Decisions, Expertise, Arbitrariness and Transparency : Elements
of Sustainable
Development
A glance at sustainable development
A few words on decisions
The true nature of experts
From arbitrariness to governance
To conclude: defining the values and orienting the action
Answers to the above questions
Box
[R] A glance at sustainable development
The French translation of sustainable development (développement
durable; i.e. enduring development) shows the importance of time in the
efforts to be undertaken. Sustainable development should be carried out on
the long term and from an intergenerational point of view encouraging the
parent to child transmission of heritage (natural, cultural and social).
It is a patriarchal and notarial conception and thus hints
that the mode of transmission goes without saying. The latter must respect
the unchanging rules of heritage, of the authority of those who recognise
their filiations (for example, present governments should recognise their
filiations to former governments). The mode of transmission must also respect
the current right of use and of property while bearing in mind the necessity
to prepare the future. The definition of French sustainable development
underlines the fact (just in case it is necessary) that both public and private
authorities must deal with their activities like "prudent patresfamilias
".
This exceptional conception is absent in the other developed countries
(especially Anglo-Saxon) that are at the origin of viable or acceptable
development (sustainable has the same roots as sustainability,
meaning viability: a link with life). It is interesting to see how
the French translation is essentially based on a death-centred approach (the
heritage must be transmitted), with the aim of maintaining existing institutions,
whereas the Anglo-Saxon conception puts the accent on life, even if it means
changing institutions in order to implement sustainable development.
There are thus those who have children in order to continue to exist through
them and those who search for the institutional compromises needed to improve
the cohabitation with new, more diversified forms of life. Long-term forms
of life for some, unchallenged existing forms for others: the implicit
values resorted to by these two orientations could not be more
different.
In all stories, whether they are fairytales or general surveys of philosophy,
it is most often life that gets the better of death, on the long run. Surely
this is applicable to the environment.
The naïve are enthusiastic about every new decision, just as cows are
happy to change grazing land. The wise are worried about the consequences
that this could entail.
Decision-making bodies generally do their job sparingly as they know that
the difficulty is not to prepare or implement a decision
(1), but to maintain the latter.
These decisions often lead to envy and unavoidably to criticism. And as criticism
must always be taken into account, the decision adopted is never the one
that was initially proclaimed. This is nearly systematic and must be considered
when introducing a decision that will of course not be strictly followed.
The first measure recommended is to adapt the decision so that it will be
adopted by the majority. In short, what is said will not be necessarily be
carried out, and what is not said leaves the place for a certain freedom
of action. In most cases, it is impossible to judge decisions through the
discourse and documents that go with them. In general, they are only the
virtual part of the negotiations.
The second recommendation is to maintain former assets. The latter are to
be considered as part of a permanent loop of decisions and actions, which
both stem from and determine these assets. Thus the circuit of operations
is a closed circle and does not appear as the con-sequence of a prior decision
re-presented in a classic causal and open schema (opposite figure).
In the field of environment, only the most inexperienced believe that the
final declaration of a conference, the conclusions of a report or the
implementation of a law will change anything. One only has to wait a fortnight
to see what will happen over the next months and years. A decision that is
not immediately implemented simply reinforces the situation that it was supposed
to modify. It nevertheless feeds a debate that is not entirely useless: it
allows the actors involved to discover the complexity of the situation, a
complexity they were not necessarily aware of beforehand.
One of the main advantages of bearing in mind a system's approach to decisions
and of the actions that precede and follow them is that it includes the
transitory effects that inevitably go along with all change of conditions.
Converging transitories (figure above) are the most frequent: much
ado about nothing (2). They can be
observed every time the price of petrol goes up. This leads to contradictory
reactions which progressively subside.
There are constantly unstable periodic transitories which depend,
for example, on the different seasons. A good illustration is that of hunting
regulations; the same problems occur year after year.
And last, there are the more rare diverging transitories. The latter
either flare up or, on the contrary, freeze the system to a zero state; the
situation thus implodes and it is necessary to get rid of one or several
actors (i.e. resignation, dismissal, prosecutions, etc.).
It is thus vital for the decision-maker to study and understand these
transitories as they have much more influence than the simple desire to change
things. To be direct, decision-makers want nothing more than to no longer
decide, whereas those who have no decision-making power wish to one day have
the power to decide.
Here again, individual values are nothing but opposed, not to say in
conflict.
[R] The true nature of experts
Experts are the heroes of decision-makers. They take the risks in their place
and are at the base of action. They only appear on the public scene when
tensions have come to an extreme (because of the transitories) and risk to
affect the decisional loop.
Decision-makers protect themselves by surrounding themselves with three types
of experts who coexist in spite of events, sometimes benign, sometimes
tragic.
The decision-maker's escort is made up of expert-communicators who
follow the event and sometimes go as far as to provoke it so as to magnify
the decision-maker in the eyes of a sometimes hostile, sometimes friendly
public, with no real profound reason. Of course, this category of experts
does not correspond to the scientific model that their title underlines.
However, the contact with the general public is a more delicate art than
scientists imagine. The environment lacks restrictions and yet is close to
each individual, thus every elector, user, consumer considers himself as
competent, experimented and aware of all ongoing debates. Scientists who
try to perturb these a priori are often extremely unwelcome. To be
heard, it is essential to be able to answer the public's expectations.
On the contrary, an expert in communication anticipates the desires of his
interlocutors. He knows in advance what is expected of him and orients his
arguments in the right direction. Are his opinions favourable? The
expert-communicator gives a hundred arguments to justify his opinions and
thus induces enthusiasm and gratitude. Are these opinions hostile? An
expert-communicator, who has no solid argument to put forward (he is not
a scientist, but a gambler), does not try to convince his public but rather
to make it respect another point of view. He underlines the often irrational
aspect of each issue of the controversy, while constantly putting forward
his profound desire to negotiate and to bring the different points of view
closer together.
In any case, this kind of expert always goes in the same direction as his
audience. Everyone must be satisfied and have the feeling that they have
not lost their time… They must feel that their interlocutor was a true
expert, with the simplicity of someone who knows his field, honest, sincere
and tolerant.
Beyond the triviality of everyday situations, the decision-maker is often
confronted with more critical situations such as catastrophes, recurring
events in the field of environment (floods, earthquakes, epidemics, diverse
explosions, etc.). The latter is also faced with litigations provoked by
his direct competitors who wish to reduce his power or even to take his place.
In this case, the decision-maker needs the help of expert-counsellors.
They counsel the decision-maker in the field of law, jurisprudence and possible
innovations. These erudite experts are all the contrary of their pseudo
expert-communicator colleagues. They base their arguments on international
comparisons and prepare the ground for future measures. The aim of these
measures is to prevent the reoccurrence of the unfortunate circumstances
that have led them to intervene. They are not decision-makers themselves
but they know the field well and often teach the decision-maker certain notions.
They are in the background and do not wish to be on the front of the scene.
They prepare or prevent reforms, watch carefully over the ongoing values
and are on the look out for new ones.
Last, there are the strategic experts who use their knowledge to improve
a declining or deficient action. Experts of ongoing actions, they lend a
helping hand whenever necessary. As opposed to the two previous categories,
they do more than they say and thus possess an extremely efficient practical
knowledge. They have their opinions, but these are barely heard. However
they do not hesitate to make them known outside of their field of action.
They are repaid for their efforts through their independence: the satisfaction
of understanding leads these experts to develop their own points of view,
but few are those who know how to use this information.
These three expertise functions are organised according to the schema below
(see figure). Each function is useful to the other two.
The values or figures at the base of discourse (seduction), action (comprehension) and intention (sustainability) are very different from one another.
[R] From arbitrariness to governance
We, as specialists or simple citizens, often feel that the environment, also
called complex phenomena, is a rather obscure and thus distressing area.
Becoming aware of this fact is painstaking, whether we precisely know (with
the permanent doubt of not knowing everything) or whether we suddenly discover
it. It associates our powerlessness in front of the current situation and
the uncertain and often terrifying future perspectives.
The incredible demographic growth of the past decades; the erosion of natural
environments (air, water, land, oceans) due to human activities; the ambiguous
power of science (nuclear energy, genetic manipulations, diverse pandemics);
the painstaking control of all forms of violence, so painstaking in fact
that it sometimes becomes part of violence itself; the guilt-provoking
implications of a media-exposed consumption… all these elements lead
to the loss of traditional behaviours and values.
Arbitrariness and governance are two techniques used by society, to re-establish
a certain amount of transparency and light in a world of doubt and poverty.
Societies turn to arbitrariness when in despair and to governance with somewhat
more hope.
It would be excessive to oppose arbitrariness, a sort of sin of the mind
(which it most often is) and governance, the ideal model of an incomplete
democracy (it is also the triumph of lobbies). Arbitrariness is often considered
as the weak means of action of the poorest countries and governance the luxurious
instrument of the richest democracies.
Arbitrariness
Arbitrariness is in the hands of those who handle it and thus is used according
to their concerns and fantasies. It has an influence on the paths it crosses
but excludes all others. In this context, it is a progress as compared to
general chaos. This conclusion can be reached by looking at all the countries
where dictatorship is replaced by nothing but generalised, fanatic and permanent
violence, at least as regards human beings. There is of course no nostalgic
sympathy for fallen tyrannical regimes behind this affirmation, simply a
statement.
There are of course different levels of arbitrariness, thus it is bearable
in some cases (we can, for example, denounce it and fight to change it etc.)
and totally intolerable in others (when we can do nothing else but endure
it). In any case, arbitrariness is based on a notion of authority and power,
that is to say weapons, money or even essentially unethical legal rights.
In our own country, all those who serve the State and define public use and
concerns (and not the use and concerns of the public) are subjected to a
weak form of arbitrariness.
How many times have we heard that somebody is going to have to decide and
settle the necessary arbitrations, that a bad decision that can be improved
is better than no decision at all, even though the latter is a source of
confusion and irreversible consequences? After all, car lights allow a driver
to make his way in the dark…
As a matter of fact, the question of arbitrariness consists in knowing who
the driver is and what his values are. Does he know where he is going? Does
he respect the other people on the road? And last but not least, where has
he been forced to stop, in a daze, in the name of the precautionary principle?
Governance
The conception of arbitrariness is on the whole opposed to that of governance,
a supposedly more democratic approach, often qualified as "good governance"
in the international texts promoting it.
Governance (good governance) is not a French invention and far from it, as
it stems not from public authorities or from private property, but from common
property, from common law, a value repressed by the French Revolution over
two centuries ago.
Governance is used by all actors on a local scale and has a wide influence.
Another way to define governance would be to say that it is a way of reinventing
public awareness thanks to widely spread information, as opposed to
arbitrariness.
How does governance function? Although the (acceptable) conceptual schema
of sustainable development has been on everyone's lips for over ten years
(it was defined by Gro Brundtland and her team long before the Rio Conference
in 1992), its resources are still scarcely known in France and it seems essential
to sum them up briefly.
Governance without sustainable development is a bit like having a can of
petrol and no motor to feed and run. Sustainable development is thus a social
motor. Like mechanical motors, sustainable development brings together a
series of acceptable compromises vital for society. All correct functioning
is based on games, approximations and tolerance.
The schema of sustainable development is divided into three poles: public
authorities, private interests and all actors who represent themselves: i.e.
natural environments, composed of all forms of life, including citizens,
users and consumers. The latter either represent themselves on an individual
scale or are grouped together under other entities than those representing
authority (public authorities, first pole) or money (private interests, second
pole).
Such a view shows that the State indeed has a regulating function but no
real representative function; that private interests do indeed function as
suppliers - in the field of employment, for example - but that they are incapable
of defining the demand. This approach is thus not always welcome in our country.
The public-private dialectic is indeed important in France, but the French
would not tolerate a third power stemming from neither one of these alternative
terms.
Let's suppose that a triangular model of this kind really exists.
The aim of governance is for each apex of the triangle to accept and reach
a compromise with the other two apexes, the guarantee of these compromises
being ensured by the third apex which is not directly involved.
Thus the public-private partnership would be watched over by the citizens,
the private interests would look after the relationship between the State
and citizens and last but not least, the consumer relationship between citizens
and private interests would be controlled by the State.
Such an approach is not a utopia in the field of environment and takes its
meaning in a well-defined vocabulary:
- first the relationship between the State and private interests. We can
easily imagine that the liberal values of the market are transmitted to the
State and public authorities via the private interests. This is the main
stake of globalisation, as shown in the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties,
at least as concerns the European Union. The aim of the compromise is for
public authorities to counterbalance these market values with public values
mainly influenced and controlled by citizen representatives. This could come
under different forms: parliamentary, associative, regional, local or composite.
The main point is that it remains as simple as possible; in other words,
it is not to be expressed through the biased representation of State agents
who would be less efficient at defining the values of the land.
- the principle is the same as regards the relationships between public
authorities and citizens. The latter request better protection and enhancement
of the natural and living environment. The values of the State are expressed
through laws and regulations defining, authorising and prohibiting different
uses and anticipating and sanctioning damage. Experience shows how difficult
it is to implement these texts, in every field. It is not by increasing the
number of pages of official bulletins, that problems will suddenly be solved.
This conclusion becomes more and more obvious with the increasing lack of
workforce, techniques and finance, especially in most poor countries. The
solutions must be found by the citizens themselves, both through individual
will power and municipal, associative or other collective determination.
These good practices are cultural elements that can be exchanged - and not
opposed in a negative way - as acceptable progress values, against legal
injunctions, which are often out-of-reach as they are theoretical and too
costly for the time being. Progressiveness entailed by affordable prices
during a set period of time represents the typical contribution of private
interests; the latter have faith in the "reasonable" character of a project
limited in time. Thus, citizens and public authorities can find constructive
and harmonious common ground by relying on the arbitrariness of private
interests. The ISO procedures (9000, 14000, etc.) stemmed from this way of
thinking.
- The third side of the sustainable development triangle represents the
relationships between citizens and private interests, under the eye of the
State. In the field of environment, these relationships reveal the amount
of goods and services that citizens wish to devote to environment protection
and moreover their economic and social demand as regards the environment.
This demand can be either fiscal, through taxes dedicated to the environment,
or direct, through a pricing and funding policy, the aim of which is to the
implement "good practices" in the field of investment and functioning. What
counts is that a controlled part of the economic flows is allocated to the
environment. It is normal for private economic interests to react when there
is a rise in the price of products (fear of competition) and when the purchasing
power of consumers decreases due to the fiscal or parafiscal contributions
which perturb the market. Thus it is necessary to associate result indicators
and environment programme evaluations to the social demand, both to stimulate
(the role of the State is to recommend incentive instruments, in this case)
and to moderate the latter if the fiscal or tariff contributions reveal to
be ill-used, useless or too heavy for the general economic situation. In
any case, the State must conserve its role of accountant as regards the
consequences of the social demand of users and consumers.
The following figure sums up the three previous points.
Thus represented, the triangle of sustainable development associates two
dynamic loops that counterbalance one another:
- a loop consisting of traditional political, social and economic values.
This is the outer shell of the triangle: the State promulgates laws, citizens
formulate demands and companies reflect these demands (at an international
scale) through financial and commercial measures.
- a governance loop, which aims at balancing the relationships between the
three actors in question in a different way: corporate governance is influenced
by the citizens but is instituted by the State (cf., arrow a); citizens
implement good environmental practices (set up investment and functioning
schemes) which require the intervention of the private sector's competence
and funding (cf., arrow b); the environmental policies are evaluated
on the initiative of private interests but are incited and controlled by
the public authorities (cf., arrow c).
The whole point of such a model is that it is based on the following argument:
transparency must result from the reciprocal adaptation of the values
of each actor. It is to each actor's advantage to promote the compromises
accepted by the other two. The role of governance is to spread this information.
The triangle of sustainable
development
a. "Corporate governance" organised by the public authorities
with the participation of citizens, consumers and users.
b. "Good practices" implemented by citizens thanks to economically viable
technological tools.
c. Evaluation of policies and result indicators set up by private interests
under State control.
Whether the triangle is small (poor countries) or large (rich countries),
it functions in the same way, that is to say progressively (dynamic), and
is not set in a more or less stable balance between only two actors (public
and private) passing an agreement.
One of the drawbacks of implementing governance, as it has been defined above,
is to explain it to all those involved. The State is uneasy to see its authority
(and thus its sovereignty) weakened, companies prefer to play a more discrete
political role and citizens are reluctant to take on real, rather than delegated,
responsibilities.
It goes without saying that arbitrariness is not confronted with all these
difficulties.
[R] To conclude: defining the values and orienting the action
The fourth session of the seminar "Values and Representations of the
Environment"(3) is introduced in the
following text:
"Defining the values and orienting the action". This fourth session
will be based on the links that exist between the development of theoretical
and empirical knowledge (previously reviewed) and decision-making in both
the private and public field. Some issues - and most specifically economy
- directly associate the importance of environment values and decision-making,
essentially via hypotheses on the behaviour of individuals. How do these
standards stand up to those developed by natural sciences through their own
representations of the environment? Do the different points of view, whether
conceptual or empirical, bring to light the changes in behaviours and values
linked to the environment? Do the public and private authorities simply go
along with these evolutions or do they, on the contrary, initiate them? What
does this lead us to say on the future evolution of our societies? Are these
evolutions positive? Do they go in the same direction as "sustainable
development"?
To get an idea, it seemed interesting to carry out a structural analysis
of the contents of this introduction (figure below).
Structural analysis of the problematic of "defining the values and orienting action"
Of course, such an analysis reveals the explicit choices of the author
(subjective selection of ten variables taken from the text; another selection
could have been made). Worse, completing the matrix of interrelations between
the ten variables chosen with "everything or nothing" answers (who influences
who?), leads to revealing the implicit choices of the person carrying out
the analysis, i.e. by adding up the influences (cf. columns) and dependences
(cf. lines).
The graphic representation of this result (figure below) also leads to a
subjective interpretation. But can things really be any different when dealing
with decision-making and future action?
It is not really of any importance, in any case, and when considering the
limited impact (limited to the author) of these conclusions, a rather distinct
differentiation of the variables adopted can be put forward.
Out of the ten variables forming the "values and actions" system, three are
of equal importance:
- the environmental values (VAL).
- the social standards (SOC-ST).
- sustainable development (SD).
These first three ex æquo variables are followed by a fourth
one: private interests (INT). Together, these four parameters structure the
main part of the system.
The box below gives a few indications on the discourse to be adopted, the
strong elements that could be of help and the consequences of future actions
on which we could be judged (cf points b, c and d).
Thus as the context is established, it is easy to deduce the answers to the
questions asked.
To sum things up:
- the social standards correspond to those of sustainable development.
- they dominate the environmental standards produced by natural sciences.
- it is behaviours that define values and not the contrary.
- private authorities have more influence on the evolution of the system
than public authorities. - anything can be said on the future evolution of
our societies, but not everything can be done.
The necessity of these evolutions is closely linked to the point of view
of the person who could express such a need. Needs are always expressed in
three different ways: action (no oral expression), discourse (not translated
into action) or non-revealed intentions inspired by both the action carried
out and the discourse held, but which does not respect either one. Following
are some examples of points of view.
It is definitely sustainable development that shows the path to be followed.
Now it is for each person to behave in such as way as to progressively build
the latter.
[R] Box
a) the stakes of the "values and actions" system:
- environmental values
- social standards
- sustainable development
(possibly: private interests)
b) discourse on the system:
- production of theoretical and empirical knowledge
- societal aspirations
(the future evolutions of our societies)
c) the strong points of the system (inputs):
- theoretical and empirical knowledge
- environmental values
(possibly: private interests)
d) evaluation of the results of the system (output):
- individual behaviour
Elements of the system that have a secondary intermediate role:
- decision-making
- environmental standards
- public authorities
Pierre Frédéric Ténière-Buchot
is council member for the Environment program of the United Nations(EPUN)
and associated professor in the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts
(CNAM).
[R] Answers to the above questions
Q. Which social standards are more or less explicitly put forward?
A. This expression is synonymous with "environmental values" and "sustainable
development" in the problematic context at issue.
Q. How do these standards stand up to those developed by natural sciences
through their own representations of the environment?
A. Social standards are the main issue of the system in question. They constitute
the main zone of action and conflict. They dominate over environmental standards
and condition the latter's valorisation.
In more simple terms, tell me how you live, and I will describe the required
environment, and not the contrary.
Q. Do the different points of view, whether conceptual or empirical, bring
to light the changes in the behaviours and values linked to the
environment?
A. By observing the changes in individual behaviour we can appreciate the
evolution of social standards (as well as that of sustainable development
and of environmental values), and not the contrary.
Values, standards and sustainable development processes represent the input
(stimulus); behaviours represent the output (responses).
Q. Do the public and private authorities simply go along with these evolutions
or do they, on the contrary, initiate them?
A. According to the analysis, the true initiators are the cultural elements
of the system: the theoretical and empirical knowledge and environmental
values of society that constitute this system. On a lesser scale, public
interests influence its evolution, more than public authorities, in any case,
that have no real influence.
Q. What does this lead us to say on the future evolution of our societies?
A. The discourse on the system is made up of the production of theoretical
and empirical knowledge, classified and studied in the three first sessions,
and of the description of society's prospective aspirations that are based
on this knowledge. The production of this knowledge and the prospective studies
are under no pressure whatsoever. Everything can be said; one cannot say
the same as regards action.
Q. Are these evolutions positive?
A. According to knowledge producers, taking into consideration this analysis
will allow to:
- act on the process of sustainable development (developing social standards,
promoting environmental values).
- hold a prospective discourse.
- watch out for the possible changes in individual behaviour.
If these three tasks are fulfilled, the evolutions in question will be considered
as necessary.
According to public authorities, the evolutions considered as necessary will
result from the counterbalance of the following points:
- reducing the action of theoreticians (knowledge producers) as regards the
process of sustainable development. Even if the experts were right, they
only represent a small part of society.
- playing on the ambiguity of the debate between environmental values (past
and present) and the prospective discourse on these values.
- making sure that the changes of individual behaviour do not only benefit
private interests.
According to private interests, evolution would stem from several changes:
the latter would replace knowledge producers in the framework of the sustainable
development process, be at the head of the discourses on environmental values
and influence the behaviour of consumers in as great a way as possible.
We could go on multiplying the different points of view. There are as many
"necessary" evolutions as there are actors to envisage them.
Q. Do the future evolutions of our society go in the same direction as
"sustainable development"?
A. Most certainly, as, according to the previous analysis, sustainable
development is the main issue at stake.
To sum things up, sustainable development (its implementation) influences
the way society is evolving. And the direction in which society is evolving
is called sustainable development (according to this analysis).
It is however a bit early to talk about the success of such a stake. It all
depends on the extent of the change in individual behaviour, as this will
allow to judge the success or failure of the issue.
This article is taken from the "Courrier de l'environnement
de l'INRA, n°44", by P.-F. Ténière-Buchot.
Translated from French by Nicole Scott.
Notes
(1) Therefore
anyone can become a consultant.[VU]
(2) Shakespeare W., 1599. Much ado about nothing.
London.[VU]
(3)
CNRS-IFEN-OPRESE, Royaumont, 14-15 mai
2001.[VU]
[R]
