The unabated growth of natural resource consumption raises risks that we will outstrip the capacities of ecosystems and governance institutions. At the same time, to achieve important global goals related to poverty alleviation, public health, equity and economic development such as those embodied in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we will simultaneously need more resources and better management of natural resources everywhere.
Achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals will require successful efforts to better integrate resource management across local, regional and global scales if greater ecological degradation, erosion of livelihoods and threats to security are to be avoided. Can resource governance be substantially improved across and between multiple types of resources, and become integrated with SDG implementation?
Debates about increasing and interconnected natural resource consumption, waste, and governance are often framed in terms of a “resource nexus.” We define the resource nexus as a set of context-specific critical interlinkages between two or more natural resources used in delivery chains in systems that provide water, energy, food, land, and materials. These dynamic chains involve complex social relations across scales and time, posing significant governance challenges. If “nexus” is to be more than an buzz word, as Nature suggested, approaches invoking the concept must add analytical clarity and apply to governance.
Past resource governance focused mostly on single resource categories such as water or energy in a supply chain running from primary natural resource, through processing and distribution to final consumption and disposal. The nexus concept is a response to this kind of siloed thinking. It emphasizes the importance of examining critical interlinkages across resources.
Our recent article in Nature Sustainability presents a five-node concept of the resource nexus and a set of analytical methods, modelling approaches, and scenarios for assessing system implications and capturing the dynamics for existing interlinkages and for future strategies, as well as building knowledge about these interdependencies. We argue that multi-scale, polycentric resource governance and assessment, in dialogue with various modelling efforts, can inform policy choices in the public, private, and civil society sectors.
A large and growing group of analysts and authors from around the world have been discussing nexus approaches since at least 2011. Our nexus approaches explore interlinkages between five resource sets: water, energy, food, materials, and land. Seeking improved assessment and governance of these links is critical if the SDGs on zero hunger (SDG 2), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13), and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15) are to be achieved. For example, water resources are centrally important not only for SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), where it is the explicit subject, but also for SDGs 2 (zero hunger), 7 (affordable and clean energy), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), and 12 (responsible consumption and production).
If water-focused actors, policies, and initiatives seek to achieve SDG 6 without reference to the water-related needs of other SDGs, they may miss opportunities and contradictions. And impediments to SDG achievement would likely to increase. The same holds true for land, food, materials, and energy if you enter inter-resource connections and SDG implementation planning via any one of these resource sets.
Systems thinking is foundational. Researchers and practitioners can start from a broad nexus understanding but may well focus on certain critical interlinkages. Assessment tools such as lifecycle analysis, value chain management, and scenario development and modelling approaches are available to reduce waste and increase efficiencies—sometimes through recapture and reuse—and establish critical resource thresholds to signal major risks of exceeding the capacities of ecosystems and governance institutions at various scales or within sectors. Such tools can potentially link various governance efforts to reduce the ecological and humanitarian costs of mining or agriculture, and simultaneously improve supply chain management and SDG implementation.
Integrated approaches could be better applied to address multiple targets and achieve greater sustainability across public and private sectors and at various levels of scale. And, in the process, such approaches could improve the decidedly uneven and incomplete resource-related monitoring, data gathering and analysis that currently exists across scales.
Modelling and scenario techniques are particularly good for exploring potential future implications for current choices and practices; and helping to identify and visualize demand, supply, and other governance challenges. The five-node nexus can be adapted to specific contexts and should help to focus on the most relevant resource interlinkages across layers. It can also help us further explore interlinkages with biosphere integrity and circular economy, which involves a vision of sustainable resource use that moves beyond the current take-make-dispose extractive industrial model and takes waste out of the equation.
In short, each SDG cannot be achieved in isolation and all SDGs have explicit or implicit resource-related demands and implications. In a world of scarce resources of all kinds—including time—we must prioritize assessment, planning, and governance initiatives that simultaneously maximize and integrate much more sustainable resource management and SDG implementation.
[This arcitle originally appeared on newsecuritybeat.org.]
Jair Bolsonaro, Brasil’s current de facto presidential frontrunner, says he would withdraw Brazil from the Paris Agreement if he wins the October election. The withdrawal of such an important developing country, home to the world’s largest rainforest, would deal a blow to international climate cooperation. Bolsorano’s opposition to the international pact has drawn criticism from the UN’s environment chief.
Until now, no one had seriously doubted that relations between the US and Europe, for all the difficulties and conflicts they have gone through, would continue safe and sound. Since Trump was elected as US President however, the atmosphere has changed. The re-nationalisation of the world order has gained speed and is making clear how far advanced global interdependencies have become. With global multilateralism in crisis, climate diplomacy could act as a new driving force.
There are only a few weeks to go before international and local leaders from states, regions, cities, businesses, investors and civil society travel to the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco to create a new wave of mobilization. As Earth is at risk of entering a situation of extreme conditions, those going must bring along more than just flowers in their hair.
The surge in the frequency and intensity of climate change impacts has raised the alarm about how this could hamper coastal activities. Several critical ports in the Indo-Pacific region are hubs of international trade and commerce and at the same time vulnerable to typhoons, taller waves and erosion. India’s climate diplomacy at the regional level could activate climate-resilient pathways for port development and management.