Applying the participatory approach to assess the Water-Energy-Climate Change nexus in South Africa

ABSTRACT

This paper uses a participatory approach to assess the level of understanding of the Water-Energy-Climate Change (WECC) nexus in South Africa. The aim is to initiate the development of well-coordinated, systematic, and holistic strategies to promote efficient management of the WECC and its implications in the country. The assessment follows the learnings from the Integrated Water Resource Management framework, which promotes a participatory approach in the administration of water resources. The paper reveals that, despite the reasonable level of understanding of WECC, it is still insufficient to promote an integrated approach mainly in policy development and planning for water and energy resources while averting climate impacts. This is exacerbated by limited coordination and consultation among various stakeholders. However, minimal efforts to promote an integrated approach in the management of the WECC sectors is observed. Despite these developments, the paper proposes that the participatory approach is feasible to promote holistic strategies and collaboration among stakeholders mandated to manage WECC sectors. Until approaches such as this are adopted within the institutional framework, this nexus will continue to impede the country's sustainable development endeavours.

KEYWORDS:

• Participatory approach
• WECC nexus
• South Africa
• climate change
• energy

1. Introduction

The acceleration of climate change and its impact on water and energy resources has heightened calls for a better understanding of the Water-Energy-Climate Change (WECC) nexus (Cammerman, 2009; Head & Cammerman, 2010; Mathetsa et al., 2019). These calls are prompted mainly by the negative implications of the WECC nexus on attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is argued that the complex interplay between these three components necessitates a holistic and integrated management of the WECC (Mukheibir, 2008; Cullis et al., 2018; Mathetsa et al., 2019). Evidence, however, indicates that the risks associated with this nexus have not been fully understood globally. A case in point is the current sectoral decision-making landscape, which signals limited understanding and acknowledgement of this nexus and its implications (Hussey & Pittock, 2012; Liu et al., 2017; Aboelgna et al., 2018). This continued fragmentation reveals a lack of urgency in migrating to integrated management of the nexus, particularly in poor and middle income countries. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the risks associated with WECC are estimated to be at an all-time high as the region faces the need to address the existing challenges of water scarcity, growing energy demand and lack of effective systems to deal with climate change impacts (Cullis et al., 2018; Mathetsa et al., 2019). The nexus has implications on the welfare of the SSA communities which comprise predominantly poor and middle-class households. As such, it is imperative that the region fully embraces the ‘nexus thinking’ approach if it is to promote the effective management of WECC. Adopting a ‘nexus thinking’ means equally managing the said resources within the context of achieving sustainable resource management.

As is the case globally, South Africa lacks integrated approaches to manage different nexus configurations such as WECC (Prasad et al., 2012; Mabhaudh et al., 2016; Nhamo et al., 2018). This is as demonstrated by the preponderance of fragmented approaches in the planning and development of policies and strategies for addressing growing water, energy, and climate change challenges in the country (Gobin et al., 2019; Mathetsa et al., 2019). This observation, coupled with a lack of urgency to implement mitigation measures as proposed by different scientists in the country, suggests that there is limited coordination and collaboration among key stakeholders such as researchers, policymakers and communities. Such challenge could be due to lack of understanding and acknowledgement of the risks associated with the nexus. This raises an urgent need for the country to adopt contemporary approaches for analysing the WECC nexus and for the promotion of ‘nexus thinking’ in South Africa's policy development and planning landscape.

Cammerman (2009) suggests that managing the complex nexus configurations such as WECC from a water-centric perspective could enhance promotion of a ‘nexus thinking’ approach. This approach is pertinent for countries such as South Africa, which face dire water status. Furthermore, Cammerman (2009) and Head & Cammerman (2010) are of the view that approaches similar to those of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) framework, a useful tool in facilitating sustainable water management, are effective for managing complex systems such as this nexus. Effective implementation of IWRM is dependent on four principles, one of which – a Participatory Approach (PA) – requires broad engagement of stakeholders, collaboration and informed decision-making within water resource management systems and related activities such as land use (Global Water Partnership [GWP], 2000; Flammini et al., 2014; Aboelgna et al., 2018). Drawing parallels between ‘nexus thinking’ and IWRM framework, Hoolohan et al. (2018) argued that engagement of multiple stakeholders is pivotal for bringing together actors from different spectra to promote holistic management of different nexus configurations such as WECC. Engaging key stakeholders has the potential to promote effective decision-making processes based on a common understanding of the complexity and challenges brought about by the nexus.

Given the implications of the WECC nexus on the achievement of South Africa's national developmental endeavours, it is reasonable to suggest that comprehensive approaches such as stakeholder engagement be applied in assessing the understanding of the nexus, informing decision-making processes and for promoting collaborative efforts to manage this nexus. This paper, therefore, explores the extent to which the PA can be used as an analytical framework to assess understanding of WECC and improve the management of this nexus in South Africa. Different techniques are used to examine the stakeholders’ perceptions of this nexus and gather suggestions on the development of resilient systems to manage the WECC. The paper provides a brief appraisal of developments relating to the PA as a vital tool in the management of complex systems such as water resources and nexus configurations. Of particular importance, the paper examines the importance of the PA in assessing and broadening the understanding of the WECC and proposals for the mitigation of the impacts of this nexus on all subsectors of the economy in South Africa.

2. An appraisal of the emergence of the participatory approach as a decision-making tool

The PA, which is also referred to as ‘stakeholder engagement’ or ‘public participation’ is not a new method in research or policy discussions. Studies focusing on the PA as a method for addressing complex societal development issues have, over the years, emphasised its importance as a tool for critical decision-making processes. Chambers (1994), Babooa (2008), Nyati (2008), and Legislative Sector Support [LLS] (2013), for example, view PA as an effective tool for ensuring the participation of various stakeholders in decision-making on issues concerning their welfare. The emphasis on this approach, particularly in democratic societies, is aimed at involving more local people in policy planning and implementation. Proponents argue that involvement of local stakeholders ensures greater utilisation of indigenous knowledge in the development of tools for managing emerging societal needs (Dungumaro & Madulu, 2003; Alam & Ihsan, 2012). The strength of this approach lies in its potential for enabling communication and inclusive decision-making processes which consider the views of all affected stakeholders. Barreteau et al. (2010) commend the PA for its capacity to stimulate social cohesion and enable decisions that are based on the realities of affected communities. In addition to promoting inclusive decision-making processes, Barbosa et al. (2017) argue that the PA is a critical tool for ensuring strong and acceptable outcomes for adopted decisions.

Despite global agreement on the value of stakeholder engagement in facilitating socio-economic transformation and improved environmental well-being, top-down decision-making remains dominant in many societies, particularly in SSA (Kubanza & Simatele, 2019). In most cases, decisions are made by powerful and influential players prior to any consultation process or without meaningful consideration of the views of the people at the grassroots (Chambers, 1994; GWP, 2000). The partial or lack of comprehensive engagement with wider stakeholders often results in conflict or contradictions, particularly at the implementation stage of the decisions made. For instance, several local level decisions such as municipal demarcations often lead to conflicts in many regions. Nyati (2008) pointed out that, in South Africa, local communities believe the authorities do not carry out fully consultative and inclusive decision-making processes to ensure that community perspectives are considered. This highlights the importance of PA in decision-making processes associated with communities.

Denby et al. (2016) argued that the development of resource-related projects or policies is often marked by a lack of comprehensive participation across SSA. This corroborates the views of Mathekga & Buccus (2006), Prinsloo (2008), and Fatch (2009) who have attributed this ineffective application of the PA to factors such as limited understanding of project contextualisation and financial resource constraints within local and marginalised communities. These limitations have, however, not prevented countries such as South Africa from pursuing broad stakeholder participation within its critical systems such as policy development. An example of the endorsement of this approach is Section 195(1) (e) in the country's Constitution, which mandates public comment within the process of policy and strategy development (The Constitution, 1995; Nyati, 2008). This encourages the involvement of key stakeholders – including marginalised communities – in policymaking and implementation processes. Participations such as these allow communities to share their knowledge and experiences, and broadens perspectives of key issues among policymakers. As a result, several resource management policies, such as the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998), have adopted stakeholder consultation as part of their decision-making process prior to issuance of permits (Department of Environmental Affairs, 1998; Department of Water and Sanitation, 1998). From a legislative and policy development perspective, South Africa has made tremendous progress in the adoption of public participation as a way to promote integrated approaches for the management of sectoral challenges, especially in the environmental sector. This is despite concerns that policy and strategy implementation remain untested. The foregoing highlights the importance given to the PA in addressing complex systems within developing communities such as South Africa.

The rapid emergence of new and complex challenges necessitates the use of contemporary approaches such as PA to avert segmented or sectoral perspectives within a sustainable development framework. For instance, application of the PA in the water sector represents one of the successes of sustainable management of this resource (GWP, 2000; Suhardiman et al., 2015). The development and implementation of inclusive strategies and institutional frameworks such as Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs’) are mainly based on the application of PA (Rahaman et al, 2004; Burt et al., 2005; Pollard & Du Toit, 2008; Jingling et al., 2010; DWS, 2013). Despite the notable barriers such as lack of political will and limited knowledge from maginalised communities (Cheru, 2002; Biswas, 2008, Suhardiman et al., 2015), some of the countries in the SSA regions have used this PA to facilitate collaborations and coordinated development of solutions to water resource challenges with specification to river basins (Madzungu, 2004).

In South Africa, however, PA-aligned strategies have been emphasised to encourage the involvement of all key actors, particularly the marginalised, in the governance of natural resources such as water (Nyati, 2008; LLS, 2013). These emphases are observed through successful establishment of institutional frameworks and policies such as the Water Resource Management Strategies by aligning their development to the needs of local communities. The successes of PA within water resource management suggests that it could also be beneficial to related complex and interlinked systems such as nexus. The view is corroborated by Aboelgna et al. (2018) and Hoolohan et al. (2018) who suggested that promotion of ‘nexus thinking’ understanding can be fast-tracked through wider stakeholder involvement. Furthermore, PA has proven to be effective in eliciting understanding of key aspects within the three-legged Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus by enabling assessment of key sectors from the perspectives of natural science, social science, and the humanities (Endo et al., 2015; Wicaksono et al., 2017). The application of the PA in the WECC nexus configuration is further necessitated by the need to bridge the knowledge gap between stakeholders to effectively address socio-economic and environmental challenges arising within different communities.

While the PA seeks to strengthen awareness, broaden understanding, and promote integrated and holistic management of nexus configurations; empirical evidence shows that there are still exclusions and ineffective consultation in its use. These shortcomings are predominantly shown by a lack of policy alignment and the prevailing water, energy, food and climate change sectoral mandates (United States Department of Energy [US DoE], 2014; Wicaksono et al., 2017; Hoolohan et al., 2018). In some countries such as Argentina and Kenya, for example, lack of emphasis on PA has resulted in failure to consider alternative geographical locations, community preferences and the exclusion of marginalised societies in the implementation of WECC-efficient projects such as renewable energy water pumping systems (Platonova & Leone, 2012). In this instance, critical decisions are likely to be made without full knowledge and understanding of local characteristics or proper stakeholder involvement.

South Africa, which is a climate change hotspot (Nkhonjera, 2017), faces rising demand for water and energy resources. However, one of the critical challenges within these sectors is the dominance of top-down decision-making processes aggravated by the political and socio-economic pressure to address water, energy and climate constraints (Wicaksono et al., 2017). Despite the constitutional mandate requiring that key actors such as government departments, local communities, industry, experts and researchers, are consulted to ensure meaningful, well-informed and effective policy instruments within the water, energy and climate change sectors, application of the PA appears to be lacking. The prevailing lack of coordinated and integrated approaches in the widely touted sectoral policies demonstrates limited application of the PA in planning and implementation processes (Mabhaudh et al., 2016; Nhamo et al., 2018; Gobin et al., 2019; Mathetsa et al., 2019). These shortcomings suggest a lack of understanding of the interlinkages between the key socio-economic and environmental processes in the WECC nexus. Thus, effective management of WECC and the promotion of awareness, knowledge-sharing and informed policy development in South Africa requires assessment of the nexus through appropriate stakeholder engagement and comprehensive application of the PA.

3. Methodology

The study reported in the paper is based on a qualitative approach whereby in-depth interviews and discussions were conducted with various stakeholders to assess their perceptions of the developments associated with the WECC interaction. The study aimed at understanding the challenges and opportunities emanating from the interdependency between the sectors of water, energy and climate change. A non-probable sampling approach was used to select the research participants. Both the purposive and snowball sampling techniques were, therefore, critical in the selection of the participants. These two sampling techniques were effective in enabling identification and selection of individuals, groups or organisations that have the knowledge and competencies required to engage in the WECC nexus, thus providing information or data necessary to meet the objectives of the study (Tongco, 2007; Kirchherr & Charles, 2018). As illustrated in Table 1, government departments (i.e. national, provincial and local), the energy and water utilities/agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and academic and research experts were approached and participated in the study. These engagements were corroborated by telephonic discussions held with a SSA regional specialist on nexus configurations and sustainable development. Participation of these stakeholders is important as they all plays an important role in the management of the WECC nexus.

Table 1. Profile of the research participants.

Pseudonym	Department/Sector	Expertise	Number of participants	Combined years of experience
WECC-A	Government	Climate Change	3	41
WECC-B1	Government	Water	4	64
WECC-B2	Government	Water and Climate Change	2	47
WECC-D1	Energy	Water	3	60
WECC-D2	Energy	Climate Change	2	28
WECC-D3	Energy	Environmental Management	3	80
WECC-E	Water	Water supply	2	22
WECC-F	Research & Development	Energy	1	32
WECC-G	Research & Academia	Water	1	45
WECC-H	Research & Consulting	Climate Change	1	10
WECC-I	Research & Academia	Climate Change	1	20
WECC-J	Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)	Environmental Management	2	39
WECC-K	Research Agency	Energy	2	24
WECC-M	Government	Local Government	1	24
WECC-L	Research & Academia	Sustainable development, Water, Energy, Food, Climate Change	1	20

A total of seven focus group discussions and eight one-on-one interviews were held between 30 August 2019 and 10 October 2019. The interviews/discussions were conducted using semi-structured questionnaires covering the following themes: demographic characteristics; assessment of the level of understanding of the WECC; determination of the stakeholder's perspectives on collaboration and coordination; and policy development processes. Each interview/discussion lasted for approximately two hours. The research participants were given pseudonyms to protect their identity. The responses of the participants were captured through an audio recorder and in writing. Field notes were transcribed verbatim and kept in their original form. Each transcript was given a code immediately after the interview to ensure clear identification.

In addition to the interviews, the participants’ observation approach was conducted to collect data during the discussions related to climate change resilience and mitigation (Dawson, 2002; Kawulich, 2005). This technique was applied at a workshop held on 7–8 October 2019. The workshop, which was arranged by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), discussed progress on energy efficiencies and renewable energy within government infrastructure in South Africa. Forty-five stakeholders, representing different government sectors and water, energy and climate change agencies, attended the workshop. A primary source of data from the workshop is mainly responses/discussions to fourteen presentations made by attendees. Relevant protocols such as permission to conduct this observation and informing the workshop attendees of this process were obtained prior to collecting the data. A code (WECC-C) is being used to present the views from the workshop.

Inductive approach to Grounded Theory was used to develop a theory from the collected data, thus allowing systematic analysis of responses from the research participants. The responses were grouped based on their significance to the themes. This approach enabled data condensation thus offering simplified, reliable and valid findings (Mills et al., 2006; Thomas, 2006, Charmaz, 2013). This allowed the development of cogent theory of the WECC nexus status in South Africa.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Profiling the research participants

Stakeholders involved in policy planning and development within the WECC sectors, their agencies, research and academia, as well as NGOs participated in the study. Validation of participants’ experience and knowledge was done by assessing their education and number of years in the field of study. As illustrated in Table 1, all the participants had a postgraduate qualification while the average experience per sector was above ten years. In addition, the seniority of their positions in their sectors suggests that the participants were knowledgeable and occupied important positions of authority in their organizations, thus allowing for well-informed perspectives.

4.2. Key stakeholders’ perceptions of the WECC nexus in South Africa

This sub-section presents the perceptions of the research participants in their understanding of the WECC nexus in South Africa. This addresses the views of Hoolohan et al. (2018) that understanding and effective management of the nexus configurations can be determined by assessing the perspectives of key stakeholders. The study, therefore, sought to obtain the diverse perceptions of the research participants. This was done in order to determine the extent to which the interlinkages and co-dependency between the nexus components are embraced by key sectors in the country. The assessment was conducted on responses from all research participants (See Table 1) and 14 participants from the workshop (WECC-C). The grouping and analysis of perspectives from these participants is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Perceptions of the research participants on WECC nexus in South Africa.

Coupled WECC interconnection	Number of responses	Percentage (%)
Water-energy-climate change	18	42
Water-energy	13	30
Water-climate change	9	21
Energy-climate change	3	7
Total number of engagements	43	100

The responses indicate that 42% of the research participants had sufficient knowledge of the WECC interconnections in their entirety. This means that these participants were able to acknowledge and demonstrate how the components of water, energy, and climate change are interlinked. For instance, respondent WECC-B₁ illustrated the entirety of the interactions in this nexus by stating that:

The country’s electricity generation system heavily relies on water supply, which its availability is negatively influenced by extreme climate conditions. On the other hand, these climate conditions are exacerbated by the dominant energy production technologies, particularly coal-combustion. In addition, the consequences of climate change also impact the country’s energy generation systems. (Personal Communication: Focus group discussion on the 19 September 2019)

Conversely, the majority (i.e. 53%) of the responses indicate that the perceptions or knowledge of the research participants on the WECC is mainly sector-based. For instance, 30% of the participants, who operate mainly within the water and energy sectors, rarely mentioned the linkage or implications of climate change on these resources. These views validate findings of Mabhaudh et al. (2016) and Mathetsa et al. (2019) that the understanding of the nexus in South Africa is dominated by sectoral boundaries. It is expected that the water and energy relationship would dominate the participants’ understanding. Muller (2015) is of the view that this interaction has been in existence for longer periods, particularly in South Africa where the energy sector is built on a water supply scheme. Participants’ responses reveal that this limited understanding is the fundamental cause behind the prevailing ‘silo’ approach such as policy planning and development within key departments mandated to manage the WECC nexus sectors. This silo approach is aggravated by developments around climate change which call for rapid mitigation and adaptation strategies to be developed and implemented. The silo approach is preferred despite suggestions that the water, energy and climate change sectors should be managed holistically (Mukheibir, 2008; Cullis et al., 2018). The responses further highlight lack of consensus on how WECC elements are interlinked in South Africa. These observations concur with Head & Cammerman (2010) and Liu et al. (2017) who argued that global communities face the challenge of inadequate mutual understanding of the WECC interactions, thus limiting their ability to comprehensively manage this nexus. Based on these observations, this study argues that the prevailing sector-based understanding results in inefficiencies and the failure to promote WECC ‘nexus thinking’ in South Africa.

Notwithstanding the lack of mutual understanding of the WECC interactions in South Africa, research participant WECC-L argued that, compared to other SSA countries, ‘South Africa has demonstrated significant progress in understanding and analysing the nexus that involves water, energy, food, and climate change’ (Personal Communication: a telephonic conversation with Yillia, P.T. on 8 October 2019).This view is corroborated by several initiatives, among them technological (i.e. dry-cooling energy technology, emission abatement, renewable energy, and carbon capture) and strategic (i.e. National Water Resource Strategy, National Climate Change Response Strategy, Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers) being developed and implemented in the country. Furthermore, WECC-D₁, WECC-D₂, WECC-D₃, and WECC-E mentioned these interventions as a way of demonstrating the attention that the WECC nexus is directly and indirectly receiving at both the operational and policy planning levels in the country. The discussion efforts such as the WECC-Cs’ workshop also indicate the intent to promote multi-stakeholder awareness and understanding of the interactions between these sectors. These developments are relevant in the current landscape as there is a need for the country to identify and develop potential ways to shape and promote an institutional framework for integrated management of resources.

Data gathered from the research participants demonstrates the capability of the PA to enable analysis of some of the country's prevailing WECC challenges such as limited understanding and fragmented decision-making within the nexus system. While it was assumed that, based on their experience and educational qualifications, the research participants would demonstrate clearly how WECC sectors were interlinked, their responses reflect the opposite. This was most evident in the way some of the core elements of the PA (i.e. knowledge-sharing and awareness), were presented and perceived among the research participants. There is therefore an opportunity to promote awareness and communication among key WECC sectors as a way to strengthen the understanding of this nexus configuration across society at large. This observation fortifies the argument for ‘nexus thinking’ in the development of mitigation measures and resilient systems to address WECC impacts (Gulati et al., 2013; Aboelgna et al., 2018).

4.3. Collaboration and coordination as a means to implement the WECC nexus in South Africa

One of the key elements defining this study’s outcomes is the assessment of the research participants’ views on the level of coordination and collaboration among various WECC stakeholders in the country. The discussions in this sub-section are informed by Bizikova et al. (2013) and Wicaksono et al. (2017) who concur that coordination and collaboration within WECC can be assessed and promoted through the engagement of stakeholders. Table 3 illustrates the views of different research participants on the effectiveness of current coordination and collaboration efforts in respect of the state of the WECC nexus in the country. The views are grouped by organisation/sectors’ responses.

Table 3. Participants’ perspectives on the coordination and collaboration of WECC sectors in South Africa.

Sector	Are the current coordination and collaboration efforts effective to address WECC challenges?	How can coordination and collaboration be improved?
Government	Partially. The departments occasionally liaises with different role players to develop policy and measures to address water challenges and their association with the energy and climate change sector.	The political will to implement recommendations from scientists. Implement institutional mechanisms similar to those in water resource management sector. E.g. CMAs’.
DMRE	No. WECC is dominated by institutional barriers that hinder collaboration.	Promote cross-sectoral partnerships. Enable centralised management systems such as data storage and policy planning.
Energy	No. Collaboration is hindered by sectorally approached planning and implementation. For example, coordination can exist from the supply perspective but ineffective in the implementation of strategies and policies to increase efficiency. The lack of translation of theory into practice creates barriers for coordination amongst stakeholders.	Cross-sectoral coordination, ministerial and bilateral agreements on water, energy and climate change.
Water	No. Key governmental stakeholders not coordinated in a manner that collectively addresses the WECC challenges.	Collaborate with water-users to promote awareness and water-saving initiatives, thus easing climate change threats on water supply.
Local government	No. local government not involved in addressing the WECC nexus at a national level.	Consider the localised dynamics such as water and energy requirements. Strengthen the local level interactions.
NGOs’	No. Communities entirely excluded from WECC related matters.	Enable community participation in critical decision-making processes. Consideration of community requirements. Establishment of government-industry-community committees that are independently managed.
Research & Academia	No. Sectoral approaches and preferences still dominate the WECC. Some departments are more coordinated than others.	Combined research activities within WECC to close the knowledge gap between local communities, industries, researchers and policymakers.

Within the water resource management sector, the intensified need for coordination and collaboration is driven by, among others, shared river basins and the dire water status of most international communities (GWP, 2000; Pollard & Du Toit, 2008; Barbosa et al., 2017). Similarly, Head & Cammerman (2010) and US DoE (2014) pointed out that coordination and collaboration across all the levels of WECC are important as they avail opportunities for effective resource management and allocation processes such as water transfer schemes, energy exports, and climate change accords. Within WECC, collaboration enables the sharing of resources, data, and information that is relevant for addressing the interdependency between water, energy and climate change. In the Southern African region, and South Africa in particular, substantial collaboration is required among water, energy, and climate change stakeholders to address the WECC challenges and opportunities. Table 3 illustrates the participants’ views on the levels of coordination and collaboration among key stakeholders.

The majority of the research participants were of the view that the coordination and collaboration efforts are insufficient to deal with the existing WECC interactions thus threatening the country's developmental endeavours. One significant example raised is the lack of collaboration and coordination between key governmental departments in the water, energy and climate change sectors, particularly in the planning and development of policy. For instance, when asked about collaboration among government stakeholders, WECC-A explicitly responded that:

There is a lack of collaboration among the policymakers and different stakeholders such as local communities particularly in the inclusion of emerging science such as climate change in the nexus. (Personal communication: focus group discussion on the 20 September 2019)

Given the consequences of ineffectively managed systems, responses such as the one given above highlight the importance of enforcing collaboration among key ministries of WECC sectors. In Kenya, for example, the lack of collaboration and cooperation among players at key institutions resulted in conflicting and duplicate policies in the country's water, energy, and food supply systems (Aboelgna et al., 2018). This corroborates the assertion by Mathetsa et al. (2019) that key sectors and organisations that fail to collaborate at both the operational and policy development levels aggravate sectoral-based mandates and inefficiencies in WECC management. Another key challenge raised by research participants is the lack of collaboration with other sectors, such as industries and communities, to address WECC nexus. This is despite the vital role communities play in providing necessary information to deal with WECC issues and that, being at the end of the food chain, they are significantly exposed to impacts of the nexus (US DoE, 2014; Aboelgna et al., 2018). In addition, respondents raised concern with the competition between institutions, which exacerbates the knowledge gap between researchers, government agencies and communities. This corroborate the view by Conway et al. (2015) that there is a knowledge gap between both researchers and non-researchers which results in exclusions during decision-making processes and hinders the identification and incorporation of all levels of society in the effective management of WECC.

These observations seem to suggest that both vertical (governmental) and horizontal (all sectors) coordination and collaboration have not been optimised in South Africa. This is worsened by institutional barriers within the WECC sectors perpetuated by the complex connection and competition between these three elements (Aboelgna et al., 2018). This differs with the developments in the water resources management sector wherein Karar (2008), Pollard & Du Toit (2008), and DWS (2013) concur that the establishment of institutional arrangements such as CMAs has enabled the promotion of collaboration and coordination. Aboelgna et al. (2018) is of the view that changes in institutional structures and the procedural and communication instruments are necessary for promoting coordination and collaboration. Participants suggest that implementation of platforms such as co-planning and policy development, inter-ministerial task teams, cross-sectoral coordination, bilateral agreements, joint committees across the technical, research and academia, ministerial and local levels, and the enablement of technological and financial structures where WECC components are lacking could be key in fostering collaboration. Taking this into consideration, implementation of coordinated and collaborative strategies has the potential to trigger effective WECC management, and that enabling tools such as funding, data, information, modelling, technology, policy analysis, and political is to be unveiled to mitigate the implications of the WECC on all sub-sectors of the economy.

4.4. Perceptions of research participants on policy development landscape in WECC sectors in South Africa

Policy is one of the key drivers of efficiency in resource consumption. The growing demand for communities to address water and energy efficiencies while curbing climate change impacts suggests that robust policies are required. However, Head & Cammerman (2010), US-DoE (2014) and Carpenter (2015) have argued that the complexity and fragmentation of water, energy and climate change sectors require adjustment in the decision-making landscape of WECC, with policy integration paramount. This sub-section assesses the views of research participants on the current policy decision-making landscape in South Africa (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Stakeholders perspective on policy integration and consultations within South africa's WECC sectors

The responses were divided into two sub-themes, namely, the views of participants on WECC sectors policy development integration, and consultation of key stakeholders during policy development. As indicated in Figure 1, most participants (i.e. 53%) were of the view that the current policies across the water, energy and climate change sectors were developed in isolation. To support this, WECC-A said,

Despite the emergence of climate change as an overarching component in the energy and water supply, the development of the climate change, water, and energy policies are still not aligned. (Personal communication: focus group discussion on 20 September 2019)

This fragmented policy development, which has also been observed by several other studies in the country (Conway et al., 2015; Mabhaudh et al., 2016; Mathetsa et al., 2019), points to the dominance of sectoral mandates within different government departments. This is a common challenge across the globe (Brazillian et al., 2011; Aboelgna et al., 2018). This fragmentation also raises concerns related to policy implementation, with WECC-D₁, WECC-D₂, WECC-D₃, and WECC-C highlighting conflicting compliance expectations from different policymakers. In addition, responses from the participants confirm the existence of sectorally mandated policies that are limited to certain coupled interactions. For instance, WECC-B₁ pointed out that there is a development of ‘key departmental policies such as Sustainable Hydropower Generation Policy which is responsible to ensure that there is sufficient water available for the hydropower generation technology’ (Personal communication: focus group discussion on 19 September 2019).

Other participants, however, indicated that they were not aware of such policy, thus suggesting a ‘silo’ approach, and lack of communication and awareness in the development of these critical policies. However, several participants (i.e. 33%) have observed an improvement in the development of policies, with consideration given to each of the WECC elements individually. For instance, WECC-G and WECC-L stated that the development of the energy policy, Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2010–2013, took into consideration water scarcity and climate change impacts. This is another landmark example demonstrating the progress made by South Africa in drafting policies that drive alignment of WECC nexus elements.

One of the key drivers of fragmented policy development globally is the lack of consultation among broader stakeholders in the WECC nexus (Cammerman, 2009; Head & Cammerman, 2010). In this study, 58% of the research participants were of the view that the current consultation approach among key WECC stakeholders is poor and unsatisfactory. This lack of consultation is, according to Chambers (1994) and GWP (2000), aggravated by the top-down decision-making approach practised in most societies. Despite suggestions by Head & Cammerman (2010) and Mohtar (2017) that complex problems such as WECC require a multiscale approach, particularly at the policy making level, this study found that the dismal policy integration efforts in the country are aggravated by inefficiencies in the stakeholder consultation processes. This observation strongly suggests that there is a need for change in the decision making and policy development landscape. A broader and inclusive stakeholder engagement with the intent to increase efficiencies in the management of the WECC nexus in South Africa should be practised. Until such change is realised, the WECC nexus will continue to hamper socio-economic development as well as environmental well-being in the country. This assertion is based on the current and projected impacts of climate change in South Africa. There is, therefore, urgent need for integrated policies and strategies that have a bearing on the challenges associated with the WECC nexus in the country.

5. Conclusions

The study applied a participatory approach to assess the views and understanding of multiple stakeholders on WECC and the effectiveness of current tools and approaches such as policy development and collaboration in the management of this nexus in South Africa. Effective management of the WECC nexus interrelations should be based on a sound understanding from the key stakeholders. The views of the stakeholders consulted in the present study demonstrate the dearth of understanding and limited acknowledgement of this nexus configuration in South Africa. Furthermore, the analysis reveals inadequate collaboration and coordination efforts dominating the WECC nexus sectors, a structure that may limit progress towards development of an institutional framework. This is likely to impede efforts to promote water and energy securities while implementing climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. The paper approves the suitability of the participatory approach to develop contemporary measures to address risks and opportunities emanating from the WECC. It is, therefore, suggested that South Africa look into the prospects of developing an institutional and policy framework that will promote the incorporation of participatory approaches within WECC nexus systems. Part of the requirements in this process will be investment in skills development and the promotion of awareness among different actors within the sectors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported financially and logistically by Eskom through the Eskom Holdings SOC – Research, Testing and Development under the Grand Water Challenge. Additional support was attained from the National Research Funding – Global Change Grand Challenge Fund, Ref No. RCUZ200513521731.