Implementing
the Strategy
The sooner
implementation begins, the sooner a strategy can benefit from experience.
Early action brings greater commitment and momentum to the process, in addition
to developing essential management capacities. Other strategies for action
throughout government and at local levels will be needed. These include implementation
by government, the private sector and NGOs. Each has a key function, which
can be helped through the appropriate legal frameworks, economic instruments
and mechanisms for mediation and conflict resolution. There should be an emphasis
on cooperation rather than compulsion.
The strategy
secretariat or similar body has an important role to play, particularly through
demonstration and pilot programmes bridging a number of sectors. Responsibility
for implementation becomes more diffuse with each turn of the strategy cycle,
and as the institutional mechanisms for sustainable development mature. These
will include new forms of partnership that emphasize flexibility, informality
and open approaches to problem solving and consensus building.
Implementation
from day one
Strategies
are cyclical processes, with capacity building and implementation continuing
throughout. Implementation feeds into, and is guided by, regular review and
revision of the policy framework and action plan, based on monitoring and
evaluation.
The layers
of implementation – by different levels and sectors of government and by a
wide range of actors outside government – are likely to deepen with each turn
of the cycle. The strategy’s policy and action plan benefit increasingly as
plans turn to actions, and as lessons from these actions lead to better policy
and greater capacity.
Implementation
can begin from the earliest stage of a strategy, in fields where government
or a group of other participants is already committed to action.
Nothing reinforces
a strategy process more than actions beginning to take effect. As a general
rule, the earlier and more directly participants can feel the impact of strategy
actions, the more they will be committed to the process. This rule reflects
three important lessons of strategy experience:
-
The
groups involved, whether politicians or local communities, need to see
the practical relevance and benefits of the strategy process as an incentive
to participate. Early action in priority areas sense of ownership
and understanding of the strategy process.
-
In situations
of rapid change, policy development within a strategy can be overtaken
by events unless it is also acting to shape them. When actions are taken,
there are often winners and losers, and the strategy team will need to
find ways of minimizing the negative burdens of change and innovation
if pockets of resistance are not to develop. (This concern is discussed
later with respect to private sector activities.)
-
Early
action helps to build capacity. There is no limit to the kinds of implementation
that can occur during the strategy’s
-
start-up
and planning phases. The Zambia NCS emphasized implementation during the
finalization of strategy policies and legislation, document through
training programmes and local demonstration strategies. In Pakistan, the
NCS planning phase saw the beginnings of a Sustainable Development Policy
Institute and environment cells in a number of line agencies of the national
and provincial governments.
National
environment umbrella legislation was drafted and broad involvement in the
strategy planning process affected the receptiveness of governments to change,
including the establishment of environmental protection agencies in each of
the provinces, and the initiation of provincial conservation strategies.
Early implementation
might be targeted to specific problems which are disclosed during the definition
of issues. In Uganda, for example, concerns were expressed about pollution
as a consequence of the proliferation of plastic bags. The NEAP secretariat
immediately drafted regulations to control their use. Often, positive actions
are already being taken by governments or communities on an ad hoc basis as
a result of separate initiatives. Strategy secretariats can seek to identify
these as ‘good news’ stories and reinforce them in other ways as elements
in the overall framework for action. It is particularly important that a strategy
build upon the best of what is already existing in a country. Selective support
for innovative activities and the facilitation of exchange and links between
them can be essential elements of strategy implementation during the planning
phase. Other actions at this stage, such as demonstration programmes and capacity
building during policy development, are discussed later in this chapter, along
with the role of the strategy secretariat in implementation.
Basic
requirements for implementation
The most
difficult time for most strategies is when plans must be turned into action.
Many strategies have not made the transition. In fact, about 70 per cent of
all sectoral and thematic strategies in Africa over the past ten years have
not been implemented; others have been only partially implemented. Worldwide,
even the most successful national strategies have seen many important components
of their action plans be unsupported or overtaken by events. For some, the
strategy process appears to have stopped dead following the preparation of
the main document. This was the case with the Peruvian and Costa Rican NCSs.
A strategy
can still be influential, even if it does not reach full implementation. Peru’s
NCS process stalled when the government changed. However, the draft strategy
document provided a basis for Peru’s national report to UNCED, a review of
the TFAP, and a new proposal for a national system of protected areas. It
also led to four regional conservation strategies (also halted by the unstable
political situation).
Costa Rica’s
National Conservation Strategy for Sustainable Development (ECODES) also stalled
when the government changed. But the informal networks of professionals formed
during the process continue, and the intellectual influence of the strategy
document – which has an ambitious cross sectoral approach based on systems
analysis – has been strong. It brought to national attention the debate about
the sustainability of development. It provided a framework for the TFAP and
the innovative National Biodiversity Institute (INBio); and it led the National
Park Service to start working on the concept of buffer zones, and hence to
a local sustainable development strategy for the Llanuras de Tortuguero. ECODES
also resulted in the establishment of a National Commission for Environmental
Education and a Master Plan for Environmental Education.
Experiences
such as these would suggest that, to maximize the chances of full and systematic
implementation, strategy teams should nurture:
-
Continuous
high level political backing: It is here that the secretariat will
need to be particularly strategic; targeting key leaders and groups of
politicians for special attention. For example, at key points in implementation
of the Nepal NCS, such as when the environmental assessment legislation
was due to come before parliament, the NCS secretariat worked through
journalist groups and other NGOs to conduct special awareness raising
seminars and discussion sessions with parliamentarians. Also, key decision
makers were taken to the sites of demonstration programmes, particularly
those politicians whose constituents were benefiting directly from existing
strategy activities. Ensuring the involvement of members of opposition
parties is highly desirable, although not always easy when it is most
needed.
-
Integration
with recognized plans and procedure: The strategy will carry
more weight where is integrated with the national development plan and
donor programming cycles than if it is treated as a one exercise.
-
Consistent
and long-term sources of funds: Ensuring that adequate funds
are on tap when they are needed will take a good deal of secretariat time,
resources and creative energy. Donors should be sensitive to the effort
required and cater to this as a key element in secretariat work during
early phases of the strategy. Sustainable financing is the goal, as discussed
in Chapter 10.
-
The
capacity for action: Every proposed action brings with it a set of
assumptions – often unwritten – about the capacities of the agencies or
groups responsible for implementation; a frequent cause of failure in
a strategy is that these bodies are not up to the job. Every substantive
action called for in a strategy needs to be inextricably linked to supporting
capacity building programmes.
-
Coordinating
mechanisms: Effective coordination is particularly important in the
early stages of implementation. A focal agency, often the strategy secretariat,
will need to take on this role. As the strategy engages more participants,
and as it progresses from cycle to cycle, coordinating functions should
devolve to a range of agencies and levels of government. Some elements
of implementation can be coordinated by the private sector or NGOs. Central
monitoring will be important throughout.
-
Continuity:
The structures that provide the main energy force for strategy planning
(for example) should remain in place during the transition to full implementation
while arrangements are made for their functions to be integrated permanently
within the workings of government.
If there
were an existing cabinet level committee with responsibility for the strategy,
this could continue as the overall coordinating and facilitating mechanism.
If such a mechanism were not in place, then this is a desirable innovation,
even if only as an interim or bridging mechanism during the crucial transition
phase where many strategies have collapsed. In Pakistan, for example, a cabinet
implementation committee was established immediately following approval of
the NCS document.
Similarly,
during the planning phase, the technical steering committee and secretariat
would have acquired a deep familiarity with the issues, developed extensive
networks and skills, and experienced team work: all invaluable resources during
this difficult transition. In most strategies, these structures have been
allowed to break down and their reservoir of experience and staff resources
have dissipated before effective alternatives had been set in place. In Nepal,
for example, the strategy secretariat ceased to exist for all practical purposes
following the preparation of the NCS document. Some 18 months later it had
to be recreated to build the implementation phase. It was another four years
before an Environment Protection Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, was
established, with the ultimate responsibility for strategy coordination. A
steady process of transferring secretariat responsibilities to the National
Planning Commission and other agencies is still continuing.
This process
of defining and transferring responsibilities, along with capacity development,
takes time and needs to be viewed as an inherent part of implementation. The
centres of energy for a strategy, which often have been painstakingly built
up during planning, will be its most valued resources in implementation.
Implementation
by national government
One of the
key lessons of strategy experience is that it should be an ongoing process
in which many of the components are repeated over a period of several years.
Implementation will deepen and be expressed in many ways as different actors
take up their roles, but a principal concern should be to fix all the elements
of strategy planning within a country's existing development planning cycle.
There may be a three- to ten-year planning cycle, but some countries rely
principally on the annual budgetary cycle in defining development programmes.
Whatever
the arrangement, a commitment will need to be made to reiterate the strategy
planning process. This can be difficult if changes of government occur, which
reinforces the need for a multipartisan approach to the process. Commitment
to the strategy might best be expressed through a statutory obligation under
an umbrella act relating to sustainable development. The reforms to government
structure proposed in the strategy document may determine who will be responsible
and how to manage the process.
Box 20:
Mediation, conflict resolution and arbitration: an Australian example
In Australia,
the Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency (CEPA) was established
as the central national body to implement the National Ecologically
Sustainable Development Strategy process. It is required to work in
close collaboration with the state and territory governments, industry,
and the community to:
-
determine
clear national standards for and of indicators of sustainable
development;
-
develop well
defined processes for decision making; and
-
agree on
effective consultative arrangements for better environmental management.
The CEPA works
on establishing partnerships, decision making methods and a policy
framework that all Australian governments and sectors will respect.
In 1989, the Resource Assessment Commission (RAC) was established
to address the major issues which the strategy process had defined
but on which consensus could not be reached.
In carrying out
its public inquiry functions, the RAC was guided by a set of policy
principles (expressed in establishing legislation) for resolving competing
claims and views over the use of resources. The principles are a useful
model and, in summary, are:
-
There should
be an integrated approach, taking both conservation and development
aspects into account at an early stage.
-
Resource
use decisions should seek to optimize the net benefits to the
community from the nation's resources, having regard to efficiency
of resource use and environmental considerations, ecosystem integrity
and sustainability, the sustainability of any development, and
an equitable distribution of the return of resources.
-
Government
decisions, policies and management regimes may provide for additional
uses that are compatible with the primary purpose values for the
area; recognizing that, in some cases, both conservation and development
interests can be accommodated concurrently or sequentially and,
in other cases, choices must be made between alternative uses
or combinations of uses.
In reaching consensus,
or at least in coming to a position that the main parties can live
with, the RAC interpreted these principles as demanding a thorough
understanding of the range of beliefs and ethical frameworks underlying
the different community values relating to an issue. The RAC process
aimed to ensure that even though a party may disagree with the final
decision taken by a government, it accepts the reasonableness of the
process which led to it. The major elements of the public inquiry
process encompass research, clarifying the pertinent issues, meetings,
public hearings, written submissions and the formulation of options
and recommendations. Three important public inquiries undertaken by
the RAC involved the sustainable use of forests, the management
of Australian coastal zones and mining in a national park. A statutory
authority such as the RAC is a valuable innovation in strategy implementation
so that a body of expertise and a range of methodologies is built
up to enable the consistent application of sustainable development
principles to the resolution of major resource use issues.
Yet such an open
process can threaten established development interests, and the RAC
came under heavy attack from industry and opposition parties as a
‘superfluous layer of green tape bureaucracy’ that drove away potential
resource industry investors. The RAC was abolished four years after
it began. The various sustainable development institutions, like all
offspring of the strategy process, are likely to meet with strong
resistance and, unless backed by committed and influential political
constituency, can be short-lived.
Other desirable
sustainable development structures include environment tribunals,
which can mediate and, if necessary, arbitrate more specific conflict
situations. These occur as strategy actions begin to define more sharply
focused conflicts of interest over the use of specific sites or resources.
The RAC was set up to examine national issues of conflict whereas
other bodies, such as the Land and Environment Court within the Australian
State of New South Wales, might conciliate on actions proposed within
local strategies such as a zoning plan or the siting of an industry.
Finally, administrative structures are needed to fulfill control and
enforcement functions more akin to a conventional environment protection
agency.
The precise form
of these structures that seek to institutionalize strategies for sustainable
development is not so important: in fact, one agency might fulfill
any number of them. A greater concern is that there be a clear definition
and understanding of their functions and relationships with other
institutions, i.e. how they connect to the system. |
Key
sustainable development structures
It is essential
that all agencies involved in implementing the strategy are clear about their
relative responsibilities. The component actions are likely to be the responsibil-ity
of many bodies, both inside and outside government. The role and influence
of the steering committee and secretariat or their equivalents (i.e. the central
strategy agency) will vary. There will be:
-
actions
undertaken directly by the steering committee or secretariat – for example,
certain demonstration and pilot projects, and communication and monitoring
activities;
-
actions
influenced directly by the steering committee or secretariat, but undertaken
by others – for example, major demonstration projects and activities of
government sectoral agencies; and
-
actions
influenced only indirectly by the steering committee or secretariat –
for example, corporate sector and individual initiatives in response to
policies and incentives set by the strategy.
Choosing
the central agency to drive implementation depends on how strategy planning
was managed. In Nepal, the National Planning Commission provides the secretariat
for the strategy and its overseeing body, the Environmental Protection Council
(EPC). Similarly, in Zambia, the inter sectoral EPC, which falls under the
Minister of Environment, manages both the NCS and NEAP processes. A central
strategy agency will need to have four main characteristics. It should:
-
be close
to the action (i.e. closely related to the most powerful agencies or individuals
in government, but also have links with grassroots institutions);
-
include
a mechanism for high level, credible, inter sectoral links;
-
have
a broad and flexible mandate which allows it to act as a catalyst, facilitator,
demonstrator, and review body; and
-
be independent
to help set in place transparent, consistent, impartial, participatory,
and authoritative processes of mediation and conflict resolution in major
resource issues.
Different
levels of sustainable development structures and agencies established in Australia
are described in Box 20.
A wide range
of other structural reforms can complement and reinforce the functions of
the central strategy agency. In the United States, two new executive offices
have been established to coordinate the preparation of sustainable development
policy. The Office for Environmental Policy focuses on domestic issues, while
the Global Environmental Affairs Office, situated within the National Security
Council, deals with international issues. Both report direct to the President
and have a mandate to produce action plans that set out policies and approaches
to implementation. They are required to seek broad public participation and
inter-agency collaboration. Also, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has established a strategic planning group that examines critical development
trends, and, on the basis of various future projections, identifies emerging
environmental problems and their possible solutions.
In Pakistan,
the Sustainable Development Policy Institute was established following the
recommendation of the NCS. It has a monitoring and evaluation role in addition
to identifying the main sustainable development issues and defining frameworks
for public action.
Sustainable
development law
Sustainable
development structures, and the laws which underpin them, need to reflect
the flowering of a comprehensive consultation and capacity building process
that begins during strategy planning and continues as part of implementation.
This is particularly true for those laws that set in place the main institutional
and decision making framework for integrating the strategy process throughout
government and the community. Rarely should laws be the point of departure
in a strategy; rather, important signposts erected along the way so that the
journey becomes a familiar and well-charted one for the communities concerned.
It is particularly important that the technical officers and lawyers responsible
for implementing the laws have had a central role in preparing them.
‘If sustainable development is to mean anything at all, it will have to
involve a partnership with the future, not just a partnership for profit.’
Chris Rose, Greenfreeze Project, UK
Law reforms will be needed at different levels of government and across sectors
but the minimum content for a national system of sustainable development law
should provide for:
Sustainable
development principles and definitions, including a coherent philosophical
framework that sets out the basic principles of sustainable development and
the practical ways in which they will be applied (Box 21).
Recognition
of the NSDS, including:
-
legal
commitment to the NSDS process;
-
a commitment
to revise and update the strategy policy framework (i.e. to repeat the
strategy planning phase) regularly, for example every three to five years;
-
provision
for monitoring performance in implementing the strategy, say, annually,
and for the regular reporting of progress to parliament.
Structures,
such as those which:
-
constitute
the key sustainable development structures, defining their powers, functions,
obligations, establishment and relationships with other institutions,
ensuring that they are centrally placed and have influence in economic
and development decision making in government; and
-
build
strong links for communication and decision making among sectors.
Environmental
rights, involving a system of legal rights for people to take action to
protect the environment, to require the government to act, to have access
to information, to participate in policy making and to question decisions.
Box 21:
Principles for sustainable development law
A range of principles
or approaches to sustainable development are now being expressed more
frequently in international agreements and domestic legislation. Although
they all encapsulate ideas that have been common in political philosophies
for a long time, most have only recently been expressed as basic tenets
of environmental policy. Even the polluter pays principle, which goes
back some 20 years, is only beginning to work through the decision
making system to have practical effect. The process has yet to begin
in most developing countries. All these approaches are expressed in
some form or other within the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. The principles
need to be cast in a way which reflects the cultural, political and
economic nature of a country and the different communities within
it. They work best when applied together, especially when special
circumstances would mean that the rigorous application of one principle
alone might be impracticable or inequitable.
The public
trust doctrine has its origins in Roman Law. It has been extended
in recent years, placing a duty on the state to hold environmental
resources in trust for the benefit of the public. At its widest, it
could be used by the courts as a tool to protect the environment from
many kinds of degradation. In some countries, the doctrine has formed
the basis of environmental policy legislation, allowing private rights
of action by citizens for violations by the state (directly or indirectly)
of the public trust.
The precautionary
principle as defined in the Rio declaration holds that where there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation (or expressed more liberally,
when in doubt about the impact of development, manage according to
the worst case scenario of its effect on the environment). Politically,
this principle is difficult to apply and is, in fact, ignored in most
countries. Erring on the side of caution is not an attractive option
when considered against immediate projected economic benefits which
can be spelt out in conventional development terms.
The principle
of inter-generational equity is at the heart of the definition
of sustainable development and requires that the needs of the present
are met without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. It depends on the effective application of the
other principles for sustainable development combined.
The principle
of intra-generational equity requires that people within the present
generation have the right to benefit equally from the exploitation
of resources, and that they have an equal right to a clean and healthy
environment. This principle applies to the relationship between groups
of people within and between countries. This principle is being applied
more and more in international negotiations. But within nations, it
is particularly susceptible to cultural and socio-economic forces.
The subsidiarity
principle is resurfacing worldwide after many decades of centralized
planning and decision making. In essence, it is the principle that
decisions should be made by the communities affected or, on their
behalf, by the authorities closest to them. Decisions should rest
at the national rather than international level and local rather than
national level. This has been the basic principle governing the devolution
of planning systems worldwide and is intended to encourage local ownership
over resources and responsibility for environmental problems and their
solutions. These growing pressures for devolution in government need
to be balanced by a recognition that local areas are part of larger
systems and cannot function in isolation. Often,
environmental problems may come from forces outside of local control,
such as upstream pollution from a neighbouring country or community.
In such cases, the other principles for sustainable development would
override the subsidiarity principle.
The polluter
pays principle (PPP) suggests that the polluter should bear the
cost of preventing and controlling pollution. The intent is to force
polluters to internalize all the environmental costs of their activities
so that these are fully reflected in the costs of the goods and services
they provide. Problems will be inevitable if an industry or plant
would go out of business if this principle were enforced rigorously.
A community might decide, for example, that the employment benefits
of keeping a factory open outweigh the health and other environmental
costs of pollution. Environmental agencies in developed countries
have usually taken a flexible approach, with the
continuation of government subsidies in special cases and the negotiation
of individual programmes to allow certain polluters to meet new environmental
standards gradually.
The user pays
principle (UPP) applies the PPP more broadly so that the cost
of a resource to a user includes all the environmental costs associated
with its extraction, transformation and use (including the costs of
alternative or future uses foregone). The PPP and UPP can be expressed
in similar ways through market systems and government regulation.
|
Decision
making methods and processes, including:
-
the
requirement that all proposed new developments and new policies should
be subject to environmental assessment;
-
the
use of economic incentives and disincentives, based on appropriate taxes,
charges and other instruments;
-
the
requirement that industries, government departments and agencies be subject
to periodic environmental audit; and
-
effective
monitoring, development control and enforcement and compliance mechanisms.
-
accountability
of government agencies and the private sector for their actions; and
-
open
and participatory methods for mediation, conciliation, conflict resolution
and settlement of disputes for both broad fields of national policy and
on more specific issues where consensus is lacking.
Promoting
partnership, including systems that encourage partnerships for sustainable
development between levels of government and with the private sector and non-government
organizations.
What is possible,
or even desirable, in sustainable development law will vary from country to
country according to the cultural and political context. The issue of environmental
rights is particularly sensitive and difficult for some countries to embrace.
The rule of thumb is to seek to maximize the legal expression of these basic
elements of sustainable development.
Promoting
action through regulation
The bulk
of existing environmental regulation is aimed at specific sectors of the economy,
and specifies production, technology or emission standards to reduce environmental
degradation or resource depletion. Regulations can be effective and economically
efficient in promoting sustainable development actions when standards:
-
are
based on objective criteria and scientific knowledge;
-
specify
a level of performance rather than a particular design or technology (i.e.
leave it to industry to come up with the most cost-effective technology
to meet the standard);
-
are
reassessed periodically to incorporate advances in scientific knowledge
and changes in society's aspirations, and to monitor their effectiveness;
-
are
set after comparing the benefits of environmental policies with the costs
of achieving them; and
-
are
based on analysis of the entire product life cycle (from production of
the raw material to end use of the final product), to identify the points
of intervention that will deliver the greatest result for the least cost.
Regulations
have their disadvantages, however. They are seldom the most cost-effective
way to reach a given standard of environmental quality and studies in the
United States suggest that they can be up to six times as costly as the least
cost alternative. This is because regulations that do not meet the above criteria
are often inflexible, requiring polluters to adopt standard solutions even
if they were able to find better alternatives. Furthermore, regulations do
not provide incentives for further improvement beyond the required standard.
In contrast, economic instruments produce a financial incentive even as wastes
are reduced, hence stimulating continual improvement.
Promoting
action through economic instruments
In contrast
to regulation, by which government aims to set rules to control the behaviour
of resource users, market approaches address strategy implementation in a
different way. Economic instruments aim to sensitize both producers and consumers
toward responsible use of environmental resources and avoidance of pollution
and waste, by internalizing environmental and social costs. They include taxes,
charges, subsidies, deposit/refund schemes and tradeable permits. These are
geared towards ‘getting the prices right’ so that environmentally and socially
beneficial goods and services are not at a market disadvantage with respect
to polluting or wasteful competitors. Sometimes, therefore, they need to be
accompanied by regulations or other controls to ensure this.
Economic
instruments can enable industry and other resource users to meet environmental
standards in a cost-effective way, encourage them to do better than the standards
require, and add their resources to those of government to maintain ecosystems.
They can:
-
harness
market forces to encourage producers and consumers to achieve environmental
objectives;
-
stimulate
the development of environmentally- sound technologies and products;
-
reduce
costs of enforcement; and
-
generate
revenue.
Box 22:
Examples of market based approaches for environmental policy
Brazil:
Discontinuing fiscal and credit incentives for ranching has saved
around US$300 million annually, while easing (although not eliminating)
pressures for deforestation.
China:
Economic instruments include fees to discourage pollution, the reform
of resource prices and the planned application of environmental taxes.
Certain industrial pollutants are subject to emission fees, collected
by local environmental protection offices. Revenues are placed in
banks and used to finance loans to firms for pollution control investments,
covering 20–25 per cent of the requirements for this purpose.
Colombia:
The Ministry of Development will support environmental improvements
in industry through a credit line from foreign banks and international
lending agencies. A Fund for Industrial Modernization will provide
credits for business to buy new equipment. From 5 to 10 per cent of
the fund will be used for environmental projects. Companies that invest
in cleaner technologies will benefit from reductions in capital gains
tax of up to 20 per cent.
India:
Measures include income tax exemptions from donations to environmental
institutions; a 50 per cent depreciation allowance for devices that
minimize pollution or conserve resources; soft loans and investment
allowances for pollution control equipment; pollution fees; and a
levy on water use. Fertilizer subsidies have been removed, with exemptions
for small farmers.
Indonesia:
Pesticide subsidies accounted for almost 80 per cent of the retail
price in 1985, creating a big incentive to over-use them. This resulted
in widespread soil and water pollution and a rise in pesticide resistant
strains of pests. After a severe loss of rice production, all but
four of the chemicals were banned. Subsidies were eliminated entirely
by late 1988. This greatly reduced pesticide use in favour of integrated
pest management systems, and saved more than US$120 million a year.
|
The important
task is to set the prices or taxes at the right level and to introduce change
gradually so that it does not result in severe economic dislocation. Subsidies,
in particular, should only be used in special cases where severe environmental
problems and issues of equity come into play. A common effect of subsidies
is to place a significant economic burden on a country by supporting technological
backwardness and inefficiency. Also, they often result in large-scale environmental
damage by discouraging full internalization of costs. Economic subsidies with
negative environmental effects should be removed.
Box 22 provides
some examples of how economic instruments have been used to encourage implementation
of environmental policies.
Interest
in economic instruments to promote sustainable development actions has grown
with the increasing concern about the efficiency of over regulation. Yet there
are circumstances in which economic instruments may not work or would need
to be applied carefully in combination with other approaches, especially in
lower income economies:
When people
are too poor to pay: Economic instruments that rely on governments charging
fees or collecting taxes from polluters are unlikely to work in the majority
of rural areas in lower income countries, where poor people live in subsistence
conditions and simply cannot pay. In these areas, positive subsidies or incentives
should be considered.
When markets
are undeveloped: In many poor countries, a combination of undeveloped
markets, uncertainty about supply and demand, and macroeconomic instability
undermines the effectiveness of market based instruments.
Choosing
the right policy tools to promote action
The OECD
has adopted five criteria to judge whether economic instruments or regulations
would best tackle a given environmental problem:
-
environmental
effectiveness;
-
economic
efficiency;
-
equity
(for example, distributional effects in society of the instrument);
-
administrative
feasibility and cost; and
-
acceptability
(to groups who will be affected by the policy).
In most cases,
tools from the three different approaches – regulation, cooperative processes,
and economic instruments – will
need to be applied together in combinations best suited to the situation.
For example, regulations and voluntary agreements could set basic standards
and targets while economic instruments could provide the stimulus to meet
and exceed them by whichever means each business finds most efficient. Whatever
the approach, there should be a policy transition, giving industry a stable
and predictable climate in which to shift from unsustainable to sustainable
practices.
Integration
Of central
importance to strategy implementation are integrating mechanisms that build
bridges between key agencies and groups participating in a strategy and that
lead to partnerships and greater collaboration. They are needed to form working
links between national government agencies, between levels of government,
and between government, the private sector and the public. They are important
because:
-
positions
and decisions are likely to be respected more broadly and be able to be
implemented;
-
priority
issues identified in a strategy are usually cross-cutting, affecting many
sectors;
-
implementation
is the responsibility of many agencies and often can only be undertaken
jointly;
-
agencies
that have the central responsibility for coordinating an NSDS, such as
environment ministries, often are weak and need to rely on collaboration
and others’ self-interest; and
-
monitoring
of progress in strategy implementation and enforcement, where powers have
been introduced, requires partnerships and collaboration.
Integrating
mechanisms can include structures like committees or working groups, various
forms of agreements on the way things are to be done, and innovative decision
making methods that are inherently cross-cutting, such as environmental assessment.
Integrating
structures
These can
take many forms. The more important are underpinned by legislation but most
operate on a more informal basis. In Canada’s Yukon Territory, for example,
the government has established a statutory Council on the Economy and the
environment, with members representing aboriginal people, labour unions, business,
women, NGOs and a municipal government, bearing in mind the need for a balance
of regions and interests in the territory. The council has a broad range of
functions, including monitoring implementation of the Yukon Conservation Strategy.
It is an advisory body to the territorial cabinet but can report directly
to the territory’s legislative assembly on certain matters.
The Nepal
Environment Protection Council is similarly constituted and also oversees
NCS implementation, reporting directly to the Prime Minister. In the UK, an
independent group of experts from government and the private sector has been
established to advise the Prime Minister on areas where policies and practices
conflict with the environment objectives within the
government’s NSDS.
As implementation
deepens, national and local strategies will need to be linked effectively
through integrating structures. In Panama, the Ministry of Planning and Economic
Policy is represented on the coordination team of a local strategy (Bocas
del Toro). This ensures that national planning takes account of the strategy’s
proposals and translates them into national budget allocations. The strategy
for Petén, Guatemala, was developed by the Secretary for Economic Planning
and adopted as the government’s official plan. A regional forum of governmental
and non-governmental organizations meets once a month to consider common problems
and coordinate activities.
Existing
consultative mechanisms – such as inter-agency committees, inter-governmental
councils (such as the Environment and Conservation Council in Australia) and
the many forms that bring together governments with other groups – should
be reviewed for their potential to contribute to strategy implementation.
Some might need strengthening if they lack sufficient credibility to contribute
effectively. A number of innovative approaches have become the main creative
driving force for planning and implementation. Structures which have co-evolved
as variations on the same theme include:
Round
tables: A round table is a group of senior representatives of government,
business, citizens’ groups and other key sectors of society. It provides a
forum for collaborative analysis and treatment of major issues, educating
government and NGO leaders in each other’s perspectives, approaches and concerns.
The group should be fairly small – ideally around 25 – although that may make
it difficult to cover all the key sectors. The bigger the group, the more
difficult it is to develop the right
atmosphere for progress. In some cases, for example British Columbia’s Strategy
for Sustainability, the round table is also the steering committee of the
strategy. In other cases, round tables are vehicles for discussing, developing
and helping to implement the strategy, but overall direction of the strategy
is the responsibility of a separate steering committee.
Core groups:
A core group is an inter sectoral network of government officials from most,
if not all, ministries and departments. It provides a forum for bringing in
sectors to deal with shared problems. The group may be large: Nepal’s Environmental
Core Group involves more than 70 people, its members coming together in differing
combinations depending on the policy being addressed at the time; for example,
environmental assessment procedures or national heritage conservation. A core
group is a working network, intended to internalize the strategy (or aspects
of the strategy) within government.
Action
networks: These are networks of national government agencies, local governments,
and non-governmental actors that come together to solve multi-sectoral problems,
often in a particular part of the country, such as a river basin or a coastal
zone. For example, an action network was formed to address problems of water
pollution in the Densu River Basin in Ghana. As the problems change, the composition
of the network changes. Because action networks are designed to address multi-sectoral
issues, they are an important means of implementing an NSDS.
Round tables,
core groups and action networks all seek to provide structures and processes
for problem solving and consensus building beyond the conventional forms of
government characterized by hierarchical, inflexible and closed decision making.
Most mediation and conflict resolution can continue within such informal and
task-oriented networks and groupings. They allow participants from different
organizations – who might not normally interact – to contribute as equal partners,
to exchange experience, learn by doing and, through mutual support, build
their own confidence and commitment to agreed actions. It is in governments’
interest to facilitate, resource and acquire the skills to manage these new
forms of partnership.
Integrating
agreements
Agreements
can be reached through conventional forms of negotiation or innovative networking.
Usually the goal is to agree on collaborative ways of working that meet sustainable
development objectives, often through self-management. When national environment
assessment legislation was introduced to Australia, Memoranda of Understanding
were negotiated with all key sectoral agencies, detailing how each would take
responsibility for applying the legislation to its own activities. Also, an
Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) was adopted in 1992
to provide mechanisms for:
-
a reduction
in the number of disputes among the commonwealth and the states and territories
on environmental issues;
-
a cooperative
national approach to the environment;
-
a better
definition of the roles of the respective governments;
-
greater
certainty of government and business decision making; and
-
better
environmental protection.
The agreement
embraces many of the principles of the National Ecologically Sustainable Development
Strategy, and defines the roles and responsibilities of the different levels
of government. Intragenerational equity is of particular concern to the Australian
federation; the agreement sets in place a consultative structure for establishing
national environment protection standards, guidelines, goals and associated
protocols. The object is to ensure:
-
that
people enjoy the benefit of equal protection from air, water and soil
pollution and from noise, wherever they live; and
-
that
decisions by business are not distorted and markets are not fragmented
by variations among jurisdictions in relation to major environmental protection
measures.
The implementation
of national strategies can be greatly assisted by these kinds of governmental
agreements. In fact, in many countries implementation is not possible without
them. Voluntary agreements with the private sector are discussed later in
this chapter.
Integrating
mechanisms
In strategy
implementation, the various forms of environmental assessment and planning
are the most valuable methods of drawing together sectors and disciplines,
and conservation and development issues. Some countries have developed national
systems of environmental assessment and resource-use planning as part of the
sustainable development management framework. By working cooperatively to
develop these various decision making methods, participants, such as sectoral
experts, can gain a better appreciation of the environmental responsibilities
of their own agencies vis-a-vis other sectors. Such cooperative efforts help
people better understand the role of the central planning and environment
organizations and improve working relationships between them.
Implementation
by the strategy secretariat
The strategy
secretariat, whatever form it takes, has a special role in implementation.
Its principal concern needs to be setting in place the key ingredients of
an institutional and decision making framework for sustainable development
at the national level. It should focus on the inter sectoral aspects of the
strategy which are not covered by, but affect all other, government agencies.
In Nepal, the NCS secretariat implementation programme includes:
-
building
key environment institutions;
-
setting
in place a basic framework of sustainable development law;
-
developing
national systems of environmental assessment and pollution control;
-
environmental
education and public awareness;
-
heritage
conservation; and
-
developing
a national system and methods of environmental planning.
In pursuing
these goals, the secretariat is using the environment core group approach
and other integrating mechanisms to forge partnerships with the private sector
and NGOs. This process was complemented and reinforced by selected demonstration
and pilot programmes.
Demonstration
and pilot programmes
The strategy
secretariat may, at least in the first cycle of implementation, need to mount
one or more pilot programmes to test and demonstrate the practical application
of policies, and to build capacity and commitment within relevant sectors.
These pilot programmes should generally aim only at inter sectoral activities
or those which fall outside existing sectoral mandates.
Demonstration
and pilot programmes can be introduced at any point in the strategy cycle
as model sustainable development activities. They can be particularly valuable
when some of the proposed approaches (i.e. integration, coordination and participation)
are unfamiliar or even threatening. In addition, they can enable the feasibility
and effectiveness of various cross sectoral approaches to be tested in local
situations.
In certain
countries, such as Zambia, Botswana and Nepal, the policy and institutional
changes required by the strategy have not been made until several demonstration
programmes have been underway for some time, and have shown the need and direction
for change. Even where policy and institutional changes are made soon after
preparation of the policy framework, demonstration programmes can provide
ways to introduce new approaches. Without this initial focus activity, it
is often difficult
for several sectoral agencies to coordinate activities and define and achieve
joint aims.
Demonstration
projects can have a multiplier effect, helping people understand – far more
than any document can – what the strategy is all about, and generating support
for it. To fulfill this potential, a demonstration project should:
-
have
a high chance of success;
-
show
what it is intended to demonstrate (this is obvious but needs to be stated);
-
be monitored
closely;
-
have
quick results; and
-
select
its location and participants carefully to ensure both the success of
the project and wide and rapid transference of the experience.
Often, pilot
projects will build on an existing activity. In Zambia, two significant regions
were selected as NCS pilot districts. These were areas where a number of sectors
and interest groups shared problems: an urban area, the project for which
was based on a successful NGO programme; and an agriculturally marginal rural
area, for which a new project was specially developed.
Implementation
through other strategies
A national
strategy provides an umbrella of policies and a range of well-targeted actions;
the most important concerning new instruments, methods and capacities for
making better decisions. These policies and actions may reach across government
and down to local levels, but will be given expression through more detailed
planning and implementation.
Box 6 in
Chapter 4 provides examples of the different strategy types. For example,
depending upon the priorities of national government; thematic strategies,
covering biodiversity, environmental education, climate change or population
might be needed. These would cut across all government sectors and generate
more comprehensive actions relating to the theme. Similarly, sectoral strategies
will be needed to pick up on the momentum of policies and demonstration programmes
of the national strategy. These will follow their own cycles and feed back
to the broader national process.
In countries
with a federal system, state or provincial governments may feel that the national
strategy cannot be translated directly to local levels. They may feel that
a greater sense of ownership and focus would come through a state or provincial
strategy, once again building on and integrating with the national process.
This is what is happening in Pakistan, although the way the links between
the national and provincial conservation strategies will evolve is yet to
be determined. In most countries, this crucial meshing of strategy cycles
will come only through trial and error and exchange of experience with other
countries.
Core groups
or action networks have an important role to play, complemented by the kind
of integrating structures, agreements and methods previously described. In
countries with very large populations, such as India, or even the United States,
the state or provincial level will need to be given special emphasis in providing
the strategy umbrella for fostering local initiatives. In countries with a
regional structure, such as New Zealand and Nepal, actions within the national
strategy process will need to stress the subsidiarity principle. In Nepal,
the National Environmental Planning Guidelines prepared by the NCS environment
core group drew from the experience of eight local conservation strategies
undertaken as pilot exercises. They reinforced the government’s policies on
devolution and promotion of district- and local-level strategies.
A central
component of New Zealand’s strategy for sustainable development is the Resource
Management Act, introduced to devolve major sustainable management functions
to regional councils. The councils are required to initiate their own strategy
processes. A number of the state governments in Australia have introduced
similar systems, placing the main responsibilities for policy definition and
implementation with local government.
In a number
of developed countries, the strategy processes tend to merge with the conventional
land-use planning systems as they come closer to local communities. In many
less developed countries, planning for land-use tends to proceed in isolation
from planning for social services. Strategy processes can bring them back
together.
In Australia’s
Victoria State, more than 20 local governments have mounted local conservation
strategies based on the National Ecologically Sustainable Development strategy
model and following guidelines prepared by the state government. Local sustainable
development strategies are the subject of a separate handbook in the IUCN
series.
Implementation
by the non-governmental community
Whatever
the strategy level, much of the implementation should be non-governmental;
by business and industry, schools and universities, research institutions,
environmental organizations, human development organizations, community groups,
and so on. The wealth-creating sectors of society are almost entirely outside
government; so it is essential that business and industry be centrally involved
in implementing the national strategy. Much societal organization and mobilization
occurs via the host of non-market, non-governmental organizations, so they
must implement the strategy too.
Input
from the earliest stage
Businesses
and NGOs are unlikely to become involved in implementation unless they have
a sense of ownership of the strategy. It is vital that they participate in
the choice of objectives and issues, assembly and analysis of information,
policy formulation, and decisions on the strategy. Some strategies are, by
design, basically governmental: they are meant to be implemented primarily
by the national government. The Malaysian NCS is an example. Others are intended
to be implemented more widely. The action plan of the Pakistan NCS, for example,
includes many actions by business and industry. However, the corporate sector
was involved only marginally in formulating and deciding the Pakistan NCS
and so was not ready to implement the strategy when it was adopted by government.
An industry round table has now been established to work through the main
fields and methods for action.
The Pakistan
experience highlights the strength of the target group approach adopted by
the Netherlands’ National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP), in which industry,
farmers and other non-governmental sectors are included as partners with government.
The non-governmental partners share in diagnosis and setting targets, and
undertake much of the implementation through voluntary agreements.
Cooperation
rather than compulsion
The trend
in the relationship between government and industry, in particular, is to
seek cooperation rather than forcing implementation of strategy policies through
complex regulatory frameworks. Experience has taught that, where industry
has assisted in identifying the key environmental problems, it is more likely
to recognize its shared responsibility for tackling them. The main components
of the cooperative approach are:
-
establishing
an action network or core group;
-
reaching
an agreement defining the cooperative actions; and
-
reinforcing
the agreement through incentives for action, and agreed and credible penalties
for lack of action.
In the United
States, this approach is being seen as a substitute for the lengthy and expensive
regulatory approach, which often involves extensive litigation. In the energy
sector, for example, the use of ‘collaboratives’ followed by voluntary ‘settlements’
is now facilitating the implementation of sustainable development strategies
in industry. It is also helping overcome the antagonism resulting from what
industry had labelled the BANANA syndrome: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere
Near Anything. The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defines ‘collaboratives’
as a group of individuals from government, NGOs and the private sector who
pool resources to constructively solve problems without recourse to litigation.
Independent facilitators have often been used to help in discussions and,
in particular, to reach the negotiated settlements.
In upper-income
countries, voluntary agreements are increasingly becoming part of environmental
policy because they can provide more flexible and cost-effective ways for
government and industry to meet environmental goals. Their use in lower income
countries is limited but growing. Pioneered through the concept of self-regulation
and industry codes of practice, more companies are committing themselves to
improving their environmental performance. In many cases, the pressure to
do so comes from employees, consumers, investors and local communities. Companies
find it is in their longer-term self-interest to take action. Advantages of
the voluntary approach are:
-
voluntary
commitments do not, of course, have to be vague or go unrecognized – precise
industry standards for environmental performance and quality control have
been established (such as British Standard 7750 and the ISO 14000 Series),
which help with public/market recognition of voluntary efforts;
-
industry
is encouraged to define least cost actions for meeting the agreed standards;
-
the
costs to government of setting in place regulatory systems are reduced;
-
the
chances of implementation are increased; and
-
a more
constructive relationship between industry, government and NGOs is established,
reducing delays to development.
In the UK
and Japan, industries are encouraged to introduce Environmental Management
Systems on their own initiative. Such systems can enhance their public image
and the marketability of their products and reduce the likelihood of government
taking punitive actions.
Such agreements
and voluntary systems are, however, successful only if they are backed up
with a government intention to regulate if industry performance does not meet
the environmental goals within an agreed time scale. Voluntary initiatives
are particularly difficult in marginal industries or in countries where a
depressed economic situation discourages immediate action to improve environmental
performance. In such cases, the cooperative approach would need to be accompanied
by strong legislation and/or well-targeted incentive measures.
Building
capacity
Building
capacity for sustainable development is a central task of national strategies.
It requires developing the necessary individual and group perspectives, skills
and organization. Capacities are needed through all the main components of
a strategy: for assessment, including diagnosis (at the start of a strategy),
and monitoring and evaluation (during the entire strategy cycle); for designing
the actions (planning); and for taking the actions (implementation).
Capacity-building
needs to respect the same principles which govern the entire strategy process
and which have been enunciated throughout this handbook. They relate to ways
of changing or strengthening societal values, knowledge, technologies and
institutions. Capacity-building applies equally to strengthening and improving
governmental and non-governmental organizations of all kinds, from national
to local levels. The increased capacities should lead to communities that
are more self-reliant and equitable, and more open, participatory and integrated
in their decision making.
Three main
types of capacity are needed at the national level:
-
Mechanisms
for cross sectoral communication, policy development and decision making.
These include participatory approaches to conflict resolution and consensus
building, improved networking, and structures and tools to facilitate
coordination and collaboration.
-
Methods
for integrating different environmental, social, and economic perspectives
and objectives. These include approaches to planning, assessment, decision
making and information systems.
-
Ways
of bringing government agencies and the non-governmental community to
understand and fulfill their own environmental and social responsibilities.
They include furthering awareness and environmental education, research,
learning-by-doing approaches, the design and handling of instruments for
environmental management, monitoring and forecasting, and the application
of new environmental technologies.
Early
action builds capacity
An effective
way of building capacities is to take action – from the earliest stages of
a strategy – on those aspects to which participants are already committed.
Experience in Nepal has shown that if actions are taken in policy areas that
do not threaten the territorial imperative of key government sectors, then
a strategy secretariat can do much to increase technical capacities and political
commitment. In this case, key staff from many government sectors were involved
in the development of a national
system of environmental assessment. This resulted in broader thinking on environmental
policy generally and a better understanding of how it is applied. It also
led to the establishment of environment units within many ministries and an
Environment Protection Council.
Implementing
an EA programme such as Nepal’s, at the same time as developing the strategy’s
policy framework, brings a number of important benefits to the strategy process.
It:
-
exposes
sectoral experts to environmental or developmental problems in ways that
are of immediate relevance to their work;
-
increases
their understanding and skills in inter-disciplinary fields, such as environmental
management methods;
-
forges
working links among sectors and with the environment agencies on development
issues;
-
makes
their input to the strategy policy framework more informed;
-
engenders
commitment to policy implementation;
-
increases
the chance that momentum in the strategy process will be maintained during
the transition from policy formulation to action and will survive changes
in government;
-
creates
a network of sectoral expertise, through which implementation can proceed
within existing institutional arrangements; and
-
achieves
(it is hoped) better, more sustainable decisions as a direct result of
EA.
An emphasis
on capacity building as a way of developing important areas of environment
policy begins to shrink the considerable gap that often exists between policies,
as expressed in various development plans and in practice. Such an emphasis
forces technical staff to confront, for example, the incompatibility among
policies that require decentralized mechanisms, devolved authority and cross
sectoral collaboration and the management style of their own institutions,
which is most frequently authoritarian, highly centralized and closed.
Building
capacity in the non-governmental and private sectors
‘Environmental
debate and environmental education can go on for ages, but while poverty-ridden
communities do not have benefits, we are talking to an unconverted group.’
Taparendava Mavaneke, CAMPFIRE Project,
Zimbabwe
Capacity-building and implementation should embrace the corporate sector,
NGOs and communities as well as government. Historically, the government has
been seen as the primary agent to induce and maintain the social and economic
changes required for the overall task of nation-building. By and large, such
work has concentrated on increasing the skills, knowledge and professional
capacities of public servants. Increasingly, evaluations have shown that the
performance of government development projects and programmes is critically
dependent on the functioning of both state institutions and NGOs. More recent
strategies realize this: for example, the Papua New Guinea Forestry and Conservation
Action Plan gives equal emphasis to the building of non-governmental and government
capacity. It recognizes that NGOs are crucial in organizing and ‘brokering’
government services to the traditional land-owners, who own 97 per cent of
the land.
A particularly
valuable role for strategy implementation is demonstrating and testing development
options that emphasize sustainable use of resources by communities or small
private enterprise. The NCS implementation programme in Nepal, for example,
includes a fund to help community cooperatives and NGOs identify sustainable
uses of their resources as an alternative to existing, more damaging developments.
Technical
backing is provided in the management, accounting and monitoring of these
small enterprises and in the initial assessment of alternatives to define
benign but profitable enterprises. Successful marketing of new products, such
as handmade papers, traditional cloth, soaps or artwork, often holds the key
to sustainabilty. It requires special measures to promote economic partnerships;
often well beyond the boundaries of the community concerned. The principles
governing sustainable use in these situations – and the processes which can
ensure they are upheld – need to be defined in close collaboration with the
communities or groups that must apply them.
Government
should create an enabling environment for sustainable development in all sections
of society, not just the state. NGOs can be effective carriers of sustainable
development throughout the country; catalyzing participation, organizing and
mobilizing groups, obtaining grassroots perspectives, raising awareness, and
providing long-term ideas, analysis and advocacy. Building non-governmental
capacities for sustainable development is as important as building governmental
capacities. To work effectively with government, NGOs need simple funding
and administrative mechanisms that do not
compromise their independence.
Conclusion
Achieving
an early focus in implementing a national strategy will depend upon the extent
to which basic needs are being met. Where the private sector and NGOs are
barely developed and government is highly centralized, a strategy should be
very selective in what it attempts to achieve at the different levels of society.
It might be most important to show results in development terms within selected
communities so that the strategy constituency continues to grow. In countries
that enjoy a higher level of human well-being, strategies can promote more
ambitious actions that require longer-term perspectives of environmental main-tenance.
Whatever the level of economic development or sophistication of decision making
institutions, experience with strategy implementation suggests three approaches
to management, particularly within government.
First, it
needs to be open and collaborative. In implemention, the most effective forms
of decision making are those which involve interest groups in sharing problem
solving; which go beyond sectoral boundaries; and which are flexible and organic.
Forms of government are needed that build on the best in traditional approaches,
that are transparent and form working unions with and between groups that
normally function separately.
Second, management
needs to be adaptive. Strategies for sustainable development are best viewed
as processes for managing and adapting to change. Never before has the need
for, and the pace of, change been so great. Forces influencing change include
population growth, massive movements of people from hills to coastal and to
urban areas; technological innovations that enhance people’s ability to shape
the environment; and, increasingly more significant, changes associated with
environmental debts passed from one community or generation to another.
Even in the
most self-sufficient, stable communities, background levels of change are
inevitable. Strategies to cope with change are required. Communities satisfied
with their level of development, or committed to conserving the essential
elements of their environment and lifestyle, may wish for minimal change.
Such communities, whether in Indonesia or Switzerland, would seek to maintain
most elements of their natural and cultural heritage while making selective
changes to certain qualities of life. The emphasis is not on permanent strategies
for the years or decades to come. Rather, adaptive strategies are required
in which all goals and actions are continually re-evaluated.
Third, management
needs to be conciliatory. As national strategies begin to take effect, conflict
between development options and interests will become better defined. Such
conflict is frequently disruptive, but need not be. It can be managed so as
to contribute to social integration and innovation. It can facilitate communication
and define relationships and group structures in order to clarify for people
their position relative to others. At this productive level, conflict can
be used to initiate direct interaction among affected groups, through specific
and accepted procedures that lead to the negotiation of settlements.
Increasingly, institutions within and outside government will be needed to
facilitate these processes of conciliation and mediation, so that mutually
acceptable and respected settlements assist sustainable development.
Crucial to
these voluntary processes is the information that flows from a constant assessment
of the changes taking place in society and its environment. Gathering information,
analyzing it and making prescriptions for settlement of conflicts holds the
key to keeping strategies on track, and is the subject of the next chapter.