Who’s to take the lead in preserving the fragile commons?
Remko Berkhout (Hivos) | July 16, 2010
Thanks for this inspiring contribution. For me it prompts the following reflection.
What intrigues me about the WRR study is the mix of a solid analysis and conservative choices and policy proposals. For example, the report gives a good overview of the conceptual discussions around the term ‘development’, acknowledges dimensions of power and culture but then settles for the outdated modernization angle. It does seem to acknowledge the risks of a tragedy of the commons, yet it proposes to solve these within the existing inadequate global institutional landscape. It recognizes the reality of a multi-polar world in which the north-south dimension is rapidly losing relevance, yet it proposes NL-aid and a focus on Africa. It acknowledges the well researched limits of states and markets, but refuses to seriously consider the third sector and civilateral aid, as part of the solution. Why? The bundled pre-studies to the report (Doing good or doing better) testify that the commission consulted the ‘who’s who’ of international development, both in the global north and south. And in the discussions following the publication of the report, the members of the commission have impressed many an audience with their progressive pro-aid thinking and willingness to listen.
Some in the online debate have argued that as a state centred institution, the WRR offers a naturally state centred analysis. Related to this, I suspect that the council was also looking for politically feasible options with a view to affect short term policy changes. Hence NL-aid instead of a decades away European option. Hence the open door to slashing the 0,7%-norm and NGO-support, instead of something more complicated less digestible for the majority of cynical voters. What we have in front of us, is the work of policy realists, well aware that development cooperation-as- we-know-it, is going to have to change, and therefore offering a number of pragmatic policy proposals in order to preserve a place for the sector at the table before it ends up on the menu.
So what then of van de Gronden’s analysis? On the one hand, I agree. A looming tragedy of the commons rather adequately captures the problems of our time. And the Netherlands, a microcosm of overcrowded interdependence with a large global footprint, potentially has solutions on offer. Indeed, as Jared Diamond suggests, the alternative to a new tragedy of the commons might well be a vision of ‘the world as polder’. But that vision is not going to emerge by itself. And there is little evidence available to suggest that the fragile commons have much to expect from the state. There, short term political interests prevail. In the Netherlands, whatever coalition may be forthcoming, the volatile fragmented political landscape will not allow much space for the kind of bold policy proposals that are required.
Enter then, civil society, and especially those institutions that operate in transnational spheres, like WNF, Hivos and others. We don’t like to admit it, but the WRR is probably right in suggesting that Dutch civil society will not be able to play a meaningful countervailing role as long as it continues to rely so heavily on state funding. Most organizations seem to predominantly directing their energies towards the state, towards the key players in the current coalition talks, to preserve their place and funding in a sector under threat. Understandable as that may be, it does not discharge us from heading our much more important developmental imperatives. It is probably up to us, not government, to come up with coherent and inspiring vision of how to collectively preserve the fragile commons on an increasingly interconnected planet. We need to invest our energies in new ideas, new coalitions, and concrete policy proposals. It would be great for example, if the NGO contributors to the WRR debate would engage more vigorously with discussions here at the Broker such as the one on degrowth. That is probably a more constructive way to broaden the space for more progressive government policies, especially if we manage to mobilize our constituencies around our ideas until politicians, in their relentless search for votes, will feel that they no other option but to ensure their implementation.
What intrigues me about the WRR study is the mix of a solid analysis and conservative choices and policy proposals. For example, the report gives a good overview of the conceptual discussions around the term ‘development’, acknowledges dimensions of power and culture but then settles for the outdated modernization angle. It does seem to acknowledge the risks of a tragedy of the commons, yet it proposes to solve these within the existing inadequate global institutional landscape. It recognizes the reality of a multi-polar world in which the north-south dimension is rapidly losing relevance, yet it proposes NL-aid and a focus on Africa. It acknowledges the well researched limits of states and markets, but refuses to seriously consider the third sector and civilateral aid, as part of the solution. Why? The bundled pre-studies to the report (Doing good or doing better) testify that the commission consulted the ‘who’s who’ of international development, both in the global north and south. And in the discussions following the publication of the report, the members of the commission have impressed many an audience with their progressive pro-aid thinking and willingness to listen.
Some in the online debate have argued that as a state centred institution, the WRR offers a naturally state centred analysis. Related to this, I suspect that the council was also looking for politically feasible options with a view to affect short term policy changes. Hence NL-aid instead of a decades away European option. Hence the open door to slashing the 0,7%-norm and NGO-support, instead of something more complicated less digestible for the majority of cynical voters. What we have in front of us, is the work of policy realists, well aware that development cooperation-as- we-know-it, is going to have to change, and therefore offering a number of pragmatic policy proposals in order to preserve a place for the sector at the table before it ends up on the menu.
So what then of van de Gronden’s analysis? On the one hand, I agree. A looming tragedy of the commons rather adequately captures the problems of our time. And the Netherlands, a microcosm of overcrowded interdependence with a large global footprint, potentially has solutions on offer. Indeed, as Jared Diamond suggests, the alternative to a new tragedy of the commons might well be a vision of ‘the world as polder’. But that vision is not going to emerge by itself. And there is little evidence available to suggest that the fragile commons have much to expect from the state. There, short term political interests prevail. In the Netherlands, whatever coalition may be forthcoming, the volatile fragmented political landscape will not allow much space for the kind of bold policy proposals that are required.
Enter then, civil society, and especially those institutions that operate in transnational spheres, like WNF, Hivos and others. We don’t like to admit it, but the WRR is probably right in suggesting that Dutch civil society will not be able to play a meaningful countervailing role as long as it continues to rely so heavily on state funding. Most organizations seem to predominantly directing their energies towards the state, towards the key players in the current coalition talks, to preserve their place and funding in a sector under threat. Understandable as that may be, it does not discharge us from heading our much more important developmental imperatives. It is probably up to us, not government, to come up with coherent and inspiring vision of how to collectively preserve the fragile commons on an increasingly interconnected planet. We need to invest our energies in new ideas, new coalitions, and concrete policy proposals. It would be great for example, if the NGO contributors to the WRR debate would engage more vigorously with discussions here at the Broker such as the one on degrowth. That is probably a more constructive way to broaden the space for more progressive government policies, especially if we manage to mobilize our constituencies around our ideas until politicians, in their relentless search for votes, will feel that they no other option but to ensure their implementation.
Comments