Many have flagged that the “nexus” has become a buzzword, and I have found myself working in two different projects that use the word “nexus”, but have quite different focuses, aims and scopes. The first project is a European project funded by the European Commission’s Horizon2020 programme, and is entitled “Moving towards Adaptive Governance in Complexity: Informing Nexus Security” (MAGIC). MAGIC refers to the nexus between water, energy and food and aims at informing European policy. The second project is a collaborative project between three African universities funded by the LIRA programme, and is entitled “Co-designing energy communities with energy poor women in urban areas: case studies in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa” (Co-Dec). Co-Dec speaks of the nexus between energy, health and gender, and aims at providing a better understanding of slums in Africa.
Not only the elements that compose the “nexus” are different in the two projects, but also the disciplinary background is varied. MAGIC studies the water-energy-food nexus based on the understanding of societies as metabolic systems, that need water, energy and food, among other resources, to reproduce themselves. The study of the nexus is thus the study of how “socio-economic systems” work in biophysical terms. Co-Dec refers to the nexus to flag the interdependence of development challenges in urban slums. Based on the observation that the use of energy sources such as paraffin and charcoal is closely linked to respiratory diseases, the nexus is used to create awareness of the need to conduct interdisciplinary research to understand slums.
Both projects aim at being policy relevant, and engage with policy makers such as: policy officers in the European Commission, European Parliament, and the European Environmental Agency in MAGIC, and representatives from national ministries of energy, municipalities and local governments in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa for Co-Dec. Interestingly, similar experiences and challenges are emerging with regard to the governance of the nexus – whatever the nexus might be.
- The “nexus” is a popular term because it opens the possibility to form policy alliances. Speaking of the nexus makes it possible to change the language from the discussion of “trade-offs” and “limits” to the creation of “synergies”, “opportunities” and “win-win” solutions. In the European context, this means that environmental concerns about the sustainable use of natural resources such as land, water and renewable energies, is not cast in opposition to economic goals but rather as a means to meet those goals. The need for policy and regulatory proposals to be cast in positive terms stems in part from the need to recover from the financial crisis of 2009. Tellingly, the “nexus” makes its appearance in European policy in 2011, directly after the crisis. In the African context, the possibility of establishing synergies is interesting in a context where resources are limited and demands are pressing, for example with regard to reporting on progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.
As many have argued, attention should be paid to the instrumental use of the nexus to promote technical solutions. Stirling argues that “Ideas that there exist single technological ‘solutions’ to such massive, complex, pervasive and intensely interlinked societal challenges, are highly instrumental simplifications” (2015). Leese and Meisch argue “that the nexus is in fact conceived of as something that is very much manageable, even if planetary boundaries have already been crossed” and that knowledge about the nexus can be put to fruition to support economic growth and neoliberal market policies (2015).
- Governing the nexus means challenging mandates. There are institutional hurdles to collaboration between governmental bodies. “Nexus issues” are issues that cut across the domain of multiple institutions: for instance, biofuels may be pursued as an energy policy but may also need to be governed by agriculture policy. As a result, nexus issues may lead either (a) to work being repeated because different governmental bodies tackle the issue at the same time, sometimes generating conflicts over diverging approaches, or (b) to a policy void because different governmental bodies lack the mandate to act or assume that someone else will deal with the issue. Governing the nexus thus challenges traditional institutional arrangements and divisions of competences.
Slums are an example of both issues. Slums raise “nexus” problems because they emerge as a result of a complex range of factors, which cannot be attributed solely to one policy domain, such as housing. Different governmental bodies produce different legislations with regard to slums, resulting in contradictory, and sometimes conflicting, governance practices. While at the national level, policies are directed at the universal supply of services such as access to water and electricity with the aim of including slums, at the municipal level servicing slums is perceived as increasing the risk of proliferation of slums. Hence, contradictory regulations are passed at both levels, with little dialogue between governing bodies. Slums also face a policy void in many ways. There are no specific policies directed at slums: universal electrification policies are supposed to benefit slums, but are not designed for slums and may thus be ineffective. Connection to the electric grid generally requires monthly payments, which slum dwellers that depend on casual jobs may not be able to afford. Specific regulation is left to local governments, which do not have the mandate to produce regulation on electricity provision, thus leading to a policy void.
- Governing the nexus is a very similar challenge to interdisciplinary research. It is seen by many, if not all, as a good idea, but it is difficult to implement. The nexus uncovers the close link between institutional competences and ways of working. For example, in the European context, water governance is based on engineering approaches, on hydrology modelling and ecological concerns, whereas agricultural policy is closely aligned with the “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” agenda as it has control over a large part of the EU budget. As a result, different directorates of the European Commission talk different disciplinary languages, use different approaches and serve different publics and interests. It is not unusual for different governing units to be protective of their expertise and methods, thus adding to the challenge of talking across institutional “languages”, the challenge of creating the will to collaborate.
In large bureaucratic institutions such as the European Commission or the UN, the nexus may thus inadvertently lead to a deepening of technocratic governance, through which open conflicts are avoided but also the benefits of new insights that may arise from collaboration efforts are not enjoyed. The nexus may thus become a box ticking exercise, not because of lack of good will on the part of individuals working in the institutions involved, but because of the large time requirements, the difficulty of changing working culture in a daily reality of endless meetings and information overflow, and the difficulties in establishing dialogue across different institutional languages.
References
Stirling, A. (2015). Developing ‘Nexus Capabilities’: towards transdisciplinary methodologies. University of Sussex
Leese, M., & Meisch, S. (2015). Securitising sustainability? Questioning the ‘water, energy and food-security nexus’. Water Alternatives, 8(1).
0 Comments