In this extract from the new book Journeys around Education for Sustainability, Ros Wade describes EfS has having many of the characteristics of a world movement for social change — a sense of solidarity, the potential for sharing ideas and learning from different global perspectives. She also gives an outline of what a reader can expect when dipping into this volume of essays that comprises work of students on the London South Bank University Master of Education for Sustainability over the last few years. 

Journeys around Education for Sustainability, edited by Ros Wade and Jenneth Parker, was launched at the Education for Sustainability Programme annual conference at London South Bank University. It is available for sale from the Education for Sustainability office.

—————–

Journeys around Education for Sustainability: Mapping the Terrain

Taking the first steps 

Concerns about sustainability started to surface internationally throughout the latter half of the 20^th century, culminating in the first Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, which drew up an extensive blueprint for sustainable development in the text of Agenda 21. This process was an attempt to broker agreements on the environment and on development with all the member states of the UN and to pull together vastly different issues of concern from the minority wealthy, industrialised world and from the majority world which had been largely excluded from the benefits of economic globalisation. At that time the terrain for sustainable development rather resembled a barren moonscape, though one littered liberally with flags from many nations. Education was seen as an essential element of Agenda 21 and commitments to education proliferated in the text. Unfortunately, these were very slow to have any impact and as early as 1996 UNESCO was reporting that ‘education (is) the forgotten priority’ and ‘is often overlooked or forgotten in developing or funding action plans at all levels, from local government to international conventions’ (UN, 1996). 

Since 1992, there has been a growing awareness about the need to pay attention to issues of sustainability and the terrain seems to have become more favourable towards Education for Sustainability (EfS). The causes of this change are complex and involve a wide range of factors, on a wide range of levels. This chapter will try to set out the context for EfS firstly by looking back at its evolution since Agenda 21 put it on the map, and then by looking forward to the key issues and challenges which are facing educators in the next decade. It will draw on my experience as a tutor and Co-Director of the EfS Programme over the last fourteen years and will be strongly influenced by the work of course participants and our tutor team, many of who have kindly contributed their feedback to earlier drafts. Value commitments to participation and democratic processes are part of the Programme’s ethos and these are, I hope, embedded in the content of the chapter and of the book as a whole. This includes a commitment to reach out, embrace and give space to a range of views and perspectives from different contexts and global regions. Of necessity, however, this can never be definitive and as a UK-based researcher and academic, my perspectives will undoubtedly have a Western, UK bias. While greatly appreciating the feedback from colleagues which has enriched this chapter, my account of the EfS journey is undoubtedly a personal one and others may well have a different view. Nonetheless, I hope that the chapter may encourage others to reflect on and critique their own perspectives and so add light to an emerging and crucial area of learning. 

As governments were very slow to take the initiative on EfS after the first Earth Summit, this role was mainly taken up by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and committed activists. Their work tended to have two strands; one of support, training and awareness raising for educational practitioners and the other of advocacy and lobbying for policy change. The EfS Programme at London South Bank University (LSBU) was itself a result of this engagement when, in 1993, a consortium of environmental and development NGOs came together to design a course which would support practitioners and activists across the UK. One of its key aims was to support participants in becoming effective agents for change. From the start, there was interest internationally and so it took on a much more global perspective for the community that it began to serve. The term ‘education’ was used in its broadest sense to include participants working in formal and non-formal sectors, and all those involved in communication, advocacy or training. As a result, the learning community was drawn from a wide array of contexts, including field centres, civil service, journalism, law, business, as well as NGOs, schools and universities. 

For over a decade this community has been involved in changing the EfS landscape, both through professional practice and also through involvement with NGOs and other networks. This work has included curriculum development in Fiji, Tanzania, South Africa, Canada and Hong Kong. Other graduates have been involved in national and international policy making, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The EfS Programme itself has retained its active engagement with NGO networks and, for example, in 2002 the Team co-coordinated an intervention at the WSSD in partnership with WWF-UK and Oxfam.

Since 1992, NGOs have, of course, been actively seeking to influence the national political landscape strategically with regard to EfS. Alliances have been formed in order to navigate the difficult terrain of government policy and practice. In the UK, for example, the Development Education Association (DEA) and the Council for Environmental Education (CEE) have had some success in influencing the Government, for example through the Commission for Sustainable Development. Specific approaches have also had results, such as the work of Oxfam, RSPB and WWF in Wales to incorporate EfS in educational requirements.(1)

However, I do not wish to imply that NGOs and activists alone have brought about change. The dynamics of change are far more complex than that and, indeed, many NGOs and activists are highly critical of the current understanding of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (as it is called in mainstream circles) that is emerging.

Policy and practice in EfS have certainly developed considerably and in many countries there is now government policy in place in all areas of the formal education sector, from schools to Higher Education. In addition, national legal requirements on sustainable development in relation to other sectors, such as the built environment, have created space and demand for training at a range of levels. At the international level, education was further endorsed at the second WSSD which took place in Johannesburg in 2002. This also attempted to make links between EfS and Education for All (EFA: basic education as a requirement for the achievement of the Millennium goals on poverty reduction).(2) Since UNESCO has been given the task of taking the lead internationally in both areas it made very good sense to bring them together. The government of Japan also led the successful lobbying for Education for Sustainable Development to be given the status of a UN Decade from 2005 to 2014. Education is now viewed as a prime lever for social change, described by UNESCO in the implementation plan for the Decade in the following way: ‘It means education that enables people to foresee, face up to and solve the problems that threaten life on our planet’ (UNESCO, 2005). 

Although the terrain seems more promising now for EfS, there are concerns from many EfS commentators such as Orr and Sterling who feel that progress is too slow and that it does not go far enough. In fact, Sterling feels that no less than a complete shift in the overall paradigm of education (and by implication society) will result in sustainability. To him, education itself is often part of the problem.

Far from being an agent of change, education often underpins individualism, unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of consumption, directly or by default (Sterling, 2005, p.10).

A common language?

The EfS journey has taken us into uncharted territories with new ideas and concepts, which, in turn, means there has been a need for new vocabulary and eventually possibly even a new language. New ideas are always contested and so debates about terminology have been a key feature of this field from the very start. Sometimes these can seem obscurantist rather than enlightening; however, they do need to be taken into account because these discussions often reflect very different perspectives and points of view. The term ‘Education for Sustainability’ was actively chosen by our LSBU Programme Team rather than the more mainstream ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ (ESD). This was partly to reflect a critique of the very Western-dominated discourse on development and because it was felt that ‘Education for Sustainability’ reflected an openness to alternative perspectives and radical viewpoints. It also readily allows an interpretation of sustainability within a range of scales from the personal and psychological to the organisational, local, national and global. In addition, it shows a willingness to explore the methods and purpose of education and to undertake value commitments openly – that is, Education for Sustainability, helping to bring it about. 

Proponents of this position tend to regard the term ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ as too readily interpretable as ‘business as usual with slight ideological adjustment’: in other words, as uncritical of mainstream patterns of development. Helen Bach (a graduate of this Programme with considerable experience in South Africa) even suggests that the term ‘ESD’ is part of ‘big capital’ and goes so far as to ask, ‘Why else would the World Bank be using the term with impunity?’ (Bach, 2005) However, proponents of ‘ESD’ may claim that they, in their turn, want to draw attention to the continuing need for development in many parts of the world, and that the title indicates that this should be appropriate and sustainable. And, interestingly, Bach goes on to say, ‘What is essential now is to reclaim the term. I see ESD therefore, as an opportunity: to engage with the process and make it meaningful’ (ibid).

Other terms such as ‘sustainability education’ or ‘sustainable education’ (Sterling, 2006) are also part of the discourse and need to be acknowledged. Sterling believes that ‘sustainability indicates the need for a change of educational paradigm as a whole, rather than a modification of the existing paradigm, hence the notion of ‘sustainable education’, where the emphasis is on the nature of educational thinking, policy and practice as a whole’.

Some people see the term ‘sustainable development’ as the process towards an end point of ‘sustainability’; so, in the same way, ‘sustainable education’ could also perhaps be seen as an end point, with ESD as the process towards it. Within this scenario, EfS could be seen as including both the process towards and the vision of sustainability. However, it is important to remember that all these terms are open to debate and discussion and the first two in particular cannot yet be tied down. For example, there is disagreement over some elements of the definitions above, such as the statement that ‘EfS embodies participatory processes’, as some proponents of the term ‘ESD’ also maintain that these processes are an integral part of ESD. EfS, ESD and SE undoubtedly share some of the same approaches and aims and, depending on the context, it may be appropriate to employ one rather than another. Some commentators feel that the very proliferation of terms and interpretations indicates a strength and a richness that we should value. It would be disingenuous to say that terminology is not important but at the same time it is essential not to become too caught up in such discussions to the detriment of the actual development of EfS. While bearing these issues in mind, for the purpose of this chapter we will use the term ‘Education for Sustainability’.

Pathways to EfS 

Although many educators feel that the ground is more fertile now for EfS, some consider that development has been rather patchy. According to Lescek Iwaskow, Ofsted Inspector with responsibility for ESD in England and Wales, ‘If you were to look down on England from above you would probably see a relative desert for ESD. If you homed in there would be some oases of some excellent practice’ (EAC, 2005, p.30). However, just as gardeners traditionally say that ‘a weed is just a flower in the wrong place’, perspectives on EfS will depend on where we are standing and the lens through which we see the world. Like most complex ideas, the concept of EfS is contested by a complex array of constituencies, each with its own strong views. This is not really surprising when we look at its history.

Agenda 21 called for Environmental Education and Development Education to be cross-cutting themes in all education policies and practice (Agenda 21, p.221). The implication was that from this synergy the concept of Education for Sustainability would somehow emerge. Agenda 21 was, of course, a compromise of compromises as it was the result of many months (if not years) of negotiation between more than 178 different countries and related power blocks; in its own way, it was a remarkable achievement as it provided a basis for educators and policy makers to start to develop a more coherent understanding and practice of EfS. 

Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 attempted to bring the two existing constituencies of EE and DE into relationship by brokering a new inclusive concept of EfS. This is illustrated, in fact, by the original name of our Programme which reflected the perspectives of the NGOs which created it, namely, the MSc in EE and DE. However, it is also certainly true that these constituencies have their roots in the West and therefore this issue will not be so relevant (or perhaps relevant at all) to other parts of the globe. In many Southern and emerging countries EE and DE issues are very obviously interconnected and linked and there has not been a long history of separate constituencies. In South Africa, for example, Lotz-Sisitka points out that, ‘environmental education is strongly focused on the social, political, economic and biophysical dimensions’ (Lotz-Sisitka, 2004, p.67). She sees, therefore, no perceived dichotomy between social justice and environmental protection. However, this viewpoint is not necessarily always translated into practice as shown in a review of progress towards Agenda 21 in Kenya, where Dorcas Otieno (2005) feels that ‘the environment has been looked at in great detail from the biophysical view but with less emphasis on economic and social perspectives’.

The separation of DE and EE illustrates the Western perspective of the split between the human and the natural world which many feel is one of the major obstacles to EfS. Therefore, those of us who have been brought up in a Western educational/academic setting may have more to unlearn than those who have not! However, we have to recognise that the dominant paradigm operating in the world today is a Western one and this colours policy at both national and international levels. Therefore, this construction of EfS has been quite strong and it has provided both opportunities and constraints. 

Over the last decade it has, nonetheless, become clear that EfS required a radical re-think of both EE and DE rather than their simple addition and coming together. This was never going to be straightforward as there are too many potential contradictions and conflicts of interest. The starting points for Western conceptions of EE and DE can be summarised in Figure 2.

It was also perhaps rather naïve to believe that two movements, coming from very different starting points, could just somehow start to collaborate and work together without any problems. The starting point for DE was the human and for EE was the natural world, and it is hardly surprising if their priorities were different. In addition, in the West there was no history of the development and environmental constituencies working together, rather there was a degree of mistrust between them. But EfS is surely much more than the sum of all its parts and perhaps one of the key constraints to progress is the fact that many people still perceive themselves as more concerned with environmental or development issues rather than embracing sustainability as a broad concept encompassing the need to support both nature and humanity. EfS may need to free itself from its EE and DE origins in order to embrace more fully other movements and ‘issues’ educations which contribute to EfS, such as sustainable design, alternative energy, Earth Education, Human Rights Education, conflict resolution, Futures Education, anti-racist and inter-cultural education. There is surely a growing need to move towards a clearer, more conceptualised and integrated form of EfS which builds on a range of perspectives and which can, in turn, provide a catalyst across a range of fields and disciplines.

To this end, some people have preferred not to take the route of enquiring into the potential of EE and DE for EfS, but have rather enquired into what kind of education might mirror, explore and debate the relationship between environment and society. Some NGOs, such as Oxfam, developed the concept of ‘global citizenship’ (Oxfam, 1997) in order to integrate the dimensions of EfS from the standpoint of individual rights and responsibilities (Wade, 2001). This is an ethical standpoint based on both local and global mutuality in relation to basic rights, social justice and environmental justice. Some would argue that this concept is too anthropocentric and that it does not emphasise enough our human dependence on the biosphere and Earth’s finite resources. However, since EfS requires the agency of human beings, I would argue that a concept that recognises the centrality of this will be very helpful in constructing an ethical framework for action.(3)

A focus on the nature of education and of sustainability may help us to move beyond the constraints illustrated above. For example, what kind of education is required if we wish to live sustainably? Certainly, current educational practices have been found wanting. According to David Orr (2004):

Education is no guarantee of decency, prudence or wisdom. Much of the same kind of education will only compound our problems. This is not an argument for ignorance but rather a statement that the worth of education must now be measured against the standards of decency and human survival – the issues now looming so large before us in the twenty-first century. It is not education but education of a certain kind that will save us (p.8).

Some commentators go so far as to say that education itself is a negative idea which merely divides people by creating ’two classes of people everywhere: the educated and the uneducated or undereducated’ (Esteva et al, 2005, p.20). They feel that education is often a new means of colonisation of the mind and that it denigrates local and indigenous knowledge and skills. To them, even Paulo Freire’s concept of education for transformation implies a certain level of arrogance and hence oppression. They prefer the idea of ‘learning’ which implies a more active and ‘autonomous capacity for building creative relationships with others and with nature, relationships that generate knowing and wisdom’ (ibid, p.28). Others, however, like Maiteny (2007), would argue that it is not education that is the problem but the methods of education that are used. He maintains that indigenous people also have education but maybe ‘not that we would recognise as the methods are so different’.

Education as presently constructed can be broadly divided into three orientations: the vocational/neo-classical, the liberal progressive and the socially critical. Practitioners of EfS tend to position themselves mainly with ‘socially critical’ education (Fien, 1993, p.20) where ‘the teacher is a co-ordinator with emancipatory aims; involves students in negotiation about common tasks and projects; emphasises commonality of concerns and works through conflicts of interest in terms of social justice and ecological sustainability’. However, this orientation tends to portray knowledge as mainly socially constructed and some say that it fails to give enough weight to the learning needed to live within the set biophysical boundaries of our world.

In addressing some of the issues relating to the politics of knowledge, Janse Van Rensburg identifies one key challenge for educators: to find and use theoretical frameworks which enable ‘the acknowledgement of wider ways of knowing – in ways which open up greater possibilities in the re-conceptualisation of socially and ecologically appropriate development processes’ (Janse Van Rensburg, 1999, p.18).

Janse Van Rensburg sees EfS in South Africa very much as a process which both recognises the importance of indigenous knowledge, while also recognising that it is not unproblematic (ibid, p.16). While it is still a contested term, there is a considerable consensus that the EfS process offers an ‘holistic approach through recognising the complex, interconnected nature of all aspects of the world around us from an individual to a global level’ (Sterling, 2005, p.23). This is also called a systems or relational approach and it emphasises contexts and connections in order to build up whole pictures of phenomena rather than breaking things into individual parts. It is a way of seeing which focuses on processes, patterns and dynamics and as such it can open up possibilities to look at EfS away from the constructs of EE and DE. For example, the EfS Programme at LSBU uses the diagram below to explain and explore the relationships between EfS and wider social and ecological systems.

EfS provides the opportunity (and necessity) to bring together different disciplines. As will be seen in the next chapter, an EfS framework can offer a vehicle for different disciplines to contribute to an understanding of sustainability and in doing so to translate EfS into terms which they own and understand – also to draw on other disciplines as appropriate. EfS is about engendering the process. It is the interface between theory and practice which underpins the development of EfS as a meaningful and challenging field. Although the concept and terminology are still contested, a lengthy process of consultation and discussion with national and global stakeholders and partners on the nature of EfS has been led by UNESCO as part of the development of the UN Decade of ESD. The guidelines below resulted from this process and they undoubtedly denote a great deal of international consensus and legitimacy.

ESD is facilitated through participatory and reflective approaches and is characterised by the following: 

• is based on the principles of intergenerational equity, social justice, fair distribution of resources and community participation, that underlie sustainable development;
• promotes a shift in mental models which inform our environmental, social and economic decisions; 
• is locally relevant and culturally appropriate;
• is based on local needs, perceptions and conditions, but acknowledges that fulfilling local needs often has international effects and consequences;
• engages formal, non-formal and informal education;
• accommodates the evolving nature of the concept of sustainability;
• promotes life-long learning
• addresses content, taking into account context, global issues and local priorities;
• builds civil capacity for community-based decision-making, social tolerance, environmental stewardship, adaptable workforce and quality of life;
• is cross disciplinary. No one discipline can claim ESD as its own, but all disciplines can contribute to ESD;
• uses a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory learning and critical reflective skills. 

(UNESCO 2007)

UNESCO further describes ESD related processes as involving:

• Future thinking: actively involves stakeholders in creating and enacting an alternative future.
• Critical thinking: helps individuals assess the appropriateness and assumptions of current decisions and action.
• Systems thinking: understanding and promoting holistic change.
• Participation: engaging all in sustainability issues and actions.

While EfS will continue to be contested from many different perspectives there is an increasing consensus on a number of core elements. Of necessity, UNESCO (as part of the UN) cannot hope to cover all perspectives as their terms and definitions have to be agreed at the level of member states. Different EfS commentators would also emphasise different elements in terms of importance and not all would agree that they are all core. Some commentators, myself included, would seek to add or strengthen the elements below:

• The underlying importance of core EfS values, in particular a commitment to social justice, equity (present and intergenerational) and protection of the natural world. 
• The importance of developing an understanding of the processes and politics of social change. 
• EfS as an agent for change towards sustainability.
• The importance of recognising and valuing the importance of local and indigenous knowledge and understanding. 
• The integral relationship of environmental and development issues and concerns. 
• The importance of personal, psychological and spiritual dimensions of EfS. 
• EfS as an ongoing action research process which demands reflexivity at all levels.(5)

For the last decade our international EfS learning community at LSBU has been actively contributing to a growing understanding of EfS and in this book we attempt to capture some of this rich seam. Interestingly, many in this learning community do not come from EE or DE backgrounds, but from Peace Education, Trades Union education, Health Education and Business Education to name but a few. Might the UN Decade of ESD be an opportunity or wake-up call for different elements of EfS to come together in some more joined-up approach to influence educational and social change?

Cartography of change

If EfS is to play a part in social change, however, there are some important questions to pose to ourselves and we need to try to understand some of the dynamic involved. To what extent is EfS acting as a catalyst for change and to what extent is it being absorbed and modified by dominant policy operators? How far is EfS embracing effective change processes? Do we know enough about what these are?

Understanding the causes of change in policy and practice is a complex area of study and is like trying to unravel a complicated, interconnected and tangled web of relationships and conflicts with a vast array of actors and influences. It is an iterative, not linear process where policies are ‘the operational statements of values, statements of ‘prescriptive intent’ which are then ‘contested in and between the arenas of formation and implementation’ (Bowe et al, 1992, p.20). Educational change cannot, of course, be separated out from social change as the relationship is strongly interconnected. All educational (and social) change is a site of struggle because, as Ginsburg et al (1991) point out, 

[T]he timing and focus of educational reform cannot be adequately understood by conceiving of society as a homeostatic system, characterised by consensual relations transacted by persuasion and led by those who possess a ‘moral force’. 

Instead we start with the assumption that at the world system and national levels the social formation is inherently conflict laden and characterised by fundamental contradictions (p.7). 

At the local and organisational levels, power relations will also be played out through micro-politics, with individuals having an increasing role and relevance. 

Proponents of EfS often have a dynamic model of grassroots practitioner development and creativity, so how does that relate to top-down ideas of ‘global education reform’? Reform is not, of course, necessarily progressive – global educational reform is arguably dominated by imperatives from globalisation inimical to EfS. There are many organisations involved in policy at a global level, such as UN organisations, NGOs and business. UNESCO is obviously taking the lead on education generally, but is subject to all the pressures and conflicts resulting from having to find an agenda that countries (especially those which are the most powerful) of the world can sign up to. In addition, other associated organisations, such as the WTO, World Bank and IMF are more powerful and have more influence over outcomes.

EfS commitments to participation challenge the top-down technical model of educators as mere implementers of policy delivery, a model which has been largely discredited (Bowe et al, 1992) although governments still try to use it. EfS needs to help educators to empower themselves to contribute to policy at a range of levels and to be agents of social change for sustainability. EfS practitioners have often been successful at a local level in terms of practice but this is not always taken further. In order to maximise our effectiveness in building pathways to sustainability surely we also need to learn more about successful advocacy and campaigning techniques? These may help to activate and speed up the EfS journey. 

Mapping the contours

To misquote Oscar Wilde, ‘a map without sustainability on it is not worth consulting’, hence it is important for us to have a vision of where we want to get to. However, it is important to recognise that new concepts, emphases and debates may be the result of positive developments, but may equally be the result of co-option of sustainability and education agendas by dominant ideologies. Nonetheless, this does also show some success in that dominant ideologies are having to take note of EfS. Sustainable development has become a very hot political topic internationally as it does challenge much of what is taking place under the guise of globalisation. For example, in China there are many contradictory forces pulling in different directions, so that, although vast projects such as that of the Three Gorges dams are wrecking environments, destroying livelihoods and ignoring human rights, at the same time economists such as Jeffrey Sachs maintain that China is one of the most successful countries ever in the speed in which it is eradicating poverty (quoted in Watts, 2006).The contradictions are further illustrated by the fact that at the same time as the dams project forges ahead, WWF China is working with the government to introduce an EE curriculum. This is not to say that the latter is a cynical public relations process by the Chinese government, but rather that differing ministries have different briefs, different priorities and different perspectives, often vying with each other. This again underlines the iterative nature and complexity of the policy/practice process. The relationship and power of the different actors are all-important. 

We can only begin to understand the complexity through an analysis which explores the relationships between the different actors and the relative power of the different elements of the process. There are various models and frameworks which can help to do this, such as that shown in Figure 4 opposite. What is required is essentially a kind of multi-tasking of the mind, to gain an overview of the key elements and relationships that are important for understanding a situation and to keep them in review. This is something we are all frequently doing anyway, in response to the increasing complexity of everyday life.

Bowe et al (1992) have produced a useful framework for trying to start to unravel these complexities by looking at the contexts of influence, context of policy text production and context of practice. Figure 4 is one attempt to illustrate this by identifying the context of influence for the production of the policy text on implementation of the UN Decade of ESD. 

This is, of course, a dynamic and developing process which will be subject to change. There can also be contradictory influences within as well as between the different contexts, for example, in the ‘Context of influence’ box, the growing consensus on the threat posed by climate change could be seen to clash with the influence of ‘Bush and the neo-cons’. The context of influence also has ‘a symbiotic but uneasy relationships with the context of policy text production. Because, while influence is often related to the articulation of narrow interests and dogmatic ideologies, policy texts are normally articulated in the language of the general public good’ (Bowe et al, 1992, p.20). They are also often very vague, a result of the compromises that have had to be made in coming to agreement with competing interests. Policy texts are then open to interpretation by practitioners and the outcome of this again will depend on the context and influences at play. Practitioners can often subvert original policy intentions and individuals can make a difference. 

The context of changing policy and practice is a complex and changing one and we should beware of over-simplification. For example, if we use the model above to compare the example in Figure 4 with a current policy initiative we will immediately highlight how these contexts are constantly re-shaping. However, as Scott emphasises,

It is important to be clear that although problems related to sustainable development are likely to continue to be characterised by uncertainty, it is possible (and important) to chip away at this. It is possible to know things: but it is important to be absolutely honest about when we really know something, and when we just wish we did. At heart, there is an unknowability about much of this in that we can’t be sure how something – a policy, a learning intervention, whatever – will play out because we genuinely cannot know in advance what we need to do next (Scott, 2003). 

A relational approach can help to analyse the dialectical relationships between the various complex forces for change. ‘We won’t get very far until we understand that learning as a process is integral to sustainable development rather than being something that can be used, instrumentally, to bring sustainable development about’ (Scott, 2003).

Barriers and borders

The analysis of the policy process shown in Figure 4 goes some way to illustrating the complex processes which are involved. It also shows how the parameters for educational change are clearly set within wider social and economic change and this has clear implications for EfS. The status of education and educationalists is not generally high these days in Western-dominated systems – in many cases the State has by-passed the education community to take control of the education agenda through the introduction of national curricula which tend to reflect a predominantly vocational, technocentric view of education. It is also interesting to note that, despite extensive lobbying, the education community was never given the status of a major group in the implementation of Agenda 21. Given that education was such a key component of Agenda 21 (mentioned no fewer than 617 times) (Smyth et al, 1997) it is not surprising if many conclude that educationalists were seen as mere instruments of policy handed down from above, rather than active participants in the process. If sustainability is to become more than an elusive vision of an oasis in the desert, then one of the challenges for the Decade of ESD is to become more effectively engaged in these processes.

Education represents one of the largest resource commitments of the public sector so it is not surprising that governments take a close interest in it and that it reflects certain ideological perspectives. In the last two decades many would argue that it has reflected the rise of neo-liberal ideas both in terms of the purpose as well as the delivery of education. This has led to what is often called a ‘compliance culture’ within education, with a focus on targets, tests and tick boxes, something that leaves little space for the critical thinking and questioning required by EfS. At the same time education is seen more and more as a commodity rather than a process and this is illustrated nowhere more clearly than within the international agreement on GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services). GATS aims to deregulate international markets in services (Frase and O’Sullivan, 2003), including education, and opens the door for private corporations to take over the running of education systems, with all the possible implications for democracy and accountability. The dangers of such deregulation have already been highlighted, for example, by disastrous water privatisations in countries such as Tanzania (World Development Movement, 2006).

For educationalists, especially those working in NGOs, there has been a long-standing debate about the difference between education and advocacy or campaigning. Educationalists have tended to take the view that they should be as open and objective as possible, while presenting all viewpoints with equal weight and allow the learner to make up their own mind. However, it could be argued that giving equal weight to all views actually fails to take into account the underlying and unequivocal power of dominant discourses and ways of thinking. These are often so taken for granted that they become part of our hegemonic consciousness, part of what is often called ‘common sense’. Yet the imperative of sustainability challenges our whole way of life today (and in particular our current production and consumption patterns.) As Hossein Nasr (2004) puts it,

I do believe that the most important questions that face present-day civilisations involve not only solutions within the present parameters within which people think but also those parameters themselves – that is, the paradigm within which human beings carry out their intellectual and practical activities (p.168). 

This is an extremely large challenge for educators but it is surely essential for EfS to encourage a process whereby we try to step out of our comfort zones and re-think the fundamental big questions in new ways:

• What kind of society do we want or need in order to achieve sustainability?
• What kind of economic and political system could allow this? 
• What kind of education system do we need to achieve this?

 Although educationalists have lost status over the last two decades, this does not mean that we have no influence or power. Of course, as well as being educators we also have a number of other possible roles such as parent, friend, member of activist or social group, student, shopper, home owner, user of public transport, citizen (or increasingly in today’s world) refugee. We may be a school governor or member of a political party. In all these roles we can influence and be influenced. Sustainability has implications for all of them. The examples in this book demonstrate work towards EfS at local, regional, national and international levels, as well as at the important intellectual level of conceptualisation and thought. As we have seen above, new thinking and re-thinking is an essential prerequisite of EfS. We do not have all (or even most) of the answers so EfS needs to open up spaces for creativity and thought. 

Breaking down the barriers?

Kuhn (1962) has shown that a paradigm breaks down when it becomes increasingly obvious that it is no longer adequate. From a different perspective, Gramsci felt that it is possible to challenge the dominant hegemony by group action (McLellan, 1979). More recently Malcolm Gladwell (2000) talked about the ’tipping point’ which occurs when the weight of events, evidence and opinion builds up and an idea is accepted that was formerly rejected or subject to challenge. The change of attitude towards the threat of climate change is an example of this. Just a few years ago the idea that human action was implicated was regularly challenged and questioned yet today there is a strong and growing consensus which accepts this, even in the USA. 

As we have noted earlier, social change is a complex process and there are many strands which are shaping the map for sustainability, many of which may not obviously be seen under the heading of ‘Education for Sustainability’. In order to become more effective change makers, we need to be open to creative alliances and partnerships and, I would argue, start to develop EfS as an international movement, which is essential for the future of the planet. As a result of over 15 years of experience in EfS, I would suggest that a focus on the following elements might help us to move forward more quickly. 

Signposts to EfS

Cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary approaches

The EfS Programme at LSBU was founded on this principle, bringing together a team working in different disciplines, and in different sectors, from HE, schools, community education, NGOs and business. While the ability of different sectors to learn from each other seems to happen best at local level in EfS forums and networks, NGOs can be a catalyst for this as they often work across sectors. At government and policy level, sectors (as well as departments) are often very isolated from each other so local examples of successful EfS can often provide a catalyst for central government policy. 

With regard to interdisciplinarity, commentators such as Sayer and Maiteny feel that it is particularly important for social scientists and their natural science counterparts to enter into dialogue. ‘Science or the production of any kind of knowledge is a social practice. For better or worse (not just worse) the conditions and social relations of the production of knowledge influence its content’ (Sayer, 1992, p.6). Maiteny (2002) emphasises the importance of methods in relation to EfS and goes on to stress that the understanding of such relationships and phenomena ‘can be enhanced by using an essentially scientific method – i.e. by devising hypotheses and then testing them out through observation and experience’ (p.25).

For EfS to be most effective, structures need to be reconfigured, joined-up thinking is essential; this is one of the greatest challenges for EfS, as structures in formal education especially often fail to support interdisciplinarity and sometimes actively work against it. This is not to denigrate specialist knowledge, rather to recognise that the challenge of sustainability requires new thinking and synergy across current subject specialism.

Sharing diverse perspectives

In a world dominated by neo-liberal perspectives, it is important for alternative voices and perspectives to be heard, especially those which challenge the current hegemony. This is not to be negative about all Western perspectives (or even all neo-liberal ones) but we do need to be wary about allowing the dominant discourse which has led us to our current unsustainable lifestyle to drown out other voices. At the same time, we should not forget that some of the strongest critiques of current neo-liberal and neo-conservative policies come, in fact, from Western thought and Western commentators. However, to learn our way out of unsustainability requires open-mindedness in approaching new (and sometimes old) ways of thinking, for example, from local and indigenous knowledge and diverse philosophical perspectives. This is demonstrated by some of the pieces in this book and is also explored further by Jenneth Parker in the next chapter.

Broadening the concept of education

Does EfS, as currently construed, focus too much on the formal statutory sector and on training and curriculum development? The formal education sector will always be under the strong influence and control of government and while EfS practitioners have made inroads into these agendas, they are arguably still dominated by the perceived demands of the economy and current dominant neo-liberal perspectives. Education outside the formal sector, such as youth and community education, NGO education, business education, civil service education and so on, may offer more space for EfS as is demonstrated by examples in this book, such as Adrian Robertson’s analysis of the Tax Justice Movement. While more and more time today is spent in formal education, it is clearly becoming increasingly important for EfS practitioners to be able to influence agendas in non-formal as well as formal education. Adrian Roberston gives an apposite example of the relevance for EfS of the key skills in advocacy, lobbying and developing strategy, while Areta Sobieraj demonstrates the importance of capacity building within a local, community-based NGO in Italy. If we accept that EfS is a lifelong process, then there are many entry points at many stages. We are all influenced through an ever-widening range of communication channels as well as through formal education and professional development. 

Linking the personal and professional 

Many of us lead lives which are divided into very separate realms: we think we hold certain values but we do not always put them into practice, not always consciously or deliberately but sometimes out of habit or inertia or because of inhibiting structures. 

Some commentators, such as Kumar and Selby, would argue that the psychological or spiritual dimensions of change are just as important or perhaps more important than the political dimension because our core values form the basis for our actions. ‘The real impetus for ecological sustainability and social justice stems from ethical, aesthetic and spiritual visions’ (Kumar, 2005). He goes on, ‘The problem is not matter but materialism … The moment we encapsulate an idea or a thought into an ‘ism’ we lay the foundations of dualistic thought. The universe is uni-verse, one song, one poem, one verse.’ 

Kumar and others feel that our Western dualistic notions of mind and body has been responsible for many of our present problems of unsustainability. At a very basic level, we may know in our heads, for example, that our behaviour is contributing to the increase of greenhouse gases but unless we really believe and feel at an affective level that it is important, we will not act to change. At a recent workshop that I ran for MA Education students in Chichester, they were asked to identify three events or experiences which influenced their personal journeys towards an interest in EfS. Some students felt that this had been a very gradual process and cited their upbringing and backgrounds; others mentioned books or films and some could even trace their development to a particular critical moment when their whole awareness changed. To live sustainably demands nothing less than a complete change in our relationship with others and the world, a change in our way of being, something we might call an ‘ontological epiphany’ (Wade, 2006). This is not easy when the structures we live in encourage us to live unsustainably – so we need to be convinced at the deepest level if we are to try to change. Otherwise any change that does occur tends to be first order or superficial rather than substantive. When values become shared at an affective level, the possibilities for social change increase exponentially. ‘Shared belief and meaning is a sort of cultural glue that makes sense of experience and relationships. It is vital to the process of social cohesion and sustainability and personal responsibility for one’s role within the social context’ (Maiteny, 2000, p.352).

Understanding the complex processes of change<

Understanding some of the dynamics of change is essential for EfS practitioners who aspire to be agents of change. The development of motivational and leadership skills in oral, visual and written communication (such as report writing, strategic thinking and planning) needs to be part of a broad portfolio. The most effective change is never ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’ but a mixture of the two and In effecting positive change, we can also learn from business and management analysis where organisations have to adapt constantly to changing conditions or go under. 

Organisations are not just organisms, evolving and adapting as environments change. They are made up of people: thinking, conscious, able to make choices about what they do. Change does not often occur without anyone willing it to happen, but people do not get the results they want in this way (Binney and Williams, 1997, p.158). 

This point is illustrated quite forcefully in Caroline Walker’s examination of the Small School movement. Intriguingly, successful leaders in change are not opting for the top-down or the bottom-up approaches. ‘They are combining the best of both approaches and embracing the contradictions and tensions between them. They have found a way of leading and learning; of providing direction and allowing autonomy; of being forthright and listening’ (ibid, p.158). 

‘Leadership’ is not a word that educationalists are always comfortable with because of some negative associations with didacticism and directorial management. However, this is, I believe, to be somewhat disingenuous since it is also something that we need to embrace if EfS is to be effective. What is needed, perhaps, is to re-examine and reclaim a form of leadership which supports and promotes values of sustainability, which involves a strong commitment to participation and collaboration but does not hide behind these commitments when it is appropriate to take a lead. 

At a discussion at a recent EfS Programme conference, there was a strong feeling that EfS practitioners too often shy away from acting as leaders or spokes-persons and surrender the field of leadership to a small (often self-appointed) but well-connected group of individuals who have the confidence to put themselves forward. Sometimes this can be advantageous if they can articulate and inspire interest in EfS, but this needs to be backed up with commitments to participation and democratic involvement. 

A life-long learning process

We need to take heart that EfS is indeed, of necessity, a life-long learning process, where much of our learning will take place outside the formal sector. If it were left to formal, statutory education processes to embed learning for sustainability we might wait for ever to develop a society which is able to live sustainably. And sometimes the formal curriculum, as currently construed, does not seem to be the most effective conduit for this kind of learning. For example, a survey among secondary school pupils in the UK discovered that they were turned off by learning about environmental issues in Citizenship lessons (Oxfam, 2006, p.6). This probably says more about the way these were being taught than the content, however, because when asked what they would like, pupils wanted issues tackled in ‘more depth’ and ‘to discuss more in smaller groups’ (ibid, p.7). In fact, research by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) in the UK indicates that committed and motivated teachers, combined with a supportive school ethos, made a huge difference to pupils’ attitudes to environmental issues (Morris and Schagen, 1995). There are, of course, dangers also in seeing life-long learning as a panacea, indeed many argue that in its more formal manifestation it is currently dominated by the technical, vocational model of education and its main ‘rationale is to raise skill levels and enhance the knowledge base of individuals so that they may operate more effectively in a fluctuating labour market’ (Blewitt, 2005, p.27). More opportunity perhaps lies with non-formal processes where there is potential for a life-long learning for sustainability which is critical and emancipatory, ‘which emerges from a reflexive relationship between thinking about priorities and the actual experience of living in the world, of making a living and protecting the prospects of the next generation during a period of change’ (ibid, p.36). Blewitt cites as examples the work in developing sustainable neighbourhoods and social inclusivity by organisations such as the Community Development Foundation and Groundwork, both in the UK: ‘The informal learning opportunities that these initiatives created are profoundly important aspects of non-formal lifelong learning’ (ibid, p.34). 

The life-long learner for sustainability needs to be part of a learning community where each is ‘an active and creative explorer of the world; a reflexive agent; a self-actualising agent and an integrator of learning’ (Medel-Anonuevo, Ohsako and Mauch quoted in Blewitt, 2005, p.26). EfS requires a concept of lifelong learning which recognises the imperative of learning for sustainability as a shared human project in a rapidly changing world where none of us has all the answers. Opportunities for learning are all around us; as educators perhaps our main responsibility is to recognise them.

Making EfS an international movement

Encouragingly, some commentators such as David Orr and Andres Edwards already sense the beginnings of paradigm change in a ‘sustainability revolution’ which is taking place ‘below the radar screen and outside the cultural buzz’ (Orr, 2005, p.xiv in Edwards, 2005). 

It is happening first at the periphery of power and wealth, where revolutions often start. It is evident in farmers beginning to mimic natural systems in order to preserve their soil and land… It is evident in the burgeoning interest in green building, green architecture, green engineering… It is evident in a new religious sensibility across the full spectrum, of faith traditions that regard stewardship of the Earth as obligatory… It is evident in education and the emergence of new ways to think about the human role in nature that stretch our perspective to whole systems and out to the far horizon of imagination (Orr, 2005, p.xiv). 

Edwards presents evidence for a growing movement of sustainability advocates across the globe and identifies five characteristics of this ‘revolution’:

• remarkable similarities among sustainability groups in overall intentions and objectives
• a large and diverse number of such groups
• a wide range of issues addressed by these groups
• leadership by a group of decentralised visionaries rather than a single charismatic figurehead
• varying modes of action – oppositional and alternative (Edwards, 2005, p.7). 

To what extent can EfS be seen as part of this movement ? Movements are more easily seen as local or national rather than global, although their influence may extend more widely. Local Agenda 21 provided opportunities for people to become involved in local movements for sustainability which came together periodically nationally and internationally but these varied greatly from locality to locality and from country to country. 

Some educationalists have had difficulties with the idea of being part of a movement as they felt that it had implications of being partisan and ideologically biased. Yet to engage in EfS of necessity implies aiming to change society to a more equitable and environmentally sustainable one. However, it is important to recognise that this is a process where no one group, ideology, sector or country has all the answers. Hence it is perfectly possible, indeed, I would argue, essential to be part of an open minded movement which is advocating as well as seeking change.

Conclusion

Many people and organisations across the world do see the broad framework of EfS as an opportunity to place themselves and their work in the context of a movement. There is much to be gained from this, including a sense of solidarity, the potential for sharing ideas and learning from different global perspectives. The UN Decade of ESD can help do this by providing a framework for network building, events and initiatives. The Internet provides a powerful tool for communication and building networks, such as our EfS Programme ‘E learning’ community of students and alumni. Building a movement takes time but with the growing awareness of the effects of climate change, the core enthusiasts of EfS may suddenly find themselves in demand as leaders of a rapidly expanding movement. Are we ready for this and taking it into account? To some extent this is happening already with an increasing demand for courses and awareness raising on issues of sustainability from a wide range of sectors. It is becoming clear that we will need to raise our game over the next decade if we want EfS to become a dynamic process which can enable us all to learn to live sustainably. Human beings are very adaptive and intelligent beings who have learned to live unsustainably in rather a short space of time. Time is of the essence now as it becomes clear that some of the effects of climate change are already unstoppable. Our challenge for the future well being of the planet and of human life is to learn – very quickly – how to live sustainably. 

Notes

1 Under the heading of ‘global citizenship’ and ‘Education for Sustainability’.

2 However, there is a real lack of clarity and coherence in this which means that EfS and EFA are still often seen as separate strands.

3 See Dower, N (2003) An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

4 From a comment on an early draft of this chapter.

5 Examples of the work of a range of key ESD commentators are cited in the bibliography.

Bibliography

BACH, H. (2005) Paper as critical reader to Unit 7 of the EfS Programme (unpublished).

BINNEY, G. and WILLIAMS, C. (1997) Leaning into the future: changing the way people change institutions. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

BLEWITT, J. (2004) Sustainability and lifelong learning. In: BLEWITT, J. and CULLINGFORD, C. (eds) The sustainability curriculum. London: Earthscan.

BOURN, D. (2001) Global perspectives in lifelong learning. Research in post- compulsory education, 6 (3), pp.325-338. 

BOWE, R., BALL, S. and GOLD, A. (1992) The policy process and the processes of policy. In: Reforming education and changing schools. London: Routledge.

CASTELLS, M. (1996) The network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

DOWER, N. (2003) An introduction to Global Citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

EDWARDS, A.R. (2005) The sustainability revolution: portrait of a paradigm shift. Canada: New Society Publishers.

ESTEVA, G., STUCHUL, L. and PRAKASH, M.S. (2005) From a pedagogy for liberation to liberation from pedagogy. pp.13-30. In: BOWERS, C. and APFFEL-MARGLIN, F. (eds) Rethinking Freire: globalisation and the environmental crisis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

FREIRE, P. (1985) The politics of education: culture, power and liberation. London: Macmillan. 

FIEN, J. (1993) Education for the environment: critical curriculum theorising and Environmental Education. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

FIEN, J. (2000) from Environment, education and society in the Asia Pacific: local traditions and global discourse. YENCKEN, D., FIEN, J. and SYKES, H. (eds). London: Routledge (Advances in Asia Pacific Studies series). 

GLADWELL, M. (2000) The tipping point: how little things make a big difference. London: Little, Brown and Company.

GINSBURG, M., COOPER, S., RAGHU, R. and ZEGARRA, H. (1991) Educational reform: social struggle, the state and the world economic system. In: GINSBURG, M. (ed) Understanding educational reform in a global context: economy, ideology and the state. London: Garland Publishing.

HICKS, D. (2002) Lessons for the future: the missing dimension in education. Victoria, Canada: Routledge Falmer. 

HENDERSON, H and IKEDA, D. (2004) Planetary citizenship. Santa Monica, USA: Middleway Press.

MCKEOWN, R. with HOPKINS, C. RIZZI, R. and CHRYSTALBRIDGE, M. (undated) Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (EAC) (2005) Environmental Education: Follow up to learning the sustainability lesson: Fifth report of session 2004-05 Volume II. London: House of Commons.

HUCKLE, J. and STERLING, S. (eds) (1996) Education for sustainability. London: Earthscan. 

INMAN, S. and ROGERS, M. (eds) (2006) Building a sustainable future: challenges for Initial Teacher Education. London: CCCI/LSBU/WWF-UK. 

JANSE VAN RENSBURG, E. (1999) Strands weaving southern African dreams of development, education and sustainability. Development Education Journal, 5 (2), pp.15-18.

KUHN, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

KUMAR, S. (2005) Spiritual imperative. Resurgence, 229.

LOTZ-SISITKA, H. (2004) Positioning South African environmental education in a changing context. Howick, SA: SADC Regional Education Programme/Share-Net.

MAITENY, P. (2002) Strand 1. In: PARKER, J. and MAITENY, P. (2002) Unit 6 Study guide: Science and culture in Education for Sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, London South Bank University.

MAITENY, P. (2007, Unpublished) Comments on the draft text for this chapter.

MCLELLAN, D. (1979) Marxism after Marx. London: Macmillan.

MEDEL-ANONUEVO, C., OHSAKO, T. and MAUCH, W. (2001) Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21^st Century. Geneva: UNESCO.

ORR, D. (2004) Education, the environment and the human prospect. Washington DC: Island Press. 

ORR, D. (2005) Preface. In: EDWARDS, A.R. (2005) The sustainability revolution: portrait of a paradigm shift. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

OTIENO, D. (2005) Towards developing an ESD strategy for Kenya: Experiences and Perspectives. Paper presented at UNESCO Conference on ESD Ahmedebad, India 2005.

OXFAM (1997) A curriculum for global citizenship. Oxford: Oxfam.

OXFAM (2006) Pupils’ Voices on Citizenship Education and the global dimension. SCF, UNICEF, DFID, NEAD, DEP, Cheshire DE Centre. Available from: http://www.developingcitizenship.org.uk.

PARKER, J. (2008, forthcoming) Its life Jim – but not as we know it. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 6, Winter 2008. 

PLANT, M. (2005) Unit 8 study guide: Researching education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, London South Bank University.

PORRITT, J. (2006) Capitalism as if the Earth matters. London: Earthscan.

SACHS, J. (2006) as quoted in an interview, WATTS, J. Guardian. 26 August 2006.

SAYER, A. (1992) Method in social science: a realist approach. London: Routledge.

SCOTT, W. (2003) Sustainable development, policy and learning: exploring relationships. Talk by William Scott at the Council for Environmental Education Policy Forum. 18 November 2003.

SCOTT, W. and STABLES, A. (2002) The quest for holism in ESD. Environmental Education Research, 8 (1), pp.53-60.

SELBY, D. and Pike, G. (2004) Global education: theory and practice. Almaty: UNICEF CARK (Central Asia and Kazakhstan).

SELBY, D. (2007) The need for climate change in education. BNE Journal, May.

SMYTH, J., BLACKMORE, C. and HARVEY, T. (1997) Education for sustainability at the UN: making progress? Environmentalist, 17 (3), pp.173-179.

STERLING, S. (2005) Unit 7 Study guide: Education for sustainability: education in change. London: Distance Learning Centre, London South Bank University.

STERLING, S. (2001) Sustainable education: revisioning learning and change. Schumacher Briefings 6. Totnes: Green Books. 

STERLING, S., MAITENY, P., IRVING, D. and SALTER, J. for WWF Scotland (2005) Linking thinking.

TILBURY, D. (2002) Education and sustainability: responses to the global challenge. Gland: IUCN/World Conservation Union.

UNESCO (1996) Promoting education, public awareness and training. Report of the Secretary General of the 4^th session UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2005) UN Decade of Sustainable Development 2005-2014.

UNESCO (2007) Introductory Note on ESD – DESD Monitoring & Evaluation Framework. Paris: UNESCO.

WADDELL, S. (2005) Societal Learning and Change. Sheffield: Greenleaf. 

WADE, R. (2004) Citizenship and community from local to global:implications for higher education of a global citizenship approach. In: BLEWITT, J. and CULLINGFORD, C. (eds) The sustainabilty curriculum. London: Earthscan.

WADE, R. (2007) Education for sustainable development. In: HICKS, D. and HOLDEN, C. (eds) The challenge of global education. London: Routledge.

WADE, R. and PARKER, J. (2008, forthcoming) Background discussion paper: EFA-ESD Dialogue. Paris: UNESCO.

WWF-UK (undated) Learning for sustainability: pathways: a development framework for schools sustainability. Godalming: WWF-UK.

World Development Movement website (2006).

Note also: 

Agenda 21.