Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:59:05.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The World Commission on Dams and trends in global environmental governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Ken Conca
Ken Conca*
Affiliation:
Harrison Program on the Future Global Agenda, Department of Government and Politics, 3114J Tydings Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA kconca@gvpt.umd.edu
Get access

Extract

The World Commission on Dams marks a moment of real progress in the large-dams controversy. It does so in at least two ways: as a statement of the norms that should govern dam-related decision-making and as a process of dialogue between dam proponents and critics. Whether this progress translates into consistently better dam-related decisionmaking is a question that remains to be answered. Also unanswered is the larger question of whether the WCD experience will prove to be a replicable model for other environment-development controversies. The Commission emerged from a curious situation in which both dam builders and dam critics felt stymied in their ability to achieve their aims, and in which both saw opportunities in the idea of stakeholder dialogue. Such windows of opportunity may prove rare. The skillful leadership and interpersonal dynamics among the commissioners that helped forge a consensus document may be difficult to reproduce.

Type
Harrison Symposium I
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 67 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.I am grateful to Richard Falk for this observation.Google Scholar
2.McCully, Patrick, Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams (London: Zed Books, 1996), Chapter 10. Keck, Margaret and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks and International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
3.Ottaway, Marina, “Corporatism Goes Global,” Global Governance, July-September 2001, 7:3.Google Scholar
4.U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, “Secretary-General's Note for the Multi-Stake Holder Dialogue Segment of the Second Preparatory Committee. Addendum No. 4: Dialogue Paper by Non-governmental Organizations.” E/CN.17/2002/PC/2.Add.4, 28 January 2002, paragraph 35.Google Scholar
5.Remarks by Richard Falk at the World Resources Institute, November 21, 2001.Google Scholar
6.Conca, Ken, “Old States in New Bottles? The Hybridization of Authority in Global Environmental Governance,” in The State and the Global Ecological Crisis, Barry, John and Eckersley, Robyn, eds. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, forthcoming, 2003).Google Scholar
7.Dubash, Navroz K., Dupar, Mairi, Kothari, Smitu, and Lissu, Tundu, A Watershed in Global Governance? An Independent Assessment of the World Commission on Dams (Washington: World Resources Institute, 2001). [Available at the WCD web site, www.dams.org.]Google Scholar
8.I am grateful to Navrov Dubash for this observation.Google Scholar
9.Litfin, Karen, “Sovereignty in World Ecopolitics,” Mershon International Studies Review, November 1997, 41(2): 167–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar