Closing the governance gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from integrative governance

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Closing the governance gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from integrative governance

MARK

⁎

Nina Weitza, Claudia Stramboa, , Eric Kemp-Benedicta, Måns Nilssona,b a b

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), P.O. Box 24218, SE-104 51 Stockholm, Sweden Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Water-energy-food nexus Nexus Integrative environmental governance Environmental governance Environmental policy integration Policy coherence

The water-energy-food nexus has become a popular concept in environmental change research and policy debates. Proponents suggest that a nexus approach promotes policy coherence through identifying optimal policy mixes and governance arrangements across the water, energy and food sectors. Although the nexus literature identifies some barriers to achieving coherence it does not clearly explain why the barriers are present, what influences them, and how they can be acted upon. These gaps disconnect the nexus literature from the governance processes it ultimately seeks to influence. This paper examines how the integrative environmental governance literature can help to close these gaps. It extracts insights from seven streams of research literature and discusses their relevance for the nexus literature. We argue that connecting the nexus to decision-making processes requires: i) rethinking the boundaries of nexus analysis vis-à-vis other sectors and levels; ii) elaboration of shared principles that can guide decision-making towards policy coherence − or an appropriate form of fragmentation − in different contexts; iii) viewing policy coherence as a continuous process of changing values and perception rather than as an outcome.

1. Introduction The literature on the water-energy-food nexus (or “nexus” for short) expresses great ambitions to achieve policy coherence and overcome the unintended consequences of uncoordinated policy between different sectors. The nexus concept is intuitively compelling, spawning conceptual frameworks (see e.g. Cairns and Krzywoszynska 2016; Leck et al., 2015), and analytical tools (Granit et al., 2013). However, analytical insight by itself does not produce effective and accountable policy and management. Based on a review of nexus literature we identified three governance gaps that merit further attention because, as we argue, they render the nexus concept disconnected from the decision-making and policy-making processes it ultimately seeks to influence. The nexus literature clearly accepts that governance matters, but it does not go into depth. In particular, it falls short on providing insights on i) conditions for cross-sector coordination and collaboration; ii) dynamics that influence the nexus beyond cross-sector interactions; and iii) political and cognitive factors as determinants of policy change (Weitz et al., 2017). Starting from these three governance gaps, this paper puts the claims and ambitions of the nexus literature in a productive conversation with existing debates in governance theory. We argue that

⁎

governance theory can help to fill the gaps, taking into account the wider governance landscape, the processes that take place within it and how they influence the links between technical information and implementation (Cairney , 2016). Specifically, we turn to the integrative environmental governance (IEG) literature for insights. To familiarize the reader with the nexus concept (which is characterized by several different perspectives) and how the gaps were identified, we devote the following section to a summary of the nexus literature and its governance gaps (for a full account see Weitz et al., 2017) before exploring how IEG can help to close them. 2. The nexus literature and its governance gaps The “water-energy-food nexus” approach emerged in the late 2000s, as a way of framing cross-sector and cross-scale interactions in a context marked by growing concerns about the global economic and food security crisis (Allouche et al., 2014). Since then, the “nexus” has gained popularity both within academia and among policy-makers (Leck et al., 2015; Benson et al., 2015). A review of nexus literature, and key debates that focused particularly on governance implications (i.e. both the role ascribed to governance and the governance issues implied by a nexus approach Weitz

Corresponding author at: Stockholm Environment Institute, Box 24218, 104 51 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Strambo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.006 Received 17 January 2017; Received in revised form 5 May 2017; Accepted 16 June 2017 0959-3780/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

(Söderbaum and Granit, 2014; Stein et al., 2014). While space only allowed for a re-cap of the nexus literature review here, we have concluded from the review that the literature falls short on a number of issues (see Weitz et al., 2017 for further discussion). Fundamentally for the nexus concept, clarity is needed on overarching objectives and guiding principles: what is it to achieve and for what purpose? No monolithic ideology underlies the nexus and these fundamental questions remain unanswered. Preferences for different measures for handling nexus issues will vary according to different perspectives on the nexus and, if adopted, steer in different directions. That is, policy coherence might be achieved through different paths, resulting in different outcomes for different stakeholders. With regards to governance implications and how the nexus can connect with decision-making processes, the literature also leaves a lot to be desired; why are barriers to integrative governance of water, energy and food present? What influences them? And how can they be acted upon? First, although all three nexus perspectives argue that cross-sector coordination and collaboration is desirable (for distinct reasons), they do not explain what conditions would enable or hinder collaboration and coordination between sectors, institutions and actors. Second, the nexus literature provides little insight on how dynamics beyond the sectoral boundaries of water, energy and food, influence the nexus (with some exceptions, such as Beisheim, 2013, who discusses widening the scope of the nexus to planetary boundaries). The non-linearity and complexity of governance and decision-making therefore tends to be ignored. Finally, while some authors have called for more attention to the politics of the nexus (e.g. Stein et al., 2014), the nexus literature generally overlooks how trade-offs are negotiated, decisions taken in practice and the ideological assumptions behind policy options. As reflected by perspectives one and two, a technical and administrative view dominates both the literature and conceptions of policy coherence in practice; yet political and cognitive factors are essential for connecting technical nexus analyses to actual decision-making and policy processes. Thus, the three gaps identified and in focus for the remainder of this paper are: 1) conditions for cross-sector coordination and collaboration; 2) dynamics beyond cross-sector interactions, and; 3) political and cognitive factors as determinants of change.

et al., 2017) supported the conclusion made by several authors that the nexus is conceptually inconclusive (Wichelns, 2017; Cairns and Krzywoszynska, 2016). Here we provide a summary of three overarching perspectives. They are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive but capture the broad debates in the nexus literature. On at least two points the nexus literature is consistent: the overarching governance problem is that policies are fragmented across the water, energy and food sectors, which lead to unintended consequences; and the goal is to achieve policy coherence by identifying synergies and trade-offs, optimizing policy options, and adapting governance arrangements. However, the literature contains different explanations as to why fragmented policies pose problems and does not elaborate on what exactly policy coherence entails or how it can be achieved (Weitz et al., 2017). The first perspective on the nexus focuses on risk and security, and is based on the idea that failing to account for connections between nexus sectors could worsen resource scarcity and induce conflicts (see e.g. Hoff 2011; Bizikova et al., 2013; World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2012; NIC, 2012; Shell International BV, 2013. For example, first-generation biofuel production can present risks to food security (Rulli et al., 2016). Proposed strategies for reducing nexus-related security risks include placing supply risks on the political agenda and improving data collection in order to clarify interactions and design incentives (Beisheim 2013; World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2012; Gain et al., 2015, as well as isolating sectors from impacts from other sectors (NIC, 2012). The second perspective is guided by economic rationality. Here the nexus is seen as a way to improve policy cost-effectiveness and resource-use efficiency, as well as to optimize allocation of resources across sectors (SIWI, 2014). It is further considered as enabling the creation of new business opportunities and (green) economic growth (Vlotman and Ballard 2014; World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2012, for example by ensuring sustainable water use in energy and food supply chains (Zahner, 2014; Wales, 2014). From this perspective, policy coherence is undermined by the sectors’ different institutional frameworks, divergent targets, lack of communication, and lack of clarity on rights and responsibilities across sectors (Pittock et al., 2013). Proposed governance responses are mainly coordinative, such as strengthened cross-sectoral cooperation, increased communication and inclusive demand management via dialogue platforms or other interagency mechanisms and economic instruments (SIWI, 2014; Ringler et al., 2013; Weitz et al., 2014; Beisheim 2013). Within these two perspectives, governing the nexus remains a technical or administrative matter, where better coordination of information about cross-sector interactions can improve, or even optimize, system performance as measured against security or economic criteria. However, information alone does not necessarily lead to policy change and administrative processes are not necessarily objective (Kurian, 2017). The third perspective acknowledges this and counters the dominant technical-administrative take on nexus governance. It makes the case that addressing trade-offs and improving policy integration across sectors is a fundamentally political process requiring negotiation amongst different actors with distinct perceptions, interests and practices (Rees 2013; Allouche et al., 2014; Stein et al., 2014). This perspective is thus concerned with equity and social progress (Dupar and Oates 2012; Stringer et al., 2014) and highlights that technical solutions for improving coherence within the nexus may have unintended and negative impacts in other policy areas, such as poverty alleviation and education (Jobbins et al., 2015). With this perspective, key barriers to policy coherence include unequal distribution of power, voice, access to information, resources and capability amongst actors and institutions (Lele et al., 2013; Perrone and Hornberger 2014), as well as conflicting interests, both domestic and international (Perrone and Hornberger 2014; Beisheim et al., 2013). Some authors further argue that outcomes can be improved by looking at specific, local, cases of trade-offs and preferences, in addition to a focus on the national scale

3. Approach and methods With the objective to connect the nexus governance gaps and relevant governance theory, a first methodological question is where to look − which governance debates and theoretical approaches appear relevant for deriving insights on the nexus? We turn to the concept of integrative environmental governance (IEG). Visseren-Hamakers (2015) coined IEG as an umbrella term for a whole body of concepts that have a shared focus on the relationships between governance instruments and/or governance systems in a context of increasingly complex and fragmented environmental governance (or society and policy more generally). The concepts and their theories focus on relationships and interdependencies between different organizations and different policies, as well as the existence of many different decisionmaking centers. IEG brings together debates on these issues that have taken place in both policy circles and academia, but often in isolation (Visseren-Hamakers, 2015). Given the overlap between IEG and the nexus governance gaps in terms of interdependencies in policy across sectors, the movement toward policy being shaped in a wider context than within administrative sectors, and the distribution of power in decision-making, IEG appeared a well-positioned pool of knowledge from which to derive insights about the three gaps. Following VisserenHamakers (2015) we have looked at seven specific IEG concepts, which are presented in Table 1: The nexus approach is in fact included as an eighth concept by Visseren-Hamakers (2015), referred to as the latest contribution to the IEG literature. However, it remains a placeholder rather than a substantial contribution. Exploring the links between the nexus approach 166

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

Table 1 Overview of the seven IEG concepts with description and references. CONCEPT

DESCRIPTION

REFERENCES (appearing in the paper)

Environmental policy integration (EPI)

Addresses the integration of environmental concerns in other sectors, bringing insight into priority-setting and various dimensions of coherence (including horizontal, vertical and policy-toimplementation).

Inter-organizational relations

Studies relationships between different types of organizations, both public and private, and what they mean for policy and international relations. The literature brings insight into why agencies choose to cooperate or not, and in what circumstance a coordinating body may arise and function. Asks how the effectiveness of an institution is influenced by its relationships with other institutions. It brings insight into different types of interaction, especially amongst intergovernmental policies and how they are managed. Studies relationships between different policy instruments, whether they are complementary or counterproductive and how they can, in combination, be more effective than a single instrument. It considers different types of instruments and stresses the need for transparency about the norms and principles they promote. Considers groups of international institutions that address the same issue area. As a counterpoint to the dominant governance narrative in the nexus literature, it considers the potential benefits of fragmentation and cost of coherence and integration. Studies strategic steering and coordination in governance systems or governance instruments, including non-state and private actors. This literature brings insight into the general conditions for governance in which coordination or integration may take place. Focuses on integrating actors and policies at a specific scale, e.g. an ecosystem or watershed. This literature brings insight into the relation between physical conditions of a landscape and the decision-making scale.

Lafferty and Hovden, 2003; Jordan and Lenschow, 2008; Peters, 1998; Nilsson and Persson, 2003; Hillion, 2008; Persson, 2007; Gerger Swartling et al., 2007; Collier, 1994; Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2006; Lenschow and Zito, 1998; Nilsson and Eckerberg, 2009; Nilsson, 2005 Schmidt and Kochan, 1977; Litwak and Hylton, 1962; Young, 1996

Institutional interaction/ interplay and management

Policy mixes and smart regulation

Groups of regimes

Metagovernance and orchestration

Integrated management and landscape governance

Young, 2002, 1994; Young 1996; Keohane et al., 1993; Oberthür, 2009; Oberthür and Gehring, 2006, 2011; Brown Weiss, 1993; Hyvarinen, 1999; Victor, 1999; van Asselt, 2011; Stokke, 2001 Gunningham et al., 1999; Van Gossum et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2004; Gunningham and Sinclair, 2000

Biermann et al., 2009; Brown Weiss, 1993; Raustiala and Victor, 2004; Stokke, 2001

Christopoulos et al., 2012; Kooiman and Jentoft, 2009; VisserenHamakers and Glasbergen, 2007; Glasbergen, 2011

van Oosten, 2013; Görg 2007; Massey, 2006

result, the different concepts are also concerned with different types of actors. This provokes the questions: can different concepts simply be applied to the nexus, and are our findings applicable across different scales and actors? We argue that nexus issues play out at all different levels and are highly contextualized (see e.g. Weitz et al., 2014). Our analysis can only point to insights of general interest for the three governance gaps − which were identified irrespective of scale and acknowledging many different perspectives on the nexus − whereas their application to a specific nexus situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. IEG thus has potential for generating insights relevant to many different nexus contexts (of different scope and scale), but all will not be applicable to any given case. Given the range of perspectives on the nexus − both the degree to which it is conceptualized as an “environmental” issue or not and the different scales at which nexus issues play out − we find that IEG, as defined here and capturing the seven concepts presented in Table 1, provides enough flexibility to offer applicable insights to both “environmental” and “non-environmental” dimensions of the nexus and yet enough delimitation in terms of the shared governance issues these concepts focus on. Our ambition is to look for factors and concrete governance mechanisms that could help explain and begin to close the three governance gaps identified earlier, rather than to exhaustively review the IEG literature. The IEG literature reviewed by Visseren-Hamakers (2015) made a natural starting point for our review. From there we applied a snowball method to identify additional theoretical references that could advance our understanding of the respective theories introduced and how they might apply to the nexus.

and IEG, as we do in this paper, therefore makes a contribution to IEG. Our main interest is, however not to discuss or contribute to IEG as a concept but to explore and extract useful insights for nexus governance from a promising pool of theoretical literature. Yet our use of IEG to guide which governance theories we consider merits a couple of comments. Firstly, the term integrative environmental governance may be confusing, because some of the concepts included are not solely about environmental governance but “integrative governance” generally, and also because it provokes the question why an environmental focus would be more relevant to the nexus than just any political science theory addressing issues of policy coordination and integration. This is primarily a critique against the concept of IEG and the criteria used to decide which concepts have been included or not. One could argue that environmental issues have often been the focus of policy integration and policy coherence debates, which then gave rise to the diverse literature within the broad IEG tent. The question of most interest in this paper is the extent to which the nexus is considered to be a specifically environmental issue. As noted in Section 2, the nexus literature does not answer the question; some would argue it is motivated by environmental concerns and resource security, others that it is a social equity issue. But regardless of perspective, the nexus certainly concerns three sectors closely tied to critical natural resources (including water and land) and the implications of how they are managed for environmental and human systems. Therefore, governing the nexus is at least to some extent a question of environmental governance but the ambiguous relationship to “environment” is present in the nexus literature, as it is in the IEG literature. Secondly, the boundaries set (i.e. the governance scale or site in focus) for studying the issue of integration and coherence vary between the different IEG concepts. These focus variously on sectors, organizations, ecosystems, or on a whole governance system, on global level institutions or public administration systems at the national level. As a

167

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

4. Insights from integrative environmental governance

(weighting); whether statements by actors and in policy texts demonstrate a shared understanding of the issue (consistency); and whether there is actual coordination in implementing and evaluating policies by removing contradictions, realizing synergies, and favoring environmental objectives (Runhaar et al., 2014; Lafferty and Hovden 2003; Kivimaa and Mickwitz 2006). Actors promoting a nexus approach can thus ask whether nexus issues are referred to in policy and how they are weighted against other issues; if there is a consistent understanding of the nexus issue among actors and policies; and if there are any examples of actual implementation and evaluation of policies affecting the nexus that help to reduce conflicts between them. Other basic questions where IEG provides helpful insights include, between who is collaboration to be enhanced, and which actors are key to promoting increased collaboration across the nexus? We would argue that these need to be identified based on the nexus issue at hand and its scope and scale. The different IEG concepts emphasize different actors. Environmental policy integration scholars tend to focus on relations between stakeholders and government institutions at national or lower levels (Visseren-Hamakers, 2015), whereas policy mixes and smart regulation promotes inclusion of a broad range of regulatory actors, including commercial and non-commercial non-state actors. The literature on institutional interaction/interplay management clearly focuses on collaboration between institutions, and proposes that management of institutional interaction can take place at different times in the policymaking process as well as at various levels; be carried out within all institutions concerned, or by only one of them; take place at a higher, overarching, institutional level; or be carried out by actors outside the relevant overall institutional framework (Oberthür, 2009). The literature on inter-organizational relations focuses on interaction between organizations. The IEG literature’s concern with coordination and collaboration between many different types of actors should be kept in mind as we move to discuss conditions, and some more practical mechanisms, for enhancing cross-sector collaboration and coordination. Their relevance will depend on the nexus perspective adopted, the nexus context in focus, and thus which actors are involved. The metagovernance and orchestration literature identifies some overarching factors that can improve coordination within a governance system. While the nexus literature also notes such factors as inclusiveness (Kooiman and Jentoft 2009; Christopoulos et al., 2012; VisserenHamakers and Glasbergen, 2007; Glasbergen 2011); transparency, accountability and empowerment of weaker players (Glasbergen 2011; Kooiman and Jentoft 2009; Christopoulos et al., 2012); and provision of and access to information (Christopoulos et al., 2012), the IEG literature provides complementary insights about the integration of different modes of governance, sharing knowledge and institutional learning, and using endogenous knowledge and interactive learning processes (Christopoulos et al., 2012). Visseren-Hamakers and Glasbergen (2007) further stress that the dependence of implementation on government policy and the existence of performance-based indicators are important factors encouraging coordination. Environmental policy integration proposes some measures to strengthen integration at the agenda-setting, problem definition and decision-making stages of policy-making. While many classifications have been elaborated (see e.g. Runhaar et al., 2014), Jordan and Lenschow’s (2008) typology of instruments and examples provided by Persson (2007) are a useful illustration. They distinguish between communicative, organizational, and procedural instruments. Communicative instruments seek to influence visions and longer-term objectives, for example through sustainable development strategies and national environmental plans. Organizational instruments seek to alter the decision-making context to address lack of competence, mandate, resources or capacity, resolve communication problems, and address power imbalances. Examples include inter-departmental working groups, and giving existing institutions new responsibilities. Procedural instruments seek to intervene directly in decision-making and alter the direction in support of integration by establishing or changing

4.1. Insights for gap 1: conditions for cross-sector coordination and collaboration The first gap concerns cross-sector coordination and collaboration among different actors, given the focus within the nexus literature on fragmentation and coherence. We begin with insights that help to clarify what is being coordinated or collaborated on, by whom and towards what objective, before we proceed to discuss the conditions under which coordination and collaboration might be achieved. The IEG literature suggests interactions are too complex to be described by a dichotomy between synergy and conflict, as is often the case in nexus literature. The environmental policy integration literature poses the very basic, but important, question of what policy coordination challenge is present: is it characterized by redundancy − a duplication and overlap in policy functions; by lacunae/gaps − an absence of necessary policy arrangements; or by incoherence − contradictions in policy and implementation measures (Peters, 1998; Hillion, 2008)? It also encourages us to look beyond coordination of policy objectives. The literature on policy mixes and smart regulations considers interactions between regulatory approaches and instruments, including market-based instruments (e.g. eco-taxes and tradable permits) and soft instruments (e.g. eco–labels and voluntary agreements) (Jordan et al., 2004). If considering the package of instruments and the outcomes they jointly produce, this literature notes that the sequence in which instruments are introduced can help reduce poor or unwanted outcomes from interactions (Gunningham and Sinclair 2000; Gunningham et al., 1999). Exploring this we can better understand how motivational and informational instruments, self-regulation, and coregulation can improve effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and equity, and the existence of a credible enforcement mechanism towards a shared objective (Van Gossum et al., 2012). This provokes the question to what extent there exists a shared nexus objective. A common theme in the nexus literature is the “handling of trade-offs”, i.e. taking action on conflicting interests between the three sectors. In the IEG literature the view on this issue is rather a matter of balancing different societal objectives, which implies negotiation between actors and interests. Some scholars studying environmental policy integration have argued that guiding principles are essential when negotiating over diverging interests. For example, Lafferty and Hovden (2003) have suggested that environmental protection should have principled priority over other objectives, whereas Jordan and Lenschow (2008) argue for an enabling environment for balancing short-term economic and social gains against long-term sustainability. Kooiman and Jentoft (2009) focus on “hard governance choices” or value conflicts. They argue that making metagovernance principles (including inclusiveness, transparency and accountability) an integral part of a governance process can help to make hard governance choices easier, because they can stimulate bottom-up and more participatory approaches that are sensitive to differences in national, regional and local administrative and political cultures. Although some overarching nexus principles have been proposed in the nexus literature (e.g. investing to sustain ecosystem services, creating more with less, and accelerating access by integrating the poorest (Hoff, 2011)), there is no consensus on them. On one hand, the conceptual inconclusiveness and lack of guiding principles to negotiate outcomes creates uncertainty in terms of what is expected to be achieved by policy coherence across water, energy and food sectors. On the other hand, it renders the nexus approach flexible enough to adapt to different contexts, in which principles can be agreed upon among stakeholders. In moving towards agreed criteria for how to handle trade-offs or balance societal interests across the nexus, the literature on environmental policy integration offers some guiding questions to help evaluate the extent to which an issue is governed in an integrative way. They include whether the issue is referred to in policy and its relative priority 168

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

may operate, at least partly, within fixed markets. Assuming that organizations are self-interested, Schmidt and Kochan (1977) direct attention to the costs and benefits of interaction given the goals of the organization, stressing that more interaction may not always be feasible or desirable. Interplay management can help to increase coherence and effectiveness, share implementation costs, and reinforce normative support, but it also imposes costs associated with preparation, organization, and reporting, and might compete for limited political energy (Brown Weiss, 1993; Hyvarinen, 1999; Victor, 1999; Stokke, 2001) To minimize costs, proposed management strategies focus on legal and institutional aspects such as side agreements, mergers and procedural devices (Oberthür and Gehring, 2006; 2011). Another strategy, which is often brought forward in both the nexus literature and IEG literature as potentially creating conditions for coordination, is to set up a coordinating agency. Such agencies can communicate information, provide standards, settle conflicts, and promote areas of common interest. From the inter-organizational relations literature, Litwak and Hylton (1962) suggest that coordinating agencies emerge when there is a moderate amount of standardization in how interaction takes place, a high awareness of interdependence, and a moderate number of organizations to coordinate. For the three nexus sectors, a history of independence means that interactions are not standardized, or at least not obvious, likely impeding the formation of an effective coordinating agency. Even if a coordinating agency were to be put in place, historical independence means that each sector can, to some degree, choose on its own terms when to interact, a point made earlier with reference to a “fixed market”. Another potentially useful mechanism that is brought forward in the metagovernance and orchestration literature is to create neutral spaces to explore and discuss innovative solutions (Christopoulos et al., 2012). These spaces provide an impartial platform for sector representatives or other actors to improve conditions for governance and support verification, replication and scaling-up of good practices. Creating such additional spaces can be more feasible within an existing governance landscape than, for example, by formally merging ministries and agencies.

bureaucratic rules or standard operating procedures. Examples include strategic environmental assessments, policy-level appraisals, green budgeting, green public procurement requirements, and sector environmental reporting requirements, as well as imposing interactions with non-governmental actors, whether formal or informal. Governments have broadened their use of these instruments but tend to use them in an uncoordinated and opportunistic way; for example, soft financial instruments, such as green criteria, prevail in decision-making, but normally as an add-on rather than a strategic contribution (Jordan and Lenschow, 2008). Interventions further tend to delegate integration challenges to sectoral authorities and government departments while the status quo is largely maintained (Persson, 2007). Moreover, the popularity of instruments is not commensurate with their effectiveness. Soft communicative and cognitive instruments, such as network building or training, are more popular than organizational rearrangements or procedural tools, but their effectiveness in inducing learning processes is uncertain (Persson, 2007). Rather, new societal problems, disasters or economic crises seem to stimulate learning (Gerger Swartling et al., 2007), and Collier (1994) points out that the best opportunityies for policy integration occur during rare changes to regulatory frameworks. Having provided insights that help clarify the challenge in focus and instruments that might alleviate it, the question remains under what conditions coordination and collaboration come about. The IEG literature provides insights on drivers. The literature on institutional interaction/interplay management proposes that interaction between institutions can result from cognitive factors, including the transfer of information, knowledge or ideas; when political commitments made by one institution affect preferences within another institution; when behavioural change prompted by one institution becomes relevant for another institution’s implementation process; or from interdependence between institutions’ governance objectives (Oberthür and Gehring, 2006; 2011). Stokke (2001) suggests that interplay between institutions can be utilitarian (when one organization’s rules or programs alter costs or benefits of options addressed by another), normative (when one institution confirms or contradicts the norms upheld by another), or ideational (when one institution supports the effectiveness of another, for example by drawing political attention to the issues addressed by another institution). The inter-organizational relations literature also looks at conditions under which organizations are motivated to interact and focus on their agency. Two perspectives dominate: exchange and power-dependency (Schmidt and Kochan, 1977). Although these are rarely considered jointly, both are likely to influence whether organizations interact or not. The exchange perspective suggests that cooperative relationships form when those involved perceive mutual benefits from interaction, as in situations of scarce or declining resources. The power-dependency perspective suggests that relationships are asymmetrical and interaction only happens when the motivated partner is powerful enough to make the other interact. The two perspectives overlap, as all partners in a relationship have some agency. In an asymmetrical relationship, the frequency of interaction is greater when the organization that does not see the benefits of interaction nevertheless thinks the other organization has goals that are compatible with its own, is important to its functioning, has great influence, or is seen to act aggressively (Schmidt and Kochan, 1977). The inter-organizational relations literature provides further insights into different dynamics of institutional interaction, suggesting interactions between policy objectives can entail either conflict or synergy, or a range of possibilities in between. Interdependency can be competitive − when one agency’s goals make another’s impossible or difficult to achieve, or supportive − when both agencies gain if one agency achieves its goal. Sometimes, an agency has a “fixed market” − i.e. it can get the inputs it needs and achieve its objectives irrespective of what other agencies do, leading to non-cooperative behavior and parallel interventions (Litwak and Hylton, 1962). As traditionally independent sectors, water, food and energy

4.2. Insights for gap 2: dynamics beyond cross-sector interactions The nexus literature recognizes that unclear rights and responsibilities across the water, energy and food sectors and their different institutional frameworks are problematic, that the nexus may be influenced by both higher and lower levels of ecosystems (Söderbaum and Granit, 2014), governance arrangements, policy and supply chains, and that there may be conflicting interests among actors beyond national borders that can be barriers for policy coherence at the national level (Beisheim, 2013). However, once these statements are made, the nexus literature is heavily focused on horizontal interactions between institutions at the same management level and the coherence between sectoral policy objectives. The IEG literature offers insight into how to more comprehensively capture the complex web of interactions that surround the nexus. The IEG literature is as concerned with vertical interactions as horizontal ones, although different authors have different ways of defining them. Young (2002) and others, identify vertical coherence as interactions between institutions at different scales (e.g. global to local), while horizontal interactions occur between institutions at comparable scale (e.g. different ministries). One example of policy interaction across vertical scales is that rules agreed at the global level tend to allow for multiple interpretations, and they therefore leave the practical challenges of ensuring consistency to implementing agencies at national level (Raustiala and Victor, 2004). The institutional interaction/interplay and management literature also addresses the implications of institutional politics on institutional interactions at different scales. Young (2002), for example, suggests that integrative strategies should favour continuous arrangements and recognize local knowledge and local stakeholders’ rights and interests, especially in situations where 169

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

cognitive factors: trust amongst stakeholders; sense of ownership of the issue by sectoral actors; capacity to engage in knowledge assimilation, strategic thinking and interaction with other actors; and knowledge of the challenge and the role sector activities play in meeting it. Focusing on social networks, the landscape governance literature also emphasizes the significance of collaborative learning in order to build shared understanding of social and ecological interactions, as well as shared practices in resource management among multiple stakeholders (van Oosten, 2013). These insights from the IEG literature suggest that in order for technical information generated by nexus analysis to lead to policy change, there is a need to shift decision-makers’ mindsets, which is typically a slow and gradual process. According to this perspective, policy coherence and integration is a learning process, a position that is in stark contrast with the technical and administrative view in much of the nexus literature on adjusting policy inconsistencies (Weitz et al., 2017). Learning as a mechanism for policy change is well established in the governance literature (Nilsson and Persson, 2003), and its general lack in the nexus literature may explain why, in practice, nexus projects remain disconnected from decision-making processes. Both the policy mixes and smart regulation and metagovernance and orchestration literatures help to further clarify the link between norms, values and policy implementation. They stress that the design of policy instruments reflects the way problems are defined and represent different ideological preferences. For example, the emphasis in environmental governance on policy efficiency, market-based instruments and soft instruments reflects liberal-institutional influences (Gunningham and Sinclair 2000; Gunningham et al., 1999). Clarifying the underlying principles of policy instruments can therefore illuminate whose interests they support or hinder (Gunningham and Sinclair, 2000). Another insight from the metagovernance and orchestration literature is that broadening the types of actors that are involved in governing an issue can add legitimacy, but also risks introducing actors with strong discursive powers (e.g. private actors) that influence or set agendas. New actors might add capacities or address issues where public institutions lack power or willingness to intervene (Glasbergen, 2011). As noted by Visseren-Hamakers and Glasbergen (2007), private regulation, e.g. through business or civil society initiatives, private inter-sectoral partnerships and public-private partnerships, can complement the government when it cannot, or does not want to, regulate. However, outcomes will also reflect these new actors’ embedded norms and values. Literature on orchestration considers how a governance actor, such as an international organization or a state, sometimes engages intermediary actors to address issues and help them pursue their own goals (Abbott and Snidal, 2010). This suggests that in order to understand decision-making in the nexus, attention should be paid to potentially influential actors beyond those directly and formally involved in nexus policy-making and decision-making. Because ideology, norms and values shape policy-making, the search for policy coherence is not an objective process free of interests. There can be many paths to achieving coherence, the outcomes of which will have different implications for different stakeholders. Within the groups of regimes literature, which focuses on the causes and impacts of increasing complexity at the global level, Biermann et al. (2009) define three types of fragmentation: synergistic, cooperative, and conflictive. This contrasts with the nexus literature’s conception of policy fragmentation as necessarily disadvantageous or conflictive. Biermann et al. (2009) find that the different types of fragmentation perform differently on a variety of indicators of institutional effectiveness, including the relative speed of reaching agreement, the level of regulatory ambition that can be realized, the level of potential participation of actors and sectors, and equity. While there are no convincing arguments in favour of a high, or conflictive, degree of fragmentation, cooperative forms of fragmentation can involve both significant costs and benefits. Along the same lines, accepting that policy formation and implementation is (increasingly) complex, involving different norms,

power relations are asymmetrical. Such strategies help to balance the tendency of national and international regimes to increase the influence of already powerful actors (Young, 1996). These insights tell us to pay attention to vertical policy interactions in addition to horizontal ones if seeking to reduce unintended consequences of fragmented policies. An analysis that limits the analysis of unintended consequences to the sectoral policy objectives of the water, energy and food sectors alone will overlook important determinants of why the sector objectives are formulated the way they are, as well as ways to alter them. The groups of regimes literature studies interactions between different levels of governance, but also across different stages in the policy process and thus introduces an additional aspect of policy coherence: that between stated policy objectives and implementation or outcome. The literatures on environmental policy integration (Persson, 2007) and groups of regimes (van Asselt, 2011) highlight that strategies that are influential at the decision-making level are not automatically influential in implementation, and vice versa, and, therefore, that coherently stated policy objectives do not necessarily translate to coherent implementation and outcomes. At the same time, strategies refined at the implementation level influence future efforts of policy-making (Raustiala and Victor, 2004). This tells us to look to the whole policy cycle, if we are to ensure coherence across the nexus. The literature on integrated management and landscape governance contributes an additional perspective on how to delineate the nexus and what influences it. It looks at the interconnections between socially constructed spaces and “natural” conditions of places (Görg, 2007). This approach stresses that a “landscape”, rather than possessing clear natural boundaries, is instead characterized by overlapping social networks constructed through human interaction in connection with a broader world (Massey, 2006; van Oosten, 2013; Görg, 2007). While boundaries of socially constructed systems are not clear-cut and effective policy must respect this messiness, delineating the nexus by sectoral policy objectives is a comparatively static technical-administrative approach. Aligning policy objectives in the three sectors might thus not be sufficient for achieving safe allocation of resources (or optimal, or equal allocation, depending on the prevailing nexus perspective), and spillover effects might require the involvement of additional sectors. There is a wider network of interactions, and looking vertically as well as horizontally is a useful place to start. The literature prompts a return to the question of whether the three sectors are the appropriate units of nexus analysis, because barriers and solutions may lie outside their scope and mandates, in a more distant part of a broader social network (see also Wichelns, 2017). 4.3. Insights for gap 3: political and cognitive factors as determinants of change The discussions above on shared objectives, scale, and power influences in the nexus have already suggested that the nexus is not apolitical. The third perspective on the nexus, in which it is suggested that administrative or technical solutions to policy coherence alone are not likely to be successful, also reflected this point. The IEG literature brings additional insight into how political, ideological and cognitive factors are critical to turning technical information into policy change. The environmental policy integration literature stresses that cognitive factors, including trust, ownership, and learning, are critical for change (Nilsson and Eckerberg, 2009). For example, Persson (2007) and Nilsson (2005) note that weighting of options, and the resulting policies, derive from value systems embedded in institutions, the policy frames held by stakeholders, and the ways stakeholders are informed. Thus, changes in decision-makers’ perceptions help to shape changes in policy (Lenschow and Zito, 1998). Such changes to perceptions and, by extension, policy, can be achieved through reframing strategies such as training and socialization that modify how stakeholders define problems and causal narratives. Nilsson and Eckerberg (2009) identify four conditions for environmental policy integration, each related to 170

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

objectives and constituencies, the inter-organizational literature stresses the positive consequences of autonomy (Litwak and Hylton, 1962). Arguing that all societies face partial conflict between objectives, Litwak and Hylton note that distinct agencies can in times of conflict allow space for diverging interests without suppressing one objective in favour of another. From the institutional interaction/interplay and management literature, and in line with this view, Young (1996) argues that actors sometimes resist integrative measures and try to avoid pressures to compromise on priority issues. The institutional interplay/management further asks how, how much, and with what effects actors address institutional interactions and their impacts. Oberthür and Gehring (2006) suggest that institutional interactions can be either beneficial, when synergy between the institutions is reinforced; adverse, when measures from the source institution disrupt or undermine implementation by the target; or neutral, and that there are costs and opportunities for improvement even to beneficial interaction. Factors that determine whether interactions are beneficial or adverse include the degree of coordination, jurisdictional extent, coherence or compatibility of values and objectives, compatibility of regulatory approaches, overlaps in membership or funding sources, power to enforce compliance, timing, and compatibility of views on the role of science (Oberthür and Gehring, 2006). These insights suggest that policy coherence and integration can come at a cost. Some less powerful interests may be downplayed and sectoral expertise may be undervalued and lost to the process. For the nexus this suggests that the push for more interaction be tempered by an understanding of the quality and nature of that interaction, and that attention needs to be paid to how organizations’ goals and norms influence cost and effectiveness. Negative dynamics or costs of interaction and collaboration are rarely voiced in nexus contexts and the IEG literature thus opens up a debate about whether more cooperation and collaboration is necessarily beneficial. Perhaps more collaboration should not always be promoted: a more nuanced way of looking at coordination and collaboration would be to ask what procedures can ensure autonomy in areas of conflict while allowing for cooperation in areas of agreement under the assumption that actors have mutual interest to reduce adverse consequences on each others’ priority objectives. As concluded by Biermann et al. (2009) “synergistic fragmentation” is often a realistic second-best option; in contrast to the opposition to policy fragmentation within the nexus literature, some degree of fragmentation is arguably sound because it leaves space for different preferences − a foundation of any democratic society. Also, interaction between different regimes is often more beneficial than it can initially appear, and can be made more synergetic and beneficial by improving transparency and the availability and quality of information and communication, and by including a degree of redundancy to support implementation, learning, and trust building. (Young 1994; Keohane et al., 1993; Oberthür and Gehring 2006; Stokke 2001)

is power relations and the extent to which actors are forced to cooperate. The literature proposes some measures and instruments to enhance coordination and integration and discusses their feasibility and effectiveness. For example, the emergence and effectiveness of a coordinating agency depends on the extent to which interactions are standardized, awareness of interconnections, and the number of organizations that need to be coordinated. These observations are of particular interest in the context of the nexus, because setting up a coordinating agency is one of the more concrete actions proposed in the nexus literature to address coordination problems. In order to understand different actors’ willingness to act the IEG literature has stressed the need to assess power-dependencies across institutions that govern water, energy and food, as well as the benefits that actors within these institutions might derive from interaction, in light of their own goals. The IEG literature also provides insights that encourage consideration of the whole policy cycle and consequences and influences beyond cross-sectoral dynamics within the nexus. Decision-making at higher levels, either within government or in international agreements, influence decision-making over the nexus at the national or local level, and coherent policy objectives do not necessarily equate to coherent implementation and outcomes. These insights highlight the importance of continuous information exchange, both from the top down and from the bottom up, and the need to pay attention to how power relations between institutions at different scales determine decision-making in the nexus. How the nexus is delineated remains an open conceptual question; its resolution has implications for which potential unintended consequences are considered and between what objectives coherence is to be achieved. The IEG literature also tends to view policy change as something largely determined by changes to actors’ cognitive frames and thus places importance on institutional learning processes. It is suggested that to understand conflicts across the nexus and the feasibility of handling them, we need to look beyond technical policy objectives as stated in formal documents, and analyze the assumptions, norms and principles they are built on. We must consider who is involved in decision-making processes and the power relations between these actors. Recognizing local knowledge and local stakeholders’ rights and interests is especially important in situations where power relations are asymmetrical between institutions at different scales. In contrast to the opposition to policy fragmentation within the nexus literature, it is generally accepted in the IEG literature that fragmentation can be positive, or a second-best option, given that some degree of conflict is a given in all societies. Some degree of fragmentation is arguably sound, and eliminating fragmentation unrealistic. Recognizing that there are costs associated with integration and that it is the clash between different interests that push policy-making forward, nexus analyses would benefit from a more balanced view of coherence and integration, and of the quality and nature of institutional interaction.

4.4. Summary of findings

5. Conclusions

The IEG literature helps to characterize the coordination challenge that policy-makers might face in the nexus and what those challenges might entail, including not only policy objectives but also regulatory approaches and instruments. The literature stresses the need for shared criteria that can guide negotiations of “trade-offs” or the balancing of different societal objectives, and be used to evaluate extent of policy integration. Towards this end it has provided some guiding questions: whether nexus issues are referred to in policy and how are they weighted against other issues; if there is a consistent understanding of the nexus issue among actors and policies; and if there are any examples of actual implementation and evaluation of policies affecting the nexus that help to reduce conflicts between them. The IEG literature has further brought insights about the conditions for collaboration and coordination. A key determinant is incentives, given actors’ self-interest (to achieve their own objectives and act within their mandate). Another

We have explored what the integrative environmental governance (IEG) literature has to offer to the water-energy-food nexus (or “nexus”) literature, and identified three key gaps in the nexus literature related to governance. These are: 1) the conditions for cross-sector coordination and collaboration; 2) dynamics beyond cross-sector interactions; and 3) political and cognitive factors as determinants of change. The nexus literature identifies barriers to policy coherence and options for overcoming them, but largely reflects a technical-administrative view on governance that distances it from the reality of decision-making processes. This distance results from a dearth of analysis on why barriers to collaboration and cross-sector coordination are present and how the nexus is shaped by political and cognitive factors and dynamics at higher or lower administrative levels. The IEG literature offers a useful pool of analytical insights that could help to close these gaps by providing a more elaborate view on 171

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

Brown Weiss, E., 1993. International environmental law: contemporary issues and the emergence of a new world order. Georgetown Law J. 81, 675–710. Cairney, 2016. The politics of evidence-Based policy making. The Politics of EvidenceBased Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan, UK. Cairns, R., Krzywoszynska, A., 2016. Anatomy of a buzzword: the emergence of ‘the water-energy-food nexus’ in UK natural resource debates. Environ. Sci. Policy 64, 164–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.007. Christopoulos, S., Horvath, B., Kull, M., 2012. Advancing the governance of cross-sectoral policies for sustainable development: a metagovernance perspective. Public Adm. Dev. 32 (3), 305–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pad.1629. Collier, U., 1994. Energy and Environment in the European Union: The Challenge of Integration. Avebury. Dupar, M., Oates, N., 2012. Getting to grips with the water-Energy-Food ‘Nexus’. Climate and Development Knowledge Network, London. Görg, C., 2007. Landscape governance: the ‘politics of scale’ and the ‘natural’ conditions of places. Geoforum 38 (5), 954–966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007. 01.004. Gain, A.K., Giupponi, C., Benson, D., 2015. The water–energy–food (WEF) security nexus: the policy perspective of Bangladesh. Water Int. 40 (5–6), 895–910. Gerger Swartling, Å., Nilsson, M., Engström, R., Hagberg, L., 2007. Theory and methodology for EPI analysis. In: Nilsson, M., Eckerberg, K. (Eds.), Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning. Earthscan, New York, NY, US. Glasbergen, P., 2011. Mechanisms of private meta-governance: an analysis of global private governance for sustainable development. Int. J. Strateg. Bus. Alliances 2 (3) 189–206. Granit, J., Fogde, M., Hoff, H., Joyce, J., Karlberg, L., Kuylenstierna, J., Rosemarin, A., 2013. Unpacking the Water-Energy-Food nexus: tools for assessment and cooperation along a continuum. In: Jägerskog, A., Clausen, T.J., Lexén, K., Holmgren, T. (Eds.), Cooperation for a Water Wise World −Partnerships for Sustainable Development. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (SIWI Report No. 32.). Gunningham, N., Sinclair, D., 2000. Integrative Regulation: A Principle-Based Approach to Environmental Policy. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY (ID 212608). http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=212608. Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., Sinclair, D., 1999. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford University Press (Oxford Socio-Legal Studies). Hillion, C., 2008. ‘Tous pour un Un pour tous! Coherence in the External relations of the European Union’. Developments in EU External Relations Law. Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law. University Press Oxford, Oxford, pp. 10–36. Hoff, H., 2011. Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden. Hyvarinen, J., 1999. Synergies and Co-Ordination of International Instruments in the Area of Oceans and Seas. United Nations University, Tokyo. www.geic.or.jp/ interlinkages/docs/online-docs.html. Jobbins, G., Kalpakian, J., Chriyaa, A., Legrouri, A., Mzouri, E.H.E., 2015. To what end? Drip irrigation and the water-energy-food nexus in Morocco. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 31 (3) 393–406. Jordan, A., Lenschow, A. (Eds.), 2008. Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UK. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., Zito, A.R., 2004. New Instruments of Environmental Governance?: National Experiences and Prospects. Routledge. Keohane, R.O., Haas, P.M., Levy, M.A., 1993. The effectiveness of international environmental institutions. Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. MIT University Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 3–26. Kivimaa, P., Mickwitz, P., 2006. Can we get greener technologies through greener policies: environmental policy integration in finnish technology policies. Res. Policy 35 (5) 729–44. Kooiman, J., Jentoft, S., 2009. Meta-governance: values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Pub. Adm. 87 (4), 818–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-9299.2009.01780.X. Kurian, M., 2017. The water-energy-food nexus: trade-offs, thresholds and transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 97–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.006. Lafferty, W., Hovden, E., 2003. Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical framework. Environ. Polit. 12 (3), 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09644010412331308254. Leck, H., Conway, D., Bradshaw, M., Rees, J., 2015. Tracing the water−energy−food nexus: description, theory and practice. Geogr. Compass 9 (8), 445–460. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12222. Lele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., Goswami, S., 2013. Good governance for food, water and energy security. Aquat. Proced. 1, 44–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2013. 07.005. Lenschow, A., Zito, A.R., 1998. Blurring or shifting of policy frames?: institutionalization of the economic-environmental policy linkage in the european community. Governance 11 (4), 415–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00080. Litwak, E., Hylton, L.F., 1962. Interorganizational analysis: a hypothesis on co-ordinating agencies. Adm. Sci. Q. 6 (4), 395–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2390723. Massey, D., 2006. Landscape as a provocation reflections on moving mountains. J. Mater. Cult. 11 (1–2), 33–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359183506062991. NIC, 2012. Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. National Intelligence Council, Washington, DC,US. Nilsson, M., Eckerberg, K. (Eds.), 2009. Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning. Earthscan, London (Paperback ed. Earthscan research editions). Nilsson, M., Persson, Å., 2003. Framework for analysing environmental policy

coherence and integration as a remedy to unintended policy outcomes. As discussed under Gap 3, the literature stresses that achieving coherence requires negotiation between different interests, represented by institutions or actors with unequal power or weight. Coherence comes at a cost, and some degree of fragmentation is both more realistic and arguably more inclusive of the multiple perspectives and preferences on how different societal objectives should be balanced than a perfectly coherent policy landscape. Nexus analysis would benefit from a deeper discussion on what overarching objective is intended to be achieved by greater coherence, and on which forms of fragmentation or integration might more efficiently and equitably achieve it. As discussed under Gap 1, shared principles that can guide decisions towards this overarching goal could help overcome the risk of power imbalances for meeting weaker actors’ interests. As discussed under Gap 3, the IEG literature has extended the view of policy coherence and integration as being only an outcome (as expressed in nexus literature) to being a learning process that changes decision-makers’ values and perception of the problem they think they are solving. This suggests that, to make a difference, the shared principles and goals of the nexus must be well understood and genuinely believed in − this is a more continuous and longer term process than only revising policy objectives in strategies or plans. In order to understand how conflicting objectives play out, nexus analysis must therefore also look beyond policy objectives as stated in formal documents and analyze the assumptions, norms and principles they are built on. As discussed in Gaps 1 and 3, this also means going beyond the dichotomy of synergies and trade-offs to understand the nature of interactions in more depth. The IEG literature extends the scope of coherence and integration from horizontal interactions to include vertical ones. As discussed under Gap 2, a focus on horizontal interaction between three sectors fails to account for how nexus outcomes influence − and are influenced by − decisions and processes at higher or lower levels of governance as well as other policy areas. In reality, these are intrinsically linked and the three sectors rarely represent a closed system. The conceptual boundaries of the nexus may need to be reconsidered in light of the fit between water, energy and food resources as natural systems and the socially constructed institutions with the responsibility to manage them. This mismatch is arguably the essential cause of the disconnection between the nexus literature and relevant decision-making and policy-making processes. The water-energy-food nexus is a popular concept and numerous “nexus” projects are being implemented. They offer ample opportunity to apply and test insights from the integrative environmental governance literature. Funding This work was supported by the Swedish Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). References Abbott, K.W., Snidal, D., 2010. International regulation without international government: improving IO performance through orchestration. Rev. Int. Org. 5 (3) 315–44. 10.1007/s11558-010-9092-3. Allouche, J., Middleton, C., Gyawali, D., 2014. Nexus Nirvana or Nexus Nullity? A Dynamic Approach to Security and Sustainability in the Water − Energy − Food Nexus. STEPS Centre, Brighton, UK (STEPS Working Paper, 63). Beisheim, M., 2013. The Water, Energy & Food Security Nexus: How to Govern Complex Risks to Sustainable Supply? Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik − German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin, Germany (SWP Comments, 32). Benson, D., Gain, A., Rouillard, J., 2015. Water governance in a comparative perspective: from IWRM to a’nexus’ approach? Water Altern. 8 (1). Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Asselt, H., van Zelli, F., 2009. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9 (4) 14–40. Bizikova, L., Roy, D., Swanson, D., Venema, H.D., McCandless, M., 2013. The waterenergy-food security nexus: towards a practical planning and decision-support framework for landscape investment and risk management. Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev.

172

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 165–173

N. Weitz et al.

(Nexus Network Think Piece Series, 0003). Stokke, O.S., 2001. The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work? The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker (10/2001). Stringer, L., Quinn Berman, C.R., Le, H.T., Msuya, F., Orchard, S., Pezzuti, J.C., 2014. Combining Nexus and Resilience Thinking in a Novel Framework to Enable More Equitable and Just Outcomes. 73. Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, UK. Van Gossum, P., Arts, B., Verheyen, K., 2012. ‘Smart regulation’: Can policy instrument design solve forest policy aims of expansion and sustainability in Flanders and the Netherlands? For. Policy Econ. 16, 23–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009. 08.010. Victor, D.G., 1999. The Market for International Environmental Services and the Perils of Coordination. United Nations University, Tokyo. Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Glasbergen, P., 2007. Partnerships in forest governance. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (3–4), 408–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006. 11.003. Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., 2015. Integrative environmental governance: enhancing governance in the era of synergies. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 136–143. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.008. Vlotman, W.F., Ballard, C., 2014. Water, food and energy supply chains for a green economy. Irrig. Drain. 63 (2), 232–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ird.1835. Wales, A., 2014. Making sustainable beer. Nat. Clim. Change 4 (5), 316–318. http://dx. doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2220. Weitz, N., Nilsson, M., Davis, M., 2014. A nexus approach to the post-2015 agenda: formulating integrated water, energy, and food SDGs. SAIS Rev. Int. Affairs 34 (2) 37–50. 10.1353/sais.2014.0022. Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E., Nilsson, M., 2017. Governance in the WaterEnergy-Food Nexus: Gaps and Future Research Needs. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm (SEI Working Paper). Wichelns, D., 2017. The water-energy-food nexus: is the increasing attention warranted, from either a research or policy perspective? Environ. Sci. Policy 69, 113–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.018. World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2012. Water Security: The Water-Food-EnergyClimate Nexus. Island Press, Washington, DC, US. Young, O.R., 1994. International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Young, O.R., 1996. Institutional linkages in international society: polar perspectives. Glob. Gov. 2 (1) 1–24. Young, O.R., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,US. Zahner, A., 2014. Making the Case: How Agrifood Firms Are Building New Business Cases in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus. REEP and FAO. van Asselt, H., 2011. Legal and political approaches in interplay management: dealing with the fragmentation of global climate governance. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. The MIT Presspp. 59–85. van Oosten, C., 2013. Restoring landscapes—governing place: a learning approach to forest landscape restoration. J. Sustain. For. 32 (7), 659–676. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/10549811.2013.818551.

integration. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 5 (4), 333–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1523908032000171648. Nilsson, M., 2005. Learning, frames, and environmental policy integration: the case of swedish energy policy. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 23 (2), 207–226. http://dx.doi. org/10.1068/c0405j. Oberthür, S., Gehring, T., 2006. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict Among International and EU Policies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID= 10173538. Oberthür, S., Gehring, T., 2011. Institutional interaction. ten years of scholarly development. Managing Institutional Complexity Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 25–58. Oberthür, S., 2009. Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions International Environmental Agreements: politics. Law Econ. 9 (4) 371–91. 10.1007/s10784-009-9109-7. Perrone, D., Hornberger, G.M., 2014. Water, food, and energy security: scrambling for resources or solutions? Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev.: Water 1 (1), 49–68. http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1004. Persson, Å., 2007. Different perspectives on EPI. Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning. Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 24–48. Peters, B.G., 1998. Managing horizontal government: the politics of co-ordination. Pub. Adm. 76 (2), 295–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00102. Pittock, J., Hussey, K., McGlennon, S., 2013. Australian climate, energy and water policies: conflicts and synergies. Aust. Geogr. 44 (1), 3–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00049182.2013.765345. Raustiala, K., Victor, D.G., 2004. The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int.l Org. 58 (02), 277–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582036. Rees, J., 2013. Geography and the nexus: presidential address and record of the royal geographical society (with IBG) AGM 2013. Geogr. J. 179 (3), 279–282. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12050. Ringler, C., Bhaduri, A., Lawford, R., 2013. The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (6), 617–624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.002. Rulli, M.C., Bellomi, D., Cazzoli, A., De Carolis, G., D’Odorico, P., 2016. The water-landfood nexus of first-generation biofuels. Sci. Rep. 6, 22521. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/srep22521. Runhaar, H., Driessen, P., Uittenbroek, C., 2014. Towards a systematic framework for the analysis of environmental policy integration. Environ. Policy Gov. 24 (4), 233–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.1647. Söderbaum, F., Granit, J., 2014. The Political Economy of Regionalism: The Relevance for International Waters and the Global Environment Facility. Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC, US. SIWI, 2014. World Water Week in Stockholm 2014: Overarching Conclusions. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Schmidt, S.M., Kochan, T.A., 1977. Interorganizational relationships: patterns and motivations. Adm. Sci. Q. 22 (2), 220–234. Shell International BV, 2013. New Lenses on the Future. http://www.shell.com/energyand-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/new-lenses-on-the-future.html. Stein, C., Barron, J., Moss, T., 2014. Governance of the Nexus: From Buzz Words to a Strategic Action Perspective. Economic & Social Research Council, Swindon, UK

173