Introduction to the case
This case study will tell the story of the World Commissions on Dams, an ambitious multi-stakeholder process using evidence-based research to build a solid consensus despite the diversity of the constituencies represented. Considered good practice by many as a dialogue process aiming to shape global policy-making, the WCD produced positive results and important lessons both in terms of policy, and CSO networking and strategising for influencing policy. However due to mixed response and lack of uptake by some national governments and international institutions such as the World Bank, the jury is still out on the ultimate usefulness and replicability of the process.

The type and extent of policy change
Various influential actors in dam-building welcomed the non-binding recommendations in the final report of the WCD, incorporating them into their own standards. A Dams and Development Unit under the auspices of UNEP is in charge of disseminating the findings. However major actors such as the World Bank and governments have rejected or only paid lip service to the report. CSOs have used it to sharpen their advocacy strategies on dam-related issues.

Some thoughts on the explanation of the policy change
The policy context
CSOs were in a strong position due to growing protests against the impact of large dams and international financial institutions on their 50th anniversary. The World Bank, whose role was being challenged, found an acceptable civil society partner in the World Conservation Union (IUCN) to initiate the WCD process. Dam industry representatives were significantly less well organised than CSOs but agreed to participate due to the growing risks and costs associated with the construction of large dams.

The way CSOs tried to affect change (strategies and activities)
CSOs invested energy in shaping and feeding into the process, and promoting its outcome. They used their leverage to negotiate the commission's structure, composition and workings, and secure adequate representation. Several civil society members had the implicit mandate to reflect civil society views on the 12-member commission, and a broader consultative forum used as a 'sounding-board' also included CSOs. Co-operation between those CSOs inside and outside the process benefited from existing trust between civil society campaigners. Thanks to electronic communications CSOs were able to strategise promptly and effectively, despite language issues. They participated actively in the process (commenting on drafts, submitting testimonies, leaking information to the press), publicised and promoted the final report, and used it to influence the design of specific dam projects.

Nature of research based-evidence, if relevant (content, source, reliability)
The WCD commissioned its own research: in-depth case studies on specific large dams, a cross-check survey of 150 large dams, thematic and country reviews, and submissions/ regional consultations. Teams of national consultants carried out the case studies (raising neutrality issues but ensuring knowledge of the local context). They were asked to seek both quantitative and qualitative information and to reflect the point of view of all stakeholders. This was achieved for example through multi-stakeholder review meetings. The most credible and substantial studies were those carried out by researchers combining interdisciplinary expertise with perceived political neutrality. Conflicts over knowledge control sometimes erupted as governments and industry associations proved to be wary about sharing dam-related data with the WCD.

Mechanisms used to get the evidence into the policy process
The WCD committed early on in the process to adopt transparency and inclusiveness as the guiding principles of its work. It was crucial for the credibility of the Commission to appear to be gathering evidence in a balanced way, reflecting the perspective of the various stakeholders. Overall this proved to be successful, despite issues of resources, timeframe, language and access to communication channels.

To produce their final report Commissioners relied on the case studies, thematic reviews, dam survey and submissions/ regional consultations mentioned above. These were the four 'pillars' of a 'knowledge base' used by Commissioners to produce three thematic reports, which in turn formed the basis for the WCD's final report.

International factors
As this case study is about a global process, many international factors were at play: global policy making vs. national interest/sovereignty, international networking among CSOs, disparities of resources and access to policy-makers among CSOs from the North and the South, use of communications to influence policy processes, etc.

Conclusions on what the case might tell us
The WCD is a key case of global policy-making through multi-stakeholder dialogue. The main lesson is that well-organised civil society coalitions can influence policy formulation by engaging in a dialogue with official and private stakeholders, even when initial views appear to diverge strongly. Other possible lessons include:

• although debating a controversial issue, participants in the WCD were able to reach a substantial consensus because they felt the concerns of their implicit constituency were reflected in the process (including through evidence-gathering);
  
• consensus among participants (in that case Commissioners) does not necessarily translate into a broad consensus among the constituencies they informally represent;
  
• building a solid, evidence-based knowledge base in a way that is acceptable and credible to stakeholders involved was instrumental as a first step towards achieving a constructive dialogue;
  
• while multi-stakeholder processes are an innovative way to shape policy, the non-binding nature of the WCD recommendations, key to getting a diverse range of stakeholders on board, also limited the eventual uptake, including by the World Bank who co-initiated the process;
  
• because governments are still the key actors for policy formulation and implementation, partial failure to get major, wary governments on board limited the impact of the multi-stakeholder exercise

View full case study ( 129kb)

Back to Case Studies index