Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

NGOs as Strategic Actors in the Promotion of Sustainable Dam Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolution of Dam Policies

Abstract

Considering the heterogeneity of actors and strategies employed in transnational advocacy networks, as well as the modern governance debate where some activists express their concern about the power shift away from government towards the private sector, this chapter explores the various strategies non-governmental organisations (NGOs) use to persuade private actors to promote sustainable dam development and considers why some NGOs choose to adopt a more or less collaborative attitude towards the dam industry. It analyses the strategies of two international NGOs in a recent industry-driven, multi-stakeholder dialogue, the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum (HSAF), and their positions on its outcome, the 2010 International Hydropower Association’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol. The analysis suggests that ideological differences might account for the choice of more or less collaborative approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Atzl (2012) in this book for a discussion on chosen pathways and techniques in the anti-Ilisu Dam campaign.

  2. 2.

    Loosely defined as “actors working internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse, and dense exchanges of information and services” (Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 2).

  3. 3.

    See also MartĂ­nez-Alier (2002) on the change of discourse in various environmental movements.

  4. 4.

    The IHA describes itself as a non-profit, unincorporated (i.e. voluntary) and mutual association of its members, who are both individuals and organizations active in the hydropower sector or a related field. Its head office is located in London, United Kingdom, see http://www.hydropower.org/about-iha/; http://www.hydropower.org/about-iha/current-members.html for a full list of its current corporate members and sponsors. Accessed 04 October 2012.

  5. 5.

    See http://www.hydropower.org/sustainable_hydropower/hsaf_Hydropower_Sustainability_Assessment_Protocol.html for the purpose and use of the Protocol. Accessed 04 October 2012.

  6. 6.

    See http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/organization/. Accessed 23 August 2012.

  7. 7.

    The other two pillars are Water Stewardship and Habitat Protection.

  8. 8.

    See Islam et al. (2013, p. 130) for a recent discussion on whether mutually advantageous results are possible in water negotiations, given that the various stakeholders involved defend competing interests. The authors highlight the limits to and the importance of shifting from “competitive, zero-sum thinking to cooperative efforts to create values”.

  9. 9.

    Jointly with the Asian Development Bank, the Agence Française de Développement, the French Global Environment Facility and the Inter-American Development Bank.

  10. 10.

    The WWC, founded in 1996, is an international multi-stakeholder network of more than 300 member organizations, ranging from government organizations, corporations, NGOs, academic institutions and think tanks to (international) financial institutions actively engaged in the water sector. It is known for organizing the World Water Forum, an international forum that has taken place every 3 years since 1997, on the last occasion in Marseilles in 2012. For more information on the WWC, see http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/. Accessed 23 August 2012.

  11. 11.

    The Early State Section does not contain any scoring statements, however, since it merely provides guidance (IHA 2010a).

  12. 12.

    For further details, see http://www.hydrosustainability.org/Governance.aspx (accessed on 13 March 2013).

  13. 13.

    He also said, however, that the WWF was not pleased that basin-scale hydropower planning was not adequately covered by the protocol, but rather mainstreamed, because a stand-alone page—that is basin-scale hydropower planning treated as a separate topic—might have triggered China’s resignation from the forum.

  14. 14.

    Although its representative recognized important advances in the new protocol, Oxfam decided to monitor the process from an external vantage point and to help communities to understand the Protocol and its application (interview with Michael Simon).

  15. 15.

    The protocol’s scoring method was initially criticized and regarded as a problem during the first and second consultation phases (see IHA Association 2009). During the second consultation phase, various stakeholders considered the subjective and qualitative nature of the scoring and the wording of scores to be a basic flaw (see IHA 2010b).

  16. 16.

    See Civil Society Declaration at the 6th World Water Forum, Marseilles 2012, http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/civil-society-declaration-at-6th-world-water-forum-marseille-2012-4278. Accessed 02 October 2012.

References

  • Ă„hlström J, Sjöström E (2005) CSOs and business partnerships: strategies for interaction. Bus Strategy Environ 14:230–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin JE (2000) Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Q 29:69–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atzl A (2012) Transnational NGO-networks campaign against the Ilisu Dam, Turkey. In: Scheumann W, Hensengerth O (eds) Evolution of dam policies. Evidence from the big hydropower states. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosshard P (2009a) A giant step back from current rights and standards. A critique of the key components document of the hydropower sustainability assessment forum, March 2009. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/critique-of-the-hsaf-approach-4308. Accessed 23 Aug 2012

  • Bosshard P (2009b) The dam industry’s brave new world. http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/227/the-dam-industry%E2%80%99s-brave-new-world. Accessed 24 Aug 2012

  • Brunnengräber A (2001) Offensive des Lächelns. Die NGOs und das Dilemma der Klimaverhandlungen – Vom konflikt- zum konsensorientierten Akteur. Der Freitag, 22 January 2001. http://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/offensive-des-lachelns. Accessed 17 July 2012

  • BrĂĽhl T (2009) Nichtregierungsorganisationen als Akteure internationaler Umweltverhandlungen. Ein Erklärungsmodell auf der Basis der situationsspezifischen Ressourcennachfrage. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt, New York:

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Hond F, De Bakker FGA (2007) Ideologically motivated activism: how activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Acad Manag Rev 32:901–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobner P (2010) Wasserpolitik. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh JP, Newburry WE, Teegen H (2003) Cooperative strategies in environmental nongovernmental organisations. In: Doh JP, Teegen H (eds) Globalization and NGOs. Transforming business, government, and society. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp 65–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh JP, Teegen H (2003) Preface: globalization and NGO—why should we care? In: Doh JP, Teegen H (eds) Globalization and NGOs. Transforming business, government, and society. Praeger, Westport, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore M, Sikkink K (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. Int Org 52(4):887–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florini AM (2000) (ed) The third force: the rise of transnational civil society. Carnegie endowment for international peace. Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasbergen P, Groenenberg R (2001) Environmental partnerships in sustainable energy. Eur Environ 11:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasbergen P (2007) Setting the scene: the partnership paradigm in the making. In: Glasbergen P, Bierman F, Mol AP (eds) Partnerships, governance and sustainable development. Reflections on theory and practice. Cheltenham, UK, pp 1–25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom B (2003) Cross-border activism and its limits: Mexican environmental organizations and the United States. Cuadernos del CEDLA 13. CEDLA (Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation), Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurwitz Z (2011) Hydropower industry needs standards, not scorecards, to be sustainable. http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/258/hydropower-industry-needs-standards-not-scorecards-to-be-sustainable. Accessed 24 Aug 2012

  • IHA (International Hydropower Association) (2004) IHA sustainability guidelines. International Hydropower Association, London

    Google Scholar 

  • IHA (International Hydropower Association) (2006) IHA sustainability assessment protocol. International Hydropower Association, London

    Google Scholar 

  • IHA (International Hydropower Association) (2009) Forum response to consultation 1 issues, March 2009. http://www.hydrosustainability.org/IHAHydro4Life/media/PDFs/PDF%20docs/consultation%20phase%201/HSAF-Phase_1_Consultation_Issues-HSAF_Response_23_Mar_2009.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2013

  • IHA (International Hydropower Association) (2010a) IHA sustainability assessment protocol, London

    Google Scholar 

  • IHA (International Hydropower Association (2010b) Hydropower sustainability assessment forum. Phase 2 consultation outcomes report. Ove Arup & Partners Ltd, London. http://www.hydrosustainability.org/Protocol/Protocol-development/Consulation-Phase-2.aspx. Accessed 1 Aug 2013

  • Imhof A, Lanza GR (2010) Greenwashing hydropower: the problems with big dams. World Watch Mag 23(1):8–17

    Google Scholar 

  • IR (International Rivers) (no year) http://www.internationalrivers.org/. Accessed 18 July 2012

  • IR (International Rivers) (2003) Who’s behind the World Water Forums? A brief guide to the world water mafia. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/who-s-behind-the-world-water-forums-2644. Accessed 26 July 2012

  • IR (International Rivers) (2008) Social and environmental standards for large dams. Comparing the strategic priorities and policy principles of the world commission on dams, the sustainability guidelines and sustainability assessment protocol of the international hydropower association, and the performance standards of the world bank’s international finance corporation. http://www.internationalrivers.org/node/3959. Accessed 24 Aug 2012

  • IR (International Rivers) (2009) Letter to IHA. Sent on 09-01-12. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/letter-to-iha-regarding-lack-of-civil-society-participation-in-hsaf-3147. Accessed 24 Aug 2012

  • IR (International Rivers) (2010) Voluntary approach will not resolve dam conflicts. A critique of the international hydropower association assessment protocol. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/voluntary-approach-will-not-resolve-dam-conflicts-4286. Accessed 26 August 2012

  • IR (International Rivers) (2011) Civil society statement on the launch of the hydropower sustainability assessment protocol at the congress of the international hydropower association in Foz do Iguaçú Brazil on 16 June 2011. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/civil-society-statement-on-the-launch-of-the-hydropower-sustainability-assessment-protocol. Accessed 24 Aug 2012

  • IR (International Rivers) (2012) Infrastructure for whom? A critique of the infrastructure strategies of the Group 20 and the World Bank. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/infrastructure-for-whom-7454. Accessed 20 July 2012

  • Islam S, Susskind LE and associates (2013) Water diplomacy: a negotiated approach to managing complex water networks. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan L, Van Tuijl P (2000) Political responsibility in transnational NGO advocacy. World Dev 28(12):2051–2065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck M, Sikkink K (1998) Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international Politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Khagram S (2000) Toward democratic governance of sustainable development: transnational civil society organizing around big dams. In: Florini AM (ed) The third force: the rise of transnational civil society. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, pp 83–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Khagram S, Riker JV, Sikkink K (2002) From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational advocacy groups restructuring world politics. In: Khagram S, Riker JV, Sikkink K (eds) Restructuring world politics. Transnational social movements, networks and norms. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Locher H, Hermansen GY, Johannesson GA, Xuezhong Y et al (2010) Initiatives in the hydro power sector post-World Commission on Dams—the hydropower sustainability assessment forum. Water Altern 3(2):43–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Locher H, Hermansen GY, Johannesson GA, Xuezhong Y et al (2011) Hydropower sustainability assessment forum. Statement of conclusion

    Google Scholar 

  • MartĂ­nez-Alier J (2002) The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews JT (1997) Power shift. Foreign Aff 76:50–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R (2001) El Estado y la sociedad civil en la gobernanza moderna. Revista del CLAD, Reforma y Democracia (21):7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • McCully P (2001) The use of a trilateral network: an activist’s perspective on the formation of the world commission on dams. Am Univ Int Law Rev 16(6):1453–1475

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelman E (1990) Global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society. Int Org 44:479–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson PJ (1997) Conflict, legitimacy, and effectiveness: who speaks for whom in transnational NGO networks lobbying the world bank? Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Q 26(4):421–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien R (2005) Global civil society and global governance. In: Ba AD, Hoffmann MJ (eds) Contending perspectives on global governance. Coherence, contestation and world order. Routledge, London, New York, pp 213–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway M (2001) Corporatism goes global: international organizations, nongovernmental organization networks, and transnational business. Glob Gov 7:265–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker AR (2003) Prospects for NGO collaboration with multinational enterprises. In: Doh JP, Teegen H (eds) Globalization and NGOs. Transforming business, government, and society. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp 81–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes RAW (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Polit Stud XLIV:652–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrscheider R, Dalton RJ (2002) A global network? transnational cooperation among environmental groups. J Polit 64(2):510–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ, Moldoveanu M (2003) When will stakeholder groups act? an interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Acad Manag Rev 28:204–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikkink K (2002) Restructuring world politics: the limits and asymmetries of soft power. In: Khagram S, Riker JV, Sikkink K (eds) Restructuring world politics. Transnational social movements, networks and norms. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, pp 301–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons PJ (1998) Learning to live with NGOs. Foreign Policy 112:82–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huijstee M, Glasbergen P (2007) The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15:298–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huijstee M, Francken M, Leroy P (2008) Partnerships for sustainable development: a review of current literature. Environ Sci 4(2):75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huijstee M (2009) Interactions between business and nongovernmental organizations. New social practices for sustainable development. Ă–kologisches Wirtschaften 1:39–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Huijstee M, Glasbergen P (2010) NGOs moving business: an analysis of contrasting strategies. Bus Soc 49:591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss TG, Gordenker L (eds) (1996) NGOs, the UN and Global Governance. Lynne Rienner Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PB (1998) An historic overview of IRN’s Mission. Unpublished manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J (2002) The sponsorship scam. In: Lubbers E (ed) Battling big business: countering greenwash, front groups and other forms of corporate bullying. Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME, pp 44–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston M (2002) NGOs strategies for promoting corporate social responsibility. Ethics Int Aff 16(1):71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2010) Involving nongovernmental organizations in bank-supported activities. http://go.worldbank.org/0WT7SICZY0. Accessed 30 January 2013

  • WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (no year) Dams initiative. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/water/dams_initiative/. Accessed 18 July 2012

  • WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2003) WWF’s Dams initiative: hydropower in a changing world. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/water/dams_initiative/news/. Accessed 18 July 2012

  • WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2005) WWF’s Dams initiative: to dam or not to dam? Five years on from the world commission on dams. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/water/dams_initiative/news/. Accessed on 18 July 2012

  • WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2007) WWF’s Dams initiative: rivers at risk. Dams in the future of freshwater ecosystems. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/water/dams_initiative/news/. Accessed 18 July 2012

  • Zald MN, McCarthy JD (1980) Social movement industries: competition and cooperation among movement organizations. Res Soc Mov Conflicts Change 3:1–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Development Institute (DIE), Bonn, Germany

    Sara Eichert

Authors
  1. Sara Eichert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Eichert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management, Deutsches Institut fĂĽr Entwicklungspolitik, Bonn, Germany

    Waltina Scheumann

  2. School of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Southampton, United Kingdom

    Oliver Hensengerth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eichert, S. (2014). NGOs as Strategic Actors in the Promotion of Sustainable Dam Development. In: Scheumann, W., Hensengerth, O. (eds) Evolution of Dam Policies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23403-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation