The Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe REReP Record

Angling for the big one A fishing guide to local sustainability Let’s try to set the scene for this story. Firstly, there is Walt Whitman’s “boundless blue on every side expanding.” Secondly, there are many creatures roaming in it. Thirdly, there is James Lovelock, who expressed the “Gaia” theory of Earth as a super-organism. The drama is ready to unfold now. Like fishermen, communities around the region are casting about for a means of development. Some try to catch a big fat fish that everyone can feed on. Others look for a small golden one that will grant their wish for a better life. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the story goes, when they catch such a fish they often don’t know what to do with it. They can eat it right away or they can pack it and save it for later. Or maybe they’ll ask it to grant three wishes. But the fish — or the natural resources that a community relies on — can’t last forever regardless of its size or wish-fulfilling ability. Attempts by local communities to feed their citizens with a single fish are just not sustainable. When local communities go fishing, maybe they should look for a golden fish that can grant more than three wishes. Maybe they should go fishing more often, or maybe they should try to catch a bigger fish. One tool to help local communities through these dilemmas in CEE is local environmental action plans (LEAPs). Considering the myriad alternatives, including Local Agenda (LA) 21, local development strategies, municipal strategies for sustainable development and others, why should local communities cast their nets for a LEAP? LEAPs are singled out in this context because they aim to balance the demands of sustaining local economies, communities and ecosystems. LEAPs factor in local impacts and balance development choices to equitably serve the local population. Although not a fisherman, Stefan Buzarovski from Oxford, UK is one of the leading experts in local environmental action planning. He believes that developing LEAPs is in line with the idea of reconciliation of environmental protection and social justice with economic development. Thus local communities just need to make peace between the environment, their social goals (or aspirations) and economic growth. Some, who we’ll dare to call optimists, will nod their heads, roll their sleeves up and get to work. An organization in this camp is the REC, which has been assisting local administrations in enhancing their capacities to manage their environment and, ultimately, embark on a path toward sustainable development. The REC, apart from being keen to teach people how to fish instead of giving them fish, follows the idea that local governance is the closest to the people, and that it plays a vital role in educating, mobilising, and responding to the public to promote sustainable development. The REC has done this by working on local development or, more concretely, assisting local communities to develop LEAPs. Apart from working towards sustainability, LEAPs also work towards decentralisation. To accomplish this, local governments need to have a certain security in their existence, sufficient resources, and autonomy. LEAPs aim to help authorities make their actions more credible and transparent and to cultivate equitable relationships with higher authorities. By now, LEAPs seem to be a good catch. They incorporate public participation in environmental decision-making, take local circumstances into account and provide a planning framework for potential investments. But even if they do all these things, do they actually promote the larger aim of sustainable development. In other words, are LEAPs just a red herring? “Traditional“ environmental planning methods, including those for public participation, provide a foundation of information for stakeholder decision making. But these methods often prove inadequate for the long-term task of sustainable development planning. LEAPs go a step further toward incorporating the development agenda of societies, and therefore, of local communities, into the planning process. Other methods and tools based on the traditional concepts of environmental planning have also been redefined and adapted in LEAPs. This is true particularly in the areas of creating a common picture of current development conditions and assessing systemic problems and requirements. A good example of how LEAPs can improve the overall planning process is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — a country where almost 30 percent of municipalities have developed LEAPs. The Macedonian government adopted the official LEAP methodology in 2005 and started working toward introducing new practices in local planning. So they can’t be so easily dismissed as a red herring. But is there anything else to be done about making local development planned through LEAPs more sustainable, or in other words, even less red? (We dare not say “rosy,” yet.) Revisiting LEAP methodology is one of the first items on the list and there are three ways to go forward. The first way is to incorporate a clear definition of sustainable development into LEAPs. This definition practically becomes the vision of sustainability for the local community. The planning process will consequently assume social and economic community goals and/or targets derived from such a vision. The second way deals with the assessment practices in LEAPs. Such practices should ensure that principles of sustainable development are met. Using a criterion-based assessment for sustainability might prove to be an appropriate tool. Such a tool is not complex and easily distinguishes sustainable development from traditional forms of development. The third way forward is to examine the sustainability of actions proposed by LEAPs against a set of criteria. This does not mean that replacing or working on those criteria that are missing or exhibit a poor record will ensure sustainability, as the mere fulfillment of requirements does not ensure that planning systems will deliver sustainable outcomes. Finally, the fish that more than 150 local communities in Central and Eastern Europe have caught during the last decade — with a little help from the REC — seem to have had an effect. Most of those communities have continued working on the well-being of their citizens. They have chosen their development paths and LEAPs helped them to acknowledge what a community has and needs, and what will be the long-term consequences of shortterm choices identified in environmental planning processes. Nice end to a story, but what about James Lovelock, one might ask. To paraphrase from Revenge of Gaia, instead of running for the hills “in need of a sustainable retreat, as it is much too late for sustainable development,” you might be better advised to run for a LEAP. Or forget about the fish and start a cattle farm. The choice is really yours. Srdjan Susic is a project manager for the Environmental Policy Department at the REC.

REReP Record Home