- P 19, p4: The first sentence refers to “the promotion of norms” – well, maybe that is a bit cautious? Promoting norms doesn’t mean actual change of behaviour? You do refer to the history of social change through changing norms so maybe you could be less cautious in your words in the 1st sentence. – In the bottom sentence of the of the para, you refer to norm creation and promotion as an “alternative, or at least a component…” I don’t think norm creation and promotion is an alternative, it can only be a complement – because human behaviour is influenced by both at the same time: Values and norms, and sanctions / rewards (and a number of other factors such as information, behavioural choice, peer pressure, desired identity etc.). Unfortunately :-), values and norms are only one factor to human behaviour, and a rather weak one at that (overall estimates of correlations between norms and behaviour amount to about +.10, eg in the area of personal relationships). You will find hardly any situation where you can trace ONE factor of human behaviour, it is multi-factorial, so the term “alternative” is not really appropriate.
- P 19,20: I agree with the way you are putting the WCD in historical context, very useful and insightful. Any chance you could expand from that in the conclusions and speculate where the developments are going to go?
- P20, para 3: You state that WCD has no direct comparators. I am not soooo sure. Ideally, we would be able to put WCD into the context of a whole range of processes, using more variables describing MSPs and identifying each individually along the axes defined by these variables.–I just think that this is too absolute a statement.
Chapter 3:
Chapter 4:
This is extremely useful–very “alive” and forming a thorough basis for many of your process-related conclusions. The level of detail and the obvious access to numerous sources of information are impressive. As you’re working through discussing various criteria, stakeholder groups, and developments over time, more subtitles or similar structuring of the text would be useful.
- One point I haven’t seen (but might have missed it) is the link between “taking stakeholder groups into confidence” (by commissioners) and the lack of consultation before publication of the final report.
- P46, para2, refers to competition between individual companies placing barriers to working in coalitions. This is a general point with MSPs, and not an easy one. If one wants to work with individual companies (or individuals in their ind. capacities), and not just industry associations, one will always run into this problem.–It is not unheard of among NGOs, too, where competition for funds (eg to participate!) is great but often more concealed (not to the benefit if the work) or can be overcome based on common goals, networking and inputting via a variety of channels and consultation processes.
- P46, bottom: You refer to govts not having devoted much attention yet to their positioning within MSPs. This is closely linked to the need for political debate and building of consistent mechanisms connecting MSPs and official decision-making.–When and under which circumstances do you expect that govts will pay more attention to MSPs and their positions, representation, etc.?
- P47, para2: You correctly state that country and regional representation still matters–and, I might add, be it only because people BELIEVE it does. National/cultural identities can be much stronger than expected, and people tend to exaggerate differences in order to maintain a distinct identity. This was realised in the process of forming the European Union, for example, when people resisted (and still resist) the notion of “losing” their national identities within an overall “European” identity. Countries & EU ran campaigns promotion a “Europe of the regions”, referring to cultural units rather than national ones, in order to overcome that barrier (and weaken the impact of NATIONAL categories). What I am trying to say is–forgive the psychologist–that people are NOT RATIONAL. Therefore, psychological factors of identity constructs can be very powerful and do not always relate to “real” or “relevant” aspects as regards a particular issue. MSPs should strive to accommodate such psychological needs rather than arguing/designing the process on a purely pragmatic basis.
- P48, para2: Yes, this will be a big challenge – and we should respond with creativity, inter-linked processes, groups and levels, rather than exclusion of people or important criteria..”
- P51, para2, on WCD vs. trilateral networks: This is a very important point, as the trilateral approach is being used in many places (and it seems to me: increasingly), and there’s not sufficient awareness and discussions of the implications of such an approach. Clearly, it is not the sense of Ag21 with its 9 major groups.–Defining stakeholder groups needs to be based on a careful analysis of the issue area (eg via social mapping), and should be based on thinking “outside the box” of established “lists” of stakeholder groups. The WCD has done very well here. Let me just quote the discussion from Felix Dodds’ chapter in our forthcoming book on MSPs (Ch 4): “It is worth remembering that the first international body to recognise the role of relevant stakeholders was the International Labour Organization which in 1919 set a model for tripartite representation from governments, employers and unions. The ILO has a Governing Body which has 28 member governments, 14 members representing workers and 14 representing employers. Also the ILO has 168 member states each national delegation has four members, two government representatives, one workers delegate and one employers delegate. Some organizations such as European Partners for the Environment promote the idea of tripartite within the sustainable development area. They suggest that the three should be governments, industry and civil society. Agenda 21s approach is that it doesn’t adequately enable an issue to be addressed if every other stakeholder is to be part of civil society. How can you put together NGOs, women, trade unions, scientists and local government, to mention a few, in one grouping? The essence of Agenda 21 although it identifies nine Major Groups is promoting the idea that you bring together the relevant stakeholders that need to address a particular issue. One problem with Agenda 21 is that it only identifies nine! There are others that should be considered eg education community, older people, the media. Unfortunately the addition of other stakeholders has been fought over the past eight years. The reason put forward is that we can’t ‘renegotiate Agenda 21! A more flexible approach is required as we move towards a clearer focus on implementing Agenda 21 and the other international agreements. On issues such as health and safety at work a tripartite approach is probably the right approach. In fact the Agenda 21 Chapter on trade unions (Chapter 29) does recommend: ‘to establish (within the workplace) bipartite and tripartite mechanisms on safety, health and sustainable development’
- P51, para3,4, on the issue of women’s involvement and gender perspectives: You conclude that gender balanced participation is an important solution–yes, BUT: including women will not necessarily lead to inclusion of gender perspectives. What is important is to include people (mostly this will be women, but they don’t have to be) who have gender related expertise and are able to bring it to the fore.
- P52 etc: on funding. Do you have any suggestions for the future regarding funding MSPs or their initial phases or for groups who aim to initiate MSPs…? A trust fund within the UN system or the UN Foundation (or…?) for global processes, supporting less resourced groups, and/or supporting setting up phases. The WCD problems with fund raising activities and uncertainties overshadowing at least the initial period and work programme is a very common phenomenon–and not healthy. Again, it will depend on political will to establish something like that–which is part of the necessary political debate on how govts & intergovernmental bodies wish to relate to stakeholders in general and MSPs in particular.
- P54, end of para1: Will you make the evidence you’re referring to available (eg in background papers on the website)? I could understand if not. Maybe worth saying that somewhere and giving the reasons.
- P58, box, first point: I think you’re making clear the many advantages if choosing a representational model rather than eminent individuals, or at least a combination of both. Why are you being so neutral here, presenting representation as merely “an alternative”? Or could you briefly state when which model would be better?
- Last point: “open-ended” is a dangerous term (part. to govts & funders). What about a work programme designed to spark off further activities at different levels, being flexible over the course of the (time limited) process to accommodate necessary amendments/changes based on increased experience…?
Chapter 5: I am sorry, I didn’t study all of it–I like the conclusions part. Sufficient time & resources are a huge issue and usually underestimated. Not an easy one towards funders & many participants who find it difficult to commit for longer periods of time.
Very good that you discuss the secretariat’s role and staff in such detail.
Chapter 6: Again, I am sorry, I didn’t study all of it. But to have this as a distinct chapter is a very good decision; needs much more attention in most MSPs. Many forget to budget for this as well, and don’t seek professional advice/input. Relying on the Internet is a big mistake and costs credibility–has been said about many processes which we looked at.
Chapter 7: This is another one that I haven’t sufficiently studied–although I am VERY intrigued to read it over the next few days. One concept/term that you might find useful here–as elsewhere–is what the Environment Council calls “constituency drift”: the fact that through the dynamics within the commission/group, mutual learning and changes of perspective take place that are not shared by the wider constituencies. Participants are “drifting” from their constituencies. Another lesson might be that participants need to clarify towards their fellows/the process as a whole HOW they are indeed consulting with their constituencies, how they are informing them etc. If nothing else, it would create transparency–and give people ideas what they can actually do. Many participants will not be very familiar with that challenge and–without interfering into the stakeholder group–might benefit from support, advice, experiences of others.
