138
L. L. Benites-Lazaro et al.
focusing on one of the nexus sectors without considering the interconnections and
interdependences among them could have serious consequences. One of the main
problems that the nexus approach seeks to overcome is the tradition of carrying
out sectorial work and decision making in silos, focusing on only one sector (for
example, energy/biofuel) without considering how any related policies could negatively or positively affect other sectors (e.g., water/land use) [5]. This issue of interdependence between sectors is a key aspect of the nexus approach and has been
categorized as trade-offs.
According to Kurian and Ardakanian [27] these trade-offs are reflected in the
following five choices that are often made when it comes to determining public
policies:
a) Prioritizing centralized versus decentralized governance, whereby decisionmaking power remains concentrated in the hands of both higher levels of
government and donors. As a result, local initiatives and autonomy suffer and
any planning and adaptive management prospects become compromised. Thus,
political decentralization has begun to gain importance in academic and political
discussions.
b) Prioritizing public versus private management models. In response to the
growing disenchantment with centralized management, the world, particularly
Latin America, underwent a phase where public services were privatized. With
this, regulatory agencies, and the primacy of establishing self-regulation were
established in different sectors of the economy.
c) Prioritizing infrastructure rather than services, particularly when it comes to
service parameters such as affordability, reliability, and quality. Services have
been overlooked by conventional planning processes and structures. There has
been a prioritization of large investments in infrastructure, including hydroelectric dams, water and wastewater treatment, and irrigation, at the expense of
investments in infrastructure maintenance.
d) Prioritizing short-term versus long-term planning perspectives. Planning and
decision-making are carried out by politicians and business leaders who have
short-term thoughts; they are more concerned with their political career, reelection, or the accounting period, which has a fiscal year-end close by date.
In recent years, the methods employed to compute capital costs have been
questioned and there have been forceful arguments to take longer term views of
the life cycle of infrastructure projects to ascertain the possible revenue streams
that may be possible to finance infrastructure operations and maintenance.
e) Prioritizing efficiency versus equity goals. The emphasis on building infrastructure tends to focus on the efficiency of public services and the system. This may
explain why despite large investments in infrastructure, there are still many
communities in developing countries that do not have access to basic public
services. Thus, interest in community-based natural resource management has
led to an interest in issues such as equity in the distribution of benefits generated
by these natural resources.
L. L. Benites-Lazaro et al.
focusing on one of the nexus sectors without considering the interconnections and
interdependences among them could have serious consequences. One of the main
problems that the nexus approach seeks to overcome is the tradition of carrying
out sectorial work and decision making in silos, focusing on only one sector (for
example, energy/biofuel) without considering how any related policies could negatively or positively affect other sectors (e.g., water/land use) [5]. This issue of interdependence between sectors is a key aspect of the nexus approach and has been
categorized as trade-offs.
According to Kurian and Ardakanian [27] these trade-offs are reflected in the
following five choices that are often made when it comes to determining public
policies:
a) Prioritizing centralized versus decentralized governance, whereby decisionmaking power remains concentrated in the hands of both higher levels of
government and donors. As a result, local initiatives and autonomy suffer and
any planning and adaptive management prospects become compromised. Thus,
political decentralization has begun to gain importance in academic and political
discussions.
b) Prioritizing public versus private management models. In response to the
growing disenchantment with centralized management, the world, particularly
Latin America, underwent a phase where public services were privatized. With
this, regulatory agencies, and the primacy of establishing self-regulation were
established in different sectors of the economy.
c) Prioritizing infrastructure rather than services, particularly when it comes to
service parameters such as affordability, reliability, and quality. Services have
been overlooked by conventional planning processes and structures. There has
been a prioritization of large investments in infrastructure, including hydroelectric dams, water and wastewater treatment, and irrigation, at the expense of
investments in infrastructure maintenance.
d) Prioritizing short-term versus long-term planning perspectives. Planning and
decision-making are carried out by politicians and business leaders who have
short-term thoughts; they are more concerned with their political career, reelection, or the accounting period, which has a fiscal year-end close by date.
In recent years, the methods employed to compute capital costs have been
questioned and there have been forceful arguments to take longer term views of
the life cycle of infrastructure projects to ascertain the possible revenue streams
that may be possible to finance infrastructure operations and maintenance.
e) Prioritizing efficiency versus equity goals. The emphasis on building infrastructure tends to focus on the efficiency of public services and the system. This may
explain why despite large investments in infrastructure, there are still many
communities in developing countries that do not have access to basic public
services. Thus, interest in community-based natural resource management has
led to an interest in issues such as equity in the distribution of benefits generated
by these natural resources.