The three players

Today is the final day of the SCORE conference discussing the proposed “Action Framework.” It’s good to see a lot of the important ideas being discussed. One function of this blog can be to examine each of these in depth as well as how they should come together.

I would like to further examine and clarify the idea of the three key players or “Triangle of Change.”

The role of government, local as well as national, is probably most clear. As Lewis Akenji pointed out, the 10 year framework will only be effective given the leadership shown by and among country governments, that the ideas and priorities of sustainable production and consumption need to move “up the hierarchy.” Considering the challenge of “the way mankind has organized its economic system of production and consumption,” this responsibility indeed needs to be taken up by more than one ministry (usually that of environment.) The reduction of SPAC to a sub-category of environmental protection is a barrier to progress. Both Rajan Gandhi and Lewis Akenji have highlighted some of their experience at the regional and sub-regional level to get governments and others to raise as well as clarify this priority.

The role of business and industry is clear to a point: Obviously, production, investment and distribution are all managed through the structures and processes business and the market. Despite the myth of consumer sovereignty, it is the investors in control of resources who decide the what, how and who involved in production. These decisions are influenced by government regulations and subsidies, as well as market demand, but the bottom line is return on investment. As long as sustainability is profitable it is good business. When it becomes expensive, industry is more resistant and provides its own set of barriers to progress.

This is where the third player comes in, which is often described as “civil society.” This is one of the most important yet least understood of the three players. Without the support of this group, government and business has no legitimacy nor can they function. Because of this, communications (e.g., mass media, advertising, political ideologies, etc.) are directed towards this group in gaining that support. The SCORE paper refers instead to citizens/consumers — which gives the impression of individuals and households. However, individual/household action (such as purchase power) is only one part of this broad and complex realm. Individuals and households have only limited power of influence in themselves. This is where community organizations and public interest organizations and networks come in, providing the collective voice and action which go beyond individual efforts. Nationally and internationally, this is the realm of NGOs — whose very identity is linked to the monitoring of progress by governments and business in “delivering the goods” to the people they are supposed to serve.

Especially given the need to bring “stakeholders” together and to build “trust,” as Sylvia Lorek has stressed, we are going to need to examine, discuss and hopefully agree on clear understanding of the nature of this third player. “NGO,” “civil society,” and “major groups” are all terms tossed around in this discussion, sometimes creating more confusion than clarity. Yet we need to cut through the fog here is we are to arrive at an agreement and agenda for action.

This Marrakech NGO Forum, in particular, needs to clarify this question of “who we are” in providing our input into this process.

Jeffrey Barber, Integrative Strategies Forum

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)