List of Presentations
by Gail Krantzberg
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 17 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 17 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: Seen from space, the Great Lakes appear as sparkling jewels strung across the center of North America. The Great Lakes ecosystem is one of the great natural wonders of the world. Nearly one-fifth of the planet's surface fresh water is stored in and flows through the lakes. One out of every three Canadians and one of every ten United States residents takes her or his drinking water from the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was negotiated pursuant to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the United States and British Canada that had created the International Joint Commission (IJC) to help resolve problems Including pollution that was causing injury to health or property crossing the binational boarder. The IJC and the institutions added to it …were based on the principle of bi-nationalism (two countries collaborating on achieving a set of shared goals) rather than bi-lateralism (two countries negotiating with each other in an attempt to balance interests and protect each others rights).The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has been the unifying principles for interjurisdictional shared water management for Canada and the United States for nearly 40 years. Beginning in 2009, both governments agreed to renegotiate a renewed agreement bringing it up to date with scientific advances and complex governance challenges. This is the first substantial amendment to the agreement since 1987 and represents a watershed point in the history of the Great Lakes regime. This presentation documents for posterity the process being employed in the negotiations and in public engagement through that process. It contains distressing observations and highlights promising approaches to ensure the new agreement is truly a vision for the 21st century.
by Paul Ofei-Manu and Satoshi Shimano
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 17 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 17 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: The education and business sectors are both important in every nation's progress. Hence developing the human capacity within them in the context of education for sustainable development (ESD) is vital in the transition towards sustainability. With the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development drawing to the last third of its phase, evaluation of the progress of ESD, of how learning and education has contributed to sustainability has become important. And although exemplars have been provided, through several capacity strategies, mechanisms, methods practices and initiatives across scales, further identification of other capacity building measures, particularly at the individual, group or community level, in addition to putting in place effective and relevant monitoring and evaluation mechanism(s) is important. The regional centre of expertise (RCE) was set up to advance the ESD agenda at the local and regional levels by enabling a stage for multi-stakeholder engagement. One aspect of RCE Greater Sendai (RCEGS) that has been the least examined is its potential for stakeholder engagement, hence capacity building through collaboration and partnership between the business and education sectors using ESD-based social learning, their networking with other institutions and the overall coordination by the RCE Steering Committee aimed at achieving sustainability in the region. Based on the results (Ofei-Manu and Shimano, accepted) that the levels of sustainability of the organizations in these two sectors were mixed and hence needed improvement, the authors propose a conceptual framework for multi-stakeholder, ESD-based social learning within RCEGS with the hope of enabling the creation of a sustainable society in the region. It was suggested that initially focusing on bridging the two sectors and developing the capacity of the youth with respect to the practical use of the government-mandated 'period of integrated studies' (PIS) in relation to the "shokuba taiken" internship in the Japanese junior high and high school curriculum and later through RCEGS' networking and promoting interactions among the actors and stakeholders will be good.
by Pasquale Pazienza
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 10 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 10 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: With reference to thirty OECD countries and a time-span of twenty-five years (from 1981 to 2005), we analyse the FDI dynamic in the primary sector and, more specifically, in the "agriculture and fishing" sector to observe whether and how its inflow generates a certain level of environmental impact, which can be proved to be statistically relevant. By referring to available data on pollutant agents such as Carbon dioxide (CO2) from fuel combustion, which is considered to be specifically linked to those activities typically run in the considered sector, and FDI inflow per country and per activity sector, we use the econometric technique of panel data analysis. Among the main results of the analysis, we find that the use of CO2 from fuel combustion in the agricultural sector does not generate statistically significant results with regard to the main relationship under investigation (that between FDI inflow in the "agriculture and fishing" sector and the considered pollutant), although some other meaningful and interesting evidences are achieved and discussed.
by Fernando Rei and Kamyla Cunha
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 4 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 4 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: The first decade of the new millennium brought a series of already historical facts, which the international society is called to deal with, understand and solve based on the assumption that the solutions are only possible if thought of and implemented in an integrated, solidary and multilateral way. This need of cooperation also makes the world more interdependent than before, confirming a new logic of power in international relations. General environmental problems, as well as those related to human rights, finances, trade, among others, may only have satisfactory solutions if negotiated and regulated by all the states, without disregarding the role played by new agents in the international scenario. The emerging global environmental issues, particularly climate change, have been challenging the international system to adopt effective measures to face this problem on an urgent basis, at the risk of aggravating the resulting social, economic, political and environmental impacts. The Environmental International Law has been facing these issues in an innovating way, incorporating a new form of global environmental governance based on which new players are brought to the discussion and implementation of measures to face environmental problems. Among these players, we should highlight the subnational regional governments and their horizontal networks of actions and insertions in the decision making scenario. The purpose of this article is to explore the role of subnational governments and their networks in the development of global climate governance and in the consolidation of the international environmental law, particularly the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD).
by Yining Zhou and Geoff Lamberton
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 3 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 3 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: Over the last decade, since GRI (G3) launched its definition on materiality, the materiality concept has been widely applied in corporate sustainability reports and management. The definition of 'materiality' in sustainability context is based on extending the content of definition of 'financial materiality': financial materiality is about the significance of financial information towards investors; whilst materiality in sustainability context targets on issues significant to a wider extent of stakeholders including not only investors, but also communities, employees, customers, governments, non-government organizations, and so on. Current definitions on sustainability materiality are to take all stakeholders as a whole, towards whom an issue is material (see GRI G3, AA 1000, Zadek & Merme 2003). That is, the materiality of sustainability issues is based on the general views of stakeholders: the issue is material because stakeholders generally accept it as material. However, such materiality conception ignores or oversights the diversity in stakeholders, a basic assumption in stakeholder theory. The diversity reflects as their different relationships to an organization (Burton & Dunn 1996), and lies in the different or conflicting values, expectations and interests among stakeholders (e.g. Ogden & Watson 1999; Mitchell 2001). From this perspective, a theoretical gap exists in prior materiality models and research, which do not address 'stakeholder diversity'. This study argues that a new way on defining materiality is to fix this gap. It further proposes a 'hierarchy of materiality' model, which may put insights for future research.
by Bernardo Rudorff, Marcos Adami, Joel Risso, Daniel Aguiar, Bernardo Pires, Daniel Amaral, Leandro Fabiani and Izabel Cecarelli
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: The Soy Moratorium is an initiative to reduce deforestation rates in the Amazon biome based on the hypothesis that soybean is a deforestation driver. Farmers that planted soybean in that biome in opened areas after its declaration, July 24th, 2006, would not have their production commercialized nor supported with any financial aid through purchases or crop financing by the associated companies to the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE) and the National Association of Cereal Exporters (ANEC). ABIOVE and ANEC represent about 90% of the Brazilian soybean market. Brazil has a long term project to monitor the deforested areas in the Brazilian Amazon Biome using remote sensing images. Every year a map with new deforested polygons is available on the Internet (www.prodes.inpe.br). Therefore, it is possible to monitor the deforested polygons after the Moratorium date in order to identify annual crops in these polygons using remote sensing images. The crop detection method based on satellite images facilitate and reduce costs of the monitoring procedure to select possible soybean fields. The MODIS satellite images are not able to classify soybean crop at early growth stages with high accuracy, however, they play an important role in the pre-selection of these possible soybean fields. Therefore, crop detection method also uses Landsat like images, aerial survey and, field work. In the last crop, 3,571 deforested polygons with more than 25 ha and deforested after the Moratorium declaration were identified nearby the soybean producing region in the Amazon Biome. Using satellite imagery analysis procedure, 293 of these deforested polygons were selected, indicating to have annual crops. Soybean was detected in 147 of 293 polygons, covering an area of 11,698 ha. In 2011, the soybean was cultivated only in 0.39% of the recently deforested areas in Amazon Biome during the Moratorium period. In terms of the total soybean area cultivated in Brazil and in the Amazon Biome, 11,698 ha represents 0.05% and 0.60%, respectively. It seems that the Soy Moratorium is having an inhibitory effect on recent deforestation in the Amazon Biome, but the soy crop certainly has not been a major driver of deforestation during the last four years as indicated by the numbers. The quantitative geospatial information provided by an effective monitoring approach is paramount to the implementation of a governance process required to establish an equitable balance between environmental protection and agricultural production.
by Martín Alejandro Iribarnegaray and Lucas Seghezzo
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: The relationship between governance, sustainability and decision making is receiving increasing attention in academic and policy circles. Governance and sustainability are, however, contested and somewhat imprecise concepts. Both concepts are inextricably linked to local circumstances and therefore need to be defined in terms of the characteristics of the people living in a given place at a given moment. In this paper we present an alternative idea of governance in which the importance of the notion of place is highlighted and the degree of interaction and cooperation between local actors is given more relevance than in conventional definitions. We base our understanding of governance on a previously defined conceptual framework for sustainability build on the three pillars of "place" (the spatial dimension), "permanence" (the temporal dimension) and "persons" (the human dimension), instead of the classic triple bottom line of economy, environment and society. This conceptual framework is arguably more sensitive than the triple-bottom-line approach to understand complex, long-term issues such as environmental governance and inter-generational justice. It also makes the idea of sustainability more adaptable to specific settings and more appropriate to understand local, regional, and global processes. Interactions between persons in a given place are usually triggered by specific problems. These interactions directly affect the overall situation in the future, constantly reshaping the temporal dimension in a continuous process of change. To test the conceptual framework presented we analyzed the governance of the water and sanitation management system in the city of Salta, Argentina. We briefly describe the system, analyze institutional changes in recent yeards and discuss the relevance of differents stakeholders acting therein in order to identify key features that might be useful to detect governance failures and succeses. We organized our finding in a semi-quantitative index that allows a more in-depth analysis of the complex links of governance and sustainability. The index is calculated by aggregating descriptors, indicators and variables in a weighted matrix. Data used to build the index come from literature reviews, information provided by the water company, field visits, and interviews with key actors. We compare our approach with other governance analytical frameworks, highlighting similarities and differences. Some specific recommendations are made to promote a better governance of the system studied.
Future Proofing the Intelligent Island? Singapore Resilience as 'Tahan Lasak' or 'Exceedingly Hardy'
by Rahil Ismail and Brian Shaw
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: The entire hagiography of the 'Singapore Story' is one that is framed as a siege or bunker mentality of a vulnerable nation susceptible to the myriad of both internal and external security threats to national cohesion. In this context, sustainability has developed as an evolving balancing act by the dominant People's Action Party (PAP) which has governed Singapore by virtue of 'clean and strong' leadership, pragmatic policy formation and authoritative persuasion since self governance in 1959. Under the direction of the PAP, top-down or 'hard resilience' has taken precedence over bottom-up or 'soft resilience' which might be seen as the cornerstone of a healthy, organically structured civil society. Within Singapore, this soft or 'human resilience' has struggled to be recognised within a dominant operational paradigm characterised by a framework of boundaries, limits and prescribed behaviour. Yet, moving towards an increasingly globalised future, it is the latter, more inflexible top-down structures which are now perceived to sit uncomfortably within the complex and hypermobile worlds of capital, commodities and communications which in themselves can foster multiple, domestic inequities. Confronted with these forces and amidst the fading promise of the Singapore 'prosperity consensus' pact, official notions of national security have more recently embraced the wider 'threatscape' of challenges to Singapore society in calling for a higher level of community engagement within an increasingly plural and assertive society in which the government 'does not have all the answers'. This assessment was fostered by the forcefully articulated debate, assisted somewhat by a surge in social media following the relaxation of hitherto strict rules on media coverage, prior to the 2011 General Election. Grievances with the government surfaced as a delicate expression of bottom-up, or soft resilience, as popular support for the PAP dropped to its lowest level since the hotly contested 1963 elections. Certainly not an 'Arab Spring' revolt against a longstanding leadership, this was a 'Singapore-style' rebuke, not enough to overwhelm a political party that has been positively transformational but an expression of demographic change, delicate interaction and tentative negotiation of the two aforementioned and not necessarily mutually exclusive, resiliences. While the political response to this rebuke was immediate, as senior members of the government stood down from cabinet positions, this paper questions the limits to yet another potential remaking of the Singapore Story, this time within a local context of heightened expectations and a global context of sustainability amidst economic, political and social instability and unpredictability.
by Dirk Loehr
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: Most of the land reforms of the recent decades have followed a theoretical basis, which might be described in brief by "formalization and capitalization" of individual land titles (de Soto 2000). This privatization agenda has been strongly supported for example by the World Bank, the IMF or by governmental development cooperation. It is supposed that formalization and individualization of property rights should help to enhance the efficiency of the land markets by awarding the fruits of improvements to those who bear the costs. However, there is an obvious gap between theory and practise: Within the privatization agenda, benefits of unimproved land (such as land rents and value capture) are reaped privately by well-organized actors, whereas the costs of valorization (e.g. infrastructure) or opportunity costs of land use changes are shifted onto poorly organized groups or society as a whole. Hence, the "capitalization" of land titles is connected with external costs. Consequences include rent seeking and land grabbing. Also, formalization of land titles is used as a means of land grabbing. In developing countries, formal law often transpires to work in favour of the winners of the titling process and is opposed by the customary rights of the losers. This causes a lack of general acknowledgement of formalized law (which is made responsible for deprivation of livelihoods of vulnerable groups) and often leads to a clash of formal and customary norms. Due to this clash of norms, many countries are falling into a state of de facto anarchy and a new form of "de facto open access". The consequence might be a "tragedy of anticommons" (Fitzpatrick 2006). Protection laws, e.g. for primary forests are no longer complied with; encroachment and destruction of natural resources is spreading. However, the real problem is not the formalization of land titles but the capitalization of the titles. A central counter-measure is to skim off land rent and incremental value as far as possible in favour of the community (decapitalization of land). This could be executed by an intelligently designed leasing or land taxation framework. Within such a decapitalization framework, the land use planning could be more neutral and independent than today. A neutral planning could provide space for a diversity and coexistence of lifestyles, legal and economic models. Good governance and the rule of law could be supported better than is the case at present. This holds true for natural protection laws in particular. Examples and evidence are provided particularly from Cambodia, which has many features in common with other countries in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa in this respect.
by Iskandar Abdullaeyv
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: Since early 1990's the water management problems has been identified as outcome of the inappropriate governance rather than lack of the technological or technical solutions. Therefore, solutions has been shaped by this believe and concept. IWRM have emerged as a mainstream concept to solve the water management problems of the planet earth. Although, supported by many international organizations specially crafted to support the IWRM its implementation and results has been hesitantly limited. Both, at national and local levels of the water resources management dissemination of the new concept brought acceptance of the terms such as stakeholder participation, public role, transparency of decision making, etc. The water users participation concepts in the water sector has been a cornerstone of the IWRM implementation in most of the countries around the world. Genuine efforts of the national water agencies, strongly supported by international agencies have been helpless in many cases to address simple needs of the population- an equal access to the acceptable quality water resources. Why so? There are quite few reasons of the limited performance of the governance reforms in water sector: (i) governance reforms alone cannot solve water management problems, (ii) governance forms are different in different socio-political contexts of the different countries, ignorance of these differences has been one central reason of low performance, (iii) governance could become important aspect only if awareness is built among both water managers and water users, (iv) governance cannot be imported or "blue print" approach is not successful. The critical assessment of the IWRM implementation in different countries has been quite a comprehensive and varies on their findings on reasons of the failures. However, mostly underlining reasons has been identified as lack of ownership, participation, supportive environment, etc. However, without technological solutions and technical infrastructure, tools and equipment have also an important role on how IWRM will be implemented. Implementation of the good governance, water user's participation and better decision making are merely possible in the poor, inadequate infrastructure with outdated water distribution systems. Therefore, one cannot ignore the role of the techno-technical situation in the water resources management and these indictors will shape state of the water governance in the water management. Different players (water managers, water users, state organizations, private business, etc.,) will apply different 'water control' mechanisms under different techno-technological situation. In this paper authors will try to present other important reason for the failure of the IWRM implementation in developing countries- technical and technological state of the water infrastructure.
by Rokas Grunda
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 2 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: The role of businesses in the journey towards society's sustainability is very important, as businesses are an integral part of the society, it has the resources, it is fast and can make rapid changes, it knows how to unite the people inside the company for the goals it sets and works with efficiency in mind. Nevertheless, businesses might not have the professionals and the sustainability scientific knowledge to set the sustainability vision, goals and lead the way. Help and assistance is needed from the management scientists proposing user friendly management models, that are scientifically sound and based on the sustainability principles, but at the same time easily understood by the managers, that are business visionaries and business professionals, but not necessarily sustainability professionals and scientists. Based on the critical analysis of existing business sustainability management models and their advantages and disadvantages, an expanded and detailed business sustainability strategic management model is proposed, in which each step of the model is elaborated to make it as business management friendly as possible. The three sustainability dimensions (environmental, social and economic) are expanded in the model adding the political dimension, which is recognized as the overarching dimension, and political criteria are proposed to be used in the journey towards a sustainable society.
by Elke Herrfahrdt-Pähle
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 1 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 1 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: Since the 1990s the sustainability concept, i.e. addressing social, economic, environmental and inter-generational issues, is widely acknowledged as guiding principle of natural resource management and governance. In the water sector this is reflected in Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), which aims at integrated, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable use of water resources. Faced with climate change, governance of natural resources is confronted with unprecedented situations and past experience may no longer provide reliable guidance for the future. This has been termed the adaptation deficit of water resource management. The question arises in how far IWRM is able to deal with challenges such as decreasing water availability and uncertainty in water supply. To maintain the long-term sustainability of the water sector, its ability to adapt to unforeseen events needs to increase, i.e. (as part of disaster risk management) adaptation needs to become integral part of the governance of water resources. Governance structures need to be developed which enable stakeholders to cope with the challenges and uncertainties of climate change. Increasing both the sustainability and the adaptive capacity will thus be one of the major future challenges for the water sector and serve as contributions to disaster risk management. This paper addresses the question in how far IWRM besides supporting the sustainable management of water resources is prepared for increasing the adaptive capacity of the water sector. This is achieved by examining the features of IWRM regarding their contribution towards increasing the adaptive capacity of water governance regimes. The paper also identifies additional features which would be required for further increasing the adaptive capacity of water governance and management.
by Don Clifton
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 1 November 2011
Show Abstract
Section F: Governance & Sustainability
Published online: 1 November 2011
Show Abstract
Abstract: Sustainable development (SustD) – meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs – has become a major issue of focus for business, government, and society generally, at local, national, and international levels. Evidence abounds of the increasing extent to which the business sector is embracing the SustD concept – the UN Global Compact (http://www.unglobalcompact.org/), the work of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (http://www.wbcsd.org/), the Equator Principles for the banking sector (http://www.equator-principles.com/), and the increasing uptake of sustainability reporting (http://www.globalreporting.org/) are just a few examples. But the current mainstream SustD narrative, as it is formulated in business and political circles, is only one approach to how humanity might go about living sustainably. But is it the one most likely to see a sustainable world come about? Are we really heading in the right direction? This paper critiques the current dominant SustD approach using socio-ecological resilience theory, and the Ecological Footprint measure in conjunction with the I=PAT identity. It considers current and future Ecological Footprint trends, and how key SustD strategies directed towards human population numbers, economic growth, and technology solutions, interact to progress or retard the achievement of a sustainable world. Socio-ecological resilience theory is used to explore the extent to which mainstream SustD either builds resilient societies and ecosystems, or undermines resilience leaving society vulnerable to broad-scale social and ecosystem collapse. The paper argues that mainstream SustD is challenging to believe as credible. Rather than helping society achieve needed change, this approach instead creates a false sense of progress that acts as a barrier to the more decisive action that is necessary to address the underlying drivers of humanity's unsustainable behaviours. Further, some of the core technology strategies advocated by this approach, and on which the business sector focuses its sustainability efforts, are shown to have flow-on effects that can work against the very objectives they seek to achieve. The paper concludes that the business sector has the power and influence to drive needed change, and can do so by embracing a more transformational sustainable world approach in both its internal activities and in its advocacy in the broader public and political space. Although focusing on the business sector, the findings of this critique are equally relevant to other social actors in their pursuit of sustainable world outcomes including governments, religious organisations, educational institutions, NGOs, communities, and individuals. What is needed is for business, political, and community leaders to take a stand and rally together to drive needed change.