by Hans Joosten
During the IPS Annual Assembly in Tampere (Finland) on 11 June 2004, the Executive Board of IPS will propose a number of changes to the way the IPS operates.
The current operating structure of IPS consists of eight Commissions, each responsible for an area of activity:
I: Survey, Stratigraphy, Classification and Conservation of peatlands
II: Industrial Utilisation of Peat and Peatlands
III: Utilisation of Peat and Peatlands in Agriculture
IV: Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics of Peat
V: After-use of Cut-over and Disturbed Peatlands
VI: Peat Balneology, Medicine and Therapeutics
VII: Ecology and Management on Forested Peatlands
VIII: Cultural Aspects of Peat and Peatlands
Commission II serves a dual function: it is both the IPS Commission dealing with industrial utilizations of peatlands and peat and at the same time it functions as the International Peat Producers’ Association (IPPA), an interest group of peat extractors. Commission II is the best organised: it consists of “captains of industry” of major peat companies who have their own professional interests, staff, and budgets. The commission meets in plenary session twice a year and its activities are co-ordinated by a steering committee. The other seven Commissions operate by organising symposia, by publishing books and an occasional newsletter, and by networking on research projects. Most of them are hardly active outside symposia. This is on the one hand caused by a lack of capacity of the chairperson (who has to pull the cart additional to his/her normal job in which “being IPS commission chairman” is not one of the core activities), the lack of involvement of the commission members, and the topic. And it is caused by a lack of money, because IPS does not systematically support the Commissions financially. For Commission II members, whose companies earn their money by selling peat, this is not a problem. But for the other Commissions, it is! The names of these Commissions may reflect important societal interests like conservation, agriculture, and forestry, but in practise their membership predominantly consists of scientists, not of representatives of relevant and financially blessed interest groups.
The IPS Executive Board now proposes to reorganize into two Committees: an “Industrial Committee” that will focus only on the extraction and commercial use of peat (coordinating the present functions of Commission II/IPPA), and a “Scientific Committee” that will coordinate the functions carried out by the other seven Commissions. The IPS Executive Board is not happy with the preliminary names of the Committees, because it recognizes that also the “Scientific” area represents commercial activities whereas the “Industrial” area also includes scientific research. But the fact remains that the present Commission II consists of people who work in “the industry,” whereas the other Commissions consist of scientists.
It is envisaged that the chairperson of each Committee will be a member of the IPS Executive Board, in order to promote maximum cooperation between the two Committees and between them and the Executive Board. Both Committees would meet twice a year on the same date and in the same place. The travel expenses of the members of the “Scientific Committee” would be subsidised or paid by the IPS. Those of the “Industrial Committee” have to be covered by the industrial members themselves.
The IPS Executive Board proposal formulates a series of aims of the proposed reorganization. It is interesting to evaluate the reorganisation with respect to these aims.
1. “Clarify the mission and objectives of the IPS”
It is not clear how the proposed structure contributes to this aim.
2. “Improve the overall functioning of the IPS”
It is not clear how the proposed structure contributes to this aim (see below).
3. “Improve the cooperation between the “industrial” and “scientific” elements in the IPS”
The cooperation between the “industrial” and “scientific” elements in IPS would certainly be improved, because the groups would meet regularly. What the real benefits will be of that cooperation is not clear. Firstly the “Industrial Committee” will anyhow perform herself the scientific research it commercially needs. The companies involved have all large research departments or a research budget that widely surpasses everything that the “Scientific Committee” will have available.
4. “Provide for better coordination between the different scientific disciplines within the IPS”
Within a “Scientific Committee” indeed a better coordination between the different scientific disciplines can take place. But such regular meetings can also be organized between the chairpersons of the current Commissions. For that purpose you don’t need reorganization.
Enabling “coordinators” of areas to meet twice a year will, however, not solve some fundamental problems:
- that the areas of various IPS Commissions are globally insignificant, becoming economically marginal, or have globally nothing in common nor have joint interests (what has, for example, to be coordinated between balneology and peatland forestry?)
- that IPS has not succeeded in organizing major societal interest groups like farmers, foresters, conservationists and their organisations, because they do not primarily focus on the peatland aspect of their activities or because there are other more effective organisations available to represent their interests
- that integrated multidisciplinary “peatland science” is becoming a rare approach. Sciences become increasingly atomistic instead of holistic, discipline oriented instead of landscape type oriented. A hydrologist that investigates peatlands benefits more from a hydrological organisation than from a peatland organisation
- that still no money will be available for activities within the poor non-industrial areas and between these areas.
5. “Better reflect the reality of how the industrial and commercial elements currently operate”
The proposed structure will certainly “better reflect the reality of how the industrial and commercial elements in IPS operate”. It will expose the organisational dominance of the peat industry in IPS that is so well illustrated in the IPS finances. Officially 49% of the IPS income is derived from industry fees (2003 figures). The National Committees contribute 22%, whereas income from publications (24%) and other sources (5%) cover the remaining part. In practice the industry pays even about 2/3 of the IPS income as it also contributes substantially to the National Committee fees and to publication income through its purchases of publications and advertising. Without the money of the industry IPS could not function as it is doing now.
6. “Provide greater clarity to industrial and commercial members on how the industrial fees they pay are used.”
The aim to “provide greater clarity to industrial and commercial members on how the industrial fees they pay are used” is superfluous. Already now the industry can clearly see how her money is used: she pays 2/3 of all expenses of IPS. The new structure will not factually change this financial imbalance. It will only change it optically. At present the members represented in one of the eight commissions (12.5 %) pay over 50 %, possibly even two thirds, of the expenses of the whole organisation. In the proposed structure the members of one of the two Committees (50%) will pay 50% (or somewhat more) of the total expenses.
The industry sees that IPS is not (anymore?) the most efficient organization to lobby international bodies like the EU, the European Energy Foundation, and the UN, for their direct interests. For that purpose the industry is already developing other organisational structures. With respect to IPS, the more “modern” industrial members understand how useful an organisation of “all” peatland stakeholders is to be widely accepted in society and to prevent (expensive) polarization.
The more short-sighted parts of the peat industry see how much they pay for IPS and ask what the direct “value for money” of their investment is. For them a construction of “half of the money for half of the organisation” is much more acceptable. It will show better than today that IPS consists of two groups: the “haves” and the “have nots”: the “Industrial Committee” that can pay for itself and a “Scientific Committee” that has to keep its hands up.
If I were a modern entrepreneur, I would be a modest entrepreneur. I would not show off my importance so explicitly, even if I had the power: just because I had the power. An IPS with a broad representation of interests would be more efficient for my peat industry, because it would speak my words, maybe not all, but in a more effective way. I would not spoil that aspect for “greater clarity” in exposing IPS as an industry lobby.