Sustainable development has become somewhat of a mantra for many people making and implementing policy. Its popularity stems from an expectation that it can reconcile economic development with the need to conserve natural resources, protect the environment and meet social objectives. While we know that the theory rarely lives up to reality, it is important to understand how the term is being put into practice at the local level, and some of the pitfalls associated with this. This paper reports on our understanding of various sectors and how they were getting to grips with the term ‘sustainable development’.

 

 

A patchwork of sectors, organisations and individuals contribute to, or have an interest in, policies for sustainable development - environmental regulatory bodies, charities, non governmental organisations, public sector bodies, the business sector, business representative organisations, the higher education sector, third sector organisations, the voluntary or cooperative sector, community groups, individual sustainability projects, cooperatives, campaign groups and radical protest groups. Yet, policy formulation on sustainable development is largely steered by established policy forums, especially ‘roundtables on sustainable development’ comprised of local authorities, regional development agencies, government offices, regional assemblies and business sector organisations, backed by one or two representatives from the social, voluntary and environmental sectors.

 

These policy networks have a tremendous set of expectations and responsibilities to live up to. They are invested with power to speak on behalf of many different groups and individuals in localities. A term like sustainable development can often become a powerful tool for groups who have the financial and political power and the media connections to manipulate and insert their definitions of it into mainstream thought. In this context, it is also important to bear in mind the extent to which policy networks set the agenda in terms of what the ‘public’ can think is possible. Putting sustainable development into practice in a meaningful and inclusive way involves addressing a number of tricky issues, some of which are outlined below.

 

The traditional ground for local policy makers has been economic development in which sustainable development plays a peripheral part. While it is widely understood within the green movement that ‘sustainable development’ is different from conventional ‘economic development’, faced with lack of guidance, experience or expertise it is understandable that many established policy makers are experiencing difficulties putting sustainable development at the centre of their strategies. In general, most policy rests heavily on the jargon of cluster-based, high-skilled, worldclass knowledge-driven activity in the setting of a globalised economy. A process like community or regional sustainability strategies could be a way forward here. However the challenge is for it to maintain a degree of autonomy to develop critical and radical ideas, and then mainstream these into the corporate centre.

 

Organisations with a stake in sustainable development are diverse and can be characterised by significant ideological differences and priorities. The challenge is to create ways in which these different worldviews can be explored and acknowledged. The problem is that there are often too few institutions or mechanisms to encourage debate on the whole spectrum of sustainable development. As a result, a lowest common denominator approach to the issue prevails which sidelines many of its more radical and innovative messages. Understandably, many groups outside established policy networks are cautious of engaging with established policy networks, fearing that their beliefs and ideals may be diluted or compromised.

 

One of the few agreements within the sustainable development debate is that there is no clear agreement on what the term means. Positions continue to be polarised, separating for example those with a ‘deep green’, ecological perspective, from those with a more technocratic and managerial approach to the environment. Terms like Ecological Sustainable Development, Triple Bottom Line, Natural Capitalism, Corporate Social Responsibility etc, only add to the confusion.

 

While some views may never be reconciled, there needs to be some framework which allows us to explore why these differences exist and to think through difficult questions facing each locality and region. Inevitably this may involve some trade-offs and compromises, but it at least needs to go beyond using sustainable development as greenwash for existing forms of economic development.

 

Not surprisingly many official policy makers have a ‘jobs at all costs’ outlook. The Queensland State Government as part of its Smart State program, has “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” as a election commitment. Employment is a critical factor, especially in the local socio-economic areas or regions. In this context there is a need for greater recognition that encouraging sustainable forms of development and providing jobs is not a zero-sum game – they are in fact increasingly interdependent. As long as sustainable development remains peripheral to front line economic development issues, this realization remains difficult.

 

What is required are mechanisms and frameworks where the connections between welfare provision, job creation, environmental and natural resource protection and quality of life can be explored and understood. This type of understanding is easier in areas where tangible links can be made such as renewable energy, recycling and sustainable agriculture / industry. Serious problems arise when trying to square sustainable development with sectors such as petrochemicals, automobile manufacture, intensive agriculture or electronics.

 

The need for joined up thinking is clear in a broad ranging policy arena like sustainable development which straddles several government departments. I have increasing seen the benefits and insights of “Whole of Government” mechanisms. Implementing sustainable development requires going beyond the ‘Silo’ thinking of government in which resources and policies are channelled from national governments to local councils and regions.

 

Sustainable development is more than a set of policy levers. It has wide ranging implications for the ‘how’ and the ‘who’ of policy making. In this sense, it is a deeply political, as well as economic and environmental concept that should be defined through broad participation, consultation and debate. However the centralised nature of decision making in Government structures has stifled real debate.

 

Ethical values and spirituality are not on the agenda but are key to the process Sustainable development is about ethical consumption, good working conditions, efficient use of natural resources, equality, community involvement and social exclusion participation in decision making.

 

Various mechanisms do exist that could widen involvement and debate including ‘civic forums’, elected mayors, regional assemblies and roundtables. Admittedly these have their limitations and could go further. For example, over-dependency on key institutions and individuals may erode rather than reinforce broad participation. With the current low priority of sustainable development within local councils and regional development agencies, there is little reason to expect that policy making in this area will be given centre stage. For meaningful debate, established policy makers would have to take the step of drawing in groups outside established networks such as third sector organisations, community associations and lobby, protest and campaign groups. This relates to my earlier article on effective partnerships.

 

Sustainable development policy has opened up new possibilities to tackle a range of established problems such as environmental degradation, underemployment and a lack of democratic participation. Roundtables on sustainability, community and business initiatives, citizens’ forums and the elected assemblies and mayors have created the potential for renewed dialogue and the exchange of ideas. Yet the prospects for developing a deeper understanding of sustainability within policy remain unclear.

 

Established policy making circles are still entrenched and retain responsibility for putting into practice policy on sustainable development. Such networks continue to be directed by national and state / county government guidelines and as a result have limited scope for developing innovative and locally sensitive policy.

 

The agenda for sustainable development remains largely set by national  government and executed by government representatives in regions and localities with little take up of new ideas, recourse to groups outside established networks or scope for rewriting the terms of the agenda.

 

Emerging policy on sustainable development still sits “cheek by jowl” with policy on economic growth and competitiveness and so remains shorthand for ‘business as usual.’ Actively engaging a wider cross section of the population in sustainable development is an important step in overcoming such limitations.

 

I meet and speak with many people who have shared these views with me, and continue to a great deal of untapped skills and knowledge that already exists and important lessons can be learned from organisations and individuals involved in sustainability and regeneration at the local level. These include local councils, resident associations, community groups, youth, ethnic and women’s groups, church groups, credit unions, socially responsible businesses, alternative currency schemes, LA21 groups, workers and housing cooperatives, community forums and environmental campaign Such groups need to establish wider networks across cities and regions to give a coherent voice to the many marginal ‘voices’ within the sustainability agenda.

 

There is much more, then, to putting sustainable development into practice than is currently occurring within existing policy. It is critical that policy making on sustainable development breaks out of established policy making networks. Localities are awash with individuals and organisations pioneering new understandings of the relationship between economy, environment and society, but these rarely get acknowledged in more than a token way. At the heart of sustainable development is the necessity to rethink the ‘how’ and the ‘who’ of decision making. Whether national government or established local policy makers can rise to this challenge awaits to be seen.