Sustaining dialogue : a study of the multi-stakeholder dialogues at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

Abstract

Can a communicative approach generate the kind of commitment, policy development and action necessary to meet the aspirations of sustainable development? Multi-stakeholder 'dialogues' and similar processes are common features of sustainability initiatives, to the point where 'such approaches are now seen as the necessary and logical consequence of adopting the goal of sustainable development' (Rydin, 2003:152). Yet, there is no guarantee that a communicative process will deliver a sustainable outcome. Poorly designed processes may in fact have the opposite effect, diverting and discouraging participants from other efforts at implementation. This thesis delves beneath the 'necessary and logical' perceptions surrounding communicative approaches to critically analyse the assumptions, possibilities and limitations therein. With both practical and intellectual intentions, the study is concerned with 'making social science matter' (Flyvbjerg, 2001b), and emphasises a value-focussed, context-dependent and action-oriented approach. The research centres on the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1998-2001), a particularly high-profile example of a communicative approach to sustainable development. The Dialogues offered diverse non-governmental stakeholders - 'Major Groups' in the terminology of Agenda 21 - an unprecedented space within the Commissions' official proceedings to present their views and priorities to governments, and just as importantly to each other. However, whilst offering Major Groups a voice within intergovernmental proceedings, the Dialogues were arguably less effective in ensuring that voice was heard. Drawing on Habermasian and Foucauldian constructs of power, consensus and otherness, the analysis finds that, somewhat paradoxically, the most practical on-going agreement in the Dialogues was achieved where differences between the Major Groups were most explicitly recognised. Where participants sought consensus to the extent that they denied the possibility of otherness, or expressed their otherness to the point of denying the possibility of consensus, efforts to sustain the dialogue were short-lived. It concludes that a communicative approach could add a constructive dimension to sustainable development efforts, building understanding and agreement between different stakeholders. However, the design of such processes must overcome idealised assumptions to be more reflective and open-ended, recognising dialogue as an on-going encounter with the other, an interplay of discourses deeply imbued with power relations and difference.