APPENDIX 1
Memorandum from Professor Shirley Ali
Khan
Professor Shirley Ali Khan is a leading thinker
in the sustainable development education field. She has published
a number of seminal publications and speaks regularly at national
and international conferences.
Over the last 15 years Professor Ali Khan has
served on many strategic advisory groups. She is currently a member
of Ken Livingston's Sustainable Development Commission for London
and has recently completed a three year term on the government's
Sustainable Development Education Panel as its further and higher
education sub-group chair. She produced the Panel's professional
bodies report and its further education guidance.
In 2001-02 she led a national debate on the
desirability of establishing sustainable development standards
relating to personal competence, in association with the Institute
of Environmental Management. Recent publications include the Yorkshire
and the Humber Region's Sustainable Development Education Strategy;
and a Capacity Building for Sustainable Development Guide for
Local Authorities.
From 1997-99 she directed the two-year government
funded HE 21 project which was designed to generate and promote
examples of best practice for sustainability across the higher
education sector. She also developed the learning and accreditation
model for the highly acclaimed Forum for the Future's Scholarships
programme. In 1996 she undertook a major review of the further
and higher education sector's response to the sustainable development
challenge for the then Department of the Environment and Department
of Education and Employment. Her report was launched by two Secretaries
of State.
Professor Ali Khan is currently the Curriculum
Director for Project Carrot
The Integration of Sustainable Development
Education within Further, Higher and Professional Education Programmes
1. THE CURRENT
SITUATION
1.1 The Government's Sustainable Development
Education Panel set further and higher education institutions
(FHEIs) the following goals in the first of its five Annual Reports.
By 2010 all FHEIs should
— be accredited to an internationally
or nationally recognised sustainable development systems standard;
— have staff fully trained and competent
in sustainable development;
— be providing all students with relevant
sustainable development learning opportunities (curriculum "greening").
These goals are consistent with the largely
unimplemented recommendations of the 1996 Environmental Responsibility
Report (Toyne) Review and the 1993 Toyne Report (see Annex I).
1.2 The Toyne Review looked at the extent
to which FHE institutions were taking a strategic approach to
"greening" their curricula. It identified only six significant
examples of good practice from the 756 institutions surveyed.
The national surveys conducted by the government's Sustainable
Development Education Panel in partnership with the HE 21 Project
in 1999, to discover whether sustainable development learning
elements had been integrated in business, engineering, design
and teacher education programmes, revealed a general lack of any
kind of strategic approach across all sectors surveyed. Other
sector-based surveys of land-based and tourism courses, undertaken
by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Tourism
Concern respectively, drew similar conclusions. Neither is there
any evidence of a consistent, strategic approach to integrating
sustainable development education within Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education's recently devised subject bench marks.
1.3 According to the Sustainable Development
Education Panel's Professional Bodies Report, a small number of
professional institutions, particularly those whose professional
practices have an obvious and significant link to environmental
quality, do provide encouragement and some support to their members
to take account of environmental issues, but this is patchy. There
is generally only a small amount of funding dedicated to support
activity and there is evidence of "wheel reinvention".
No one professional institution provides a comprehensive support
service to its members in the environmental field, and support
relating to sustainable development is rare.
1.4 The evidence suggests that government
recommendations relating to sustainable development education
targeted at the FHE sector and the professions have had little
effect. One has to question what difference simply re-framing
and re-stating these recommendations within a national sustainable
development education strategy would make.
1.5 A fully funded strategic support mechanism
is needed to encourage and help FHE institutions and the professions
to engage with the sustainability challenge.
2. RECOMMENDATION
ONE: THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
2.1 The establishment of two national Sustainable
Development Standards relating to personal competence are proposed.
These are:
— Sustainable development guardian
standard
— Sustainable development champion
standard
Both would be assessed at practitioner and professional
levels.
2.2 These Standards would help to break
through the impasse that currently exists, by exposing the learning
that is needed by professionals and practitioners and providing
a mechanism for evidencing when it has been achieved.
2.2 The Guardian Standard
2.2.1 Practitioners and professionals of
all kinds need to ensure that their practice does not contravene
sustainable development principles. To do this they need to have
a basic understanding of sustainable development principles and
of the solutions tools and techniques currently available, relevant
to their work. This basic understanding is an element of employability.
2.2.2 The proposed Guardian Standard would
be unlike existing professional or vocational standards. The Standard
represents a core knowledge base ("a mini-standard")
which should be integrated into all professional and vocational
standards. The possession of core sustainability knowledge should
be one of the requirements for achieving professional or vocational
status.
2.2.3 The Guardian Standard has the potential
to become a useful indicator of organisational capacity to address
sustainable development responsibilities. It may also help to
generate a market demand for employees with a basic level of sustainable
development literacy.
2.2.4 Improving the sustainable development
knowledge base of professionals and practitioners would generally
encourage the mainstreaming of sustainable development in a wide
range of small and large organisations, from both the public and
private sector.
Sustainable Development Guardian Standard (professional
level)
Knowledge
Sustainable development principles
— an awareness of the interdependence
of major systems;
— an understanding of the needs and
rights of future generations;
— an understanding of the equity and
justice issues associated with sustainable development;
— an understanding of the value of
diversity;
— an appreciation of the need for precaution;
— an awareness of the environmental
limits to human activities.
Sustainable development solutions
— an understanding of the potential
contribution of his/her own profession to sustainable development
solutions;
— an awareness of the contribution
of other professions to sustainable development solutions;
— an awareness of opportunities for
sustainable development to contribute to organisational goals;
— an understanding of the business
case for sustainable development;
— an awareness of what currently constitutes
best practice, including a general awareness of the wide range
of sustainable development solutions tools and techniques now
available;
— an awareness of sustainable development
related legislation, policy and control mechanisms relevant to
his/her own profession.
2.3 The Champion Standard
2.3.1 Sustainable development is not yet
a mainstream concern for most public and private sector institutions.
Until it is, sustainable development champions will be needed
to help drive the mainstreaming process. This view is reinforced
in the Sustainable Development Panel's in its fourth annual report.
2.3 2 The absence of a career structure
for people working in the sustainable development field means
that entry points are not obvious and progression routes are ill-defined.
The lack of progression routes from practitioner level to professional
level posts means that practitioners have nowhere obvious to move
on to when they up-skill, which results in a shortage of practitioner
level posts available for newcomers. This is creating a something
of a "log-jam". Increasingly, employers are paying practitioner
level wages for professional level employees in the sustainable
development field. Naturally word gets round that it is not easy
to get into, progress within or get just rewards for work in the
environment/sustainable development field. All this, in turn,
is making young people think twice about a career in the sustainable
development field.
2.3.3 The establishment of a Sustainable
Development Champion Standard, which would be in-line with traditional
professional standards, could help to: raise the sustainable development
competence base of specialists working in the field; encourage
the creation of more senior level posts; provide better opportunities
for mainstreaming; and encourage just recognition and reward for
the work which sustainable development champions do. It would
also help sustainable development champion practitioners to identify
areas they need to develop in order to achieve sustainable development
champion professional status, and help educators and trainers
to identify gaps in current provision.
2.3.4 Sustainable development champions
are likely to be drawn from a wide range of professional backgrounds.
It should not be assumed that all will be drawn from the environmental
domain, although some will. In an era of life long learning, serial
careers and multi-professionalism are likely to increase. It would
therefore be feasible for a journalist or an architect or an accountant
with a personal and/or professional interest in sustainable development
to acquire the relevant knowledge and skills to become a sustainable
development champion.
Sustainable Development Champion Standard (professional
level)
Knowledge
Sustainable development principles
— an awareness of the interdependence
of major systems;
— an understanding of the needs and
rights of future generations;
— an understanding of the equity and
justice issues associated with sustainable development;
— an understanding of the value of
diversity;
— an appreciation of the need for precaution;
— an awareness of the environmental
limits to human activities.
Sustainable development solutions
— an awareness of the "live"
areas of the sustainable development debate and a detailed understanding
of at least one major issue;
— an awareness of key sustainable development
issues in the region and locality where he/she works;
— an understanding of the contribution
of different sectors to sustainable development solutions;
— an understanding of how his/her organisation
is managed, funded and generally gets things done; how it relates
to other organisations in the same sector and other sectors; and
its position concerning sustainable development;
— an understanding of the business
case for sustainable development;
— an awareness of what currently constitutes
best practice, including a general awareness of the wide range
of sustainable development solutions tools and techniques now
available, and a detailed understanding of the following:
— environmental management systems
standards; environmental and social reporting; eco-labelling,
environmental and social auditing and impact assessment; life
cycle analysis; resource efficiency; sustainable development indicators
— an awareness of sustainable development
related legislation, policy and control mechanisms.
Skills
Personal
— have a strong sense of self worth;
— be resilient and good humoured in
the face of difficulty and disappointment;
— conduct themselves in an ethically
responsible manner—which includes adhering to their organisation's
ethical code of practice, being punctual, honouring dead-lines
and being respectful towards others;
— embrace new ideas and adapt to changing
circumstances;
— be a co-operative team member as
well as a team leader.
Interpersonal
— inspire, motivate and encourage effort
and development in others;
— listen to others with empathy and
an open mind;
— present sustainable development principles
and solutions confidently and effectively, both orally and in
writing, to a wide range of audiences;
— network confidently and effectively
with senior managers and professionals and relevant stakeholder
groups;
— chair executive level meetings with
vision and diplomacy;
— facilitate senior level discussions;
Managerial
— put administrative systems in place
to manage the sustainable development mainstreaming process—database
management, information management, budget management, file keeping,
response to enquiries;
— put systems in place to manage team
workers—relevant training, regular team meetings, challenge
and reward sharing;
— delegate responsibility for aspects
of the work.
Analytical
— think strategically and across disciplinary
and professional boundaries;
— critically analyse and summarise
information from a wide range of sources;
— identify personal strengths and weaknesses
and appropriate strategies to address the latter;
— define and identify solutions to
routine and unfamiliar problems;
— integrate past lessons into future
thinking;
— judge when to compromise.
Entrepreneurial
— identify useful work, create demand
for own skills, raise funds (if necessary) to undertake the work,
persuade appropriate partners and stakeholders to be involved;
— devise new, innovative ways of achieving
sustainable development objectives;
— recognise and act on opportunities
for achieving sustainable development objectives;
— take account of political sensitivities.
2.4 Quality control
2.4.1 It is suggested that an intermediary
organisation should take overall responsibility for setting, promoting,
and accrediting the Sustainable Development Champion Standard.
However, because of the potentially vast demand for the Guardian
Standard, it is suggested that the intermediary organisation should
take responsibility for setting the Guardian Standard and help
other bodies with strategic professional or sectoral roles to
develop their own capacity to promote and accredit the Standard,
through a franchising arrangement.
2.4.2 This would enable those bodies wishing
to provide an accreditation service relating to the Guardian Standard
to their own members/constituency (and to others) to do so. It
would also enable those bodies who do not have the capacity to
accredit the Guardian Standard to promote it to their members/constituency
without the responsibility of providing the accreditation service
themselves.
2.4.3 The intermediary institution would
have an interactive relationship with other standards setting
organisations, sector skills councils and other institutions involved
in providing strategic support to particular professions and vocations.
2.5 Support for the establishment of Sustainable
Development Standards
2.5.1 In February 2001 the Institution of
Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) hosted a conference
at the Institution of Civil Engineers to open a debate on the
desirability of establishing Sustainable Development Standards.
The debate was also welcomed by Michael Meacher, the then Minister
for the Environment.
2.5.2 Following on from this a proposal
for the establishment of Sustainable Development Standards was
circulated to 8,000 stakeholders for comment. 75% of respondents
were in favour of the establishment of Sustainable Development
Standards.
2.5.3 We also received encouragement and
support for the establishment of Sustainable Development Standards
from a number of key players including: DETR (Sustainable Development
Unit); the chair of the Sustainable Development Commission; Chartered
Institute of Environmental Health; Chartered Institute of Housing;
Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers; Chartered Institute
of Housing, Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management
and Assessment; Royal Academy of Engineers; Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors; Royal Society of Arts; Royal Institute of
British Architects; Royal Town Planning Institute; Town and Country
Planning Association; Prince's Trust; John Laing; Building Research
Establishment; Waterman Environmental; TXU Europe; Groundwork
UK; Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges; Local
Authorities' Sustainability Practitioner's Network; Cheltenham
and Gloucester College of Higher Education; Committee of Heads
of Environmental Sciences; National Subject Centre for Environmental
Sciences; Environmental Studies and Geology; Professional Associations
Research Network; Universities of Middlesex, Salford, Ulster and
Westminster; and Filton College.
2.6 Recommendation
2.6.1 We felt that our proposal for the
establishment of Sustainable Development Standards resonated strongly
with the DfES's stated intention to establish a specialist sustainability
unit within its Sector Skills Framework. However, after some deliberation,
the DfES decided not to establish a specialist sustainability
unit or any other strategic mechanism to help plug the current
sustainable skills gap amongst a whole range of practitioners
and professionals.
2.6.2 We recommend that the DfES reconsiders
funding the establishment of an expert unit which takes responsibility
for setting, stewarding and promoting the Sustainable Development
Guardian and Champion Standards in collaboration with other standards
setters and advice providers to practitioners and professionals.
3. RECOMMENDATION
TWO; THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF
SECTOR-BASED,
SUSTAINABILITY LEARNING
HUBS
3.1 Lessons Learnt about the Sustainability
Learning Agenda
3.1.1 Whilst it is true to say that sustainability
learning has not yet been fully integrated into further, higher
and professional education, some progress has been made in relation
to our understanding of the nature of the sustainability learning
agenda—in other words, what needs to be learnt.
3.1.2 The core environmental learning agenda
for the further and higher education sector began to be sketched
out in the early nineties through initiatives such as:
— Greening the Curriculum (1991, Committee
of Directors of Polytechnics).
— Towards Environmental Competence
in Scotland (1991 Scottish Environmental Education Council/World
Wide Fund for Nature).
— BTEC Environmental Initiative (1993,
BTEC).
— Competencies of the environmentally
educated teacher (1993, UNESCO).
— Taking Responsibility Series (1995,
Council for Environmental Education).
— Environmental Integrity of GNVQ's
(1995, National Council for Vocational Qualifications).
— Cross-curricular environmental education
in further and higher education (1995, Institution of Environmental
Sciences).
3.1.3 By the mid-nineties our understanding
of the nature of the human response needed to protect the environment
had shifted. To reflect this change in understanding the language
of environmental protection evolved into the language of sustainable
development. By the late nineties a consensus had emerged within
the sustainable development education community around the core
learning agenda for sustainable development for further and higher
education institutions. The following key initiatives undertaken
during this period, broadly promote the same core learning agenda.
— core sustainability learning agenda
(1996, Environmental Responsibility Report Review);
— core sustainability learning specifications
(1999, HE21 Project/Sustainable Development Education Panel's
specifications for business, design, teacher education and engineering);
— core sustainability learning programmes(1997,
The Natural Step; 1999, Professional Practice for Sustainable
Development Programme);
— generic sustainability unit for BTEC
land-use programmes (2002, Edexcel);
— core sustainability learning (Guardian,
2002, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment).
3.1.4 The core learning agenda for sustainable
development has two key elements which are relevant to all:
— core sustainability principles;
— currently available sustainable development
solutions.
The depth to which these need to be understood
will vary according the level at which people work or intend to
work. As regards the sustainable development solutions tools and
techniques, these will also vary according to the nature of the
work—for instance the sustainable development solutions
tools and techniques relevant to a farmer will be different to
those relevant to an architect.
3.1.5 Feed-back from training programmes
covering sustainability principles without reference to sector-based
solutions reveal that individuals are left with the feeling that
they know they should be doing something, but they have no idea
what. A lesson that we have learnt is that sustainability learning
at further, higher and professional levels must be solutions oriented
and sector specific.
3.2 Recommendation
3.2.1 In the light of this learning and
experience, the establishment of sector-based sustainability learning
hubs is proposed to support the proposed Sustainable Development
Standards. The hubs would be based in further and higher education
institutions with a demonstrable strategic commitment to sustainable
development and sector-based expertise relating sustainable development
solutions.
3.2.2 In the first instance, it recommended
that funding is made available to pilot the sector-based, sustainability
learning hub model.
4. GOOD PRACTICE:
PROJECT CARROT
4.1 Project Carrot's mission
4.1.1 Project Carrot is being driven by
a unique business education partnership between the Advantage
West Midlands, the Bulmer Foundation and the Pershore Group of
Colleges. Its mission is to:
Catalyse a shift in people's values in favour
of more sustainable ways of using and managing rural land
4.2 Project Carrot's aims
4.2.1 Project Carrot's three key aims are
to:
— strengthen understanding of the links
between human nature, human health, animal health and the health
of the land;
— encourage improvements in environmental
quality and reduce the negative impact of rural sector businesses
and services on the land; and
— promote the diversification of the
rural economy and revitalisation of rural communities.
4.3 Project Carrot's Objectives
4.3.1 There are six objectives associated
with Project Carrot's key aims. These are to:
— develop a suite of "leading
edge" sustainability learning programmes;
— develop the Holme Lacy estate as
a resource for demonstrating and promoting a broad range of sustainable
land use techniques;
— reorient Pershore Group practices
in line with sustainable development principles;
— establish innovative commercial programmes
on-site and catalyse the establishment of others across the region;
— contribute to the development of
knowledge relating to sustainable land use through research; and
— influence policy in relation to sustainable
land use.
4.4 Project Carrot's Sustainable Development
Champion's Programme
4.4.1 The cornerstone of Carrot's suite
of sustainability learning programmes will be its Sustainable
Development Champion's Programme which will be launched in Autumn
2003.
4.4.2 The programme will provide a challenging
fast-track, Masters level, learning experience to 12 outstanding
young people (between the ages of 21 and 30), who have shown both
commitment to sustainable development and leadership potential.
Whilst recruitment will be national, the programme will be based
in the West Midlands region. The rationale for this is to draw-in,
grow and use the talents of some of the country's most able young
people to catalyse innovation and entrepreneurship in relation
to sustainable land-use in the region. Programme recruits will
have studied or have been working in the land-based sector and
at least three will be drawn from the region.
4.4.3 The programme will involve leaders
in the field of sustainable land use to ensure the trainee advocates
have access to the latest thinking and best practice in relation
to sustainable development solutions. In addition, each trainee
will undertake three, one month, work-based placements, largely
in regional organisations. Whilst on placement the trainee champions
will be working with their placement hosts on how to make their
practices more sustainable. In this way, the programme will provide
the equivalent of 36 months free consultancy relating to sustainable
land use to 36 regional organisations.
4.4.4 There is also a community service
element to the programme to ensure that trainee champions are
both aware of social sustainability issues and actively contribute
to the social sustainability of the region.
4.4.5 Towards the end of the programme trainees
are asked to focus on a specific project which has the potential
to improve regional sustainability in some way. They will be required
to produce either: a feasibility study; a business plan; or a
funding proposal. It is likely that trainees will choose to build
on work started whilst on placement. In short, this means that
12 fully worked up proposals to improve regional sustainability
will be developed every year.
4.4.6 The Programme will be accredited by
the University College Worcester and subject to its normal academic
quality control procedures.
4.5 Project Carrot's Sustainable Development
Literacy Programme
4.5.1 In the longer term, the intention
is to develop the Carrot Sustainable Development Literacy Programme
which will offer advisers, managers and educators from the fields
of agriculture, horticulture, forestry and landscaping; food and
drink; and leisure and hospitality a range of opportunities to
keep up to date with current thinking on sustainability solutions
relevant to their sector's activities.
4.6 Suggestion
4.6.1 The holistic approach to providing
leadership in relation to sustainable land-use being taken by
the Pershore Group of Colleges—through education, demonstration
and example—would make it an ideal organisation to pilot
the proposed sector-based, sustainability learning hub model.
February 2003
Annex 1
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
(TOYNE) REPORT
& REVIEW
1. Environmental Responsibility (Toyne) Report
1.1 The Government White Paper, This "Common
Inheritance" (1990), recommended that an expert committee
be convened to consider the environmental education needs of the
business community. The committee's report, "Environmental
Responsibility: an Agenda for Further and Higher Education",
was published in 1993. The report's key recommendation states:
After consultation with its staff and students,
every higher and further education institution should formally
adopt and publicise, by the beginning of the academic year 1994-95,
a comprehensive environmental policy statement, together with
an action plan for its implementation
1.2 The report made 26 other recommendations
targeted at government, FHE institutions, funding councils and
professional bodies. One of these recommendations was for a review
progress after three years.
2. Environmental Responsibility Report Review
(Toyne II)
2.1 The Environmental Responsibility Report
Review was launched by two Secretaries of State from the Education
and Employment and Environment Departments in 1996. The Review
revealed that most of the institutions and organisations targeted
in the 1993 Report, including government, had demonstrated "considerable
indifference" to its recommendations.
2.2 Only 114 respondents out of a possible
756 FHE institutions claimed to have environmental policies in
place. Where policies existed, implementation was generally found
to be at an early stage with most progress being made on the good
housekeeping side, particularly in areas associated with obvious
cost savings, such as energy efficiency or where the "green"
ticket could help institutions to introduce otherwise unpopular
measures eg car parking charges. Little progress was found in
areas such as purchasing.
2.3 As regards the curriculum, only 17 FHE
respondents claimed to have set out in general terms what all
their students needed to learn in order to be able to take account
of sustainable development in their work and daily lives. Of these,
less than half-a-dozen were making significant progress.
2.4 Toyne Review Key Recommendations
1. Enabling responsible global citizenship
(which is the outcome of sustainability learning) should be recognised
as core business of learning institutions and a legitimate purpose
of life-time learning;
2. Funds should be made available to establish
a national programme to support the further and higher education
sector's response to the challenge of sustainable development;
3. Within three years all FHE institutions
should be either accredited to, or committed to becoming accredited
to, a nationally or internationally recognised environmental management
systems standard, such as the Eco Management and Audit Scheme;
4. Within three years all FHE institutions
should have developed the capacity to provide all students with
the opportunity to develop defined levels of competence relating
to responsible global citizenship;
5. Those responsible for defining national
standards relating to industrial and professional practice, and
associated qualifications and standards, such as industry lead
bodies and professional bodies, should ensure that appropriate
reference is made to sustainable development issues;
6. Within three years all funding councils
should introduce a mechanism for linking environmental performance
to the allocation of funds, for example by introducing environmental
criteria into existing quality assessment and inspection procedures.
| 
