The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium

This came up in a search I did last night before going on Rense's radio show. It's been years since I had the time to update ACL research pages and a lot has happened since most of the ACL research was posted online in 2003-4.

Want to do a little more local research too, find out exactly where Alaska stands in the United Nations Sustainable Development Programme. Here's a report on Juneau's ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability). Alaska is considered "ground zero" for climate impacts from global warming. Homer, Alaska is the local pilot test. http://www.cakex.org/case-studies/711,

"A number of Alaskan communities - including Homer, Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks and Kodiak - have joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection. See www.iclei.org/usa and www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/. ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection empowers local governments to take action on climate change by offering a framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving livability within municipalities."
http://www.akmarine.org/our-work/address-climate-change/community-action

But, like Jeff said last night, this stuff is just too BORING. It's a lot more fun to join the collective movement and be "cool" than to stand up for individual liberty. It's a lot easier to believe in Obama than to look at the facts. Nobody needs to read anything anymore, especially not drug and porn book publishers (right David?). As most wimpy Americans know, it's just a lot safer to go along with the sustainable development programme.

ISSUE 2:
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
by J. Gary Lawrence
http://www.unedforum.org/publications/millennium/mill%20paper2.pdf

THE MILLENNIUM PAPERS are a series of discussion booklets which will be brought out by UNED-UK between now and Earth Summit III in 2002

The second of the Millennium Papers
is jointly brought out with LGMB and
takes a strategic view of the lessons from
Local Agenda 21 and the way forward
The Millennium Papers Co-ordinating Editor is Felix Dodds

The Local Government Management Board’s purpose is to provide services and support
to all local authorities in England and Wales. We have a particular focus on management,personnel and governance issues. And if we don’t know the answers, we will try and find someone who does.

Our expertise ranges from conducting national pay negotiations to developing good
practice on the environment, from running exams and qualifications to developing top
managers. Our aims include helping staff develop to the best of their abilities in order for local authorities to gain maximum benefits from their skills and expertise.
The LGMB is governed by a Board of elected members nominated by the Local
Government Association (LGA) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
(COSLA). It is mainly funded through the Revenue Support Grant, subscriptions,
contracts for exams and negotiations, and projects for individual councils or associations.

At present there are separate financial arrangements covering the provision of service, including publications, to Scottish authorities.
Contact : Graham Pinfield
LGMB
Layden House
76-86 Turnmill Street
London EC1M 5QU
Tel: 0171 296 6600
Fax: 0171 296 6666
www.lgmb.gov.uk
UNED-UK Publications
Issue 1: Millennium Papers ‘Towards Earth Summit III – 2002’ by Derek Osborn £3.50
Earth Summit II – Outcomes and Analysis by Derek Osborn and Tom Bigg,
Foreword by Rt Hon Tony Blair MP (Earthscan/UNED-UK) £17.55
The Way Forward Beyond Agenda 21 Edited by Felix Dodds (Earthscan/UNED-UK) £17.55
Gender and Humanity into the 21st Century (Conference Report) Edited by Amy Cruse £10.00
The Future of Local Agenda 21
in the New Millennium
Presented by J. Gary Lawrence at a UNED-UK/LGMB Seminar
London, England on 29 June, 1998

Gary Lawrence is one of the key thinkers on sustainable development, an advisor to the US President’s Council on Sustainable Development and to US AID. He was on the US Government delegation to the 1996 Habitat II Conference and has also been Director of the Centre for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle.

I t is a pleasure to be back in the U.K. I am gratified to see so many here who
are interested in ensuring a good future for Local Agenda 21. Before we
begin I would like to thank UNEP-UK and the LGMB for
challenging me to think about this important topic and for
providing this forum for discussion. I would also like to
thank British Airways for their generosity in making my trip
here possible.
I have been asked to give you some thoughts on the future
of Local Agenda 21 as we move into the next millennium.
In my work I have to think about the future quite a bit.
In doing some reading on the subject I came across Scott
Adams’ description of the future as found in The Dilbert
Future.
“The children are our future. And that is why, ultimately,
we’re screwed unless we do something about it. If you haven’t
noticed, the children who are our future are good looking but they
aren’t all that bright. As dense as they might be, they will
eventually notice that adults have spent all the money, spread
disease, and turned the planet into a smoky, filthy ball of death.
We’re raising an entire generation of dumb, pissed-off kids who
know where the handguns are kept. This is not a good recipe for a
happy future. The alternative is for adults to stop running up
debts, polluting, and having reckless sex. For this to happen,
several billion Individuals (ibid.) would have to become less
stupid, selfish, and horny. This is not likely.” (1)
While a bit ‘over the top’, Mr. Adams’ description of the
present and a possible future seem to be close to the target.
In spite of all of the information available to support the
conclusion that it isn’t very smart to exhaust our natural and
monetary capital, to continue polluting and to continue
“We’re raising an entire
generation of dumb,
pissed-off kids who
know where the
handguns are kept.
This is not a good
recipe for a happy
future. The alternative
is for adults to stop
running up debts,
polluting, and having
reckless sex. For this
to happen, several
billion Individuals
(ibid.) would have to
become less stupid,
selfish, and horny.
This is not likely.”
1
2
the practice of unsafe sex, we continue to do all three. Our systematic failure
to protect and educate children may lead to a lack of hope and civility in the
communities of the future.
Local Agenda 21 (LA21) has been put forth by the
signatories to the Declaration of Rio and Chapter 28 of the
Agenda 21 Action Programme as a context for actions that
improve the present, avoid the futures we don’t want and
move toward the futures that we would prefer. LA21 also
suggests tools for use by local authorities to address these
important economic, environmental and social questions
about our present and future.
Chapter 28 describes its ‘Basis for Action’ as follows:
“Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by
Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation
and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in
fulfilling its objectives. Local authorities construct, operate and
maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning
processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in
implementing national and subnational environmental policies. As the level of
governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and
responding to the public to promote sustainable development.” (2)
The principle activity the authors recommend to meet this challenge is:
“Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations
and private enterprises and adopt ‘a local Agenda 21’.” (3) The text goes on to describe
methods, means and rewards associated with Local Agenda 21(LA21).
Some places in the world, like the United Kingdom, have taken seriously the
commitments made in Rio. Local authorities have made great strides toward
completing and using LA21 as an education, planning and priority setting
tool. These efforts have demonstrated great potential for helping many to
improve their lives. In so doing, local authorities have proven the importance
of another principle of Agenda 21 – the devolution of power from the nationstate
to local authorities. I have been told that LA21 has played an important
role in raising the profile of devolution discussion within the Government.
Other places have been much slower to adopt LA21. The reasons for this
lack of progress vary widely. In some cases LA21 is seen as an attack on the
power of the nation-state. In such cases, particularly when local authorities are
dependent upon threatened nation-state resources and/or permission to
enact new initiatives, LA21’s aren’t happening or are happening only as
theater. In other cases, where their is civil war, epidemic and/or severe
resource constraints, focus is necessarily on getting through today rather than
consideration of questions like “What will our lives be like a year or a decade from
now?” In the case of the U.S., our local authorities are engaged in planning
processes consistent with LA21 but there is little interest in using the LA21
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
“ Each local authority
should enter into
a dialogue with
its citizens, local
organizations and
private enterprises
and adopt ‘a local
Agenda 21’.”
3
brand. Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely
bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society
such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of
Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a
UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would
be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined
‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something
else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.
In those communities where LA21 has been adopted as the preferred
planning paradigm, some have found it useful and transformational. Others
treat it as just another type of public involvement strategy. In many cases the
process has brought people who have previously been or felt excluded into
the process of community building. In some, the priorities set during the
process have impacted project scope and spending
priorities. In all cases it is far too early to judge the ultimate
success, failure or utility of these efforts. LA21 is still a
young effort and local experimentation is still taking place.
It is not too early, however, to recognize some of the
barriers to the fulfillment of the LA21 visions.
Today I’d like us to examine four themes critical to the
future of Agenda 21. The way we address these themes will,
in large part, determine whether LA21 leads to positive
change or gets added to the list of planning methodologies
that employed planners and consultants, consumed
resources, and made little difference to those whom most
need help. The odds, I’m afraid, seem to favor the latter
outcome. It will be up to those who want LA21 to succeed
to address these barriers.
I want to raise some critical questions for which I have
no easy answers. My role today may be best described as
that of the ‘pea’ in the fable The Princess and the Pea. I will
be that slight irritant that keeps us from becoming too
comfortable with the idea that doing LA21 is the same
thing as succeeding in achieving the vision of LA21.
The problems I see and the questions I raise are not
intended as criticism of Local Agenda 21 or any individual or group working
to make Local Agenda 21 a success. I believe LA21 is a good model, perhaps
the best model we have to work with at the moment. I also think that people
of good intentions are diligent in their efforts to make this model work well
in the best interest of their communities. Francis Bacon captured my intent
when he said:
“Of myself, I say nothing, but on behalf of the business which is at hand I entreat
men to believe that it is not an opinion to be held, but a work to be done; and to be well
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
This segment of our
society who fear ‘oneworld
government’
and a UN invasion
of the United States
through which our
individual freedom
would be stripped
away would actively
work to defeat any
elected official who
joined ‘the conspiracy’
by undertaking LA21.
4
assured that I am laboring to lay the foundation, not of any sect or doctrine, but of
human utility and power. it is by no means forgetful of the conditions of mortality and
humanity (for it does not suppose that the work can be altogether completed within one
generation but provides for its being take up by another).” (4)
As I view community-based efforts toward greater sustainability, and think
about different measures of success that could be used, there appear to be
some particularly difficult barriers to the long-term success of Local Agenda
21. Some of the barriers are inherent to any discussion of sustainable
development. For instance, we haven’t worked out the issue of TIME (can we
actually anticipate the needs of infinite future generations?) nor have we
resolved questions of EQUITY (and its partner, Redistribution of Resources).
The book I am working on tries to addresses such basic sustainability issues.
This paper does not. Today I focus on some of the organizational and
communication issues that must be addressed.
The four areas I wish to explore are:
1. How does LA21 differ from traditional rational
planning models?
2. How do we know that the problems/issues/
opportunities we are addressing will be the
problems/issues/opportunities we will actually face?
How do we have confidence in plans that address
probabilities rather than certainties?
3. Have we ignored or under-emphasized the
institutional barriers to successful long-term LA21’s
and, if so, do we have the political skills to win intraand
inter-institutional struggles?
4. As we try to tell if what we are doing through LA21 is
working, what are the right tools for which audiences?
So, let us begin.
What is LA21 and how does it differ from traditional rational planning models?
LA21, like most rational planning models, attends to the process of designing
stand alone and interrelated projects and systems to meet the present and
future needs of anticipated populations. It involves defining problems and
opportunities, optimizing efficiency and effectiveness in the use of available
resources, and measuring progress against goals. For many planners, at first
glance, LA21 seems familiar and comfortable.
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
As I view communitybased
efforts toward
greater sustainability,
and think about
different measures of
success that could be
used, there appear to
be some particularly
difficult barriers to the
long-term success of
Local Agenda 21.
5
On closer examination, however, LA21 can look unfamiliar and create
discomfort, as it calls for a significant reorientation of the planners’ role.
It asks for a change of orientation from technocratic to political (not partisan).
This fundamental difference has not been well recognized by the planning
profession, or those who employ planners. Not too surprisingly, NGOs and
individuals have expectations for changed institutional
behaviors consistent with the principles of LA21. However,
even among those progressive local authorities committed
to making LA21 work, the public’s expectation for
different corporate and professional behaviors is seldom
being met.
In its construction LA21 makes clear through its call for
involvement, empowerment and devolution of power that
planning is primarily a political activity that relies upon
science and planning techniques. Most rational planning
models assume the opposite that planning is primarily
technical with political consequences. With this shift in
emphasis, the customary relationship between planners
and the planning profession, the public and politicians
changes significantly. Planning done under LA21 should:
Change community decisions about what can or will be discussed and who has
a right to be at the table. LA21 threatens the role and power of traditionally
empowered groups. Therefore, it Increases political risk for elected
officials and senior civil servants through empowerment of new constituencies
with different and/or heightened expectations. The expectations of these
new groups will often differ from significantly from the expectations of
more established constituencies. Revamping the local balance of power.
Greatly increase professional risk for the planner if he or she appears to be
eroding the political influence of traditional community powers by increasing
the voice of those historically disempowered. As the shift from ‘top down’
the ‘top’ being institutions of government or community elite to ‘bottom up’
planning and decision-making occurs, institutional risk can also increase.
If new constituencies are asked to participate without a good understanding
of the rules, it can:
Even more confuse the planners and communities understanding of the
legal, regulatory and constitutional constraints in which planners work. In
particular, public empowerment can cause misunderstandings about the
difference between the right to be heard, a basic tenant of LA21, and an
obligation of local authorities to heed individual recommendations.
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
It involves defining
problems and
opportunities,
optimizing efficiency
and effectiveness in
the use of available
resources, and
measuring progre s s
against goals.
For LA21 to be successful, planning professionals will
need different training than most are receiving today. While
the technocratic professional will still play an important
role, for this to work planners also will also the skills found in
sociology, psychology, community organizing and organizational
development. They also will need institutional
homes that encourage the use of these skills. This is no
small challenge, and one that doesn’t seem to be a priority
for the planning profession. This is a problem.
How do we know that the problems, issues and opportunities we are addressing
will be the problems, issues, opportunities we actually will face? When is it possible to
rely upon the information we use and ask others to trust?
It is a fundamental principle of rational planning that we live in a deterministic
world. Based upon the past and present, it is assumed that we can reasonably
predict likely futures and plan for them. However, both historical evidence
and chaos theory demonstrate that the past and present do not form a
reliable basis upon which to plan for the future. William Sherden wrote,
“Current science is proving this deterministic view of the world to be naive. The theories
of chaos and complexity are revealing the future as fundamentally unpredictable.”
If true, serious questions arise about the value of LA21’s that are designed
to mirror traditional planning by trying to be stable rather than dynamic.
Current LA21’s seem to be a more participatory and
inclusive version of traditional rational planning models
that assume that the future can be predicted based upon
the past. Most are not designed to be dynamic documents
that focus upon learning and adaptation.
There are a number of reasons why elements of the
plans today must be static even in chaotic environments. As
currently conceived, capital facilities bridges, transmission
lines and pipes, energy production facilities, etc.have long
lead-times for development and life cycles of 50 to 100
years. Such facilities are not flexible except at costs that far
outweigh the benefits of change. If it were technologically,
economically and politically feasible to meet capital needs
in different ways many small-scale electrical or water quality
projects rather than large-scale plants then the adaptability
of capital plans could be increased. In this scenario LA21
is dependent on technological innovation and changed
patterns of thinking among engineers and regulators. We
are not yet there, but we may get there.
Until we do, the planning profession will necessarily continue with the
notion that we can not plan if we can not reliably predict. The profession
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
6
For LA21 to be
successful, planning
professionals will
need different training
than most are
receiving today.
“ Current science
is proving this
deterministic view
of the world to be
naive. The theories
of chaos and
complexity are
revealing the future
as fundamentally
unpredictable.”
7
relies on predictive models and data extrapolation to determine the future
for which we ought to be planning. In many cases, the future revealed
through these models is erroneously thought to be the ‘real’ future by those
who created it. Alternative or competing visions are, therefore, determined
to be wrong, misinformed, or subjective. Through reliance on data and
predictive models, institutions and individuals have learned how to protect
themselves from blame if things don’t turn out as planned. After all, the best
available data was used and, as professionals, we were objective in the use of
the data. Sherden has this to say about objectivity:
“Although chaos and complexity theories alone are sufficient to
doom prediction, there are other barriers that obscure our view of
the future, such as ‘situational bias’: the phenomenon by which
our thing is so obscured by present conditions and trends that we
cannot begin to see the future.”
“I.F. Clarke, a historian of future thinking, characterized
situational bias well, as follows: ‘Traditional beliefs, professional
attitudes, customary roles, inherited symbols, sectional and
national interests – these make it extraordinarily difficult for all
but the most original of minds to break away from patterns of
thought and go voyaging on the unknown seas of the future.
In consequence it is a rare forecast that makes any allowance for
the essential waywardness of human affairs and does not insist on
a strict continuity between self-evident present and the evidential
future.’” (5)
To Clarke’s list I would add pressure for political
correctness and the desire to avoid topics that are divisive
and painful such racism and classism. Except in times of
emergency, maintenance of the status quo seems safer than
change for organizational beings. In many instances,
continuing to do something that is familiar and accepted,
even if it doesn’t actually work, is deemed safer than trying
something new that might work. In our rational minds we
know that we can not know the future. However, in our
emotional minds we desire the security of knowing what is
going to happen.
LA21 is an opportunity to start breaking the habit of
doing plans for some forecast future and following those
plans even if the world has changed the week after the plan
is adopted. It is an opportunity to redefine planning as a
learning and adaptive system that reacts to new information in ways consistent
with community values and objectives. LA21, if it is to meet its promise,
can not be just something we do occasionally. It needs to become the way in
which we learn how to live a more sustainable way.
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
In our rational
minds we know that
we can not know the
future. However, in
our emotional minds
we desire the security
of knowing what
is going to happen.
LA21 is an
opportunity to
start breaking the
habit of doing plans
for some forecast
future and following
those plans even
if the world has
changed the week
after the plan is
adopted.
8
Have we ignored and/or under-emphasized the institutional barriers to
successful long-term LA21’s and, if so, do we have the political skills to win
intra- and inter-institutional struggles?
LA21 calls for problem definitions that mirror the complexities of nature and
human organizations. It also calls for more collaborative, cross-sector analysis
and recommendations for action. Emphasis on an increased understanding of
complexity and increased collaborative behaviours would represent a significant
change in the behaviour of most public institutions. Organizational theory and
practice have shown us that changing the process and expectations without
changing the reward system means, in effect, that you have actually changed
nothing. This raises some very difficult questions:
What does LA21 mean for the relationships between environmental departments
and planning functions and the other, more powerful professions that
dominate the local government institutional environment? It could mean:
Perceived or real invasion of the tradition ‘turf’ of other professions.
Challenges to traditional institutional power relationships within and between
institutions.
Perceived attacks on the basis of individual expertise and the right to have
the last word.
What does it mean for organizational structure? It
could mean: Conflict with organizations’ existing reward
system as new, more cooperative behaviours are encouraged,
Breaking down sector and profession based structure and
compartmentalization.
What does it mean for the way in which our colleges
and universities train the professionals of the future? It
must mean: Changes in curricula used in training of urban
planning, operations and management to emphasize team
approaches and outreach to other professions, and I think
that one can generally predict the degree to which LA21
will matter over time by how closely its locus of activity is
attached to the place where resource allocation decisions
are made. If the activity is placed in the environmental
division of the planning office (traditionally a place with
little organizational power) then, I think, the chances for
success are small. If it part of the City Manager’s or Mayor’s Office, and
therefore integrated into regular decision-making processes, then the
chances of success are far greater.
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
I think that one can
generally predict the
degree to which LA21
will matter over time
by how closely its
locus of activity is
attached to the place
where resource
allocation decisions
are made.
9
LA21 processes, essentially, try to decide which issues
matter most and how we can, collectively, address them
most effectively and efficiently. Environmental planners do
not make those decisions. They are made by budget and
finance people, the Manager and the politicians. If there is
disconnection between LA21 and these groups then the
effort is in trouble. That is unless, of course, you are willing
to organize political movements through which the public
forces the institution to change its priorities.
LA21 asks us to increase the number of things we consider
before we make a choice. What the public seems to
want from their elected leadership these days are simplistic
assessments and answers, not complexity. Unless there is an
explicit and implicit recognition that LA21 begs questions of
organizational culture and, in many cases, organizational
arrangement, then it is unlikely that the effort will succeed.
Running this process through today’s organizational
structures will probably kill it or, perhaps even worse,
change it so that it is non-threatening to the organization.
For example, when, in 1994, the city of Seattle completed its comprehensive
plan – Toward a Sustainable Seattle – it was very clear to Mayor Rice that
plan requirements for consistency between the operating budget, capital
budget and the goals of the comprehensive plan would not happen
automatically. Seattle had for years been operating as though the Mayor and
Council were overseeing a holding company within which were many
independent businesses with both complementary and competing objectives.
To ensure that the plan objectives would be carried out in a more coordinated
fashion he merged the planning function with the group responsible for
management and budget issues. This made it possible for the plan to be both
visionary and strategic in its application.
How do we know when we are effective?
I have, with Sustainable Seattle and other organizations,
been asking the question “Can you point to any particular
decision or a adoption of funded priorities that are a direct
result of community based indicators?” I have also been
asking whether there is any evidence that institutions are
tangibly more sustainable, open, self-critical and self-healing
as a result of the indicators they have adopted to guide
their internal affairs.
I haven’t done an exhaustive review of indicator efforts,
so there will undoubtedly be exceptions to what I have
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
LA21 processes,
essentially, try to
decide which issues
matter most and
how we can,
collectively, addre s s
them most effectively
and efficiently.
Environmental
planners do not
make those
decisions.
“Can you point to
any particular
decision or a
adoption of funded
priorities that are
a direct result of
community based
indicators?”
10
found. And, there certainly are examples of incremental
and tangential effects and influences. However, no one seems
to be able to point to successful examples of fundamental
change except places like Alborg, which seems to be an
anomaly and Chattanooga where they really had no choice
but change, indicators or not. In Seattle, the indicators,
though well done, have barely affected the margins of public
consciousness. There is hope for greater impact, however,
now that King County government is trying to integrate
them into their decision-making.
I describe indicators as the tool which gives as regular
people the ability to know, based upon information that
tries to be objective, whether the things that matter most to
them are getting better or worse. Indicators are an essential
part of LA21’s that appears to me to be very fragile at this
time for the following reasons:
Community-based indicator efforts are initiated by visionaries or the truly
committed who don’t have conscious succession plans in place. Once the
strong personalities that initiate indicator activity move on to other things
the effort wanes.
Community-based indicator efforts, which I believe to have the best opportunity
to result in positive change, are largely fuelled by volunteer efforts
that will eventually run out of energy.
Institutional indicator efforts are most often designed to be non-threatening
to the established order and, therefore, will rarely be transformational
within their own Institution.
Institutional indicator efforts seem to take the form of
past rational budgeting paradigms (measurement of
effectiveness of expenditure against performance
targets) and become obscure and bureaucratic (see
bullet above).
There is little work being done to link the matters that
get reported upon in the media to the communities’
and/or institutions’ indicators.
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
I describe indicators as
the tool which gives
as regular people the
ability to know, based
upon information that
tries to be objective,
whether the things
that matter most to
them are getting better
or worse.
I believe that
every community
needs both
community-based
and institutional
indicators. It should
not be an either/or
situation.
11
So, if these are actually potential pitfalls, how do we address them?
First and most obvious, community-based indicator efforts need financial
support. Volunteerism will always be an important part of the effort, but
without a financial base the continuity of the effort is in real danger. It is in
any local authority’s interest to have good information on what their
constituents care about and how they describe the things that matter.
Community-based indicators should be seen as a fundamental part of the
budgeting and strategic planning processes, even if what they might indicate
doesn’t reflect well on the local authority.
I believe that every community needs both community-based and
institutional indicators. It should not be an either/or situation. The various
audiences for this information will be radically different and one size does not
fit all. As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, “Ideas are relata, i.e., entities that stand in
relation to the persons who have them.” We need different groups with ideas
(indicators) that stand in easy relationship to themselves.
In conclusion:
Wittgenstein concluded his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
with this corollary: “My propositions serve as elucidations in the
following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes
them as non-sensical when he has used them – as steps – to climb
up beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after
he has climbed up it.”
I think it is time for all of us to take a look at LA21, and the
sustainable development movement as a whole, and ‘throw
away the ladder’. LA21 is important as an ideal – an expression
of the need for more functional democracies, better informed
citizens, equal rights, giving people the opportunity to take
responsibility for improving their lives, and sharing the
power of the state with citizens of the state. To further these
ideals, LA21 also must be an instrument of organizational change within both
governmental and non-governmental organizations. Creating the position of
LA21 Officer, engaging the community, holding the meetings and creating
the plans are all very difficult and exhausting things to do. Sadly, completion
of these tasks is not a signal to rest. It is, as Churchill said, “the end of the
beginning.” The next step is organizational transformation so that LA21 is not
a process but a state of being.
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
I think it is time
for all of us to take
a look at LA21,
and the sustainable
development
movement as a
whole, and ‘thro w
away the ladder’.
12
Bibliography
(1) The Dilbert Future, by Scott Adams; HarperCollins Publishers; p13; copyright 1997
by United Features Syndicate, Inc.; ISBN 0-88730-866-X. Please note that Mr.
Adams is an U.S. author. In the U.K. reference would probably be to Cricket
bats. Mr. Adams terminologies for those among us that he feels are not all that
bright.
(2) Earth Summit – Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio,
pp233 & 234. ISBN 92-1-100509-4; not copyright protected.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Philosophical Classics, by Walter Kaufman, from Bacon’s The Great Instauration,
Prentice Hall, p3; copyright 1961; Library of Congress number 68-15350.
(5) The Fortune Sellers, by William A. Sherden, p7. Willey Publishing, copyright 1998.
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium
“ Five years ago, the Rio Summit launched
Agenda 21. Since then 70% of our local authorities
have been inspired to ‘think global, act local’
through Local Agenda 21. But we must do more.
I want all local authorities in the UK to adopt
Local Agenda 21 strategies by the year 2000.”
RT Hon Tony Blair MP
UK Prime Minister’s speech to the 1997 Earth Summit II
UNED-UK’s primary objective is to promote sustainable development through
facilitating the involvement of stakeholders in the work of the United Nations and
in monitoring the work of the UK in implementing international agreements on
sustainable development.
UNED-UK aims to encourage activities that result in a multi-sectoral approach to
the promotion of sustainable development; environmental protection, social
equity and economic development, through:
facilitating the involvement of stakeholders in the policy work of the United
Nations and other inter-governmental institutions in the area of sustainable
development and in particular in the work of the UN Environment
Programme, the UN Development Programme, and the UN Commission for
Sustainable Development;
helping to mobilise the UK political process, through all relevant institutions
and particularly through the UK parliament and the EU;
contributing to the preparation of national reports to the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development;
dissemination of information.
UNED-UK Membership 1998
1. Corporate Membership
a: Non-profit voluntary organisation with annual turnover
less than £500,000 £125
b: Non-profit voluntary organisation with annual turnover
up to £2 million £250
c: Non-profit voluntary organisation with annual turnover
over £2 million £375
d: Profit making organisations £625
2. Associate Membership
For small and local NGOs, local authorities and
branches of trade unions £ 70
3. Individual Membership
a: With subscriptions to UNED-UK publications service £ 65
b: Without subscription to UNED-UK publication service £ 30
If you are interested in becoming a member of UNED-UK
please contact Claire Nugent on 0171 839 1785.
There are a range of benefits for UNED-UK members, including being kept up-to-date with
the post-Rio agenda and the current activity of Environment and Development issues
nationally and internationally. All members have special rates for UNED-UKs seminars
and conferences and receive UNED-UK publications free of change (except for rate 3.b).
Price: £3.85 September 1998