Here are notes from all 13 panel discussions that took place at the PCE20 Forum in Wellington on 1-2 March 2007. (You can listen to Sessions 2,5,7,8 and 9 here on Radio New Zealand's website.)

Day 1

Session 1: The journey so far

Where is New Zealand at?

Session 2: The state of the environment

Session 3: Central and local government responses

Session 4: Business responses

Session 5: What have we heard? A northern hemisphere view

Day 2

What is happening elsewhere in the world?

Session 6: Institutions that make a difference

Session 7: Sustainable development initiatives

Platforms of power

Session 8: Sustainability and our social and cultural aspirations

Session 9: Sustainability and our economic future in a globalising world

Building blocks for progress

Session 10: Education for sustainability

Session 11: Knowledge for sustainability

Session 12: Communicating sustainability: telling the story

Session 13: Building consensus for action

Disclaimer

The comments following are from panel discussions, and the views are those of the panelists. They are summarised here to give a sense of the debates, and the PCE does not necessarily endorse the different opinions - see our disclaimer.

Day 1:

Session 1: The journey so far

Theme:

How far New Zealand has come, in terms of sustainable development milestones, major environmental debates and the PCE's contribution over 20 years.

Panelists:

Shonagh Kenderdine, Cath Wallace, Nick Smith, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Phil Hughes, Jo Brosnahan

Summary:

1. After a strong start in environmental management 20 years ago, New Zealand has lurched along. Momentum has started to pick up in recent years, and we now have 15 Acts referring to sustainability. The Local Government Act is a very strong piece of sustainability legislation and will revitalise local government. The vacuum is a strongly articulated vision from central government.



2. New Zealanders tend to believe the 'clean green' marketing hype. However, the wider community today is more aware of sustainability, and many are impatient with the lack of progress. The last few months have seen a tipping point, and we can be more confident now about how we will deal with the future.



3. New Zealand is severely behind in managing its marine environment. We have no mechanism for managing activities at sea beyond 12 nautical miles. The marine industry has a dreadful impact, and there are no public processes for fisheries management. Trawling, dredging, and seabed mining are causing major destruction in our oceans. But we're not doing anything with oceans policy because of fear of stirring up another 'foreshore and seabed'-type argument with Maori.



4. We are losing biodiversity on land, although DOC has done very well with pitiful budgets. However, there's been a big change in New Zealanders attitudes to biodiversity, reflected in the concern for native species and native bush.



5. In terms of lack of government policy, climate change has to be the stand-out failure. Yet most New Zealanders think we need to do something about it. Water quality is another area where we have made very little progress, or gone backwards, particularly with non-point water pollution. Urban sprawl in New Zealand is galloping, and we urgently need national standards to manage coastal environments.



6. Despite exciting developments in renewable energy, New Zealand's electricity system is less renewable now than it was 20 years ago.



7. Business has become interested in sustainability - that's a plus. It is increasingly seen as a competitive advantage rather than a drag.



8. The PCE's Growing for good report on agriculture has had a huge impact. The farming community is split on the way ahead.



9. In economics the dominant paradigm remains growth. Damage is ignored and it doesn't matter what grows, just that you keep on growing. New Zealand comes from rip-bust pioneering culture, and we're 25% along the way to a sustainability culture. We can rate ourselves a C+. Strong leadership is still needed. By good fortune rather than good management, we can claim to be more sustainable than most - but that's an accident of history.



10. We've been very good at developing good legislation and good systems, but poor implementation means that good outcomes are still lacking. If we are to judge how well we've done, we need to know what success looks like. Clear indicators will tell us if we're making progress. We need a strategy, and an action plan to get there. Unfortunately, work to develop environmental indicators has stopped. There remains just one 10-year-old MfE report.



11. The largest growth in the past 20 years has been in strategies, plans, paperwork, bureaucracy, and litigation. These may have meant things are less worse than might have been. The lack of national policy statements reflects a failure of political will. Regions have been left to develop their own standards. Regional councils mirror their own areas and their record on environmental management has been patchy.



12. The PCE office has done a huge amount to open up sustainability debates. NGOs and the PCE have done most of the work in advancing intellectual debate. The $2 million funding for the PCE is inadequate, but the office has done brilliantly with what it has had. Some complain that the PCE has not been hard enough, and that the PCE's record of translating its reports into action isn't that great. But the 'carrot and stick' approach has led to some big shifts.



13. We spend a billion dollars a year to measure and track money, but we spend far less in measuring the state of our environment. PCE has a role in this because of its neutrality and independence. Its most important role is to look over the horizon and evaluate the challenges that lie ahead.



14. Environmental debate in New Zealand has been very adversarial. A non-partisan approach to sustainability is imperative. The environment isn't constrained by three-year electoral cycles, so political consensus on long-term strategies is vital.



15. New Zealand's institutional structures to manage the environment lack a champion for the environment, an advocate at the sharp end. A voice for sustainable development is needed in government. DOC is underfunded and under pressure.



16. Maori in pre-European times had developed some good processes for managing their environment, but these are inadequate today for a country of 4 million. The entire ecosystem today is under pressure.

General:

'Mokopunatanga': a newly-coined word that expresses sustainable development in a way New Zealanders can understand.

Where is New Zealand at?

Theme:

Three parallel sessions, to review where the country is at in sustainability terms, and how well positioned we are to meet our challenges.

Session 2: The state of the environment

Theme:

What exactly do we know about the state of New Zealand's environment, and is our knowledge adequate?

Panelists:

Tony Petch, Bruce Taylor, Ken Hughey, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Maryanne McLeod, Louis Schipper

Summary:

1. The real question is: 'What is the state of information about the state of the environment?' State-of-environment reporting by MfE hasn't been carried out since 1997, so it's difficult to get an accurate picture. We don't have a good set of national indicators.



2. MfE is preparing a state of the environment report due out later this year. Australia has national and mandatory state-of-the-environment reporting every five years. The United States has fantastic public data sets, state-wide and nationally. We do have some good information, enough to know what the issues are. But the challenge is to get it in to the hands of landowners, homeowners etc.



3. Indepth science is needed, but the information put out there must be accessible. We could have a national measure of the ecological or carbon footprint, publicised in the same way as stockmarket prices.



4. One of many national measures we lack is for water - rivers and lakes - so it is difficult to set standards. Because regional councils monitor differently, it is also difficult to get a national picture and to see how effective our actions are.



5. Our energy consumption per capita is going up - that is one of many trends heading in the wrong direction. On waste, our data is poor. Although we have fewer landfills, we are sending greater amounts of waste to them. One good news story is the elimination of lead in the air (from petrol).



6. New Zealanders mostly think the quality and state of our environment is very good. But on some specifics, e.g. lowland water, we're doing poorly. People think we're doing well on biodiversity, but that's not correct - we have 3000 threatened species.



7. Water, waste, air quality are all areas of concern. Water is a particular problem, although it's clear that if we take action, we can make a difference. The 'clean green' image is very fragile because of the economy's basis in primary production, but we are in a lot better position than many other countries. Between 1990 and 2004 our greenhouse gas emissions went up by 20%, or 13 million tonnes. In the same period, the USA's emissions went up 900 million tonnes.



8. Our soils meet quality standards 80% of the time, but the 20% that are 'sick' is a concern. New Zealand has increased the amount of nitrogen coming in tenfold. This has had its benefits but is now causing problems. The amounts of nitrogen coming out will increase in years ahead, even with no change in inputs.



9. New Zealanders spend most of their time in built environments. Households are getting smaller, but houses are getting bigger, with more appliances etc. The 300,000 homes built before 1978 need retrofitting. Overall we don't really know what the true state of our housing is. Urban environments are expanding at largely unconstrained rates. Affordable housing is an issue of social sustainability - medium density housing is much more sustainable than urban sprawl.



10. It is extraordinary that we don't know more about income inequality - it's not measured in the same way as many economic indicators. Hurricane Katrina showed the importance of social sustainability, and the social havoc that climate change could bring.



11. Putting a dollar value on indicators (as carbon trading would do) may mean they are taken more seriously. It is important to create incentives, through economic instruments, for people to do the right things.



12. In the Waikato, the stand-out issue is intensive agriculture and the natural limits to production and to what the environment can cope with.



13. Transport is one of the biggest, and growing, contributors to climate change. Climate change is the most pressing issue we face. Climate chaos rather than climate variation is what we have to fear. Our renewable energy use has fallen from 80% to around 63% in past few years. We need to be careful when we apportion blame to one system or industry.



14. A 'whole of government' approach can bury debate. Many govt departments are reactive, but the PCE isn't under those pressures.



15. We have some high quality parts of our environment, but the overall picture is patchy. Some ecosystems are under stress and in need of help. It takes time for actions to flow through ecological systems, so we need to act now. Start now; it's never cheaper than today.

Session 3: Central and local government responses

Theme:

How policy and legislation have evolved, and thoughts on an environmental management system weighted to local control rather than national overview.

Panelists:

Hugh Logan, Ralph Chapman, Simon Terry, Paul Reynolds, Ann Magee, Judy Lawrence

Summary:

1. New Zealand has one of the most highly devolved systems of environmental administration in the world. On the plus side, that means individuals and communities have strong voices and a high level of input.



2. Quite a few gains in the past 20 years, but quite a few gaps also. Central government has lacked vision and a sense of where we are going. Local government performance has varied. Some policies e.g. climate change, can't be devolved, whereas others can e.g. waste.



3. New Zealand has the right sort of structure if agencies work together. But leadership hasn't served the country well. The issues are hard and complex, and require political courage.



4. We haven't done well over 20 years because devolution has meant relying on the market to deliver. In government, it has led to silo thinking, and Treasury overruling good policies. Central and local government are too distant from each other.



5. In the '90s, it was recommended that building-insulation standards were not needed because rational individuals would make those decisions. Building inspectors too were not needed, because people will pay if they want them. We're working our way back from that mindset. New Zealand is one of lightest regulated countries in the world.



6. Restructuring in the past 20 years has wasted a lot of time - it is dysfunctional and has led to many dissatisfied people.



7. Local government can only go so far. MfE is the government centrepiece but it was set up as a ministry with control functions rather than as an advocate with teeth. We don't see it stand up and fight for the environment, and that hasn't been fixed in 20 years. Lack of political will has cost us. MfE has a strategy of industry appeasement, rather than maintaining environmental bottom lines.



8. Public agency interaction has grown since 2000. Silo thinking is not so prevalent now. The 'environment' has come into the centre. The Prime Minister has taken a leadership role with strong sustainability messages.



9. Since 2000, all elected Auckland mayors have signed up to sustainability strategy. Local governments are very responsive to their communities and want to build better, more sustainable cities.



10. The market-led reforms of the '80s and '90s didn't just impact on central government - local government also was gutted. Regional councils should be formally mandated as the sustainability agents. They need a far stronger role in urban growth and design, and in transport.



11. Many positive local government initiatives exist e.g Tauranga and Auckland have well-developed sustainability strategies. Heavy funding of roading undermines sustainability and climate change goals.



12. Climate change is coming at us like a freight train. What have we been doing to prepare ourselves? Advice from agencies like Treasury has been inadequate.



13. Government is realising that climate change will have a huge impact on our economy, so it is focusing on that issue. But commitment is still lacking - Treasury has just two sustainability staff and one manager.



14. Climate change is the key issue that has galvanised change in public attitudes. Other land and climatic events have also opened people's eyes e.g. the southern North Island floods in 2004 exposed the vulnerability of hills converted into production. South Island winter snows in 2006, when livestock couldn't get at the grass for six weeks, had the same effect.



15. People on the land need to own the problems their activities create. Land-based sectors are now thinking a lot more about sustainability, and there's much more visible debate in the farming community.



16. There has been a sea change in business attitudes to sustainability. Big corporates offshore, especially in insurance, may be driving this. Agri-businesses in New Zealand too are recognising that environmental standards are core to how they must operate.



17. Need to see opportunities - with wind, Meridian has positioned itself well ahead of its competitors in the energy sector.



18. Shifts in consumer consciousness are driving awareness right through the value chain. New Zealand can be a leading light in sustainable development, but time is running out fast. Need to rebuild the brand.



19. Visible land-use changes are prompting questions. New Zealanders are increasingly likely to ask who are coastal landscapes for, and what can they do.



20. Water and soil standards have not been delivered on. But standards only get you so far. Pricing environmental degradation is also important in a market economy. New Zealand gets a very low percentage of its revenue from environmental-based taxes.



21. The RMA is looking dated. Need to reinforce key parts in the short-term e.g. statements on urban development to prevent endless sprawl around our cities.

Quote:

"In a biologically-based economy, environmental sustainability has to be non-negotiable, otherwise we are just preparing a cliff for the next generation to fall over when the natural capital runs out."

Session 4: Business responses

Theme:

How business has responded to two decades of sustainability debate, and how market economies can imbed sustainability principles.

Panelists:

Peter Nielsen, Rob Fenwick, Juliet Roper, Wendy McGuinness, Dennis Parker, John Penno

Summary:

1. In recent times, consumers and markets, globally, have started to move very fast on these issues - faster than companies and governments are responding. Consumer attitudes are changing so the question now for companies is not will they pay more for good environmental standards, but will they keep buying my product if I don't comply. Also consumers want to make choices, so the more companies get involved and the more choices consumers get, the more disadvantaged the "nots" will be.



2. A big shift has take place in New Zealand, even within just the last year as more companies lock on to these issues. That's a big change from, say, 2001-02 when almost all saw only the cost, not the opportunity, of dealing with environmental issues, particularly climate change.



3. The Stern Report, by analysing climate change issues in an economic framework businesses could understand, was very helpful in that. Even if some of the response is greenwash, at least it gets those companies having conversations they wouldn't otherwise have. They are starting the journey.



4. The supply chain, through procurement (especially by government) and the retail sector, is a powerful mechanism for driving change.



5. Instead of taxing or regulating, it is better to put a price on the likes of carbon, nitrogen, energy, and waste so companies can have long-term signals on which to base their investment.



6. Increasingly small and medium enterprises want to get involved in sustainability but they need ways to do it simply; they need information and processes.



7. Farmers do care; for generations they have farmed to best practice principles, as understood at the time. Dairy farming has doubled in size over the last 15 years and was responding to environmental issues before people started jumping all over them.



8. But is there a far bigger malaise: affluenza? Values will change over time.



9. We're hearing a lot about what the market is saying. Some of the views about what consumers want are overstated and are almost a form of self-flagellation. We need time and support to make the changes - a viable business now that can grow and respond to these challenges.

Quotes:

1. "I think we can work with 80% of the population... find a common language that doesn't alienate people.



2. Our clean green image? "We're still dining out on the stunning scenery. We're only one big scare story away from that branding being torn off."

And heard on the way out:

• "...the people who are picking on dairy farmers, demanding they make changes in the way they do business... are the very people who are not making any changes in their own environmental and consumer practices."



• "...where are the people who really matter here? Where are all the big corporates?"

Session 5: What have we heard? A northern hemisphere perspective

Theme:

Overseas guests reflect on what they have heard from the day's discussions.

Panelists:

Guenther Bachmann (Germany), Tim Jackson (UK), Tim O'Riordan (UK), Bart Wesselink (Netherlands), Ingeborg Niestroy (Germany), Gord Miller (Canada)

Summary:

1. Many New Zealand trends e.g. on waste management and non-point source water pollution, are very comparable to those Europe.



2. One big difference is that New Zealand is so lightly regulated. The lack of standards and lack of measurement are a surprise. The lax auto emission standards are shocking, even though there's no auto industry here. Many North American countries dealt with that issue many years ago. The lack of train services and extraordinary low levels of public transport here are also noticeable.



3. New Zealand is perceived as a tourist destination, but it has no real 'brand' other than a glossy tourism image. Its economy is potentially vulnerable to how Europe and the US might move on climate change e.g. the impact on long-haul tourism. New Zealand needs to 'brand' its products and destinations and should move fast to get the science right.



4. Long-distance tourism is a dirty industry, and very carbon wasteful. A lot of UK tourism promotion now says stay at home. If New Zealand wants to sustain eco-tourism, it will need to prove its case. Every country has unsustainable industries - it's what they do about them that matters.



5. One plus is that sustainability is a major political issue in New Zealand. It is no longer a quirky option, and political parties are vying for some sort of recognition factor.



6. Outsiders perceive that New Zealand has a strong spiritual aspect, partly through the influence of Maori, to how it manages land. Huge lessons for the rest of the world in how the country and its indigenous people relate.



7. A first impression was how the sea surrounds New Zealand and how the land is buffeted by wind. It stands on edge of the world, far away, poised and ready to change.



8. Economy and environment need not be in conflict - Germany is investing heavily in solar energy, not because it has a lot of sun, but because it wants to lead that market.



9. New Zealand is still a community that talks to each other, and the scale of things is so manageable. The society has a strength in community and dialogue. Two politicians from different parties at a session this morning disagreed, but they 'got it' - they understood policy around sustainability. That is very rare in North America. New Zealand also has excellent professional capacity in its public service, and high levels of public awareness. Those three things are great assets.



10. The tendency of public departments and agencies to work as silos needs to be broken down. Sustainability requires broad thinking. Because of their health benefits, cycle lanes in the UK are funded by the health department as well as councils.



11. Don't wait for government to take the lead on everything e.g. university researchers could agree on and set water standards. Enabling change and having a sense of efficacy, seems to be part of the Kiwi psyche (part of the no.8 fencing wire mentality).



12. People in their lives don't think about energy or climate change - that has to be built out with education and policy. People engage in routine tasks to get through the day, but they are searching for some sort of meaning in their lives - even as consumers they are trying to establish a place in a social world.

Quotes:

• "In New Zealand it is colder on the inside than the outside."



• "Start the parade and soon enough a politician will run to the front of it."

Day 2:

What is happening elsewhere in the world?

Theme:

Two parallel sessions explore the role of institutions and initiatives elsewhere that have had a positive impact.

Session 6: Institutions that make a difference

Theme:

Can agencies created by governments be forces for change, and how have Sustainable Development Commissions in Europe fared?

Panelists:

Guenther Bachmann (Germany), Tim Jackson (UK), Ingeborg Niestroy (Germany), Ian McPhail (Victoria), Gord Miller (Canada)

Summary:

1. From the 1970s, Europe has had a network of independent advisory commissions and councils. All are interdisciplinary, and range from expert to multi-stakeholder bodies. They create a space to think beyond normal horizons.



2. The UK Sustainable Development Commission recommends policy and works very closely with government agencies. When its recent advice on nuclear energy contradicted the government's policies, there was some feeling in government that it had created a monster.



3. Germany has a government-funded Sustainable Development Commission. It emerged in 1998 from a parliamentary consensus on how to institutionalise sustainable development. When the commission was established, local communities were active, but government and business were doing nothing.



4. The current commission has 19 members drawn from business, NGOs, churches, and trade unions. They address parliament and civil society, and set their own agenda. It is a small, fast-moving body, with just six staff. 30-40% of its recommendations to government are taken up, but these are process-oriented, rather than just solutions to problems.



5. There's a paucity of such commissions in Canada. Ontario has one commissioner, based on the New Zealand model. Ontario has an Environmental Bill of Rights, and the commissioner ensures it is upheld. The commission deals mainly with citizens exercising their rights - its work is driven by issues that people raise.



6. In Victoria, Australia, a Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability was created in 2003. It resulted from an election promise, and was set up against the advice of government agencies. Its functions include advocacy; preparing a state-of-the-environment report for Victoria; conducting an annual audit of agencies' environmental management strategies; and assessing public environmental education programmes. It also produces reports for government as requested, and position papers on issues such as transport and urban planning.



7. Although the Victorian commissioner reports to a minister, the minister cannot alter reports, and must table them in parliament within seven days. But attitudes and behaviours within government make a difference, more than the institutions.



8. Energy and water problems in Victoria have heightened sustainability issues, but no government in Australia has yet internalised sustainability. Australian industry is showing a lot of leadership because it is dealing with the issue globally.



9. The challenge remains to get governments to treat sustainability as a core and central part of the way they work - no country has achieved that. The risk of individual ministries for sustainability is putting the issue into a silo - it is everybody's issue.



10. People are often radicalised by local environmental problems - then they look around for solutions, and discover various environmental agencies. They often go on to develop a broader interest in sustainability.



11. Institutions do matter, but politicians respond to communities and not everyone shares sustainable values. Governments alone cannot bring about sustainable development.

Session 7: Sustainable development initiatives

Theme:

Many examples of these exist worldwide - in policy, regulation, leadership, education, and economic instruments. Why have they made a difference?

Panelists:

Gord Miller (Canada), Tim O'Riordan (UK), Rosemary Purdie (ACT), Bart Wesselink (Netherlands)

Summary:

1. The past six months in the US has seen a huge political movement to sustainability. Marked changes will occur in the coming months as cities and states act to fill the vacuum left by the federal government. These changes are more than just politics. They include a realisation that American industry is losing out to Europe in the innovation stakes.



2. Initiatives in California - a state where there has been 'no limits' - include state support for solar energy, steps to cut car vehicle emissions (in face of intense car industry lobbying), and a climate bill that aims to for a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg is promoting a world-class sustainability plan for the city. It includes a $13 billion commitment to new public transit systems.



3. A series of triggers have heightened sustainability issues in Europe and added to calls for leadership. They are the IPCC reports, the Stern report, Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, and energy security. Much of Europe's energy comes from Russia, which is not seen as a secure source.



4. Each incoming government in the Netherlands produces a four-year plan for sustainable policy, and an office similar to the PCE assesses it. Dutch climate change budgets have doubled in the past two years. 50% of the Netherlands lies below sea level, and the country aims to cut its carbon emissions to 30% by 2010.



5. A big challenge in Europe is that the mainstream economy continues to push in a non-sustainable direction. For example, in the Netherlands car ownership and energy use per capita are continuing to rise.



6. In the UK many big retailers, banks, and consultancies such as PriceWaterhouseCooper are now taking sustainability seriously. Many barriers remain in business through such mechanisms as job descriptions that are too tightly limiting, career paths that send the wrong signals, and narrow audit and accountability measures.



7. In New Zealand, transport appears to be the 'elephant in the bedroom' that no-one wants to talk about. Wellington has the highest proportion of freeway per capita in the world. Institutions are not integrated into the sustainability agenda. Transport is a classic case of an aspirational goal versus a system going the other way.



8. In Australia, baby boomers lack a sense that they can consume less and still live well. People, as over-consumers, remain one of the biggest problems.



9. In Western Australia, extensive work has gone on to bring together churches, unions, conservationists, businesses and public agencies to promote sustainability. Work across 42 areas of government resulted in initiatives such as each police station having its own full-time sustainability staff member to ensure that buildings and car fleets run sustainably. A transport spending ratio in the state of $1 on public transport for every $5 on roads was reversed in 15 years. In Perth, train usage soared from 7 million passengers to 50 million, making Auckland's goal of 6 million passengers to 8 million seem very modest.



10. Globally, growth itself is not the issue - we will have to grow to reach the sustainable city of the future, but our economic indices measure only a certain type of growth. We need different growth, so that the things that damage us fall away.

Platforms of power

Theme:

Two parallel sessions: New Zealanders expect a certain quality of life and an economy to deliver it, but our natural capital can end up bearing the cost. How far are we prepared to go to protect it, and what does that mean for sustainability?

Session 8: Sustainability and our social and cultural aspirations

Theme:

The majority of New Zealanders do not want wealth generation activities that damage clean lakes and rivers and fresh air. How well do our sustainability values and actions align?

Panelists:

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Bronwyn Hayward, Tim Jackson, Pita Sharples, Hon David Benson-Pope, Peter Winder

Summary:

1. Although New Zealand embraced sustainable management in the Resource Management Act, we haven't yet come up against its limits. The concept of sustainable development has deep ambiguities - it may be an oxymoron, in that you can have sustainability or development, but not both.



2. Sustainable development is the best thing on offer, but we're not doing it as well as we should. We do know a lot about what it is, and there's now a national and international acceptance that we need to get on with it. We can move a lot faster and a lot further than was possible just six months ago. Parliament has lacked the will to make progress, but that has changed hugely. Action is necessary and urgent.



3. There is a lot of chatter about sustainable development, but we're still not in the right frame of mind - we are still tied to GDP, instead of quality of life. We think wrongly because we measure wrongly - a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) would measure all the positive things in our society.



4. The past generation was deeply concerned about their legacy in terms of money in the bank. We need to think of legacy in terms of the environment and what we value. New Zealand ought to be able to make the whole environmental thing work better than anyone. Very hard measures of enforcement and compliance are needed to achieve sustainability goals.



5. Youth research reveals a massively diversifying community under the age of 14. For instance, children in bi-lingual schools talk differently than children in mainstream education. They use collective words and have the ability to think collectively. Mainstream kids tend to worry about big things, but think in terms of 'my place and my street', so they don't have a collective sense of how to address problems. Bi-lingual programmes are seeds of hope.



6. Unfortunately, later in education, universities also encourage silo thinking - "do law, or do economics, and stay in your box". In education we are skilling for the workplace and not for critical collective thinking.



7. UK research shows that a generation of 'market children' has developed. They are subjected to constant signals that consumption of goods is what they should aspire to, but that doesn't increase wellbeing. It is very human to want to progress, to live better and to live well, but we need to shear that away from what it means to live a late modern capitalist economy. Progress is defined to mean you go out shopping. To deal with the trauma of 9/11, President Bush advised: "I would like to encourage Americans to go shopping".



8. Maori have a world view that people need to look after the earth - she is the mother - and that they are part of whole world and part of the environment. The dead are buried so they go back into mother earth. Sustainability includes concepts such as 'kaitiakitanga' (Maori environmental guardianship). Other tanga and Maori concepts and values are also pertinent. These include 'rangatiratanga' (self-determination), 'kotahitanga' (unity), and 'manaakitanga' (caring).



9. The democratic process is one of the biggest constraints. It is extremely risky for any politician to run too far ahead of public opinion. Actions in relation to climate change may need to be drastic. For instance, New Zealanders are very devoted to motor cars, so governments are constrained in what they can do with sustainable transport. When politicians have to take measures that will have a palpable impact on people's standard of living, they have a political problem.



10. Changing behaviour is not a linear process e.g. habit governs much of our decision-making. Governments can't throw policies at people and expect them to change. If we measure what matters, and manage what we measure, then we will make a lot more progress. Leadership is part of the equation and it is disingenuous to argue that governments can't move until communities want to change.



11. MMP has opened up parliament to the diversity of views in the community - there used to be two views only in parliament, now there are at least seven, which reflects diversity in the community generally. That shift in parliament is reflected in consensus around Nandor Tanzcos' Waste Minimisation Bill. MMP gets a lot of criticism, but it rewards reasonableness and we need reasonable policies.



12. Environmental reporting and social reporting need to be stepped up - a Bill due later this year will put social reporting on the same footing as fiscal reporting. The May Budget will also see moves to improve environmental reporting.



13. Some basic values of being a New Zealander are very sustainable values. We do settle for the 'less flash' car, or the less flash bach. Research shows that under-20s are changing again, and may be coming back to spiritual and environmental values. Our environmental values have pushed green actions e.g. creating national parks. We need to see sustainability as more than just the environment.

Session 9: Sustainability and our economic future in a globalising world

Theme:

As global traders, this country's wealth derives from its biologies. But storm clouds lie ahead, none bigger than climate change.

Panelists:

Jim Sutton, Shane Jones, Caroline Saunders, Adrian Macey, Peri Drysdale

Summary:

1. We will face ongoing attacks from other countries that "use the cloak of environmental language". Once these issues gather momentum in North America and Europe we will need to use every trick in the book to counter them.



2. The new consumer is emerging... consciously consuming less, rewarding ethical brands and New Zealand as a brand. They will punish errant brands. That is our biggest threat.



3. New paradigm of consumer... "I'm shouting out about them across the agricultural sector". Huge opportunities exist to increase our sustainability and returns. The new consumer is not that interested in price. Much, much more concerned about the attributes of the product, the spin (eg carbon labelling, wildlife). New Zealand has the infrastructure to hit those buttons but isn't taking the great opportunity.



4. European supermarkets are putting in highly detailed regulations. Zespri were smart and got on to the committee writing kiwifruit rules. We're getting buy-in from sheep farmers and other sectors but it's very slow.



5. Some of these requirements are outside our head-space, e.g. supermarkets asking what farmers wildlife policy is.



6. We wanted to buy organic merino... but the information, the links are not there, New Zealand farmers didn't respond. The firm bought the fibre in Australia instead.



7. Organic is difficult... e.g not having chemicals for flystrike and parasites.



8. Leadership: a new style is needed that can work across sectors, and different people. Where are the Asians in this audience? Who will lead on the New Zealand brand?



9. "This [forum] is a middle class coalition of the willing who can spare a couple of days".



10. What makes a business (not just agriculture) successful is its connections to its community and its environment. We have a silo mentality and separate off environmental and social outcomes from economic. It's not just about science and technology, but people too.



11. We should take a global lead on dealing with greenhouse gases in the agriculture sector. We are starting to do that, looking to form an international partnership... and bridge the divide between developed and developing, European and non-European countries.



12. Farmers respond to the message in their cheque... they will change what and the way they produce. But sometimes that message to them is obscured. There's a real risk in just waiting for the price signal to come through. These things take time so it is necessary to be working ahead of that.



13. Is New Zealand responding fast enough? ...very little response from the panelists to that question, but there were some reasonably energetic "No's!" from the back of the room.

Quotes:

1. The likes of food miles and other enviro-based trade barriers are on the rise "...and it's going to be an endless series of battles."



2. "Bit of a vacuum of leadership in the rural community on these issues... The greatest threat the industry faces is ourselves, not people overseas (i.e. urban dwellers giving rural people "permission" to keep farming).



3. "Our market is being affected right now (by the new consumer paradigm)... and incredibly positively because our company is geared up to that. We as a nation should be very good at replicating that for incredible premiums. This is the biggest opportunity New Zealand has ever had to get a great quality of life and to get a premium... through fantastic practice as companies... and the New Zealand brand to represent these things. Our brand has to be much, much richer than clean and green and must stack up in an economic and social way too. Not many countries on the planet have that opportunity."

And heard on the way out:

• A lot of that was business 101...



• Wrong to say business isn't here. Four people were from Fonterra...



• And you wouldn't expect to find many business people at a forum like this...

Building blocks for progress

Theme:

Three parallel sessions look at what we need in education, knowledge, and communication to move forward.

Session 10: Education for sustainability

Theme:

Learning about sustainability, if it happens at all, tends to be squeezed into already crowded education curricula. It should be a core part of the language for the new century.

Panelists:

Peter Newman, Lin Roberts, Pam Williams, Ian Spellerberg, Barry Law, Tim O'Riordan

Summary:

1. Environmental education in NZ is fairly recent compared to the home countries of our overseas visitors. 1999 guidelines on environmental education led to some regional training programmes, and contained an action plan around environment and schools. National teams were also set up to provide support and professional education for teachers. Schools now have 11 advisors available for environmental education.



2. The highly successful Enviroschools Foundation started as a partnership programme between local authorities and educators. It creates a 'whole school' vision, and is now in 15% of schools and supported by the Ministry of Education. There are also many small NGO initiatives.



3. In universities, there are some good initiatives in individual departments and faculties. But in equipping people to live in a sustainable way, our education system has many gaps. Relative to the task ahead, our start has been very small.



4. Polytechnics are ahead of universities in many respects. Universities are more 'silo-ised' - this is a real barrier to interdisciplinary approaches and makes it difficult to get academics to cooperate across boundaries.



5. NZ universities are lagging behind many European universities. Schools in NZ are doing some great work, but universities are not prepared for students that will come through in a few years time.



6. University staff need professional development support so they can teach Education for Sustainability (EfS). University operations tend to do sustainability as an add-on - it should be a part of job descriptions.



7. EfS is slowly creeping up corporate and local authority agendas. But individual actions need a context of understanding how the whole system works.



8. The government shows little support for EfS. For EfS to succeed, people must be working on it fulltime throughout education. But money for it in schools doesn't always have to come from the education budget.



9. The key area to resource is for the education sector - community, adult, tertiary, teacher education etc - to get together on the same page and develop common strategies and programmes.



10. Individual teachers can struggle, so schools' management and leadership need funding support. In colleges of education, EfS courses are optional, so only interested students buy-in.



11. In the UK in 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that every school needs to be a laboratory for sustainable development. Some schools are now creating sustainable environments in terms of energy, waste management, design etc.



12. There's a sense in the UK that communities are no longer feeling comfortable with each other - the education system worries about what makes a good citizen. Part of the current education programme for schools is about 'good citizenship', and this links to EfS.



13. In certain regions in the UK, whole communities are becoming test cases for sustainability. Young people will lead debates about how they want their communities to look in 20-30 years' time, and education, along with housing, transport, and community energy, will feature in those debates.



14. A first step in Australia was to get beyond environmental education, to EfS, which is a far more all-embracing concept. 'Environmental' doesn't make the links to economics and humanities.



15. The Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy at Murdoch University in Perth, Western Australia, now has 80 PhD students and 200 masters students. More students are learning about sustainability than environmental science.



16. The driving force behind sustainability is in large part about world views and ethics, and what you believe, so the institute has attracted some amazing students. It tries to take on real issues. It is not about theoretical exercises, but 'applied sustainability'.



17. In Sweden, all education has to include the theme of sustainability.

Session 11: Knowledge for sustainability

Theme:

What do we need to know about sustainability, and what needs more research - not just in science, but in cultural and social terms as well?

Panelists:

Bob Frame, Ingeborg Niestroy, Bryan Jenkins, Willie Smith, Carol Boyle, Steve Thompson

Summary:

1. Knowledge for sustainability is different because not just one single discipline is involved. Trans- or multi-disciplinary skills are required so that we can do science and research in a different way and tackle high-impact questions. Science has been structured around the data gathered, but we need to go way beyond that.



2. We need to understand systems dynamics and get away from silo thinking. It is easy to collect data, and feel profound. A gold wedding ring weighs 10g but, to produce it, tons of toxic chemical are used and tons of soil are thrown away. They are the real products, not the 10g ring itself, but we don't know what they cost.



3. The gap between science and policy making must be bridged. People and stakeholder groups must communicate beyond their own fields and disciplines - something sustainability councils in Europe are set up to achieve. In the Netherlands, one council asks: 'What kind of knowledge do we need to deal with this sustainability problem?'



4. We need a sustainability framework for making decisions and taking actions, and to define the outcomes we want. Outcomes should come first, and indicators second. Australia's CSIRO has done some interesting work in bringing together the pillars of sustainability - environment, economy, and society. It shows, for instance, that it takes 8000 litres of water to produce $1 of rice in Australia, and 1200 litres of water to produce $1 from dairying. More of this sort of economics is needed.



5. We struggle with the complexity of things. Complexity is the new paradigm - we're moving away from spreadsheets and numbers and trying to incorporate, for example, values and beliefs. Cultural systems can be the most rational and the most efficient.



6. Economists have a role to play. The price mechanism is very good at linking global and local, but is too limited in what it measures. Prices are not reflecting reality. Agriculture and transport subsidies are distorting reality to the point we don't know what is really happening. In New Zealand, farmers are often driven by values, and there is little relationship between what they are doing and what they're earning.



7. We need far better information on habitats, and on product lifecycles. Economists and scientists need to draw more on insights from psychology and anthropology. Grandchildren do not exist under current economic models - they have no value. There is research to show that the ecosystem services we get (which are currently not valued) are worth more than what we measure in GDP. Mainstream economics has a very poor success rate with predictions, yet ecological economists and others tend to be sidelined.



8. It is important to understand what it takes for people to act sustainably, particularly if it's not in their self-interest. We must have a sustainability ethic, so that people believe it's a good thing. Ultimately sustainability is a moral paradigm - it's not simply about helping policy makers make good decisions.



9. Often we must act before we have complete knowledge, but that can lead to clashes between science's 'precautionary principle' and the legal system's 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Everyone should have a basic understanding of scientific principles e.g. it is hard to engage in public debate about climate change if people don't understand the carbon cycle.

Quote:

'If you don't know where you're going you are quite likely to get there.'

Session 12: Communicating sustainability: telling the story

Theme:

Empowering people so that they modify beliefs and behaviours to live sustainably involves more than just pumping out concerned messages.

Panelists:

Tim Jackson, David Young, Veronika Meduna, Paul Callaghan, Rachel Brown, Karen Cronin

Summary:

1. Media is still coming to understand what 'sustainability' means, but the term works. It must be explained in terms of a person's life. People like local and practical stories and solutions. Unfortunately, newspapers in particular are less likely to report local stories. There's been a media 'loss of commons' in that communities feel they're not being served in the same way.



2. The real physical environment is where we live; it's not something 'out there'. Yet as an issue sustainability comes and goes. It has always been with us - what's changed now is that the fate of everyone on the planet is the issue. It's not just one group worrying about how to survive - it's a supranational problem.



3. Sustainability is not a threat, and it's not about sacrifice, cost, and discomfort - cold baths and candles. It is a fantastic opportunity, and should be about new strategies and new ways of doing things. 'The market' is in fact letting us know about a screaming opportunity. Sustainability should be a strategic business tool, but New Zealand businesses are too busy trying to defend why they don't need to respond. Tourism and pastoral farming will be hit by issues around climate change. People overseas will feel bad travelling all the way to New Zealand, or buying products that have travelled so far.



4. It is naive to think that the media will be the mouthpiece, the trumpet for sustainability. Communication should not be an add-on after all the decisions are made. Communications needs to be embedded, with the media made part of it and addressed as part of the business.



5. The media is easily captured by opposing voices. It is very driven by ratings, and by conflict. It holds a 19th century idea of public discourse; in the interests of 'balance', there are two voices on everything. The general mainstream media has a big influence on how business people interpret the world. They easily pick up the message from climate change sceptics that 'it doesn't matter'.



6. 'Balance' in the media is a self-imposed limitation. Not every story can be dealt with by bringing in another voice with an opposite view. Journalists don't need to shy away from complexity. There are formats in journalism to create different conversations where there is not a simple black-and-white divide. We are seeing that in this forum through Radio New Zealand's involvement - congratulations to them for recording this dialogue.



7. In the sustainability sector people don't get information from the mainstream media, but through the internet and a whole range of sources and networks. We are collaborating a lot more than we ever did. Mainstream media doesn't do good job of reporting sustainability. There are fantastic stories to be told and we must not get stuck in disaster stories. Alongside the tension in mainstream media there's some great work going on through different networks. Many people aren't waiting for national strategies and policies, they are getting on and doing it.



8. Human instincts and common sense ways of looking at the world let us down. The world is essentially rational, but we have many irrational ways of looking at it. Common sense and spirituality must be removed from science. Yet science and technology can only solve some problems. A single discipline won't solve them all. The head and the heart will find solutions.



9. Human beings have a hunger for knowledge, and young people are just as hungry for knowledge as any generation. Al Gore shows that if you get out and tell the story with a light touch, people will engage with it.



10. New Zealanders don't have very good skills for finding the middle ground. Debates polarise so that we're either very nice to each other or implacably opposed. We seem unable to thrash out the things we think are important, set some goals, and work towards them.



11. Politicians respond, they're not leaders - the dialogue needs to be with the public at large, and the key part of the public is the young. Politicians are not leading the climate change debate, they are responding to it.

Session 13: Building consensus for action

Theme:

Based on two days of dialogue and debate, the panel discusses whether we're at a tipping point, leadership, communicating, regulation, and what needs to happen now.

Panelists:

Helen Beaumont, Dorothy Wilson, Wren Green, Rod Oram, Lindsay Gow, Peter Skelton

Summary:

1. We are at a tipping point with climate change, but many other pressing issues also exist. Human beings haven't been through this in modern times. Hope that we cope with tipping points in ways that don't become catastrophic - won't know until we've turned the corner. In the 1980s we entered massive social and economic change that wasn't apparent until the course was well set.



2. We haven't had a big Manapouri or Clyde Dam type of environmental issue for some time. Now we're at a point where we must think and act. Lake Taupo is an example - we won't know whether we've achieved what we've set out to achieve for about 80 years.



3. Global warming is a triumph of globalisation and a system out of control. Climate change is a splendid icon of the difficulties we face if we are to get sustainable about how we live.



4. Climate change is in our face every day - we experience weather daily and we get the message repeatedly. Other crises we've dealt with and moved on, and consumed some more. But we can't get away from this because it's about the way we do things. The consequences of our behaviour become so clear that we won't, literally, be able to live with ourselves.



5. Putting a price on carbon does link us to the rest of the world. The context of this is the entire planet. But we haven't heard the voices of the losers in climate change, the millions around the world who will die from starvation, conflict, rises in sea levels... where does New Zealand stand on these issues?



6. Historically, 'concerned minorities' have enlarged the conversation... we need different methods to reach new audiences, and interactive methods to engage more people. The mainstream media has a role to play in getting the message out, but media is changing rapidly.



7. It is within our ability to have 'great conversations'. We are an individualistic nation, and impatient in listening to each other. We don't have structures in our society to hold the dialogue. It is not the PCE's job to carry on this dialogue, but where does it happen? Other countries have independent taxpayer-funded organisations to play that role.



8. Fear of overload, of too much talking. We need a means to coordinate these conversations. We need to be making progress, and not always be talking about it. The PCE is independent and the very place where this conversation should take place.



9. A big change has taken place in our political institutions - greater maturity in our dialogue today. The new Local Government Act is leading to a sea change, and MMP has delivered a far more broadly based Parliament, and more sophisticated understanding behind the scenes.



10. Leadership has to happen at all levels, down to families and streets. It should not just be left to the government to decide and to impose. We have community leadership, with 3000-5000 community groups tackling local issues. Regional councils need guidelines, and inspirational leadership is needed at the top level.



11. Politicians like to regulate, but regulations require monitoring and enforcement. New Zealanders are a punitive lot who want to throw people in jail. But will locking up environmental transgressors improve things? Enforcement can be done in different ways, not just prosecution. That's the last step. There will always be people who won't play the game - get them to clean up the mess, rather than put them in jail.



12. If we achieve goals with light regulation, then we are showing a better way - people have to want to make it work. Remarkably few prosecutions occur in New Zealand over animal welfare, because most people understand the reasons for the rules.



13. Our data collection falls well short of European standards, but we do our best with the resources available. It's a matter of how much the community values what it wants to measure. A great shame that the environmental reporting system that the ministry started some years ago was allowed to languish.



14. If environment is New Zealanders' fourth-ranked concern, why doesn't the Minister for the Environment have 4th ranking at the cabinet table? Environment needs a far higher political profile.