Working Together ~ Learning Together II The ...

Working Together ~ Learning Together II The Sustainable Communities Initiative Year Two Report Sean Rooney, Rachel Williams, Clemens Grunbuhel August 2008

Enquiries should be addressed to: Sean Rooney Director – Sustainable Communities Initiative CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems [email protected] www.csiro.au/science/SCI

Distribution list Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts

Westpac Banking Corporation

Department of Resources, Energy & Tourism

GRM International

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government

Insurance Australia Group

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry

Harvey Norman

WWF – Australia

Ricoh Australia

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability

Delfin Lend Lease

The Natural Edge Project

Origin Energy

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Copyright and Disclaimer © 2008 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Important Disclaimer CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

Working Together ~ Learning Together II

2

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 9 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 9 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 12 EVALUATION & LEARNING ACTIVITIES............................................................... 21 SCIENCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................. 24 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 26 OPERATIONAL PLAN PERFORMANCE ................................................................ 28 SCI ACHIEVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 29 SCI REFLECTIONS.................................................................................................. 33 SCI ISSUES AND INSIGHTS ................................................................................... 40 LOOKING FORWARD ............................................................................................. 44 APPENDICES........................................................................................................... 45


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sustainable Communities Initiative is a program designed to bring together organisations from across the public, private and civil society sectors, to work in partnership with communities, to develop and deliver local solutions to local sustainability challenges and opportunities. The SCI operates as an ’action learning’ program over a three year period from 2006 to 2009. During this time the SCI undertakes partnership projects in a number of Australian communities in order learn and experience how to better work together to address local sustainability issues. Individually, SCI projects deliver community scale benefits and create value for project participants. Collectively, SCI projects provide insights and evidence for informing future policy, programs and practice. This report details the SCI’s activities and achievements over the past two years; provides valuable insights on cross-sector partnering in practice; and reflects on issues emerging from the SCI experience. ACHIEVEMENTS Upon reflection on the SCI’s activities over the past two years, a number of significant achievements have been accomplished. These achievements are evidenced through the SCI’s learning and evaluation activities, feedback from SCI stakeholders, and recognition from key sustainable development and cross-sector partnership thought and practice leaders. SCI achievements include: •

Proof of Concept: The SCI has successfully transitioned from an innovative concept into a fully functioning, cross-sector partnership with national reach. The SCI project portfolio includes six projects in full operation, five projects set to commence, and a further four projects under development. Estimated total value of SCI operations is approximately $4million. SCI membership of 15 organisations from across the public, private, civil society and research sectors is vibrant, engaged and effective at both program and project scales.

•

Influencing Programs and Practice: In addition to project level effectiveness and impact the SCI has demonstrated its ability to influence programs and practice including: o Shaping the ACT Planning & Land Authority’s approaches to future urban development in the ACT via the SCI’s East Lake urban redevelopment project o Based on Regional Development Victoria’s (RDV) experiences as a project partner in the Maine’s Power project in Castlemaine, RDV created a new program to support five SCI projects in regional Victorian communities o The SCI’s Surat Basin Sustainable Futures Scoping Study in Queensland is assisting local stakeholders to identify key issues and shape community and regional scale responses to the potential impacts of energy resources led development in the Surat Basin.

. •

Thought and Practice Leadership: By sharing insights and learnings from our activities and experiences the SCI has been acknowledged as an emerging thought and practice leader in the domain of cross-sector partnerships for sustainable development. For example the SCI was invited by the Garnaut


4

Climate Change Review to produce a case study on the Maine’s Power project in Castlemaine, as an example of good practice in collaborative action to reduce GHG emissions. •

Sharing Valuable Insights: Through the SCI’s project experiences, insights are emerging that are valued by a diverse range of constituents. The SCI’s communication activities have enabled the SCI to share insights from our experiences with key stakeholders and, in doing so, has further enhanced the SCI’s credibility and profile. Some examples include a number of articles in ECOS magazine (Australia´s leading magazine on sustainability in the environment, industry and community) on the SCI and individual SCI projects

•

Demonstrating Innovation: A key underpinning principle of the SCI is that of innovation - seeking to do better through collaborative learning and experimentation - rather than simply replicating existing approaches to addressing local sustainability issues. The SCI is an acknowledged innovator in terms of the cross sector partnering processes; the nature of SCI projects; embedding action learning in the partnering process; and technological innovation emerging from some SCI projects

•

Catalyst for Action: Each SCI project catalyses action amongst project participants and within communities. In addition to project related action and activities, evidence is emerging of complementary activities and opportunities, beyond the scope of SCI projects, that appear as by-products of engagement in the SCI.

REFLECTIONS Based on the collective experiences and reflections of SCI members and project participants, synthesised through the SCI’s Evaluation and Learning activities, a number of key themes are emerging. The emerging themes provide insight into the value and challenges of working together in a cross-sector partnership and suggest areas for further exploration/improvement in the context of SCI operations. •

Legitimacy of Cross-Sector Partnership: A consistent theme emerging from the SCI experience is the legitimacy of the SCI’s cross-sector partnership model. There is clear acknowledgement that most sustainability issues are complex and therefore require more integrated and systemic responses. As such the SCI is playing an important role in fostering new thinking and innovative approaches in this area.

•

Nature of Projects: From a traditional project management perspective, SCI projects appear unusual because they are ‘option development’ projects rather than ‘implementation’ projects. This means that the specific SCI project outcomes are generally ill-defined at the beginning of a project and this mode of operating can present challenges for participants and funders, however, experience has shown that as the process evolves outcomes and benefits become clear quite quickly and mobilise further support.

•

Organisational Culture: Impacting on the ability of organisations to work together is organisational culture. Within the SCI our experience has shown a spectrum of organisational cultures that either support or obstruct collaboration. Seeking collaboration, innovation and learning across multiple organisations, from


5

different sectors, and of varying sizes, has revealed at times a disconnect between organisational intent and the ability to translate this into action. •

Leadership: Within the context of the SCI’s activities, leadership has been a defining factor in performance to date. Leadership in this context is both individual and organisational. Organisationally, the SCI would not exist without SCI members and project partners committing to working and learning together. Our SCI experiences are revealing formal and informal individual leaders at all levels within participating organisations and communities. Hallmarks of the leadership shown by these individuals is a pro-active ‘can do’ attitude that enables them to identify opportunities and work within, and sometimes around, institutional/situational constraints to make things happen.

•

Modes of Engagement: From SCI project experiences, insights into different modes of participation in Cross-Sector Partnering are emerging. These modes reflect a progression of increasing intensities of collaboration, rather than successive stages of a project. Each mode is progressively more challenging as it involves a greater depth of interaction. The different modes of engagement that are being reflected in the SCI program as a whole might be conceptualised as: o familiarisation o knowledge sharing o collaborative planning o collaborative implementation

•

Managing Diversity: SCI experiences to date reveal that managing diversity is a defining characteristic of performance. A diverse range of participants provides a breadth of experiences and resources to draw from in developing and delivering SCI projects. However this also requires significant conscious focus on managing expectations across a diverse set of organisational values, drivers and cultures.

•

Value of Networks: An attribute of the SCI model that is consistently mentioned as being valued by participants is the opportunity to meet and connect with individuals and organisations from across different organisations/sectors in an effective and efficient manner. Through the SCI’s activities, opportunities are provided for participants to connect through a variety of mechanisms. The value of these connections is that they can lead to ‘uncommon conversations’. These are conversations that take place between individuals/organisations that in the normal course of their operations may not otherwise have had happened. What then can emerge from these ‘uncommon conversations’ are ‘unexpected opportunities’.

ISSUES AND INSIGHTS When reflecting on the SCI’s achievements and experiences, there emerges a set of observations and issues – ‘insights’ – for wider and deeper consideration. These insights suggest future areas of need and focus for both the SCI and the practice of cross-sector partnering approaches to sustainable development in Australian communities. These include: •

Building individual and institutional competency and capacity for collaboration


6

•

Identifying and supporting the development of partnership brokers and developing tools/processes to support the brokering function.

•

Reconsider our traditional problem-solving approaches and explore alternative models for solution seeking that shift the focus from ‘symptoms’ to ‘systems’ Assist individuals and groups to balance their focus between being ‘advocates’ for a position (or a solution) and being active ‘inquirers’ into the most appropriate response/solution

•

•

Consider collaborative approaches to ‘option development’ as a necessary process resulting in better informed investment decisions and more effective ‘solution implementation’

•

Explore how the cross-sector partnership model can be adapted to different contexts, and how these contexts might influence the nature of the partnering process

•

Creating broader understanding of the challenges, opportunities and constraints inherent within the partnering model and how this relates to the ways in which policy and programs are conceived and delivered

•

Understanding the role of ‘action learning’ in partnerships as an approach to assist individuals and organisations deal with the uncertainty, complexity and risk inherent in complex challenges and opportunities

LOOKING FORWARD At the conclusion of Year Two of the SCI’s operations the program is progressing well. There are multiple projects underway, a suite of projects set to commence with RDV in Victoria, other projects under development, and an agreed forward work program building on the SCI’s research, evaluation & learning, and communication activities. Notwithstanding these positives there are still operational issues to be addressed, including: • Focusing on delivering projects underway and under development • Working closer with organisations to address institutional barriers to collaboration • Investing further in communication and knowledge brokering activities. Beyond addressing these operational issues, SCI participants and stakeholders have expressed a strong desire to build on the foundation created by the SCI. The SCI in its current form will formally conclude at the end of 2009. Consideration is being given to ‘where to next’ for the SCI. Areas for future focus that build on the SCI program and address the insights and issues identified include: •

Training, learning & mentoring: building individual competency and institutional capability for collaboration, and developing and supporting partnership brokers and brokering activities


7

•

Action research: undertaking projects (themed to policy agendas such as climate change, social inclusion, closing the gap, etc) as a means to deliver outcomes for communities, benefits for project participants, and insights for others

•

Evaluation: continued evaluation of cross-sector partnerships in practice to better understand and measure success in both process and outcome

•

Sharing and promotion: sharing and promoting good practice and emerging knowledge, tools and frameworks from project experiences and connections with key national and international organisations

•

Network and events: actively develop and maintain networks across sectors and host events in order to share ideas, learnings and connect individuals and organisations with project opportunities

•

Recognising achievement: documenting and providing recognition as a means to showcase examples of leadership and good practice

•

Advisory & Brokering Services: Provide an advisory service to Govt and others wanting information on cross-sector partnering and connection to potential partners/projects

•

APS Development: Create forums for policy development discussion on major issues requiring input from across sectors and operate a secondment program for APS staff to develop and participate in cross-sector partnering projects

Presently, a range of appropriate options/models that will build on and extend the practice of cross-sector partnering and place based responses to sustainability challenges and opportunities, are being explored by the SCI for future consideration.

Sean Rooney Director – Sustainable Communities Initiative 31st August 2008


8

INTRODUCTION In mid 2006, fourteen organisations from business, government, research and civil society sectors committed to work together in the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) over a three year period (2006–2009). The report, Working Together~Learning Together II, covers the period from 1st July 2007 to 30th June 2008. This report builds on the earlier Working Together~Learning Together I report, which provided an overview of the SCI’s performance in 2006/07. The report provides the following: • Background overview of the SCI’s intent, methodology and conceptual foundations • Summary of SCI Project activities • Summary of SCI Evaluation and Learning activities • Summary of SCI Science activities • Summary of SCI Communication activities • Evaluation of SCI performance against operational plan and budget • SCI Achievements • SCI Reflections • SCI Insights and Issues • Looking Forward

BACKGROUND The Sustainable Communities Initiative is a program designed to bring together organisations from across the public, private and civil society sectors, to work in partnership with communities, to develop and deliver local solutions to local sustainability challenges and opportunities. The SCI is founded on the understanding that: 1. Communities are facing a number of issues that are complex in nature such as climate change, environmental degradation, population migration, and social and economic disadvantage 2. In responding to these complex issues, no one sector (public, private or civil society) has all the answers, and 3. Effective solutions require more systemic, collaborative and integrated responses. Bringing together organisations from across different sectors, and working collaboratively with communities is not a common practice for most. As such, the SCI is an ‘action learning’ program that, through partnership projects, provides a vehicle that brings together participants from across communities, governments, businesses, NGO’s and research organisations, to learn and experience how to better work together to address local sustainability issues. Individually, SCI projects deliver community scale benefits and create value for project participants. Collectively, SCI projects provide insights and evidence for informing future policy, programs and practice. The foundation principles of the SCI are: • Collaboration: harnessing and focussing effort and resources through partnership • Integration: seeking solutions to complex issues by effectively combining knowledge, competencies and resources from across partners and communities


9

•

Innovation: developing and delivering 21st Century solutions to 21st Century challenges.

The SCI’s foundation principles are expressed through the SCI’s conceptual framework represented by the SPARK model. The model is intended to illustrate the idea that Solutions to complex issues are a function of Partnering, Actions, Reflection and Knowledge.

In working together to address local sustainability challenges and opportunities key principles embedded in our approach are: • Embrace the complexity and interconnectedness and accept the uncertainty inherent in a dynamic world • Learn how to integrate multiple and diverse perspectives in addressing challenges and opportunities • Experience new ways of working together across traditional sectoral and institutional boundaries • Innovate, experiment and learn from project experiences in order to create new knowledge, share understandings and realise ‘on-ground’ outcomes • Portfolio approach where individually projects deliver outcomes for communities and benefits for participants, and collectively they provide insights informing future policies, programs and practices.


10

SCI MEMBERS Over the course of 2007/08 there were 16 organisations participating in the SCI as members. SCI members are categorised as either Foundation Members or Associate Members. SCI members are selected based on their interests and commitment to sustainable development ideals and activities, as demonstrated in their respective operations. In addition members were identified for the range of skills, competencies and resources they each bring to SCI activities.

SCI Foundation Members are as follows:

SCI Associate Members are as follows:


11

PROJECT ACTIVITIES To date the SCI has undertaken six partnership projects in communities around Australia. These projects involve energy conservation and residential planning in Victoria; sustainable regional development in both a mining boom region and popular tourism region of Queensland; urban renewal in the Australian Capital Territory; and improving the linkages between natural resource and development managers in a growing region of Western Australia. In addition to these six projects, a further eight projects were developed. The table below provides an overview of the key attributes of the six active projects.

Eastlake (ACT)

Maine’s Power (VIC)

Lockerbie (VIC)

Surat Basin (QLD)

Whitsunday (QLD)

Avon Basin (WA)

X

X

THEME

Built environment

X

Climate change

X

NRM

X

X

X

X

X

X

Regional development

X

X

X

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

1 to 5

X

6 to 10 10+

X

X X

X

X

X

X

PARTICIPANT SECTORS

Private Public (Local)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Public (State)

X

X

X

Public (Fed.)

X

X

X

X

NGO

X

X

X

Research

X

X

X

X

X

X

current

current

completed

current

current

current

STATUS


X

12

Brief summary information on all SCI projects appears below:

Planning the sustainable urban renewal of East Lake Location:

Canberra - Australian Capital Territory

Objective: Create a national showcase demonstrating innovation in sustainable urban redevelopment by embracing social, economic, and environmental sustainability principles, technologies and practices in redeveloping East Lake. Timeframe:

Phase One – July 2007 to June 2008

Project Cost:

$424,150

Achievements: • Extensive stakeholder engagement conducted in October/November 2007 • Shared learning and evaluation trips with ACTPLA and CSIRO staff to Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth to engage with leading thinkers on innovation in sustainable urban development • Successful workshops involving diversity of stakeholders, which set the vision, goals and performance measures for East Lake redevelopment • Development and demonstration of a prototype web-based software toolkit that provides integrated sustainability assessment at sub-division scale • Significant media attention for the project, including articles in local press, radio and television interviews/segments, and feature article in ECOS magazine (April 2008) • National attention in professional arena evidenced by invitations to present to Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Planning Institute of Australia, Engineers Australia and VicUrban • International interest expressed through engagement with The Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative • Strong participation in project activities by several SCI members • ACT Government and Westpac exploring innovation in financing models for public housing • Based on performance to date the ACT Government has committed a further $1.7million for East Lake redevelopment planning. Status: • Reporting and deliverables for Phase One of the project currently being finalised • Phase Two scope of works under development. East Lake Context Map Re-produced with permission of ACTPLA.


13

Maine’s Power Location:

Castlemaine - Victoria

Objective: Work to deliver a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of the four largest energy consumers in Castlemaine by 2010. In doing so, contribute to a zero net emissions goal for the Shire by 2020, whilst simultaneously increasing the security of energy supply. This will be achieved by: • improving energy efficiency to reduce GHG emissions by 30% whilst maintaining productivity; and • embedding low carbon emission energy generation within the Castlemaine Substation area and/or individual businesses. Timeframe:

July 2007 to November 2008

Project Cost:

$397,250

Achievements: • Local partners actively engaged and supportive of the project as well as strong engagement of relevant SCI members • Undertook research and produced report on “Drivers and Barriers to Alternative Energy” • Gathered data on energy consumption and mapped the energy usage profile of the town and the four businesses and presented to project participants in Stage One report • Identified initial energy efficiency and demand management improvements for the facilities • Gained agreement from all four facilities to conduct formal energy audits at each site to provide more detailed analysis of potential energy efficiency and demand management options • Conducted a workshop to develop plan to examine detailed energy solution options for the four facilities to consider • Feature article in ECOS magazine (October 2007) • Feature article in The Age (16/2/08) • Significant local and national interest and profile for the project including invitation to produce case study for the Garnaut Climate Change Review. Status: • Progressing to agreed milestones.

The historic township of Castlemaine.


14

“Lockerbie” sustainable greenfield development Location:

Melbourne - Victoria

Objective: Using Delfin Lend Lease’s “Lockerbie” development as a working case study, develop an assessment framework for measuring sustainability attributes of the development and undertake a participatory integrated assessment of “Lockerbie” master plan based on the performance framework. Timeframe:

August 2007 to March 2008

Project Cost:

$30,000

Achievements: • Designed and facilitated a participatory stakeholder scoping workshop • Established the high-level goals and objectives for the development • Developed an integrated assessment framework with a holistic set of "performance" indicators that go beyond the triple-bottom-line (summarised in a workshop synthesis report, with brainstorming session mind maps and preliminary assessment of Lockerbie plans) • Provided/distributed a primer on integrated assessment of urban development and a set of key literature on sustainability indicators for urban development, guiding Delfin Lend Lease project team in further development of the master plan • Delfin Lend Lease staff reporting workshop outcomes significantly influencing their conceptual approach future greenfield developments • Delfin Lend Lease and Origin Energy working together on developing distributed energy generation technologies for integration into greenfield developments. Status: • Project completed and project report in production.

‘Lockerbie’ partners and stakeholders discuss sustainability issues.


15

Scoping study - Surat Basin sustainable futures Location:

Surat Basin – Queensland

Objective: Through a scoping study assess the potential impacts of energy resource development in the Surat Basin region from a community perspective and identify viable options for intervention to mitigate potentially undesirable outcomes. Timeframe:

December 2007 to July 2008

Project Cost:

$75,000

Achievements: • The project team conducted a comprehensive literature research on social impacts of mining in Queensland, Australia and beyond • Five focus groups in Roma, Dalby, Chinchilla and Toowoomba were held to identify local social issues and drivers of change • A community workshop was conducted in Dalby to report back to the local and regional representatives and to develop regional and local responses for mitigating negative social impacts and making the most of the potential for regional economic and social development • A report on the main issues and potential responses was produced and released to the communities in the Surat Basin in August 2008 • A scientific article looking at the temporal asymmetry of capacity building and economic transformation in mining regions is being prepared • Delivered a scoping study identifying major areas of social impact and suggesting options for a set of responses for enhancing regional and community capacity for mining and energy driven regional economic development in the Surat Basin. Status: • Scoping Study report undergoing final review prior to release.

Focus groups were held in Surat Basin communities.


16

Sustainable Whitsundays: Integrating and realising the vision Location:

Whitsunday - Queensland

Objective: Work with local stakeholders to harness the social capital of the region to adaptively integrate and realise the vision for the shire in a sustainable manner. Timeframe:

October 2007 to September 2008

Project Cost:

$176,000

Achievements: • Completion of field interviews and preliminary analyses of data • Completion of historical analysis and report produced • Completion of secondary data procurement and compilation. Status: • Draft report synthesising interviews, secondary data and history, and providing recommended options for next steps due to be submitted to Council in September 2008.

The SCI is helping develop a sustainable vision for the future of the Whitsundays


CSIRO project leader Dr Tim Lynam conducts a workshop.

17

Linking NRM and sustainable development in the Avon River Basin Location:

Avon Catchment – Western Australia

Objective: Enhance Natural Resource Management (NRM) outcomes through improving partnerships with planning and management institutions across the Avon Catchment. Timeframe:

December 2007 to December 2008

Project Cost:

$291,026

Achievements: • Project Advisory group established and operating • Completion of preliminary classification of local governments in the Avon Region by resource management need and management capability • Critical review of institutional arrangements supporting NRM completed • In-depth interviews with local government representatives completed involving co-research with Natural Resource Management Officers in the region. Status: • Progressing to agreed milestones.

Avon Basin landscape.


18

Planning for change Location:

Five rural communities in regional Victoria

Objective: Provide a systemic and participatory approach to understanding the drivers and impacts of change in rural communities and planning appropriate responses. Timeframe:

12 months

Project Cost:

$450,000 (approx)

Status:

Community selection process underway

Planning for sustainable population growth Location:

Guyra – New South Wales

Objective: Provide participatory processes and decision support within the Guyra Shire Council and local community to enable the town to pursue population growth aspirations in ways that will deliver benefits across social, economic and environmental factors. Timeframe:

4 months

Project Cost:

$75,000

Status:

Project scope agreed and funding being sought

Coliban/Campaspe catchment water futures Location:

Coliban/Campaspe Catchment – Victoria

Objective: Provide a strategic and participatory approach to better manage the region’s water resources by adapting lifestyles, work practices and community values. Timeframe:

12 months

Project Cost:

$247,000

Status:

Project scope agreed and funding being sought


19

Port Stephens – 2031 sustainable futures Location:

Port Stephens – New South Wales

Objective: Develop a long term integrated strategy for Port Stephens based upon the highest level of shared vision and strategic directions derived from meaningful community engagement. Underpinning the strategy will be integrated planning, systematic data management, and a governance framework comprising Council, State Government Agencies, Interest Group representatives and members of the community for advisory and implementation purposes. Timeframe:

2 months

Project Cost:

$45,000

Status:

Project terminated – unable to secure funding

Macleay options, values and enterprise Location:

Macleay Valley – New South Wales

Objective: Enhance the capacity for the Macleay Valley community to develop and progress collaborative, innovative and integrated solutions to local economic, social and environmental challenges. Timeframe:

14 months

Project Cost:

$380,000

Status:

Project terminated - unable to secure funding


20

EVALUATION & LEARNING ACTIVITIES1 Effective evaluation of the SCI and its project activities is critical to the learning process. Evaluation outputs are used to strengthen the partnering and project methodology and improve the operational effectiveness of the SCI. As an action learning program, regular reflection on SCI progress and impact is undertaken to enable ongoing adaptation of the program and project activities. A central element in the process-oriented SCI is learning. In the SCI’s approach, learning comes from observation, reflection, and evaluation of interventions set in the project communities. Bearing in mind that there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions to local sustainability issues, evaluation and learning is key not only for the success of the individual project, but for the development of the SCI approach as a whole. In 2007/08 an Evaluation & Learning Coordinator position was created in the SCI. In cooperation with the SCI Director and SCI Science Leader, the Evaluation & Learning Coordinator: • develops and embeds evaluation and learning activities in each of the SCI projects; • draws key learnings of process-related matters from each of the community projects and feeds them into a general evaluation and learning framework; and • assists with monitoring and evaluation activities in the individual community engagement processes. Dr Rachel Williams commenced as the SCI Evaluation & Learning coordinator in 2007/08. Her activities directly feed into the development of the SCI model and highlights the importance of reflexivity and revisitation to ensure robustness of the process, which is a unique research approach within CSIRO. Core to the SCI is the development and testing of an Evaluation and Learning framework over the course of the program. Through the framework, the SCI aims to: • Embed learning processes into the SCI and projects • Identify project outcomes and the reasons behind them • Evaluate SCI and project performance • Distill learnings and insights from SCI and project experiences. To date, SCI learning and evaluation has been informed by: • Action Learning Cycle and Multiple Loop Learning models2 • Program Logic3 • Most Significant Change (MSC) technique4 • Theory of Change model5. 1

For detailed Evaluation and Learning report see Attachment One Marquardt, M.J (1999) Action Learning in Action: Transforming problems and people for World Class Organisational Learning, USA, Davies Black Publishing 3 Kellog Foundation (2004) “Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation and Action: Logic Model Development Guide”, http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf, Date accessed April 2007 4 Davies, R. and Dart, J. (2005) The Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique: A guide to its use, http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm, Date accessed April 2007 5 Anderson, A.A (2004) The Aspen Institute “Theory of Change as a Tool for Strategic Planning” http://www.theoryofchange.org/ Date accessed August 2008 2


21

Interim (formative) evaluations have been conducted for the East Lake and Maine’s Power projects and a combined process and summative evaluation for the Lockerbie project. Feedback has also been gathered from SCI members on their experience of the SCI Advisory Committee and their engagement in projects. The focus of the project evaluations has been on: • the effectiveness of the engagement processes between the participants and wider stakeholders in the projects, including SCI members • barriers and enablers to accessing project funding • impacts of the project to date, such as new insights, changed practices and wider impacts beyond the projects • benefits to participants Information for the evaluations was collected through a combination of one-on-one interviews and informal discussions with project participants and stakeholders, and observation at meetings and workshops. Thinking around the Evaluation and Learning framework has evolved considerably since the beginning of the SCI program. There has always been some ambiguity around the focus of the evaluation. From a research perspective, we are interested in understanding what contributes to (and inhibits) the development of effective cross-sectoral partnerships, which were anticipated to develop within projects. In addition, it is of interest to track the evolution of the SCI at the level of the Advisory Committee level. This learning focus led to the development of a formative/process evaluation approach, based around a set of criteria that were understood from the literature to be important in effective participation and partnership practice. However, from the partners’ perspective, there also needs to be an assessment of project impacts and outcomes, as well as of benefits to them. Initially this was seen to require more of a Program Logic approach, however it quickly became apparent that that was inconsistent with an Action Learning philosophy. Program logic is a deductive approach, in that it poses a hypothesis about change and then tests to see if that approach is going as it “should”. In the case of the SCI, we are doing something new. Exploration of the literature so far has not revealed a partnership approach that bears much resemblance to it. Therefore, while it is possible to identify some starting points about what will enable effective partnership, based on existing knowledge about relationship development and other types of partnerships, it is not possible to anticipate all that will need to be measured. In addition, partnerships are frequently referred to as having a range of stages, or evolving over time, and needing to have different things evaluated at different points. Therefore, there needs to be scope for being open to unanticipated enablers or barriers to effective partnership, such as having a more inductive approach. The Most Significant Change approach is of this nature, however it focuses primarily on impacts and outcomes, rather than endeavouring to understand what contributed to their achievement. From a methods perspective, the projects are designed to take an action learning approach, which in itself already incorporates self-monitoring by the project participants. In this context, it seems inconsistent to introduce assessment by an external evaluator, as this reverts back to the paradigm of scientist as objective observer, which is precisely what is being rejected through the practice of participatory action research.


22

A possible way forward would be to consider that an important initial activity for the project team, possibly in collaboration with some key stakeholders, would be to develop an initial Theory of Change conceptual model for the project and their own evaluation framework, which would guide the project evaluation. The Theory of Change model of the project would be an adaptive model that reflects the learning arising from the experience of project implementation. The model would be established in a facilitated workshop process at one of the first project meetings. This could be preceded by a Systems Thinking workshop, to develop a collective understanding of the interconnections between issues in the project domain. This process would assist in the initial identification of project objectives and developing actions towards achieving them. It was apparent from the current suite of projects that, while each of them had a project plan for the tangible, task aspects of the project, it was very difficult for project leaders to articulate a process model for partnership development. As a result, it may be more effective to defer this to later group discussions, where participants could collectively develop a conceptual model of partnership development, based on their own experiences. What potentially contributes to the learning within communities is self-monitoring and feedback, and the development of their capacity to continue to implement this type of activity beyond the formal lifetime of the project. In the next phase of the SCI, with the Regional Development Victoria projects, it is intended to develop a more participatory approach to project evaluation, which would include opportunities for group reflection, rather than only receiving the collated feedback from a series of one-on-one interviews.


23

SCIENCE ACTIVITIES In order to enhance the scientific value of the SCI, especially regarding the development of a general, transferable, and flexible model that is applicable beyond the specific project context, the SCI was joined by a research scientist in the role of ‘science leader’ for the SCI. Dr Clemens Grunbuhel joined in April 2008 and his function is to: • align community projects in SCI with state-of-the-art methods and theory development, and • feed insights of the SCI experience into the international scientific community In essence, the new science leadership position ensures CSIRO’s participation in SCI projects benefits communities and contributes to the science agenda in this domain. CSIRO can therefore positively contribute to community development by providing information used in local decision making processes, whilst its primary research agenda is realised and community learning fed into the development of novel approaches to trans-disciplinary research. While the development of cross-sector partnership and community engagement models are both an input to forthcoming projects as well as an outcome of the SCI, it is clear that such models are refined according to the experiences gained in the community projects. Some features, however, are integral to the scientific approach followed within SCI. These features are: • An evaluation and learning framework is integral to each project, both benefiting the individual case as well as the development of the general model • Likewise, the analyses conducted in the communities follow a systemic approach and integrate social and biophysical characteristics of socio-ecological systems • All projects are transdisciplinary as well as participatory, i.e. cooperate equally with non-scientists (as is the nature of cross-sector partnership projects) and formulate the research question in cooperation with immediate stakeholders (postnormal science approach) • In essence, all SCI projects aim at sustainability transitions, i.e. manage change processes under uncertainty • SCI projects seek to develop uncommon project structures and thereby create non-standard interventions into the policy process • Interventions into socio-ecological system occur under conditions of uncertainty and complexity, i.e. linear cause-effect models cannot apply. Rather, interventions are set and outcomes may be direct or indirect, consume varying timeframes, and lead to varying degrees of benefit for the community. A theoretical background and a list of references representing the main influences for the thinking ongoing in the SCI are provided in the Attachment Two. From a scientific perspective, the SCI is an example of the paradigm of postnormal science (PNS), which comes out of the insight that traditional scientific methods are not capable of dealing with modern-day issues of complexity and uncertainty (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1992). The need to engage with the public when defining sustainability issues and facilitating a process of objective-setting is markedly different to the classical ‘expert’ approach, in which the specialist defines the problem and sets out to look for a solution. In PNS, questions we need to ask when dealing with sustainability problems are: • What constitutes sustainable development? • Who makes the decisions? • How are objectives decided upon?


24

So, in this context, there is a set of pre-analytical choices we have to make before engaging in the actual scientific analysis and devising of the solution to our problem. Being process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented, PNS concentrates on dialogue with involved actors, recognizes uncertainty, the negotiability of values, and the plurality of legitimate perspectives. Rather than searching for the ‘correct’ solution, robustness of the process is sought by engaging stakeholders and contrasting varying perspectives. Scientific solutions are assessed according to their usefulness and adequateness in the process. In PNS, sustainable development is about (cf. Giampietro 2004): • Social learning • What stakeholders agree it to be • Understanding the socio-ecological predicament • Recognising legitimate contrasting perspectives • The readiness to negotiate contrasting perspectives • Recognising the presence of uncertainty and indeterminacy • Adaptiveness, not reductionism. PNS does not discard or oppose traditional science. Rather, PNS makes use of traditional science to verify solutions within their own domain, but must be aware that results are up to negotiation by the social actors involved in the process. The process of generation of knowledge is iterative and constantly re-negotiated. Following the above-mentioned distinction between the descriptive and normative aspects of PNS, we have two components that help handling the new challenges posed by sustainability research: (1) Integrated Analysis and (2) participatory research. Both these elements are hallmarks of the SCI approach.


25

COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES Effective communication is a key determinant of SCI performance. The SCI model is dependent upon relationships and dialogue across multiple actors and organisations, be they SCI members, project teams, communities, stakeholders or the wider community. Operating in this mode requires consistent effort and attention to communication activities. Major SCI communication activities in the period included: • SCI communication planning workshop led by WWF Australia with participants from CSIRO and Parsons Brinckerhoff • SCI quarterly e-newsletters produced and distributed to approx 500+ recipients (representing growth of around 75% in number of recipients based on 2006/07 distribution) • Formal presentations at key events including: European Academy of Business in Society Colloquium 6th National Stakeholder Communication Conference NSW Landcare Forum CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Science Forum Melbourne Business School MBA dinner Cambridge University Sustainable Development Leadership program • Assorted project communication activities • Multiple articles/interviews in local/national media showcasing the SCI and specific SCI projects (see below for summary table) PROJECT Castlemaine East Lake Whitsunday SCI Program TOTAL •

RADIO 1 9 -

WEB 2 1

PRINT 8 10 3 7

TV 1 2 -

TOTAL 10 23 3 8

10

3

28

3

44

Steady incremental growth in hits on SCI web page with large increases in May and June 2008 related to recent ECOS magazine articles (see below for web hits data table). SCI Web Hits (2007-2008) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct


Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

26

Resources within CSIRO to provide some communication support for the SCI have been secured with the recent appointment of a communicator for the Sustainable Regional Development research theme. In June 2008 funding from DEWHA was secured to contribute to the resourcing of dedicated knowledge brokering/communication function in the SCI. A number of communication issues were identified during SCI evaluation activities that are important to consider for the SCI: • As the public profile of projects increased, the level of interest generated created a high communications load on the project leader(s), with the high number of requests they received for information. It would be useful to develop strategies for dealing with this situation before it arises in future projects. • Communication protocols between partner organisations regarding who will represent a project at media events need to be clarified in advance, as they can take some time to work through. • Branding of the initiative is challenging at two levels:While the SCI is hosted through CSIRO, there has been concern from some SCI members that it is seen primarily as a CSIRO initiative, and does not adequately reflect their contribution Juggling the maintenance of the profile of the SCI and that of the project’s CSIRO research theme, when most projects are run through a range of different themes, which each need to put their own brand on the project. • Many of the SCI members have expressed a desire to have material that they can use to market the SCI internally in their own organisations, as the concept and modus operandi often take people a while to understand. • The diversity of the SCI stakeholders means that it requires a similar diversity of communication styles and messages to communicate effectively with all interested parties.


27

OPERATIONAL PLAN PERFORMANCE SCI performance against Operational Plan milestones in Year Two was satisfactory. The table below details performance against stated objectives: OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE

NOTE

Achieved

SCI transitioned from implementation focus of Year One into full operations in Year Two.

SCI fully operational

SCI membership as at 30/6/08 Public Sector – 5

SCI members secured and retained

Achieved Private Sector – 7 NGO Sector – 3 # of Projects: Prospects – 3 Under Development – 5

Project portfolio operational

Achieved Current – 5 Completed – 1 Terminated – 2

Communication activities delivered as per comms plan

Achieved (in part)

Evaluation & Learning activities delivered as per E&L plan

Further resourcing secured for SCI program operations

Achieved

Comms plan developed and only partially implemented due to resourcing constraints E&L framework developed and applied in SCI projects and program activities E&L Coordinator recruited Australian Government Funding Contributions in 2007/08:

Achieved

Joint NRM Team - $45K DEWHA - $100K

Commence exploration of SCI model beyond 2009


Achieved

Early stage development activities underway

28

SCI ACHIEVEMENTS Upon reflection on the SCI’s activities over the past two years, a number of significant achievements have been accomplished. These achievements are evidenced through the SCI’s learning and evaluation activities, informal feedback from SCI stakeholders, and recognition from key sustainable development and crosssector partnership thought and practice leaders. SCI achievements include:

Proof of Concept Over the past two years the SCI has successfully transitioned from an innovative concept into a fully functioning, cross-sector partnership with national reach. The SCI project portfolio includes six projects in full operation, five projects set to commence, and a further four projects under development. Estimated total value of SCI operations is approxiamately $4million. The SCI membership of 15 organisations from across the public, private, civil society and research sectors is vibrant, engaged and effective at both program and project scales. In addition to these organisations, there are multiple others engaged in project level SCI activities ranging from local governments, state governments, catchment management authorities, medium sized enterprises, national associations, area consultative committees, and local community based organisations. Through SCI evaluation and learning activities evidence is accruing demonstrating effectiveness and impact for SCI partner communities and project participants.

Influencing Programs and Practice In addition to project level effectiveness and impact the SCI has demonstrated its ability to influence programs and practice. For example: In the East Lake urban redevelopment project in Canberra, interviews with senior ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) project participants reveals the influence their project experiences are having on the way they consider future development projects in the ACT. Specific comments include: • The East Lake project has “been enormously beneficial in terms of just changing the way we think a bit about planning projects”. • From this experience, ACTPLA reflects that “the benchmark in our minds is now set higher than it perhaps otherwise would have been, what we can achieve and what we can deliver.” And that “off-the-shelf planning products aren’t going to be suitable for the outcomes of this project. We’re going to have to create something new.” • Finally, with regards to working with SCI members, ACTPLA reflects that “bringing the thinking that comes with the SCI partners – that’s certainly opened up a whole conduit of connections and contact for us in terms of normal running of a project, that we would only by chance ever come across” • Further evidence of the value ascribed by the ACT Government to the East Lake project is recent commitment of $1.7million for the further planning and design of the East Lake urban redevelopment project and extension of the projected commencement date to further incorporate the sustainability challenges and opportunities revealed through this SCI project.


29

Based on Regional Development Victoria’s (RDV) experiences as a project partner in the Maine’s Power project in Castlemaine, RDV created a new program to support five SCI projects in regional Victorian communities. The projects will be based on the SCI’s cross-sector partnership model, and will provide a systemic and participatory approach to understanding the drivers and impacts of change in selected rural communities and planning appropriate responses. The projects will be undertaken as part of RDV’s “Planning for Change” program which is included in the Victorian Governments “Moving Forward: Making provincial Victoria the best place to live, work and invest” policy agenda. The SCI’s Surat Basin Sustainable Futures Scoping Study in Queensland is assisting local stakeholders to identify key issues and shape community and regional scale responses to the potential impacts of energy resources led development in the Surat Basin. Key project partner, the Southern Inland Queensland Area Consultative Committee, is sharing the scoping study results with local governments, regional bodies and relevant State Government Agencies in order to contribute to the formulation and implementation of appropriate policies and programs to effectively manage change in the region. Finally, insights and learnings from SCI experiences have been factored into the Department of Climate Change approach to Local Government climate change adaptation programs. The SCI Director provided input into the Department’s Local Government and Climate Change Adaptation pilot project and the insights and lessons revealed from this pilot program were incorporated into the national Local Government Adaptation Pathways Program.

Thought and Practice Leadership By sharing insights and learnings from our activities and experiences the SCI has been acknowledged as an emerging thought and practice leader in the domain of cross-sector partnerships for sustainable development. Examples include: • An invitation from the Garnaut Climate Change Review to produce a case study for inclusion in the final Garnaut Report on the Maine’s Power project in Castlemaine, as an example of good practice in collaborative action to reduce GHG emissions • The Maine’s Power project case study is featured in Australian Industry Group Environmental Management Handbook 2008, which showcases innovative approaches by companies in responding to environmental challenges • The SCI was approached by a number of organisations to provide services in the areas of cross-sector partnering strategy, training, and partnership brokering (including Australian Government Joint NRM Team, VicUrban and ACT Government) • The SCI Director was invited to join the Cambridge University Faculty for their Sustainable Development Leadership Program and using examples from SCI experiences in course materials • The SCI Director was awarded Adjunct Associate Professor role with the Griffith Business School with a focus on shaping business school curriculum to incorporate the sustainability agenda in the context of organisational strategy, and to engender appropriate skill sets and practices in future business leaders • Numerous invitations to speak at major sustainability and partnership focussed events nationally and internationally.


30

Sharing Valuable Insights The intent of the SCI, and its focus on collaboration and learning, resonates with a wide range of stakeholders. Through the SCI’s project experiences, insights are emerging that are valued by a diverse range of constituents. The SCI’s communication activities have enabled the SCI to share insights from SCI experiences with key stakeholders and, in doing so, has further enhanced its credibility and profile. Some examples include: • The SCI is showcased as an example of science impact in communities in CSIRO’s 2007/08 annual report • A number of articles in ECOS magazine (Australia´s leading magazine on sustainability in the environment, industry and community) on the SCI and individual SCI projects • Speaking invitations for major sustainability focussed events nationally and internationally • Significant local and national media profile for SCI projects.

Demonstrating Innovation A key underpinning principle of the SCI is that of innovation - seeking to do better through collaborative learning and experimentation - rather than simply replicating existing approaches to addressing local sustainability issues. The development and operation of the SCI program and its project activities demonstrates innovation in the following areas: • The SCI operating model is recognised by leading institutions (Cambridge University, International Business Leaders Forum, Australia Pacific Academy for Business in Society, etc) as a leading international example of innovation in cross-sector partnering • The SCI project approach of collaborative ‘options development’ as a precursor to ‘implementation’ is seen by many as a process innovation in place based reponses to sustainability issues • Incorporating learning in SCI project design; facilitating learning in project activities; and evaluating learning outcomes in SCI projects is an approach acknowledged by stakeholders as being of significant benefit and interest • In the East Lake SCI project, CSIRO has developed a prototype computer based integrated assessment tool to understand and model the interrelationships between development scale factors such as energy, water, transport, etc. • In the “Lockerbie” greenfield development and East Lake projects, CSIRO developed and trialled a participatory, integrated assessment framework incorporating a holistic set of ‘development performance’ indicators and a process for evaluating performance.

Catalyst for Action Each SCI project catalyses action amongst project participants and within communities. In addition to project related action and activities, evidence is emerging of complementary activities and opportunities, beyond the scope of SCI projects, that appear as by-products of engagement in the SCI. Examples of such activities include: • Maine’s Power – based on shared experiences in working together in the SCI project, local project participants are exploring other areas for collaboration, including: models for shared business services arrangements, and collaborative


31

•

•

•

approaches to developing strategies for local skills attraction, development and retention “Lockerbie” greenfield development – through relationships forged in SCI project activities, Delfin Lend Lease and Origin Energy are working together on developing distributed energy generation technologies for integration in greenfield developments East Lake urban redevelopment – in project workshop activities financing needs for public housing were discussed between ACT Government representatives and Westpac. From this initial conversation both parties are exploring potential options for innovative public housing financing models. SCI members – CSIRO is exploring an innovative program seeking to create a ‘zero emissions home’. Several SCI member organisations have engaged with lead researchers to further explore this opportunity.


32

SCI REFLECTIONS Based on the collective experiences and reflections of SCI members and project participants, synthesised through the SCI’s Evaluation and Learning activities, a number of key themes are emerging. The emerging themes provide insight into the value and challenges of working together in a cross-sector partnership and suggest areas for further exploration/improvement in the context of SCI operations. Significantly, they also provide insights for consideration beyond the operations of the SCI. Legitimacy of Cross-Sector Partnership A consistent theme emerging from the SCI experience is the legitimacy of the CrossSector Partnering model. There is clear acknowledgement that most sustainability issues are complex and therefore require more integrated and systemic responses. As such the SCI is playing an important role in fostering new thinking and innovative approaches in this area. There are several factors contributing to the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the SCI’s cross-sector partnering approach including: • A general increase in the awareness of the major challenges and their potential impacts on the sustainability of Australian communities (including climate change, rapid urbanisation, population migration, demographic shifts, global economic forces, increasing resource constraints, etc) and the acknowledgement that the very of nature of these issues require collaborative solutions • A shift in the role of business in society with a move within the private sector towards becoming both more responsible in their practices (corporate responsibility) and more actively engaged in responding to broader societal issues (corporate citizenship) • Acknowledgement within governments that the ‘wicked problems’6 facing public policy makers require a more ‘connected government’7 approach in conceiving and implementing more effective responses • Adoption within the civil society sector of more collaborative, rather than combative, modes of operation • Evolution within the research community of the validity and value of participatory modes of scientific research • A growing desire within communities for greater and/or more effective participation in local decision making and local action in response to local issues manifest in the notion of active citizenry • Emergence of new models and processes of governance including ‘adaptive governance’, ‘second track’ processes, and ‘citizen juries’ • A willingness for participants to work together collectively to achieve what they cannot individually. In the SCI, the collaborative solution seeking process is by its nature ambiguous, uncertain and risky. Operating in this environment is challenging for many so the SCI’s focus on action learning provides a ‘safe space’ for participants to explore innovative thought and action. Providing a domain for learning that is both ‘safe’ and ‘collegiate’ encourages participation and innovation and further justifies the validity of the SCI’s approach. 6

Australian Public Service Commission “Tackling Wicked Problems: A public policy perspective” http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.htm 7 Management Advisory Committee (2004) Connecting Government: whole-of-government responses to Australia’s priority challenges


33

Nature of Projects From a traditional project management perspective, SCI projects appear unusual because they are ‘option development’ projects rather than ‘implementation’ projects. In other words, they encompass what might more commonly be recognised as a project development or design activity. This means that the specific SCI project outcomes are generally ill-defined at the beginning of an SCI project, even though it may be designed to contribute to a fairly clear long-term goal. As action-learning projects, it is also anticipated that the project plan will be adapted over time as the projects seek to innovate in solution seeking, rather than simply replicate existing models. This has presented significant challenges in terms of (i) getting funding for SCI projects and (ii) for SCI member engagement, when both funding bodies (usually State or Federal government) and SCI member organisations prefer to have a reasonable degree of certainty in relation to what will happen during a project and what they are likely to get out of contributing to it. Those projects which have had the greatest traction with funders and SCI members are those where the ‘community’ has had a clearly identified need or issue, such as: • The Mt Alexander project - reducing GHG emissions • The East Lake and Lockerbie projects – creating a sustainable urban development in a specified location. Further compounding this situation is that the SCI presents a somewhat different mode of operating. Traditionally, most organisations work together by way of procurement arrangements that establish clear roles of participants as either ‘purchasers’ or ‘service providers’. The SCI model seeks to create a more collegiate model whereby partners are attracted to work together in pursuit of a common goal, and that through the realisation of this objective both individual and collective benefits will be realised. Operating in this mode is challenging for some organisations/individuals. Another uncommon aspect of the SCI approach is that project participants are: • engaged across the entire project cycle, and • are ‘front loaded’ into the process. Engagement across the entire project cycle sees project participants actively contributing to projects as they progress from idea generation through to on-ground realisation. This is different to most common practices that see project partners only sought once the project is conceived, scoped, designed and is ready for implementation. Similarly, by virtue of the SCI having a formal structure that establishes relationships with a number of project participants from across the public, private and civil society sectors (the SCI members), it has ready access to a range of expertise, knowledge and resourcing, thereby ‘front loading’ potential partners into the project cycle process. Working together in partnership, through the whole project cycle, enables the collective expertise of the partners to be brought to all aspects of the project, including issue identification and project scoping. This has the potential to generate a much richer and more robust approach to the sustainability challenges to be addressed than a model where it is primarily ‘the client’s’ perspective which determines the nature of the issue and ‘the provider’ is left to determine the solution,


34

remaining within the prescribed terms of reference. Working together in partnership means that the contextual knowledge of the issue ‘owner’ and the more generic expertise of the other partners are present together as the project is developed, which enables approaches to be developed which are both contextually appropriate and viable, and not limited by a pre-determined scope of work. The factors driving these attributes of the SCI’s approach are complexity, uncertainty, and change dynamics prevalent in the challenges and opportunities in Australian communities that the SCI is addressing. Organisational Culture Impacting on the ability of organisations to work together is organisational culture. Within the SCI our experience has shown a spectrum of organisational cultures that at one end provide an enabling environment that values innovation, learning, focus on outcomes, and supports multiple connections both within the organisation and beyond. At the other end of this scale are organisational cultures that value compliance to process and uniformity, and are hierarchical and relatively internally disconnected and externally insular. The position of an organisation along this spectrum, in part, determines their willingness to partner, and overall effectiveness in partnering. It is the prevailing culture within the organisation that either encourages or discourages partnering activities. In considering organisational culture as a factor, it should be noted that within the SCI’s activities, traditional sectoral stereotypes do not appear to be consistent with our experiences. Our experience has shown that organisations, and for that matter communities, irrespective of sector or location, sit at various positions along the cultural spectrum. The impact of culture on partnership activities is manifest in institutional barriers to collaboration and inertia within some organisations. Seeking collaboration, innovation and learning across multiple organisations, from different sectors, and of varying sizes, has revealed at times a disconnect between organisational intent and the ability to translate this into action. This has been evidenced repeatedly during the SCI journey when seeking support for the SCI and projects and was not limited to any one sector. The contributing factors at play are a combination of: o The inability of organisational systems to deal with innovative and integrated approaches (both conceptually and structurally) o Systemic constraints inherent in bureaucratic processes where ‘compliance’ constrains opportunity for greater outcomes o An expectation that partnerships are required to deliver programs however limited understanding of how cross-sector partnerships operate in practice o Lack of acknowledgement of the value and importance of intangible factors as foundations for tangible outcomes in partnership projects. For example, the experiences of SCI members in retaining support for the initiative more broadly within their organisations vary widely, ranging from ultimately having to withdraw from the SCI to having a recognised role of ‘selling’ the SCI to the Board and coordinating with colleagues to ensure that involvement in projects doesn’t cut across other organisational activities. Both instances identified here are Corporate members. Conversely, support for the next phase of the SCI program from RDV came about through their recognition of the value of the inclusive, participatory approach being used in the Maine’s Power project and preparedness to explore that on a wider scale. This understanding was fostered through their participation in the project and strong vertical linkages within RDV that facilitated effective championing internally.


35

A determining factor in overcoming some of the barriers to collaboration that confront organisations and individuals operating within a culture that is not conducive to partnering is leadership. Leadership Within the context of the SCI’s activities, leadership has been a defining factor in performance to date. Leadership in this context is both individual and organisational. Organisationally, the SCI would not exist without SCI members and project partners committing to working and learning together. This commitment in itself is an act of leadership. However, agreement at the organisational level to work together is one thing - making this happen on the ground provides a whole new set of challenges. It is here that individual leaders emerge. It is well documented that leaders come in all shapes and sizes, and with equally varying styles. And so it is that our SCI experiences are revealing formal and informal leaders at all levels within participating organisations and communities. Hallmarks of the leadership shown by these individuals is a pro-active ‘can do’ attitude that enables them to identify opportunities and work within, and sometimes around, institutional/situational constraints to make things happen. Interestingly many of these leaders do not hold either formal or very senior leadership positions. They are, for most, both passionate and pragmatic individuals that focus on the possible, and then creatively set about to turn this into reality. They are the ‘sparks’ that ignite the interest and support of others to pursue challenging objectives. Examples include:• an SCI member who independently contacted many of the CSIRO and community project leaders to identify potential opportunities for working in projects • another who “dragged” the SCI Director into a senior manager’s office to provide an impromptu briefing for the senior manager • the local project leader in the Maine’s power project who has a remarkable capacity to bring diverse stakeholders together to pursue a common goal • senior managers in both RDV and ACTPLA who are highly skilled at navigating the political bureaucracy to get support for projects • vision shown by DEWHA’s SCI represenative in providing initial funding support for the SCI acting as a catalyst to other organisations to also commit • energy and passion shown by project participants in SCI member organisations and communities. Modes of Engagement From SCI project experiences, insights into different modes of participation in CrossSector Partnering are emerging. The different modes of engagement that are being reflected in the SCI program as a whole might be conceptualised as: • familiarisation (finding out about the project eg early meetings such as the Lockerbie and East Lake site visits, the Castlemaine workshop) • knowledge sharing (eg Lockerbie 2nd workshop, the two East Lake workshops) • collaborative planning (eg ACTPLA and CSIRO, Mt Alexander stakeholders) • collaborative implementation (at the nominal end of the project, once options have been identified).


36

The progression reflects increasing intensities of collaboration, rather than successive stages of a project. Each is progressively more challenging as it involves a greater depth of interaction. The engagement discussed in the SCI’s Year 1 Report was essentially in the familiarisation mode, while most of the SCI engagement to date could be described as knowledge sharing, and some collaborative planning, A key characteristic of both the familiarisation and knowledge sharing activities is that they have been aimed at understanding and exploration of the project domains, rather than decision-making fora. There have been several comments as to the value of creating this “safe space” which provides a domain for learning about the project among individuals, from many different perspectives, rather than having to immediately come to some collective decision, which often results in people defending a particular position. Perhaps what the varying modes of participation in the SCI’s cross-sector partnership approach reveals is that although a partnership project may follow a life cycle pattern through a number of clearly identifiable stages, partner participation may not necessarily follow a similar pattern either in sequence or level of participation. This gives rise to a possible issue of questioning what constitutes a ‘partner’ in a crosssector partnership. Exploring this line of questioning leads to the inevitable question of how to define a cross-sector partnership. At the commencement of the SCI journey the working definition for cross-sector partnership that was adopted by the SCI was taken from the World Economic Forum’s Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative - “Partnering for Success – Business Perspectives on Multi-stakeholder Partnerships” (2005). This report states that a ‘true partnership’ is a: • Voluntary collaboration • Built on respective strengths and core competencies of partners • Optimises the allocation of resources • Achieves mutually beneficial results over a sustained period, and • Creates linkages that increase resources, scale and impact. This definition was adopted more as an ideal, rather than a prescription, and it remains the working definition for cross-sector partnership within in the SCI. In the two SCI examples where the cross-sectoral engagement has been deeper, ie between CSIRO and ACTPLA on the East Lake project and the local stakeholders in Mt Alexander, certainly most of these criteria could be seen to hold true. Managing Diversity SCI experiences to date reveal that managing diversity is a defining characteristic of performance. A diverse range of participants provides a breadth of experiences and resources to draw from in developing and delivering SCI projects. However this also requires significant conscious focus on managing expectations across a diverse set of organisational values, drivers and cultures. Steve Waddell, in his book “Societal Learning & Change” (2005), captures the basis of the diversity across sectors in providing analysis of the ‘comparative distinctive attributes of sectors’ – see table below.


37

Public

Private

Civil Society

Political systems

Economic systems

Social systems

Voters/rulers

Owners

Members

Laws, police, fines

Money

Traditions & values

Societal order

Wealth creation

Healthy communities

Legality

Profitability

Justice

Public

Private

Group

Organisational Form

Governmental

For-Profit

Non-Profit

Operating Frame

Administrative

Managerial

Developmental

Rules

Transactions

Values

Election cycles

Fin.reporting & business cycles

Sustainability & regeneration cycles

Primary Concern Control Unit Primary Power Form Primary Goals Assessment Frame Goods Produced

Relationship Basis Temporal Framework

In this table Waddell shows the disparity within sectors across common factors. And it is this disparity that provides both opportunity and tension in the practice of crosssector partnering. One example of this tension playing out in practice is the difficultly some SCI projects have experienced in accessing project funding through Public Sector programs. In this case, Public Sector attributes of ‘operating frame’ and ‘temporal framework’ have been at odds with the intent and timing of the projects. The element that brings and holds together cross-sector partnerships is the notion of mutual benefit through working together to attain a goal that cannot be achieved independently. Operating in this mode is both challenging and rewarding and requires the ability to understand simultaneously each partners’ perspectives, manage individual and collective expectations, and maintain a focus on the overarching objective. Both the East Lake and Maine’s Power projects provide examples where this diversity has been successfully managed: •

Both CSIRO and ACTPLA have adapted their usual operating practices in order to work together: ACTPLA by arranging for a modified form of government project contract; and both organisations in simply working together, rather than in a client provider relationship. In addition, while the original project time-frame was determined by political cycles, the ACT government has now extended the project funding, based on the perceived value of the work.

•

In the Maine’s Power project, the key to Mount Alexander Sustainability Group being able to bring together the four businesses, Powercor and the Shire Council, has been their capacity to demonstrate that they all have a shared problem and that mutual benefit is possible through working together.

Value of Networks An attribute of the SCI model that is consistently mentioned as being valued by participants is the opportunity to meet and connect with individuals and organisations from across different organisations/sectors in an effective and efficient manner.


38

Through the SCI’s activities opportunities are provided for participants to connect through a variety of mechanisms. The value of these connections is that they can lead to ‘uncommon conversations’. These are conversations that take place between individuals/organisations that in the normal course of their operations may not otherwise have had happened. What then can emerge from these ‘uncommon conversations’ are ‘unexpected opportunities’. For example: • as a result of interactions with SCI members, ACTPLA are beginning to think about urban health aspects of sustainability and have also become aware of innovative financing mechanisms that could be applied to the East Lake development • through the “Lockerbie” Greenfield development project two SCI members are working together to develop a distributed energy generation solution suitable for greenfield developments • in Castlemaine local project partners are considering other areas for collaboration, including shared business services and trade skills development/attraction. SCI members also refer to the insights they are acquiring about how the other sectors operate, through their interactions with each other. In order to provide value creation opportunities from the SCI’s networks, there are several elements that need to be acknowledged as critical to achieving this. These include: • Diversity: in order to create uncommon conversations and unexpected opportunities there needs to be significant diversity across the network/s • Commitment: establishing a relationship with an individual/organisation is a relatively easy task in relation to continuing to actively manage and maintain the relationship. Building and maintaining relationships is timely, costly and requires effort and commitment. Having opportunities to meet face to face in the first instance also helps the establishment of the initial relationship. • Value: Commitment is more likely to be maintained if participants perceive that, over time, they are experiencing benefits as result of having the opportunities to interact with other members of the network. • Intent: the intent in engaging with actors within a network also appears to have a bearing on the value derived. An intent of exploration of mutual benefit and a sense of reciprocity seems to better engender opportunities as opposed to an exclusively self-interest intent. • Network hubs: networks are made up of a number of actors with some playing fundamental roles as nodes that can more easily connect one to many. Identifying and cultivating relationships with these ‘hubs’ is one way to effectively leverage the value of networks. Individuals who have links to more than one subgroup are also critical in enabling connections across the wider network.


39

SCI ISSUES AND INSIGHTS In distilling and synthesising reflections on SCI activities and experiences, it is important to consider these in the context of broader interests. When reflecting on the SCI’s achievements and experiences, there emerges a set of observations and issues – ‘insights’ – for wider and deeper consideration. These insights suggest future areas of need and focus for both the SCI and the practice of cross-sector partnering approaches to sustainable development in Australian communities. Competency and capacity for collaboration Individually and institutionally there is a need to develop and enhance competency and capacity for collaboration. SCI insights suggest a major barrier to successful partnering resides in the competency of individuals and the capacity of organisations to collaborate. This is manifest in a number of ways including individual behaviours, organisational cultures, and institutional processes and protcols. Similarly, the capacity of a ‘community’ to collaborate needs also to be considered. SCI experiences suggest a possible categorisation of community capacity across the spectrum of ‘proactive’, ‘reactive’, and ‘inactive’ communities. Issues of leadership, institutional relations, and individuaul/organisational connectivity within and across communities, appear to be factors influencing community capacity for collaboration. In this context, consideration needs to be given as to how the approach to partnership and project development changes when working with communities with differing levels of capacity. Future focus needs to be applied to developing the competency of individuals and the capacity of organisations/communities for collaboration. Further consideration needs to be given as to appropriate approaches to address this issue. ‘Honest’ Broker The ideal of integrating inputs from multiple perspectives/organisations and focusing them on sustainable outcomes for communities is compelling. However, there are many challenges. The inherent diversity of the participants brings with it competing drivers and value sets, inconsistent terminologies, divergent expectations and institutional/attitudinal barriers. Although not insurmountable these preconditions give rise to the need for new operating modes and skills. In this context, the role of an ‘honest’ broker is critical. The broker acts as the steward of the partnering process - “creating” the space to bring participants together and “keeping” the space open in order to build understanding across participants regarding the intent, vision, contribution and expectations of the partnership and the partners. In this way the broker is able to interpret the alignment between the partnership opportunity and each partners’ individual objectives, and seek to identify the value that participation in the partnership offers each of the partners. Essential attributes of the broker are both competency and character based and include the ability to understand and work amongst diverse world views, perceptions and interests. The broker must be: competent in communicating across sectors/cultures; experienced in managing the process of collaboration; and skilled in applying a range of techniques for working through the inevitable challenges presented. In addition, the broker must be seen to display character traits such as objectivity, credibility and trustworthiness – presenting to the partners as having no set agenda


40

other than facilitating the partnering process as a means to achieve the objective/s of the partnership project. Transparency in both the actions of the broker and process of partnering are key elements. Given the critical role the broker can play, and the increasing demand for collaborative responses to complex issues, further focus is needed in: understanding this role; identifying and supporting the development of partnership brokers; and developing tools and processes to support the brokering function. Symptoms vs Systems The range of challenges and opportunities facing communities are complex. Issues such as climate change, environmental degradation, and social disadvantage are complex because these challenges inextricably connect social, economic and environmental elements. Furthermore, the impacts of a changing climate and the responses required to mitigate and adapt to this challenge clearly demonstrates that we can no longer isolate environmental issues from economic and social influences and drivers. The complex nature of challenges such as this compels us to reconsider our traditional problem-solving approaches and explore alternative models for solution seeking. Our conditioned approach to understanding and managing our complex world has been to focus on individual components within the system and to specialise in their form and function, at times in isolation to the other parts of the system. Through addressing complexity in this manner, we have created specialised knowledge in elements of the system. Similarly, in applying this specialised knowledge we develop specialised responses, and the combination of these two factors has, in part, given rise to a false sense of control over the entire system. What is now required are ways that enable us to understand the multiple facets of the system, how they interact and how we can create and apply integrated responses. In practice this approach shifts our focus from ‘symptoms’ to ‘systems’. In SCI projects we are seeing the value of the participatory approach to learning and understanding about communities from a systems perspective. This assists in addressing the complexity and pace of change in communities, providing shared understanding of challenges and opportunities, and creating a foundation for collaborative action. Appropriate means to further develop this approach and build capacity for its application needs to be considered. Advocacy vs Inquiry In the organisational learning literature a key component for effective learning leading to better outcomes is the ability for individuals and groups to balance their focus between being ‘advocates’ for a position (or a solution) and being active ‘inquirers’ into the most appropriate response/solution. This can be difficult, as when problem solving, most of us are conditioned to figure out a solution and enlist support to implement it. Inquiry, however, requires us to acknowledge that we may not have the ‘right’ answer, that we need to seek perspectives and insights from others, and that our own, long held assumptions may be challenged. The SCI approach creates opportunities for individuals to experience the shift from ‘advocacy’ to ‘inquiry’. The SCI learning environment supports this by providing a safe space to collaboratively explore and develop options, thereby shifting participants focus from advocating for “my solution” to inquiring into, and agreeing upon, solutions that are socially acceptable, economically feasible, ecologically sound, and operationally practicable.


41

Senge states that “practicing inquiry and advocacy means being willing to expose the limitations in your thinking – the willingness to be wrong”8. This is can be very challenging when we operate in environments that do not support such admissions. Therefore an active approach to creating opportunities and ‘safe’ spaces for this way of operating needs to be encouraged. Options vs Implementation As noted earlier, the nature of SCI projects reveals a focus on collaborative ‘options development’ as opposed to ‘solution implementation’. The concept is that the notion of sustainability is about creating/increasing options and alternatives that make it possible to transition away from currently unsustainable systems and practices. Furthermore, through the process of collaborative option development, the foundations are laid for better and more effective solution implementation. The collaborative approach to option development is costly, time consuming and risky. However, early indications from the SCI’s project activities suggests that this up front investment leads to better informed investment decisions and (hopefully) more effective implementation. This will be tested as several SCI projects move into the ‘solution implementation’ stage in Year Three. Securing funding support for the ‘options development’ process as an investment in better decision making and foundation building for implementation is very challenging. Most funding programs, whilst seeking collaboration amongst proposers and well thought through investment plans to address often complex issues, in practice only support ‘implementation’ projects. In part this is due to the incompatability between the uncertain nature of the ‘options development’ process and the requirement for pre-determined outputs and outcomes in most funding programs. Regional Development Victoria’s ‘Planning for Change’ program provides one example of a public sector funding program willing to invest in ‘options development’. Future evaluation of this program will go some way in providing an evidence base to justify the up front investment in this process. Process across contexts An emerging property of the SCI cross-sector partnering approach is its potential application across a range of different contexts. This is evidenced, to a degree, by the diversity of issues addressed in SCI projects and their varied locations. And, as the SCI continues to evolve, future project opportunities are emerging in contexts such as Indigenous communities, communities where social and economic disadvantage are prevalent, and communities in the developing world. In addition, opportunities are evolving in contexts other than communities, such as businesses and community organisations. Translating the SCI’s partnership process across these contexts will further extend the diversity of participants and the depth of learning opportunities. Consideration of how the process of collaboration can be adapted to different contexts, and how these contexts might influence the nature of the process, is required.

8

Senge, P. “The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organisation” (1992) [p.202]


42

Partnerships in practice The idea of individuals and organisations from diverse backgrounds, working side by side, to overcome complex challenges together, resonates with optimism and idealism. Many can easily ascribe to the concept of cross-sector partnering because of the positive and collegiate intent and terminology. The reality, however, is somewhat different. In practice, working in cross-sector partnerships is as challenging as it is rewarding. At times individuals and organisations are attracted by the idealistic concept of partnering, with little forethought given to what this actually means in practice. Good will and well meaning intent only get you so far. The reality is that for cross-sector partnerships to be effective, significant work and attention to detail in both thought and practice is required. Further compounding this issue is funding programs that are devised to support partnership approaches to complex challenges. In many instances, funding programs have stated criteria and objectives around partnerships forming to propose and deliver responses to sustainability challenges and opportunities. Conceptually this is appealing, however reflections on current practice reveals that: a) some funding organisations may not fully understand the practicalities and time/cost implications of forming effective partnerships around a funding program opportunity, and b) project proposers may not have the time/funds/skills necessary to commit up front in collaboratively exploring appropriate project options and building a functioning partnership for effective delivery as a pre-cursor to proposing a project. So in many cases, due to the costly and time consuming nature of partnership building and options development, project funding proposals are not the product of active and effective partnerships, but more an assemblage of interested parties who will ‘work it out’ if, and when, they get the funding. This situation is at odds with the insights emerging from the SCI regarding addressing issues mentioned earlier such as ‘symptoms vs systems’, ‘advocacy vs inquiry’, and ‘options vs implementation’. Learning by doing Hallmarks of many of the major challenges we face are uncertainty, complexity and risk. Similarly, responding to these challenges in a cross-sector partnering model also comes with levels of uncertainty, complexity and risk. The SCI’s approach to working together in an ‘action learning’ environment assists individuals and organisations to be more comfortable in dealing with these characteristics of both the major challenges and the partnership approach. For many, the cross-sector partnership operating model is ‘unchartered waters’ and with this comes trepidation and risk. However, by collectively committing to working together, with the dual purposes of delivering outcomes in response to a local sustainability issue and learning and experiencing how to better work together, these issues appear to be somewhat reduced. From SCI experiences it appears that there is power in collectively responding to adversity and opportunity, and ‘safety in numbers’. Finally, by exposing individuals to working in an ‘action learning’ environment, in the context of a cross-sector partnership, and by synthesising and sharing the lessons learnt from the SCI, it is anticipated that these experiences and insights will be applied to other situations and projects outside of the SCI’s activities.


43

LOOKING FORWARD At the conclusion of Year Two of the SCI’s operations the program is progressing well. There are multiple projects underway, a suite of projects set to commence with RDV in Victoria, other projects under development, and an agreed forward work program building on the SCI’s research, evaluation & learning, and communication activities. Notwithstanding these positives there are still operational issues to be addressed, including: • Focusing on delivering projects underway and under development • Working closer with organisations to address institutional barriers to collaboration • Investing further in communication and knowledge brokering activities. Beyond addressing these operational issues, SCI participants and stakeholders have expressed a strong desire to build on the foundation created by the SCI. The SCI in its current form will formally conclude at the end of 2009. Consideration is being given to ‘where to next’ for the SCI. Areas for future focus that build on the SCI program and address the insights and issues identified include: • Training, learning & mentoring: building individual competency and institutional capability for collaboration, and developing and supporting partnership brokers and brokering activities • Action research: undertaking projects (themed to policy agendas such as climate change, social inclusion, closing the gap, etc) as a means to deliver outcomes for communities, benefits for project participants, and insights for others • Evaluation: continued evaluation of cross-sector partnerships in practice to better understand and measure success in both process and outcome • Sharing and promotion: sharing and promoting good practice and emerging knowledge, tools and frameworks from project experiences and connections with key national and international organisations • Network and events: actively develop and maintain networks across sectors and host events in order to share ideas, learnings and connect individuals and organisations with project opportunities • Recognising achievement: documenting and providing recognition as a means to showcase examples of leadership and good practice • Advisory & Brokering Services: Provide an advisory service to Govt and others wanting information on cross-sector partnering and connection to potential partners/projects • APS Development: Create forums for policy development discussion on major issues requiring input from across sectors and operate a secondment program for APS staff to develop and participate in cross-sector partnering projects Presently, a range of appropriate options/models that will build on and extend the practice of cross-sector partnering and place based responses to sustainability challenges and opportunities, are being explored by the SCI for future consideration.


44

APPENDICES ATTACHMENT ONE SCI YEAR II REPORT - LEARNING PROJECT EVALUATION SUMMARIES EAST LAKE The evaluation focus has been on 1) development of the partnership between CSIRO and ACTPLA 2) engagement with SCI Members 3) functioning of the CSIRO project team and 4) impacts of the project to date CSIRO and the ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) have developed a strong working partnership around the East Lake urban redevelopment project, characterised by open communication, shared planning and decision-making and adaptability with respect to the project implementation. Key factors which have enabled the development of this partnership include:• Investing adequate time in identifying project opportunities that offered potential benefit to both parties • Clarifying processes for working together • Developing clearly articulated project plans • In the plans, incorporating regular opportunities for developing mutual understanding and for knowledge integration • Governance structures which support joint planning and decision-making • Building relationships between the organisations at multiple levels (horizontal and vertical integration) • Each organisation being open to new ways of working and prepared to adapt • An attitude of flexibility in relation to how the project was carried out. • Working on a real-world, real-time challenge. • Regular interaction, both formal and informal – specifically, shared learning trips to other urban redevelopment sites in Australia. The major challenges for the project have been:• Developing a mutual appreciation of the local context of the project. − This took time and was eventually enabled through involvement at the executive level between the two organisations. • Maintaining funding commitment for the project, before it commenced. − This was facilitated by the existing relationship between CSIRO and the ACT government. • Developing a project contract that was acceptable to both organisations required extensive time and effort and was facilitated by preparedness to adapt on ACPTLA’s part. • Time constraints, with higher than anticipated workloads and insufficient project support. • The unanticipated communication effort required as interest in the project grew. • Developing an understanding of how to engage with SCI members effectively in the project. This is now occurring through member participation in East Lake analysis and design workshops. • Restricted time and staffing availability within the CSIRO research team. Impacts of this project to date include:• The project is being seen by ACTPLA as a reference point for future projects


45

• • • • •

The project is being noticed in CSIRO for its innovative approach to urban sustainability. ACTPLA is now sharing ideas on future projects for comment. The development of a new form of ACT Government contract for working in partnership, rather than the standard client-provider arrangement. The ACT government has put the land release back by a year to allow more time for the planning phase. Two more years funding have been made available to the project in the ACT budget.

LOCKERBIE The focus of the evaluation has been 1) the workshop process/engagement of the SCI members 2) outcomes for Delfin Lend Lease and other participants The purpose of the project was to provide input to Delfin Lend Lease on their development plan for the Lockerbie greenfield development site, north of Melbourne. The project consisted of two workshops conducted with Delfin Lend Lease staff and a cross-section of SCI members, CSIRO staff and other domain experts. As a result of these two workshops, Delfin Lend Lease have:An initial set of KPI’s for the Lockerbie vision that captures the intangible as well as the tangible aspects of sustainability • A methodology for testing the adequacy of their current vision •

Following their experience from the second workshop, they have subsequently:revised their approach to design planning, with the national design team incorporating the process used in that workshop • used the insights from the workshop to inform their current review of the ‘Delfin Advantages’; the key messages they use to convey what Delfin represents. •

A mixture of participant, process and context factors contributed to this outcome:Participants seemed to have a good understanding of the background, some through the first workshop and site visit or through information provided prior to the second workshop. • Participants at the second workshop had a broad mix of backgrounds with high levels of expertise and experience. • The workshop had a highly skilled and credible facilitator. • Effective aspects of the second workshop process were that it was:− outcome driven, generating practical outcomes ie measures and KPIs − efficient, enabling the achievement of a lot in the timeframe − activity intensive, keeping everyone engaged − It provided a context for all the sustainability issues to be considered, through framing the task in terms of “what needs to be included?” which mitigates against advocacy from single positions. − It created universal ownership as everyone had the opportunity to input into all the material • At the time of the second workshop there was a desire among the design staff within Delfin to expand their existing planning processes and this process provided an alternative. • Delfin has an adaptable organisational culture, open to new ideas and ways of doing things. They are creative, readily able to import new ideas across the organisation. For example, gathering a large section of the organisation together to learn about this process was seen as quite normal. In part this may be a consequence of the relative scale of the organisation. • They also refer to a culture of robust challenge and being open in sharing their thinking. •


46

MAINE’S POWER (MT ALEXANDER) The focus of the evaluation has been 1) engagement of the industry players and other stakeholders in the project 2) accessing government support 3) impacts of the project to date The Maine’s Power project is an example of effective engagement of four diverse industries and a range of stakeholders around a major issue for the Mt Alexander shire. Impacts of the project to date include:•

The four industry participants and some of the project supporters have come together around a common issue and are sharing their energy information.

•

There has been a high level of change at senior levels in each of the businesses in the past year, although prior to the connection with the SCI. One of the organisations has also been bought by a larger company. The involvement of CSIRO staff has also varied over the course of the project. Despite all these changes, the participating organisations have remained committed to the project.

•

A developing awareness that this is a shared problem. The phrase ‘win-win’ is used frequently by both the business participants and wider project stakeholders.

•

The industry participants now all have an increased focus on energy use and energy efficiency

•

This is spreading beyond the managers directly involved in the project to the engineering staff, who are actively seeking opportunities for reducing energy use

•

A shared understanding developing for these participants of the overall energy landscape for Castlemaine

•

They have identified and are discussing other synergies between their organisations such as opportunities for shared services

•

There is a shifting perception of some of the project supporter organisations from being seen primarily as regulators to being seen as genuinely interested in sustainability. This extends to an appreciation of CSIRO ‘experts’ capacity to also be pragmatic and provide practical suggestions ie there has been some ‘debunking’ of traditional antagonisms and stereotypes.

•

Strong media interest, both at the local and state level, which also serves to raise government and community awareness.

•

State Government is appreciating:

•

o

the value of being closely involved and therefore as something to be replicated in other projects,

o

that funding local government is not the only pathway for funding community projects and that other options are appropriate in some circumstances.

Regional Development Victoria has committed to funding a program of projects in five other regional communities in the State.

The impact of local and global context in motivating participation have been particularly apparent in this project:• Increasing energy prices are affecting the business’ bottom line. • Environmental, economic and social sustainability are strongly interdependent in this project as the businesses are major employers in the region. • Government supporters at the state and local level are open to flexibility and adaptation of the approach.


47

• •

It is common for local groups in the Mt Alexander Shire to take the lead on issues, rather than initiation through, for example, local government. Leadership from the Mt Alexander Sustainability Group. One individual in particular has been extremely effective at getting people on board, including wider stakeholders beyond the industry players.

Enabling factors within the project itself include:There has been an inclusive approach to the project that invites participation and contribution from the beginning. • MASG has been able to access two additional people to work on the project; a local volunteer and someone from the EPA. •

The major challenges for the project have been related to accessing funding and workload of the participants:• In terms of identifying a source of funding (i) There is often an expectation from government bodies that project outcomes should be specified up-front, whereas the SCI projects are targeted at assisting communities to develop options for future action. (ii) Projects are often perceived as not matching the criteria for existing Government programs. Support was eventually achieved through:− A long term conversation between the SCI and the current funding body which enabled improved understanding of the project (and the SCI) and helped facilitate recognition that it did match a newly recognised need. − Involvement of staff from the funder in the planning phase, which gave them opportunity to influence, develop ownership and understanding which then enabled them to champion it internally − Strong vertical linkages within the funding body, which facilitated effective championing internally. − Interest/capacity of the funding body to be exploratory rather than having to have pre-determined outcomes. •

In terms of the funding arrangements:− There were conflicting perspectives on who should receive the funding − There were extensive contract negotiations around IP ownership and information sharing, which meant the contract was not signed until over ½ way through the project.

•

The project leadership in both CSIRO and Castlemaine were severely overstretched in the early stages of the project, given their overall workload commitments on this and other projects.


48

INTEGRATED EVALUATION & LEARNING INSIGHTS PROJECT SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT From a traditional project management perspective, SCI projects appear unusual because they are ‘option development’ projects rather than implementation projects. In other words, they encompass what might more commonly be recognised as a project development activity. This means that the specific SCI project outcomes are generally ill-defined at the beginning of an SCI project, even though it may be designed to contribute to a fairly clear long-term goal. As action-learning projects, it is also anticipated that the project plan will be adapted over time. This has presented significant challenges in terms of (iii) getting funding for SCI projects and (iv) for SCI member engagement, when both funding bodies (usually State or Federal government) and member organisations prefer to have a reasonable degree of certainty in relation to what will happen during a project and what they are likely to get out of contributing to it. For example, a reason for being unable to access funding for a project has been that that it was “a planning project” and therefore not appropriate for funding support. Related to this is a frequent expectation that a proposal needs to ‘fit’ an existing government program and therefore be able to demonstrate that its outcomes will meet the objectives of that program. This is challenging both for the reasons discussed above and because it presents limited scope for accessing support in the current financial year. Those projects which have had the greatest traction with funders and SCI members are those where the ‘community’ has had a clearly identified need or issue ie •

The Mt Alexander project - reducing GHG emissions

•

The East Lake and Lockerbie projects – creating a sustainable urban development in a specified location.

Similarly, Delfin Lend Lease were particularly receptive to the value of the workshop methodology used in the second Lockerbie workshop as it met a need they were experiencing at the time ie they were seeking to better their existing approach to design planning. There are also certain roles and/or operating styles that have facilitated the initiation and development of SCI projects and the SCI itself. These can occur in both the culture of the participating organisations or within certain individuals, who are sufficiently influential in their organisation to foster support ranging from, at the very least, passive tolerance through to active engagement. Characteristics of these operating styles are:•

Openness to or active seeking of new ways of working

•

Tolerance of uncertainty, which includes

•

A preparedness to adapt project plans and expectations over time

•

Capacity to navigate or even adapt operational practices at the organisational level if required

•

Persistence


49

Internal Engagement Within Member Organisations Developing and maintaining support in member organisations beyond the individual SCI Advisory Committee members themselves is critical to being able to both continue membership and to access and deploy resources into SCI projects effectively. The experiences of SCI members in retaining support for the initiative more broadly within their organisations vary widely, ranging from ultimately having to withdraw from the SCI to having a recognised role of ‘selling’ the SCI to the board and ensuring that involvement in projects doesn’t cut across other organisational activities. Comments from SCI members indicate that, while the issue of internal marketing is recognised as a challenge common to them all, there are also some assumptions that it is equally difficult for all. This suggests that there may be opportunities for shared learning between members which may be helpful for those who are having the greatest challenges in this area. Similarly, there is interest from some members in understanding the motivations for other members in participating in the SCI. WORKING ACROSS SECTORS One of the central desired outcomes of the SCI is “improved understanding and capacity for governments, industry, NGOs and communities to work together in addressing sustainability issues.” In reflecting on the development of the SCI, it is apparent that (i) there are several domains in which “governments, industry, NGOs (and communities)” are working together ie on the SCI Advisory Committee, in projects and within the communities themselves (eg Mt Alexander), and (ii) “work(ing) together” is being manifested in many different ways, both across and within each of the configurations identified in (i). The primary interest for the purposes of evaluating the SCI (and for SCI members) is in the involvement of SCI member organisations in projects and in the operation of the SCI Advisory Committee. However, we can also draw insights about crosssectoral engagement from other instances that are occurring within projects. Examples include the relationship between CSIRO and the ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) in the East Lake project and the way in which local businesses, an NGO and the local council, all within the community, are working together in the Mt Alexander project. These instances are discussed in more detail in the individual project evaluation summaries. SCI members and project leaders have effectively been starting from a blank slate in working out how to engage in projects. There have been a range of different responses to this, from SCI members getting directly in touch with project leaders, to expectations that there would be a process for making it happen or that SCI members or project leaders were responsible for making contact. In hindsight, it would have been useful to discuss this with the Advisory Committee and project leaders, so there were at least agreed first steps for making contact. Feedback during the SCI workshop in April 2008 indicated that the opportunity for SCI members and project leaders to meet face to face significantly improved SCI members’ understanding of the projects and enabled a range of project engagement opportunities to be identified. There was a desire expressed by SCI members at the workshop to have more in depth engagement with projects into the future. Possible suggestions included • Project Leaders attendance at future SCI Advisory Committee meetings


50

• •

An advisory board to engage with project leaders at regular intervals, right from the beginning of the project Having opportunities to assess the value of ongoing engagement

The summarised feedback during this workshop is available in the Workshop Report, previously distributed to members. Overall, the issue of multiple SCI members keeping up to date with multiple projects to the level of understanding they require to make decisions about further engagement remains a challenge, in terms of load on the project leaders and SCI members alike. The expectations and experience of the Advisory Committee members around engagement with projects are quite diverse. Some are looking to become involved directly in projects while others are anticipating that the main opportunities will arise at the end of the projects, once sustainability options have been identified and the community potentially moves into option selection and implementation. There is also a distinct difference between, for example, the Lockerbie and East Lake projects and the Castlemaine project. In the first two, the projects are about developing urban design options, which requires expertise from a wide range of domains. Both projects involve a range of activities that gather input from many sources to inform the design. Therefore the scope for engagement has been large. In contrast, in the Mt Alexander project, the project domain and expertise required are much more specific and therefore provide few opportunities for wider engagement within the project itself ie in the option development phase. At this stage, the involvement of SCI members in projects has mainly been through participation in orientation and/or planning workshops. Most of the projects have had some form of orientation workshop, where participants are introduced to the project issues and initial project plans are discussed. More extensive engagement has occurred in the Lockerbie and East Lake and Surat projects, where workshops have been held to draw on the collective expertise of participants as input to urban design and the design of the project and project activities. In each of these examples, the mode of engagement has primarily been knowledge input. At the same time, however, workshop participants are acquiring greater insights into the projects and they and the key owners/stakeholders in the projects are starting to get to know each other, forming the basis for potential closer collaboration in the future. This is already occurring in the Lockerbie project, where, for example, Origin Energy has been doing some modelling of different options for energy provision. Ricoh has adopted another mode of engagement in Castlemaine, where they are providing advice on office energy use directly to some of the four businesses involved in the Mt Alexander project. In summary, the different modes of engagement which are being reflected in the SCI program as a whole might be conceptualised as:• •

familiarisation (finding out about the project eg early meetings such as the Lockerbie and East Lake site visits, the Castlemaine workshop) knowledge sharing (eg Lockerbie 2nd workshop, the two East Lake workshops)


51

• •

collaborative planning (eg ACTPLA and CSIRO, Mt Alexander stakeholders, DoTARS involvement in the Surat project) collaborative implementation (at the nominal end of the project, once options have been identified)

The progression reflects increasing intensities of collaboration, rather than successive stages of a project. Each is progressively more challenging as it involves a greater depth of interaction. The engagement discussed in the Year 1 Report was essentially in the familiarisation mode, while most of the SCI engagement to date could be described as knowledge sharing. A key characteristic of both the familiarisation and knowledge sharing activities is that they have been aimed at understanding and exploration of the project domains, rather than decision-making fora. There have been several comments as to the value of creating this “safe space” which provides a domain for learning about the project among individuals, from many different perspectives, rather than having to immediately come to some collective decision, which often results in people defending a particular position. These activities also provide a relatively low-cost means of SCI members being able to both contribute to a project, while at the same time having the opportunity to assess whether there is sufficient value for them to become more involved. In the two examples where the cross-sectoral engagement has been deeper, ie between CSIRO and ACTPLA on the East Lake project and the local stakeholders in Mt Alexander, the projects and their contexts are very different. However, a few general observations can be made in relation to factors that enabled the relationships to develop:•

A partnership is different from a client-provider or a consulting relationship. Planning and decision-making need to be inclusive and reflect an equitable balance of power between the parties, as experienced by them.

•

Partners need to have some capacity that is valued and sought after by the other partner(s).

•

It takes time and multiple interactions to build sufficient trust between the participants as well as trust in the process for them to commit to working together on a common project. This time needs to be explicitly built in to the project plan. This will need to be taken into consideration if SCI members are interested in ‘collaborative implementation’ of options identified through projects.

•

This was facilitated in each of the two cases above by one of the participating organisations being prepared to share potentially sensitive information with the others.

•

In each of these examples, at least one of the people involved has strong process skills or experience in working on cross-sectoral issues.

•

Horizontal linkages at different levels of seniority between the partner organisations coupled with good vertical linkages between the individuals at each of those levels within each organisation facilitates partnership development. Good vertical linkages enable senior managers not directly involved to have a good understanding of the project and how it’s progressing so that they are well positioned to provide input or higher level political or strategic support if needed.


52

Equally, good linkages between individual SCI members and staff in their own organisation who become involved in projects at the operational level are key to ensure that the SCI context and partnership ethos are understood at the project level. The development of horizontal linkages at multiple levels from the beginning of the project means that issues that need to be dealt with at different levels in the organisations can be readily addressed. •

Regular interaction, both formal and informal is necessary to maintain the relationship.

•

External support (eg funding) is facilitated by involving other influential stakeholders at an early stage.

SCI ADVISORY COMMITTEE Communication There is a general sense that communication within the program needed to move beyond SCI update reports, now that the program has moved into a different phase, with projects underway. A few respondents indicated they tended to skim the reports and would prefer them to cover just the highlights. Several of the respondents expressed a desire to have more frequent updates on what’s happening in the projects, rather than just what they’re about. This was partly about keeping informed about what’s happening with the projects, but also so that they could, for example, (i) identify project needs and where they could provide assistance (ii) have a sense of the results and impacts of the current projects before moving into the next phase There was also interest in alternative formats for communicating what the projects are about, besides a report eg a brief video, local stories, SCI Advisory Committee Meetings There was a general interest in having more frequent SCI Advisory Committee meetings and including other attendees, such as project leaders and member organisation staff who have had direct involvement in projects. In part this was related to getting more direct feedback on project and program progress but also to improve continuity and to provide more regular opportunities for sharing information about current plans and opportunities directly between member organisations, as they are being formulated. General Issues There is some concern around the branding of the SCI, which is seen as primarily associated with CSIRO at the moment. There is a desire for more clarity around the future of the SCI beyond 2009, to assist with SCI member future planning processes. Benefits for SCI Members The anticipated benefits of participating in the SCI vary between and within sectors. Benefits already being experienced and those still being sought include:-


53

Private Sector Achieved

Anticipated

•

Known legitimacy of the CSR activity they are involved in

•

•

Being part of a collective effort from the start, which is easier than ‘going it alone’

•

Innovation stretch – being exposed to new practices earlier than might have happened otherwise

•

New business opportunities

•

Opportunities to learn and develop a transferrable model

•

•

Opportunities to explore new approaches eg for service provision

•

Better understanding of the Government political system and how it operates

Opportunities for staff to be involved – staff retention Company image Green marketing Innovation Leaders

− −

Commonwealth Government Achieved

Anticipated

•

A spin-off project

•

Input into policy,programs, practices •

•

A science (evidence)-based understanding of how to develop cross-sector partnerhips.

Understanding how to engage with the Private Sector (underway and developing) Non-for-Profit Sector Achieved

•

Involvement of local government in each project


Anticipated •

Opportunities to be involved with communities in the implementation phase

54

ATTACHMENT TWO THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF SCI The crisis of the “Sustainability Sciences” The sustainability sciences today face a problem the classical scientific disciplines do not have to cope with. They are dealing with problems characterized by a high degree of complexity and interconnectivity where “typically facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” (Funtowicz et al. 2002). Despite the complexity at hand, they are asked to actively contribute to policy making and decision support. Scientists are now facing the challenge of being expected to deliver solutions to problems they do not understand fully, both because of their respective disciplinary bias, as well as because of the complexity of the issues at hand (e.g. climate change). When dealing with socio-ecological systems two of the main characteristics in regard to the systems’ development are complexity and uncertainty. Modern society is complex due to its size, segmentation, number of roles and functions, number of distinct social actors, and the variety of mechanisms for organizing society (Tainter 1988). Its development is uncertain because of the co-evolutionary linkage to its environment (adaptation) and the fact that society as a system (co-)evolves over time. Due to the complexity of the system and the many variables involved to describe it, future developments cannot be anticipated. There are too many factors on which its development is dependent, such as decisions taken, environmental change, social processes, individual action, environmental risk, and potentially very long time lags between action and response. Scientists are usually asked to devise relatively simple solutions to immensely complex problems. The focus is on an envisioned state of the society when there is a perceived mismatch. Time is often not taken into account, i.e. the mismatch perceived today might not be the mismatch of tomorrow, and the solution of today might turn out to be the problem of tomorrow. Solutions for current states are devised for future societies without knowing what future society will be like. Several flaws have been identified when delivering simple solutions to complex problems as regards to sustainability. For one, we have been facing what is known as “Jevon’s Paradox”. Many efforts in sustainability sciences relate to the attempt of increasing efficiency of certain technologies in order to save on resources consumed. Jevon’s Paradox refers to the phenomenon commonly identified that ”[…] an increase in efficiency in using a resource (defined as a better output/input ratio) leads, in the medium to long term, to an increased use of that resource (rather than to a reduction)” (Giampietro 2004). For example, combustion engines have been improved immensely in terms of fuel efficiency over the last 40 years. Nevertheless, total gasoline consumption has risen in any given society across the globe. So, while we get more kilometres per litre of gasoline this has not served to curb the consumption of that resource. The underlying reason for this is that as soon as technological innovations lead to an improvement of resource use, room is made for (a) the addition of new activities (e.g. installing air conditions and electronic devices into the car) or (b) the expansion of current levels of activity (e.g. purchasing a second and third vehicle). We now know that improving efficiency of technology expands the system in terms of its quality (more variety) or its size (more of the same). Jevon’s paradox holds especially true when looking at fossil fuel consumption and food resources (Giampietro 2004).


55

Due to the complex nature of socio-ecological systems, sustainability issues being solved by technological innovation usually lead to long-term unexpected consequences from the implementation of the technological solution. Often, it leads to an amplification of the problem due to changes that occur in the society, e.g. it’s perception of the problem changes, and what is considered desirable, important or relevant might undergo a transition. Current sustainability problems are frequently seen as existing independently of the process of their formulation, and as a mismatch for which simple solutions are potentially available (Webber & Ison 1995). It is a characteristic of complex society that values are often not commonly shared. Rather, we are experiencing a vast multitude of values that impact on the formulation of problematiques. This includes the many different interpretations of what is seen by some as a ‘sustainability problem’, even to the extent that some people perceive a major threat whilst others see a positive opportunity for future development9. Science can no longer fulfil the duty of finding out the ‘truth’ - there is none to be found. Instead, we are dealing with a plurality of narratives framing a problem, which reflect contrasting, but legitimate, perspectives of a given phenomenon (Giampietro 2004). In essence, sustainability science is dealing with ‘wicked problems’ (Conklin 2006). Wicked problems are characterised by the following six features: 1. The ‘problem’ is not clearly defined nor demarcated. The research process helps to find not only a solution but primarily structures the problem by linking various problematic issues and constraints. Part of the solution is clearly understanding causal links among aspects of the problem. 2. The ‘solution’ is not final nor definitive. Research projects may have an defined timelines but wicked problems are never solved as such. As the research attempts to deliver solution, new problematic issues emerge and must be taken into account. 3. “Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel” (Conklin 2006: 7). Since the research process serves to structure the problem, each problem structuring is unique – some issue are taken into account some are not, depending on interest, disciplinary bias, research question, etc. 4. Solutions to wicked problems cannot be classified as correct or false. Rather, solutions can be ‘socially accepted’, ‘technologically feasible’, ‘economically efficient’, etc. In addition, it depends on the stakeholder/interest group on how solutions to wicked problems are classified. 5. Each attempt in a solution of a wicked problem leads to unexpected consequences and adds to the complexity of the original problem structuring. Thus, no final solution can be devised (see Pt. 2) 6. Whether solutions are pursued or implemented depends on the stakeholders involved. There is no ‘ideal’ or ‘optimal’ solution – its implementation depends on the power structure of the stakeholders involved rather than on scientific recommendations. The intention of sustainability science, therefore, cannot be to identify or formulate problems but rather to identify the diversity of perspectives on an issue as well as mapping out the narratives according to interest groups, social experience, and community communication (Chambers 1994). This has been identified as one of the main objectives in the SCI. By mapping out perceptions and contraints faced by

9

Some may even see sustainability itself as a threat because it implies changing the system as it currently is.


56

various stakeholders in a community, learning and understanding can be achieved and the foundation for a middle ground thereby laid. The focus on outcomes and solutions, which reflect a traditional science paradigm, lead to the fact that sustainable development is seen as a ‘fuzzy’ concept without any measurable characteristics. People find it hard to imagine what sustainability actually might look like. This often leads to the conclusion that sustainability is equated with an illusionary state of society far removed from how society actually functions. The problem many scientists are facing when confronting the public is that sustainability is seen as an absolute state of society without any contextualization and without allowing for the evolution of society over time. Holling et al. (1998), for example, see sustainability as a value rather than a future state. Comparable to concepts, such as ‘democracy’ or ‘universal human rights’, sustainability will never be fully achieved. Rather, it is something to strive for in order to ensure the survival of the human race on earth. Without human rights, societies would collapse and future survival not guaranteed – without working towards sustainability the situation would be much the same. Sustainability is therefore an imperative, which all sectors of society need to work towards. “It is a process, not a final state” (ibid, p349), and it is not achievable by devising a few technological improvements to the current situation. “Sustainability is the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability. Development is the process of creating, testing and maintaining opportunity. The phrase that combines the two, sustainable development, rather than being an oxymoron, represents a logical partnership.” (Holling et al. 2002: 403) What is needed, therefore, is a science that looks at processes rather than concentrating merely on outcomes, actions rather than results. Moreover, science cannot deliver the entire package. There is an imminent need for transdisciplinarity, i.e. engagement with non-scientists in order for science to be able to provide useful contributions. There are two areas, in which science can provide genuine input: (a) On the descriptive side, science can use its disciplinary approaches to make sense of a particular problem in order to better understand it and identify possible causal relationships among influencing factors. It can then suggest measurable indicators to describe a desired state of a system; (b) On the normative side, science, especially the social sciences, can support sustainability by mapping out differing interests and values involved as well as facilitating a process leading to an agreement on objectives for future sustainability. Postnormal Science The paradigm of postnormal science (PNS) comes out of the insight that traditional scientific methods are not capable of dealing with modern-day issues of complexity and uncertainty (Funtowicz & Ravetz 2003). The need to engage with the public when defining sustainability issues and facilitating a process of objective-setting, is markedly different to the classical ‘expert’ approach, in which the specialist defines the problem and sets out to look for a solution. In PNS, questions we need to ask when dealing with sustainability problems are: What constitutes sustainable development? Who makes the decisions? How are objectives decided upon? There is a set of pre-analytical choices we have to make before engaging in the actual scientific analysis and devising of the solution to our problem.


57

Being process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented, PNS concentrates on dialogue with involved actors, recognizes uncertainty, the negotiability of values, and the plurality of legitimate perspectives. Rather than searching for the ‘correct’ solution, robustness of the process is sought for by engaging stakeholders and contrasting varying perspectives. Scientific solutions are assessed according to their usefulness and adequateness in the process. In PNS, sustainable development is about (cf. Giampietro 2004): • Social learning • What stakeholders agree it to be • Understanding the socio-ecological predicament • Recognizing legitimate contrasting perspectives • The readiness to negotiate contrasting perspectives • Recognizing the presence of uncertainty and indeterminacy • Adaptiveness, not reductionism PNS does not discard or oppose traditional science. Rather, PNS makes use of traditional science to verify solutions within their own domain but must be aware that results are up to negotiation by the social actors involved in the process. The process of generation of knowledge is iterative and constantly re-negotiated. Following the above-mentioned distinction between the descriptive and normative aspects of PNS, we have two components that help handling the new challenges posed by sustainability research: (1) Integrated Analysis and (2) participatory research. Integrated Analysis (IA) is an interdisciplinary process of gathering, combining, interpreting and communicating knowledge from different scientific disciplines and knowledge domains to allow a better understanding of complex phenomena. IA has the explicit aim to inform and facilitate decision-making. Integrated Analysis focuses on the issue of technical incommensurability, which basically states that it is possible to have multiple scientifically correct assessments for a complex socio-ecological system at the same time, even if they are contradictory. Depending on disciplinary approach, level and scale and research question, the various explanations of phenomena are logically independent and are based on differing data sets (Giampietro 2004). Integrated Analysis must therefore: • Integrate differing epistemologies to deal with different hierarchical levels on multiple-scales • Look for analytical approaches that integrate different dimensions of sustainability • Be able to interface with participatory processes and quantitative analyses of sustainability Participatory Research The notion ‘participatory research’ is used as a generic term for a variety of methods and approaches employed to enable participation in sustainability science as means to varying ends. Participatory methods are generally methods to structure group processes in which non-experts play an active role and articulate their knowledge, values and preferences for a variety of objectives.


58

Participatory research accepts that any involvement with a social system has merely the potential to trigger change – it cannot determine outcomes. This is drawn from the insight that social systems cannot be ‘managed’ for certain results. Rather, participatory research intervenes in social systems and anticipates changes in interaction, communication, and discourse. For example, with triggering community awareness, there may follow an enthusiasm for taking action regarding sustainability (Webber & Ison 1994). According to van Asselt Marjolein & Rijkens Klomp (2002), citizens, interest groups and businesses are participants who express values and preferences as well as contributing to knowledge creation. In the literature these actors are often also referred to as stakeholders. Usually, such stakeholders are supposed to play an active role in participatory processes. They are invited to express their knowledge, feelings, values and perspectives pertaining to a specific sustainability issue. Representatives of governmental institutions are not always actively involved in participatory processes. Their roles differ according to the particular method and research objective. They often testify in the process without actively participating in the deliberation. In some cases they are present, and take part in the discussion, while in others they are observing. In cases where the decision-makers are not present at participatory sessions, they may obtain output of the participatory process by means of a report summarising policy recommendations or a citizens’ report. Scientists can participate in participatory processes if their knowledge is deemed to be relevant to the issue at stake. They can either be invited to participate in a particular part of the program to share their knowledge, or they can participate in the whole process as full participants (ibid.). Process management in participatory research usually involves facilitation as well as analysis. The facilitator plays an essential role in the process, guiding all participants through discussions to an end point, without expressing his or her own view. The analyst studying the interactive process does not play an active role in the process itself, but observes and analyses the discussion, the reactions of the participants, and the role of the moderator (van Asselt Marjolein & Rijkens Klomp 2002) Participatory research is used to handle social incommensurability, i.e. the multitude of perspectives resulting from the range of values and interests as represented by the stakeholders (Giempietro 2004). It can also be understood as a way to improve the quality of Integrated Analysis by enriching the knowledge base with contextual knowledge and indigenous knowledge (both subsumed under the term local knowledge). Participatory processes can be used to inform decision-making processes or decision-support process, i.e. finding out what is socially acceptable and socially desired. In sustainability science, however, participatory processes are generally used to map out diversity of values, interests and perspectives. In community-based research participation they are also used to reach agreement on the objectives of the research and to envision scenarios for sustainable community development. The term participation can be defined as awareness of and identification with the research conducted in a particular community as well as active dialogue with the researchers and ownership over the process by the community and its members. Research should take place with the inclusion of relevant community stakeholders, integrating their interests and defining common research goals. The classical research approach starts out with a research question, which the researcher defines according to the current state-of-the-art and its research demands. Engaging in participatory research means defining the research question


59

and the scientific interest in accordance with relevant stakeholders. In order to be able to do this, the field must be known and the actors/stakeholders identified. Stakeholders are actors that are directly involved in the problem to be investigated. After having identified them at the research site, the group of stakeholders has to be narrowed down for practical reasons. While the selected group of stakeholders should bear some relevance to the problem, it is up to the researcher to lay down the criteria of selection as long as the criteria are transparent and open for criticism. In most cases, the selection criteria for stakeholders include willingness to cooperate and actors that are able to influence current social processes in the field. Typically the stakeholder group consists of decision-makers, companies, grassroots movements, associations, etc. The term ownership is crucial in participatory research. Research results can never be applied to local decision making if the actors are not aware of the problems involved and research questions asked by the researcher. The stakeholders must accept the motivations and interests of the researcher and appreciate her/his methods applied in the field (although the stakeholder does not have to fully understand the methods). Local actors must support research activities and perceive them as a possible basis for taking decisions on their own future. Ideally, participative research contributes to democratization and involving the citizen in public decisions of the community. Participatory research is usually carried out in two ways: (i) either by maintaining collaboration over a long time frame, in which local capacity is developed to be responsive to changes in the system and an understanding is reached by the researcher of how local systems function; or (ii) accept that the researcher has merely provided a ‘trigger’ for local action and that no particular outcomes can be guaranteed. Most often, constraints, resulting from the practice of how projects are usually conducted, lead to the implementation of the latter option. Methodology The basic participatory technique suggested for SCI is based on Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed by Checkland & Scholes (1990). It follows a stepwise approach (cf. Giampietro 2004): 1. Recognizing a sustainability problem and its contrasting perspectives among stakeholders 2. Mapping conflicting interests; rich description of the issue; creating robustness by capturing differential narratives 3. Developing abstractions – ‘finding root definitions’; deciding on how to identify and (scientifically) represent a problem 4. Building models: different models for each root definition: economic, social, technological, ecological 5. Feeding the models (=representation of the problem) back to the actor Æ models are improved by local knowledge and thereby receive a quality check 6. Checking the usefulness of models against stakeholders’ objectives and conflicting perspectives as well as against the original problem definition (problem narrative) 7. Selecting model representations that are useful and reflect the aspirations of stakeholders 8. Monitoring and evaluation of results and assessing unintended consequences through participatory monitoring Æ increasing the diversity of non-equivalent observers


60

9. Developing the capacity to change As a basic premise, the various steps represent a stage in the process either connected to (a) generating and analyzing information; (b) exposing the stakeholders to information; or (c) understanding stakeholders’ decisions. Since stakeholders are part of the system under consideration, it is necessary to view the system as a source of information and the target of information simultaneously. Actors’ views, perceptions, and decisions are as important in shaping the system as is biophysical, economic, and cultural information. As a framework for structuring the system under consideration, Checkland suggests using CATWOE: C…client A…Actors T…Transformations W…Weltanschauung O…Owner E…Environment Clients, Actors, and Owners are different types of stakeholders directly or indirectly affected by an issue and/or who could affect the outcome of a decision-making process on the issue. Transformations is the modelled change of the system under discussion – basically, the set of possible trajectories analysed in the IA process. The Weltanschauung is the pre-analytical set of choices with which stakeholders structure the problem. Environment sets the boundaries of the investigated system and determines the factors by which the system is influenced. The quality of a given problem structure provided by scientists to the stakeholders depends on the ability of the scientific analysis to represent, in analytical terms, sustainability trade-offs in relation to the set of legitimate views considered relevant. For this, several quality checks needed, i.e. multiple feedback loops between the researchers and the stakeholders (hence, the iterative process). The analysis must consider social incommensurability (the normative aspect of PNS) and be able to respond to multiple stakeholder perspectives. It must also consider technical incommensurability (the descriptive aspect of PNS) and be able to represent multiple scales and levels of the issue at hand. These concepts are further explored in practice via the Sustainable Communities Initiative References Funtowicz, S. O., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G. and Ravetz, J. 2002, Multicriteriabased environmental policy. In Abaza, H. and Baranzini, A. (eds.), Implementing sustainable development: integrated assessment and participatory decision-making processes. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 53-77. Funtowicz, S., J. Ravetz 2003. Post-Normal Science. In: Internet Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics, the International Society for Ecological Economics


61

Tainter, J. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge Univ. Pr.: Cambridge Giampietro, M. 2004. Multi-Scale Integrated Assessment of Agroecosystems. CRC Pr.: Boca Raton Webber, L.M., R.L. Ison 1995. Participatory Rural Appraisal Design: Conceptual and Process Issues. Agricultural Issues 47: 107-131 Chambers, R. 1994. The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development 22(7):953-969 Holling, C.S., F. Berkes, C. Folke 1998. Science, sustainability and resource management. In: F. Berkes, C. Folke (eds.) Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr.: 342-362 Holling, C.S., S.R. Carpenter, W.A. Brock, L.H. Gunderson 2002. Discoveries for Sustainable Futures. In: L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling (eds.) Panarchy. Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press: 395418 Van Asselt, M.B.A and N. Rijkens-Klomp, A look in the Mirror: Reflection on Participation in Integrated Assessment from a Methodological Perspective, in Global Environmental Change Checkland, P., J. Scholes 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. Conklin, J. 2006. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Wiley


62