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

TLDR

The water‑energy‑food nexus is widely promoted as a means to achieve policy coherence, yet current literature does not explain why barriers arise, what drives them, or how to address them, creating a gap between theory and governance practice. This study investigates how insights from integrative environmental governance can close those explanatory gaps in nexus research. The authors synthesize findings from seven streams of environmental governance literature to inform and refine nexus analysis. They argue that linking the nexus to decision‑making requires redefining its boundaries, articulating shared guiding principles, and treating policy coherence as an evolving process of shifting values and perceptions.

Abstract

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.