The Environment Canada Policy Research Seminar Series

Prof. Elizabeth Dowdeswell March 1, 2002

On Friday, March 1, 2002, the Environment Canada Policy Research Seminar Series hosted Prof. Elizabeth Dowdeswell in a talk entitled "Design for the real world: Ideas for achieving sustainable development". The following is a précis of Prof. Dowdeswell's talk.

Ten years ago world leaders embraced the concept of sustainable development. Bringing together environmental, economic and social considerations promised much improved decisions. It was the politics of hope, a concept so seductive. We were asked to imagine real improvements in the health of the environment, a more equitable sharing of the earth's resources and a significantly improved quality of life for more of the planet's people. However, the promise of Rio has not been fully realized. To be charitable, sustainable development remains a "work in progress". Compared to the scope of the change that is needed, we are largely tinkering in the margins. There is clearly a disconnect between what we negotiated and what we delivered.

Why is action on the sustainable development agenda so elusive? My observation is that in our efforts to legitimizing the concept politically, we may not have given enough consideration to the design elements that would actually allow it to be implemented effectively - design for the real world.

We know that we have to stabilize and possibly reduce population levels and to end the assault on the earth's life support system with our wastes and pollution and poisons. We have tremendous knowledge and technological capability. And we have very compelling evidence on most issues for the need to act.

So why are we struggling? Why is there a gap between policy and action? Why is the policy response so weak and hesitant? Is it coincidental that we are experiencing shifts: from a focus on local environmental problems to global ones; from relatively easy problems to those that are exceedingly complex; from problems and their solutions that were short-term to those that will become evident over a longer period and require persistent action; and to a changing landscape of actors - fragmented non-governmental organizations and powerful constituencies.

Today, I want to focus on just two of the possible design elements: our understanding of sustainability and the governance by which we turn that concept into action.

I suspect that not many gave thought to the real nature of sustainability. It is one of those words that is deceptively simple, but has many challenges in implementation. For example:

• It is intrinsically holistic and interdisciplinary. (Did we remember that our existing institutional structures have at best a mixed track record on managing interdisciplinarity?)
• It embodies complexity. (Issues like the safety of biotechnology and climate change are genuinely complex issues, in every facet.)
• It makes value judgments about equity. (So it should not surprise us that national interests dominate and north/south tension is prevalent.)
• It is very long-term in character, quite inconsistent with the timeframes of elected governments. (We are finding that the politics of anticipate and prevent is much harder than of react and cure.)
• What sustainability demands is a change in the way we behave - a change in our attitude toward the world. And that is as true of institutions as individuals.

Through the lens of environment, we can see the challenges very clearly.

• Why is it that we can detect environmental contaminants at the level of parts per billion, but we are unable to unify the many fragmented pieces of policy and law in different jurisdictions?
• Why is it that we can reduce toxic emissions, in certain cases by 99%, but we cannot agree on the role that economics plays in setting standards?
• Why is it that scientists can design complex computer models to predict likely trends in global climate change, under many scenarios, while we have been singularly unsuccessful in making a convincing case to the public and in engaging them as a means of bringing about change?

Henceforth, we need to understand interdependence: linkages among various environmental issues; linkages between science and policy; linkages among people and their governments the world over. We all talk about these connections yet hastily retreat into our well-defined and relatively safe cocoons of specialization and country.

Almost all of the problems of our time are problems at new interfaces or that take place because of a lack of integration between related forces both environmental and human. Yet we organize ourselves on a sectoral and hierarchical basis. The real search for solutions must be based on integrated, multidisciplinary science that reaches beyond into the economic and social domains. We have to know what society wants, what risks we are prepared to accept and what collective measures we will commit to as global citizens.

A new field of scientific inquiry called sustainability science is evolving in the academic communities and is attempting to respond to some core questions: How can dynamic interactions between nature and society be better incorporated in our models? How are long-term trends in environment and development, such as consumption and population, reshaping those interactions? What determines resilience and vulnerability? Can scientifically meaningful "limits" or "boundaries" be defined to warn us of risks? These are questions that link research to action, and reconcile scientific excellence with social relevance.

From science comes an articulation of basic principles of interdependence, flexibility and diversity and of course, remaining within boundary conditions, all of which are essential for sustainability. But to understand interdependence requires a shift in perception from the parts to the whole, from objects to relationships, to patterns. We need to balance dynamically stability and change, order and freedom, tradition and innovation.

Today this ecological approach is imperative. In fact, the various concepts already agreed to by the international community - the precautionary principle, common but differentiated responsibilities, intergenerational equity - to name just a few, are inherent in an ecological view. Climate change is not about meteorology, but about energy, economic development, security and our various ways of life. It is surely testing our skills in public policy-making, diplomacy and political will.

And that leads to another design element, namely creative environmental governance. As we enter the 21st century, it sees to me that it is not the scientific and technical challenges of sustainable development that should occupy our greatest attention. It is the challenge of attitudinal and behavioral change - both of individuals and institutions - that will prove to be formidable over time.

The current popularity of discussion about governance has its genesis in society's awakening to the fact that our traditional institutions have kept pace neither with the changing world around us nor with the expectations of citizens. The world's institutions seem to be crippled, inflexible, and unable to respond quickly and to effectively engage all sectors of society. Yet to respond to such a quintessential global issue as environment and to foster the interdisciplinarity demanded by sustainable development, we must look to individuals and their institutions. Hope comes through enlightened and purposeful organizations and is inspired by the engagement of an empowered citizenry.

The matter of international environmental governance is on the Johannesburg agenda, and the academic community has directed considerable attention to this question. Their thoughtful analysis is an important underpinning for the decisions that must be taken. But if past practice is any indication, the decisions that will be taken will be influenced much more by the politics of the day: the specific interests of sovereign states; the dictates of regional groupings; the linkages to other issues, relevant or not; the power plays of international organizations themselves; and even the leadership of dominant personalities.

The following is a sample of the key elements of the current discussion:

• Sovereignty versus the global commons. It may surprise you that there is no consensus about a definition of global commons. One's perspective on what is part of the global commons determines the view one takes on the mandate given to any intergovernmental institution and the degree to which one is prepared to accede to its decisions if they challenge national sovereignty.
• Linkages with other domains. Increasingly environmental action is impacted upon or influences action in other policy fields: trade, energy, development, technology and so on. In spite of our wishful thinking, the environment is not really in the mainstream.
• Lack of coherence. Even within the environmental system, we have a disconnected and fragmented web of sovereign treaties, conventions and mechanisms. Our issue-by-issue approach means that at best opportunities for synergy are lost, at worst competition and sibling rivalry leads to duplication or ineffective use of resources.
• Lack of compliance and enforcement. On this issue there exist different mental maps: litigation in the US; regulation in Europe and mediation in Asia. The bottom line is that we are not living up to commitments. The current system has fuzzy accountability and relies on moral suasion.
• Inclusiveness of all actors. The current situation is characterized by a lack of confidence in national governments; the role of transnational corporations and the market questioned; disclosure of special interest manipulation; a more active "civil society" empowered by information technology. We need multi-stakeholder dialogue to develop social consensus and credibility in a time of institutional fatigue.

And one could add 20 or more other observations such as weaknesses in the link between science and policy; imbalances in power and professional competence or the formation of political interest groups that influence the process of deliberation and decision, regardless of the issue at hand.

All of this has led some to propose a powerful, authoritative World Environment Organization, modeled after and designed to be a counterweight to the World Trade Organization; others propose the elevation of UNEP to the status of a "specialized agency", the clustering of issues or the encouragement of policy networks; the creation of an environmental court or an ombudsman.

From the "legitimate" intergovernmental process that is in place, under the aegis of UNEP Governing Council and its President, Minister David Anderson, the following tentative conclusions can be drawn about the shaping of a new regime:

• The process should be prudent and evolutionary in nature based on existing General Assembly Resolutions and a preference for better use of existing institutional structures rather than the creation of new ones.
• The process should encompass all international environmental efforts and arrangements within the UN system, including at the regional level, and not only UNEP. That being said, the recent tabling of key structural and procedural changes by the Chief Executive Officer of the Global Environment Facility provides evidence of how difficult this task will be.

Any new system of international environmental governance should take into account the needs and constraints of developing countries on the basis of common, but differentiated responsibility. There are actually some who believe that we are moving too fast on the environmental dimension, leaving the social and economic development dimensions behind.

The design and implementation of environmental policy at all levels requires the enhanced involvement and engagement of non-government organizations, including the private sector, providing them with a meaningful role in intergovernmental policy making and strengthened national governance frameworks. How does one reconcile this general statement of intent with the reality of continuing criticism about the Secretary General's Global Compact or the absolute rejection of a governing system such as the tripartite approach on which the International Labor Organization is based?

It seems governments are more comfortable with evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. It is relatively easier to focus on the need for increased resources, improving capacity building and strengthening transparency and participation, better coordination with multilateral environmental agreements and comforting statements about UNEP in Nairobi being at the core of any change.

Innovative models for a vibrant and agile regime have not yet emerged, perhaps because nations are not yet ready to give priority to environmental reform. (Where is the discussion about multi-stakeholder roundtables, environmental auditors and ombudsmen, regional models or indexes, trusts and awards?) The existing fragmentation suits many interests just fine. Exposing the contradictions and incoherence in the system points toward much more fundamental ethical issues of responsibility, justice and solidarity, respect and a rebalancing of power.

There is as yet no intergovernmental agreement to tackle the fundamental elements of a regime that has as a first priority the environment. (Enforcement and compliance being just one example; relationship to the trading and economic systems another.) What governments want and need in the interests of the environment must be made clear as a first step, recognizing that a range of competing priorities will inevitably shape final decisions. At present there is confusion and a certain hypocrisy regarding what governments say publicly and privately about what they want. (They appear to want a powerful centralized environmental agency - but not one that interferes with the economic system or our national sovereignty.)

Perhaps it should not be surprising to us. This is after all a part of a larger United Nations system that for all its strengths, is: intergovernmental and at times insulated from the public eye; based on consensus decision-making to define the norms of civilized behavior, often leading to negotiation to the lowest common denominator; not a system, but a collectivity of the will of member states; universal in its membership but unequal in voice and influence; excelling in the use of its convening power to discuss issues but has no enforcement mechanism and relying on nation state for action and compliance; exhibiting questionable accountability, sibling rivalry and institutional fragmentation among its institutions and programs. (The powerful do not easily cede power, and the south is suspicious of external controls and of those who selectively rank environmental conventions or decline to implement agreements because it is inconvenient. And just as an aside, where is the equity when a government can demand significant input in shaping the decisions about a treaty when it isn't even a signatory?)

And even more importantly, ultimately it is the situation back at home that shapes individual governments' views about the international regime. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development recently highlighted for Canada our inconsistencies. Canada with its multiple centers of power, the development of a comprehensive and coherent regime is essential - neither a regulatory web nor devolution or delegation by default. A regime where the government needs to set clear and measurable objectives (in consultation of course); implementation falls to the appropriate sector with the appropriate tools (who has the greatest impact?); monitoring and audit for real results.

Sustainability is not easy, but there is sufficient evidence that we can bring about sustainable development in this millennium. The question is whether or not we can discern a common set of values and summon the collective will to do so quickly enough. We will also be much closer if we continue to challenge conventional thinking, creating knowledge and continuing to learn the lessons of ecosystems, recognizing both our interdependence and the value of diversity; and if we design systems of governance that are both accountable and inclusive, making space for the wisdom and experience of all sectors of society.

This world of difference and indifference needs powerful instruments of governance like the United Nations. But of even greater importance, this world needs thinking, caring ethical human beings who have a sense of responsibility for those with whom they live and the environment in which they live.

Biography

Elizabeth Dowdeswell is a visiting professor at the University of Toronto. Her eclectic public service career has spanned provincial, federal and international borders and transcended traditional disciplinary lines. Throughout, her focus has been on engaging the public in public policy-making; seeking innovation in the successful management of organizations through change; and, strengthening communications and education as means to achieve results.

Professor Dowdeswell's global vision and pragmatic managerial skills are the focus of her current management consulting business and position at the University of Toronto. She served as Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and Under Secretary General of the United Nations, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada, responsible for the national weather and atmospheric agency and led a number of public inquiries into such politically sensitive issues as Canada's unemployment benefits program and federal water policy. Her early career included terms as Deputy Minister of Culture and Youth for the Province of Saskatchewan, educational consultant, university lecturer and high-school teacher.

List of articles and reports by Prof. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

1. Dowdeswell, E. [Editorials]. Our Planet : the United Nations Environment Programme Magazine for Environmentally Sustainable Development.
   Contents of volumes 5 (1993) - 9 (1997) in the library or on the web.
   1993 5 (2) : Poverty and the environment : breaking the vicious circle.
   1993 5 (5) : The whaling debate.
   1993 5 (6) : Clean up the world : think globally, act locally... make a difference.
   1994 6 (1) : Small island states.
   1994 6 (2) : World Environment Day.
   1994 6 (3) : Population and Environment.
   1994 6 (4) : Biodiversity.
   1994 6 (5) : Desertification.
   1995 7 (1) : Environment and economics.
   1995 7 (3) : World Environment Day.
   1995 7 (4) : Women and sustainable development.
   1995 7 (5) : Atmosphere.
   1996 7 (6) : Production and consumption.
   1996 8 (1) : Human settlements.
   1996 8 (2) : Culture.
   1996 8 (3) : Water.
   1996 8 (4) : Food.
   1996 8 (5) : The promise of Stockholm.
   1997 8 (6) : Chemicals.
   1997 9 (1) : The way ahead.
   1997 9 (2) : Ozone.
   1997 9 (3) : Climate change.
   
   
2. Dowdeswell, E. Standing on the cracks : [speech given at] LEAD International Session CM 1993.
   
   
3. Dowdeswell, E. Message de Mme Elizabeth Dowdeswell, secrétaire générale adjointe, directrice exécutrice chargée du CNUEH (habitat) à l'occasion de Femmes et habitat : Journée mondiale de l'habitat, 4 octobre 1993. -- Centre des Nations Unies pour les établissements humains.
   
   
4. Dowdeswell, E. Science and speculation : knowing enough to act : extracts from the address given at the Conference on Implementing the Climate Change Convention (London, 31 May 1994). Industry and Environment (1994) 17 (1) : 9-10.
   
   
5. Dowdeswell, E. and United Nations Environment Programme. Speech (...) at the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen : 7 March, 1995). -- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
   
   
6. Dowdeswell, E. and United Nations Environment Programme. Speaking notes for Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Under-Secretary General and Executive Director United Nations Environment Programme at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (September 6, 1994). -- [New York] : Population Information Network (POPIN) of the United Nations Population Division, 1995.
   
   
7. Dowdeswell, E. An enduring peace : a look at the global environmental crisis. Pathways (1995).
   Presented on Oct 27, 1995 at the Society of Environmental Journalists' annual convention.
   
   
8. Dowdeswell, E. Statement by Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Executive Director of UNEP at the Oslo Roundtable Conference on Sustainable Production and Consumption, Ministerial Session, February 8, 1995. . -- [New York : Global Change Research Information Office, Columbia University].
   
   
9. Dowdeswell, E. Editorial [Cleaner production : fourth high level seminar in Oxford]. Industry and Environment (1996) 19 (3) : 3.
   
   
10. Dowdeswell, E. Climate protection and UNEP in the 21st century : keynote speech (Osaka International Symposium on Global Warming, December 4, 1997).
    
    
11. Dowdeswell, E. Desertification. CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) News (1997) 4 (4).
    
    
12. Dowdeswell, E. Lessons learned in sustainable development : keynote address to Sustainable Development in the Arctic. The Northern Review (1998) 18.
    
    
13. Dowdeswell, E. A world of indifference : key note speech at the UNA-Canada (United Nations Association in Canada) 1998 Annual General Meeting. -- [Ottawa] : UNAC.
    
    
14. Dowdeswell, E. The vision of technology : presentation delivered at North Sun 99 (August 1999). -- Edmonton, Alberta : University of Alberta.
    
    
15. International Joint Commission. Water Levels Reference Study. Project Management Team, Dowdeswell, E., Vander Els, T. & Pratt, J. Living with the Lakes : challenges and opportunities. -- [Ottawa] : International Joint Commission, 1989. -- 8 volumes.
    
    
16. Task Force on Level of Weather Services & Dowdeswell, E. Report of the Task Force on Level of Weather Services. -- [Downsview, Ontario] : Atmospheric Environment Service, 1983. -- 125 p.