Sustainable Policy Considerations

Defining Sustainability for Policy Making

Creating an all encompassing succinct definition of sustainability has been no easy task, as is evident in the Wheeler text. The readings explored a litany of definitions that have been created over time by various individuals and organizations. Each of these varied definitions takes a slightly difference focus whether it be ecosystem capacity, protecting environments, or opposing growth. For the purposes of public administration creating a definition of sustainability for a policy making focus has sweeping application for the various levels of government attempting to incorporate some concept of suitability into decision making. However, creating a policy making definition no more easily lends itself to an all encompassing succinct phrasing than any of those who have previously attempted to reign in this intuitive yet illusive concept.

Certainly a kitchen sink model has appeal for providing policy makers a stable foundation in venturing into sustainability. As with anything though, sometimes less is more. I believe a straightforward and limited phrasing forces a better consideration of suitability in policy making and reduces the opportunity for needles quibbling of concepts like “needs” or “carrying capacity.” Therefore, I believe for policy making we should use the following definition: “Sustainability is creating communities of any scale that can indefinitely sustain healthy human and ecological existence, without compromising the same in any other community or environment in the world.”

I believe this definition is viable for policy making as it requires the balancing of the three E’s (environment, economics, and equity) for the members of their society and all other societies on the planet. As the world has become a global economy in which resources are transported vast distances, the interrelated nature of all human life and environmental ecosystems must be considered at even the smallest local level government policy decision.

Difficulties of Making Sustainability a Policy Goal

There are a myriad of reasons that making sustainability a policy goal can be difficult. For starters, as discussed above there isn’t any one concept of what suitability is. This makes achieving any concept of suitability difficult as policy development generally requires buy-in from numerous people working towards a common goal. Wheeler also points out that policy makers generally operate on relatively short term time horizons. This raises obvious complications for sustainability, which by virtue requires long-term perspectives and understanding. Policy makers are generally elected for short terms and are after quick results to ensure future election. Wheeler also points out that this bleeds into the planning of societies. Typically planning documents only move out 5 years into the future with limited conceptualization of 20 years into the future. This is clearly highly problematic for comprehending planning on a scale of 200 years into the future as may be pertinent with a comprehensive sustainability planning policy.

Another difficulty for making sustainability a policy goal is the realm of equity. Wheeler discusses the difficulties of ensuring that underrepresented points of view are considered. Specific and additional effort is necessary to reach lower-income communities, future generations, people in foreign lands as well as considering other species or natural ecosystems. Making sustainability a policy goal will require additional effort on the part of planners and develops to reach these groups and understand their needs in all future planning initiatives.

Finally and perhaps most significantly is our infatuation, and polarizing affair, with economics. Virtually all decisions, even in the public realm, become consumed by some concept of economics. Wheeler points out that of the three E’s, economy has dominated the other two and “profoundly shaped the institutions and value structure of the culture.” This has marred advancement towards sustainability and continues to hamper the acceptance of sustainability as a policy goal.

Designing a Practical Framework

For the reasons cited in the discussion above there is no easy way to incorporate sustainability into public policy goals or decision making. To ensure that the diverse array of considerations necessary to achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability are incorporated at a state agency level, a comprehensive framework must be implemented. This framework should include a diverse group of community members, experts and outside perspectives to ensure each of the three areas are holistically addressed.

For balancing the social component I recommend a 15 member community member commission be created for consultation and review of proposed policy. This commission must include members of the underrepresented voices of the lower-income and young and make provisions to include members from outside the state as well. This commission can then act to approve or deny the policy recommendations developed by the groups assembled for satisfying the other two components of the framework, ecological and economic. Both of these components of the framework should include 3 -5 member advisory teams, one each for economic and environment. These advisory teams should include agency employees with specific credentials in their area as well as two outside experts, one from the community and one external. Long term decisions can be vetted by going through the process of advisory team consideration and then commission approval. This will then result in a recommendation for state agency policy makers. Such a framework attempts to balance the competing nature of the three E’s while ensuring solid scientific foundations and equity based considerations.

Short-term Results vs. Long-term Planning

Our current political landscape makes long term sustainable planning difficult. Two major reasons for this are citizens’ desire for instant gratification and elected officials’ desire to deliver quick results in the interest of re-election. One way to immediately change this is to increase the term length of elected officials. However, this has deep and strong implications in a democratic society sensitive to consolidating power in the hands of a few. The second and much more difficult move towards a long term view requires a paradigm shift in the public’s thinking. The only way this will occur is via education. Public officials must understand this and begin the arduous task of educating the public on the value and incremental nature of long-term sustainable planning. In this way a culture shift may eventually occur and citizens can begin to accept fewer “immediate” deliverables in exchange for more meaningful and holistic long-term sustainable practices. This should in turn reduce the pressure of non-elective staff to produce “deliverables” and afford more time to develop sustainable products using long time horizons.