Keywords

1 Introduction

The water-energy-food (WEF) nexus approach advocates cooperation over shared resources at domestic, regional, and international levels. There is significant positive correlation between WEF resource security and political stability (Abbott et al. 2017; Amorim et al. 2018). Regions in Asia that are “energy-poor, water-stressed, and food-deficient” often experience conflicts between stakeholders (Rasul et al. 2019). The combination of increasing demand and increasing scarcity, climate change, urbanization, poverty, societal inequities and the cross-border nature of key resources show the need for a coherent and cooperative approach to achieve regional peace and stability, as well as meeting development goals, including UN Agenda 2030, i.e. the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The multifaceted associations and interdependencies between water, energy, and food sectors require a multidisciplinary and integrated approach. Streamlining WEF nexus management has myriad of benefits, including the improvement of food security and energy sharing (Mabhaudhi et al. 2020). This coherent approach to management will benefit the achievement of sustainable development and create responsive and harmonized management structures for shared resources, which are necessary for long-term global peace and security. Streamlining WEF nexus interdependencies facilitates negotiations and potential trade-offs for food security, including cross-border trade of food products, energy sharing, and the construction of new energy corridors. These synergies are not only central to sustainable development, but also encourage responsiveness and collaboration, which are beneficial for long-term peace and security (Staupe-Delgado 2020). The strategies taken by parties with the most impact, particularly China (as the upper riparian of the regional major river systems) will be key. China’s ‘soft path’ approach to international relations and openness to global health security in the post-COVID-19 and One Belt One Road era could further extend to the application of a nexus approach to key resource management.

This chapter will take a holistic approach to defining peace and security from the nexus perspective, i.e., in terms of the production, consumption, and distribution of water, energy, and food, and the resolution of conflicts that arise around these resources. Human security involves understanding the impact of broader factors (such as those arising from the environment, availability of resources, economic goals, culture, conflict, etc.) on the well-being of individuals, and aims to change the deleterious trajectory of potential scenarios, creating outcomes that value the well-being of individuals. These achievements were poignantly described as follows: “a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced” (Kaul et al. 1994). Human security rests on systems that manage interdependencies, taking a people-centered and protective approach that is preventative (rather than reactionary) in nature. This results in practical benefits at all levels, including cost-effective, integrated project management for governing bodies. The potential for trade-offs also creates incentives that sectoral approaches may not, e.g. for upper riparian cooperation that can be difficult to obtain in water-centric approaches (Zarei 2020).

This chapter further explores these trade-offs and synergies. It considers best practice examples, such as the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) and recommendations from the MENA Region Initiative as a model of Nexus Approach and Renewable Energy Technologies (MINARET) (IUCN ROWA Report 2019), to demonstrate how WEF insecurities are symptomatic of turbulent power dynamics in the region, leading to conflict that could be mitigated using the integrated framework of the WEF nexus approach, which can also inform policy in the trans-boundary river basins. This chapter explores how a nexus approach can promote peace, security, and sustainable development in the region through the thoughtful management of water, energy, and food resources.

2 Peace and Conflict in WEF Discourse

WEF nexus discourse draws from both the natural sciences and the humanities to apply scientific findings within decision-making bodies (Taniguchi et al. 2017). Human security involves the management of five key resources: land, energy, food, water, and minerals (Khagram et al. 2003). A zero-sum approach to these resources can result in international conflicts (such as in the context of international trade) (Adnan 2013). As articulated at the Bonn 2011 conference, it is possible to make investments in a way that sustains ecosystem services and optimizes resource use, while serving the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable. This Bonn conference report also recognized the need to manage water, energy, and food in the face of increasing demand, and warned of the unintended consequences of sectoral approaches, including the dangers of shortages as causes of political instability, global conflict, and environmental degradation (Adnan 2013).

The failure to integrate these pivotal findings from the Bonn 2011 conference into policy has and will result in egregious unsustainability. This is partly due to the relative political weakness of government departments dealing with water and environmental issues. There is also an overall lack of understanding of the economic value of water and the link between the protection of ecosystems and human security. These factors (among others) lead to insufficient regional investments that take an integrated approach to protecting ecosystem services. There is increased understanding throughout the global community of the security threats posed by the mismanagement of these resources (Krchnak et al. 2011; Chellaney 2011; Klare 2012).

There are geopolitical factors that give the region strategic significance, including the involvement of three nuclear powers (China, India, and Pakistan). The resources necessary for nations to function properly are not distributed along the lines of national boundaries; for instance, in the case of lower-riparian dependence on upper-riparian nations. There is a clear need to address these issues coherently as potential flashpoints exist the world over, including in Southeast Asia, India, the Nile Basin, Saudi Arabia, the Arctic Pole, and the South China Sea (Biba 2013; Ho 2014; Adnan 2013). The situation in Kashmir is an example of how energy, food, and water governance are interlinked. The 2014 floods in the region demonstrate the impact of low stakeholder engagement, and this issue of low stakeholder engagement is also linked to the difficulties that have arisen after the lockdown imposed in 2019 (Lone 2020).

The factors that contribute to resource-related conflict have been widely acknowledged and studied in various parts of the world. In the Middle East, for instance, nexus studies show that the factors driving conflict include the scarcity of water, the occurrence of natural disasters (flooding, droughts, and dust storms) as well as economic and population growth, urbanization, political instability, and poverty (Hameed et al. 2019). The Pardee RAND Food-Energy-Water Security Index tracks the resources contributing to these factors.

There is also increasing understanding of the nexus approach and its contribution to peacebuilding, as evident in the 2019 Mali conference on Water, Peace, and Security regarding the Inner Niger Delta. The positive results of that application have led to proposals for its expansion into other parts of Niger and Chad (Water Energy Food 2019).

This chapter will elucidate how the nexus approach can be viewed in terms of conflict prevention at domestic, regional, and international levels. It will draw from examples of cooperative trends and arrangements, international law frameworks, and lessons from nexus studies regarding conflict prevention.

3 A Conflict Prevention and Cooperation Framework

The interlinkages and dependencies among water, energy, and food systems have emerged around the world and conflicts have developed over access, affordability, and ownership rights of water, land and energy, which are highly politicized, at different levels of governance (Keukertz et al. 2018). On the other hand, there have been warnings made against ‘de-globalization’ as a response to the changing geopolitical situation due to parallels with the historical conditions that resulted in WWII. This section will look at the overall framework for adapting the nexus approach towards conflict prevention at the international, domestic, and regional levels. Examples will include the LMC, China-Pakistan-Iran-Turkey Energy Corridor, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.

3.1 International Approach

At an international level there are ongoing debates regarding the keyways in which WEF security issues can be integrated in international law, and how the nexus approach can be used in a way that reduces political tension. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are viewed as an improvement on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), have been critiqued for not having integrated a more effective nexus approach (Boas et al. 2016; Kim 2016).

In terms of existing sectoral approaches, studies have found that targeted interventions in water management contribute to peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery processes, as well as to long-term sustainable development and stability (Swain 2016). Transboundary water resources include major rivers flowing from the Greater Himalayan Region to various parts of Asia, as well as shared groundwater resources. There are fears of imminent “water wars” given water scarcity and increasing demand. The domestic development plans, such as hydropower plants, of upper riparian nations are not reflecting regional needs and are failing to address the potentially devastating effects on lower-riparian nations.

The key conventions on water governance are the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) and the 1992 UNECE Transboundary Waters Convention (UNECE). Art. 6 and Art. 4 (customary international law principles of Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation) of the UNWC are key articles that can inform a more holistic approach to water governance. UN Resolution 71/222 on the International Decade for Action, “Water for Sustainable Development”, 2018–2028 (adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 2016) and the UNECE will be valuable for a nexus assessment, integrating human rights (food and water) discourses read through the nexus approach (Belinskij 2015).

The “Potential Conflict into Cooperation Potential” (PCCP) approach is based on transforming the dynamics of such a situation to conform to international law principles (Vinogradov et al. 2003). It advocates a five phase PCCP cycle, beginning with the legal context of applicable international law, finding means to transform conflict to cooperation, creating an agreement, and implementation.

Energy security, as per the International Energy Agency, is “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price” as well as access to energy for individual needs i.e.: “access to clean, reliable and affordable energy services for cooking, heating, lighting, communication, and productive uses” (Belinskij 2015). This requires addressing energy security at both the macro and micro (i.e., individual) levels.

There have been attempts to expand the sectoral approach to energy into a more integrated model. The G8 Gleneagles 2005 Plan of Action, ‘Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development’ was a milestone undertaking of this type of integrated model. There have been recommendations made in existing energy and sustainable development agreements (including attempts to impose liability) for an international convention on energy and the environment through environmental rules and obligations, and calls to address sovereignty issues over energy management/natural resources (Arghand et al. 2018).

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has been supportive of an expansive approach to key resources. The right to food and water (Art. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR on adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing, and housing and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; Art. 14 and 17 of the ILA Berlin Rules; General Assembly Resolutions) are essential to the nexus approach (Belinskij 2015).

An expanded nexus approach would combine WEF security through a human rights/basic needs perspective tailored to both individuals and ecosystems (Bizikova et al. 2013). Further, there is no single method that fits all situations; rather the approach must be tailored for each unique situation (Simpson and Jewitt 2019). The above noted efforts provide a foundation for this more intensive nexus-driven agenda. Regulations (defined as enforced imperatives that guide human interactions) related to resources are, even within a domestic setup, highly complex (Larcom and Gevelt 2017). Therefore, existing sectoral regulations at the international level can be streamlined into a nexus approach (Zarei 2020).

3.2 Domestic and Regional Levels

At the moment, resource utilisation is primarily within the purview of national planning commissions. Some research on the limitations of these domestic practices have demonstrated sectoral approaches being prioritized without trans/cross-sectoral inputs in decision-making (Albrecht et al. 2018); a lack of input into budgetary allocation; and a limited understanding of nexus perspectives in national planning. nexus could help national-level plans and encourage decision-making that promotes “synergies and minimizing trade-offs in resource use and enhancing policy coherence across the three sectors” (Rasul and Sharma 2016).

Institutionalist arrangements (rather than ad hoc) have been recognized as more effective in constraining behaviour and reducing tensions (North 1990). However, as demonstrated by the IUCN ROWA Report (2019) report, it is better to build on existing institutions to create regionally coherent policies with expert input, rather than to focus on creating specific institutions for the WEF nexus. I hold that it is possible to do both: to develop existing sectoral institutions as well as to design new institutional frameworks simultaneously.

The role of China as the upper riparian to the major rivers in the region is a key consideration in this discussion. During the COVID-19 era, rather than retreating from globalization denying about the need for international cooperation, China has stressed the need for international collaboration. President Xi made six points about common global understanding and five pledges for actions (Xinhua 2020). Chinese political approaches are particularly salient to investigate because China is home to many of the rivers vital to the survival of those in the region. In President Xi’s speech in May 2020 at the World Health Assembly, he affirmed the idea of common humanity and laid out the areas that should be urgently tackled to fight the epidemic. Xi’s willingness to cooperate during the pandemic may open the door to other types of cooperation (such as developing existing regional arrangements) in the post COVID-19 era.

The Chinese approach includes the call for a body of nations to take the lead rather than one country; focusing efforts on the developing world (this shows an understanding of the need to build systems that can tackle a response domestically, in line with the SDGs); planning for the future and strengthening global governance; and the need to restore economic and social development (i.e., international macroeconomic policy coordination should be stepped up and the global industrial and supply chains must be kept stable and unclogged if we are to restore growth to the world economy). President Xi emphasized the need to strengthen international cooperation, stating that ‘Mankind is a community with a shared future’ (Xinhua 2020).

China’s willingness to cooperate over resources is evident in the LMC with its downstream neighbors on the Mekong River, which has involved consideration of ecological impacts in dam projects and has even led to the cancellation of the Mengsong Dam project in 2010 on the Buyuan River (a river vital to fish migration) in consideration of the local ecosystem (He et al. 2014). Another example of development in this area is the China-Pakistan-Iran-Turkey energy corridor. In terms of areas of potential conflict, there have been both criticisms (e.g., regarding the Malacca Strait) and recommended solutions (e.g. opening up new energy channels, greater international cooperation on shared energy, structural developments). Despite these criticisms, overall China is perceived by scholars as strengthening cooperation in policymaking, energy and dispute resolution, and security cooperation (Guo et al. 2019).

In terms of regional security, anti-terrorism, and overall risk reduction, recommendations include joint anti-terrorism centers for intelligence sharing and related cooperation such as joint responses and a regional security cooperation system such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to strengthen ties between member states for the sake of regional peace, security, and stability. This can also protect investments, projects, and workers and address the causes of terrorism in terms of poor economic development and wealth disparity in line with “the principle of consultation, co-construction and sharing’’ (Zhang 2016). This improves overall wellbeing, reduces conflict triggers (including poverty), and promotes sustainable economic development.

Looking at examples outside the region, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile was an example of collaboration that uses a cooperative approach to mitigate tensions. In the past, with the backing of the African Union and with assistance from experts, there had been ongoing diplomatic relations between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia in decision-making over damming the Nile (Mbaku 2020). This included the establishment of a tripartite commission to create an agreement. However, since 2020 a fresh controversy has started over filling and operation of the GERD by Ethiopia. There has been increasingly nationalist rhetoric from Egypt and Sudan, and the UN Security Council has taken up the issue. The US mediated between these countries in concluding a trilateral agreement to control the filling and operation of the GERD on the Blue Nile by Ethiopia. However, Former President Donald Trump sparked diplomatic tensions when he remarked that Egypt could ‘blow up’ the GERD that Ethiopia is building on a tributary of the Nile. Clearly, this ongoing situation is an illustration of states’ reluctance to sign binding agreements and how insensitive remarks from a third country can derail cooperation and incite a diplomatic furore (Chothia 2020).

A recent report on the implementation of the nexus approach in the Middle East and North Africa acknowledges the difficulty of setting up new bodies that specifically deal with nexus management, and advocates expanding the mandate of existing bodies working on areas linked to these sectors (IUCN ROWA 2019). This would involve policy dialogues, methods to periodically evaluate strategies and implementation and, possibly, regular reporting. This section will explore recommendations relating to shared governance mechanisms (with representatives from states and sub-national bodies for stakeholder integration), high level governance mechanisms through an independence bodies, and possibilities for public–private partnerships. Clearly, cooperation and partnerships around water, agriculture, and energy add value to governance and technological measures needed to address these challenges (Borgomeo et al. (2018).

In terms of empowering governing/institutional bodies to support sustainable development through the nexus approach to resource management, we must first examine and understand the existing situation and current limitations, and then use this knowledge to fortify these existing bodies and promote greater regional collaboration.

3.3 Critical Reflections

In terms of attempts to integrate the nexus approach through existing structures, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Regional Expert Consultation Meeting on Water, Energy & Food Nexus in 2017 recognized the approach and its benefits in promoting cooperation. However, the increasing militarisation of resource-rich Kashmir shows challenges for comprehensive developments on this front.

Overall, in terms of international water law (IWL) itself, there have been criticisms of the disparity between IWL’s guarantee to all riparian states to the fair entitlement of shared waters, and incentives for more powerful states to take unilateral actions that prejudice legitimate competing claims and threaten the wellbeing of those reliant on the water; approaches that call for more flexible management regimes that must be reconciled with the law’s long-standing goal of encouraging nations to negotiate fixed entitlement treaties to provide the necessary stability for infrastructure investment; ways in which conservation and environmental issues are subsumed by consumptive short-term approaches; and issues that remain unaddressed in the IWL arena regarding the construction of largescale dams, which often do not achieve their promised deliverables and adversely affect vulnerable groups and ecosystems (Tarlock 2010).

In terms of expanding the interpretative jurisdiction regarding rationae personae (jurisdiction based on parties concerned) and rationae materiae (jurisdiction over subject matter) of the court through existing bilateral treaties, the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Gabcíkovo Nagymaros (1997) is instructive. The ICJ in this case encourages the use of contemporary international laws and standards in treaty interpretation. In the context of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 framework in the Kishenganga (2013) decision, the Permanent Court of Arbitration found that it was “incumbent upon this Court to interpret and apply this 1960 Treaty in light of the customary international principles for the protection of the environment in force today.” However, the court also clarified that this could not be used to negate any rights in the Treaty or to go beyond expressed boundaries. Therefore, while existing structures can incorporate elements of nexus thinking, it is evident that there are inherent limitations as well. Furthermore, states generally do not pursue a nexus approach that aims to jointly manage linkages and trade-offs between these water, food and energy systems. For instance, reviewing literature on the WEF nexus with emphasis on irrigation issues, Hamidov and Helming (2020) have observed the increasing importance of the nexus approach in natural resource management in terms of multi-scalar optimization of resource utilisation and trade-offs. However, they point out that there has been limited real-world application, and that sectoral approaches tend to be emphasized. They reflect the increasing consensus that “[t]o address sustainable development, there is a need to fully integrate across research disciplines and thematic dimensions. Such studies are only starting to emerge” (Hamidov and Helming 2020).

A contrast has been drawn between the integrated water management (IWRM) approach and the nexus approach (Rasul and Sharma 2016). It has even been stated that “the equally laudable [IWRM] paradigm … was hijacked by water agencies to prevent radical transformation by focusing on technocratic and procedural solutions” (Gywali 2020). These critiques distinguish the nexus approach from sectoral approaches, advocating against development through existing sectoral models.

Overall, there is a clear need for cross-sectoral expertise and diplomacy. It may be possible for the SDG sectoral goals to be a guide for the meantime until nexus-oriented goals can be collaboratively discussed. As the common saying goes, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Progress can be made by studying existing domestic, regional, and global frameworks and making recommendations based on the nexus approach framed through the SDGs and broader goals of the international community to achieve peace, stability, and sustainable development.

4 Conflict Reduction—Lessons Learned

As demonstrated above, regional dialogue and foreign policy trends can affect future cooperation with the integration of the WEF nexus approach to promote regional peace and to reflect on recommendations from ongoing efforts to use the nexus approach. Zarei’s (2020) model on the ways in which the nexus approach reduces conflict and facilitates cooperation (rather than competition) shows the way in which the nexus provides both flexibility and efficiency. Addressing the primary drivers of tensions: economic and population growth, political disputes, climate change, urbanization, and the need to develop infrastructure through an integrated, human security-centered nexus approach enables cooperation-based outcomes including shared benefits, enhanced livelihoods, resource optimization, good governance, supply meeting demand, and a holistic “win–win” framework, facilitating the achievement of equitable and sustainable growth and saving ecosystems (Zarei 2020).

The recommendations from IUCN ROWA Report (2019) are compelling and widely applicable. They emphasize the role of multi-stakeholder platforms to link scientific expertise to policy and societal understanding, and the development of public sector (including public institutions, politicians and legislators) alongside the private sector and civil society and, where relevant, agencies dispensing foreign aid. The role of civil society is significant, in that it helps to develop inclusive multi-scalar input and dialogue. Private–public partnerships are also key, as are links between research institutions and the private sector. Peaceful and effective mediation eases conflict resolution, as do expert-led movements towards common goals through the nexus approach.

A study of existing national institutional arrangements and multi-stakeholder platforms would create the knowledge base for targeted policies that implement the nexus approach. This would include taking a critical look at existing sectoral approaches and the ways in which systems affecting resource use are designed, as well as identifying potential areas for cooperation within the different domestic systems studied across a given region. The IUCN ROWA Report (2019) also recommended creating a network of experts regionally as a model for the international community to synergize the technical knowledge involved and create understanding around the nexus international law and policy framework.

The establishment/enhancement of coordination mechanisms and institutions would assist in the mainstreaming of the WEF approach in the Asian region as well. This approach, which does not require waiting for new institutions specializing in the WEF nexus, is in line with recommendations to work with existing regulations rather than undertaking a complete overhaul. Understanding the needs of the vulnerable and ensuring outreach to all stakeholders would also help identify nascent conflicts and allow for the development of expansive dispute resolution practices.

Emphasising the importance of learning (knowledge assimilation by stakeholders) to policy coherence and integration, Weitz et al. (2017) identify governance gaps that must be addressed to connect nexus conceptual frameworks and analytical tools with decision-making praxis. Integrative Environmental Governance and other meta-governance literature illuminates how technical information needs to be considered in light of cognitive factors (such as trust), value systems of institutions, ways of informing stakeholders, and the ways in which narratives are framed (Weitz et. al. 2017). Building trust, capacity, and knowledge assimilation goes towards creating a shared understanding that diminishes conflict.

Domestically, conflicts can arise because of a lack of comprehensive and integrated strategies towards water, energy, and food. Regulatory regimes that take a sectoral approach create inefficacies and tensions, as does a lack of private–public partnerships. As found by Fowler and Shi (2016) in the US domestic setting, mediation (with a neutral third party) on disputes that arise in relation to these resources can, through a nexus approach, increase stakeholder engagement and build long-term relationships between civil society, expert communities, and the citizenry at large (Fowler and Shi 2016). That said, Weitz et al. (2017) have pointed out that it is not necessary or even desirable to eliminate conflicting interests. There is increasing consensus that implementing the nexus approach does not require radically overhauling existing regulatory and governance frameworks (Larcom and Gevelt 2017; IUCN ROWA Report 2019). However, there are also warnings to avoid the sectoral approach that ended up narrowing the scope of IWRM. Furthermore, the value-based input of the SDGs and other international points of consensus on shared development and well-being would make such actions meaningful.

Regionally, there is a tendency for states to resist agreements that are binding, even when regional dialogues are established. This can be seen in the back and forth between the Ethiopian and Egyptian governments with GERD. However, progress is being made in the African Union-backed tripartite commission, with experts and observers attending the negotiations.

5 Conclusion

The nexus approach is directly aimed at improving human security and addressing the conditions that could otherwise lead to conflict. The potential for conflict is directly linked to scarcity and a lack of cooperative mechanisms, including security threats in major river basins and other water resources. There are also tensions caused by increasing demands for energy and the impact of dam projects on lower riparian neighbours; lower-riparian agricultural concerns (as agricultural use is the highest demand on freshwater); lack of cooperation; and a lack of due consideration for the water-food interface (integrated planning approaches and government strategies) and water-energy interface (e.g., hydropower and cooling for fossil fuel energy). The lack of joint regional responses to environmental crises, disasters, and extreme events increased by climate change leads to zero-sum approaches at national or sub-national levels, which ultimately lead to loss at every level due to mismanagement. Poverty is also a key factor, with rapid urbanisation increasing slum dwellers and increasing energy demands.

Regional approaches have shown some success. It is significant that the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 has lasted despite the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan. Joint resources incentivise India and China to de-escalate and engage in diplomatic relations vis-a-vis their disputed boundaries. As in these and other examples mentioned above, there is a direct link between cooperating over resource security and overall political stability.

However, there is still a long way to go in terms of integrating and adapting the nexus approach at all levels. WEF management requires a multidisciplinary and integrated approach that streamlines nexus interdependencies, considering the multifaceted associations between these critical sectors. The development of cooperative bodies that take a nexus approach incentivises a joint approach to key resources, and emphasises mutual benefits and human security. It also provides a framework for offering other incentives, such as those related to trade or other elements of foreign policy, like China’s One Belt One Road program and other international infrastructure-oriented approaches.

In terms of indirect incorporation, the nexus approach is also being discussed with reference to the regime of the UNECE Water Convention as well as a framework for achieving the SDGs in relevant sectors. The international community’s goal setting, while still taking a sectoral approach, is developing. This can be facilitated with reference to SDGs themselves, including SDGs 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The 2017 SAARC Regional Meeting on the WEF nexus Approach also emphasized the nexus approach’s utility in conflict prevention, which also appears to be recognized with respect to the tripartite commission set up to deal with issues arising out of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

As with the IUCN ROWA Report (2019) recommendation to develop existing bodies to further an integrated nexus approach, current international instruments can also be harnessed for this purpose, while developing recommendations for a more synthesized approach and international support for it as a policy goal, given the inherent limitations of existing treaty structures (as seen in the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Kishenganga decision).

The growing knowledge base and WEF discourse on strengthening existing cooperative agreements (e.g., Chellaney 2015), along with dispute resolution principles from river basin models, demonstrate that the WEF nexus approach offers a great deal of promise in reducing political instability and mismanagement of key resources vital to human security. If integrated into the changing approach to global governance in the post COVID-19 era, the nexus emphasis on a trans-sectoral, integrated approach could play a key role in reducing conflict in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world that faces challenges that cannot be resolved without a collective and coherent approach.