Scale-related governance challenges in the water–energy–food nexus: toward a diagnostic approach

Abstract

The notion of a water–energy–food (WEF) nexus was introduced to encourage a more holistic perspective on the sustainable development of natural resources. Most attention has been directed at identifying potential synergies and trade-offs among sectors that could be addressed with improved technologies and management. The governance of the WEF nexus more broadly has received comparatively little attention, and the importance of scale in space and time has been largely ignored. Inspired by scholarship on multi-level governance in individual sectors, this paper identifies four scale-related governance challenges in the WEF nexus, namely: (1) scalar fit, which arises when planning and operating procedures work at different levels along the scales of space and time in different sectors; (2) scalar strategies, wherever the levels at which actors have influence and in which action takes place are contested and negotiated; (3) institutional interplay, where rules and norms in different sectors influence each other at different levels; (4) scalar uncertainty, arising out of the complexity of multi-level and multi-scale interactions. The relevance of these four challenges is illustrated with case studies from developed and developing countries. These examples show the importance of considering multiple levels and scales when assessing the likely effectiveness of WEF nexus governance mechanisms or proposals. The cases underline the need to pay close attention to issues of power, contestation, and negotiation, in addition to the analysis of institutional design. Thus, this paper recommends that nexus governance efforts and proposals be scrutinized for scale assumptions. The four identified challenges offer a suitable starting point for diagnosis.

District Drinking Water Planning for Sustainability in Maharashtra: Between Local and Global Scales

“…District and block water officers need substantial professional development, vis-à-vis training, to articulate and address complex multi-sector water challenges in district plans prepared for consideration at the state level. Current research on water-energy-food nexus may be useful [46].…”

Identifying leverage points for shifting Water-Energy-Food nexus cases towards sustainability through the Networks of Action Situations approach combined with systems thinking

“…Even though the nexus concept was formulated in response to siloed thinking, and emphasizes the understanding of interlinkages in a more integrated way (Bleischwitz et al 2018), many scholars use mostly adapted conventional disciplinary approaches, such as mixed systems modelling, biophysical, or economic approaches (Albrecht et al 2018;Yung et al 2019;Liu et al 2018). They focus on biophysical interdependencies among different sub-systems (Yung et al 2019), resource-efficient technologies (Chang et al 2016), or address potential synergies and trade-offs among sectors with improved technologies (Pahl-Wostl et al 2020). This leads to knowledge about the physical interconnections between the sub-systems, but an integrated perspective across the nexus needs also knowledge about the institutional linkages (Villamayor-Tomas et al 2015).…”

“…Therefore, comprehensive approaches are needed to understand interdependencies in complex resource systems and to find leverage points for interventions to shift the system towards more sustainable resource uses. The debate on the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus addresses such interlinkages and encourages a more holistic perspective on sustainable development of natural resources (Pahl-Wostl et al 2020). Considering how water, energy, and food sectors are both interconnected and interdependent, the nexus concept targets the maximization of synergies (mutually beneficial outcomes) and minimization of trade-offs (potentially non-optimal outcome for a single sector).…”

Barriers in Participative Water Governance: A Critical Analysis of Community Development Approaches

“…[30] Delegated power is a type of decentralisation of power and responsibility in the scope of citizens' participation. However, decentralisation without coordination results in the creation of a set of fragmented power blocks, weakening the expected performances of water governance [31].…”