 |
The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say! Week Two - “Human Wellbeing and Sustainability”
Dr. Khosla brings in a number of highly relevant points, like the two-sides-of-a-medal issue (North and South), the relationship between livelihood en environment, the wide acceptance of the concept of sustainable development and the inability of (economic, cultural and social) sectors in society to operationalise this broad concept for their own strategies. And, not to forget, a reformulation of ‘good life’. Quite some challenges to think about. But I will concentrate on the educational implications of such thinking which I support very much.
1. The issue we have to discuss in education (whether this is environmental education or ESD is of no great importance) has changed dramatically. Where in earlier decades plants, animals and (local) ecosystems or landscapes were subject of our educational efforts, the Convention on Biological Diversity and certainly the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment have definitely opened our eyes for the fact that the responsibility of members of our (‘western’) society has greatly in-creased. Putting it bluntly: environmental education that only deals with the own ‘back-yard’ and only promotes conservation as a strategy, I find elitist. We cannot afford anymore to limit ourselves to put fences around our own reserves and parks, showing the rest of the world how well we contribute to a global ecological network. Necessary, but only the first step. 2. How then should we define our objects to learn about? As stated earlier the various sectors in our society (I am talking about our western society) should define much more closely how they can respond (in their strategies) to the balancing of issues like values, materialism, spirituality etc., not just the ‘triple-p’ issues. That leads to the fundamental object of environmental education or, better, ESD. Already back in 1998, the British Panel on ESD in the Schools Sector has formulated what it could be all about; and it came up with 7 key concepts: - Interdependence – of society, economy and the natural environment, from local to global, - Citizenship and stewardship – rights and responsibilities, participation and cooperation, - Needs and rights of future generations, - Diversity – cultural, social, economic and biological, - Quality of life, equity and justice, - Sustainable change – development and carrying capacity, - Uncertainty and precaution in action. I still like them very much because, if you think them over, they contain issues like justice, quality, care, participation, equity. Are these not the fundamental val-ues everyone in this world finally would like to contribute to? And do they not put ecology, the environment, in a wider perspective in which acting in not a question of winning or losing? 3. But who are those we want to reach in our educational work? If Khosla speaks about ‘fundamental, systemic and structural changes’, what does he mean? I be-lieve that his arguing is about whom to make participate in this process. And in my opinion education has just begun to think about more advanced target-groups than the usual ones (like primary school, the public at large, parents etc.). What do we do with the fact that everyone is part of a social system and thus in-fluences peers or even a whole community? What do we do with the fact that people work in formal institutions that, unsaid, so often determine the underlying values of society: schools, government, banks, cultural institutions, trade and commerce? 4. Do we educators organise courses for such professionals, on the various levels between ‘worker-on-the-ground’ and president? Do we take into account that beyond the individual there is a group to which he/she belongs? Or are they ignored by us and do we expect others to bring about changes only by negotiating with these social structures and systems? Don’t we forget, then, that a new generation of workers should also be made aware of environmental concerns? And that, thus, we keep spreading ‘the good news’ without ever achieving a breakthrough? In other words, what are our own capabilities and competences to educate our tar-get-groups (in subject matter – see above; in methodologies/didactics; in objec-tives) And how do we view them: as empty vessels or as entities who develop their own knowledge, values and skills? I am afraid that the vast majority of educators – as far as I have seen and heard them operate in many countries, including my own – are just as traditional, or even outdated as the ones they wish to reach. Not because they would not have the right to address ‘small issues’ but because they continue failing to connect them to wider issues: geographically, politically, socially and in time. IUCN might, in order to close this gap between ‘small’ and ‘big’ thinkers in education, develop means to define and work out the connections between their worlds and formulate strategies how to methodologically bring educators together again. This, as a general, critical, introduction to how I see environmental education operate these days (of course there are many exceptions all over the world), brings me to answer shortly the question as posed by Khosla. • How can we scale-up ways of eradicating poverty and sustainably managing the environment? Seen from the educational point of view it is of utmost importance that all projects do connect ecological/environmental issues with issues of livelihood in a broad sense. Education about protection/conservation without the socio-economic per-spective of local communities is useless. The methodology of education will have to be adapted to current ways of learning the target-groups are used to. • How can the conservation and environment community play more effective roles in addressing issues of social justice, security and human wellbeing? The main work to be done here is to connect the (environmental) questions that are at stake in local projects with regional and national development issues as identified by international donors. The background is that most local environ-mental issues cannot be solved adequately without involvement of the other levels of administration. • Should IUCN be playing a role in responding to challenges of unsustainable consumption and wasteful production systems in industrialized economies? Yes, but limited to such issues that are directly related to biodiversity issues (like agriculture (food, pastures), forestry (wood and non-timber), fishing (‘fruits de mer’), wetland management (migratory birds), etc. • How would you define the ‘good life’? How can IUCN help you achieve it? Maslow has of course produced his famous needs hierarchy (physiological, safety, belonging, esteem, self-actualisation) as a more or less universal set of values that people find important for a ‘good life’. I guess that on this level not much has to be changed. On the level of consumption and non-material needs much can be changed (re-member Gandhi’s ‘need and greed’). I believe that western society can learn very much from some developing countries – and not only Bhutan. IUCN should in-vestigate such living patterns and how they can be transferred into learning proc-esses in other parts of the world. Look at recent work of Martha Nussbaum who has written books about human dignity (like Frontiers of justice, 2006), including descriptions of ‘human capa-bilities’ that everyone should have the right of access to. And did not have the UN a system of indicators for the quality of life?
• Over 16.000 species of plants and animals are listed as threatened with ex-tinction on the IUCN Red List. What are the most innovative ways of com-municating the links between human well being and species conservation? There is only one overriding issue to be solved here: plants and animals (except for some cuddly species) will not be saved if their existence alone, individually, is subject of society’s interest. I am very much convinced that larger units of con-cern have to be connected to them. Take the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (mentioned above) or the changes in climate, health or welfare. Communication about species in the context of society’s main values is the way to deal with them. |