238 As a result, while the demand for food in this scenario increases, the energy demand decreases from US$ 53 405 million in 2030 SC1 to US$ 53 151 million The majority of investment will be in food[.]
238 As a result, while the demand for food in this scenario increases, the energy demand decreases from US$ 53.405 million in 2030 SC1 to US$ 53.151 million The majority of investment will be in food in SC3, and both the food supply and GDP are likely to be higher than SC1 and SC2 As a food-centric scenario, the expansion of food production in SC3 will certainly accelerate demand for water and energy security However, such a food-centric policy approach will pressure the country into making trade-offs between food, water, and energy Energy security In SC3, Vietnam is likely to experience the worst energy security in comparison to other scenarios For instance, 2030 SC3 has an energy security index of 62.7 compared to 80.9 in the base year (2014) and 69 in 2030 SC1 (Figure 7-3) Indeed, the expansion of food industries and manufacturing in this scenario will lead to increase in energy demand, resulting in an increase of 19.5% in the energy import demand—30% higher than 2014 (14.9%) and 77% higher than SC2 (10.9%) Moreover, the energy intensity value was the worst in this scenario, with a value of 48.2—a stark difference of 37.6 points compared to the base year (85.8) and 51.8 points compared to SC2 (100) In comparison to SC1, the worst impact was that on energy efficiency (71.9), which is 10.6 units lower than SC1 (82.5) (Table 7-3) As a result, development without consideration for energy security will generate more energy demand, resulting in the worst decline in energy accessibility and increase in energy import dependency across the scenarios These negative impacts on the energy market will have repercussions on the other energy indicators More specifically, despite there being no significant change in energy efficiency and energy diversity compared to 2030 SC1, it is likely that both energy affordability and intensity will suffer a modest decline due to the low energy support for food industries Table 7-3: Energy-Food-Water security: 2014 – 2030 (SC1, SC2, SC3) Energy security Energy Scenario accessi bi-lity (%) Base year (2014) SC1 BAU SC2 ENERGY SC3 FOOD Energy import depende n-cy (%) Food security Energy Energy Energy afforda intensity diversity bi-lity (toe/Mn (Herfindahl (%) $) index) Energy efficien cy (%) Food accessi bi-lity (%) Food import depende n-cy (%) Water security Food afforda bi-lity (%) Water stress (%) Water Water Water afforda intensity efficie bi-lity (m3/US n-cy (%) $) (%) 4.6 14.9 4.2 273.6 0.37 74.0 8.7 18.7 41.2 59.0 0.25 24.1 23.4 4.3 16.5 3.9 480.3 0.43 70.7 8.3 19.2 39.5 62.2 0.23 27.0 19.5 6.2 10.9 4.9 234.8 0.29 85.8 8.2 19.0 36.8 66.3 0.18 35.0 21.3 3.8 19.4 3.6 487.1 0.43 70.2 10.2 15.7 44.8 65.8 0.20 28.4 19.1 Source: Estimates are based on modelling developed in this research