Human Security And The Right Of Development: A Quest For Reconciliation

A First Encounter

Let me begin informally by expressing my appreciation for the undertaking and approach being pursued by the World Commission on Dams. I speak as a novice when it comes to dams, and the essentially technical debate about their merits and drawbacks in various settings. But what I do understand is the vital importance of mastering the sort of technological opportunities that can bring about a higher quality of human security for the peoples of the world as we enter a new century, indeed a new millennium. It is obvious to me that how we view dams in this context is one crucial piece of solving the puzzle posed by the challenge of 21st century to uphold the right of development.

What impresses me so much about the Commission, and particularly the Prague Forum, is its creative attempt to infuse its substantive inquiries with a participatory democratic spirit and process. Marshall McLuhan coined an illuminating one-liner when he famously explained the distinctiveness of television with the words "the medium is the message." It may turn out that what is most memorable about this Commission is that it has successfully initiated an inclusive democratic process that has encompassed the most relevant contending voices. It is actively encouraging a collaborative search for principles of reconciliation between such basic goals as basic human needs, sustainable development, and corporate (or private sector) profitability.

This democratizing effort is made manifest in the Commission membership, the composition of its Secretariat staff, meeting format, work program, and in the very idea of this forum. Such an orientation should not be taken lightly. Actually, it is quite unique. I have been associated with several other independent international commissions that each did valuable work, but always on the basis of elite top down notions associated with the role of "eminent persons" and expert academic consultants. There was only the most nominal effort to include voices from the grassroots or representatives of affected interests in the serious work of these other commissions. The end result was a substantive report written in such a manner that it would not offend leading governments, and yet would set forth some substantive recommendations designed in various settings to contribute to more humane patterns of global governance. Such a result is presumably also relevant to the work of this commission, but my strong impression is that here it is linked, as well, to the integral practice of the Commission. And this means, its imaginative way of gathering information, forming a consensus, shaping recommendations, and in the end its likely manner of disseminating its approach and proposals for action. In this regard, the Commission is itself an experiment in global democracy, and notable as such.

Credibility in practice is another way of describing democratic process. It is a kind of mind game. The substantive context for dam construction is yielding a widely shared outlook. It is important to identify problems and social costs early in the course of a contemplated dam construction, especially if seriously contested because of allegedly adverse social and environmental consequences. It is important to learn how to proceed from the successes and failures of earlier dam projects. There is, by now, much experience, a storehouse of information and experience, but it is being interpreted in very different ways, depending on diverse perceptions and priorities. And so if this Commission in its very proceedings can model a consensus-forming mode of decision-making about dam construction that is animated by a shared commitment to human-centered development, then it will already have achieved a result that extends far beyond the wildest dreams of its initiating sponsors.

Substantive Points of Departure

It is becoming obvious to an increasing number of people around the world that a sustainable human future will depend on being able to take full advantage of technologies of production without doing so in a manner that impairs present and future human health and life prospects. This may well be the most delicate and complex balancing act in all of human history. Achieving such balance bears most urgently on the relationship between the availability of sufficient supplies of food and usable freshwater relative to the range of expanding human needs. This challenge is heightened by the degree to which increased demographic pressure seems likely to be felt most strongly in precisely those areas of the world that are currently most victimized by poverty.

It has been recently estimated that by the year 2025 the world population will have climbed by about another 2 billion until it reaches a world total of more than 8 billion. No less than 90% of this expected population increase will be concentrated in the already most economically disadvantaged countries that are even now often tragically unable to handle the freshwater and food needs of their peoples, which may significantly include making available large quantities of water for irrigated land. Such a condition of anticipated freshwater scarcity in a world of grossly uneven economic and demographic circumstances highlights a looming crisis in renewable resources, especially water. The overall situation is likely to grow worse unless innovative steps are taken to increase supplies and improve access, especially for the poor and for impoverished societies and parts of society. The role of dams, desalination, and soft energy paths must be assessed in light of this defining set of circumstances that will determine whether the minimum requirements of human security are being met for many of the most vulnerable people in the world.

It is notable also to recall the persisting political reluctance to come fully to terms with the human habitat as "a blue planet." Such an image was vividly inscribed in our consciousness by the first pictures of the earth sent back from the space missions in the late 1960s. But we have not, in our societal arrangements, begun to realize what it means to reside on a blue planet rather than a green/brown planet. Our terrestrial consciousness, the organization of world order, remains predominantly green/brown, and at its worst, brown/green or even just brown. The territorial sovereign state, although weakened by globalization, remains the basic organizational reality of our world. The state, although a flexible and resilient entity, is generally delimited in a manner that does not correspond with the boundaries of bio-regional systems, including many of the world's great river basins. Such divisions of the world into territorial units often works against such goals as resource development, equitable distribution, and environmental protection. We also know that more than 70% of the surface of the planet is covered by oceans that is mainly an unregulated "global commons." To the extent regulated, ocean use and sustainability is entrusted to coastal states with very different ideas about development priorities, not to mention their disparities with respect to knowledge and capacity. As elsewhere, the most disadvantaged states economically are also those with the least ability to extend the reach of coastal authority to govern offshore waters effectively.

The state system is also often at odds internally and transnationally with deeply rooted cultural ecosystems, including with the wellbeing and lifeworld of indigenous peoples. It is not only protecting such peoples from predatory forms of hyper-modern development that can pose threats to their cultural, and even their physical survival. It is also a matter of leaning from and appreciating indigenous peoples, realizing that they provide modern societies with an invaluable body of wisdom about how to carry on a project of "sustainable development" over a period of centuries. More specifically, in our search for the best paths for development it is fitting to encourage an affirmation of indigenous peoples who have generally understood so profoundly and for so long their organic interconnectness with and dependence upon renewable resources, especially water. In a fundamental cultural sense these pre-modern peoples may be educating the modern world to make the unfolding of the post-modern reality a viable and desirable emergent new phase of human experience. In the course of making such an affirmation, it is important not to romanticize or homogenize indigenous peoples, who overall exhibit great diversity of experience, and who have been themselves responsible in various settings for extreme environmental breakdowns.

In shaping policies on renewable resources, and on the future of dams, it is important to take account of the role and relevance of international law. We turn to international law to give agreed and authoritative meaning to such commonly invoked normative ideas as "sustainable development," "the right to development," "economic and social rights," and even to "human security." These are powerful normative ideas, that is, ideas with moral, political, and legal force. But if they remain vague abstractions such norms can function as cliches without content and lacking in influence. We need international law to help establish an authoritative framework that encourages the promotion of preferred values, facilitating the underlying quest for the reconciliation of the right to development and human security. At this stage, the evolution of international law is not exclusively entrusted any longer to governments. It depends on the actions of many bodies operative in a variety of arenas of opinion and decision, including the formulations and prescriptions set forth by an independent commission of this sort. In other words, the World Commission on Dams has the responsibility and opportunity in its proceedings and report to influence the understanding of these key normative ideas. These ideas will help to draw the boundary between rights and duties, between what is permitted and what is prohibited, as well as to recommend procedures for dispute-settlement, confidence-building, and implementation.

We need to take note of the contributions to international law that resulted from the two UN conferences on environmental policy, the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 and the Rio Conference on Environment and Development twenty years later. Both proceedings set forth important normative frameworks in their respective final declarations, but the Rio Declaration in 1992 exhibited far more sensitivity to the relevance of countries in the South and their commitment to developing their economies in a manner that would overcome massive poverty. It also was more receptive to the pressures mounted by global civil society and made a greater effort to include NGOs and voluntary associations of all types within their proceedings. The Declaration also exhibited the increased influence of vulnerable sectors of human society whose voices in the past were either suppressed directly or merely unheard, including that of women and of indigenous peoples.

Rio 1992 is associated with the notion of "sustainable development" as the basis of a North/South consensus, but it also gave heightened legitimacy to the notion of "human-centered development." Moving beyond the Stockholm focus on environmental protection as an independent and isolated concern, the spirit of Rio was more organic and contextual in its approach, reflective of broader international currents of opinion. As expressed in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: "Human beings are at the centre of concerns for human development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature."

Additionally, the human-centered development imperative has benefited from the growing importance and scope of "rights," a non-discretionary "entitlement" that removes pro-poor and equitably-driven commitments from the domain of "charity." Of particular relevance here is the authoritative formulation by the UN General Assembly of "the right to development" in the 1986 Declaration on the Right of Development. Significant, as well, is the more serious attention being given by human rights NGOs to the implementation of UN Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which was set forth in 1966. This Covenant was neglected by the West in the cold war years, including by the NGOs, and ideologically repudiated by the United States and the United Kingdom during the Thatcher/Reagan years, on the misleading grounds that it represented the Soviet bloc/socialist approach to human rights. The insistence on treating economic and social rights as part of human rights was also viewed as an effort by anti-democratic governments to deflect criticism of their authoritarian rule. But with the end of the cold war and the spread of neo-liberalism, the social disempowerment of the state is resulting in generating a growing support throughout civil society for a rights-based approach to economic and social policy. This broader conception of operative human rights is also beginning to inform the evolution of international law in recent years.

In the context of this Commission, the challenge of solidarity rights are of special interest. Reference has already been made to the right of development, as central. But there are additional important solidarity rights with relevance to shaping a normative perspective on dams, their construction and operation. To begin with, "the rights of future generations" need to be taken into far better account than is presently the case. Those who are as yet unborn are the most under-represented of all constituencies in policymaking settings. And yet it is future generations who will eventually bear the heaviest burden arising from mistaken notions of development, either by way of overly discouraging innovation and growth or through failures to anticipate and prevent environmental, social, and cultural catastrophes.

As mentioned earlier, it is also of great importance to take account of the right of self-determination enjoyed by all peoples, including indigenous peoples that are not internationally represented in an adequate fashion through the medium of a sovereign state. Although the scope of such a right remains a subject of controversy among international law experts, the basic moral and political right to uphold the integrity of indigenous communities is now widely enough accepted in theory. It is no longer debatable that such a right now exists, although its application in situations where competing rights of development are at issue may involve difficult tradeoffs and compromises. Such challenges are common in relation to dam projects, as indigenous peoples are often located near rivers, and their displacement is likely to be more serious than a matter of arranging for an equitable and humane relocation. Moving indigenous people is likely to involve the disruption of a network of sacred relations with land enduring over centuries, as well as with the water, sky, and specific animals of the place.

In sum, the articulation of a rights-based approach helps to promote a particular weighting of competing considerations in political arenas of decision, including those of government. It also influences the manner by which civil society and the private sector approach controversy over policy designed to ensure adequate renewable resources for present and future generations. Such a rearticulation of international law principles, by way of a democratic process, is itself a contribution to the establishment of a legitimate consensus that enjoys broad support. I see the work of this Commission as moving in this direction with respect to establishing a normative framework within which to resolve controversy over the siting and operation of dams. As stressed earlier, it is not just a matter of agreeing on the substantive factors that are to be taken into account. It is also a matter of ensuring a participatory process of norm-creation that bonds the various interests and constituencies to mutually agreed outcomes. This democratizing of lawmaking is itself part of the extension of meaningful "democracy" beyond state/society relations to encompass both the local/grassroots impacts of developmental decisions and their transnational/regional effects.

Clarifying the Main Obstacles

Fulfilling the right to development within the framework of an even wider commitment to realize human security faces several serious obstacles. These obstacles cannot be ignored, but their impact on the shaping of global policy relative to dams can be mitigated.

(1) Statism. The organizational basis of world order remains the territorial sovereign state. Such a state represents for most governments the outer limits of community and identity, with policy being shaped to realize the perceived national interests of the state as understood in relation to rather short time horizons. These horizons usually reflect the normal cycle of accountability that political leaders face, which because of the spread of constitutional democracy, is now generally a period of time that is delimited by the occurrence of periodic elections. The state does provide a degree of order within territorial states that builds needed confidence for longer term investments by private or public sector of the sort associated with dam projects, but it does so with several accompanying costs.

The most serious cost is to give states automatic authority for dam construction regardless of social and environmental effects. There is no burden of justification in relation to neighboring countries or social sectors that might be adversely affected by a dam project or to the regional community as a whole. The state remains pretty much a law unto itself, and if it is non-democratic or ineffectually democratic, even the citizenry may not be sufficiently informed or mobilized to oppose projects that appear likely to have adverse effects. It may also be the case that environmental activism overwhelms developmental imperatives in such a way that opposition to dam construction makes it impossible for the state to provide for the material wellbeing of its citizenry.

The state is also hampered by a "realist" approach to the pursuit of its interests, especially those interests that involve relations with other states and their peoples. As such, it is not generally very responsive to moral and legal considerations in the pursuit of its foreign policy objectives. For instance, if a weaker and poor neighbor has greater needs for damming its rivers, these circumstance are not by themselves likely to alter the behavior of the stronger and more affluent state. The unevenness of world and regional living standards will not be easily translated into a hydropolitics based on equity!

At the same time, it is important to introduce and support the idea of "responsible sovereignty," that is, greater sensitivity to normative arguments and to longer time horizons than has been customary in the past. The declining capability of the state to maintain overall control over economic policy due to globalization, may make political leaders more receptive than previously to cooperative approaches. It is doubtful that the challenges associated with anticipated increasing scarcities of renewable resources, especially water, can be met by a reliance on the traditional statist approaches of a zero-sum character. The modification of the role and orientation of the state in relation to the promotion of development and human security seems indispensable.

(2) Globalization. A further set of difficulties is associated with the increasing speed and mobility of capital and the associated rise of weakly regulated international financial markets. These difficulties are compounded by neo-liberal thinking about minimizing the public sector role in guiding the investment of capital. Such a market-oriented approach to policy leads to policy decisions based primarily on the efficient employment of capital resources with efficiency measured mainly by reference to considerations of short-term profitability. Such a calculus tends to marginalize moral considerations about social and environmental harm. As such, it evades the obligations associated with promoting the right to development. In crude and over-simplified terms, "the security of capital" supplants "human security" as the foundation of policy.

As with the state, there is some internal criticism of neo-liberal thinking, especially in light of the Asian financial crisis, 1997-99, and its wider implications for such countries as Japan, Brazil, and Russia. Major players in the world economy are now issuing warnings about "market fundamentalism," and are advocating "globalization with a human face" and "responsible globality." Whether these calls will add up to anything very substantive is not evident at this point, but at least the difficulties of relying to uncritically on market forces has been much more widely acknowledged, including by such international financial institutions as the World Bank and the IMF. In turn, there is more receptivity to debate, and to be more attentive to social and environmental consequences of private and public sector decisions.

(3) Knowledge. There are genuine difficulties connected with the absence of a firm knowledge base upon which to make longer term decisions relating to future renewable resources, including water. Information is used selectively to support a given viewpoint, and it is almost impossible to rely on disinterested knowledge as the foundation for enlightened policy. There are inherent uncertainties, as well, that bear upon rational calculations. The impact of unforeseen technological innovations and of natural disasters is important, yet hard to factor into a decision process.

These problems can be reduced, as illustrated by the approach of the Commission, by studying past successes and failures in the areas of concern, by including in a knowledge-gathering process representatives of the various affected constituencies, and by seeking explicit agreement about the relevance of normative goals, alongside market considerations. In this setting, the right to development, the protection of economic and social rights, and sustainable development are brought directly into the policymaking picture.

(4) Cultural Differences. There is an increasing support to carry forward development in a manner that shows respect for cultural norms, including ways of resolving conflict. This issue takes on importance in the formation of global policy and the work of international institutions where there has been a tendency to premise analysis on Western cultural norms. A more satisfactory approach would take more convincing account of non-Western ways of thinking and acting, as well as non-Western participation, to ensure a culturally sensitive approach to both development and the construction of human security.

There are also problems of inter-cultural tension arising from conflicting views and values. These tensions are, perhaps, most clearly manifest in the clash between modern and traditional worldviews, as expressed either in the setting of extremist religious politics or in encounters with indigenous peoples. In the latter instances, often relevant to the formation of watercourse policy, it may be necessary to balance the attachment of a people to a particular stretch of riparian land against the economic and social costs of not proceeding with river basin development in as efficient a manner as possible.

(5) Legal Regime. A final area of difficulty is associated with the vagueness and ambiguity of existing international law relative to the exercise of the right of development. There are few useful ways at present to rely on The Rule of Law to facilitate optimal human-centered development in relation to river basins. In this respect, the negotiation of a satisfactory arrangement is dominated by inter-governmental relations, which tend to be shaped more by power/wealth variables than by justice/rights considerations. The strength of market forces reinforces this tendency.

At the same time the growing interest of various representatives of civil society and the realization of all participants that it is important to confront difficulties early in relation to contested developmental projects is creating a more favorable atmosphere for norm-creation. In this regard, the Commission may be able to depict the contours for a legal regime applicable to dams that would bring greater clarity with respect to both the process and substantive sides of policy.

A Concluding Note

Coping with the obstacles briefly described will be necessary for the Commission to complete its work successfully, and offer encouragement for a dynamic approach to development that embodies the perspectives of human security. There are several hopeful features of the global setting that can be identified as helpful for this endeavor.

First of all, trends toward democratization in all arenas of decision is consistent with making sure that interested parties have an ample and timely opportunity to participate effectively in policymaking that affects their wellbeing. As expressed earlier, the Commission process itself models such a democratic process, and legitimizes the extension of such an approach to the formation of dam policy in specific situations.

Secondly, the deepening and expansion of human rights, including respect for the rights of solidarity, as well as economic and social rights, establishes a mandate to pursue human-centered development, and not to succumb altogether to purely economistic arguments based on returns upon capital.

Thirdly, there is emergent "a new internationalism" dedicated to establishing a more humane structure of world order, and premised on the formation of ad hoc coalitions between moderately inclined states and forward-looking transnational social forces. Such coalitions have been recently successful in promoting an anti-personnel landmines treaty, an arrangement to establish an international criminal court, and controls over the emission of greenhouse gasses that are widely believed to be responsible for global warming. In each instance, these coalitions at least initially have succeeded in circumventing geopolitical resistance to plans for global reform. Such a coalition could help create an international atmosphere that would be beneficial in relation to the spectrum of development concerns, including the presentation of a successful approach to renewable resources for the 21st century.

And finally, there is some positive possibilities associated with the surge of interest in regionalization. The European experience is by far the most advanced, but regional initiatives are going forward in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The main appeal of regionalism in relation to freshwater issues is to provide a more culturally unified orientation toward problem-solving in which it becomes easier to diminish the distorting effects of territorial sovereignty. In this regard, it may prove easier to develop freshwater resources in a more ecological sensible manner, and to give greater weight to equitable considerations.

The Commission has an opportunity to reinforce these positive tendencies, and to adapt them convincingly to the difficult and vital matter of achieving human-centered development in a manner that responds as well as possible to anticipated patterns of freshwater scarcity and hardship. If the Commission can shape even a rough consensus as to process and substantive framework relative to dams, then it will have admirably accomplished its mission.