561
20.2.2 Underlying Dynamics for the FEW Nexus
As discussed elsewhere in this book, there are a number of underlying dynamics
that make managing conflicts in the FEW nexus challenging. One dynamic is the
challenge of managing natural boundaries such as waterways versus political
boundaries such as those between states or countries. As noted in the introduction,
decision-making on food, energy, and water starts with the 7.6 billion individuals
(as of early 2018) on the planet. Decisions are made at every level of social organization, both public (i.e., household, village, town, city, county, state/province,
region, nation, international, and global) and private (i.e., small businesses like
farmers, large companies, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, and
many more). See Chaps. 4 (human behavior); 12 (scale); and 17 (applying science
to practice). Much like a stone thrown into a pond, any one decision can have a
ripple effect that flows through the FEW system.
Likewise, FEW systems nearly always include a large number of independent
actors of different kind (individual, public and private) of different sizes and power
with different objectives and different values and cultures. Problems between
different actors may be said to be “tractable” when their goals overlap and compromise is desired or pushed. Where there is no overlap in the objectives of the different
actors, no willingness to compromise, or big differences in framing the challenges,
problems may be viewed as intractable.
Another dynamic results from imbalances in power. This occurs where one
actor, or set of actors, has significantly greater power than others; this can often
lead to outcomes that prioritize their objectives over those of others. Such power
may result from status or position; wealth and level of development; political
power or number of followers, or other sources of power, both formal and informal. In the illustration below, one source of “power” is insurance: if someone
plants a crop earlier than dictated by insurance, they bear the risk of that decision
by themselves. Yet adapting to extremes in conditions may mean also adapting
financial incentives (or disincentives) to address on-the-ground conditions (see,
e.g., Illgner 2016; Munich RE 2017).
Another dynamic is that values and who should participate in the allocation of
resources changes over time. For example, the USA and Canada are parties to the
Columbia River Treaty. The agreement, signed in 1964 for 60 years, is primarily
designed for flood control and power generation between the countries (Columbia
Basin Trust n.d.). Currently, negotiations are underway about the treaty’s future,
which expires in 2024 unless extended. When the treaty was signed in 1964, environmental considerations were not part of the discussions. However, in present-day
negotiations where values have changed, Native American tribes from each country
have lobbied for reliable water flows for fish populations (i.e., salmon, steelhead) in
any signed extension to preserve their cultural identity and traditions (Columbia
River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 2017). Guaranteeing this requires new management techniques and cooperation between agricultural producers, energy developers, and political officials. Power generation benefits received by Canada from US
20 Managing Human Conflicts
20.2.2 Underlying Dynamics for the FEW Nexus
As discussed elsewhere in this book, there are a number of underlying dynamics
that make managing conflicts in the FEW nexus challenging. One dynamic is the
challenge of managing natural boundaries such as waterways versus political
boundaries such as those between states or countries. As noted in the introduction,
decision-making on food, energy, and water starts with the 7.6 billion individuals
(as of early 2018) on the planet. Decisions are made at every level of social organization, both public (i.e., household, village, town, city, county, state/province,
region, nation, international, and global) and private (i.e., small businesses like
farmers, large companies, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, and
many more). See Chaps. 4 (human behavior); 12 (scale); and 17 (applying science
to practice). Much like a stone thrown into a pond, any one decision can have a
ripple effect that flows through the FEW system.
Likewise, FEW systems nearly always include a large number of independent
actors of different kind (individual, public and private) of different sizes and power
with different objectives and different values and cultures. Problems between
different actors may be said to be “tractable” when their goals overlap and compromise is desired or pushed. Where there is no overlap in the objectives of the different
actors, no willingness to compromise, or big differences in framing the challenges,
problems may be viewed as intractable.
Another dynamic results from imbalances in power. This occurs where one
actor, or set of actors, has significantly greater power than others; this can often
lead to outcomes that prioritize their objectives over those of others. Such power
may result from status or position; wealth and level of development; political
power or number of followers, or other sources of power, both formal and informal. In the illustration below, one source of “power” is insurance: if someone
plants a crop earlier than dictated by insurance, they bear the risk of that decision
by themselves. Yet adapting to extremes in conditions may mean also adapting
financial incentives (or disincentives) to address on-the-ground conditions (see,
e.g., Illgner 2016; Munich RE 2017).
Another dynamic is that values and who should participate in the allocation of
resources changes over time. For example, the USA and Canada are parties to the
Columbia River Treaty. The agreement, signed in 1964 for 60 years, is primarily
designed for flood control and power generation between the countries (Columbia
Basin Trust n.d.). Currently, negotiations are underway about the treaty’s future,
which expires in 2024 unless extended. When the treaty was signed in 1964, environmental considerations were not part of the discussions. However, in present-day
negotiations where values have changed, Native American tribes from each country
have lobbied for reliable water flows for fish populations (i.e., salmon, steelhead) in
any signed extension to preserve their cultural identity and traditions (Columbia
River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 2017). Guaranteeing this requires new management techniques and cooperation between agricultural producers, energy developers, and political officials. Power generation benefits received by Canada from US
20 Managing Human Conflicts