Due before Tuesday January 21 at 9 AM.
Based on ONE of the readings assigned for January 22nd:
Dingwerth, K. (2005). The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams? Global Governance 11(1): 65-83.
World Commission on Dams Report. (2000).
Reminder: the reflection should be 1-page long (~500 words) and contain two questions at the end.
To add your reflection, click on “Leave a Reply” below this post.
**Suggestion: write-up your reflection in an alternative program (ie. Word, Pages, Google Drive), then copy and paste your reflection to this website. Save a copy of your reflection for safekeeping
Klaus Dingwerth, professor of Political Sciences at the University of St Gallen (Switzerland), works with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. His article entitled “The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams?” contextualizes the genesis of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) and examines its main challenges as a public-private instance of international rule making.
Legitimacy in political philosophy revolves around three principles: “minimal standards of morality” “fair voluntary association” and “democracy” (Christiano, 2011, p.70). Democracy (from the Greek – demos = the people and cracy= power) entails popular consent. In traditional global governance, this consent is theoretically given by the state representing its people which raises concerns around accountability and transparency.
Dingwerth acknowledges that the WCD can be seen as an instance of “usurpation of rule-making authority by actors that usually do not dispose of such authority in world politics” (p.70). This is why the question of legitimacy of WCD rule-making process is all the more meaningful. He suggests that the WCD has emerged where traditional politics had failed to meet a “zone of agreement”. The WCD was born out of a World Bank sponsored workshop in Gland (Switzerland) in 1997. Representatives of very diverse interests participated to the large-dam controversy. Their consensus included a proposal for a World Commission on Dams (Commissioner’s Forward, World Commission on Dams Report).
Transparency and inclusiveness are the foundations for WCD’s claim for legitimacy. Indeed, the Executive Summary of the WCD’s report states: “Only decision-making processes based on the pursuit of negotiated outcomes, conducted in an open and transparent manner and inclusive of all legitimate actors involved in the issue are likely to resolve the complex issues surrounding water, dams and development.” (xxxiv). Yet, Dingwerth points out some of the WCD’s challenges relative to inclusiveness, transparency and accountability. As an illustration, he argues that women are underrepresented in the Commission. They mainly represent civil society organization and therefore hold weaker positions than men despite their significant role in the field of water use and water management (p.74). Additionally, the commission represents only a portion of the people affected by Dam construction project, those threatened with displacement are represented whilst people affected downstream of the dam, aren’t. As for transparency, the author argues that the criteria for being invited to the forum were not exactly transparent (p.76). This raises questions of accountability notably; as to who is invited to join? on what basis? who and how are they expected to represent if they are not elected?
The WCD emerged out of a concern for social and environmental effects of big-dam projects. However, because the Commission lacks formal traditional legitimacy, its decisions consist only of recommendation and its report is not a legally binding document. Gaining legitimacy is therefore crucial for its decisions to have an impact on dams development decision-making process.
Dingwerth’s article demonstrates the difficulties in determining the commission’s legitimacy. What could be the next steps to increase the WCM democratic legitimacy? Are non-binding public-private rule-making processes more efficient in addressing environmental and social issues despite their non-binding condition? Is democratic legitimacy ultimately possible for global governance?
References to reading outside of today’s class:
Christiano, Thomas (2011) “Is Democratic Legitimacy Possible for International Institutions?” Global Democracy, pp. 69–95., doi:10.1017/cbo9780511977992.004.
In his article “The democratic legitimacy of public-private rulemaking: what can we learn from the world commission on dams?”, the author Klaus Dingwerth mainly tries to explore the democratic governance beyond national states. He wants to achieve this by examining the case of the World Commission on Dams which represents a new appearing public-private partnership. In the paper, he presents the background information of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) in great detail, which I admire and like very much, offering us enough knowledge for getting us well prepared for his following arguments. He also tries to define the WCD decision-making process in an interesting but pragmatic way, that is “an instance of usurpation of rule-making authority by actors that usually do not dispose of such authority in world politic”, which reveals the essence of the Public-private partnership. In the rest part of his article, he examines the democratic legitimacy of the WCD in different ways: inclusiveness, transparency, accountability.
I am with the author that the WCD operates a great level of inclusiveness given the comprehensive system of obtaining information form different groups of stakeholders. The commissioners are balanced, they have professionals from related fields for the knowledge base, they have direct communication with the locals who the most directly suffer from the construction of dams. However, the author also points out some deficits in their operation when concerning inclusiveness. He criticizes “the definition of public actors, business, and civil society as the core stakeholder categories obscures important differences with these sector” and gives the example of women. But I half agree with his at this point. The half I agree is that the definition of social groups should not be the first concern. The WCD, which has its own purpose of existence, when thinking about stakeholders, should take the groups into account because they are definitely influenced rather they are “public actor”, “business” or etc. For example, I oppose the example of women. Those who are enough eligible should be elected and listened to with no matter with gender. The half I do not agree is that the definitions of the social groups are given actually by society and history. They can be hardly decided by the WCD. And based on the above, I fully agree with the second critique of the author. His third critique about inclusiveness is over-exaggerated I think because every policy or method needs a process and some time to function at an initial phase. In terms of transparency, I agree that WCD should give a clear demonstration of how its procedure is after it takes advice and information from the knowledge base and affected people.
Q1: Do you think the democratic governance applied in a political system is achievable in other areas such as public-private partnerships?
Q2: Considering the nature of the WCD, to what degree, you think its procedure should be transparent to the public and why?
The article Dams and Development starts off with the terrifying statistics of the nature of our planets water and how much we have invaded upon the nature. This is a good place to start in this article because it shows the reader how much humanity has encroached upon nature just for our benefit. “Consider: on this blue planet, less than 2.5% of our water is fresh, less than 33% of fresh water is fluid, less than 1.7% of fluid water runs in streams. And we have been stopping even these. We dammed half our world’s rivers at unprecedented rates of one per hour, and at unprecedented scales of over 45 000 dams more than four storeys high” (Asmal). This opening statement provides the hard facts that the reader must be aware of before continuing their reading through the article. Further in the article, the author states that humanity only views water as an instrument, a catalyst for peace. The author explains that humanity has not thought that buying and building dams as a bad thing until recently. This century alone, humanity has collectively bought and built one large dam per day. The author then explains that the reason that we have gotten to the position we are at today is due to important power relationships within our society. The author also allows the reader to fully understand the workings of a modern dam by explaining it in a rational and helpful way.
I agree with the author in his explanation on dams and I found it informative to hear what the author expects to see in the future and other ways to generate power without the use of dams. Today, dams are not feasible due to their high environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions as well as their hefty price that they carry with them. Dams have changed the way the humans interact with rivers all because of power and money. There have been many first nation communities that have been misplaced due to their location downstream and upstream, along the river from the construction of the dam. All this construction and destruction is not worth the dam. It threatens biodiversity and leaves downstream the dam to become arid and floods upstream the dam.
I believe that with all of the technological advances that we have invented, we should be using them in order to move away from environmentally hazardous construction types, such as dams. There is plenty of other ways that we can harvest energy that would be much less invasive than constructing a dam that blocks the natural flow of natures river.
Question 1: Are you for or against dams? Why or why not.
Question 2: Do you think that humanity will move away from implementing dams to generate energy within the next 5-10 years?
In his examination of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), Dingwerth brings into focus its fundamental organization underpinnings and raises questions about whether this structure makes any output illegitimate. Essentially, the WCD is a transnational network whose members are based in government, civil society, or business. The commission collaborated to create a final report based on extensive global consultation that offers guidelines on the development of future dams worldwide. The WCD guidelines are in no way legally binding; this differs from documents resulting from the collaboration of governments. Yet despite their informal nature, the guidelines have become a standard reference point for those involved in the creation of big dam projects. Dingwerth notes that the observed global adherence to WCD policies can therefore be explained by the commissions own proclamations of legitimacy. This democratic legitimacy is relies most notably on inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability. Dingwerth then goes on to evaluate whether or not the WCD adequately fulfills these measures.
For me, the most interesting critique Dingwerth made about the democratic legitimacy of the WCD was that all stakeholders and participants had the same amount of decision making power in the decision making process. This means that seriously affected people had the same amount of influence as those who were less impacted but perhaps had more to gain. This critique shows that democratic decision making processes have serious downsides in certain situations. Unfortunately, large dam projects have the tendency to have a large negative impact on a small number of people while benefits are distributed to communities that feel essentially zero impact of the project.
Despite critiques, it seems that the WCD has filled a gap where traditional intergovernmental agreements had failed before. The deadlock between dam proponents and opponents was simply resulting in large financial consequences for both sides and was also preventing any real progress from occurring. As is often the case with clashes in values based binaries, both sides of the disagreement were seeing little realization of the true potential of their efforts. The WCD relieves both sides from the limitations of the deadlock and frees up resources to be applied in more effective ways. The collaboration allows both sides to accomplish more together than they ever could have while in opposition. Afterall, neither side of the discussion surrounding the construction of big dams sets out with negative intentions; the opponents most likely have more in common than they have in opposition. Despite the unbinding nature of the recommendations, they have been adhered to by stakeholders. This would only have been the case if stakeholders were adequately satisfied with them. This in itself would only have be possible if stakeholders were meaningfully included and collaborated with in the development of said rules. So despite its shortcomings, it seems to me that the WCD has had a net positive impact on the decisions being made regarding large dams worldwide.
Question #1: What would be a more fair alternative to democracy in situations where negative and positive consequences of decisions are disproportionately shared?
Question #2: What would be another situation in which this form of public-private cooperation could improve current management practises?
In “Democratic Legitimacy of Public- Private Rule Making” author Klaus Dingwerth analyzes the World Commision on Dam (WCD)’s report on Dams and Development questioning the democratic legitimacy of the organization. As mentioned in the article, the WCD consists of actors from governmental, business, and civil service backgrounds. The WCD is also an international organization. The author explains some of the pros and cons of the report. One of the pros is the critique the WCD offers of big dams due to their environmental and social impacts. For example, the report states that of the 45,000 big dams, the majority have failed to “fulfill expectations”. Additionally, the report offers an estimate that 40-80 million people have been displaced by dams.
The author’s main critiques of the report lie in the WCDs democratic legitimacy. The WCD seems to create rules for dam construction however its level of democracy is tough to measure. Since our current understanding of democracy is restricted to the nation-state, the author argues that we must rethink democracy in order to efficiently govern internationally. Another con the author mentions is the fact that the report’s list of stakeholders is oversimplified. The report lists three types of stakeholders: public, private and NGO. In reality the list is far longer and more complicated than that. For example, those standing to be displaced by new dam construction hold a massive stake in the conversation and they do not necessarily fit into one of those three categories.
This article was very interesting for me to read. In the past few decades, our world has become increasingly globalized, as have our problems. In particular, the issue of dams and water management in general is by nature a global issue since boundaries of river systems etc do not match political ones. I think that the WCD report is a step in the right direction as it brings a global issue to a global audience versus a national organization addressing big dams in just one country. I also see great benefit to this report because dams are not commonly thought of as an environmental threat. Most discourse frames dams as environmentally friendly since they can be an alternative to fossil fuels when in reality they can pose serious environmental risk. A report such as this one offers an educational opportunity for people around the world to rethink how we think of dams. I agree with the author that the WCD report is limited in its power. In order for us to begin problem solving on a global scale, rule making and enforcing at a global scale must be re thought.
Questions:
What are some ways international governance can be made more democratic?
Why should dam building in particular be held accountable in a multinational context?
In his paper, “The Democratic legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams?” Klaus Dingwerth evaluates the inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability of public-private decision making, specifically with regards to the World Commission on Dams (WCD). He applauds the WCD in some areas, and criticizes it in others. Overall, the WCD had a positive response in the international public. Many civil society groups praised the report for emphasising the numerous social and ecological consequences large dams have, something that lacked consideration in past projects. Whereas on the other hand, industry organizations were surprised as to how little the benefits of large dams were discussed in the report. The response from different governments looked a little differently based on the level of development within the country. Governments from industrialized countries appreciated the guidelines and were willing to abide by them. However, I was surprised by the response of governments from developing countries. Their response didn’t welcome these guidelines as much as other governments did. They believed these guidelines were too strict and hindered the potential for their countries to develop more. This surprised me because the report had already explained that large dam projects displace between 40 to 80 million people. The citizens of developing countries are already at so much risk of displacement due to climate change and transnational corporations exporting the production of goods. It didn’t occur to me that these governments would be worried about large dams hindering their growth as a country, as I thought they would be more worried about the dam leading to the displacement of their citizens.
The WCD managed to create a fairly broad range of stakeholders and gave a voice to interests often marginalized in other settings by making use of a variety of instruments. The report did a good job at including and engaging stakeholders, in particular at the local level, in the commission’s work. However, women were underrepresented in almost every part of the WCD process. Interestingly enough, even when women were represented they were all representing civil society organizations and were therefore considered to be in a weaker position than their male counterparts. I was very surprised by this finding as women are usually considered one of the most important stakeholders when discussing the issue of water usage and water management. Not to mention in order to grasp the full consequences of large dams, gender issues must be taken into consideration. In order to do so, females must be represented and must have equal strength in their voice than their male counterparts.
Questions
How do you think the WCD would look differently if women were represented equally throughout every stage of the process?
Are there other alternatives for developing countries that will not hinder their ability to develop but also not lead to displacement?
The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: what can we learn from the world commission on dams?
In this article published in 2005 Klaus Dingwerth explains in detail the functioning and structure of the World Commission on Dams. Through the example of this non-governmental organization, he raises the problem of the political legitimacy of global decision-making. Indeed, he is interested in the structure of the World Commission on Dams which, according to him, is a good example to analyze this problem. Dingwerth asks the following question: “How should we evaluate the performance of the world commission of dams in terms of its democratic legitimacy?”
The World Commission on Dame is an international non-governmental organization founded in 1928. Its aim is to promote the exchange of knowledge on dams and to establish common rules for their management. The organization is composed of 95 national committees. Most of its members are engineers, geologists, scientists, etc. He calls this organisation a “trisectoral network” because it is composed of members of government, but also of members of civil society and finally of business. This special composition raises interesting questions in terms of the legitimacy of decisions. Indeed, the aim of the WCD is to ensure that the construction of dams is carried out in a safe, efficient and economic way, without being harmful to the environment.
The question he addresses in this paper, which I think is the most interesting one, is the legitimacy of global rules making – how do we assess the performance of the WDC in terms of democratic legitimacy? In order to answer this question, he uses three “concepts” which he describes as the “core concept of democratic governance”, “inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability”.
This is not a new issue; the question of NGOs and their legitimacy within global governance is a recurring one. Often, NGO decisions are criticized for a lack of legitimacy when they are not taken by a government legitimized by elections. In general, political decisions reflect the values of a citizenship, and are often democratic. Global governance and international issues raise the issue of global decision-making.
Democracy is always associated with elected officials who make policy. Here, as the author reminds us, “the actors involved are note government, actors that usually do not dispose of such authority in world politics”. He also explains that the WDC process is an instance of transnational or global rule making, so, he argues that there is a need to specify the form in which this rule-making process is organized as a process in which both public and private actors are engaged. Here we can see that at the global level policies are implemented and sometimes made by private sector actors (business background).
More generally, I find this article very interesting not only because it gives us a good overview of the structure and functioning of the WDC, but also because it raises the question of the democratic legitimacy of NGOs in general. Today non-governmental organizations play a very important role on the international scene and in global decision-making processes. However, they remain criticized and their place as part of global governance is not always accepted.
Are NGOs a legitimate tool of global governance?
How can we promote democracy in global governance?
The Report of the World Commission on Dams is a detailed account explaining the benefits and the negative impacts of big dams. They start by outlining the important contributions that dams bring to our modern world. Reliable energy, water security, and flood control are most important uses for dams. The commission then proceeds to outline many negative impacts of big dams, from the obvious ones of displaced people and fractured ecosystems, to more recently discovered negatives such as the increased carbon footprint due to land use change, and damages that the dams cause on downstream ecosystems. While the report does a good job of highlighting the negative aspects, I believe that the report understates the need to halt the production of dams. It also stays relatively far from the real world as they simply provide policy alternatives to the issues presented. For my part of the panel about big dams I was tasked with finding technological innovations to lessen the impact that big dams have on the environment. I read much of Part 2: “The Way Forward” and was quite frustrated with their lack of tangible solutions to some of the biggest problems with dams. Perhaps I was reading the wrong parts but there were multiple chapters that implied new strategies for dam development but upon closer inspection simply discuss the bureaucracy of dams. The report had no mention of alternative forms of hydrokinetic generators, such as instream turbines, and very little about reoperating existing dams (again, perhaps I was reading the wrong chapters, but this was a consistent problem for me after reading much of the report). All of the policies and procedures are definitely important for a political report such as this but I cannot help the fact that I am a practical person, who likes creating things and does not see the point in talking about a problem without any action to resolve it. For that reason, I dislike the focus of this report. Even though I respect that there are people out there theorizing solutions, it seems rather pointless to have so much talk about the politics of dam building while largely ignoring the engineers and architects who build the dams. The report is long, intensive and comprehensive in discussing the building of big dams from a political and economic standpoint, but this leads to a disconnect that makes the writers appear detached from the issues that they discuss. Perhaps others have read this report and reacted quite differently from me, if so I would like to hear it and perhaps have a discussion in class. For now I will end with the two following questions:
1 What are some tangible solutions to these problems?
2 Do they have legitimate means for enforcing the proposed policies? Or are they simply a framework for an ideal society?
In response to Dingwerth, K. (2005). The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams? Global Governance 11(1): 65-83.
The World Commission on Dams (WCD) as a multi-stakeholder, public-private rulemaking around dams – a heavily divided topic during the late 20th century – pioneered the management of water infrastructures around the world. It was particularly relevant in a time with environmental movements and anti-dam movements are becoming more and more vocal, and the WCD principles was rapidly taken up environmental organizations and campaigns to be implemented in their arguments at its release. Although it was pivotal in its origins and legacy, it is not without additional issues that Dingwerth touches on. After doing some research, I found that the WCD was rejected by the government of India when the Dams and Development report was first published. It was due to the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project that had already garnered a lot of controversy, and with the World Bank withdrawing from the project, it had only added oil to the flame. In addition, one of the panel members of WCD was Medha Patkar, one of the leaders of the Indian anti-dam movement, who was seen by the project proponent and the government of Gujarat as antagonistic. Such an example can bring to light some of the issues with WCD, such as the representation of nation-states in WCD – in which there were none. Medha Patkar represented her own opinions, not India’s. While there are benefits to the public-private arrangement of the Commission instead of being purely public (like other international governance), it also constrains the uptake of the report by significant dam building nations such as China and India. This was also discussed in Dingwerth’s paper, on how nations with high hydropower potential would see the WCD recommendations a constraint on their sovereignty. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4410780.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A6deb7c32e7d898f273c0139289f45861
Dingwerth also writes on some of the inadequacies in representation of women, in particular in positions that are not civil society, was striking. The categorization of actors into intergovernmental, business, and civil society was not also adequate for representation of affected groups of people. Nonetheless, just as Dingwerth also addressed in the conclusion, there will be benefits and shortfalls of either an intergovernmental panel or a public-private commission in representation, accountability, and transparency. I agree with Dingwerth – the WCD is a good starting point, particularly for that period of time of polarization and debate around dams, for the discussion of water politics and governance into the future.
1. What would WCD look like if it was an intergovernmental panel like the IPCC that is meant to produce more formal policy-relevant suggestions for water infrastructure and management? Would it have been as effective in comparison to the more inclusive public-private commission?
2. What are alternative measures that can address the issues with disproportionate gender representation or issues with transparency and accountability in the WCD?
In his critique of the Report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), Dingworth (2005) questions the legitimacy of global rule-making by a public-private partnership, and whether or not the creation and imposition of guidelines is democratic. The WCD was founded in 1997 by the IUCN and the World Bank, to bring both proponents and opponents of large dams back to the discussion table. They strove to produce internationally acceptable standards of planning, evaluating, building, monitoring, decommissioning large dams.
The author contends that the WCD “vested itself with the authority to devise a normative framework for future dam building” and “dismissed recognised global authority” (governments). Public-private rule-making arose out of the failure for a “zone of agreement” to be reached on issues (such as dams and forest management) at an international level. When this occurs, I think there is an important place for independent commissions, which makes recommendations based on the global state of an environmental situation. The report provides a strong knowledge base for further debate, discussion and formation of national policy surrounding dams. As there were no signatory parties, nor international government consultation, the report is simply advocating for guidelines countries can choose whether to adopt, whilst highlighting previously unaccounted for impacts of dams.
On the subject of normative framing, I agree with Dingworth when he talks about the self-appointed authority of the WCD to affect the global discourse around dams. The report came down heavily on the social and ecological consequences, causing criticisms it neglected the positive benefits of dams. It strikes an interesting debate about steering the direction of the global dialogue, without the rigour that would be present if it was a UN report where all nations have been consulted. Nations may feel their sovereignty is being constrained, as they feel forced to justify their dam building to a global audience whose viewpoint has changed, due to this report. However, I also agree that whilst the discourse may have been swayed, it is re-centred when a country chooses whether or not to incorporate the guidelines into their own national practise. Regulations will be scrutinized at the national level, with participation that better represents the interests of local people.
Dingworth talks about the three pillars of democratic decision making: inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, and whether they have been appropriately met in this instance. I think pursuing the democratic “ideal” might actually hinder collaborative, inclusive and progressive discussion and agreement from being reached. There will always be criticisms that participation wasn’t inclusive enough. I think the efforts the WCD went to in including 70 stakeholders as a sounding board for the Knowledge Bank, and the lengths they went to in encouraging comment and participation, is commendable. The paper concludes with the acknowledgement the jury is still out on political theories of transnational democracy, and what that would look like.
Q1. Could a truly democratic global consensus ever be reached on environmental issues, or is the pursuit of a transnational global democracy futile?
Q2. Should recommendations on environmental issues be left to international government panels to decide on, and to what extent should the public-private sector become involved?
In the article, The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams?, K. Dingwerth is addressing a question to the international system, its structure and its legitimacy. The author illustrate is arguments with the World Commission on Dams, as the WCD is a particular organization – public-private – and as it raises questions about its legitimacy and its efficiency.
What’s really interesting is the structure of the WCD as it differs from a classic international organization. As our international system, in its structure, doesn’t seem able to treat every issue, the WCD is analyzed as a new way to respond to the needs of the international community. K. Dingwerth is so analyzing the structure and addressing critics and limits to the organization. The WCD is nonetheless the example of an international system that looks outdated in regard to the current issues on the international scene.
Then so, the WCD is composed of different stakeholders, intergovernmental, business and civil society actors. As it is not their prerogatives, they can’t create enforceable law but only proceed by soft law, and the integration of those rules at a national level. About the latter, the author makes a point considering that as soon as the rules or guidelines are incorporated into national practice, and as far as it is a democratic State, the WCD process could be an indirect democratic process. That point seems to me a bit disturbing as first, this could be said for any other international institutions, and also because it doesn’t look democratic to me. The author points out in his development the fact that there is a lack of equality within the commission – in regard to the gender representation as well as the parties represented –, thus it can’t be talked about as an indirect democracy.
Furthermore, in this question of legitimacy regarding the organization, its purpose, and its structure the fact that the organization is not completely transparent nor completely impartial regarding the actors involved, interrogate on the efficiency and the capability of such organization. Even though the Commission is looking at the environmental impact as well as the social impact of its actions one of the largest dams of the world has been built in 2008 and so raises question on the work of the Commission. Dams are not only impacted biodiversity but are presenting an important risk for the populations around.
Then this article is interesting as it raises the question of the impact of our international system and the structure of our international organizations on the protection – or not – of the environment, and here specifically on the management of water resources. The legitimacy and the democratic process, along with the enforcement process of international rules is a real challenge in our global world.
In the article “The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams?”, Klaus Dingwerth explores the function and value of public-private rule making through the study of the World Commission on Dams (a non-government organization). Throughout the article, Dingwerth describes and attempts to legitimize the efforts that the World Commission on Dams (WCD) practice in global rule making. In the article, it is mentioned that the WCD is comprised of people with backgrounds in governmental, banking and human rights. As mentioned on page 68, the commission pays heavy focus on assisting and detailing information to those who have already been affected and displaced by large dam projects.
Looking at this article during the week that I am presenting on the social impacts of dams, it is both an interesting and valuable to see a process in which a dam is viewed from neither a governmental or the affected public’s views. While the WCD certainly has its own opinions and values regarding certain dams, Klaus Dingwerth shares his views on the legitimacy in which he thinks the WCD has on an international scale. In the 1970’s, peoples preceptions on environmental values shifted and protests reached new heights. While the public’s voice alone was the main driver behind the stopping or postponement of the building of large dams, it was interesting to learn that some banks became so involved in the conversation as a target from dam critics, as they had quite often been involved as major lending agencies to help boost dam projects. Further, it was interesting to learn that the WCD became what it is today through a workshop that discussed a World Bank paper on large dams. Before the members dove into the World Bank paper, they collaborated to form a global overview of what effects dams have around the globe, and what alternatives could realistically take place in certain areas around the world.
Personally, I was most interested in seeing just how relevant but complicated the application of an international set of ideas can be on issues that are traditionally viewed as local or national. Simply put, implementing the WCD’s rules as an international guideline to follow for dam building around the globe would be beneficial to the consistency and speed in which dam projects are approved or shut down. As impressive as that may be, Dingwerth states that the WCD’s power and function is realistically very limited.
My two questions:
Considering where Dam policies are today on a global scale, what would the best approach be to change the ways in which we view dams today and alter the ways in which they are viewed in the future?
How realistic is it that one day a more democratic view around the glove is achieved? What would the Northern Hemisphere’s envolvement look like as a power around the globe?
In Dingwerth’s article “The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams?” published in Global Governance, an excellently detailed analysis is made on the legitimacy of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) based on the factors of inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability. Out of these three elements, I thought that the portion on inclusiveness was the most compelling and intriguing. I agree with Dingwerth’s argument that many of the WCD’s flaws are rooted in a perceived sense of inclusivity and equality that do not provide a just outcome, however, I would take the author’s thesis a step further and contend that this is done purposefully. Given the foundations of the WCD and the ways in which it was established, this process is ultimately undemocratic and does a disservice to truly inclusive water management efforts being performed elsewhere.
As the author mentions, the WCD was instituted by the World Bank and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a result of their initial workshop on the international building of dams necessitating a more complex examination of the social and ecological impacts of large dams. The foundational role that these international organizations played in the commissioning of the WCD is problematic in itself given their historically unjust practices. As a multilateral development bank, the World Bank is notorious for its lack of Southern representation as well as promotion of harmful economic policies, such as structural adjustment programs, for nations in the Global South. These programs ultimately weaken the sovereignty of these states in how the institution necessitates certain prior actions for loans. As the World Bank evidently operates to perpetuate global hierarchies, how can the organization fairly, and therefore democratically, assess the impacts of large dams on marginalized populations if their mandate seeks the opposite?
Similarly, the IUCN has been historically criticized for prioritizing environmental interests over Indigenous peoples as well as their increasingly close relationship with the private sector. As the existence of many Indigenous populations is intrinsically tied to sustainable water management practices, dismissing their interests is not only erasure, but also an injustice to global water scarcity and environmental degradation. The relatively small group of elites from the World Bank and IUCN deciding who are relevant stakeholders in large dam building is thus, an undemocratic process. These institutions do not work for the benefit of those most vulnerable to dam construction, but rather themselves as powerful extensions of Western hegemonic influence on an international stage. Relevant stakeholders for the WCD will therefore be selected based on this and evidently, as Dingwerth proposes, lacks true inclusiveness.
Inclusiveness is also characterized by the WCD’s notion that the interests of each stakeholder are somehow equal. This statement superficially provides an aura of legitimacy, as the author puts it, however, in actuality it disenfranchises stakeholders who are more exposed to negative impacts of dams. The equation of the interests of the private sector, whose primary goal of building dams is profit, with those of local populations threatened by displacement is unjustly preposterous. Yet, given the historic operations of the founding commissioners of the WCD, it only makes sense for the decision-making process to function this way.
Q1: Can inclusiveness in the WCD truly be rendered through new implementations, and if so, how?
Q2: Based on the flaws that Dingwerth points out, is it sensical to continue using the WCD’s guidelines when considering large dam construction?
In the first chapter of the World Commission on Dams Final Report, “Water, Development, and Large Dams,” the report briefly overviews its methods as well as the purpose of the report and its intentions. The report makes itself out to be an impartial non-governmental voice that rises above the special interests of various stakeholders in order to deliver an objective account about dams and how the world should go about its dam management. The Klaus Dingeworth reading on “The Democratic Legacy of Public-Private Rule Making” touches on a number of critiques of the WCD report, I, however, wish to explore a critique I feel Dingeworth did not touch thoroughly enough on; that is that the WCD’s report’s references to sovereignty and its categorization of actors are intrinsically invested in maintaining the current world order.
Such investment raises for me personally questions regarding how truly committed the report is to offer an alternative, effective policy decisions meant to resolve issues related to dams. The current world order already largely approves of dam construction thus I was hoping the WCD report would take a more constructivist approach in its recommendations. Instead, it is careful to respect and legitimate the sovereignty of nations. Such affirmation makes sense when considering the WCD has no authority except for what it creates for itself and thus it must to some extent conform to the current world order so that it might be legitimated by various actors. It is easy to argue that a report which falls on deaf ears is not an effective report at all; better that we listen to a report that partially tells the world’s power what they want to hear.
Despite the limitations of the WCD’s authority and their perhaps justifiable need for re-enforcing the current world order, it is important for us as readers to reflect that the WCD’s homage to state sovereignty perpetuates the idea that international water governance can occur only within a narrow type of framework when it is likely that the idea of nation and space and the right to monopolize violence will not be how we always order the world. As urbanization, especially in the Global South, increases and megacities gain greater political power, the international community will likely need to ask itself questions regarding how such emergences will reshape services like water management. Furthermore, by dividing stakeholders into civil society, business interests, and governments, the report reinforces capitalist notions of the world and does not leave any room to consider what water management could look like under a different system. Perhaps such considerations are beyond the scope of the WCD report, but I believe it is necessary that we as consumers of the report, keep these considerations in mind.
Question: Dingeworth critiques the WCD report for treating all stakeholder interests as having equal weight, in what way could the WCD avoid doing so?
Question: The WCD report states that large damns are frequently justified for their macro-economic benefits (20) and later states that damns have often not met their economic
Klaus Dingwerth’s article titled “The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams?,” states two main aims that it seeks to explore: determining a method or approach of evaluation with regards to the democratic legitimacy of the World Commission on Dams, as well as what insight such an evaluation may provide into the legitimacy of rule-making at an international level. As discussed in the article, the World Commission on Dams (WCD) was formed in response to a significant global tension existing at the fore of many dam projects across the world. This tension, as Dingwerth claims, was growing as social, ecological, and economic issues associated with dams became more apparent and coincided with the critique of the World Bank for financing these projects. The purpose of the WCD was to complete a comprehensive review on big dam projects across the world, in order to evaluate their “development effectiveness” compared with other potential alternate projects. Additionally, from this review they generated a report that serves as a “Knowledge Base” as well as a set of guidelines, decision-making criteria and general recommendations for large dam projects in the future.
Dingwerth provides an interpretation of the WCD as a mix of public and private rule-making at the global level, which emerged as the public sphere did not form such a mechanism or body with a focus on large dams. Specifically, he uses the understanding of the WCD’s work as a case of “transnational rule making” and assesses it according to inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in order to reach conclusions on the democratic legitimacy it possesses. As I reviewed Dingwerth’s analysis of the WCD process, it seemed unsuitable to me to evaluate the WCD according to the three standards of democratic legitimacy, especially with regards to the criteria of accountability. My understanding is that elected bodies/individuals, or at least those given the mandate to govern and related powers, are those who must be held accountable in the sense of answering directly to and in line with diverse public interests. I perceived it as not necessarily appropriate to expect an entity without these powers to be accountable- as discussed by Dingwerth, the WCD was created by the World Bank and the IUCN, not to represent national interests but to provide a partial assessment and recommendation. That being said, I would argue that transparency and inclusivity are important for the WCD to serve its proper function, in a just and more effective way. For example, if their recommendations were intended to be adopted by nation-states it seems valid to question whether their findings are skewed by those who are/aren’t included in discussions, studies, and further work for the Knowledge Base to evaluate whether the information is truly representative of the situation and fair to the realities faced. Dingwerth provides a strong analysis of these two criteria, and I found it especially compelling how he identified the weaknesses in the stakeholder categories used by the WCD as well as in the “treatment of interests” as equivalent.
1. Do you perceive a lack of formal accountability to be a weakness or strength of the World Commission on Dams? Does it make sense to assess the WCD and other public-private instances of rule-making according to this criteria?
2. How could the WCD potentially have shifted the weight of importance they granted to different interests in their report in a way which served to treat them justly and ‘correctly’?
World Commission on Dams Report (2000)
“Today, around 3800km3 of fresh water is withdrawn annually from the world’s lakes, rivers and aquifers. This is twice the volume extracted 50 years ago” (World Commission on Dams 3).
The World Commission on Dams (WCD) wrote The Report as a comprehensive overview of dam building. But of course, it’s not just about building dams. Dams are built to store, use and divert water for consumption, irrigation and power, but they also operate on a much broader scale. A conversation about dams is simultaneously a conversation about water rights, accessibility and water-related services. At the center of this debate surrounding dams is the critique of how decisions are made and the different opinions that are voiced or quieted. The debate on dams challenges our view of how we develop and manage our water resources; and as our knowledge and experience grow, “decision-making becomes more open, inclusive and transparent” (1).
The WCD begins Chapter 1 by discussing water development and the effects economic growth has on it. It is mentioned that an increase in economic activity would result in an increase in water-related services and that that development would result in changes in how goods are produced and distributed. Conflicts over a dam are rarely ever solely about water; they are conflicts over human development and life itself. The WCD notes that to begin to understand this socio-economic-natural complex we need to take a look at both ‘past’ and ‘present’ drivers for the demand of water to get to the root of the problem. Over the past 60 years, there has been a drastic increase in the number of large dams that have been constructed around the world. The large number of dams in the world can point to the rapidly growing population, but it can also point to our current water usage (mal)practices. Looking at Table 1.2, I thought it was really interesting and uplifting (in a way) that the reason most of the dams that were built was for hydropower. Furthermore, it was developing countries that were building these dams the most, which hopefully means that the conversations about sustainability are being heard and taken seriously.
The WCD continues the chapter by discussing the decommissioning of dams and the reasons and concerns for doing so. They mention the trend in multi-purpose dams, flooding and further problems associated with the physical dam, alternatives and an explanation as to why there’s a debate. They end the chapter by going through their methodology and posing questions for the future. As this is a report, the information read fairly objectively, striving to achieve representation on all perspectives involved. That being said, while I read, I couldn’t help but think about how social constructs play into this debate. Water is a necessity, but our idea of water (quality, quantity or image) is all influenced by these pre-existing constructions that surround and affect us everyday.
Questions:
1. By the end of the 20th century, there were over 45 000 dams worldwide, what does this say about our society?
2. The reading mentions this question in their discussion about the purpose of dams, but I thought it was an interesting one to reiterate: how central are the challenges that large dams set out to meet?
I have taken many courses throughout my time at UBC that have made me skeptical about global movements. They are commonly idealistic and overarching with a lack of concrete goals. This is because global challenges require local solutions, and rarely do global institutions penalize participants for failing to reach their goals. However, Dingwerth analyzes the ways in which the world is attempting to cooperate and bring ‘about a sustainability transition.’ The arguments Dingwerth make about the WCD’s legitimacy over creating rules and potentially the lack thereof due to its non-legally binding status parallel my studies of many global efforts such as the UN’s sustainable development goals, millennium goals, the Paris Accords, etc. where nation-states have a choice to follow guidelines (or to not follow them). Periodically, ‘developing’ nations will feel restricted by rules set mostly for the agenda of the first world which can cause competitiveness rather than cooperation, which Dingwerth alludes to. Additionally, I have been reared to scrutinize any Bretton Woods Institutions due to the historical lack of insight in projects they fund that impact locals and increase inequalities in the guise of economic development, which is seen with the WB’s funding of large dam projects until the 1970’s when these projects received backlash.
Dingwerth sheds light to the fact that large dams are an example of locals being impacted but powerful individuals benefitting. It was emotive for me to learn that of the extensive study of 45 000 large dams (this large number is astonishing) finding most were detrimental or failed to provide what they were created for. Local environments and peoples seem to be abused time and time again with largescale projects. Throughout this article, I could not help but to view the arguments through the lens of the Site C dam. Dingwerth mentions that ‘governments of countries with high potential for hydropower… are reluctant to see their sovereignty constrained by international regulation’ which relates to Canada/BC’s relationship to the Site C dam issue that persists. International democratic governance is another concept that Dingwerth describes through the values of inclusivity, transparency, and accountability. Time and time again, the Site C dam received negative reactions from the varying stakeholders, though the ‘qualities of effectiveness,’ or the unequal distribution of power within stakeholders, negatively impacts groups from environmentalist groups and the local population, including farmers and Indigenous peoples. I was not surprised to find out that there lacked a sense of transparency towards those who did not speak English, meaning that the agendas of English speaking countries were pushed forward (generally the global north).
Evidently, it is impossible to coherently change the world with global governance. However, I do believe that the WCD put forward with a good effort to influence nations and private organizations to think longer and harder about constructing large dams. Although I critiqued the efforts extensively, there is definitely some good to the WCD because it shows that 20 years ago groups were starting to identify problems in the system that existed, fueling innovation and creative solutions. However, more local initiatives need to be supported to stop the construction of large dams due to their destructive tendencies of socio-environmental systems.
Questions (they’re all connected):
1) Who was part of the 12-member commission? Did they represent the whole world and how is it possible that 12 people could make decisions without bias? Were ‘developing countries’ represented with the 12 members?
2) Dingwerth mentions that the WCD laid out internationally acceptable standards and specific guidelines, were they uniform around the world? For example, do the EIA’s follow the exact same criteria globally or do they vary from country to country or situationally?
In “The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams?,” Klaus Dingwerth evaluates the inherent performance of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Dingwerth implores readers to question the fundamental mission and design of the WCD in concert with its merits. Written in 2000, the WCD remains precisely a product of its time for its contributions in outlining the positive and negative impacts of dams. If the WCD is considered to be a ‘blueprint’ for future dam decision-making processes, Dingwerth equips readers to critically read into the goals and stakeholders of the WCD along the indices of inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability. The author goes beyond critically analyzing the architecture of dams but questions the very architects of the Commission.
Central to the WCD is that the sustainable improvement of human welfare must be paramount purpose and goal of any dam project. Underscoring this document is the fundamental understanding that, “If water is life, rivers are its arteries. Dams regulate or divert the flow through these arteries, affecting the life-blood of humanity” (WCD, 2000, p. 3). Encapsulated in this quote is a call to place debates around dams and water management as synonymous with the heartbeat and vitality of humanity. I found the WCD report to be internationally comprehensive in its scope but lacking in a more intimate or fine-grained approach that goes beyond a high-level, bureaucratic approach and accounts for local and indigenous perspectives. It is imperative to account for the voices that are heard and at the table, and voices that largely silenced in comparison to the data and stylized facts.
As such, I found Dingwerth’s article to be illuminating and revealing as he unravelled and raised important questions into global governance and rule-making. The author was remained cautious and critical at the same time in addition to bringing to light some of the underlying problems of the WCD with regards to democratic legitimacy. As I read the WCD report in concert with this article, I became aware of some of the limits and certain (hidden) agendas of the Commission as a private-public partnership that stemmed from the World Bank and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). While I think the contributions of the WCD as a trailblazing document and deliberative body are incredibly valuable, its applications to democratic governance beyond the nation-state remains open for debate.
Seen in this light, the axes of inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability were helpful in evaluating the WCD. In particular, the section on accountability stood out to me in framing these debates. Returning back to the mandate and members associated with the WCD, I find public-private rule-making to be insufficient as the only solution or way forward in the decision-making process. Governance must not simply be ‘global’ but include several sectors both democratically elected and those appointed from the local level to the international level in order to effect real, meaningful, and inclusive change. Despite its seminal contributions, I am in agreeance with Dingwerth that the WCD operates in an ‘aura of legitimacy’ that is not legally binding and runs a fine line of being ‘de-legitimized’ (2005, p. 77).
Question 1: Stemming from a stakeholder workshop convened by the World Bank and IUCN in 1997, the WCD is a product of its time. Against this backdrop, protests, which began as a movement against large dams slowly turned towards the multilateral development banks that were financing the very projects they were protesting against, such as the World Bank. As these apparent paradoxes emerge, what are the ethical implications the WCD and World Bank must come to terms with? How has the legitimacy of the WCD changed over time with regards to the shifting mandates of development agencies? How can potential conflicts of interests and risks of entrenching existing interests or agendas be stymied while recognizing the valuable contributions of the WCD?
Question 2: Democratic legitimacy and global governance are central themes in this week’s readings, with rule-making often taking a top-down rather than bottom-up approach. The axes of inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability are novel frames of reference to evaluate the mandates and missions such as the WCD. How does justice fit in the picture with regards to accountability? What mechanisms are available to ensure existing international Conventions, Declarations, and Commissions, including 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are upheld for past, present, and future projects?
References:
Dingwerth, K. (2005). The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams?. Global governance, 65-83.
World Commission on Dams. (2000). Dams and development: A new framework for decision-making: The report of the world
This report uses such a long space to introduce, present, and analyze dams and their impact on water resources. Water resources are the most critical and basic resource for the development of human civilization. With the rapid growth of population and economy, the demand for water is constantly expanding, which has caused many social problems. The author claims that between 1950 and 1990 the world’s population increased fivefold but water withdrawals only tripled. Although more efficient water resources management methods and technologies have been invented in the past decades, there are more and more people could not have access to clean water and it is fatal to the backward and developing countries. In order to solve this development problem, dam construction is one of the solutions but it is also one of the problems of water resources management. According to the article, the large dams under construction are basically from developing countries such as India, China and so on. After the dam construction in Western countries reached its peak around 1970, the dams were gradually decommissioned in anticipation of restoration. As a means of development, the dam has many benefits such as job creation, power generation, flood control, and irrigation. Irrigation is one of the most important purposes. The largest number of dams in the world was built for irrigation purposes. It solves the problem of agricultural water shortages in many developing countries. For example, almost 100% of irrigation water in Egypt comes from the Aswan high dam. On the other hand, the dam also brought many negative impacts, which caused a lot of damage to the ecology of the river basin and some of the impacts were irreversible, such as the extinction of freshwater fish due to the dam. At the same time, the construction of the dam caused a large number of migrants. These people have to leave their homes because of the dam.
Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to building a dam, so how to objectively evaluate whether a dam should be built is the central issue of the dam debate. This is not just a simple cost-benefit analysis, it also includes political and ethical factors. It is difficult to be fair when we have different perspectives. After all different factors may have different weights in different people’s minds. But no matter what, I think we humans have to draw resources from nature, but at the same time, we should reduce the damage to nature as possible as we can. Therefore, an objective and detailed assessment and thorough maintenance are the prerequisites for building a dam.
Question 1:
what do you think about building a dam? it is good or bad?
Question 2:
How to choose between environmental protection and economic development? What is your standard?
According to Klaus Dingwerth author of the article, “The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams?” the guidelines created by the World Commission on dams were intended to be a ‘public-private partnership’- rules crafted by mix of representatives from the private sector and government officials. Although there were efforts to achieve ‘balanced representation’ of stakeholders in the WCD process, I, like Dingwerth, found the marginal presence of women throughout the World Commission engagement process to be an interesting and significant omission, given that women are often flagged as “one of the most important stakeholder groups in the field of water use and water management” (p. 74). The displacement of women by hydroelectric projects- particularly in rural and developing regions- is also different than the experience of men. The displacement of women by dams not only results in dislocation of their bodies but moving into more urban areas can also undermine aspects of social economic independence that women had when living more subsistence lifestyles. The ethnographic and quantitative evidence (found in the reading listed below) supports the argument that women needed a larger place at the World Commission on Dams, and that a screening process for gender impacts similar to the screening process for social, environmental, and cultural heritage concerns is warranted. The absence of women, and underrepresentation of their concerns in dam building processes raises questions about how ‘key stakeholders’ were selected (or self-selected) for the creation of international dam guidelines. It also raises questions as to whether stakeholders with questions related to profit maximization rather than basic livelihood should have equal say or influence over the content of the WCD. Currently, the voices of private sector voices have equal import to the concerns of those most directly and deeply affected by dam building. Should the interests and input of the demographic more affected by the construction of large hydroelectric projects be given more weight? However, those most affected by dam construction (such as rural women in low-income regions) may have not have formal organizations to represent and defend their interests. While the report on the World Comission on Dams includes a ‘Gender’ section on the impacts of dams on women in particular, the WCD stakeholder engagement process lacked the presence and perspectives of women.
Two questions:
1. What publicly-availably criteria could the World Commission on Dams use to select private and NGO participants to represent groups most affected in a more democratic fashion?
2. Even when actors are invited to participate, how can commission organizers ensure that marginalized voices are more than ‘note takers’, and that they possess real power to shape the content of the final document?
References to readings outside of today’s class: Bisht, Tulsi Charan. “Development-Induced Displacement and Women: The Case of the Tehri Dam, India.” The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 10, no. 4 (2009): 301-317.
In Klaus Dingwerth’s article: “The democratic legitimacy of public-private rulemaking: what can we learn from the world commission on dams?”, he highlights, why he believes the World Commission on Dams (WCDs) is a good starting point for learning about legitimacy of global decision making. He explains the origins of the WCD, in the 1990s, following increasing awareness of environmental and human rights activists globally with regards to the social and environmental consequences of large dam construction. The main aims of the WCD are to create a global model of development effectiveness and to develop guidelines for future projects. There are 5 core values highlighted that should guide the future construction of dams, these being: equity, efficiency, participatory, decision-making, sustainability and accountability. The WCD is not an emerged person body, but a private-public partnership which functions similarly to the establishment of international soft laws.
Dingwerth reaches two main conclusions following close analysis of the World Commission of Dams and its main aims of inclusiveness, transparency and countability . Firstly, that the democratic legitimacy of the world commission of dams can be challenged in several ways. Secondly, he raises the important issue that we still lack a theoretical understanding of what democratic governance beyond the nation-state would entail in practice.
Personally, the most interesting point raised by Dingwerth is the decision making power of both stakeholders and participants in the WCD. Both are equally powerful in the decision-making process. There arises serious issues with this form of governance as, in order to evaluate whether the project is viable, some sort of value needs to be placed on those who experience the negative impacts of big dams, while others reap the financial benefits of its construction.
Q1: How does one put a value on the negative impacts to society that big dams often create?
Q2: Are there any other ways to approach international governance, that make the process more democratic?
One of the greatest challenges of the 21st century is to regulate multinational organizations and develop international regulatory systems. Globalization has created unprecedented strain on the environment and distanced organization from their regulatory systems. International regulatory institutions are faced with the difficulty of assessing environmental dilemma whilst considering international economics, politics, culture, and more. In his article The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams? K. Dingwerth analyzes the efficiency and effectiveness of international dam regulation.
The World Commission on Dams (WCD) is intended to be a non-partisan institution in place to provide guidelines for the future of dams throughout the world. Since they have no legal roots, their influence is grounded in their credibility and ‘democratic legitimacy’. While the article touches on the environmental and economic impact of dams, it’s primary academic focus is political philosophy. It poses an increasingly important question in a globalized world: What are the appropriate standards for evaluating democratic performance beyond the nation-state? Dingwerth structures the analysis through three criteria. History and design, public-private entanglement, and process. This approach is effective as a summary of the organization, however it does not provide a framework for the analysis of other like institutions. I found it particularly interesting that little attention is paid to the individual members of the commission. Since this institution is in place to regulate both private and public actors, the members of the commission should prove to be impartial. Nevertheless, I was pleased to discover that UNEP and other environmental institutions endorsed the WCD report.
The private aspect of the world commission on dams is of particular interest. While it seems logical that the private sector plays a central role in dam considerations due to the capitalist framework most of the world abides by, there is a clear conflict of interest. The article does little to expand on the influence of the private sector in negotiations and considerations. Since most private stakeholders are pro-dams, the extent to which their involvement contributes to rulemaking should be heavily scrutinized. It’s unclear that an inter-governmental panel would do much to ease this concern. In addition, Dingwerth mentions the lack of representation from women and local stakeholders. While dams are heavily intertwined with local geography, both political and cultural, it seems unsatisfactory that actors at a smaller scale than governments are not involved. I ultimately agree with Dingwerth’s assertion that the WCD is a satisfactory starting point for multinational regulation. I expect to see many similar institutions emerge as climate change awareness spreads.
Q1: Should these organizations be given legal grounding?
Q2: Do you think that specialized commissions such as the WCD will be more effective in sparking global change or should, they become a subsidiary of more substantial institutions such as the UN?
The article “The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams?” by Klaus Dingwerth discusses the problems of legitimacy for an organization in an global system without an overarching governing body, as well as the problematic elements of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) regarding transparency and inclusivity.
This article was an interesting read as it discusses issues in the international system that can be applied to all international environmental problems. Problems of legitimacy and enforcement, disagreement between developing and developed countries, and a lack of democracy in international organizations. Dams and water management are particularly important issues when discussing the ways, the international system functions because water bodies often cross borders. This cross-border movement of water sources has huge implications for, in the case of dams, those countries downstream. This problem highlights the importance of international institutions to help negotiate agreements between nations, however, as outlined in this article there is not a global government to regulate the actions of nations, but rather international organizations or commissions only have the tools to normalize actions rather than hard enforcement, therefore, this gives upstream nations the majority of the power.
Ding Werth’s paper explains how the stakeholders who contributed to the WCD were divided into intergovernmental, business and civil society. He also effectively highlights whose voices were not present in stating the underrepresentation of Women and seriously affected people. Furthermore, he raised an interesting point in the fact that the structure of stakeholders was decided by a small group of insiders. I agree with Dingwerth’s analysis of World Commission on Dams’ stakeholders, and the issues he raised about inclusivity. This highlights another problem of international institutions as they mainly take top-down approaches which can lead to, as outlined in the article, a distortion of the weight of stakeholder input. Those most effected should have a larger portion of influence, as they have the most to lose.
Questions:
1. Can commissions such as the WCD be effective without an enforcement mechanism?
2. How would a more equitably proportioned commission change the outcomes?
The World Commission on Dams is an example of global rule making that takes place between different actors. This commission is very important because it contributes to the principles and guidelines for building future dams. The author of this article explores how the WCD should be evaluated and what this tells us about global rule making in a general sense. The WCD was founded by the World Bank and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. I know that the World Bank has had a largely Westernized approach to many of the issues that they tackle, they tend to go into developing countries and identify in their terms what the issues are rather than addressing the root causes that stem largely from Western interference in developing nations. I would be concerned that the WCD would be focused on the self-interests of Western stakeholders with disregard for the Indigenous peoples and local residents of developing nations. The commission has been praised for its efforts to have a “balanced representation” in reference to the members of the commission. In their first report they concluded that the majority of the 45,000 large dams built up until that point in time had either failed to fulfill their purpose or that they caused detrimental consequences that had not been foreseen, including displacement and ecological consequences. The report received praise by many for highlighting the shortcoming and consequences of dams. Knowing that this report exists and that the consequences were acknowledged and agreed upon by so many actors surprises me because so many of these dams that were identified as problematic are still operating. The author focuses on the actual process of the WCD, looking at how it was a process of transnational rule making and also that the process took the form of public-private rather than fully public like many other rule-making processes. The author points out how the commission lacked the representation of women and therefore did not do enough to address women’s concerns about dam building. Personally, I question how representative this commission really was in terms of people from different geographical locations who are affected by/depend on dams to different extents. My two questions are:
1. Is it productive for the WCD or similar commissions/groups to identify the issues surrounding dam construction without offering an alternative? What is a feasible alternative to dams as a form of water or renewable energy infrastructure?
2. Who is typically excluded from the decision-making table and why is this a problem? (Ie. Women, indigenous peoples, smaller states, etc.)
K. Dingwerth’s article, The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams (WCD), explores how we should evaluate the performance of the commission in terms of its democratic legitimacy, as well as what the evaluation of the commission’s performance tells us about the legitimacy of global rule making. Dingwerth determines that the democratic legitimacy of the commission can be challenged (based on an analysis of its inclusiveness, transparency and accountability), yet we lack a theoretical understanding of what the idea of democratic governance beyond the nation-state would entail in practice. Despite these shortcomings, the author determines that the WCD “serves as a good starting point for learning about the legitimacy of global rule making” (Dingwerth, 66).
Dingwerth explores the structure of the WCD: composed of different stakeholders, intergovernmental, business and civil society actors. It is interesting to be reminded that the recommendations of the commission are not legally binding, and as such, their implementation depends on the acknowledgement of the WCD process as fair and democratically legitimate. Subsequently, only soft laws are established and if integrated, are done so at the national level. However, and much to my surprise, the democratic legitimacy of the WCD remains questionable. This is in part because the commission remains ill represented in regards to the equality of gender representation. Additionally, there is lack of full transparency and no indication that the governmental and intergovernmental actors involved are completely impartial in decision making processes. As such, the private-public partnership of the WCD may have particular hidden agendas. Furthermore, the origins of the commission raise concerns for the legitimacy of the democratic governance in the WCD. The WCD was instituted, in part, by the World Bank (WB). The WB is notorious for lacking equal and just representation in the Global South. There are instances of the WB implementing policies that benefit the institution, while deteriorating the economies of the Global South [ex: through structural adjustment programmes (SAPs)]. Thus, I find it difficult to accept the democratic legitimacy of the WCD’s in ensuring fair representation of the Global South and marginalized populations via stakeholder engagement processes. However, without further establishing the idea of democratic governance beyond the nation-state, shortcomings and challenges within the WCD cannot be fully addressed.
Q1: Does the World Commission on Dams recognize and/or account for local and indigenous perspectives?
Q2: Are there (or should there be) legal implications for the WCD to ensure the provision of accurate information/recommendations as well as democratic legitimacy?