Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

This article was downloaded by: [Shahid Beheshti University]On: 11 May 2012, At: 22:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Development in PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

Mechanisms and instruments ofsustainable developmentHadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi & KhalidEdizadehi

Available online: 09 May 2012

To cite this article: Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi & Khalid Edizadehi (2012):Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development, Development in Practice, 22:3, 385-399

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2012.664624

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Mechanisms and instruments ofsustainable development

Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi,and Khalid Edizadehi

The present study aimed to aid government sector managers in Iran in their understanding of

sustainable development mechanisms. Research was undertaken with 338 managers selected

randomly from seven government ministries. The findings revealed that the rules and devices

of public participation, voluntary environmental certification systems, scientific cooperation,

and education were all priorities for moving towards sustainable development. The results

also showed that institutional development, social capital and education, economic instruments

for environmental protection, monitoring and informing, a clean development mechanism, and

sustainable government are key means for encouraging sustainable development in Iran.

Mecanismes et instruments du developpement durableLa presente etude cherchait a aider les responsables de secteur du gouvernement iranien a

mieux comprendre les mecanismes du developpement durable. Des recherches ont ete entre-

prises avec 338 responsables selectionnes au hasard parmi sept ministeres gouvernementaux.

Les resultats ont revele que les regles et les dispositifs relatifs a la participation du public, aux

systemes volontaires de certification environnementale, a la cooperation scientifique et a l’edu-

cation etaient autant d’elements prioritaires pour parvenir au developpement durable. Les

resultats ont aussi montre que le developpement institutionnel, le capital social et l’education,

les instruments economiques pour la protection de l’environnement, le suivi et l’information, un

mecanisme de developpement propre et un gouvernement durable sont des moyens cles

d’encourager le developpement durable en Iran.

Mecanismos e instrumentos de desenvolvimento sustentavelO presente estudo visou auxiliar gerentes do setor governamental no Ira a compreender os

mecanismos de desenvolvimento sustentavel. Foi realizada uma pesquisa com 338 gerentes

selecionados aleatoriamente de 7 ministerios de governo. Os resultados revelaram que

regras e mecanismos da participacao publica, sistemas voluntarios de certificacao ambiental,

cooperacao cientıfica e educacao foram todos considerados prioritarios para se avancar em

direcao ao desenvolvimento sustentavel. Os resultados tambem mostraram que desenvolvi-

mento institucional, capital social e educacao, instrumentos economicos para protecao

ambiental, monitoramento e informacao, alem de um mecanismo claro de desenvolvimento e

um governo sustentavel sao formas essenciais de se estimular o desenvolvimento sustentavel

no Ira.

ISSN 0961-4524 Print/ISSN 1364-9213 Online 030385-15 # 2012 Taylor & Francis 385

Routledge Publishing http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2012.664624

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

Recursos e instrumentos para el desarrollo sostenibleEl objetivo de este estudio consistio en apoyar a funcionarios gubernamentales de Iran para

que conocieran con mayor profundidad los recursos del desarrollo sostenible. Se realizo una

investigacion entre 338 cargos medios de siete ministerios del gobierno seleccionados de

manera aleatoria. Los resultados muestran que las normas y las modalidades de participacion

publica, los sistemas de certificacion ambiental voluntarios, la cooperacion cientıfica y la edu-

cacion son prioridades para lograr el desarrollo sostenible. Los resultados tambien muestran

que otros factores importantes para incrementar el desarrollo sostenible en Iran son: el desar-

rollo institucional, el capital social y la educacion, las estrategias economicas para la protec-

cion ambiental, el monitoreo y la divulgacion, una estrategia de desarrollo transparente y un

gobierno estable.

KEY WORDS: Aid; Environment; Governance and public policy; Methods; Arab States

Introduction

In order to implement Chapter 8 of Agenda 21 on the ‘Integration of environment and devel-

opment into decision making’, countries are required to develop a national sustainable devel-

opment strategy (NSDS) (Brodhag and Taliere 2006). By 2006, 40 per cent of UN member

countries had developed and/or partly implemented NSDS (Silveira 2006). This demonstrates

that, although the urgent need for NSDS is widely acknowledged, workable procedures for

implementing sustainable development are still in their infancy. For instance, research on mech-

anisms of governance of sustainability as part of a platform of sustainable development is at an

early stage owing to the lack of long-term experience and relevant data. Most studies are

focused on governance for an individual aspect (economic, social, or environmental) of sustain-

ability. They are also typically restricted to a certain form (contract, cooperative, industry

initiative, public programme), a management level (firm, ecosystem), or a particular location

(region) (Hrabrin 2009). It is widely recognised that achievement of the economic, social,

environmental, intra- and inter-generational goals of sustainable development requires an

effective social order (governance) and coordinated actions at various levels (individual, organ-

isational, community, regional, national, transnational). However, it is also understood that the

effective forms of governance of sustainable development are rarely universal and there is a

large variation among different countries, regions, and subsectors, according to the specific

governing structures. Therefore, much depends upon how planners or policymakers understand

and interpret the concept and the nature of the mechanisms of sustainable development

(Quaddus and Siddique 2002). In view of this, in the present article we incorporate managers’

viewpoints about means and mechanisms as a set of rules and devices designed to bring about a

certain outcome and suggest mechanisms of governance of sustainable development in Iran. We

also believe that mechanisms of sustainable development determined here can be employed by

the planners and actors of the country’s fifth five-year development plan.

Theoretical background

Development has been taken to mean different things at different times, in different places, and by

different people in different professions and organisations. The dominant meanings have been those

attributed by economists and used in economics. Development has then often been equated with

economic development and economic development, and in turn, with economic growth (Chambers

386 Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

2005). In many countries, economic development policies have not yielded benefits for the poor.

Instead, they have resulted in rapid short-run economic gain for a few, at the expense of wider

social justice and long-term environmental security. The 1980s’ concern for the environment

and social justice produced a new concept in development thinking – people-centred development

(Davidson et al. 1992). This brings social and economic advances but also safeguards the environ-

ment and its resources so that options are not closed for the future. Sustainable development is a

dominant notion in this approach, because it is an alliance of three essential elements – people,

their environment, and the future – by bridging the traditional gulf between environmental and

developmental thinking. The Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Devel-

opment 1987) defined sustainable development as follows: ‘Humanity has the ability to make devel-

opment sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

Putting a commitment to sustainable development into practice requires a substantial tran-

sition not just to a broader understanding and more ambitious set of objectives, but also to

more coherently inter-related institutional structures and processes of planning, administration,

markets, tradition, and choice at every scale (Gibson 2001). Clearly, this transition cannot be

achieved quickly or easily. The challenge is to show how such a transition can be accomplished

and to develop a core set of tools that would make governance for sustainability manageable

(Kemp et al. 2005). Few efforts to promote sustainable development focus on determining

the mechanisms and instruments that are required for sustainable development. In what

follows, we present an overview of various attempts to articulate sustainable development

mechanisms as a set of rules and devices designed to bring about a certain outcome.

In this context, Agenda 21 forms the basis for a global partnership to encourage cooperation

among nations as they support a transition to sustaining life on earth. Each of its 40 chapters

describes a programme area and comprises four parts: the basis for action; objectives; activities;

and means of implementation. Section Four (the means of implementation) in Chapters 33–40

examines the basic resources necessary to push forward this global partnership for sustainable

development. It includes: financial resources and mechanisms (Chapter 33); transfer of envir-

onmentally sound technology (Chapter 34); science for sustainable development (Chapter

35); and promoting education, public awareness, and training (Chapter 36).

Clive and Kirkpatrick (2006) also addressed the idea that strategic planning mechanisms are

the appropriate basis for developing national sustainable development strategies. These are:

change management mechanisms, including pilot activities; prioritisation; planning and

decision-making mechanisms; participation mechanisms; negotiation and conflict management;

information systems; monitoring and accountability mechanisms; communication and aware-

ness-raising mechanisms; financial resource mobilisation and allocation; strategic planning

mechanisms; national development plans and other national planning processes; and inter-

departmental coordinating processes.

Swanson et al. (2004) argue that these mechanisms typically have to consist of the national

budgeting process, national development plans and other national planning processes, and inter-

departmental coordinating processes, with links to sub-national and local strategy processes.

Meyer (2000) explored the sustainable development mechanisms from their social aspect –

namely social security instruments and the stock of social capital. Social security instruments

include pension schemes, while unemployment insurance and health insurance enhance econ-

omic productivity by creating social stability. This stability can be enjoyed by everyone without

their own contributions as long as someone else provides some kind of social security system

(Meyer 2000). Social capital, which comprises relations of trust, reciprocity, common rules,

norms and sanctions, and connectedness in institutions, in the form of local institutions and

NGOs, has indirect effects on productivity so that an individual can employ their social

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012 387

Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

capital (i.e. the sum of its social ties) to carry out (economic) transactions. Social capital is a

substitute for the market, the usual carrier for such economic exchanges. The market can be con-

ceived either as an institution provided by the state or a private organisation, which is open to

everyone willing to pay the entry fee. The entry fees are mostly diminishingly low so that allo-

cative efficiency gains easily outweigh these fees. Therefore, the individual must always decide,

which transactions they will carry out by using the market and for which transactions they will

use social capital.

From an economic perspective, Dresdeen (2006) addressed the most important economic

instruments of sustainable development, which are price-based, quantity-based, and informa-

tional-based instruments. Price-based instruments fall into three basic categories: those offering

negative incentives; positive incentives; or mixed incentives. Negative incentives essentially

tax environmental destruction, thereby encouraging better environmental practice, through

measures such as eco-taxes and pollution tax. Positive incentives enable those improving

their environmental practices to earn money for doing so, such as through government subsidies

to reduce the private costs of specified goods, services or behaviour. Mixed incentives combine

negative and positive incentives like deposit-refund systems, for example, the UK’s landfill

charge which reduces the volume of waste and helps fund environmental restoration of

former dump sites. Tradable environmental rights, or environmental benefits trading, offer

the best example of a quantity-based economic incentive measure, as opposed to a price-

based measure. With price-based instruments, government sets the price by creating incentives

to reduce it. This government action leaves the private sector free to decide what quantity of

pollution reduction to offer in response. In contrast, when government enacts a quantity-

based instrument, such as an environmental benefit trading programme, it is the government,

not the private sector that determines the requisite quantity of emission reductions. The

private sector retains some control over the price through its ability to choose techniques to

meet the quantitative limit. For example, in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, Denmark

was the first European country to legislate for a limited trading system for CO2 quotas

among the country’s largest electricity producers. Most scholarly treatments of economic incen-

tive measures include information-based programmes, not just price- and quantity-based instru-

Figure 1: Mechanisms of sustainable development

Source: Author.

ments, as examples of economic incentive programmes. Right-to-know programmes in numer-

ous countries require polluters to report the amount of pollution emitted into various media,

while voluntary environmental certification systems and eco-labelling are examples of an infor-

mation programme.

The clean development mechanism is another important mechanism for achieving the objec-

tives of the UN Millennium Development Goals (Lorraine 2009). This mechanism provides

market incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while investing in clean energy tech-

nologies (Schroeder 2009) to move toward sustainable development. Finally, Lawn (2006) con-

centrated on ecological tax reform (ETR) as a policy designed to tax such ‘bads’ as resource

depletion and pollution and to reduce tax impositions on such ‘goods’ as labour and income.

The aim of ETR is relatively straightforward: (1) taxing depletion and pollution should decrease

the rate of resource throughput per unit of economic activity and relieve any growing pressure

on the natural environment; (2) reducing tax rates on labour and income should encourage the

employment of labour and reward value-adding in production.

Based on the above-mentioned literature, the authors have developed a model in Figure 1 that

has divided the mechanisms of sustainable development into three categories:

1. Social mechanisms – a collection of instruments, rules, and devices that develop individual

and social capacity among communities and people to be able to move towards sustainable

development. These are: education, participation, and social security systems.

2. Economic mechanisms – instruments, rules, and devices that are often contrasted to

command and control policy approaches that determine pollution reduction targets and

allowable control technologies, through laws or regulations (UN Environment Programme

2002). Here, these are divided into three categories: quantity-based instruments, price-

based instruments, and information-based instruments.

3. Environmental mechanisms (or clean development mechanisms) – these represent one of

the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol developed as a means to reduce greenhouse

gases and are mainly tools to lead investment in clean energy technologies. In this research,

green technology, green consumption, and green production are considered as environ-

mental instruments, rules, and devices which contribute to sustainable development by pro-

moting renewable energies (Schroeder 2009).

Sustainable development is a complete and multidimensional concept, the achievement of

which requires the integration, identification, coordination, and continuous improvement of

goals, strategies, and mechanisms. Therefore, a group of mechanisms alone cannot promote sus-

tainable development. For this, in practice, it is important to consider the interaction between

instruments and create new categories and infrastructural concepts based on the nature of the

instruments. Hence, our model is suppositional and to achieve the real model according to field-

work in Iran, this model was tested through factor analysis.

Research methods

A descriptive survey research method was used to collect data from managers of seven govern-

ment ministries (Education; Interior; Housing and Urban Development; Health and Medical

Education; Science, Research and Technology; Energy; and Agriculture). To identify the sus-

tainable development mechanisms, a questionnaire was administered with 25 variables (the

rules and devices of sustainable development) adapted from studies by Meyer (2000), Panayo-

tou and Topfer (1998), Clayton and Bass (2002), McKeown (2002), and Kelly et al. (2004). The

final instrument consisted of 25 items measured on a seven-point scale using the following

bands: strongly disagree (mean ¼ 1.00–1.49); disagree (mean ¼ 1.50–2.49), tend to disagree

(mean ¼2.50–3.49); average (mean ¼ 3.50–4.49); tend to agree (mean ¼ 4.50–5.49); agree

(mean ¼ 5.50–6.49), strongly agree (mean ¼ 6.50–7.00). The maximum weight was given

for ‘strongly agree’ in the case of a favourable attitude and for ‘strongly disagree’ in the

case of an unfavourable attitude. A total of 360 managers were randomly selected to represent

the population; of this sample, 338 responded as the result of the original mailing and follow-up

mailing. A response rate of 92 per cent was obtained. The instrument was assessed for content

and face validity by development policymakers, academic staff, and state supervisors in the area

of sustainable development.

Reliability of the instrument was 0.85 (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient); according to Hair et al.

(1995), the commonly used coefficient limiting value of acceptable reliability is 0.85. Based on

the data in this research, this indicator can be considered relatively reliable in measuring

mangers’ understanding of sustainable development mechanisms. Minor revisions were made

to the questionnaire to improve the clarity and internal consistency. The data were processed

using SPSS software. Analyses of data were accomplished using factor analysis, which was uti-

lised to reveal the latent diminutions behind the rules and devices as mechanisms of sustainable

development. A 0.4 level of significance was selected. The results that follow are based on the

responses to the survey. The appropriateness of the data for factor analysis was evaluated using

Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BTS).

Results

Demographics of the sample group

The demographic characteristics collected included age, years of working experience, gender,

and organisation. This information is provided to give the reader an overview of the type of

managers that were included in the sample and who were the source of information for the

factors. The average age of the state managers was 43 years (SD ¼ 5.2) and they had

worked as a manager an average of 18.0 years (SD ¼ 7.0); 84.6 per cent were male and 14.4

per cent were female. Participants were drawn from different government organisations and

ministries. The largest number of mangers as respondents concentrated their work in the area

of agriculture (20.7 per cent), followed by education (16.27 per cent). Other respondents

were from the Ministries of Interior (13.3 per cent); Housing and Urban Development (8.8

per cent); Health and Medical Education (10.35 per cent); Science, Research and Technology

(11.83 per cent); and Energy (9.9 per cent), respectively.

Mechanisms of sustainable development

To aid greater understanding of manager’s attitudes towards the rules and devices of sustainable

development mechanisms, means and standard deviations for individual items are depicted in

Figure 2. As can be seen, mean scores ranged from 4.08 to 6.31 which would indicate managers

frequently agreed or strongly agreed with the items (rules and devices) listed rather than those

choosing a response of average, tend to agree, agree, and strongly agree. Based on these findings,

the mean scores were then categorised into three types: a favourable attitude represented by mean

scores of greater than 5.50; a slightly favourable category with mean scores ranging from 4.50 to

5.49; and an unfavourable attitude category comprising mean scores of less than 4.49.

Mangers presented mean scores of greater than 5.50 for 12 items related to: public

participation; voluntary environmental certification systems; scientific cooperation; education;

appropriate spheres of economy; responsible entrepreneurship; international agenda and

agreement; inter-sectoral cooperation; clean production and consumption; negotiation and

conflict management; making available the basic sciences; and revealing a favourable attitude

with these sets of rules to achieve sustainable development.

The attitude of managers was less positive (slightly favourable) on the following ten

items, with scores ranging from 4.50 to 5.49: integrating social, economic and cultural

backgrounds; reducing tax rates; recycling; pollution control of industrial units; pollution

cost; eco-labelling; green subsidies; energy consumption; media; and monitoring. Finally, man-

agers provided mean scores of less than 5.49, representing an unfavourable response, to items

related to: taxing depletion and pollution and setting the prices by government as incentives to

reduce the quantity of pollution.

Factor analysis

The appropriateness of the data for factor analysis was evaluated using BTS. The Kaiser–

Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test measures the adequacy of a sample in terms of the distribution of

values for the execution of factor analysis (Geourge and Mallery 1999). The acceptable

values should be greater than 0.5. BTS determines if the correlation matrix is an identity

matrix; if there exists an identity matrix, factor analysis is meaningless (Field 2000). BTS

(x2 ¼ 3315.632, P , 0.001) suggested that the bivariate correlations among the scale items

were significantly different from zero and, therefore, appropriate for factor analysis. Further,

Figure 2: Importance of the rules and devices of sustainable development (data presented as mean values

with error bars representing standard deviation)

Notes: Mean is expressed as a change in agreement with importance of rules and devices: strongly

disagree (M ¼ 1.00–1.49); disagree (M ¼ 1.50–2.49); tend to disagree (M ¼ 2.50–3.49);

average (M ¼ 3.50–4.49); tend to agree (M ¼ 4.50–5.49); agree (M ¼ 5.50–6.49); strongly

agree (M ¼ 6.50–7.00).

Source: Author.

the sampling adequacy, as evaluated by the KMO measure of sampling adequacy, appeared to

be acceptable, at a value of 0.905. Both tests indicated the suitability of the variables for factor

analysis (see Table 1).

Table 2 shows all the factors extractable from the analysis along with their eigenvalues, the per-

centage of variance attributable to each factor, and the cumulative variance of the factor and the

previous factors. The results indicated that there were six factors (the construct of mechanisms

of sustainable development) to measure about 61.53 per cent of variances in the data (Table 3).

Factor 1 – institutional development: Institutional development, or capacity building for sustain-

able development, accounted for 16.09 per cent of the total variance. Six variables represented the

significant loadings of this factor. This factor represents institutional development and capacity

building as the most important means to achieve sustainable development. It associates insti-

tutional development of sustainable development with the professional and scientific ability of

development stakeholders and the existence of appropriate general spheres of faraway economic

crises and tensions. This factor also discloses that establishing institutional and individual

capacities is a precondition for comprehensive planning to achieve sustainable development.

The importance of this factor is underlined by the following statement:

The sustainable development requires effective governing and enforcement mechanisms includ-

ing a significant public involvement in market and private activities at local (the private and col-

lective actions of individuals), national, transnational and global levels (agreements,

assistance, pressure). The institutional ‘development’ associated with the modernization

and/or redistribution of the existing rights; and the evolution of new rights and the emergence

of novel (private, public, hybrid) institutions for their enforcement. (Hrabrin 2009: 7)

Factor 2 – social capital and education: Social capital and education contributed to 14.41 per

cent of the total variance and addressed education and social ties as instruments of capacity-

Table 2: Extracted values of various factor analysis parameters for sustainable development mechanisms.

Component

Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings

Eigenvalue% of

VarianceCumulative

% Eigenvalue% of

varianceCumulative

1 8.740 34.959 34.959 4.023 16.093 16.093

2 1.987 7.947 42.906 3.602 14.407 30.499

3 1.432 5.726 48.632 2.792 11.168 41.668

4 1.179 4.716 53.347 1.735 6.939 48.606

5 1.033 4.133 57.480 1.638 6.552 55.158

6 1.014 4.057 61.537 1.595 6.379 61.537

Table 1: Internal consistency analysis and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test.

Test Statistic

KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.905

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. x2 3315.632

df 300

P ,0.001

(Continued)

Table 3: Factor loading and values for variables included in rotated factors matrix.

Factor Factor interpretationVariable included in the factor

(abbreviated items)Factorloading

Varianceexplained

1 Institutional

development

Promoting the ability of negotiation and

conflict management

0.74 16.09

Making available the basic social and

experimental sciences

Enhancing professional and scientific

ability of development stakeholders

using research findings in decision-

making of sustainable development

Providing the appropriate general

spheres of faraway economic crises and

tensions

Playing active role in the international

institutions like WTO

Integrating social, economic and

cultural backgrounds of society in

planning for sustainable development

Including international agendas and

agreements in the national development

2 Social capital and

education

Encouraging and improving

relationships and cooperation among

scientific societies and decision-makers

0.55 14.41

Enhancing cooperation among people

and governmental developers

Reducing tax rates on labour and

income that encourage the employment

of labour and reward value-adding

production

Formal and informal education for all

people

Promoting public participation and

raising awareness to strengthen the role

of the NGO and other civil society

sections in development programmes

Persuading responsible

entrepreneurship towards sustainable

development by developing job security

and social insurance

3 Economic instruments

for environmental

protection

Changing the trends of energy

consumption to rebuild the economic

system

0.63 11.16

Directing subsidies towards green

activities and new energies

building in the planning process for sustainable development. In this regard, it contained a

combination of six variables with a strong loading: (1) encouraging and improving relation-

ships and cooperation among scientific societies and decision-makers; (2) enhancing

cooperation among people and governmental developers; (3) reducing tax rates on labour

and income to encourage the employment of labour and reward value-adding in production;

(4) formal and informal education for all; (5) promoting public participation and raising aware-

ness to strengthen the role of NGOs and other civil society sectors in development pro-

grammes; and (6) persuading responsible entrepreneurship towards sustainable development

by developing job security and social insurance. The importance of this factor is underlined

by the following statements:

A national sustainability plan can be enhanced or limited by the level of education attained

by the nation’s citizens. Nations with high illiteracy rates and unskilled workforces have

fewer development options. For the most part, these nations are forced to buy energy

and manufactured goods on the international market with hard currency. To acquire

hard currency, these countries need international trade; usually this leads to exploitation

Taxing depletion and pollution to

decrease the rate of resource throughput

per unit of economic activity and

relieve any growing pressure on the

natural environment

Eco-labels as a tool to change behaviour

of consumers and producers

Increasing tax on the pollution which

causes global warming and

environmental degradation

4 Monitoring and

informing

Gathering the information of changing

trends of natural, financial and human

resources that are available, and

monitoring these

0.73 6.93

Reporting the amount of pollution

emitted in various media

Developing voluntary environmental

certification systems

5 Clean development

mechanism

Reducing the costs of pollution control

by assembling the industrial units

0.74 6.55

Encouraging clean production and

consumption

6 Sustainable government Setting the taxes by government as

incentives to reduce the quantity of

pollution

0.80 6.37

Developing and enforcing the policies

and the procedures to pay money for

recycled matters by government

of natural resources or conversion of lands from self-sufficient family-based farming to

cash-crop agriculture. An educated workforce is key to moving beyond an extractive

and agricultural economy. (McKeown 2002)

Social capital captures the idea that social bonds and social norms are an important part of

the basis for sustainable livelihoods. It encourages productive activities and facilitates co-

operation. People have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that

others will also do so. The social and human capital is also necessary for sustainable and

equitable solutions to natural resource management comprise a mix of existing endowments

and that which is externally-facilitated. External agencies or individuals can act on or work

with individuals to increase their knowledge and skills, their leadership capacity, and their

motivations to act. They can act on or work with communities to create the conditions for the

emergence of new local associations with appropriate rules and norms for resource manage-

ment. If these then lead to the desired natural capital improvements, then this again has a

positive feedback on both social and human capital. (Pretty and Ward 2001: 212)

Factor 3 – economic instruments for environmental protection: Economic instruments for

environmental protection explained 11.16 per cent of the total variance. This section contained

five variables with a strong loading: (1) changing the trends of energy consumption to rebuild

the economic system; (2) directing subsidies toward green activities and new energy; (3) taxa-

tion on depletion and pollution that decreases the rate of resource use; (4) eco-labels as a tool for

changing behaviour of consumers and producers; and (5) increasing the price of pollution which

causes global warming and environmental degradation. This factor reveals that sustainable be-

haviour as a mechanism of sustainable development is possible through instruments such as

eco-labelling, certification systems, and pollution taxing: ‘Economic instruments for environ-

mental protection are policy approaches that encourage behaviour through their impact on

market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control levels or

methods or resource use’ (Stavins 2001: 1).

Factor 4 – monitoring and informing: Monitoring and informing accounted for 6.93 per cent of

the total variance. This factor consisted of: (1) gathering information on changing trends of

natural, financial and human resources and monitoring; (2) reporting the amount of pollution

emitted in various media; and (3) developing voluntary environmental certification systems.

The factor links the monitoring process with that of informing to assess the current situation

of resources and disseminate the findings to development stakeholders. This is highlighted in

the following statements: ‘Reporting and dissemination of the findings of monitoring is

crucial so that key messages can be fed back to stakeholder key groups, enabling them to con-

tinuously improve their understanding and behaviour, the strategy itself and its component

activities’ (Clayton and Bass 2002: 325);

Policy development and planning for sustainable development and coherent environ-

mental management demands information on the state of the environment. As assessments

and analyses become multi-sectoral, the need for integrated information increases. This

demands organisational infrastructures for the acquisition, integration, analysis and

dissemination of data and information. (Simpson 2002: 123)

Factor 5 – clean development mechanism: The clean development mechanism contributes to

6.55 per cent of the total variance. It contained a combination of two variables with a strong

loading: (1) reducing the costs of pollution control by assembling industrial units; and (2)

encouraging clean production and consumption. This factor places an emphasis on positive

incentives (gathering together factories), green production with environmentally friendly

technologies and sustainable consumption as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

cost-effectively. This is highlighted in the following statement:

CDM [clean development mechanism] was leveraging new investments in new types of

projects. . . that had increased the institutional capacity. . . to deal with climate change

and had built capacity in terms of human resources. The projects had achieved important

innovation though the development of new technologies and processes and had resulted in

additional benefits, such as job generation, less environmental impact, less local pollution,

less consumption of energy and improved energy efficiency. (UN 2007: 2)

Factor 6 – sustainable government: Sustainable government accounted for 6.37 per cent of the

total variance. This factor contained a combination of two variables: (1) setting prices by

government as an incentive to reduce the quantity of pollution; and (2) developing and

enforcing policies and procedures for paying money for recycled materials by government. It

emphasises the key role government plays in achieving sustainable development through

creating the policies, the strategies and the procedures that offer incentives for reducing pollution.

Discussion and conclusions

Sustainable development is a multidimensional concept in nature that embraces and integrates the

social, economic and environmental objectives for achieving a sustainable society, consisting of

four sub-systems: industry; government; community; and ecosystems. Given the multidimen-

sional nature of the concept, the institutional framework within which activities are conceived,

planned, funded, implemented, and managed is a key component of sustainable development

(Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith 1990). Since there is no single model that would be good enough

to plan the sustainability of development, it all depends upon how planners or policymakers

understand and interpret the concept of sustainable development, and on the nature of the mech-

anisms prevalent in a country. Results of the present study on the mechanisms of sustainable

development have shown that capacity-building at both institutional and individual levels is

one of the most important mechanisms for achieving sustainable development. This is perhaps

because of the lack of an agenda and also an institutional infrastructure, both public and

private, to track the sustainability objectives in Iran. This finding is supported by the high

mean scores of items (rules and devices) under this factor. Regarding the lack of institutional

infrastructure for sustainable development, the present results are consistent with Brinkerhoff

and Goldsmith (1990), who acknowledged that such institutions are particularly lacking in the

developing world. As a solution, an adaptive management approach is recommended as a struc-

tured, iterative process of optimal decision-making in the face of uncertainty, with the aim of

reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring (Murray and Marmorek 2003). It

focuses on the development of new institutions and institutional strategies in balance with scien-

tific hypothesis and experimental frameworks. By applying an adaptive management approach to

institutional development, a set of measures performs to provide a social context with flexible and

open institutions and multi-level governance systems that allow for learning and increased adap-

tive capacity without foreclosing future development options (Williams et al. 2007). Some of

these measures and actions have been addressed in the remaining mechanisms and factors.

The two next mechanisms determined the content of the capacity building for institutional

development. These mechanisms place their stress on education and social capital to provide

individual and social capital in the form of educated and skilled citizens and local groups to

accept and develop economic instruments for encouraging clean production and consumption

patterns and, finally, environmental protection. The remaining mechanisms revealed the role

of government in moving towards sustainable development through an adaptive management

approach. They address, first of all, the fact that governmental activities have to be based on

the sustainability principle. Regarding this, the government should: (1) screen the develop-

ment process by gathering information of changing trends in natural, financial, and human

resources and inform people about the current situation; (2) develop projects regarding

green industry and sustainable consumption; and (3) set and enforce the policies and pro-

cedures of sustainability in governmental organisations. Second, in this regard, establishing

a sustainability impact assessment system (SIAS) is recommended as an instrument that con-

tributes to governments: (1) exploring the combined economic, environmental and social

impacts of a range of proposed policies, programmes, strategies and action plans with the

aim of better regulation and fostering sustainable development objectives; (2) involving

different stakeholder groups (Tscherning et al. 2009) for greater transparency in the policy

process and its underlying assumptions and considerations, and to create more sustainable

and consensual policy solutions (projects); and (3) clearing lines of responsibility in order

to clear who is responsible for which steps in the decision-making process, what methods,

tools, and indicators will be used, which stakeholders and experts have to participate and

in what way, and how the results will be shown, and to whom. Third, developing a SIAS

within the policymaking process may call for several adaptations to the institutional

setting; e.g. stakeholder networks, sustainable information systems, and multi-sector advisory

bodies (OECD 2001). Fourth, later mechanisms to some extent are associated with Lawn’s

(2006) ecological tax reform that is a policy designed to tax such ‘bads’ as resource depletion

and pollution and to reduce tax impositions on such ‘goods’ as labour and income.

It should be noted that above-mentioned mechanisms are conceived for sustainable

development in general, and thus their application to each economic section (e.g. agriculture,

industry, service, and so on) calls for the consideration of contexts and also the conduct of

more studies about the nature of issues and challenges faced. For instance, from an economic

aspect on organic agriculture, Jones (2003) classified mechanisms in the following three

categories:

1. Enabling – e.g. providing certification and labelling frameworks, research, and extension services.

2. Enforcing – e.g. establishing regulations and standards.

3. Encouraging – e.g. providing financial incentives, bringing together agents along the

production chain to establish partnerships and procurement policies.

In more detail, Pretty (1995) listed 25 tools with regard to institutional development for

achieving sustainable agriculture in these three categories including: (1) encouraging

resource-conserving technologies and practices; (2) supporting local groups for community

action; and (3) reforming external institutions and professionals.

References

Brodhag, C. and S. Taliere (2006) ‘Sustainable development strategies: tools for policy coherence’,

Natural Resources Forum 30: 136–45.

Brinkerhoff, D. W. and A. A. Goldsmith (1990) Institutional Sustainability in Agriculture and Rural

Development: A Global Perspective, New York: Praeger.

Chambers, R. (2005) ‘For our future: responsible well-being: a personal agenda for development’, in R.

Chambers (ed.) Ideas for Development, London: Earthscan Publications.

Clayton, B. D. and S. Bass (2002) Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book,

London: Earthscan Publications.

Clive, G. and C. Kirkpatrick (2006) ‘Assessing national sustainable development strategies: strengthen-

ing the links to operational policy’, Natural Resources Forum 30: 146–56.

Davidson, J., D. Myers, and M. Chakraborty (1992) No Time to Waste: Poverty and the global environ-

ment, Oxford, UK: Oxfam.

Driesen, D. (2006) ‘Economic instruments for sustainable development’. In: B.J. Richardson and S.

Wood, eds. Environmental law for sustainability. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 277–308.

Field, A. (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advance Techniques for the Beginner,

London: Sage Publications.

Geourge, D. and P. Mallery (1999) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gibson, R. B. (2001) ‘Specification of Sustainability-Based Environmental Assessment Decision Criteria

and Implications for Determining Significance in Environmental Assessment’, Ottawa, ON: Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency Research and Development Program.

Hair, J. E., R. E. Anderson, D. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis with

Readings (4th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hrabrin, B. (2009) ‘Mechanisms of Governance of Sustainable Development’, MPRA Paper No. 14947,

Munich, Germany: Institute of Agricultural Economics, available at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/

14947/ (retrieved 28 October 2010).

Jones, D. (ed.) (2003) Organic Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies, Wallingford, UK: CABI

Publishing.

Kelly, R., L. Sirr, and J. Ratcliffe (2004) ‘Futures thinking to achieve sustainable development at local

level in Ireland’, Foresight 6 (2): 80–90.

Kemp, R., S. Parto, and R. B. Gibson (2005) ‘Governance for sustainable development: moving from

theory to practice’, International Journal of Sustainable Development 8 (1–2): 13–30.

Lawn, P. (2006) ‘Ecological tax reform and the double dividend of ecological sustainability and low

unemployment: an empirical assessment’, International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employ-

ment 2 (4): 332–58.

Lorraine, V. L. (2009) ‘Analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism as a Vehicle for Achieving Sani-

tation Objectives of the UN Millennium Goals’, unpublished Masters’ dissertation, Duke University,

Durham NC.

Meyer, E. C. (2000) Social Aspects of Sustainability. In: D. Gustav and F. Boguslaw, eds. Aspects of Sus-

tainable Economic Development. Berlin, Peter lang: International Academic Publishers.

McKeown, R. (2002) ‘Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit’, available at www.esdtoolkit.org

(retrieved 10 April 2009).

Murray, C. and D. Marmorek (2003) ‘Adaptive management and ecological restoration’, in P. Friederici

(ed.) Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests, Washington, DC: Island Press.

OECD (2001) ‘The DAC Guidelines: Strategies for Sustainable Development: Guidance for Development

Cooperation’, Paris: Development Cooperation Committee, OECD, available at http://www.oecd.org/

dataoecd/34/10/2669958.pdf (retrieved 16 February 2012).

OECD (2008) ‘Promoting Sustainable Consumption Good Practices in OECD Countries. The

Secretary-General of the OECD’, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/59/40317373.pdf

(retrieved 16 February 2012).

Panayotou, T. and K. Topfer (1998) Instruments of Change: Motivating and Financing Sustainable

Development, London: Earthscan Publications.

Pretty, J. N. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture, London: Earthscan Publications.

Pretty, J. N. and H. Ward (2001) ‘Social capital and the environment’, World Development 29 (2):

209–27.

Quaddus, M. A. and M. A. B. Siddique (2002) ‘Modelling sustainable development planning: a multi-

criteria decision conferencing approach’, Environment International 27 (90): 89–95.

Schroeder, M. (2009) ‘Utilizing the clean development mechanism for the deployment of renewable ener-

gies in China’, Applied Energy 86: 237–42.

Silveira, M. P. (2006) ‘National sustainable development strategies: moving from theory to practice’,

Natural Resources Forum 30: 86–89.

Simpson, D. (2002) ‘Capacity Building for Sustainable Development: An Overview of UNEP Environ-

mental Capacity Development Initiatives’, UNEP Division of Communications and Public Information.

UNEP Office, New York, USA.

Swanson, D., L. Pinter, F. Bregha, A. Volkery, and K. Jacob (2004) National Strategies for Sustainable

Development: Challenges, Approaches and Innovations in Strategic and Co-ordinated Action, Winnipeg,

MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development; Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur

Technische Zusammenarbeit.

Tscherning, K., H. Knig , B. Schoer, K. Helming, and S. Sieber (2008) Ex-ante Impact Assessment (IA)

in the European Commission an overviw. In: K. Helming, P. Tabbush, and M. Perez-Soba (eds).

Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 17–33.

UN (2007) ‘Expert Panels at Preparatory Meeting for Sustainable Development Commission: Focus

Debate on Air Pollution, Climate Change Policy Option’, New York: Economic and Social Council,

Department of Public Information.

UN Environment Programme (2002) ‘Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection’, Nairobi,

Kenya: UNEP.

Williams, B. K., C. S. Robert, and D. S. Carl (2007) Adaptive Management: The US Department of the

Interior Technical Guide, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) ‘Our Common Future’. New York:

Oxford University Press.

The authors

Hadi Veisi (corresponding author) is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid

Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. ,hveisi@gmail.com.

Humman Liaghati is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti

University, Tehran, Iran. ,h-liaghati@sbu.ac.ir.

Fakhradin Hashmi is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti

University, Tehran, Iran.

Khalid Edizadehi is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti

University, Tehran, Iran.

Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

Documents

Transcript of Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

Medieval Instruments

HI83314 - Hanna Instruments

Instruments International - IndiaMART

Untitled - Micro Instruments

DM4500F | Status Instruments

A King Among Instruments

Mechanisms for mainstreaming a sustainable biodiversity ...

TLK6002 - Texas Instruments

Panel instruments

Sustainable Usability Distribution Mechanisms under Multi ...

Tender Document Instruments / Equipm

HI 83099 - ITM Instruments

ONET4201PA - Texas Instruments

BETAMINI - Innovative Instruments

DWYER INSTRUMENTS, INC.

THE NEED FOR PEACE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION MECHANISMS FOR SUSTAINABLE UNITY IN NIGERIA

ORTHODONTIC INSTRUMENTS - Ortho Technology

ADS9120EVM-PDK - Texas Instruments

Measuring instruments for - INTECH2000

Dimeda Cardiovascular Instruments