4.6 Article

Water-Energy-Food Nexus in a Transboundary River Basin: The Case of Tonle Sap Lake, Mekong River Basin

Journal

WATER
Volume 7, Issue 10, Pages 5416-5436

Publisher

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/w7105416

Keywords

transboundary water-energy-food nexus; climate change; science-policy-stakeholder interaction; cross-sectoral collaboration; integrated planning; Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM); transboundary rivers

Funding

  1. AusAID
  2. Academy of Finland [269901, 267463]
  3. Tonle Sap Authority (TSA)
  4. Supreme National Economic Council (SNEC)
  5. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
  6. Academy of Finland (AKA) [267463, 267463] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The water-energy-food nexus is promoted as a new approach for research and policy-making. But what does the nexus mean in practice and what kinds of benefits does it bring? In this article we share our experiences with using a nexus approach in Cambodia's Tonle Sap Lake area. We conclude that water, energy and food security are very closely linked, both in the Tonle Sap and in the transboundary Mekong River Basin generally. The current drive for large-scale hydropower threatens water and food security at both local and national scales. Hence, the nexus provides a relevant starting point for promoting sustainable development in the Mekong. We also identify and discuss two parallel dimensions for the nexus, with one focusing on research and analysis and the other on integrated planning and cross-sectoral collaboration. In our study, the nexus approach was particularly useful in facilitating collaboration and stakeholder engagement. This was because the nexus approach clearly defines the main themes included in the process, and at the same time widens the discussion from mere water resource management into the broader aspects of water, energy and food security.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available