I’ve had a crazy couple of weeks. First, I was up in Iqaluit as part of my climate change adaptation project. Then, I moved onto Switzerland to participate in the Global Environmental Governance Forum. After that, I headed to London to meet up with some friends from the LEAD Network. I’ve been writing as I go, but frankly, by the end of each day, my brain has been too full to do spend time uploading my thoughts.
The result is this super-entry – a collection of writings on my experiences over the last few weeks…..
Become the sponge
June 29, 2009
I’m in Glion, Switzerland at the Global Environmental Governance Forum. Developed by Yale University and the College of William & Mary, the Global Environmental Governance Project “seeks to link thought and action in an effort to improve environmental governance at multiple levels. Through grounded historical research, contemporary policy analysis, and track two diplomacy, it aims to lay the foundation for an effective analytical and political process for reinvigorating global environmental governance.”
This event is a unique look back at the development of the global environmental movement and institutions – particularly the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). I have been fortunate enough to be selected as part of a group of “emerging leaders” that were selected from 10 countries. The intent of this event is to hear reflections from the architects of the current system, look at current challenges with key players now in the system and then bring together the “emerging” generation to look at ways of improving the system. This event marks the first time in history that the five Executive Directors of UNEP have been together at the same time. To witness the discussions is a real honour. As I told many of my colleagues in the Emerging Leaders group, I’m going to be in sponge mode as much as possible over the next few days.
Here is a news report on the event produced by one of my emerging leader colleagues, Joe Ageyo:
There are approximately 80 people gathered here in Glion and the credentials of the people are astonishing. Just to give you a sense, here are some of the participants:
- Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit; UNEP Executive Director (1973-1975)
- Mostafa Tolba, Undersecretary of State for Higher Education and Minister of Youth in Egypt; Led Egypt's delegation to the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (1972); UNEP Deputy Executive Director (1973-1975); UNEP Executive Director (1976-1992)
- Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director (2006-present); Director-General of IUCN (2001-2006)
- Ambassador John W. McDonald, Chairman of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy; Secretary of the U.S. Delegation to the 1972 Stockholm Conference
- Bill Ruckleshaus, Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (1983-1985); US Delegate to Stockholm Conference and representative to Brundtland Commission
- Julia Marton -Lefèvre, Director General of IUCN; Rector of UN-mandated University for Peace; Executive Director of LEAD International
- Jim MacNeill, Secretary-General of Brundtland Commission (1984-1987); OECD Director of Environment (1978-84); Chairman World Bank Independent Inspection Panel (1999-02)
- H.E. Mr. Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Sudan to the UN
During this retrospective view, one primary thing stood out for me:
The issues haven’t changed. The timeframe is just more urgent.
The issues that resulted in the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the eventual development of the United Nations Environment Program are still with us. Tensions around development between developed and developing nations; degradation of natural resources; lack of coordination and cooperation amongst nations. These issues are as relevant and pressing – if not more so – that they were almost 40 years ago when these visionaries tried to forge a new way forward.
So if the issues haven’t changed, then the “what” is the same. It’s time to look at ways to build a new “how.” That’s always the toughest question.
Perspective
June 30, 2009
We had a full day of listening to many of the current players in the global environmental governance system – most of whom work in the United Nations. Just like actors in many other systems, once they are imbedded, it’s difficult – if not impossible – for them to get perspective on what they do or how they fit into the bigger picture.
Rather than discussing how the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) fits into a larger system, they were talking as if UNEP was the system. I just kept thinking back to my entry from March 18th about the worm and the sauerkraut. A colleague of mine from the emerging leaders group – Jason Morris-Jung, a doctoral candidate at Berkeley – shared a similar saying from Vietnam that I think applies just as well with the folks in the UN system, based on my perspective of the last couple of days:
“To a frog in a well, the sky is very small.”
Gaining this perspective is vital, especially for an issues as complex as the global environment. There are so many actors, perspectives and solutions that one single organization – no matter how capable – can’t possible solve the issues alone. Gaining a perspective of how UNEP fits into a larger system would go a long way to determining how to build on its strengths within that context in order to create the most effective change possible.
When Bill talks, just listen.
June 30, 2009
The discussions during day 2 of the Global Environmental Governance Forum in Glion, Switzerland, often bordered on the hopeless. The severity of the problems and the difficulty of making real progress can be completely overwhelming at times. On this front, some gems of wisdom came from Bill Ruckelshaus, the first Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, who also returned to become its fifth Administrator. Oh yes, he also was the Director of the FBI for a while and the Assistant Attorney General during Watergate. I’m not kidding. One of those posts would be the pinnacle of a career for most mortals. Unbelievable.
While much of the discussion focused on the United Nations and national governments, Bill reminded us that the only way things really move dramatically is if citizens want it. He encouraged us to find ways to rally the citizens rather than the officials towards solving climate change.
Reflecting on his experience at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bill said, “I worked for two Presidents: Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Neither of them were exactly charter members of the Sierra Club, but they made strong choices on the environment because the people were demanding it.”
Bill also made some terrific points about focusing on hope rather than despair. Using Barak Obama’s campaign as a recent example, he emphasized that people will act and respond when there is light at the end of the tunnel.
These are really, really important points. At every international session I go to I’m reminded of the differences in power that citizens have in various countries across the world. Regardless, it’s essential that the average citizen rallies behind the environmental issues we face if they are going to be solved – whether in Canada, Brazil or Ethiopia. The challenge – as is discussed often in this blog – is how to effectively communicate in a way that helps people understand the issue and inspires them to act.
When someone with the knowledge and experience of Bill Ruckelshaus talks about hope, collaboration and engagement as the way forward, I’m even more convinced that these are the necessary ingredients to meet the issues of our time. He also pointed out that if we could create some sort of super-position that merged his roles as the Administrator of the EPA and the Director of the FBI, that would help too.
A wake-up call
July 1, 2009
Day 3 of the Global Environmental Governance Forum and it was time for the Emerging Leaders to become the focus and try to develop some ideas and actions for improving the system. As it turns out, revising nearly 40 years of international effort in 8 hours isn’t all that easy.
There was a lot of great discussion and lots of great ideas that came out of our discussions, but an interesting thing happened along the way. Ambassador Di-Aping of Sudan stood up and told us in no uncertain terms that what we were proposing was the same-old, same-old. And you know what? In many respects, he was right. We were unnecessarily limiting our discussion and ideas. Despite not being imbedded in the system ourselves, we were thinking that way. In talking with my colleague Kristen Hite, this may be understandable because we didn’t take the time to clearly articulate what our vision was. Without this, it was fascinating how we turned into frogs in a well (see the June 30 entry).
The time constraints were extremely tight and the discussions were very exciting, but without a collective direction within our group, we were unable to move our discussion beyond conventional thinking. It took a wake-up call from someone outside our group to bring us to that reality.
Lessons learned/re-affirmed? Vision is vital and so is diversity of perspective.
Finding the right music
July 2, 2009
At the Global Environmental Governance Forum, a stream of discussion was around whether this broad issue was like a symphony – where there are multiple players, but they need to work together to make great music; or was it like jazz – where you have a basic structure that is improvised around (see my entry from June 18th. Great minds think alike.)
While I think both analogies are helpful, another one came from Mark Gold, one of my colleagues at the conference and the Executive Director of Heal the Bay in Los Angeles. The institutions of global environmental governance don’t seem to be having a substantial impact on the key issues of our time. Our structures, decision-making and processes aren’t doing the job.
Mark suggested that in the light of what we learned over the past few days, we might need a different kind of music that is anti-establishment and will radically shift things in order to make new progress. Symphony or jazz might not be the right tune. In short, Mark recommended:
“Don’t forget punk.”
Climate change through the lens of art (or art through the lens of climate change).
London, July 3, 2009
I was able to attend a fascinating event at the Tate Britain gallery in London the other night. It was entitled “What can Turner and Rothko tell us anything new about climate change?” and was run by some friends from the LEAD network – Sarah Hendel-Blackford, Steve Colling and Rachel Madan. The intention of this project is to explore how works of art can express issues of climate change.
Steve, Sarah and Rachel discuss the issues with the audience.
Focusing on an exhibition of works by Turner and Rothko the discussion looked at how interpretations of art can articulate issues of climate change. The interactive discussions got into specific elements like sea level rise, but really focused on the emotional side of facing a problem as daunting as climate change.
I was intrigued by the idea of using new types of media to discuss climate change. So far, the majority of non-Al Gore spokespeople on climate change have been scientists. As a generalization, no one would accuse scientists of being the most inspiring communicators. By using art to express the issues and emotions that climate change exposes, Sarah, Steve and Rachel have opened the door for new kinds of discussions to happen. For an issue that is so complex, overwhelming and sometimes confusing, we need a lot of ways to get the message across. My brain is full of ideas of how develop similar initiatives to expand the conversation.
Labels: change, climate change, environmental governance, UNEP
¶ 6:43 AM 0 Comments
Labels: change, collaboration
¶ 10:55 AM 0 Comments
I haven’t put an entry onto the blog for a while, as I’ve been busy wrapping up the completion of the Cochrane Sustainability Plan. You can see the final plan here.
The journey of developing the Cochrane Sustainability Plan has been quite remarkable. Over a 4-month period, nearly 500 citizens contributed their views in the visioning process. A group of 75 committed citizens were intimately involved in the process and were the real authors of this plan. Over 11 months, these folks contributed over 700 hours of meeting time to help create a plan for the future of their community. Most of that time was during a compressed 5-month period.
In leading the process to create this plan, a key attribute of these citizens began to become apparent:
They were focused on getting it right as opposed to being right.
This is an important distinction – especially when trying to create a plan that an entire community can use to work together. These citizens of Cochrane contributed a remarkable amount of time, knowledge and passion about their community, yet they were able to listen to one another and respect each other’s opinions. Without this, the process would have devolved into a competition of superior ideas or views, rather than a collaborative effort for the future of the community.
Is this what you use to hold onto your ideas?
Often times, we tend to hold onto our ideas or viewpoints with a vice grip. This is particularly prevalent with things that we care about. Mixed in with this are elements of ego, open mindedness and past experience. When the objective is to create as much common ground as possible, however, we need to take the long view of where we need to end up. That’s what was so inspiring about the citizens of Cochrane in our process – they stayed focused on the long view and didn’t worry about being right all the time. In your work, it’s an important question to keep in mind:
Am I trying to get it right or am I trying to be right?
- John, May 22, 2009
Labels: change, learning, sustainability
¶ 10:34 AM 0 Comments
In an April 6 essay in the Globe and Mail, Thomas Homer-Dixon makes the case for the value of fear. Homer-Dixon writes that conventional wisdom deems fear as bad and that fear just begets more fear. In the article, he writes:
“But, in this case, conventional wisdom is wrong. The truth is that fear is good. The economic crisis we're facing is not at root the result of too much fear but of too little. If we had been more afraid for our economic well-being, we would have saved more, borrowed and speculated less, and been more cautious about letting financial wizards make bets with our money using opaque mathematical models.
Today, if we were more afraid for our futures and those of our children, we would be doing much more to address potential problems – such as climate change and nuclear terrorism – that could derail our societies tomorrow.”
Let’s look at the definition of these two key words Homer-Dixon is discussing: pessimism and optimism. According to the dictionary on my trusty Macbook:
Pessimism is defined as “a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future.”
Optimism is defined as “hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.”
As usual, Homer-Dixon makes a strong argument in his essay. However, looking at these two definitions above, I would put a somewhat different frame on his discussion. I would argue that neither optimism nor pessimism is helpful in and of themselves. In my view, the real culprit is tunnel vision. Many of the issues we face today – including the current financial crisis – are the result of tunnel vision. Tunnel vision can result in looking at only one piece of the issue or just within one timeframe. Sometimes entire populations are guilty of it, while other times individuals in key positions have tunnel vision.
In the case of the current financial crisis, tunnel vision resulted in a relatively small amount of individuals being focused on profit maximization over a very short term. There is possibly no human-made system that is more connected than the global economic system. Those connections exist, yet were ignored. The result is the crisis we see today.
Rather than keeping the blinders on, we need to start playing “connect-the-dots” in our decision-making. In his 2006 book The Upside of Down, Homer-Dixon carefully explains how our global systems are linked, or “tightly coupled” as he puts it. These ever-increasing connections in our world require us to understand the linkages between our decisions and the impacts they have beyond just what tunnel vision allows for. Disregarding these connections and the impacts of decisions across economic, environmental and social realms is unproductive at best and irresponsible at worst.
Taken to the extreme, optimism and pessimism are both forms of tunnel vision. Taking off the blinders allows for a better understanding of the whole, an ability to see connections and to understand implications over a longer timeframe. For the natural optimist, connecting the dots will create a more thorough understanding of impacts to create a more holistic picture. This will likely temper the blind all-is-going-to-work-out-for-the-best instincts of these folks. For the pessimist, connecting the dots will enable an understanding of potential opportunities to move from the doom-and-gloom into more positive solutions.
Either way, the focus should be on creating productive and realistic solutions. Taking off the blinders is the best way to make this happen.
- John, April 8, 2009
Labels: change, complexity, learning
¶ 11:57 AM 0 Comments
I teach an Urban Studies class called “Planning the Canadian City” at the University of Calgary. Recently, we had an interesting discussion about professions, learning and change. We were fortunate to have Pat Gordon as our guest speaker. Pat is the project manager for the Plan It Calgary project – Calgary’s integrated land use and mobility plan.
After her presentation on the direction that Plan It is heading, one of our students asked Pat “how do you ensure that things don’t go back to the ‘old way’ of doing business at City Hall after you have finished this project?”
A very important question with no easy answers.
Pat spoke about the importance of having people with varied experiences, professions and backgrounds on the team to avoid groupthink. She also felt strongly that there is a distinct advantage to having people on the team that are earlier in their careers to bring a more fresh perspective to the work. I then added to the conversation by mentioning a phenomenon that I have observed as planners move their career.
It seems that there is an interesting learning curve that happens for planners. I’m sure this happens across many professions, but I’ll pick on planners for the time being. In school, many students have big ideas and really want to change the world and how things work. This changes over time. It doesn’t happen overnight, but in a number of slow steps:
Step 1 – Students complete school and enter the planning field.
Step 2 – In starting their careers, they realize they still have a great deal to learn. This makes sense. Planning is a very complex profession and each community or organization has its own history that young planners need to know and understand.
Step 3 – Here is where the shift (potentially) starts to happen. As they begin to learn about why their particular organization, institution or community behaves or makes decisions a certain way, they start to think that that is the way of approaching an issue.
Step 4 – If they start to make the shift in Step 3, then they think of the ideas they had in school as overly idealistic, unrealistic or just generally impossible. Slowly, these ideas of change shrink in the rearview mirror as their careers move down the road.
Step 5 – By this point, these planners have all but lost their initial hopes for making change and in the extreme cases have become one of those people that when asked why things are done a certain way, they respond “Because we’ve always done it that way.”
This can be reflected by a conversation that I overhead a few months ago:
“Traffic is getting really bad these days, isn’t it?”
“It sure is. It takes me forever to get downtown to work these days. Sometimes up to an hour each way.”
“Yeah, well, there’s nothing you can do about it anyways. It’s just too bad.”
Where did I hear this? AT A PLANNING CONFERENCE in Banff, Alberta this past fall. This exemplifies someone that has reached that 5th stage of their career. These are professionals that help shape how cities are built and yet have this fatalistic, I-can’t-do-anything-about-it attitude towards the work. Whether for personal sanity, making their life easier or painful experience, these individuals felt that they could no longer make a difference.
My message to the class was that it is up to them to keep their ideas alive, to take the time to remember why they got into the profession in the first place, and to have the tenacity to stick with it. I’m not advocating for blind ignorance of reality. On the contrary. Having a clear understanding of the realities – including institutional knowledge of why decisions have been made a certain way in the past – helps to move toward the improved future that many planners start their career thinking they’ll contribute to. That’s why it’s so important to continually learn, listen to other perspectives and look for new ways of doing the work. The balance is to understand your context without becoming so immersed in it that you lose perspective, much like a quote I once heard:
“To a worm in a jar of sauerkraut, the whole world is sauerkraut.”
- John, March 18, 2009
Labels: change, learning, professions
¶ 1:44 PM 2 Comments
"Aggressively patient"
This was the best term I heard in 2008. It came from Bob Willard – a renowned expert on the business case for sustainability. I first heard this while participating in a sustainability leadership training program called LEAD (Leadership in Environment and Development) in Toronto this past summer. In trying to make our communities, businesses and organizations more sustainable, this is a quality we need to have – aggressive patience.
What does this term mean? In my view, it’s about staying the course and not getting easily flustered when things don’t go exactly as planned. It’s about being vigilant and being ready to seize opportunities when they arise. It’s about constantly reading the situation to understand the context you are working in.
In many ways, “aggressively patient” captures the dichotomy of trying to work towards a more sustainable future. Think of the fable about the tortoise and the hare. Slow and steady wins the race, right? In many instances, that’s the case, but here’s the trouble – many of our organizations, communities and businesses are slow to change. Understanding the drivers for change within a context will allow you to be patient and make meaningful change happen. The approach to change is often like the tortoise.
The problem is, many of the issues we face – such as climate change – are moving at the speed of the hare. Unlike the hare, however, these issues are not stopping for a nap. In the climate change example, the speed of the hare is moving faster than the world's most acclaimed climate scientists predicted.
That’s why I love the term “aggressively patient.” It represents the most impressive qualities of both characters in the story - the patience and determination of the tortoise with the aggressiveness of the hare. We need more people that have this quality if we’re going to effectively tackle issues of sustainability.
Do you have the ability to be aggressively patient?
- John, February 16, 2009
Labels: change, sustainability
¶ 6:01 PM 1 Comments
