Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability

Beyond Deadlock and Conflict

Minu Hemmati, Jasmin Enayati, Jan McHarry, Felix Dodds

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781136560842
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Governments, business, international bodies and local groups are turning to multi-stakeholder processes to find practical ways forward. This book explains how MSPs can be organized to deliver their potential for successful resolution of complex issues and for sustainable development. It includes detailed examples and provides practical checklists, explaining how to get beyond adversarial politics and achieve positive results.

1

Introduction

Business as usual, government as usual, and perhaps even protest as usual are not giving us the progress needed to achieve sustainable development. Let’s see if we can’t work together to find better paths forward (Hohnen, 2001)

This book is about how people and organizations from very different backgrounds can work together in an increasingly complex political, social and economic environment.

The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 alerted the world to a large number of pressing environmental and developmental problems and put sustainable development firmly on the agenda of the international community, many national and local governments and stakeholders. Many individuals, organizations and institutions have been responding to the challenge of sustainable development. Yet many still seem reluctant to take the need for change seriously, and even more have not even learned how they can get involved and contribute.

We have a long and difficult way to go if we want to live up to the values and principles of sustainable development and make them a reality. Taking one step beyond the stalemates which we face in many areas, we will need to learn how to listen to each other, to integrate our views and interests and to come to practical solutions which respect our diversity.

‘Traditional processes of coordination need to be supplemented by a series of practical arrangements which provide for more active, cooperative management … both within the United Nations system and extending to other involved intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations’ (Annan, 2000a). This holds true not only at the international level and not only in relation to official (inter)governmental decision-making and practice, but also at regional, national and local levels, and between the various ‘players’, forces and powers.

This book puts forward a framework for designing multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs), aiming to contribute to the advancement of such mechanisms as will produce practical solutions. MSPs seem a promising path, both around (inter)governmental processes and independent of them. We are witnessing a beginning of and a search for new partnerships. We need to become more clear about the nature of such processes, what principles should govern them and how to design and manage them effectively. We need common yet flexible guidelines and to learn from experience.

Box 1.1 Stakeholders

Stakeholders are those who have an interest in a particular decision, either as individuals or representatives of a group. This includes people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those affected by it.¹

The term multi-stakeholder processes describes processes which aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, decision-finding (and possibly decision-making) on a particular issue. They are also based on recognition of the importance of achieving equity and accountability in communication between stakeholders, involving equitable representation of three or more stakeholder groups and their views. They are based on democratic principles of transparency and participation, and aim to develop partnerships and strengthened networks among stakeholders. MSPs cover a wide spectrum of structures and levels of engagement. They can comprise dialogues on policy or grow to include consensus-building, decision-making and implementation of practical solutions. The exact nature of any such process will depend on the issues, its objectives, participants, scope and time lines, among other factors.

Hence, MSPs come in many shapes. Each situation, issue or problem prompts the need for participants to design a process specifically suited to their abilities, circumstances and needs. However, there are a number of common aspects: values and ideologies underlying the concept of MSPs, questions and issues which need to be addressed when designing an MSP and the stages of such a process. Our suggestions form a common yet flexible framework which we offer for consideration to those who design, monitor and evaluate MSPs.

MSPs are not a universal tool or a panacea for all kinds of issues, problems and situations. They are akin to a new species in the ecosystem of decision-finding and governance structures and processes. They are suitable for those situations where dialogue is possible and where listening, reconciling interests and integrating views into joint solution strategies seems appropriate and within reach.

MSPs have emerged because there is a perceived need for a more inclusive, effective method for addressing the urgent sustainability issues of our time. A lack of inclusiveness has resulted in many good decisions for which there is no broad constituency, thus making implementation difficult. Because MSPs are new, they are still evolving. Because they are people-centred, people need to take ownership and responsibility for them, using and refining them to serve their own purposes and the larger purposes of the global community of which they are apart.

Box 1.2 Sustainable Development

Develop: bring to maturity; elaborate; improve value or change use of; evolve; bring forth, bring out; grow to a more mature state

Development: stage of growth or advancement

Sustain: keep, hold up; endure; keep alive; confirm; nourish; encourage; stand

Sustainable development ‘… is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987)

‘The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations’ (United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992)

Among the key aspects of Agenda 21 are those chapters dealing with the role of Major Groups (women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business and industry, workers and trade unions, the science and technology industry, farmers and local authorities).² Agenda 21 is the first United Nations (UN) document to address extensively the role of different stakeholders in the implementation of a global agreement. In each of its chapters Agenda 21 refers to the roles that stakeholder groups have to take in order to put the blueprint into practice. Stakeholder involvement is being described as absolutely crucial for sustainable development.

Reflecting upon the practical implications, there are numerous ways to design stakeholder involvement. These range from governments consulting stakeholders to creating multi-stakeholder dialogues and partnerships as part of official decision-making and implementation.

Where We Are

One of the major achievements of the UN system both at Rio and beyond has been the integration of global partnership principles into the international policy process. (Murphy and Coleman, 2000, p210)

Internationally, the most advanced multi-stakeholder discussions have been taking place at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) where there are well-prepared multi-stakeholder dialogues each year on different topics. They have also initiated ongoing MSPs. Although the approach at the CSD is still evolving, it has become a model of multi-stakeholder engagement within the UN system on sustainable development issues. For the process towards Earth Summit 2002, the UN General Assembly has decided to conduct stakeholder dialogues, panels and round-tables at all preparatory meetings, both regional and international, and at the Summit itself.

MSPs have also generated considerable interest in other fora, around intergovernmental bodies and at national and local levels. For example, in 1996, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI, 1997) counted 1812 Local Agenda 21 initiatives in 64 countries.³ The World Commission on Dams, in November 2000, launched its report after two years of research, hearings, debate and dialogue. With the Global Compact initiative, the UN Secretary-General has embarked on developing a new approach to partnerships between the UN and stakeholders, and discussions about this process have been as prominent as they have been controversial. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as well as individual companies have undertaken activities and organized events providing platforms for multi-stakeholder dialogues on contentious issues in the area of biotechnology and healthcare. Debates on stakeholder involvement around the UN, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), among others abound in recent years, also as part of efforts towards institutional reform. For example, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are becoming increasingly important at the national level for debt relief initiatives and concessionary lending by the WB and the IMF, while PRSP stakeholder participation mechanisms are being critically debated.

Studies such as the ones conducted by Wolfgang Reinicke and Francis Deng et al (Reinicke and Deng, 2000) on Global Public Policy partnerships (GPPs) have made a significant contribution to the analysis of the role and potential of multi-sectoral networks, identifying them as ‘institutional innovation in global governance’ (Reinicke, 2000). They have also highlighted many of the key challenges and organizational implications.

So far, however, it looks as if stakeholder dialogues, ways of feeding them into decision-making and concrete follow-up are mostly being organized and prepared on a rather ad hoc basis. There is vast experience with participation at community levels and increasing experience at national and global levels. Yet studying and comparing the different approaches and distilling some common but flexible guidelines from a stakeholder perspective is lagging behind. Governments and intergovernmental bodies, industry, NGOs, local governments and other stakeholders are trying out various approaches. Thus many different set-ups come under the same flag. Furthermore, the relationship between stakeholder participation and decision-making remains unclear in many cases.

The UN-Secretary General asserts this view:

Major Group’s participation in sustainable development continues to face numerous challenges. Among them are geographical imbalances in participation, particularly at the international level, growing dependence on mainstream major groups as intermediaries, the need for further work on setting accountable and transparent participation mechanisms, lack of meaningful participation in decision-making processes, and lack of reliable funding for major groups.

And:

One of the many challenges … is to find ways of enhancing meaningful and practical involvement of major groups in sustainable development governance structures at various levels, both national and international. Another is generating new participatory mechanisms aimed at implementation of national, regional and international programmes of action. (UN Secretary-General’s Report, 14 March 2001, paras 19 and 29)

However, it is not only the lack of funding for NGOs, or the unwillingness or inability of governments to develop a consistent approach to stakeholder involvement that is making progress difficult. We want to highlight two more reasons.

First, there is an unwillingness to engage on the part of many people and organizations and on all sides, albeit for different reasons. Many businesses simply don’t see why stakeholders, and not only shareholders, should have a say in their policies. They claim that while operating within government regulations, those ‘outside’ their companies should not be able to tell them what to do or not to do. And some simply don’t want to have to interact with NGOs, grassroots organizations or women’s groups. Governments and intergovernmental bodies may feel threatened by the growing influence of stakeholders, viewed as unelected powers with insufficient transparency and undeterminable legitimacy. Among NGOs, there is a widening split between those who seek to engage with other stakeholders and those who define their role outside the conference rooms. The latter question the seriousness of governments and, in particular, industry who are seen to engage in stakeholder dialogues solely for the purpose of ‘green-wash’. Protests in Seattle, Prague, London, Cologne and elsewhere have articulated these concerns, with an underlying criticism of the free market system and the enormous increase of corporate power. Naomi Klein (2000) in her best-selling book No Logo has collected and analysed these concerns and the movement in which they are expressed by a large and diverse number of people around the globe.⁴ In a similar vein, Noreena Heertz (2001) describes the ‘silent takeover’ of power by corporations. She asserts that her book shows that ‘protest by the consumer public is fast becoming the only way of effecting policy and controlling the excesses of corporate activity’ (p3).

Second, many of us live in what Deborah Tannen (1998) has so eloquently described as ‘the argument culture’. Scrutinizing public political and mass media discourse, Tannen unfolds the widespread automatic tendency towards adversarial forms of communication, confrontational exchange, use of military metaphors, aggressively pitching one side against the other and forever thinking in dualisms: ‘There are always two sides to a coin.’ The author unfolds the roots of these patterns as based in the Western, Anglo-Saxon culture, and diagnoses an increasing spread of the argument culture via its global expression in Western-dominated media. Outlining the enormous impact of language and ritualized forms of interaction, she voices concerns about the consequences for democracy, quoting the philosopher John Dewey: ‘Democracy begins with conversation’ (p27).

One Step Beyond

Many issues today cannot be addressed or resolved by a single set of governmental or other decision-makers but require cooperation between many different actors and stakeholders. Such issues will be incapable of successful resolution unless all parties are fully involved in working out the solutions, their implementation and the monitoring of results. (Rukato and Osborn, 2001, p1)

In other words, where possible and appropriate, we should aim to take one step beyond our current practice of communication, policy-making and implementation.

Tannen (1998) suggests a move from debate to dialogue – because smashing heads does not open minds’ (p28).⁵ Dialogue – as opposed to fighting, debate and discussion – is an essential part of MSPs, if not the most crucial one, and most of the suggestions we offer on how to design such processes aim to create a situation where dialogue can take place in a group of people of diverse backgrounds, expertise, interests, views, needs and concerns. Learning to engage in dialogue means to move from hearing to listening. It means taking one step beyond fighting, beyond adversarial, conflictua...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures, Tables and Boxes
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgements
• Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
• A Call to Readers
• 1 Introduction
• Part 1 Building-blocks
• Part 2 How to Do It
• Appendix I Methodology of the Project
• Appendix II Contributors, Commentators and Interviewees
• Appendix III UNED Forum
• References
• Notes
• Index