Important questions T306-B Prepared by: Honey Bonny((أبومحمد

Fall semester 2010 – 2011

The Summary prepared by:

Honey Bonny

أبومحمد

BLOCK 4 – Managing sustainable development:

Learning with other stakeholders

PART ONE: Introduction

Why is sustainable development relevant to T306?

  • The primary interest in sustainable developmentfor the purpose of T306 is that it provides an example of a domain of activity that many have experiencedascomplex.
  • The term domain is used here in several of its recognized senses as:
  1. The area of activityof a person, institution etc;
  2. A sphere of thought or operations;
  3. The situation where something is applicable;

There are 3 particular features of SD that we will focus on:

  1. Issues of SDdirectlyorindirectlyaffect and are affected byeveryone. So, it is a domain in which everyoneis a stakeholder.
  2. This domain providesopportunitiesto consider howsystemstheories and methodologieshave beenandcan beusedin practice.
  3. Many practitioners working in this domain have not explicitly usedsystems approachesbuthave - with hindsight- recognizedthe needtothinkandactmoresystematicallyand to adoptlearningapproaches, usually when crises on protests at decisions and actions have occurred.

PART TWO: Engaging with sustainable development (SD)

  1. Do you think the concepts of systems level and hierarchy could be used in analyzing

sustainable development situations? Fully explain using an example to illustrate your answer

Final 2010

  1. Checkland and Scholes (1999) believe that, “Different observers will attach different

importance to different hierarchies with the choice of levels always observer dependent”.

With an example of your own, show clearly what that means and how in the context of

hierarchy and levels in system practice. Final May 2010

Or Discuss why the system practitioner needs to understand the concepts of hierarchy or

systems levels. Use an example to discuss this.Final 2009

Table1:Hierarchies for structuring sustainable development situations:

Organizational / Single organizational:Individual/ group/team/company
Multi-organizational:Sector/bigger sector/cross sector/all
Community / Individual/network/bigger network
Geographical / Local/regional/national/international/global
Spheres / Physiosphere/biosphere /noosphere/theosphere
Being and consciousness / Matter /life/mind/soul/spirit
Cultural / A hierarchy that rankscollective worldviews
Personal / A hierarchy that individualsfindnatural to them, which may beone or more of the aboveorsomething quite different.

The notions of “hierarchy” and ‘levels’are importantinsystems practice, useful instructuring and groupingelementswhenexploring a system of interest.

  1. The concepts of hierarchies and system levelsarecentralto SD, whereindividuals’ actions are relevant to a range of levels. Hierarchiesare important to considerbecausesystems possess emergent propertiesthattheir sub-systemsdo not.

It is not always possible to predictwhat properties may emergeatdifferent systemlevelsindifferent people’s SD systemsofinterest.

Butfor a system practitioner in this domain, it can be helpful:

  • To recognizedifferent system levels to work out how to facilitateinteraction and;
  • To realize that these systems will not simply be a sum of their parts.

For example: we found it useful to recognize both the whole system (i.e. Education for Sustainable Development) and different sub-systems of interest in drafting advertizing material for workshop. It meant that a broad range of people recognized this material as an invitation to take part in events in which their own system of interest was a part.

(SAQ1)

  1. The caption refer to Checklandpoint that the main changescan occur throughpurposeful activityrelate tostructure, process and outlook or attitude. Checklandrecognizes thatdifferent observerswill attachdifferent importancetodifferent hierarchies, withthe choice of level – system, sub-system and wider system - always depending onwhat an observer selectsassignificant. It is also useful to explore different levels to those originally identified so as to check that action is focused at the right level.

For example: in any situation there are many different hierarchies which individuals find meaningful in the domain of SD, so we may have focused more on people (individuals & social groups) or on physical environment element and weather systems. BUTin fact we should includesbothhuman and non-humansub-system as it is important to remember theinterdependence of these element in the context of sustainable development, separating them out in our thinking will have difficulties later

(SAQ2)

1------
2------
3------
4------
5------ /
  • System - sub-system - wider system, are relative terms. Choice is made by an observer: If level 3 is system then for that observer 2 is wider system and 4 is sub-system level

CATWOE:Customers, Actors,Transformation, Worldview, Owner, Environment
CATWOE Came originally from SSM and is used in both Block 2 and Part 5 of this block /
  • System Is the level of "T" (transformation). Activities contributing to doing T are then sub-systems. The wider system level is that of "O" (Owner) in CATWOE, who could stop T.

  • This systems thinking ensures thinking at three levels:
What? (system)
How? (sub-system)
Why? (wide system)
  • Do "P" by "Q" in order to contribute to achieving "R" covers the three levels

  • But the choice of level is always observer-dependant

Observer 1 Achieving a higher Observer 2

Why (wider System) price for the property

Improving the appearance Why (wider system)

What (system) of the property

How (sub-system) painting the house what(system)

Hand painting How (sub-system)

Checkland attributes the functions of

What to do….. (P)

How to do it… (Q)

Why do it…….(R) to the different system levels (system, sub-system and wider systems respectively)

Figure 4: Choice of level is observer dependent (Checkland & Scholes)

There are some aspects of sustainable development that many people experience as complex. State them.

Some aspects of sustainable development that many people experience as complex:

  1. Eventsmay occur over large scale e.g. the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer.
  2. Some of the systems of interest in this domain are very bigsoindividualsmay lose sight of the effects of their collective actions.
  3. Things are always in a state of changeandsustainable development is generally not trying to keep things the same, but to co-evolvesystemswith their environments.
  4. There are many, many people involved and it is often not clearwhothe main stakeholders are in any attempts at purposeful activity.
  5. The consequences of actions may be found a long way in the time and place from their multiple ‘causes’ (e.g. with issues of production and consumption between industrialized and developing countries, or acid rain or pollutants that accumulate in the world’s oceans).

Explain the concept of sustainable development. Why are group values as well as individual values considered to be so important for sustainable development? Final 2006

بالإمكان إضافة إجابة السؤال الأول ومن ثم الإجابة التالية

Sustainable development:

  • Sustainable developmentcan be described as “bringingenvironmental and developmentissuestogether with the futurein mind”.
  • Sustainable development is development that meets the needsofthe presentwithoutcompromising the ability offuturegenerationsto meettheir own needs.
  • Sustainable developmentis also whereecological, economic and socialaspectsoverlap.

Sustainable development does not focus only on environmental issues. More broadly, sustainable development policies encompass three general policy areas: economic, environmental and social.

  • There are many types of sustainability-ecological, economic, financial, social, political, andinstitutional, depending on what is being sustained.SD was selected as the focus for the domain considered in Block 4 rather than sustainabilitybecause, the process of SD has a historical tradition which has tried to increase the compatibility ofecological, economic and social sustainability, making each of equal importance in decisionmaking.The situations described here in which a systems practitioner is managing all have someecological, economic and social dimensions.

The main reasons why group values seem to be important to sustainable development is that all individuals operate within socialororganizationalcontextsandgroup as well as individual valuesaffectpeoples’ actionsin relation tosustainable development. Groups of valuescan be thought of asvalue systems, which will have some sort of outcome that is greater than the sum of its parts. Group values change – albeit slowly according to Steely and Worcester – presumably with sustainable development in mind – but these changes only seem to occur (according to Hebel) when one set of values is confronted with another.

Sustainable development: where ecological, economic and social aspects overlap

PART THREE: Discovering and contextualizing your own sustainable development beliefs and values

Discuss the connections between "values", "beliefs" and "Circumstances". Also discuss how this connection is relevant to sustainable development situation; you may enrich your explanation through suitable illustrations. Final 2008

There are a need for systems practitioners to maketheir perspectivesapparent, in orderto meet this need, we will drawing out some different dimensions of perspective Values, Beliefs and Circumstances. This technique can be used to consider different perspectives in many domains of practice, not just sustainable development.

Values, beliefs and circumstances:

  • The term valuewill be used here to refer tomeaningsomethingthat an individual or group regardsas something good or that gives meaningto life.
  • A beliefis considered here to be an intellectualstarting pointfor a sequenceofreasoning.
  • Circumstancesare used here to refer topersonal factors, such asexperience and role that affect how a situation is perceived.

For example:

Consider the following statement:

“As a local resident who currently makes purchases in small shops in the town, I think there are environmental, economic and social costs attached to building a new supermarket on a n out-of-town site. I am concerned that such a development would reduce the quality of life in the town and put other members of my community out of business.”

My interpretations:

The indication of values the ‘quality of life’ will meandifferent thingstodifferent peopledepending onwhat they regard asgood.

The indication of beliefsstarting pointfor a chain of reasoning (cost).

The indication of personal circumstances the local resident with experience of shopping in small shops in the town.

Connections between values, beliefs and circumstances:

Values, beliefs and circumstances all determine our perspectivesthat in turn affect the waythatwe conceptualize the world (our world views).

There are connectionsbetween these values, beliefs and circumstances.But as valuesin particularare often hidden and seen to be more to do withour emotionalthanintellectual waysofknowing, these connectionsare noteasytorationalize.

Beliefs, on the other hand, as intellectualstarting point seem to be more subject toreason.

The way in which the term values, beliefs and circumstancesare usedis notstandard in all literature. Appreciatingdifferent perspectives, and accordinglyrecognizingthe values, beliefs and circumstancesthatdetermine them, is an essential skillfor a systems practitioner.

Valuesdo notjustcontributetobeliefsbut also tojudgments,which unlike beliefs, are formed with reference to certain criteria. As, judgment is something for which we must be prepared to takeresponsibility and which we must stand ready to defend and therefore a means by which we create our own identities.Values are most appropriately construed as “objects of judgment”.

The values of an individualare notheldin isolationbutin socialororganizationalcontextandthe values of the individual may differfrom the socialororganizationalnorms.

Please read the answer of activity # 16 page 133 & 134.

State some beliefs about sustainable development that are different of those the authors of this block committed to.

Some different beliefs about SD:

Different people adopt different values and beliefs and devote their expertise in a different direction:

Belief 1.Sustainable development is such a vague concept. Its vaguenessgivesopportunitiesforpeople with many different agendatointerpret it to suittheir own interests. It seems meaningless in practice.

Belief 2.There’s so muchwe don’t know and are uncertainabout anyway in this world, what differencedoes it maketo subscribetosustainable development?

Belief 3.Human ingenuity and technologyis the key to successfuldevelopment.

Belief 4.The issues aretoo big. Local level actionismuch moreimportant than all this global stuff. It’s not my problem, nothing I do will make a difference. Governments and international agencieswill sortit out.

Belief 5.Sustainable development’s inherent ethical positionisanthropocentric. Humans can’t control everything. I can defend a different ethical position.

Why are group values as well as individual values considered to be so important for sustainable developmentمهم ومكرر

The main reasons why group values seem to be important to sustainable development is that all individuals operate within socialororganizationalcontextsandgroup as well as individual valuesaffectpeoples’ actionsin relation tosustainable development. Groups of valuescan be thought of asvalue systems, which will have some sort of outcome that is greater than the sum of its parts. Group valueschange – albeit slowly according to Steely and Worcester – presumablywith sustainable developmentinmind – butthese changes only seem to occur (according to Hebel) whenone set of valuesisconfrontedwith another.

PART FOUR: Systems practice for ‘managing’ SD:

Historically, as discussed earlier in the block, the concept of SD emerged from when post-

war assumptions were powerfully challenged in many different ways. What are those

challenges.السؤال للفهم فقط

  1. The first challenge:limit to growth:

was that industrial development could not continue to ignore its impact on the environment. As this challenge evolved it crystallized into a belief that there were significant limits to the scale of human activity on Planet Earth.

  1. The second challenge: commons:

Was related but with a different focus. It was concerned with whether the economic assumptions, on which the western economies were based, werean appropriate basisforplanning and policy making.

This challenge came to be focused and discussed in terms of managementof ‘common land’.

  1. The third challenge: learning from Brent Spar:

Was to the assumption that science and technology were universally benign and could and would solveall development problems. Underlying this criticismwas a profound challengeto the positivist and rationalistworld views, which then prevailed amongst scientists and other practitioners.

Explain the concept of 'commons' as used by Hardin. Give two examples with reasons, one

for which you consider should be treated as a 'commons' in Hardin's sense of a limited

shared resource and one for which you consider 'not'. Final 2009

  • In 1968, Hardin published a book called “The Tragedy of the Commons”.

Hardin’sstory concerns an area of common land on which a group of villagersareable to graze their cattle.like any area of grazing land the commons will have a limitedcarrying capacitythat is the abilitytoprovidefoodforanimalson a sustainable basis.Ifthe number of cattleon the commonexceeds its carrying capacitythen the animalswill not have as much food as they could eat, with the result that the yield of meat or milk will be slightly reduced.

Figure 18 in page 69 illustrates the concept of carrying capacity and the decline in yield as none animals are introduced onto the land.

  • The logic of this storyruns directly counter to the free market assumption that pursuing self interestresults inthe best outcome.Hardinwas able to demonstrate thatwhen a resourceislimitedmarket economicswould notproducesustainable outcomes.Hardinsuggests thatgovernmentsshould interfere in marketstomanage the limited resourcessoas to producesustainable outcomes.
  • “Limit to Growth” and “Tragedy of the Commons” provided a powerful counter argument to theaccepted wisdom, namely that economic growth through the operation of competitive free marketswould provide solutions to all the problems of development, poverty, food supply and so on.
  • In most communities, there are some types of local control put in place in order to make sure thatresources will not be exhausted by over use.

Example for ‘common’:

The oil and gas reservoirs in the North Sea: these are commons which it is widely accepted will be exploited and depletedwithin a finite time period.

Example for ‘not common’:

The Atlantic Ocean: it is not commons because it is well connected with other water resources. Fish stocks within the Atlantic Ocean could be regarded as a commons, but not the ocean itself.

Drawing on your own experience and your knowledge about the evolution of using systems

ideas in the domain of sustainable development, suggest some answers to the question 'who

learns what?' for systems practice based on each of the ethical choices:Final 2010

  1. Deciding for other stakeholders
  2. Deciding with other stakeholders
  3. Enabling stakeholders to decide

Managing systems practice in contexts of SD:

  • An aware systems practitioner has 3 choices in how they manage their engagement with stakeholderswhenpursuing any form of purposeful activity, the choices are to:
  1. Decidefor stakeholders
  2. Decidewithother stakeholders
  3. Enable stakeholders to decide

Deciding for:When the systems practitioner takes control of the situation and uses their expertise to tell, or recommend to stakeholders what they should do.

  • In this situationthe systems practitionerwould have the most potentialforlearningabout issueandabout their own practice.
  • The disadvantage of “deciding for”is that however much we might try to put ourselvesintheshoes of another, oracknowledgeother perspectives, it is never the sameashaving these stakeholders participate.
  • “Deciding for” is often needed in case such as:
  1. where stakeholders are nothuman.
  2. where stakeholderscannot be involved withdecision makingeither because they have:
  • No capacity, where capacity might be determinedbytime constraints as well as bio physical restraints.
  • No desiretobe involved.
  • Not yetbeen identified.

Deciding with:When the systems practitioner acts as a facilitator for other stakeholders in the situation and participatesin decision making with other stakeholders.

  • In this situationthe systems practitioner couldfacilitate and involveother stakeholdersinusingthe systems approachbuthe/she may do soin a way that protects ‘rather than share’ their specialist knowledge and skills. In this case the outcomemay be owned jointly by the participantsbut the processto achieve the outcomewould not. In the longer termthis scenario would be less sustainablebecauselearning about the process has been limitedto the'expert' rather than residing in what Wenger describes as a 'community of practice'.

Creating an enabling process for deciding:When the systems practitioner explain to stakeholders what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of a particular method in a given context so that the stakeholders could choose for themselves.

  • In this situation, there is the potential for the systemspractitioner and stakeholdersto becomeco-learners or co-inquirers.
  • Each of these 3 situations requires a different set of skillsforeffectivepractice and will result indifferentcapacities and potentials for learning.
  • Decide who learns:
  • Why is the question of “who learns what?” important? and why is it relevant to this block?

Because:

Aware practitioners, usingsystems approachesareable toarrange a process of action researchin which the key systems ideasofconnectivity, emergence, communication and controlareappreciatedandin which multiple perspectivesarevalued.

The question ofwhoparticipates in a learning processaffects their capacity to be responsible to beable torespond purposefully.