The Water–energy–food Security Nexus: Challenges …...outh Africa global trend a is food self-n...

2214-241X © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Stockholm International Water Institutedoi: 10.1016/j.aqpro.2013.07.013

Aquatic Procedia 1 ( 2013 ) 150 – 164

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Abst

The food energemphthese © 20Selec

Keyw

1. In

Uimpoattra

* C

E

The

a

cNational AgridWWF So

tract

interconnectednpricing. This p

gy and water hasizes that suse resources.

013 The Authorction and peer-r

words: South Afric

ntroduction

Understanding ortant to the dacted internati

Corresponding autE-mail address: in

World W

water–eopportu

M. GulatiaWWF South AfribWater Researchicultural Marketi

outh Africa,s Boun

ness of water, paper interrogatcosts influencestainable soluti

rs. Published byreview under re

ca; food security;

the complexdevelopment oional attention

thor. [email protected]

Water Week

energy–funities fo

ia, I. Jacobsica, President’s Ph Commission, Soing Council, 536 ndary Terraces, B

energy and footes the level of e food prices ons to food sec

y Elsevier B.V. esponsibility of

; water–energy–f

x relationshipof a sustainabn at the Bonn

k, 26-31 Au

food secuor food s

sb*, A. JooPlace, 1 Hood Aveouth Africa, PrivaSchoeman Street Bridge House, Ma

od production cinterconnectedin the countrycurity necessita

f the Stockholm

food nexus; energ

p between wble and securen 2011 Nexus

ugust 2012,

urity nexsecurity i

ostec, D. Naenue, Rosebank 2

ate Bag X03, Gezit ,Meintjiesplein B

Mariendahl Lane, N

cycles translatedness between ty and affect thate integrative t

m International W

gy price; water pr

water, energy e future for als Conference

Stockholm,

xus: Chain South

aidoob and2196, Johannesbuina, 0031, PretorBuilding, ArcadiaNewlands, 7700,

es into the interthese systems inhe country’s lethinking in the

Water Institute.

ricing strategy

and food syl nations and held in prepa

, Sweden

allenges h Africa

S. Fakird urg, South Africa ria, South Africa a, 0007, Pretoria,Cape Town, Sout

rdependence of n South Africa vel of food seprocess of stra

ystems has bregions. This

aration for the

and

, South Africa th Africa

f water, energy and discusses

ecurity. The pategic planning

become critics relationship he United Nat

and how aper

g for

cally first

tions

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Stockholm International Water Institute

151 M. Gulati et al. / Aquatic Procedia 1 ( 2013 ) 150 – 164

(UNto a

T

footrelarelasimfoodandstoreneeconthre

TwormanbetwdueWhsecu

N) Rio+20 Coaddress sustain

The relationshtprinting wate

ation to waterationship is the

milarly, how thd production

d accessing maring, preparingrgy; and enernomic and po

ee systems. Fig

The policies rrse, ignore thenaging the intween countriee to the sharedhere human durity of the sta

onference. Thenability issues

hip between er supply char consumptioe interdepend

he cost of onedemands enerarine food resg, serving andrgy productioopulation growg. 1 provides

related to diffee impact of onterlinkages bees. Indeed, end nature of bodevelopment nate and the reg

e conference, ns in the closely

these systemains, or analyon or its impdence of resoue resource canrgy and watersources as wed disposing ofon also requirwth accompana conceptual f

Figure 1: The w

erent sectors one on the othecome more c

nvironmental aoth water and needs are metgion are likely

now popularlyy related secto

ms goes beyoyzing new enepact on land urces – how den determine thr; energy is anell as throughof food; water eres water. Ennied by increaframework of

water–energy–foo

of the economher and adverscomplicated aand human seenergy, and tt through they to be enhanc

y known as thors of water, e

ond simply wergy supply savailability a

emand for onehe efficiency on important inout the value extraction, convironmental asing urbaniz

f the water–en

od nexus. Source:

my could intensely impact that a regional ecurity are antthe effect thate provision ofced.

he Bonn confeenergy and foo

water-footprinsources and cand thereforee resource canof production nput in fertilizchain in procnveyance, trepressures and

zation, intensinergy–food nex

: Authors (2013)

nsify or attenuhe overall nexlevel, especiatecedents to rt both these ref adequate w

erence, broughod security.

ting food proclimate adapta food prices.

n drive demanof the others.

zers, irrigationcessing, packaatment, and dd climatic chfy the interacxus.

uate these intexus. However,ally when resegional econoesources haveater and ener

ht to light the

roduction, caration strategie. At heart of

nd for another. To put it sim

n, raising livesaging, distribudistribution reqhanges, as wections between

erdependencie, the challengsources are shomic developme on food securgy resources

need

rbon-es in f the , and

mply, stock uting, quire ell as n the

es; or es to

hared ment urity. s, the


TresouotheundeThispartihigh

H

the iin sclawmservwhetdoinener

G

It hiand abiliman

2. Fo

Tsuffifoodand

The dominant urces to cove

er critical ecolerstanding cans applies espeicularly to sub

hest levels of m

However, the dinterdependencientific literatmakers alike hices. This papther energy in

ng so, it focusrgy prices hav

Given the imbaghlights localenergy solutio

ity to cope winagement appr

ood security:

The South Africiency index d products, wiavailability of

natural resouer the food delogical function provide a goecially to deveb-Saharan Afrmalnutrition (R

degree to whicnce of water, eture or policy have predictedper interrogatnflation is the ses on South e been rising

alance in the nl case studies ons that are rth the growin

roach to this c

: A growing c

frican contextillustrates tha

ith the ability f food have be

Figure 2: Food in

urces managememands of a raons in the facood starting peloping count

frica, which hoRockstrom et

ch the interconenergy and foto date. With

d that higher pes this hypothprimary causeAfrica whichin parallel wit

nexus, this papin South Afrieadily implem

ng challenge ohallenge.

challenge in S

t mirrors the at South Africto import wheecome a grow

nflation in South

ment challengapidly expandce of a climatpoint for desigtries, where 9osts the largesal., 2003).

nnectedness oood pricing is

the prices of prices for comhesis and quee of food infla

h is a water-scth the rest of t

per also advocica that have ementable. It lof water, energ

South Africa

global trend a is food self-en necessary (

wing national c

Africa. Source: N

ge in the comding world pote that is changning more su95% of the wst proportion

of water, energa complex issenergy and fo

mmodities will estions how enation or whethcarce countrythe world.

cates a rethinkengaged in noooks at the relgy and food se

of rising foo-sufficient or n(du Toit et al.concern.

NAMC (2010, 20

ming decades opulation, whinging significaustainable pat

world’s populaof water scar

gy and food prsue that has nood rising all otranslate into nergy and waher there are oy where only

k of the greenon-traditional levance of theecurity and its

od costs. Althnearly self-su, 2011) but in

011 & 2012) and

will be how ile at the samantly (Bhatt ethways for greation growth ocity-prone are

roduction cycnot received suover the worldhigher prices

ater costs influother factors at13% of the la

economy devgreen economese solutions ts implications

hough the nafficient in alm

n recent years,

Stats SA (2011)

to secure natme time sustainet al., 2006). Teen developmoccurs, and meas as well as

cles translates ufficient attend, economists s for all goods uence food co

at work as weland is arable

velopment momy-oriented wto South Afri

s for an integr

ational food smost all the m, the affordabi

tural ning This

ment. most s the

into ntion

and and

osts, ll. In and

odel. water ica’s rated

self-ajor ility


Orolelast appinflthe

T

60%of Sthe a ba3) vmor

F

Fig

Oand

On the affordae of food pric

two decadeproximately 1.ation rate for general inflat

The impact of% of local houSouthern AfricSouth African

asic food baskversus the were of their inco

Figure 3: Cost of a

gure 4: Cost of a b

On the availabd sugar (both r

ability front, rces in generatis. Between 2.4 times its wall food item

tion level (Fig

f rising food useholds in Soca, 2011). Adn poor spend ket expressed althiest 30% ome on food t

a basic food bask

basic food basket

bility front, Soraw and refin

rising food pring in ationar2000 and 200

weight in the cms rose from 1

. 2).

prices is comouth Africa ardditionally, tha greater propas a share of of the populathan wealthier

ket as a share of av

t as a share of ave

outh Africa imed, 103, 454t)

rices have becry episodes in08, the contrconsumption b.2% in Septem

mplicated by thre food insecue impact that

portion of theithe average m

ation (Fig. 4) ir South Africa

verage monthly inJooste

erage monthly incJooste

mports agricult), which are p

come a subjecn South Africribution of fobasket (Rangamber 2010 to

the level of houre (Landmanrising food p

ir income on fmonthly incomillustrates thaans (Jooste, 20

ncome for the poe (2012)

come for the weae (2012)

tural productspart of its nati

ct of sharp foca has been inood products asamy, 2011)10.3% in Jan

ousehold foodn, 2004 in du Tprices have onfood than the

me of the poorat poorer Sout012).

oorest 30% of the

althiest 30% of th

s such as rice ional food bas

cus in recent ncreasing sign

to headline . Specifically,

nuary 2012 an

d insecurity. SToit, 2011; D

n the poor is eSouth Africanest 30% of theh Africans sp

population in So

he population in S

(721, 415t), psket. A review

years, thoughni cantly over

in ation ros, the year-on-

nd was well ab

Studies show Development Benormous becn rich. The co

he population (pend roughly

outh Africa. Sourc

South Africa. Sou

poultry (117, 6w of the coun

h the r the se to -year bove

that Bank cause ost of (Fig. 34%

ce:

urce:

629t) try’s


unprocessed and processed agriculture imports indicates that rice, poultry and sugar are among the top seven products imported in terms of quantity (NAMC, 2010).

Given the realities of affordability and availability, South Africa’s growing economy is testing the limits of its

food constraints. Growing more food, as is often a common response, is not an ideal option because only 13% of South Africa’s land is arable (i.e. land suitable for crop production), and most of this is only marginal for crop production (i.e. it has low production potential) (Laker, 2005). Only 3% of the country is considered to be high-potential arable (ibid). So the solutions lie in finding the reasons for food inflation and managing food availability.

3. Reasons for rising food costs and the implications

Several factors are responsible for increasing food prices. These can differ from country to country and can be generic to the food value chain or specific to different food commodities. Further, the reasons can be found at either the production level or through the different stages of the food value chain. In South Africa, current research suggests that the factor common to all stages of the food value chain and across commodities is input costs (Jooste, 2012; Joubert, 2011). A deeper investigation into the role of input costs in driving up food prices in South Africa emphasizes the role of energy and water prices. Added to this is the fact that energy and water are regulated in South Africa in that they are administered by government policy.

3.1. The energy–food link

In South Africa, electricity prices have increased by over 24% since 2007-2008. The food sector has not been immune to the impacts of these increases. For example, the primary agricultural sector consumes only 3% of total electricity generated in the country and this consumption has risen at 3% per annum between 1999-2000 and 2010-2011 (Fig. 5). But the annual electricity bill for the agriculture sector has increased by over 20% since 2009-2010 (Joubert, 2011).

Figure 5: Electricity consumption by primary agriculture sector in South Africa (Note: Figures for 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 are estimates.)

15%

10%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1999

2000

2000

01

2001

02

2002

03

2003

04

2004

05

2005

06

2007

08

2008

09

2009

10

2010

11

2011

12

2012

13

GWh

Consumption Growth rate of consumption


Aa brthatSimrise

L

peaave201in m

T

pricdereimpfertrand

An analysis ofreakdown of ct the cost of

milarly, analysen exponential

Figure 6: Share

Figure 7:

Like electricitk of US$145rage price dec0 and the cru

many ways. Th

Trends in oil aces (Fig. 8). Tegulated enviporter of potailizer prices ad against the U

f changes in thcost increases electricity as

ses of costs inlly (Fig. 7).

e of electricity in v

Analysis of selec

ty, the price of per barrel increased by 37

ude oil price inhis impact can

and fertilizer The South Afrironment of thassium and iare severely imUS dollar has

he costs of foofor crops suca percentage

nvolved in the

variable costs for

ct costs involved

f crude oil hasn July 2008. % to US$61.8ncreased to Un be illustrated

prices indicatrican fertilizerhis sector, wiimporting appmpacted by inmade matters

od productionh as wheat ane of other vare production o

r maize and whea

in the production

s also been risThe average 80 per barrel i

US$117.79 perd by taking th

te that rising or industry is fuith no importproximately 4nternational ois worse.

n and processinnd maize, the lariable costs hof animal feed

at production in N

n of a tonne of ani

sing. Prices roprice per barin 2009. But tr barrel. Risin

he example of

oil prices in reully exposed tt tariffs or go40% of its nil prices as we

ng confirms thlatter a staple has been risind indicate that

Northern Cape in

imal feed in Sout

ocketed from trrel in 2008 wthis downwar

ng oil prices thfertilizer price

ecent years hato world mark

overnment-sponitrogen requiell as shipping

he above impafood in South

ng steadily ovt electricity co

South Africa. Sou

h Africa. Source:

he early part owas US$97.5d trend did noherefore impaes.

ave led to incrket forces giveonsored measuirements meag costs. The d

acts. For instah Africa, indicver time (Figosts have rece

urce: Joubert (20

: Jooste (2012)

of 2007 to rea5 per barrel. ot continue duact the food se

reases in fertien the compleures. Being a

ans that domdepreciation o

ance, cates

g. 6). ently

011)

ach a The

uring ector

ilizer etely a net estic f the


RThe betwby 3prodener

Rising energy producer pri

ween March 2034%, corrugateducts by 122%rgy is a key co

Figure 8

costs have alice index (PP005 and Marced cardboard

% (Fig. 9). Cleomponent in th

Figur

: Trends in intern

lso affected thPI) for selectech 2012, priceboxes by 36%early, energy he manufactur

re 9: Trends in inp

national oil prices

he manufactured materials s of plastic pr

%, gas and waprices have th

ring of plastic

put costs at manu

s & fertilizer price

uring sector asused in the

roducts increaater by 96%, he highest dir

c bottles, pape

ufacturing level. S

es. Source: Jooste

ssociated withfood manufa

ased by 82%, oelectricity by rect impact. Itr and cardboa

Source: Jooste (2

e (2010)

h food, directlcturing proceof tinplate by 177%,and pe

t is also impord boxes.

012)

ly and indirecess indicates 85%, kraft pa

etroleum and cortant to note

ctly. that aper coal that


Fof tincr

Tpersfactwe food

A

prodgrowthisaccoanddevbodpoll

3.2.

TSoucurron csho

I

(NE200consuppimpof 1to h

Finally, risingthe costs of breasing the co

The above exaspective. At thtors behind risobtain a betted prices in So

Another aspecduction. Southwing electrici

s strategy. Souounting for 85

d the sources vastating impadies (WWF-SAlution of agric

The water–fo

The water–foouth Africa is aprent consumptcost-reflectivew a similar tra

In industry, pEDLAC, 200702 to 2005-20nsumer price plied by the S

plemented but 16% over the shave an impac

g energy pricebaking bread (st of bread.

Figure 10: Incr

amples show hhe global levesing food pric

er understandinuth Africa.

ct of energy thh Africa, beinity demand. Thuth Africa ha5% of total in

of its majoracts on water rA 2011). Thecultural land a

food link

od link has maapproaching phtion rates (du e pricing. Conajectory to ele

prices for wa7). Additional006, while domindex (CPI)

South Africant increased by same time (Nt on food pric

s have also le(Fig. 10) indi

rease in selected c

how food andel too, studiesces (von Braunng of the food

hat stands to ang abundant che fact that coas therefore dnstalled capacir inland riveresources, wit major relianc

and indirectly

any facets. Thhysical water Plessis, 2010

nsequently, wectricity prices

ater generally ly, municipal mestic prices rises of 30%

n Department an average oEDLAC, 200

ces.

d to the increaicate that elec

costs to bake one

d energy have s indicate thatn, 2008; Food

d value chain a

affect food seccoal, has reliedoal yields cheadeveloped a hity. The coal drs. Asset minh acidificationce on coal thethrough pollu

he first is that oscarcity (IWM

0). Therefore, ater prices in s.

rose faster twater prices rose by 60%

% and 32% reof Water Affaf 21% over th7). These pric

ase of non-fooctricity and ga

loaf of bread (20

become incret rising energyd Price Watchand the role th

curity in Southd on a strategaper electricityheavy reliancedeposits coincne drainage n of rivers anderefore direct

ution of water.

of water pricinMI, 2007), wit

strategies to the past deca

than inflationto industry w

% in the sameespectively ovfairs varied wihe period 2002ce hikes mean

od costs in theas charges ha

011-2012). Sourc

easingly interly prices could

h, 2011). It is hat energy and

h Africa is thegy of exploitiny than other pe on cheap cocide with the (AMD) fromd streams, andtly impacts fo

ng. Water hasth demand estpromote judic

ade in South A

n over the pewent up by roue period. Thisver the same idely as the ne2-2003 to 200

n that an increa

e food value cave played a s

e: Jooste (2012)

inked from a d be one of ththerefore vitad water costs p

e reliance on cng its coal resoproduction souoal-based eleccountry’s best

m coal miningd elevated meod production

s historically btimated to outcious use of wAfrica have b

riod 2001-20ughly 62% inis a stark coperiod. Price

ew Water Pric05-2006 compase in water ta

chain. An anasignificant rol

food affordabhe main emerally importantplay in drivin

coal for electrources to mee

urces has favoctricity, with t agricultural g has resulteetal levels in wn directly thro

been under pritstrip supply awater are focubegun to gradu

002 to 2006-2n the period 2ontrast to PPIes for bulk wcing Strategy

pared to a CPIariffs is begin

lysis le in

bility rging t that ng up

ricity et its ured coal land d in

water ough

iced. at the using ually

2007 001-and

water was

I rise nning


The South African Water Pricing Strategy is currently under review that includes the development of an

infrastructure funding model and the establishment and strengthening of an economic regulator for the water sector. The revision of the pricing strategy for raw water will have extensive socio-economic impacts, affecting all water users. The extent of the impact needs to be clearly understood, and both quantified in order to result in an informed decision on a final pricing strategy that will ultimately have benefits across the water and energy sectors. This could be achieved through several interventions. The first is by keeping tariffs artificially low to enhance food security. This could be brought about at the cost of infrastructure deterioration or through subsidies from the government – and lead to some opportunity costs. The second is through infrastructure development and maintenance as opposed to affordability for the poor. And the third is infrastructure development either as a catalyst or constraint to economic growth and social development.

The second aspect of the water–food link is water shortage. The increasing scarcity of water is going to have a

profound impact on food production. South Africa is water scarce, being the 29th driest of 193 countries and having an estimated 1110 m³ of water per capita in 2005. Moreover, its rainfall varies dramatically from season to season and is distributed unevenly across the country. This poses several challenges for food production and food security. In future, this challenge may require that South Africa make crop choices in the context of water scarcity and its effect on food security.

Water scarcity will also affect food production indirectly through competing with energy production, which will

lead to trade-offs with the energy and resources sectors. The latter is energy intensive. Moreover, with the productivity of water use in agriculture being low compared to other sectors – agriculture contributes 3% to GDP but uses 60% of the water – there may be significant pressures to reallocate water from agriculture to other more productive uses (Pretorius, 2010). In the event that this happens, the immediate impacts on food security could be through wine, fruit and vegetable production, 90% of which is produced under irrigation, and wheat cultivation, 30% of which is produced under irrigation.

The third aspect of the water–food link is that of virtual water. The concept of virtual water describes a situation

in which countries import food from other countries and therefore have made use of the water used to grow those imports. Virtual water can be seen as an additional water source, increasing an area’s per capita water availability. If water-intensive crops are imported instead of being produced domestically, less domestic water has to be used, decreasing the level of exploitation. Thus, virtual water could decrease the pressure on domestic water resources in a situation of water scarcity.

The fourth and final aspect of the water–food link centres around water quality. It is well known that water

pollution affects the economic productivity of agriculture by destroying crops, reducing crop quality and diminishing yields. Increasing water pollution in South Africa means that food producers will find it difficult to meet regulatory requirements of food safety and quality norms. The problem will be bigger in cases of food exports where continued trade depends on food safety and quality, as well as any voluntary standards. Consequently, producers and processors have few alternatives but to make the necessary investments to comply with standards. However, deteriorating water quality is pushing up mitigating costs (for example through costs of water purification) and threatening food quality, and hence exports, making it a priority concern. Another threat from water quality arises from the energy usage aspect: making water of acceptable quality available for food production and processing carries a heavy energy bill.

3.3. The energy–water link

Energy costs constitute a significant part of operational costs for the water sector. While information on this front is not readily available for South Africa, the magnitude of influence that energy prices have on water tariffs can be gauged by looking at global estimates. It is estimated that between 2% and 3% of the world’s energy


conAboconworhav

T

popanddefi

R

agripumwatexp

3.4.

UfutuaddTheand

P

of thpricmanits iincr

nsumption is uout 60% of th

nsumption. Enrld consumpti

ving a direct im

The energy nepulation growtd (iii) the explicit between w

Rising energyiculture, rising

mping groundwter projects (ipensive.

Future consi

Understandingure. The pricedition planned erefore there wd resulting in lo

Passing all of his that farme

ce for the valnage input cosinput costs bereased by near

Fig

used to pump e distribution

nergy used woion (ibid). Thempact on food

eeds for water th and economloitation of alwater demand

y prices will g energy pricwater, divertiibid). At the

iderations

g and managies of energy an

to meet the gwill be continuower returns o

these costs toers, who are oflue-added versts. A study o

etween 2001 arly 600% (Fig

gure 11: Trends in

and treat watcosts and 50%

orldwide for derefore, highe

d security.

will greatly inmic developmlternative wateand the availa

alter water es will have ang surface wasame time,

ing the nexusnd water are growing electrued input coston investment

o the consumeften price-takersions either rf a small retai

and 2011 (Joog. 11).

n input costs for a

er for residen% of the operadelivering wateer energy price

ncrease in Soument, (ii) the ier resources table supply.

allocation ana most signifiater and irrigathey will ma

s from a foodexpected to cricity and trant pressures in t.

r will have neers and not priremains consiler in the Souste, 2012). W

a small retailer in

ntial, commercational costs oter (including es will most l

uth Africa becincreasing neethrough desali

nd distributionicant impact oation, as wellake water ext

d security percontinue to gonsport demanthe food valu

egative implicrice-makers, arstant or increauthern Cape in

What stands ou

n the Southern Ca

cial and indusof wastewateragricultural ir

likely lead to

cause (i) the ined to pump dination and re

n (Zilberman on irrigation s as irrigation traction, conv

rspective will o up in South ds coupled we chain, puttin

cations for foore making eveases. In fact, n South Africaut for this retai

ape in South Afric

trial use (Segrtreatment are

rrigation) is arincreased wat

ncrease in wateeper and deeeuse, for exam

et al., 2008)systems that rsystems that

veyance and p

be even morAfrica given ith high and vng increased p

od security. In er-lower profitretailers too

a indicated mailer is that wa

ca. Source: Jooste

grave et al., 20e related to enaround 7% of ter prices, the

ater demand dueper groundwmple, to offse

). In the casrely on energyare part of lapurification m

re pressing inthe huge capavolatile oil prpressure on pr

n fact, it is becits, while the r

are strugglinassive increasater and electr

e (2012)

007). nergy

total ereby

ue to water,

t the

e of y for arger more

n the acity rices. rofits

cause retail ng to es in

ricity


Tsustacomcontrethi

Oare aof ththe ediscaprocwate

4. G

Infactoexchstatewateaddrmarkand

Thus, increaseainability of

mpetitiveness otribute significink current po

On another notassociated withe problem caenergy budgetarded food (H

cessing, packaer and energy

Governance im

n essence, whors affecting hange, other ine economy facer and electricressed. Sometiket-driven facunforeseen im

Figu

s in the pricethe sector

of the sector; cantly towardolicies for wate

te, a growing th discarded fan be gauged ft and 25% of Hall, Guo, Doaging, warehoas well as agr

mplications fo

hat we see in the nexus in nput costs andctors such as

city are key primes this resu

ctors. This commpacts that the

ure 12. Factors af

es of energy asince it dirthe sector’s

s rural develoer and energy

area of concefood. Once agfrom data ava

f all fresh watore and Chow

ousing, transpricultural resou

or the nexus

many develodifferent way

d the exchangpoverty allev

iorities, and gults in heavilymbination tranese factors hav

ffecting the food–

and water, aloectly and inability to con

opment and allwithin the am

ern is that of gain, while estailable from oter consumed

w 2009). Giveorting and prurces.

oping countrieys. On the onge rate, are all viation, job cr

government poy regulated annslates into anve on each oth

–energy–water ne

ong with othendirectly inflntribute towarleviation of p

mbit of the foo

food waste. Atimates are nother countriesin in the Unien the energy

reparing food,

es including Sne hand, facto driven by thereation challeolicies have bend/or administn imbalance inher in the food

exus in developin

er costs of othuences the rds job creatio

poverty. Thereod sector.

A considerablot available fos. It is estimatted States (USy- and water-, it follows th

South Africa, ors such as fue market. On enges, social ieen developedered pricing sn the nexus bd value chain

ng countries. Sour

her inputs, stainvestment, pon; and the s

e is therefore a

e amount of eor South Africed that approxS) is thrown a- intensive nahat wasted foo

are two distiuel and oil prthe other handinequality, food to ensure thastructures thatecause of the (Fig. 12).

rce: Authors (201

ands to affect profitability

sector’s abilityan urgent nee

energy and wca, the magnitximately 2.5%away annually

ature of growod means was

inct categorierices, commod, developmeod and accesat these issuest are at odds wvarying, indi

13)

the and y to d to

water tude % of y in ing, sted

s of dity ntal s to

s are with irect


5. Constructing a governance framework for the water–energy–food nexus

If we look at how the nexus plays out in the policy landscape in South Africa, we see the same kind of imbalance. South Africa is currently in the process of evaluating its energy options and developing policies that apply appropriate ‘carrots and sticks’ to various technologies to encourage sustainable energy production. While the aspects of cost, carbon, and energy security have been given significant attention, water needs have not been part of this process. Similarly, energy pricing has not formed part of the water pricing strategy for South Africa to date.

However, solutions exist at the local and regional level. In particular, the lower the level, the more concrete the

nexus becomes in terms of project solutions: a series of readily implementable solutions exist to manage the nexus and at the same time to enable sustainable rural development in the context of the green economy. The challenge has always been scaling these solutions up to the departmental, national and regional level.

For example, several solutions exist at the local level to increase land, energy and water-use efficiency. One

such example is the Water Research Commission (WRC) funded project on the integration of irrigation and nutrient (especially nitrogen) inputs. Today, farmers are under pressure to decrease their water and fertilizer usage, while at the same time producing sufficient pasture for dairy farmers to meet the milk demands of a growing population (Fessehazion et al., 2012). In South Africa, annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) are the most widely grown pasture species under irrigation. However, shortages of water and nitrogen can be limiting factors, but these can be managed by using appropriate irrigation and nitrogen management tools (Fessehazion et al., 2012).

In essence, there is still a need for increased production, but in more cost-effective and innovative ways. One

WRC-funded innovation is the use of livestock manure to produce biogas, which is an environmentally friendly energy source. Since energy is central to improved social and economic well-being, and is a key factor for relieving poverty, improving human welfare and raising living standards (IAEA, 2005), biogas can play a central role in the sustainable development of rural communities in South Africa. The aim of this project is to couple biogas use (for energy and liquid fertilizer) with rainwater harvesting (for domestic use, fodder production and use in the biogas digester). In South Africa, one of the factors responsible for low agricultural production is unreliable rainfall and poor water resources. Since availability of water is critical for biogas generation, a sustainable water supply is essential for the implementation of this technology. While biogas digester owners typically utilize waste water in the biogas systems, this water is usually carried over long distances and is thus a barrier in the uptake of the technology. In essence, studies such as this one emphasize the need to implement effective economic development solutions based on the integration of fodder, food, energy and water security at the homestead and farm scale.

Biogas production will result in reduced financial costs through low-cost energy and fertilizer as well as the

potential for increased income (e.g. through the sale of milk) and will result in considerable savings at the household level, which could be used for other purposes such as food or school fees. This is likely to add meaningfully to the household's welfare and the economy. Additionally, while biogas is not a commodity sold in the marketplace, it has the potential to replace the measurable cost of heating, lighting and cooking requirements of a small rural household. Biogas is able to replace these general costs to a household and hence its value as a ‘cost-avoidance’ substitute may be assessed financially. Another benefit of biogas is that it replaces the wood, dung and other locally gathered fuels traditionally used for cooking and heating in rural households (Renwick et al., 2007). Thus the use of biogas means that the use of non-renewable use wood fuel is fully avoided, chronic respiratory and eye health impacts are halted, and the time saved enable other income-generation activities to be undertaken.

The environments examined in the case studies are typical of most of Southern Africa and indeed the

developing world – primarily rural in nature, and dependent on subsistence agriculture. The added dimensions of


no connection to either the water supply network or power grids in ecologically sensitive environments are also typical in this region. A popular response to these circumstances is a mass migration to towns and cities, resulting in the further expansion of informal neighbourhoods in the peri-urban fringes, bringing with it a suite of challenges that is rapidly becoming the norm in the developing world.

In this context, the possibility of interventions that help rural communities to have the opportunity of sustainable

livelihoods in rural settings with a good quality of life is both attractive for the individuals concerned and an important contributor to national sustainable development. The intervention models resulting from the case studies provide a series of readily implementable solutions in the context of a green economy. The solutions/interventions are both very portable and applicable in many Southern African settings. They are also easily implemented in the right conditions. In addition, the lag phases are usually small, enabling communities to derive the benefits of the interventions during the course of the first rainy season. It is also possible to extrapolate some elements of these solutions to the urban environment, in particular the peri-urban slums that are outside any water, waste or energy network.

Another solution locally would be to realize energy savings in the water supply sector. Currently, no estimates

are available for the energy intensity of the water cycle in South Africa, either at a national level or for cities. This knowledge is key to understanding the unique energy intensities of the different elements of the water use cycle, which can exhibit considerable variability in energy intensity. Energy efficiency improvements in the water use cycle would alleviate shortages, waste and unsustainable patterns of use.

In the case of food waste, significant reductions can be achieved through simple changes in food purchasing,

storage and preparation. However, local solutions that combine radically reducing food waste at its source with ensuring that what gets discarded becomes a resource to generate energy or create fertilizers can be considered (Slade, 2012). These solutions include reconnecting the whole supply chain from farm to table to farm by composting food waste and using it as fertilizer to grow crops.

At the regional level, virtual water trade may provide a potential solution. Investigations show high-potential

rain-fed cropping land in neighbouring countries such as Zambia (11.1 million ha), Mozambique (8.8 million ha), Zimbabwe (6.3 million ha) and Malawi (0.4 million ha). Moreover, water sharing is already working between South Africa and some of its neighbours, examples being the Lesotho Highlands Water Project and the Nkomati Project. Whether or not relying on virtual water would be beneficial in a broader context depends on a number of other factors such as resource endowments and production technologies in the countries engaging in trade, but it would improve the situation in water-scarce South Africa.

6. Conclusion

Food inflation has become a phenomenon of our time, and has begun to pose a threat to food security in South Africa, as in many other places in the world, as household food budgets take an increasing percentage of household income. The knock-on effect on the economy will be substantive. This paper shows that the energy and water systems play a significant role in driving the availability, quality and affordability of food, and that the pressures on food prices will affect energy and water prices. Generally, passing these costs on to the consumer will have negative implications for food security, with the most vulnerable being the first victims. In the absence of price increases at the consumer level, there will be pressure on profits throughout the food chain and a return on investments.

A deeper analysis is required for a more detailed understanding of the production cycle, food prices and food

security relationships. This will inform policy options and other interventions led by government and other partners. These include developing the infrastructure for improved, cost-effective agricultural production and processing; investing in research and development to improve production efficiencies; and re-channelling social


grants into food banks and work-for-food programmes. It is only through the understanding of the complexity of how the many dimensions of the food, energy and water nexus are entangled, and how we can effectively address the trade-offs in this nexus, that a long-term, concerted and sustained strategy can be developed and applied to address the issue of food security.

References

Bhatt, Y., Bossio, D., Enfors, E., Gordon, L., Kongo, V., Rotich J.K., Makurira, H., Masuki, K., Mul, M. and Tumbo, S.D. (2006) Smallholder system innovations in integrated watershed management strategies of water for food and environmental security in drought-prone tropical and subtropical agro-ecosystems. SSI working paper 109. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institure (IWMI).

Development Bank of Southern Africa. Prospects for South Africa’s future development. Report 2011 overview. Johannesburg, South Africa. Available at: http://www.dbsa.org/EJournal/Documents/DBSA%20Development%20Report%202011.pdf.

du Plessis, M. In The environmental handbook. WWF-SA and Trialogue (Pty) Ltd. 2010. du Toit, D.C., Ramonyai, M.D., Lubbe P.A. and Ntushelo, V. (2011) Food security. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Agriculture, Forestry

and Fisheries. Fessehazion, M.K., Abraha, A.B., Everson, C.S., Truter, W.F., Annandale, J.G. and Moodley, M. (2012) Water use and nitrogen application for

irrigation management of annual ryegrass and kikuyu pasture production. WRC Technical Report TT 520/12. Pretoria, South Africa: Water Research Commission (WRC).

Food Price Watch (2011) Poverty reduction and economic management (PREM) Network, World Bank. Washington D.C., USA. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/foodcrisis/foodpricewatch/april_2011.html.

Hall, K. D., Guo, J., Dore, M. and Chow, C.C. (2009) The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS ONE 4(11): e7940. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007940.

IAEA. (2005) Energy indicators for sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency.

IWMI (2007) Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. London, England: Earthscan, and Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IMWI). Available at: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Assessment/

Jooste, A. (2010) The effect of Agricultural Inputs on the Price of Food. Presentation from the MERC SEMINAR. Pretoria, South Africa, 27 May 2010.

Jooste, A. (2012) Cost analysis of South African agro-food value chains. Presentation from the ABC Congress. Drakensberg, South Africa, 6 June 2012.

Joubert, C. (2011) Administered prices and agriculture. Presentation from the CEO Forum, National Agricultural Marketing Council. 9 May 2011.

Laker, M.C. (2005) South Africa’s soil resources and sustainable development. Pretoria. South Africa. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.za/nssd_2005/Web/NSSD%20Process%20Documents%20and%20Reports/REVIEW_Soil_and_Sustainability_Oct05.pdf

NAMC (2010) The South African Food Cost Review 2010. Pretoria. Republic of South Africa: National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC) and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).

NAMC (2011) MEDIA RELEASE. FOOD PRICE MONITOR. February 2011. Pretoria. Republic of South Africa. Available at http://www.namc.co.za/dnn/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=r7dfjbWctLg%3D&tab

NAMC (2012) MEDIA RELEASE. FOOD PRICE MONITOR. February 2012. Pretoria. Republic of South Africa. Available at http://www.namc.co.za/dnn/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SOwneUqgelU%3d&tabid=73&mid=649

NEDLAC (2007) Administered prices study on economic inputs: water sector, August 2007. Trade and Industry Chamber Fund for Research into Industrial Development, Growth and Equity (FRIDGE). Johannesburg. South Africa.

Pretorius, K. (2010) Water use and food security: policy and practice. Availability of water for ongoing irrigation: long-term perspective. Presentation from the Water Conference organized by AGRI SA in Boksburg, South Africa. 11 August 2010. Available at:

www.agrisa.co.za/konferensie/water/002%20Water%20use.pdf. Rangasamy, L. (2011) Food Inflation In South Africa: Some Implications For Economic Policy South African Journal of Economics, Economic

Society of South Africa, vol. 79(2), pages 184-201, 06. Renwick, M., Subedi, P.S. and Hutton, G. (2007) Biogas for Better Life: An African Initiative – a cost–benefit analysis of national and regional

integrated biogas and sanitation programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. The Netherlands: Winrock International, prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Rockstrom, J., Barron, J. and Fox, P. (2003) Water productivity in rainfed agriculture: challenges and opportunities for smallholder farmers in drought-prone tropical agro-ecosystems. In: Kijne, W.J., Barker, R. and Molden, D. (Eds.), Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement, comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture, no. 1. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 145-163.

Segrave, A., Pronk, W., Ramaker, T. and Zuleeg, S. (2007) Global trends affecting the water cycle. Winds of change in the world of water. TECHNEAU Deliverable number D.1.1.7. TECHNEAU. Nieuwegein. The Netherlands. Available at:

http://www.techneau.org/fileadmin/files/Publications/Publications/Deliverables/D1.1.7.pdf


Slade, D. (2012) From table to farm; Johns Island man sets up business to haul food waste for compost. The Post and Courier. Charleston, South Carolina, US. Available at http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120507/PC05/120509374

South African Reserve Bank (2011) Monetary policy review. Pretoria, South Africa: Available at: http://www.resbank.co.za/Lists/News%20and%20Publications/Attachments/4347/MPR%20May%202011.pdf

von Braun, J. (2008) Rising food prices. What should be done. International Food Policy Research Institute Policy Brief. April 2008. WWF-SA (2011) Coal and Water Futures in South Africa. The case for protecting headwaters in the Enkangala grasslands. Cape Town. South

Africa. Zilberman, D., Sproul, T., Rajagopal, D., Sexton, S.E. and Hellegers, P. (2008) Rising energy prices and the economics of water in agriculture

Water Policy 10.1: 11-21.

The Water–energy–food Security Nexus: Challenges …...outh Africa global trend a is food self-n...

Documents

Transcript of The Water–energy–food Security Nexus: Challenges …...outh Africa global trend a is food self-n...