- Email: [email protected]
Editorial special issue: The Nexus of water, energy and food – An environmental governance perspective
Environmental Science and Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
Editorial special issue: The Nexus of water, energy and food – An environmental governance perspective ⁎
Claudia Pahl-Wostla, , Anik Bhadurib, Antje Brunsc a
Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Barbarastr. 12, 49069 Osnabrück, Germany Sustainable Water Future Programme, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia c Governance & Sustainability Lab, Fachbereich VI Raum- und Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Trier, Campus II – Behringstraße 21, 54296 Trier, Germany b
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Water-Energy-Food Nexus Multi-level governance Transformative change
With the notion of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus long neglected interlinkages between water, energy, and food are becoming visible. Yet, the diversity in understandings of the Nexus (as an analytical tool and political agenda) is the starting point for our research interest, stemming as it does from a governance perspective. The contributions of this special issue highlight different facets of governance around the Nexus. While some papers attempt to conceptualize the Nexus-Governance further, others clearly have an empirical focus. Thereby this special issue provides a rich body of work for further WEF-Nexus studies and integrative policies, such as the SDGs.
Water, energy, and food are key features of human well-being and are as such becoming security concerns. In addition, the long neglected interlinkages between water, energy, and food are becoming visible: Water insecurity, for instance, can become a security issue for the food or energy sector – and the other way around. Due to lacking crosssectoral cooperation and approaches that operate in silos, the search for new ways of addressing these interlinkages has begun. The idea of sectoral coordination and cooperation is, however, not a new one – Integrated Water Resources Management has been promoted in the water sector for decades, though with limited success. A new attempt to draw attention to systemic, integrated resource governance has now been made by means of the concept of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus (Hoff, 2011). The concept of the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus puts at the centre of political interest and action the need for a systematic and simultaneous dovetailing of governance approaches, along with technological integration of infrastructures and a pooling and decarbonisation across all sectors. In order to capture the initial idea of the WEF-Nexus it is important to note that it was the German government1 who took the lead in promoting the concept of the WEF-Nexus in policy circles in the run-up to the Rio + 20 sustainability summit. The concept was promoted as part of a major conference on “The Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus: Solutions for the Green Economy” in Bonn in 2011. Since then, the WEF-Nexus concept has gained attention both in policy and in
academia. The whole framing of this Nexus was clearly environmental and developmental, but from the beginning it had a tendency to promote green growth ideas. Although the WEF-Nexus is clearly neither a scientific concept nor analytical framework but rather a political idea, the concept found its way into academia and finally travelled through different scholarly communities. Scholars from Resource Management and Environmental Science have been among the first to engage with the concept, while social and political scientists have contributed to the debate relatively late and to a lesser extent until now. During the 2011 conference it was highlighted that the complex resource governance challenges arising from the linkage between water, energy, and food cannot be dealt with by sectoral policies in isolation. Therefore, many scholars argue, improved coordination across the nexus is needed. Moreover, since the whole Nexus debate was initiated in preparation for Rio + 20, it is no wonder that a strong link to Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) exists: adopting a nexus perspective will be essential for an effective implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (Pahl-Wostl, 2017; Le Blanc, 2015). Some scholars argue that the nexus approach touches the issue of power imbalances between the three sectors and that integration cannot come from within one sector only – for example, the IWRM approach clearly stems from a water management perspective – but needs instead to come from a supra-sectoral process. Without a doubt, such a process will require not only some adjustment of prevailing
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Pahl-Wostl), a.bhaduri@griffith.edu.au (A. Bhaduri), [email protected] (A. Bruns). 1 The German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety took the lead in this initiative. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021 Received 29 June 2018; Accepted 30 June 2018 1462-9011/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article as: Pahl-Wostl, C., Environmental Science and Policy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021
Environmental Science and Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
C. Pahl-Wostl et al.
policy integration will make much progress. The next challenge arising relates to the level at which, and during which part of the policy cycle sectoral policy integration should take place. In an ideal world policy integration would take place at quite an early stage during policy development, by setting strategic goals derived from a WEF nexus perspective. Given the complexity of sectoral policies, the multitude of stakeholders involved and different sectoral governance styles (e.g. in EU policies, as revealed by Venghaus and Hake) doubts arise as to whether adhering to such an ideal is a realistic undertaking – at least in the short-term. Severe policy incoherence might at least be avoided. One such example is subsidies for renewable energy production, which provide strong incentives for increasing bioenergy production but with detrimental consequences for groundwater quality (Pahl-Wostl, 2017; Franz, 2017). Even when such obvious contradictions in policy objective are avoided, unexpected developments can take place at any time and require a more adaptive approach to policy implementation. Most modern policy frameworks abstain from a prescriptive command-and-control approach and try to provide some leeway for adjustments during policy implementation, to take into account local circumstances. Until now, such flexibility has not been employed for a more systematic approach to cross-sectoral policy implementation. An analysis of policies related to hydraulic fracturing supports the need for evidence-based, flexible decision-making that takes into account local environmental and institutional contexts to avoid trade-offs between energy and water security (Buono, 2017). The capacity, however, for governing nexus issues on local or even national scales might be limited by global interdependencies. In their analysis of global production networks, Franz (2017) highlight the importance of socio-environmental consequences of a global integration of regions. Global interdependencies and power constellations impinge on the decision making space of regional actors, and risks related to water, energy, and food security may, furthermore, be framed quite differently by different stakeholder groups as local, national, or even as global issues. A fair and equitable sharing of risks and benefits across sectors, across actor groups within a region and across regions globally is thus another major governance challenge. Different risks and threats to Water, Energy and Food access often converge and interact as a result of complex global change processes, such as urbanisation and climate change. Romero-Lankao et al. (2018) focus on the urban sphere to show how such interdependencies increase the risk of generalized disruptions. The paper illustrates that a nuanced understanding of such interdependencies is a key to avoiding cascade effects between Water, Energy and Food systems. The paper examines how interdependent WEF infrastructural systems mediate the risks that climate extremes pose to urban WEF security. Romero-Lankao et al. illustrate the functional performance and adaptability conditions of governance and infrastructural arrangements in four cities: Boulder, Colorado and New York City (USA), Accra (Ghana) and Mexico City (Mexico) shape WEF security under the different risk conditions of extreme events. The paper finds that the technological and governance failures can amplify the negative impacts from extremes, while supportive institutional actions and infrastructural can mitigate these impacts. The many contributions to the special issue stand for the various possibilities for framing, defining and approaching the interlinkages between achieving water, energy, and food security. A common interest evolves around governance aspects that are considered key in the negotiation of pathways towards more Water, Energy and Food security. Case studies presented in this special issue provided evidence, in different scalar configurations, of the WEF Nexus: National policies, provincial policies and management approaches, urban Nexus configurations in light of climate change have all been addressed. In conclusion, and again related to the challenge posed by the SDGs, it shows that achieving SDGs in one location should not put at risk the achievement of SDGs elsewhere (spatial dimension), which is, for instance, observable in different security risk patterns within a city or
governance settings but also major transformations of the whole governance system. In addition to horizontal (cross-sectoral) integration, tackling complex resource governance challenges also requires vertical coordination (across administrative levels). Yet, there is no agreement as to what the Nexus is really about: while some scholars approach the nexus from a rather managerial perspective, where solutions to security concerns emerge from an integration exercise as if by magic, others state that the Nexus is yet another mask obscuring how inequality and vulnerability to water, energy, or food insecurity are produced (see Allouche et al., 2015). The diversity in understanding is the starting point for our research interest, stemming as it does from a governance perspective and focussing on how diagnosis of the Nexus is changing discourses and practices around governance. The contributions of this special issue highlight different facets of governance around the Nexus. While some papers attempt to conceptualize the Nexus-Governance further, others clearly have an empirical focus. Pahl-Wostl (2017) argues that a nexus paradigm could support transformative change by guiding processes of purposeful design and self-organization of nexus governance systems. Such a paradigm could be anchored in addressing water, energy, and food security from a nexus perspective. A security perspective gives the nexus approach a stronger orientation towards a goal and thus makes it more amenable in principle to operationalisation in policy and resource management practice. The analyses of Pahl-Wostl (Pahl-Wostl, 2017) also show that considerable challenges arise from the different logics and the diverse interpretations of the concepts of water, energy, and food security. This constitutes both an opportunity and also a threat that an overarching nexus perspective may overcome sectoral fragmentation. Nevertheless, the paper concludes with the optimistic expectation that the WEF nexus perspective may provide a narrative to build a global community supporting transformative change towards more sustainable and integrated resource governance settings which address systemic governance and management objectives. The analyses of Lebel (2017) cast some doubt on overly optimistic expectations that the concept of WEF-Nexus can support building a transformative agenda. In a case-study on the Mekong region, different and partially contradictory nexus narratives were identified. One narrative was built around more technical or managerial solutions. In a different narrative the political dimension of the nexus was addressed clearly and mentioned justice and human security concerns. Such findings suggest that the nexus is framed by different groups according to their own logic and prevailing perspective. The authors thus conclude that developing a shared nexus narrative will clearly require additional efforts. The importance of embeddedness and of adopting a relational approach is also highlighted by Stein (2018) in their analyses of the WEF nexus in the Upper Blue Nile in Ethiopia. The results show that more cross-sectoral relations exist than one might have thought. Nevertheless, nexus governance is weak. The challenges of cross-sectoral collaboration require a more nuanced comprehension of the complex web of interdependences that influence the effectiveness of such links in order to support nexus governance. One can conclude that the presence of relations between sectors and the adoption of a nexus narrative by different actor groups are not sufficient to develop an integrated WEF nexus perspective or an effective nexus governance. More research is needed to identify relational practices that promote a reframing and the processes of negotiation towards a shared WEF nexus paradigm. Integrated modelling efforts and the development of decision support tools that ignore such challenges will fail. Will policy integration pave the way or follow on from the development of such a shared WEF nexus paradigm? In their analysis of EU policies, Venghaus (2018) shows that sectoral policies prevail in formal regulation and policy development. We argue that, without a shared paradigm and coalitions promoting such a paradigm, it is unlikely that 2
Environmental Science and Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
C. Pahl-Wostl et al.
indeed between different countries, and achieving SDGs in the present should not put at risk the achievement of SDGs for future generations (temporal dimension). The contributions to this special issue make use of and further develop a range of different conceptual and methodological approaches and provide a powerful toolbox for comprehensive analyses of WEF-Nexus governance challenges.
Buono, R., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.006. Franz, M., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.004. Hoff, H., 2011. Understanding the Nexus: Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference. Le Blanc, D., 2015. Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets. DESA Working Paper, vol. 141 United Nationa, Department of Economic & Social Affairs, New York. Lebel, L., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.015. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.017. Romero Lankao, P., et al., 2018. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2018.01.004. Stein, C., 2018. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.018. Venghaus, S., 2018. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.014.
References Allouche, J., Middleton, C., Gyawali, D., 2015. Technical veil, hidden politics: interrogating the power linkages behind the nexus. Water Altern. 8 (1).
3
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
Editorial special issue: The Nexus of water, energy and food – An environmental governance perspective ⁎
Claudia Pahl-Wostla, , Anik Bhadurib, Antje Brunsc a
Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Barbarastr. 12, 49069 Osnabrück, Germany Sustainable Water Future Programme, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia c Governance & Sustainability Lab, Fachbereich VI Raum- und Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Trier, Campus II – Behringstraße 21, 54296 Trier, Germany b
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Water-Energy-Food Nexus Multi-level governance Transformative change
With the notion of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus long neglected interlinkages between water, energy, and food are becoming visible. Yet, the diversity in understandings of the Nexus (as an analytical tool and political agenda) is the starting point for our research interest, stemming as it does from a governance perspective. The contributions of this special issue highlight different facets of governance around the Nexus. While some papers attempt to conceptualize the Nexus-Governance further, others clearly have an empirical focus. Thereby this special issue provides a rich body of work for further WEF-Nexus studies and integrative policies, such as the SDGs.
Water, energy, and food are key features of human well-being and are as such becoming security concerns. In addition, the long neglected interlinkages between water, energy, and food are becoming visible: Water insecurity, for instance, can become a security issue for the food or energy sector – and the other way around. Due to lacking crosssectoral cooperation and approaches that operate in silos, the search for new ways of addressing these interlinkages has begun. The idea of sectoral coordination and cooperation is, however, not a new one – Integrated Water Resources Management has been promoted in the water sector for decades, though with limited success. A new attempt to draw attention to systemic, integrated resource governance has now been made by means of the concept of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus (Hoff, 2011). The concept of the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus puts at the centre of political interest and action the need for a systematic and simultaneous dovetailing of governance approaches, along with technological integration of infrastructures and a pooling and decarbonisation across all sectors. In order to capture the initial idea of the WEF-Nexus it is important to note that it was the German government1 who took the lead in promoting the concept of the WEF-Nexus in policy circles in the run-up to the Rio + 20 sustainability summit. The concept was promoted as part of a major conference on “The Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus: Solutions for the Green Economy” in Bonn in 2011. Since then, the WEF-Nexus concept has gained attention both in policy and in
academia. The whole framing of this Nexus was clearly environmental and developmental, but from the beginning it had a tendency to promote green growth ideas. Although the WEF-Nexus is clearly neither a scientific concept nor analytical framework but rather a political idea, the concept found its way into academia and finally travelled through different scholarly communities. Scholars from Resource Management and Environmental Science have been among the first to engage with the concept, while social and political scientists have contributed to the debate relatively late and to a lesser extent until now. During the 2011 conference it was highlighted that the complex resource governance challenges arising from the linkage between water, energy, and food cannot be dealt with by sectoral policies in isolation. Therefore, many scholars argue, improved coordination across the nexus is needed. Moreover, since the whole Nexus debate was initiated in preparation for Rio + 20, it is no wonder that a strong link to Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) exists: adopting a nexus perspective will be essential for an effective implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (Pahl-Wostl, 2017; Le Blanc, 2015). Some scholars argue that the nexus approach touches the issue of power imbalances between the three sectors and that integration cannot come from within one sector only – for example, the IWRM approach clearly stems from a water management perspective – but needs instead to come from a supra-sectoral process. Without a doubt, such a process will require not only some adjustment of prevailing
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Pahl-Wostl), a.bhaduri@griffith.edu.au (A. Bhaduri), [email protected] (A. Bruns). 1 The German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety took the lead in this initiative. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021 Received 29 June 2018; Accepted 30 June 2018 1462-9011/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article as: Pahl-Wostl, C., Environmental Science and Policy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021
Environmental Science and Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
C. Pahl-Wostl et al.
policy integration will make much progress. The next challenge arising relates to the level at which, and during which part of the policy cycle sectoral policy integration should take place. In an ideal world policy integration would take place at quite an early stage during policy development, by setting strategic goals derived from a WEF nexus perspective. Given the complexity of sectoral policies, the multitude of stakeholders involved and different sectoral governance styles (e.g. in EU policies, as revealed by Venghaus and Hake) doubts arise as to whether adhering to such an ideal is a realistic undertaking – at least in the short-term. Severe policy incoherence might at least be avoided. One such example is subsidies for renewable energy production, which provide strong incentives for increasing bioenergy production but with detrimental consequences for groundwater quality (Pahl-Wostl, 2017; Franz, 2017). Even when such obvious contradictions in policy objective are avoided, unexpected developments can take place at any time and require a more adaptive approach to policy implementation. Most modern policy frameworks abstain from a prescriptive command-and-control approach and try to provide some leeway for adjustments during policy implementation, to take into account local circumstances. Until now, such flexibility has not been employed for a more systematic approach to cross-sectoral policy implementation. An analysis of policies related to hydraulic fracturing supports the need for evidence-based, flexible decision-making that takes into account local environmental and institutional contexts to avoid trade-offs between energy and water security (Buono, 2017). The capacity, however, for governing nexus issues on local or even national scales might be limited by global interdependencies. In their analysis of global production networks, Franz (2017) highlight the importance of socio-environmental consequences of a global integration of regions. Global interdependencies and power constellations impinge on the decision making space of regional actors, and risks related to water, energy, and food security may, furthermore, be framed quite differently by different stakeholder groups as local, national, or even as global issues. A fair and equitable sharing of risks and benefits across sectors, across actor groups within a region and across regions globally is thus another major governance challenge. Different risks and threats to Water, Energy and Food access often converge and interact as a result of complex global change processes, such as urbanisation and climate change. Romero-Lankao et al. (2018) focus on the urban sphere to show how such interdependencies increase the risk of generalized disruptions. The paper illustrates that a nuanced understanding of such interdependencies is a key to avoiding cascade effects between Water, Energy and Food systems. The paper examines how interdependent WEF infrastructural systems mediate the risks that climate extremes pose to urban WEF security. Romero-Lankao et al. illustrate the functional performance and adaptability conditions of governance and infrastructural arrangements in four cities: Boulder, Colorado and New York City (USA), Accra (Ghana) and Mexico City (Mexico) shape WEF security under the different risk conditions of extreme events. The paper finds that the technological and governance failures can amplify the negative impacts from extremes, while supportive institutional actions and infrastructural can mitigate these impacts. The many contributions to the special issue stand for the various possibilities for framing, defining and approaching the interlinkages between achieving water, energy, and food security. A common interest evolves around governance aspects that are considered key in the negotiation of pathways towards more Water, Energy and Food security. Case studies presented in this special issue provided evidence, in different scalar configurations, of the WEF Nexus: National policies, provincial policies and management approaches, urban Nexus configurations in light of climate change have all been addressed. In conclusion, and again related to the challenge posed by the SDGs, it shows that achieving SDGs in one location should not put at risk the achievement of SDGs elsewhere (spatial dimension), which is, for instance, observable in different security risk patterns within a city or
governance settings but also major transformations of the whole governance system. In addition to horizontal (cross-sectoral) integration, tackling complex resource governance challenges also requires vertical coordination (across administrative levels). Yet, there is no agreement as to what the Nexus is really about: while some scholars approach the nexus from a rather managerial perspective, where solutions to security concerns emerge from an integration exercise as if by magic, others state that the Nexus is yet another mask obscuring how inequality and vulnerability to water, energy, or food insecurity are produced (see Allouche et al., 2015). The diversity in understanding is the starting point for our research interest, stemming as it does from a governance perspective and focussing on how diagnosis of the Nexus is changing discourses and practices around governance. The contributions of this special issue highlight different facets of governance around the Nexus. While some papers attempt to conceptualize the Nexus-Governance further, others clearly have an empirical focus. Pahl-Wostl (2017) argues that a nexus paradigm could support transformative change by guiding processes of purposeful design and self-organization of nexus governance systems. Such a paradigm could be anchored in addressing water, energy, and food security from a nexus perspective. A security perspective gives the nexus approach a stronger orientation towards a goal and thus makes it more amenable in principle to operationalisation in policy and resource management practice. The analyses of Pahl-Wostl (Pahl-Wostl, 2017) also show that considerable challenges arise from the different logics and the diverse interpretations of the concepts of water, energy, and food security. This constitutes both an opportunity and also a threat that an overarching nexus perspective may overcome sectoral fragmentation. Nevertheless, the paper concludes with the optimistic expectation that the WEF nexus perspective may provide a narrative to build a global community supporting transformative change towards more sustainable and integrated resource governance settings which address systemic governance and management objectives. The analyses of Lebel (2017) cast some doubt on overly optimistic expectations that the concept of WEF-Nexus can support building a transformative agenda. In a case-study on the Mekong region, different and partially contradictory nexus narratives were identified. One narrative was built around more technical or managerial solutions. In a different narrative the political dimension of the nexus was addressed clearly and mentioned justice and human security concerns. Such findings suggest that the nexus is framed by different groups according to their own logic and prevailing perspective. The authors thus conclude that developing a shared nexus narrative will clearly require additional efforts. The importance of embeddedness and of adopting a relational approach is also highlighted by Stein (2018) in their analyses of the WEF nexus in the Upper Blue Nile in Ethiopia. The results show that more cross-sectoral relations exist than one might have thought. Nevertheless, nexus governance is weak. The challenges of cross-sectoral collaboration require a more nuanced comprehension of the complex web of interdependences that influence the effectiveness of such links in order to support nexus governance. One can conclude that the presence of relations between sectors and the adoption of a nexus narrative by different actor groups are not sufficient to develop an integrated WEF nexus perspective or an effective nexus governance. More research is needed to identify relational practices that promote a reframing and the processes of negotiation towards a shared WEF nexus paradigm. Integrated modelling efforts and the development of decision support tools that ignore such challenges will fail. Will policy integration pave the way or follow on from the development of such a shared WEF nexus paradigm? In their analysis of EU policies, Venghaus (2018) shows that sectoral policies prevail in formal regulation and policy development. We argue that, without a shared paradigm and coalitions promoting such a paradigm, it is unlikely that 2
Environmental Science and Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
C. Pahl-Wostl et al.
indeed between different countries, and achieving SDGs in the present should not put at risk the achievement of SDGs for future generations (temporal dimension). The contributions to this special issue make use of and further develop a range of different conceptual and methodological approaches and provide a powerful toolbox for comprehensive analyses of WEF-Nexus governance challenges.
Buono, R., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.006. Franz, M., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.004. Hoff, H., 2011. Understanding the Nexus: Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference. Le Blanc, D., 2015. Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets. DESA Working Paper, vol. 141 United Nationa, Department of Economic & Social Affairs, New York. Lebel, L., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.015. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2017. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.017. Romero Lankao, P., et al., 2018. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2018.01.004. Stein, C., 2018. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.018. Venghaus, S., 2018. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.014.
References Allouche, J., Middleton, C., Gyawali, D., 2015. Technical veil, hidden politics: interrogating the power linkages behind the nexus. Water Altern. 8 (1).
3