food, and energy.

The vulnerabilities associated with uncertain climate futures are real in PICTs. Almost 97% of Pacific people (excluding Papua New Guinea) live within ten kilometers from the coast, more than half of it live within one kilometers of the coast, and more than 90% of Pacific Islanders live within five kilometers of the coast (Andrew et al. 2019). All the population in the coral atoll nations of Kiribati, Tokelau and Tuvalu live within a kilometre of the ocean (Andrew et al. 2019). The coastal zones of PICTs are incredibly important areas for human habitation and economic endeavour, encompassing all the opportunities and risks that are associated with it. The “islandness” of PICTs are further illustrated in Table 15.1. It is within this 10 km coastal zone where most of the economic activities take place, resources are constantly exploited, and where the WEF nexus could be most applicable.

Four of the PICTs, Vanuatu, Tonga, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are among the world’s most disaster-prone nations (Radtke 2020). A further four PICTs even include the undesirable classification as being among the most vulnerable nations in the world to climate change. These are the low-lying coral atolls and reef islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tokelau, and the Marshall Islands. As Pacific societies adjusts, responds, and adapts to the increasing vulnerabilities posed by the changing climatic future, the WEF nexus provides the complex opportunity to build resilience and mitigate threats.

The PICTs face unique and yet similar challenges in managing water, energy, and food security. Water, however, has featured most prominently as a challenge to be addressed throughout the PICTs. PICTs are often subject to water extremes; too little or too much water. To address this requires long-term commitment. It requires both political support and local and innovative approaches to chart a course through a turbulent future by drawing from experience globally and tailoring it to suit the regional and national context. The WEF nexus approach attempts to provide such a pathway enticing PICTs to adopt an integrated approach in resource management, which accounts for co-benefits and trade-offs in policies related to energy, agricultural, and water sectors. Limitation due to “islandness” and also resource ownership regimes in PICTs means access to the natural resource is hotly contested.

The PICTs have natural disadvantages imposed by their small sizes and remoteness. This has been rightly put by Peter Boyers, Solomon Islands Finance Minister (2005–2006). As dealt with in detail in Chaps. 5 and 10, climate change and extreme weather events are impacting the hydrological cycle in the Pacific. These events, such as irregular rainfall (with resulting floods and droughts), changing weather patterns, storm overtopping (Fig. 15.2), saltwater intrusion, and increased storm intensities, all have significant impacts on water availability and agriculture production and food security in the region. Moreover, energy continues to be a key priority in the region, given that almost all PICTs remain highly dependent on imported fossil fuels.

A photograph of a short boundary wall between a waterbody and land. Water has seeped through the boundary wall onto the land. There are a few trees in the background.

Like most countries in world, securing future food availability is a top priority in most of the Pacific Island Countries (ESCAP, 2013). The region is highly dependent on imported food, with agriculture still catching up to be a significant part of the formal economy in many PICTs. Agriculture accounts for less than 30% of GDP in all PICTs, and for most, it accounts for less than 20% (Barnett 2020, Piesse n.d.). As discussed by (Campbell 2015), food security in PICTs varies from country to country and is largely dependent on geo-physical characteristics of islands; ranging from raised volcanic island (Melanesia) with fertile lands, to low-lying atolls (Polynesia and Micronesia) (McGregor et al. 2009).

Both the Boe Declaration on Regional Security, signed at the Pacific Islands Forum in 2018, and the Pacific Islands Forum Summit Kainaki II Statement in 2019, reiterate ‘climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security, and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific’ (Piesse, n.d.). The situation is critical for low atoll islands, many of which are only two to five metres above sea level at their highest point and are threatened by rising sea levels that are likely to weaken food and water security (Barnett 2011, 2020; Piesse n.d.).

The nexus approach focuses on the interdependence of water, energy, and food; the understanding of challenges and opportunities; and provides motivation on new approaches for managing water, energy, and food resources (Liu et al. 2017). The versatile utilization of water, energy, and food from multiple sources is a reality in many of the PICTs. Addressing water, energy, and food uncertainties are prerequisites for social stability and economic growth. Yet in the region, management and governance of water, energy, and food are still sectorial with minimal interaction between the three, despite widespread and evident interdependence (Taniguchi et al. 2017). This fragmentation is typical and has been greatly discussed by (Weitz et al. 2017), when considering the governance around a WEF nexus approach.

Despite advances in WEF nexus research and understanding (including inter-relations, data integration, modelling, governance, and policy aspects) and the increased awareness of the close relationship of water, energy, and food there remain many challenges in operationalizing WEF nexus in PICTs. This is largely because in today’s world water, energy, and food are sectorial managed and funding, policymaking, and oversight of these resources are sectorial based. This “silo” often leads to negative trade-offs impacting policy and technological choices. Observations that water, energy, and food are too often managed in various, and often very different spatial and temporal scales (Liu et al. 2017; Weitz et al. 2017) are very relevant and applicable in PICTs, given the current fragmented resource management paradigm in PICTs. A more holistic approach to resource management is required, whereby planning and policy making considers all three WEF sectors together, along with their drivers and pressures (e.g., climate change, socio-economic development), in order to develop policies that consider cross-sectoral impacts and attempt to harness synergies while minimizing trade-offs.

The WEF nexus has inspired many discussions on new approaches for managing water, energy, and food resources led by agencies such as ESCAP and FAO at regional and international conferences such as 2nd Asia–Pacific Water Summit and the International Conference on Water, Energy and Food Nexus for Sustainable Development, 2014. In many ways, the WEF nexus approach and terminology has not enjoyed the same prominence and popularity as other paradigms such as “blue economy” and/or “green economy”, certainly not in PICTs and the region. One of the reasons is that for the WEF nexus there were no PICT advocates to push the concept. It is interesting to note that though both “blue-green economy” and “WEF nexus” are foreign to the region and despite both stressing the complementarities between economic, environmental, resource objectives, and trade-offs, the uptake on “blue economy” is far greater than that of WEF nexus in the PICTs. Historically, international aid agencies, non-state actors, multilateral institutions, and regional organizations too often promote such discourse in the region, yet with WEF nexus this has not been the case.

It is not surprising that the regional natural resources policy space is heavily contested, PICT national governments adopt global discourse based on the relevance to their national agenda which determines their alignment and support for particular discourse. Given such observations, it becomes critical to explore the reasons for the lack of traction of WEF nexus in the region, of which there could be several. Three notable reasons are: (1) the challenge of incorporating and enhancing the components of this multi-centric nexus, especially in a fragmented resource governance architecture within most of PICTs, (2) as novel the WEF approach may be, it lacks concise narrative outlining mandate and affiliation to global commitments, such as the SDG’s, and as such it is simply seen as repackaging of an existing framework, e.g., IWRM, around water, food, and energy. The WEF nexus is multi-faceted and is too often seen as either an analytical tool or a governance approach; however, the WEF nexus could also be realized as an emerging discourse (Liu et al. 2017) and provide a platform to start regional discussions on resource scarcity, trade-offs, and resource sustainability in PICTs. Such discussions are important in PICTs as apart from addressing national resources scarcity, it also provides the opportunity to combine efforts for realization of Agenda 2030, as water, energy, and food are present individually and in combination in most, if not all of the SDGs, although nexus approaches per se are not included in the goals. What this means for PICTs is that WEF nexus has not been able to mobilize any regional initiatives or projects. This in itself demonstrates the lack of prominence WEF nexus had at national, regional, and development space in PICTs. (3) the understanding and usage of the term WEF nexus is “plural, fragmented, and ambiguous” as discussed by (Simpson and Jewitt 2019), and hence an energy sector speaks of the energy-water-food (EWF) nexus, a hydrologists and water engineers call it the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus, while those in the agricultural use the term, the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus (Liu et al. 2017). This variance in terminology illustrates that that the conceptual approach to the WEF nexus is generally dependent upon the perspective of the particular researcher, policy-maker, or agency, and different groupings embracing the WEF nexus with contrasting foci, e.g., sustainability, the green economy, trade-offs, livelihoods, climate, resource optimization, or scarcity (Simpson and Jewitt 2019). As such, driving such concept in a region becomes difficult.

The water perspective is still dominant in the WEF nexus discourse (Endo et al. 2017); however, as a nexus approach, there is a need to promote equal participation of all involved sectors (Nauditt 2018). In a resource-constrained low lying atoll environment, water is prioritized, so in such case “water for agriculture for food” does not take precedence nor does it make sense to push the agenda.

The trade-off between water, energy, and food is more drastic in PICTs compared to other parts of the world. One of the reasons is that there is no large-scale agriculture (Griswold 2021) or large dams in the region (Singh 2019), minimizing a need to quantify and address tangible large-scale trade-offs via a nexus approach. As with much of the international development agenda the WEF nexus approach is also seen as a neoliberal idea, with economic ties and pushing for rapid growth (Bell, Matthews et al. 2016; Bell, Taylor et al. 2016; Müller-Mahn and Gebreyes 2019; Wiegleb and Bruns 2018) and “development” rather than an interdisciplinary nexus approach for resource management.

It is too often seen that in the context of WEF nexus that some components of each are included more often than others and, in some cases, certain aspects are left out. For instance, looking at energy, electricity generation through hydropower dams often take key precedence, and more often water quality or environmental flow requirements are left out. Examples include dam operations of major dams around the world including Cahora Bassa in Mozambique and impacts of its operations on natural flooding and geomorphology in Zambezi delta (Singh 2017). This is a considerable trade-off in importance of what is prioritized, particularly when talking about agriculture and water interactions.

In PICTs most of the population live within 10 kms of the coast (Andrew et al. 2019) and marine-food sources. The WEF nexus may seem out of context in such a situation, as most of these dwellers largely depend on coastal fisheries for their sustenance (Chap. 4). The goal then is to re-imagine the Western WEF nexus and tailor it for the specificities of the PICT region, refocussing it to place the prominent issues of water supply, sustainable energy generation, and a shift to traditional food production at the centre of nexus analyses.

PICTs ability to untangle and uptake the WEF nexus as a policy consideration is also limited by the lack of systematic tools, information, and awareness on the trade-offs involved in the nexus, meaning the adoption and implementation of WEF nexus becomes extremely challenging. In this regard, the recently developed WEF Nexus Index (https://​wefnexusindex.​org/​) could play an important role in facilitating new WEF related discussions in the region.

Understanding the opportunities that the WEF nexus presents for the management of water, energy, and food systems is becoming increasingly important and is critical to a sustainable and secure future for all PICTs. The Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference held in preparation for the United Nations (UN) Rio +20 Conference, further highlighted the need to address sustainability issues in the closely related sectors of water, energy, and food security.

Nexus Opportunity Areas: The water, energy, and food sectors have numerous interlinked policy concerns ranging from sustainability, access, climate change adaptation/mitigation, and environmental impacts. These issues manifest in very distinct ways in each of the three sectors but often the impacts are closely related, as such, it becomes important to identify these interrelationships and maximize synergies and to resolve current, and avoid any potential conflicts (Hamdy et al. 2014). WEF Nexus opportunities present themselves by cutting across interlinked decision spaces and facilitating the identification of win–win solutions. Such opportunities include:

Synergy and trade-off awareness in resource management: The WEF Nexus provides the opportunity for policy coherence, ensuring that synergies and trade-offs among water, energy, and food are identified both in design and implementation policies, plans, and projects (Hamdy et al. 2014). This is where nexus approaches such as casual loop diagrams, developed with stakeholders via group model building exercises, can prove very useful (Purwanto et al. 2019). Excessive exploitation, non-sustainable management, and increasing demand have caused severe degradation of the natural resources in PICTs. Climate change and competition for land especially in atolls have further exacerbated the issue and caused land degradation and reduced water and land productivity, in turn having an impact on biodiversity and a wide range of ecosystem services. The WEF nexus provides a pathway to maximize the use of scarce coastal agricultural land available in the region, allowing for water and energy infrastructure (e.g., solar farms) to compliment agricultural lands, maximizing the arable land use.

Transitioning towards a blue-green economy: To succeed, a blue-green economy must go beyond sectorial solutions and actively address the water, energy, and food security in line with human rights-based approaches. The terms “green growth” and, “blue‐green economy,” have gained considerable traction in the PICTs and informs national and regional policies (Dornan et al. 2018). The PICTs, through each country's national sustainable development strategies aspire to achieve greener and more inclusive economic growth, and a WEF Nexus approach can provide this. The nexus approach can support the transition to a green economy which aims among other things, at resource use efficiency and greater policy coherence between WEF sectors, to establish policy frameworks, and enhance the economy inclusive and positive to environmental sustainability. Indeed, the green economy itself is the nexus approach par excellence.

Moving forward, the WEF Nexus is still yet to be fully realized in the PICTs. There is an urgent need for institutional set-ups and procedures to support the mainstreaming of the WEF nexus approach into national policies, strategies, and activities of the PICTs. Integration of and deliberations on the WEF nexus at national and regional levels may provide opportunities to analytically analyze the nexus in respect to natural disasters and climate change, and in doing so improve and enhance the overall resilience of the country and the society.

While some PICTs may be more self-sufficient in food production than others, all PICTs are very much not self-sufficient in energy production. The production of energy from the renewable source has to the potential to positively impact most of the PICTs GDP, given agriculture, forestry, and fishery contributions to GDP has been on a decline in most of the PICTs (McGregor et al. 2016; Stewart 2006). Disparity in security for different parts of the nexus is observed in many relationships between water, energy, and food self-sufficiency and diversity in the region. Strengthening of WEF Nexus in the region requires a set of interventions to strengthen the awareness, information, institutional capacities, and the intra-regional dialogue, to enhance data collection and management, as well as to implement economic instruments and integrated economic approaches to measure the impact of Nexus into the economy and employment.

The WEF nexus approach has the potential to greatly inform discussions on achieving interconnected SDG targets and subsequent monitoring of the SDGs. There is an opportunity to promote the WEF nexus as a conceptual tool for achieving sustainable development goals in the PICTs. WEF implementation has for too long been seen as nirvana concept (Molle 2008), and has failed to explicitly or adequately incorporate sustainable livelihoods perspectives (Biggs et al. 2015). However, there are clear synergies (socio-ecological pressures, governance, the environment, environmental and economic security) between the SDG’s and WEF Nexus approaches. For successful implementation of a WEF Nexus approach in the region, moving forward the nexus framings need to consider key issues in food, water, and energy security through a sustainability lens in order to predict and mitigate against risks of future insecurity. Applying the WEF nexus approach in such a way would streamline its integration into national development plans and national adaptation plans, via regional instruments such as Framework for Resilient Development (FRDP).