By Ashok Khosla, Chairman, Development Alternatives

 

There are few parts of the world that have been immune from the tendencies in recent decades for societies and economies to become more and more consolidated, centralized and authoritarian. Some societies were always like that, of course, but others even with a history spanning decades and centuries of participative democracy are reverting to practices that were more characteristic of feudal or colonial times. And in this era, when it is needed most, civil society ieverywhere is under growing attack, not so much by the people at large but by the forces of formal government and large business.

 

Our human systems have begun to recover from recent economic shocks. The question is whether natural systems will follow. Nature is resilient. It has struggled valiantly to withstand the compound and often brutal onslaught of change we impose on it, whether by increasing the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the acidification of our oceans, or the introduction of invasive species and careless extraction of mineral resources.

 

But there may be a point beyond which the biosphere starts to collapse, taking humankind with it. That point, in the judgement of many earth scientists today is not far off in time.

 

Against this ultimate, imposing and multi-faceted threat at every level, civil society, with its NGOs, Think Tanks, voluntary brigades and other not-for-profits, brings a profoundly peaceful, yet robust set of tools. We know that our most useful knowledge about nature is contagious; it spreads throughout the world like a benign virus, transforming people and institutions in an egalitarian manner. Our successful empowerment of marginalized people to sustain ecosystems likewise takes place as a voluntary, demand-driven transaction that balances new rights with broad responsibilities. Both exchanges remind us that in all our work with governance – ranging in influence from the United Nations to remote corners of the developing world – civil society organisations are among those who do not, indeed cannot, exercise hard power, the power of the law, or the power of the gun.

 

Our embrace of soft power is a source of pride on which the network of independent organisations, each with their own problem domains and solution tools stakes its reputation: the fragile yet timeless notion that inclusive, just, equitable and sustainable governance of society and nature is, as Aldo Leopold wrote, “an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity.”

 

Each year, as growing resource scarcity leads to more and more conflict, as global warming creates climate refugees, as biodiversity loss reduces our options for a better life, our sector’s soft power orientation is tested more then ever. It remains tempting for an elite to try to force changes: impose quick fixes that exclude the very people most exposed to risk. But we recognize that exclusive tactics invariably backfire, eroding trust – the very force that glues society together fast enough to meet the grave challenges ahead. Hard power is fleeting. Only soft power endures.

 

That reality leads to the structure of our role and position in the sphere of governance, globally, nationally and particularly locally. The world is at a crossroads. And so is civil society. How can the NGOs most effectively leverage knowledge and empowerment in ways that promote real social equity and effective conservation at all these levels of governance? Experience has taught us that hierarchies can falter, but networks remain resilient. Our unique global networks link people and decision-makers, businesses and governments, rich and poor, science and civil society, indigenous people and UN officials. It is as principled as it is pragmatic. And the top priorities for this network shows both what is evolutionarily possible and what is ecologically necessary as we:

 

Protect society and the biosphere with a focus on the evidence showing the value of equity and conservation;

• Analyse the economics and distributive issues of conserving, or failing to do so;

• Clarify the basis for establishing appropriate relationships between civil society and business;

• Improve the perception among all segments of society that social and economic fairness is in everyone’s interest;

• Elevate work on ecosystem processes to the level on species and habitats;

 

The effort to implement these priorities will require engaging broad constituencies. The responsive versions of management, systematic and programmatic reorganization described in the pages above all involve a certain degree of inherent risk. Indeed our on-going transformation is perhaps synonymous with risk. But based on all the reviews it is a calculated risk, a necessary risk, as all forms of evolutionary change in nature must be. The challenges humankind faces on our increasingly urban, hot, hungry and crowded planet are such that remaining in place would pose the gravest risk of all.

 

 

Ashok Khosla is founder and chairman of Development Alternatives