The Water – Energy – Food Security Nexus
German Technical Cooperation:
Analysis of the Project Portfolio
and Assessment of Opportunities for Nexus Mainstreaming
Project “International Water Policy”
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
January 2016
Abbreviations:
AACWaM
BGR
BTR
CRS
DIE
FC
GIZ
KfW
MDG
PV
SDGs
SV WAPO
TC
WEF
Adaptation to Climate Change for the Water Sector in the Mena region
Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe
Biodiversity Marker (Rio Marker)
Creditor Reporting System on Aid Activity of OECD
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik
Financial Cooperation
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
Millennium Development Goal
Programmvorschlag (project proposal/offer of GIZ to BMZ)
Sustainable Development Goals
Sektorvorhaben (global sectoral project) “International Water Policy”
Technical Cooperation
Water, Energy, Food Security
This report was prepared on behalf of the GIZ Project
“International Water Policy” (PN: 2014.2264.1) on behalf of the BMZ
by
Dr. Holger Hoff
Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
Dr. Max Kasparek
Freelance Consultant
Natural Resource Management
Heidelberg, Germany
With contributions of
Carmen Begerock
Katja Knuhr
2
Executive Summary
After its conceptualization in 2011, the Nexus approach still awaits coherent operationalization and
implementation. GIZ’s project portfolio, which covers all possible Nexus aspects and a wide range of
different objectives and contexts, generally with strong local anchoring, provides excellent opportunities for systematically and coherently implementing the Nexus approach. Such an implementation
by way of mainstreaming the Nexus approach into ongoing activities and existing structures needs to
be based on an agreed Nexus definition, as described by BMZ (2014): the critical interlinkages
among and between water-, energy-, and land-resources on the one hand, and water-, energy-, and
food-security on the other hand (or: the “environment- development Nexus”).
This Nexus portfolio analysis developed and applied a systematic methodology and criteria for
screening, characterizing and ranking 450 selected GIZ projects (a subset of GIZ’s much larger project
portfolio). These criteria were applied to assess the potential added value (i.e. need and opportunities) and the feasibility of a Nexus approach for each project. The results of the analysis show significant differences between projects, but also between different sectors, regions, and countries in
terms of added value and feasibility. Further Nexus mainstreaming into the project portfolio will
need to take into account this fact, i.e. that not all projects are equally in need of or suitable for a
Nexus approach, depending on project goals, type, and context.
To routinely prioritize and prepare projects for Nexus mainstreaming, initial elements of a Nexus
typology were derived from this analysis and from further in-depth analysis of the top-ranked “Nexus
projects”, and from one additional (climate) project which is currently being “upgraded” to a Nexus
project . It became clear from the in-depth analysis, that integrated or Nexus approaches are already
inherent to many projects, but yet not systematically promoted as means to achieve better outcomes. In particular the governance side of the Nexus, i.e. the need for improved policy coherence, is
not receiving enough attention yet.
This initial portfolio analysis developed a methodology and criteria (and eventually also indicators)
for future systematic Nexus mainstreaming into the project portfolio of GIZ and beyond. It was designed as a learning process which now needs to be further refined, involving a broad range of expertise and departments across GIZ.
3
Kurzdarstellung
Auch vier Jahre nach seiner Konzeptualisierung in 2011 ist eine kohärente Operationalisierung und
Umsetzung des Nexus-Ansatzes noch nicht ausreichend erfolgt. Das Projektportfolio der GIZ umfasst
ein breites Spektrum verschiedener Nexus-Aspekte, Zielsetzungen und Zusammenhänge, und bietet,
auch dank seiner jeweiligen guten lokalen Verankerung, hervorragende Möglichkeiten für eine systematische und einheitliche Umsetzung des Ansatzes. Solch eine Umsetzung durch das
Mainstreaming in laufende Aktivitäten und bestehende Strukturen muss jedoch auf einer abgestimmten Definition des Nexus-Begriffes basieren, wie z. B. der des BMZ (2014): die kritischen Wechselwirkungen innerhalb und zwischen Wasser-, Energie- und Landressourcen einerseits, und Wasser-,
Energie-, und Ernährungssicherheit andererseits (bzw. dem „Umwelt-Entwicklung Nexus“).
In der vorliegenden Nexus-Portfolioanalyse wurden eine systematische Methodologie sowie Kriterien
für das Screening, die Charakterisierung und die Priorisierung von 450 ausgewählten GIZ Projekten
(einer Teilmenge des weitaus umfangreicheren Projektportfolios der GIZ ) entwickelt und angewandt.
Mithilfe dieser Kriterien wurden der Bedarf und der potenzielle Mehrwert (added value) sowie die
Durchführbarkeit (feasibility) eines Nexus-Ansatzes für jedes Projekt bewertet. Die Ergebnisse der
Analyse zeigen signifikante Unterschiede zwischen den Projekten, aber auch zwischen verschiedenen
Sektoren, Regionen und Ländern hinsichtlich Mehrwert und Durchführbarkeit. Weitergehendes Nexus-Mainstreaming im Projektportfolio sollte diesen Ergebnissen Rechnung tragen und berücksichtigen, dass entsprechend ihrer Zielsetzungen und dem jeweiligen Kontext nicht alle Projekte gleichermaßen eines Nexus-Ansatzes bedürfen oder sich dafür eignen.
Um die Priorisierung und Vorbereitung von Projekten für ein Nexus-Mainstreaming zu standardisieren, wurden erste Elemente einer Nexus-Typologie aus der Analyse sowie aus einer detaillierten
Auswertung der am höchsten bewerteten Nexus-Projekte sowie eines zusätzlichen, gegenwärtig um
eine Nexuskomponente erweiterten, Projekts abgeleitet. Im Zuge dieser Auswertung wurde deutlich,
dass viele Projekte bereits Elemente eines integrierten bzw. Nexus-Ansatzes aufweisen. Dieser wird
jedoch bisher nicht systematisch als wirksames Instrument eingesetzt. Insbesondere die GovernanceAspekte des Nexus-Ansatzes, d. h. der Bedarf an einer stärkeren Politikkohärenz, erfährt noch nicht
die erforderliche Beachtung.
Im Rahmen dieser ersten Portfolioanalyse wurden eine Methodologie und Kriterien sowie letztlich
auch Indikatoren entwickelt, die zukünftig ein systematisches Mainstreaming des Nexus-Ansatzes im
Projektportfolio der GIZ und darüber hinaus ermöglichen. Die Analyse stellt einen Lernprozess dar,
welcher unter Einbeziehung einer größeren Bandbreite an Fachwissen und Abteilungen der GIZ weiterzuentwickeln ist.
4
1. Background and Aim
The challenge of thinking in a water, energy, and food security (WEF) Nexus perspective is central to
the Green Economy and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Nexus Conference which took place from 16-18 November 2011 in Bonn highlighted how a Nexus approach can enhance water, energy and food security, while simultaneously reducing pressure on
natural resources and ecosystems (the “development-environment” Nexus), by increasing resource
efficiency, reducing negative externalities, managing trade-offs, building synergies and improving
governance across sectors. This conference was understood as a specific German contribution to and
preparation for the Rio+20 conference and other international policy processes; its main outputs and
outcomes include the Nexus Resource Platform1 as well as the Bonn2011 Nexus Conference Policy
Recommendations and the Scientific Background Paper (Hoff 2011) as well as an initial conceptualization of a Nexus approach. Following the conference, the need for operationalization and implementation of such a Nexus approach was recognized, in particular also in development cooperation.
This Nexus portfolio analysis examines the applicability and potential for integration of the Nexus
approach in German Technical Cooperation (TC). The aim is to provide (at least tentatively) answers
to the following questions:
1. How relevant is the Nexus approach in German Technical Cooperation projects?
2. How can a Nexus approach add value to ongoing or new TC projects?
3. How feasible is the Nexus approach in German TC?
4. Where does German Technical Cooperation stand in terms of integrated approaches?
Additionally, this portfolio analysis should help to develop a general methodology for systematic
Nexus portfolio analyses and an initial basis for a valid Nexus typology, for:
 Establishing standard routines for Nexus project screening;
 Prioritizing projects according to their potential for adding value and the feasibility of a Nexus approach;
 Nexus mainstreaming into projects;
 Transfer of best practices to other projects or contexts.
At the same time, this portfolio analysis should also provide concrete information on the number of
German TC projects with Nexus elements, a parameter which is used for monitoring the goal
achievement of the project “International Water Policy” implemented by GIZ.
2. The Nexus Definition
The portfolio analysis needed a clear definition of the WEF Nexus (in response to the frequent question: “which Nexus?”). Starting from the water-energy-food security Nexus (see Bonn Nexus Conference 2011), this portfolio analysis refers to “the Nexus” as the interlinkages between these three
securities, as well as interlinkages with and among the underlying natural resources water, land,
energy (and ecosystems2). These interlinkages are shown by the red arrows in Figure 1.
1
www.water-energy-food.org
ecosystems and their services are key part of the human securities – natural resource (or: environment-development)
Nexus, but were not systematically included in this initial analysis.
2
5
In line with the common understanding at the Bonn Conference (see Hoff 2011), the following basic
sector definitions were applied:
Water security is defined in the Millennium Development Goals as ‘access to safe drinking water and
sanitation’, both of which have become a human right in 2013. This means the provisioning, treatment and management of water for human use (in support of water security). More recent water
security definitions emphasize the availability of and access to water for all human and ecosystem
uses, which is also important from a Nexus perspective (e.g. Grey & Sadoff 2007). In this initial Nexus
portfolio analysis however, projects more indirectly related to water security, such as those on wetland management and biodiversity conservation were not included.
Figure 1: Interlinkages among and between human securities and underlying natural resources (and
ecosystems), from BMZ (2014).
Energy security has been defined as ‘access to clean, reliable and affordable energy services for
cooking and heating, lighting, communications and productive uses’ (UN), and as ‘uninterrupted
physical availability [of energy] at a price which is affordable, while respecting environment concerns’3. Accordingly, projects dealing with the generation, provision, and management of energy for
human use were included in this Nexus portfolio analysis.
Food security is defined by the FAO as ‘availability and access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food
to meet the dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’. Adequate food has
3
International Energy Agency
6
also been defined as a human right4. In order to include a larger number of food (and agriculture)
related projects in this portfolio analysis, we used the broader GECAFS5 food systems definition,
which goes beyond food production and also includes food processing, retail, and consumption6.
Under agriculture we also included biomass production for non-food biomass-based products, in
particular fuel and fibre.
From the definitions given above, for the purpose of this analysis, the following overall goal of a Nexus approach was derived: “improving human securities while sustaining natural resources and ecosystems”. This definition is closely aligned with the definition of a Green Economy and with the SDGs,
which aim to reconcile developmental and environmental targets.
3. Specific Tasks and Approach
Beyond providing an overview of integrated approaches and Nexus-statistics across the German
Technical Cooperation project portfolio, the core of this analysis is an assessment of the projects’
potential added value and feasibility of a Nexus approach7. This serves to identify types of projects
and project contexts with high added value and feasibility, in order to prioritize projects and eventually to facilitate the operationalization and mainstreaming of a Nexus approach. The analysis also
provides an initial basis for a Nexus typology, which can be used routinely in future standardized
portfolio analyses, also by other institutions and in other development contexts.
In line with these objectives, the following components were defined for the Nexus portfolio analysis:
Component 1. Screening, assessment and prioritization of projects
 Screening of all TC projects in order to select relevant WEF Nexus projects;
 Assessment of the opportunities and needs for a Nexus approach (“added value”) at the
project level;
 Assessment of facilitating or impeding factors for a Nexus approach (“feasibility”) at the
project level.
The assessment of each individual project was based on the following information derived
from the project proposals:
a) the project’s biophysical and socio-economic context8 and other factors (for added value);
and
b) the project’s political context, objectives, methods, tools, and other factors (for feasibility).
Component 2. Based on the results from component 1, an initial basis was developed for a Nexus
typology or systematics9 and Nexus guidelines in order to:
4
UN Global Assembly, 2010
Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) was an international research project run under the umbrella of
the Earth System Science Partnership
6
The emphasis on access in these definitions also implies that food security is not so much about average (e.g. annual)
availability of resources, but also on variability and extreme situations such as droughts or the resilience of the poor and
their production systems.
7
Adding value to a project means to make the achievement of overall project goals more likely and/or to increase the
benefits derived from the project; according to the draft BMZ Nexus Handreichung (2013), adding value to existing or new
projects is a key goal of the Nexus approach; feasibility means enabling conditions and project context which facilitate the
Nexus approach;
8
see for context indicators also the FAO Nexus assessment, Flammini et al. (2014)
5
7



facilitate future Nexus portfolio analyses;
standardize and contextualize the mainstreaming of a Nexus approach; and
enable the transfer of best (Nexus) practices between projects and regions.
Component 3. Providing information for measuring the goal achievements of the GIZ “Water Policy”
project (baseline and current status of the relevant indicator)10.
This portfolio analysis has been a pilot study and a learning process, during which the criteria and
indicators were iteratively refined (with the help of a kick-off workshop and an “evaluation workshop” as part of the process, with participants from GIZ, BGR, KfW and DIE). This learning process is
to be continued, in order to produce information and practical support that can be shared with other
partners within and beyond German development cooperation, e.g. guidelines or an interactive Nexus screening tool for new projects, which could be hosted on the Nexus resource platform.
4. Database and Data Selection
This Nexus portfolio analysis comprises projects implemented by both BGR and GIZ.
BGR conducted a pre-screening of approximately 30-40 TC projects implemented on behalf of BMZ
and derived from those nine possibly relevant project proposals. These were included in the analysis.
GIZ currently has a total number of approximately 3100 ongoing projects11. In a first step, these were
reduced to a pool of 1298 ‘”standard” projects12. In the next step, this pool was further reduced according to their sectoral affiliation. The sector or CRS codes regarded as most relevant for the purpose of this analysis are listed in Annex 1. In addition to the main sectors water (CRS=140), energy
(CRS=230) and agriculture (CRS=311), also projects in the sectors environment (CRS=410) and multisectoral aid (CRS=430) were included. The category “agriculture” once again confirms that “food” or
the “F” in WEF is not a very useful category for Nexus implementation, neither being a sector nor a
resource.
The latter includes rural and urban development. An overview of ongoing projects implemented by
GIZ and the sectors relevant for this analysis is given in Figure 2.
9
see also the Nexus project of the German Development Institute on: Incentives and instruments for Nexus implementation, which aims at a „systematic catalogue of relevant Nexus situations“
10
starting from existing list of GIZ projects with Nexus-specific elements; the objective of component 3 can relatively easily
be achieved, based the result of component 1, by setting a threshold above which projects are considered to have a sufficient number of “Nexus-specific elements (this indicator reflects successful mainstreaming of a Nexus approach into the
respective projects)
11
as per 1.7.2014.
12
excluding Fonds, Einzelmaßnahmen aus Fonds, Drittgeschäft, etc.
8
Figure2. Number of ongoing projects implemented by GIZ. The projects in the sectors relevant for
this study (water, energy, agriculture, environment, multi-sectoral) are shown in red.
On the basis of the CRS codes, a final selection of approximately 450 projects from the sectors water,
energy, agriculture, rural & urban development and environment was obtained 13. These projects
were analyzed in detail, on the basis of the respective project proposal (offer or Programmvorschlag).
The detailed description of the assessment of each project and project document is given in Annex 2.
For most project proposals, the analysis was focused on a few key parts of the proposals such as results (outcome), indicators and methodological approach. In cases where these categories did not
yield enough information, the full project proposal was analyzed.
In order to assess the potential added value of a Nexus approach, project proposals were analyzed
for the following indicators, which describe the water, land, and energy resources context14:
 Scarcity of resources (how many, which?);
 Resources with low use efficiencies / or non-sustainable use or overexploitation (how many,
which?);
 Conflicts over the use of more than one resource (how many, which?)15;
 Lack of access to more than one resource (how many, which?);
 Water, energy, and/or food (in)security.
13
water&wastewater:69 projects, energy:84, agriculture:49, environment incl. biodiversity:196, rural development:26,
urban development:24, technical food sector projects (CSR code 520) were not included in the analysis;
14
context description could in a future phase be complemented by additional contextual data, e.g. from World Bank Development Indicators or other sources;
15
this criterion is also mentioned in the information note “BMZ Nexus-Handreichung”;
9
The higher the number of scarce / overexploited / non-sustainably managed / insecure resources,
the higher the project’s score for the added value that a Nexus approach would achieve.
In order to assess the feasibility of a Nexus approach, all projects were analyzed for the following
indicators, which describe political context and project-specific factors:
 Project addresses several Nexus-relevant MDG targets16 (how many, which?);
 Project addresses several Nexus-relevant OECD DAC criteria / “Rio Markers”17 (how many,
which?);
 Project cooperates with institutions (e.g. ministries or authorities) across different sectors
(how many, which?);
 Bridging institution18 are project partners, e.g. river basin organizations19, user associations,
inter-ministerial committees, prime minister’s or cabinet offices, task forces etc.;
 Integrative concepts are part of the project, e.g. IWRM, ecosystem based approaches, landscape approaches, integrated urban planning, powering agriculture, energy recovery from
wastewater, multi-purpose systems (sustainable sanitation, multi-functional dams etc.);
 Project uses Nexus tools such as Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) - Long-range Energy
Alternatives Planning (LEAP)20 or for example Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which cover a broad range of sectors
The latter indicators only have yes/no categories. Every “yes” increases the project’s score for feasibility of a Nexus approach.
These initial criteria used for the initial portfolio analysis will have to be further refined and revised
as the Nexus analysis and mainstreaming becomes a standard procedure in development cooperation.
Furthermore, each project was assigned to one of the following main geographic regions: Sub Saharan Africa (AFR), Asia & Pacific (AP), Latin America & Caribbean (LAC), Mediterranean and Middle
East (MENA), Europe, Caucasus & Central Asia (ECCA). This classification does not strictly reflect the
geographic continents, but is oriented towards the political classification and the organizational
structure of Development Cooperation organizations. The MENA region (Mediterranean, Middle
East) for example contains parts of Africa and of Asia. Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (ECCA) were
combined. Turkey and all of FSU (Former Soviet Union) belong to ECCA, while Mongolia, Afghanistan
and Pakistan to AP (Asia & Pacific).
5. Results
The first observation from this initial Nexus portfolio analysis is that only 8 out of 450 project proposals (PV) explicitly mention “the Nexus” (see Annex 4). They do so in different ways, e.g. stating
that the project “contributes to the Nexus”, “encompasses the Nexus”, “will work on the Nexus”,
16
MDG 1 - hunger, targets 1.1, 1.2, MDG 7 environmental resources, forests, energy use, access to safe water, targets 7.1,
7.2, 7.3, 7.4 MDG 8 targets 8.1, 8.2, 8.7)
17
biodiversity, desertification, climate adaptation, climate mitigation, desertification
18
bridging institutions by definition have a cross-sectoral mandate
19
note that a Nexus approach is generally considered to be very relevant for transboundary river basins and their river
basin organisations, because it can increase the number of benefits to be shared;
20
for more Nexus tools see FAO publication by Flammini et al. 2014,
10
“will focus on the Nexus of forestry and water management” etc. So there is no consistent Nexus
definition, let alone a consistent approach to Nexus implementation across the project portfolio yet.
The portfolio analysis first looked at the number of Nexus sectors (water, energy, food/agriculture)
which are explicitly mentioned in the proposals. It then interpreted the proposals from a Nexus perspective as to which additional sectors may affect or may be affected by the project.
Table 1: Extract (screenshot) from the resulting excel spreadsheet (showing scores for three projects,
one line for each project)
The first section of the results sheet (blue columns) lists those sectors which the project proposals
(PV) explicitly mention or claims to address (not necessarily all at the same priority level)21 and in
which section of the document this claim is made22.
The second section of the results sheet (red columns – “added value of a Nexus approach”) lists all
the sectors and resources that – according to the analysis - seem to be affected by or affecting the
project (with respect to the specific target groups and/or project context - not necessarily the whole
country)23. The sectors “water” and “food/agriculture” each appear 10 times more often in the red
section (affected by or affecting the project) than in the blue section (explicitly mentioned in the
project proposal). The sector “energy” appears as often in the red as in the blue section. So, energy
projects on average seem to reach out less to other sectors, possibly being more narrowly or sectorally defined.
The red section in Table 1 furthermore gives those projects which address multiple resource conflicts, lack of access to resources, low resource use efficiency or unsustainable resource use24. The
larger the number of sectors/resources listed in the red category, the higher the project’s score for
the potential added value of a Nexus approach (with the Nexus approach potentially improving resource use efficiency and with that sustainability of resource use and resource availability).
21
„1“ indicates that the sector is addressed, „0“ that it is not addressed
note that only individual projects were assessed, no information was available on possible clusters of projects
23
note that this association of projects with sectors is subjective, but the full analysis was performed by the same team, so
there is consistent subjectivity across the portfolio
24
note that the number of resources in each of these categories has not yet been counted
22
11
The third section of the results sheet (green columns – “feasibility of a Nexus approach”) lists the
number of MDGs and Rio markers addressed by the project (the higher the number, the higher the
project’s score for feasibility of a Nexus approach), and if the project includes institutional cooperation across sectors, network platforms and/or integrative concept or tools (each “yes” increases the
project’s score for feasibility of a Nexus approach).
5.1 Results by sectors and by regions
Based on the criteria and indicators described in section 4, the project portfolio was ranked according to sectors and regions, by the respective average “added value”, “feasibility” and “added value +
feasibility”. The average scores vary significantly between sectors and also between regions. Average
scores per sector and per region are listed in table 2 and also illustrated in figures 3 and 4.
Table 2: Averages of “added value”, “feasibility” and “added value + feasibility” per sector and per
region; “max” indicates the maximum possible score per project in the respective category; “number
of sectors explicitly mentioned” refers to the project proposal.
12
Figure 3: Graphical illustration of results from table 2, average score per sector25.
Figure 4: Graphical illustration of results from table 2, average score per region.
25
note that a comparison between blue and green bars is not possible, since the number of criteria for “added value” is
very different from that for “feasibility. Only either blue or green bars can be compared among each other.
13
Note that the significance of the differences among sectors or regions has not been tested
yet.
5.2 Results by countries
Based on the criteria and indicators described in section 4, the project portfolio was also ranked by
countries. The averages of “added value” and “feasibility” (and accordingly also “added value + feasibility”) vary enormously among countries.
Table 3: Average score per country (only those countries with more than 4 projects in the portfolio
are included here).
14
Figure 5: Graphical illustration of results from table 3, score per country26.
Beyond projects from the sectors water, energy, agriculture, environment and rural development,
also those from the urban sector (as selected from a preceding separate GIZ portfolio analysis for
urban projects) have been included in this analysis. Their scores are: 3.0 for “added value” of a Nexus
approach, 6.6 for “feasibility” of a Nexus approach and 9.6 for “added value + feasibility”. With that,
their scores are almost identical with those of the projects with the CSR code for urban development
(see table 2).
Interestingly, across the full portfolio of 450 projects, there is a strong correlation between „added
value“ and „feasibility“ (correlation coefficient: 0.73). In other words: the more value adding can be
expected from a Nexus approach, the more feasible it also seems to be.
5.3 Results by projects
According to the scores for “added value”, “feasibility” and “added value + feasibility”, the 450 projects were also ranked individually. Tables 4, 5 and 6 list the top 15 for each of the three categories.
Table 4: Top 15 projects in terms of “added value” of a Nexus approach27
PN
Project Title
Country
Score
2014.2280.7
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Madagascar
6
2014.2264.1
International Water Policy
Global
6
2014.2275.7
Energising Development
Global
6
2012.9755.5
Adaptation to Climate Change in the West Bank in Palestinian
Territories
Energy Policy in Development Cooperation
Palestine
6
Global
6
Program for Sustainable Drinking Water and Sanitary Services in
Sub-urban Areas
Water and Wastewater Companies for Climate Mitigation
(WaCCliM)
Bolivia
6
World
6
2014.2500.8
2011.2040.1
2012.9046.9
26
note that a comparison between blue and green bars is not possible, since the number of criteria for “added value” is
very different from that for “feasibility. Only either blue or green bars can be compared among each other.
27
nd
note that as 2 sorting criterion the sum of added value and feasibility was used, because there are 67 projects with the
score “5” for added value
15
2012.9753.0
African Water Stewardship Initiative
Africa
6
2012.9275.4
South Africa
6
2007.2082.1
Climate Programme for the Support of the South African Department of Environmental Affairs
Programme on Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
Philippines
5
2011.2271.2
Biodiversity, Climate Change and Sustainable Development
Ecuador
5
2013.2235.3
Development of Rural Areas – Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)
Sustainable Land Management – SLM
Tunisia
5
Ethiopia
5
Support of the National Programme for Sustainable Small Scale
Irrigation
Rural Development through Integrated Forest and Water Resources Management in Southeast Europe
Mali
5
Southeast
Europe
5
Country
Score
2014.2006.6
2013.2246.0
2014.2503.2
Table 5: Top 15 projects in terms of “feasibility” of a Nexus approach
PN
Project Title
2014.2280.7
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Madagascar
14
2012.2223.1
Senegal
14
2007.2082.1
Programme for Promotion of Renewable Energies and Efficiency
and Access to Services
Programme on Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
Philippines
13
2011.2271.2
Biodiversity, Climate Change and Sustainable Development
Ecuador
13
2013.2235.3
Tunisia
13
Côte d'Ivoire
13
2013.2280.9
Development of Rural Areas – Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)
Development of Biodiversity and Economy in the Area of Tai and
Comoe
Support of the Transboundary National Park BSB Yamoussa
COMIFAC
13
2012.9751.4
Adaptation to Climate Change in Lake-Chad-Basin
CBLT
13
2014.2506.5
Protection and Sustainable Use of Selva Maya II
SG-SICA
13
2013.9757.9
World
13
2013.2466.4
Risk Assessment and Management for Adaptation to Climate
Change (Loss and Damage)
Regional Support for COMIFAC
COMIFAC
13
2011.2238.1
Program on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Central Asia
13
2011.2199.5
Biodiversity-Management and Climate Change
Namibia
13
2011.2063.3
Climate Protection Programme for Developing Countries
Global
13
2014.2264.1
International Water Policy
Global
12
2012.2513.5
Table 6: Top 15 projects in terms of “added value + feasibility”
PN
Project Title
Country
Score
2014.2280.7
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Madagascar
20
2011.2271.2
Biodiversity, Climate Change and Sustainable Development
Ecuador
18
2007.2082.1
Programme on Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
Philippines
18
2012.2223.1
Programme for Promotion of Renewable Energies and Efficiency
and Access to Services
Development of Rural Areas – Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)
Senegal
18
Tunisia
18
2013.2235.3
16
2014.2264.1
International Water Policy
Global
18
2014.2503.2
Southeast
Europe
Mexico
17
2011.2164.9
Rural Development through Integrated Forest and Water Resources Management in Southeast Europe
Protection of Biodiversity in Sierra Madre Oriental
2014.2006.6
Sustainable Land Management – SLM
Ethiopia
17
2014.0156.1
Soil Protection and Rehabilitation for Food Security
Global
17
2012.2513.5
Côte d'Ivoire
17
Mali
17
2013.2075.3
Development of Biodiversity and Economy in the Area of Tai and
Comoe
Support of the National Programme for Sustainable Small Scale
Irrigation
Sustainable Agricultural Development (PROAGRO)
Bolivia
17
2014.2275.7
Energising Development
Global
17
2014.2296.3
Indo-German Environment Program in Rural Areas
India
16
2013.2246.0
17
The initial portfolio shows significant differences in terms of potential added value and feasibility of a
Nexus approach for different sectors, regions and countries: while the average score of the water
sector is 11.4, the score of the energy sectors is only 8.0 for the sum of added value and feasibility,
on a scale from 0 to 20. While the significance of these differences has not been tested yet, the implication for future mainstreaming of a Nexus approach into new or existing projects is clear: not all
projects are equally in need of or suitable for a Nexus approach. The potential added value and feasibility varies, depending on project type and context. Accordingly a Nexus typology can help to
standardize prioritization and Nexus mainstreaming.
5.4 In-depth analysis of high priority projects and initial elements of a Nexus typology
The scoring and ranking according to the criteria (and eventually indicators), described in section 4,
identified projects with high priority in terms of added value and feasibility for Nexus mainstreaming
(see tables 4-6).
The “top 15” projects, i.e. those with highest scores in the summary category “added value + feasibility” were analyzed in more detail, for their characteristics and possible commonalities, that would
make them – and projects implemented by GIZ in general – more suitable for a Nexus approach, also
addressing question 1 from section 1 of this report: how relevant is a Nexus approach in projects
implemented by GIZ? This more detailed analysis of the top 15 / high priority projects identified initial elements of a Nexus typology and for possible Nexus guidelines.
The high priority projects identified in this portfolio analysis are situated in contexts of strong resource competition, scarcities, overexploitation and degradation, and low resource use efficiencies,
as well as lack of human (water, energy and/or food) securities. A detailed analysis of these high priority projects shows that in most cases these predicaments are further aggravated by a lack of access to land, water, energy and/or food and by inefficient value chains which depend on these natural resources. But these high priority projects were also found to often have integrated approaches
(“the Nexus”) already built in. Only these do not feature high in the project proposals, i.e. they are
not generally recognized as important for improving project outcomes. This is also a tentative response to question 4 from section 1 of this report: where does German Technical Cooperation stand
in terms of integrated approaches? Examples of integrated or Nexus approaches mentioned in the
17
proposals are: resilience, integrated resource management (e.g. IWRM or IWLRM), multifunctionality, climate smart agriculture, ecosystem-based approaches, maintaining agro-biodiversity,
payments for ecosystem services, agro-forestry, forestry-biofuel-clean cook stove chains, or green
value chains. These integrated approaches need to be promoted and implemented more systematically in order to improve the use efficiencies across resources and thus improve human securities by
“producing more with less” (Hoff 2011).
Land planning (to be coordinated with energy, water, agriculture and ecosystem management) and
land rehabilitation are key elements of most high priority proposals. Hence, the increasingly scarce
natural resource land should be integral part of the “W-E-L-F” resource Nexus, as illustrated in figure
1.
Climate change is a compounding factor for the degradation and scarcity of natural resource and the
lack of human securities. So it is encouraging that climate adaptation is mentioned in most, climate
mitigation in many of the high priority projects. This could become a key entry point for Nexus mainstreaming, given that there are many potential synergies between “robust” adaptation28, mitigation
and improved natural resource and ecosystem management – which also have not systematically
been assessed, let alone addressed in implementation.
Climate change is a compounding factor (“threat multiplier”) for the degradation and scarcity of natural resource and the lack of human securities. So it is encouraging that climate adaptation is mentioned in most, climate mitigation in many of the high priority projects. This could become a key entry point for Nexus mainstreaming, given that there are many potential synergies and also some
trade-offs like a higher increase in energy demand (and potential GHG emissions) inherent to SDG 6
compliance (in particular increase in water supply and treatment for safe drinking water, waste water treatment and reuse) between “robust” adaptation , mitigation and improved natural resource
and ecosystem management – which also have not systematically been assessed, let alone addressed
in implementation. Following this line of thinking, one particular climate adaptation project, which is
currently being “upgraded” to a Nexus project, was analyzed in more detail (see below).
Only one of the high priority projects explicitly mentions policy coherence as an objective, although
in many cases institutions from various sectors are project partners. Most often these are ministries
and authorities of water, agriculture, energy, forestry and environment, as well as infrastructure,
finance, interior, planning and/or rural development. The latter, including ministries of environment
are typical bridging institutions with a cross-sectoral mandate. Hence, these institutions can serve as
nuclei for Nexus mainstreaming, around which other more sectoral institutions such as line ministries
can coalesce. Similarly, national development plans, which are frequently mentioned, can serve as
entry points and frameworks for Nexus mainstreaming with which different sectoral strategies, policies and plans at different levels can be aligned and coordinated (Nexus mainstreaming at the institutional level).
In this study, only individual projects were analyzed. However, each of the proposals also lists the
potential links to other projects in the same region or otherwise related. It should be noted, that
improved coordination across projects and within project clusters is another avenue for applying the
Nexus and hence for generating added value and reducing negative externalities.
28
“robust adaptation” means adaptation that works under the full range of climate and socio-economic scenarios
18
From the Nexus portfolio analysis and in particular from the in-depth analysis of high priority projects, initial elements for a Nexus typology can be derived, in terms of project context, e.g. crossresource scarcities, non-sustainable uses and lack of access, and simultaneous lack of several human
securities, and in terms of project type the degree to which integrated approaches have been internalized and multiple sectors and their institutions have been addressed. These initial elements of a
Nexus typology need to be further developed, for arriving at a sound typology that can support a
standard prioritization of development cooperation projects for Nexus mainstreaming.
A special category of projects are those with a transboundary scope. Three of the high-priority projects mention transboundary aspects. In transboundary river basins, a Nexus approach can widen the
benefits to be shared among riparians – potentially a strong incentive for adopting a Nexus approach.
Another three of the high priority projects are significantly different in context and scope. These are:
 Energizing Development (2014.2275.7),
 Soil Protection and Rehabilitation (2014.0156.1), and
 International Water Policy (2014.2264.1).
These three projects are global in scope (coming from the energy, soil and water perspectives respectively), advocating a Nexus approach at the highest level e.g. in international strategies, policies
and planning and high level dialogues and fora. Since Nexus mainstreaming is important at and
across all levels (“vertical Nexus”), these projects can complement local or regional on-the-ground
Nexus implementations of the other priority-projects very well.
Nexus approaches are now also applied to integrated national implementation of the SDGs. Engagement of German development cooperation in this area would be most timely and could become a
unique selling point with agenda setting potential for Nexus mainstreaming in the 2030 agenda.
One of the other high-priority projects has a focus on disasters, e.g. related to extreme events. In
such a case, additional Nexus opportunities arise from the integration of climate adaptation and disaster risk management, a rapidly developing field of research and practice.
Further in depth analysis of one particular regional climate project (which also got high scores for
added value and feasibility, but did not make it into the top 15), which is currently being extended in
scope towards the Nexus, yielded some additional insights:
This regional project (ACCWaM – Adaptation to Climate Change for the Water Sector in the Mena
region) under the auspices of the League of Arab States (LAS) had identified the need to better coordinate the management of water, land, and energy in its first phase. A number of factors supported
this “Nexus mainstreaming” into an existing project.
Firstly, the extreme resource scarcity in the MENA region, in particular the scarcity of water and arable land, in combination with still very low resource use efficiencies, invites a Nexus approach which
has the improvement of efficiencies across all resources as a major aim. Moreover, the region’s
pressing water scarcity is accompanied by an affluence of renewable – in particular solar- energy.
This situation is conducive to ambitious renewable energy strategies with strong links to the water
sector (pilots of renewable energy solutions for desalination or water pumping currently spring up
throughout the region).
19
Secondly, LAS quickly recognized the importance of the Nexus and developed the “LAS vision to promote the adoption of the Nexus energy, water, food security from a regional standpoint”, recognizing its “potential as an entry point to the Arab region transition to a green economy". Following that
recognition, the Nexus concept is now mainstreamed into the regional water, energy, and agricultural strategies, supported by the final phase of the ACCWaM project.
Thirdly, GIZ supported the MENA regional Nexus dialogue, which needed further concretization and
follow up.
Fourthly, a regional project with national case studies such as the ACCWaM project provides good
opportunities for complementing cross-sectoral (“horizontal”) integration with “vertical” integration
across levels and scales.
In line with the recognition that integration is best achieved through bridging institutions (see section
4), the ACCWaM project added in its second phase national ministries of environment (which have a
relatively broad mandate) to its clients, while in the first phase (pure climate adaptation) only ministries of water were official clients.
Besides all of these supporting factors, it remains important to point out that all MENA countries
suffer from large implementation gaps (not only related to the Nexus). In particular the deeply entrenched silo-mentality of national ministries and authorities also will make the implementation of
any Nexus strategy or policy a major challenge. A persistent long-term approach will be required to
mainstream the Nexus concept into national governance and management, much like it took a decade or so to convince MENA policy makers to mainstream climate adaptation and mitigation into
their respective national contexts. Apparently, ACCWaM demonstrates that mainstreaming climate
policy thematically and politically serve “in a subsequent step” also as a good entry point for the
much broader NEXUS approach.
The desperate political situation of several MENA countries does by no means make a Nexus approach (or climate mainstreaming for that matter) obsolete. On the contrary: the situation is a strong
reminder of the need for improved management of natural resources, which can contribute to water,
energy and food security and thus also to political security.
In view of the large number of already existing screening and proofing mechanisms and their respective criteria (poverty, environment, desertification, biodiversity, climate, gender, participation etc.), it
may be more appropriate at this stage to focus on mainstreaming Nexus elements (as described
above) into existing guidelines, rather than developing new, stand-alone Nexus guidelines (or even
mandatory Nexus proofing mechanisms).
In summary, and in response to question 1 of section 1 of this report (how relevant is a Nexus approach in German Technical Cooperation projects?), many projects implemented by GIZ rank high in
terms of added value and/or feasibility of a Nexus approach. All of the top 15 high priority projects
can be termed “Nexus projects” (although only two of them mention the Nexus explicitly), they comprehensively address the main Nexus elements according to figure 1, i.e. human securities and natural resources / ecosystems. The shorthand for this is the development – environment Nexus. With
that these projects are right on Nexus or Green Economy target as stated in section 2: improving
human securities while sustaining natural resources and ecosystems. However, it is not always clear,
20
if an integrated / Nexus approach is proactively addressed and pursued in the respective project or if
it was more of an aspirational goal when developing the proposal. Opportunities for improved policy
coherence and coordination between institutions from different sectors, ideally with the help of
bridging institutions, should be promoted more strongly. Similarly, Nexus implementation via multifunctional systems can be more systematically addressed and supported. These recommendations
derived from the top 15 / high priority projects (as ranked according to the analysis for added value
and feasibility of a Nexus approach) also apply to lower priority projects in the portfolio. While a
Nexus approach can add value to many if not to most projects, the degree and focus of Nexus mainstreaming has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and depending on project goals, type and context. This will be a learning process for GIZ and partners, for which this report provides some inputs
and impetus. Additional analyses of the top 15 / high priority projects are planned, in order to further
inform that learning process.
6. Outlook: Possible next steps
As next steps beyond this initial portfolio analysis and identification of elements for Nexus mainstreaming and a Nexus typology, the following options should be considered:

some focus on and in-depth analysis of the following categories of projects: dams, irrigation,
wastewater and biogas (these were the types of priority projects identified by a separate
KfW Nexus analysis);

a second round of Nexus analysis for the full set of 450 GIZ projects, with new and further refined criteria e.g. related to project scale (local, regional, global), project type (e.g. technical,
financial or political cooperation) or target group; criteria for further Nexus analysis (and
mainstreaming) are to be developed as part of the learning process which the initial portfolio
analysis kicked off, any next steps should engage a broader representation of departments
within GIZ;
more in-depth focus on the high priority projects, as identified by the initial portfolio analysis, by way of a “backward analysis” and a “forward analysis”.
o the “backward analysis” could be based on country and regional program strategies
and goals as well as protocols of bilateral governmental negotiations; by taking this
project history into account, the backward analysis could identify important patterns
and correlations between project goals and context and the high ranking according
to added value and feasibility of a Nexus approach, also addressing opportunities for
improved policy coherence;
o the “forward analysis” could be based on interim or final project reports and evaluations (which state the level of achievement of project and program goals, including
political goals); by taking these documents into account, the forward analysis could
identify important patterns and correlations between project success and the high
scores (added value, feasibility) according to the initial portfolio analysis.


additional in-depth assessment of selected projects could be undertaken jointly with motivated project managers / project staff who have an interest in the Nexus approach (“cham21
pions”), by way of interviews or questionnaires, e.g. to harvest experience in terms of previous integration efforts;

initial steps for systematic Nexus mainstreaming into high priority projects (“Nexus upgrading of existing projects”), which should also involve project managers / project staff, specifically those “champions” with an interest in a Nexus approach; elements of such an initial
Nexus mainstreaming could be:
‒ identification of potential synergies and tradeoffs between sectors, resources and
project goals, e.g. through scenario analysis;
‒ detailed analysis of political economy and institutional context;
‒ identification of and support for bridging institutions and integrated approaches;
‒ facilitating policy coherence;
‒ developing and strengthening multi-functional systems.

going beyond the “horizontal Nexus”, i.e. the interlinkages between sectors and resources,
also addressing the “vertical Nexus” e.g. integration across scales (local, national, regional)
and levels; this could start from ongoing regional activities of GIZ e.g. in the MENA or southern African region; entry points can be regional organizations (e.g. LAS or SADC), river basin
organizations or regional power pools29, which provide opportunities for Nexus mainstreaming across scales and levels and eventually for scaling of solutions;

developing a full Nexus typology, starting from the criteria developed during this initial portfolio analysis and the lessons learned (also explicitly mentioning positive examples, best practices), iterating those with a broader range of GIZ staff from different departments;

enriching the results of this initial portfolio analysis with the insights gained from the Nexus
case studies of the German Development Institute (DIE) and their Nexus systematics and typology development (related to incentives, coordination mechanisms, policy instruments
etc.);

rather than developing stand-alone Nexus guidelines, it seems more practical and acceptable
to mainstream Nexus principles into existing (BMZ, KfW, GIZ) sustainability guidelines, UKSP
etc.
Note that even though a Nexus approach generally adds complexity (and accordingly will not automatically be welcomed by project partners or sector experts), “the added value of a Nexus approach
generally outweighs the transaction costs associated with stronger integration across sectors“ (Hoff
2011). Accordingly, this initial portfolio analysis developed a methodology and criteria for Nexus
screening and prioritization of project as well as initial elements of a typology for reducing the complexity of a Nexus approach (e.g. via relatively simple procedures and well known, frequently available and reproducible criteria and eventually indicators), for standardizing Nexus mainstreaming into
development cooperation, and for enabling transfer of best practices between projects and regions.
29
regional power pools integrate national power grids across several countries, for more robust and reliable power supply
at reduced costs, e.g. through mutually utilized reserves, reduced coincident peak load, or buffering the effects of delayed
commissioning of new projects (according to World Bank)
22
References
BMZ (2014): Realizing the water, energy, and food security Nexus, published for World Water Week
2014.
Flammini et al. (2014): “Walking the Nexus Talk”, FAO.
Grey D., Sadoff C.W. (2007): Sink or swim? Water security for growth and development, Water Policy,
9,545-571.
Hoff (2011): Understanding the Nexus, Background paper for the Bonn Nexus Conference, Stockholm
Environment Institute, Sweden.
UN General Assembly (2010): Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. The right to food
(A/RES/64/159).
World Bank (2005): Building regional power pools, a toolkit. Washington D.C.
23
Annex 1: BGR Projects included in the portfolio analysis
2004.2032.3
Management, Schutz und nachhaltige Nutzung von Grundwasser- und Bodenressourcen
2002.3510.2
Grundwassermanagement in grenzüberschreitenden Aquiferen in Maghreb
2013.2472.2
Grundwassermanagement im Norden Namibias (Angebot 2x vorhanden)
2002.3510.1
Künstliche Grundwasseranreicherung in Jordanien
2002.3510.1
2014.2472.0
Projektprüfung Datengrundlage Boden und Wasser zur Flächennutzungsplanung in Kamerun
Informationen zu Georessourcen mit dem Schwerpunkt Boden für die Raumordnungsplanung
in den Regionen Süd-West und Nord Kamerun
2014.2232.8
Politikberatung Grundwasser
2014.2272.4
Nachhaltiges Wassermanagement Tschadseebecken
2013.2289.0
Regionale Zusammenarbeit im Wassersektor (Maghreb) BGR
Annex 2: Project proposals that explicitly mention the Nexus
2014.2503.2 Ländliche Entwicklung durch integriertes Wald- und Wasserressourcenmanagement
2014.2264.1 Internationale Wasserpolitik
2014.2500.8 Energiepolitik in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit
2011.9774.8 Klimawandelanpassung im westlichen Balkan
2014.2243.5 Konzepte nachhaltiger Abfall- und Kreislaufwirtschaft
2012.2499.7 Sektorvorhaben "Technologiekooperation im Energiesektor"
2012.9753.0 African Water Stewardship Initiative
2013.2075.3 Nachhaltige Landwirtschaftliche Entwicklung (PROAGRO)
24