Good governance within multi-stakeholder processes comes at a price! It is time and resource consuming yet rewarding in creating transparency, inclusiveness, stakeholder focus and in the empowerment it engenders. This is the theme of the publication "A Watershed in Global Governance?". It is an independent assessment of governance issue from the point of view of the World Commission on Dams. The publication reveals the intricacies of multi-stakeholder process (MSP) as experienced by the Commission. It further confirms the challenges and gains of this approach. The peer review for the reports is a useful tool for confirming the MSP process. Below is a peer review of the document with recommendations on possibilities for improvements to the layout and editions.
1. Recommendations on suitability for publication
2. General Comments:
Thrust towards the theme of healing the wounds of conflicts, the two-year commission paved way for better expression of development in the construction of large dams. It starts from the four big dam construction countries and finally spread its activities to other interests groups, NGOs and governments. Special emphasis is given to the inclusion of governments of the south "…where majority of the future dams will be built". The reasons for making the WCD a "broad ranging stakeholder / multi-stakeholder process – are given in page 2 of the executive summary as the need for:
The report traces the background of the WCD, its formation, agenda, protagonists and approach to global governance on dam construction and development. It is a lucid report that goes to the limits of frankness to prove the levels of transparency and inclusiveness of MSP. It admits the flaws at each point of establishing the WCD and throughout its 2-year commission. For example, the initial flaws in regional composition of the Commission. The four largest dam-building nations of Brazil, China, India and the USA had been the only members of the WCD with a chair and vice –chair from the South (in recognition of the fact that most of the future dam projects would be in the south). The Commission report clearly expressed this flaw and ways in which this was overcome. Further reference to the lack of popular mandates of the Commissioners, as they all stood in their individual capacity, was another flaw openly admitted. Commissioners were found not to have the mandate of their constituencies. Whilst the benefit of flexibility emanating from such individual standing was pointed out in the report, the key point remained the socio-political constraints it posed within the implementation of any MSP. Industries, Governments, NGOs and CSOs were inadequately represented through the anti-dam movement, which was the only interest group initially admitted to the WCD. Due to the numbers of stakeholders, it became prudent to provide representation according to the special interest area, for example "indigenous people, non-indigenous affected people and public interest groups". The exclusion of World Bank and IUCN officials from the WCD was another fissure in the initial mould of the Commission. This was meant to ensure the independence of the Commission, but was revisited once admitted as a disadvantage to the MSP. The appropriate representation principle was spread to the commission’s secretariat, where workers were to be drawn from representative groups. These flaws were attended to, to achieve the level of success the WCD has displayed so far. In this and many respects the WRI publication was comprehensive.
There is an interesting presentation of lessons learned from attempts to redress the four flaws identified in the publication. The use of the box to summarise the lessons as stated in the main sections of the introductory chapter is excellent for the people not inclined to reading through the whole document. Whilst the writing style could have contributed to the large readership of the report (according to the publication) there is clarity on the topical issues on governance both for the governments and non-state actors. The realistic reporting of MSP touches on each stakeholder with a sharpness that screams for in-depth study of this collective responsibility and shared objective of dam development. It is therefore not surprising that since the initial reactions expressed in the report, many more stakeholders are reviewing the document and analysing its assessments of global governance.
MSP if carried out properly creates peer pressure as each group vies to see how near or off the mark of political correctness they are, and how much of their views were incorporated. For this publication, a record has been set at implementing MSP for global governance transcending the issue at stake – large dam construction and its impact on human development. As seen from the points raised, the lessons listed below are relevant for many MSP situations. They ensure wider interest in the contents of the report because of their cross-cutting nature. The lessons learned from the four mistakes identified were:
The frankness of the assessments of the commission’s activities is refreshing and enlightening to any MSP. Their receipt of 970 submissions from WCD participants and subsequent failure to acknowledge the inputs early enough undermined the confidence of the contributors that their views would be taken into consideration. There was no attempt to mask this process as the report states that "… the commission and secretariat did not plan adequately for use of the submissions." Ideally such brutal honesty is what good governance processes are made of. It is very clear that the report aims at corrective actions to reinforce the work of the commission and extract the desired lessons for global governance.
Among other decision-making processes, the WCD framework for action spans:
Yet glaring in its absence is the gender perspective of the effect of dam construction. Consultations and negotiations on reducing hardships created for affected families during dam construction must consider gender as an interest group. Pages 50 and 51 – "Establishment of the Forum", introduce the male bias in both the WCD and Forum in the following statement;
"The space given to women’s voices on the commission itself was extremely important and to some degree corrected for the Forum’s male bias in terms of women’s influences on the process’ outcome and overall public perceptions of gender bias." Pg. 51
Gender sensitivity in planning should indeed be more than the head counts of women vs. men indicated in chapter 4 – disaggregated data of Commissioners and Secretariat staff. The Forum’s sincerity in addressing this imbalance should have been seen in all aspects of the analyses and gender-based groups should have featured as the number one interest group throughout the publication.
Women and men are affected differently by the decisions made ‘…..to build or not to build….’ Therefore pragmatic MSP planning calls for the inclusion of gender and development analysis in dam construction strategies as well as global governance. As a cross-cutting issue, meant to review old preconceptions about dam construction and activism, the WCD brought up key points on wider consensus building and global governance. My question to the writers of the report and WCD is:
Is it possible to discuss MSP, social costs of development, poverty and civil society outside their gender perspectives?
Apart from the mention of ‘…gender diversity…" under Chapter 4 – Reflections on the composition of the Commission" – page 45 and 48; and the use of " his or her, and statesmen and stateswomen"; Is there no need to situate gender-based groups in the continuum of ‘dam-affected interest groups’ along with their concerns? There is neither reference to engagement strategies for women who were acknowledged as absent in page 51, nor the manner in which the Commission can handle women in development issues surrounding dams. The inclusion of more gender perspectives in the review report would add to its completeness.
The report has adequately situated itself in multi-stakeholder processes. Even from a historical perspective it records events, their outcome and people’s reactions at the release of the reports. Use of secondary information and tertiary confirmation, in terms of people’s reactions to the publication is commendable. It raises the question of the use of a commission in MSP. Within the 3 main blocs of interested parties: the Governments, NGOs and interest groups, another lesson that emerged was the need to ensure that the groups with the two most extreme positions will be at the table. Stakeholders were also identified according to a rights and risks weighting process.
Above the absence of the gender perspective, is the nagging question of who is the target of development, which is managed by governments? This question is necessitated by the continued polarisation of government and civil society. It was disheartening to note that governments’ initial objections to the requests of CSOs and interest groups were not given more space in the publication. Is this not the crux of the whole matter? In the north and south alike, there is evidence of a struggle between civil society and government, where the legitimate rights of the former to scrutinise government and inter-governmental initiatives are rebuffed by the latter. Examples given in the report of government’s caution regarding the non-state actors tendency to circumscribe the role of states through recourse to international agencies are indeed disturbing. Irrespective of the political correctness of the state to "…question the legitimacy of non-elected individuals as representatives of a broad view." The real question should be why there should be any divergence between the views of governments and civil society, at all? Is this not the same civil society that makes up "the masses/ grassroots communities" which government agencies are supposed to service?
"WCD is dependent on growing acceptance of norms of practice, supported by civil society scrutiny of the private sector, national governments and international agencies."
This is emphasised by the balance of consultations advocated throughout the report. There is need to expand on the lessons learned for building a credible multi-stakeholder process since it is the backbone of the whole report. The lessons list should include all other conclusions drawn from different sections of the report – in the form of a recap.