Environmental Education Research, 2013 Vol. 19, No. 5, 656–672, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.736476

Towards using transformative education as a benchmark for clarifying differences and similarities between Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development Margarita Pavlova* Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Australia

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

(Received 1 February 2010; final version received 26 September 2012) The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) charges educators with a key role in developing and ‘securing sustainable life chances, aspirations and futures for young people’. Environmental Education (EE) and ESD share a vision of quality education and a society that lives in balance with Earth’s carrying capacity, even as they differ in terms of expectations of how that vision is realized, and what might need to be balanced. Rather than treat EE and ESD as sparing partners or fellow travellers towards the same destination, this paper analyses EE and ESD from the perspective of transformative educational goals. Using these goals as a benchmark transcends immediate problems with either form of education, while also helps to clarify policies and practise formations, appropriate to a diversity of educational contexts. Keywords: environment and development; transformative education; environmental education; education for sustainable development; policy-making

Introduction Environmental Education Environmental Education (EE) is the educational process that deals with the human interrelationships with the environment and that utilizes an interdisciplinary problemsolving approach with value clarification. It is concerned with education progress of knowledge, understanding, attitudes, skills and commitment for environmental problems and considerations. (UNESCO-UNEP 1983) Education for Sustainable Development The vision of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from quality education and learn the values, behaviours and lifestyles required for a sustainable future and for positive societal transformation. The ESD is a process of learning how to make decisions that consider the long-term futures of the economy, ecology and the equitable development of all communities … The founding value of ESD is respect: respect for others, respect in the present and for future generations, respect for the planet and what it provides to us (resources, fauna and flora). (UNESCO 2009b, 1)

*Email: m.pavlova@griffith.edu.au Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

Environmental Education Research

657

The coexistence of EE and ESD poses a range of practical and philosophical questions for educators and policy-makers. Chief among these are the differences and similarities between EE and ESD, typified by recent concerns among international and national communities regarding overlap and duplication of goals and programmes in EE and ESD. Lack of clarity about values and purposes can lead to inefficiencies in the development of initiatives and strategies to achieve said goals, while the blending of much EE with ESD has resulted in confused policy formulation and implementation. In short, while some call for greater distinctions, others seek further convergence between EE and ESD (UNESCO 2009a). This paper examines the conceptual differences and similarities between EE and ESD through a two-dimensional policy analysis that explores expectations in each of transformative educational goals. As an exploratory analysis, the work is confined to policy discourses and guidelines for pedagogy as represented in international UNESCO and intergovernmental conference documents. Academic discourses are introduced but only for the purpose of illustrating why EE and ESD are not understood uniformly and that there are many interpretations of each. The similarities and differences demonstrated via reference to transformative education, it is argued, provides a novel basis for evaluating EE and ESD policies and practices in their contexts of development, application and critique. Changing contexts and critiques More than three decades separate the periods in which EE and then ESD emerged on the educational agendas of the international community. The time span is also associated with significant shifts in educational debate about the purpose and nature of education in neoliberal times, and how, if at all, education can be used to face socio-ecological crises caused by modern ideas of progress, and their corresponding ‘progress traps’. Throughout this period, activists and scientists from a range of fields have continued to warn humanity that the current trajectory of global capitalism is leading towards environmental and cultural decline (e.g. recently, EarthTrends 2008; Population Action International 2008; WorldWatch Institute 2008), and urgent measures are required to deal with both current and emerging socio-ecological issues. Global financial and economic crises, poverty and inequality, climate change and environmental degradation add weight to the claim that a collaborative effort is required to address the shortcoming of prevailing development pathways, with ‘education’ both part of the problem and part of the solution. Such a view is strongly articulated in a range of UNESCO’s documents and actions, including the current UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) and its attempt to ‘integrate the principles, values, and practices of Sustainable Development (SD) into all aspects of education and learning’ (UNESCO 2005, 6). Parallel arguments about new directions for education and learning, and quality and inclusive education, have also been made with reference to the Millennium Development Goals, leading to the tying together of the two in the Bonn Declaration (UNESCO 2009c), to emphasize once more the role of education and educators in ‘securing sustainable life chances, aspirations and futures for young people’ (p 2, point 5). Concerns about the need to develop a planetary vision that enables people to see the interconnectivities of the world’s systems and address issues holistically are not new. A line of argument important to this paper goes back to the beginning of the twentieth century, when Vernadsky developed his theory of the noösphere. The

658

M. Pavlova

theory presents a philosophically rethought image of a desirable future, which in current terminology would be termed a sustainable future. Vernadsky’s concept of noösphere or the ‘sphere of wisdom’ (tsarstvo razuma) was grounded in research about the physical sciences and proposals about the stages of evolution of the planet from a geological perspective (Vernadsky 1926, 1945, 1998). Although our species represents an insignificant mass of the planet’s matter, humankind has emerged as the increasingly dominant ‘geological force’ in the biosphere:

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

Its strength is derived not from its matter, but from its brain. If man understands this, and does not use his brain and his work for self-destruction, an immense future is open before him in the geological history of the biosphere. (Vernadsky 1945, 5)

That force is defined not simply by the biological metabolism of the human population (such as nutrition, excretion and muscular effort) but by the much larger flows of matter and energy which are connected with the planes and flows of physical economic activity of wider human society (the Anthropocene): Mankind taken as a whole is becoming a mighty geological force. There arises the problem of the reconstruction of the biosphere in the interests of freely thinking humanity as a single totality. This new state of the biosphere, which we approach without our noticing, is the noösphere. (Vernadsky 1945, 5)

Vernadsky (1945) believed that the concept of noösphere captured the latest stage in the evolution of the biosphere in geological history, while also challenging the world’s peoples to develop a new, global and holistic worldview. Such a worldview would require a world where human consciousness, cognitive power and wisdom converged, helping harmonize the coexistence of humanity and nature. Vernadsky argued that all components of human nature, such as our mind (through appropriate information and knowledge), heart (through feelings and emotions) and spirit (through the highest human aspirations and morals), could be shifted, if not transformed, in the processes associated with the coming of the noösphere. Because for Vernadsky, human social behaviour was the sticking point: even as development pathways are complex and inconsistent they are also calculated, projected and conscious, i.e. driven (largely) by people’s beliefs, strategies, patterns of behaviour and actions. Thus, for educators, a critical question is what human consciousness is ‘consciousness of’ in terms of ‘development’, compounded by the fact that education is variously charged with drawing people’s attention to particular socio-ecological processes and issues, if not also helping to solve global challenges, as with the UN’s DESD. This brief summary of Vernadsky’s work has further contemporary resonances beyond the realms of EE and ESD, in the work of recent thinkers about society and education. Considerable support is now given to the notion that human consciousness is fundamental to addressing the planet’s problems (e.g. Beck 1994, 1997; Giddens 1990, 1994a, 1994b – on reflexivity; Gardner 2001 – on conscious agents; Bonnett 2002 – on frames of mind; Sterling 2007 – on a positive planetary vision; and Hart 2008 – on consciousness as a viable educational concept), and this has been folded back into current thinking about environmental and sustainability education. Bonnett (2002), for example, directly locates the essence of sustainability in the nature of human consciousness – emphasizing the special position that human consciousness has in ‘the greater scheme of things’.

Environmental Education Research

659

On transformation … Bonnett’s (2002) work on sustainability as a frame of mind is suggestive here, in which Bonnett argues that the sustainability requires of us more than just an openness to nature:

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

The issue of sustainability as a frame of mind is not simply the issue of our attitude towards the environment, but represents a perspective on that set of the most fundamental ethical, epistemological and metaphysical considerations which describe a human being; a perspective which is both theoretical and practical in that it is essentially concerned with human practices and the conceptions and values that are embedded in them. (14)

In other words, posing sustainability as a frame of mind confronts us with fundamental issues of the meaning of life. If so, education is required to play a transformative role, challenging the assumptions and beliefs within our societies that have led to current social, environmental and economic crises. Accordingly, an education for sustainability requires a radical, ‘transformative’ pedagogy, focused on the process of learning to ‘live within ecological limits without human suffering’ (Stevenson 2006, 287), while also ‘uncovering the ideologies and power relationships that underlie the discourses of SD’ (Ibid.). Yet Sterling (2004) avers that while schooling remains dominated by modern forms of knowledge and pedagogy, it cannot effectively serve social and ecological needs related to sustainability via education. Rather a new form of education is required that addresses socio-ecological issues and facilitates critical thought regarding conflicts of interest. This new education, ‘sustainable education’ in Sterling’s terms, should lay the groundwork for a change in people’s values as demonstrated in their ‘theories-in-use’ (Argyris and Schön 2004). The key features of a sustainable education are teaching and learning geared towards the development of an active, constructive and radical citizenry who can question the basis of the existing system (Sterling 2004, 65). Thus, current education should be questioned not only in terms of how it reproduces existing social practices, but also in terms of ‘its potential to nurture moral courage and constructive opposition’ (Lundegård and Wickman 2007, 2). Ecocritical theory perspectives also question the dominance of an economic rationalist view of education, arguing that instead of reforming existing institutions, we should be developing new learning organizations derived from an ecological worldview that moves away from the metaphor of the machine towards that of a living organism (e.g. LeFay 2006). In this regard, different visions of society, such as an ‘eco-effective welfare society’ as it is termed in Finland (Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development, Sub-committee for Education 2006), or a ‘noösphere vision of the future’ as it was conceptualized in Russia (Vernadsky 1945), can help surface ideas and challenges that can be used to reorient existing education towards transformative ends. At this point, we note that Mezirow’s notion of transformative learning has provided a rallying cry for many contemporary educational frameworks that seek to interpret the ways transformation could be achieved through learning. The learning required is summarized by formulations that argue for: a deep, structural shift in basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically and permanently alters our way of being in the world. This shift includes our understanding of ourselves and our self-locations and

660

M. Pavlova

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

our relationships with other humans and with the natural world. (Transformative Learning Centre 2004)

Mezirow’s (1978) goals for transformative learning, as a foundational theory of learning in adult education, were informed by Kuhn’s (1962) notions of paradigm shifts, Freire’s (1970) commentaries on conscientization and Habermas’s (1971), (1984) analysis of domains of learning. Since then, diverse theoretical perspectives on the process of transformation (e.g. Cranton and King 2003; Dirkx 1997; King and Wright 2003; and Taylor 2000) have led to different views on the goals of transformation: including personal (self-actualization) or emancipatory transformation (planetary consciousness or noösphere vision). In this paper, I hope to illustrate that this social emancipatory view on transformative education is a most appropriate way for evaluating and developing teaching and learning for sustainability. This is because the three teaching approaches central to fostering emancipatory transformative learning are critical reflection (to identify the ways students’ agency could transform society and their own reality); a liberational approach to teaching (facilitating cognition, problem posing and discussions); and an equal, horizontal student–teacher relationship (Freire and Macedo 1995). For transformation education to occur, teachers must be prepared to challenge their students to engage in critical thought and help learners to recognize and value their own experiences and expertise (Belenky and Stanton 2000; Daloz 2000). This engagement serves to interrupt current patterns of power and power relations, and contributes to a reimagining of existing worldviews, including a reconsideration of the relationships between people and planet. This is because social emancipatory transformation is as much about social change as individual transformation: it appreciates the role of social or cultural differences in transformative learning. As such, both EE and ESD – interpreted through the prism of transformative educational goals – can work together to fight poverty and to establish sustainable livelihoods, thus demonstrating their important role in any of the major eco-social transformations needed to increase our chances of survival (Peters and Gonzalez-Gaudiano 2008). … and transition Historically, EE slipped from being the main referent in the UN’s educational responses to the contemporary environmental crisis during the late 1980s, and by the 1990s, typified by the 1997 international conference in Thessaloniki on Environment and Society – Education and Public Awareness for Sustainability, organized by UNESCO – the transition from EE to ESD seemed complete. While this shift has been viewed in some circles as a progressive transition in the field, i.e. as a new step in how education might help develop our understanding of nature–human relationships, for others, it has been interpreted as a regressive move that did not provide a clear explanation of why such a conceptual change was necessary: … we are currently in the throes of a situation in which the environment-related work formerly known as EE is being aggressively and extensively ‘re-badged’ as ESD. There are strong attempts internationally to supplant the use of the term EE with the newer term ESD. (Robottom 2007, 90) I can find no logical, epistemological, theoretic-pedagogical, methodological or ideological reasons to accept without question that ESD is or could become something

Environmental Education Research

661

substantially different, ‘superior’ or more ‘efficient’ in answer to the socio-environmental crisis than EE. (Cartea 2005, 285)

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

Such critical expressions toward ESD coincide with concern among international and national communities regarding overlap and duplication of goals and programmes in EE and ESD.1 The basis and extent of some of the differences and similarities between EE and ESD will now be explored, using themes raised by the preceding discussion about how best EE and ESD can work together to achieve the goals of a transformational education. Current views on EE–ESD relationships The relationships between EE and ESD have been explored by a range of commentators, such as during an international online debate on ESD held in 1999 (Hesselink, van Kempen, and Wals 2000) where a majority of participants shared the view that ESD is ‘a stage in the evolution of EE’ (Cartea 2005). A more recent analysis based on evaluation of the regional synthesis reports and the regional strategies on ESD (UNESCO 2009a) has revisited the earlier categorization, concluding that, currently, three types of relationships between EE and ESD can be observed. The three types of relationship suggest, respectively, that: EE equals ESD, EE is a part of ESD and ESD and EE are distinct (although they do overlap and both are legitimate and necessary). The initial model (i.e. Hesselink et al. 2000) presented an abstracted, conceptual view on EE–ESD relationships, while the updated version (UNESCO 2009a) is grounded in an analysis of current practical experiences of countries, i.e. it depends on ‘the historic role EE has played in a country (prominent or marginal) and the way EE itself is interpreted (broad or narrow)’ (UNESCO 2009a, 28). Both models consider inclusion of social and economic issues as playing important parts in identifying similarities or differences between EE and ESD, and, therefore, provide a basis for categorization. This paper argues that an emphasis on environment or development as the locus of transformational efforts, as well as the interpretation of development, provides for a better understanding of similarities and differences between EE and ESD, and their conception. Environment and development: political discourses Policy discourse on EE and ESD is, of course, constructed primarily for policymaking audiences. Since the Biosphere Conference in 1968 (Paris), the UN system – most notably UNESCO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – has played an important part in the formulation and development of policy for EE, and later ESD, as a response, and in some senses, ‘answer’, to current global problems. Through a number of international conferences and summits, UNESCO has sought to influence policy-making in both fields around the world. The transition in discourse, from EE to ESD, incorporates a series of developments in theoretical, methodological and social adjustments over the period, illustrations of which will be sketched below. First, the intergovernmental conference of 1968 brought together a wide range of largely scientific experts to discuss the scientific basis for rational use and conservation of the resources of the ‘biosphere’, defined as ‘that part of the world

662

M. Pavlova

in which life can exist; it therefore includes certain parts of the lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere’ (UNESCO 1969, I.3). The conference documents stated that the utilization and conservation of land and water on our planet should go hand in hand. The event also highlighted the largely cognitive value and expectations of education in these processes:

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

The global approach on nature and its problems should induce people to think ecologically, maintaining a realistic approach towards nature. Man should be considered as being in partnership with nature, the ethical value of which was stressed. (UNESCO 1969 VII, 74)

For this conference, the meaning of environment was largely tied to sciencebased concepts of the natural environment. The EE was seen as an introduction or reinforcement of ecological concepts and conservation content in the curriculum at all levels. There was recognition of ‘the urgent need to help all sections of the community to understand the broad ecological principles involved in man’s [sic] use of natural resources and the interactions that exist between man and his physical and biological environments’ (UNESCO 1969, 85.1). The conference was also the first intergovernmental forum to discuss and adopt a series of recommendations concerning environmental problems and their global nature, and as such, has remained a reference point for subsequent and more familiar developments of an internationally agreed approach to environment–development issues. An important next step in the development of policy expressions of the relations between humans and the rest of the biological environment was the UN Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm (UN 1972). The UNCHE promoted a broader concept of environment that included natural and man-made aspects. The resulting policy document was founded on the assumption that, worldwide, the well-being of people and economy is affected by the state of the human environment, not just the natural environment. Environmental improvements for present and future generations were also introduced as an important aspect of people’s and governments’ responsibilities, and education a key to their communication and development. Rational planning and the contribution of science and technology were highlighted as essential tools for ‘reconciling any conflict between the needs of development and the need to protect and improve the environment’ (UN 1972, principle 14), while the ‘underdevelopment’ of some countries and industrialization and technological expansion of others were seen as the primary reasons for environmental problems. The essential role of ‘education in environmental matters’, as stated in the recommendations of the Stockholm Conference, found fuller expression at the world’s first intergovernmental conference on environmental education, organized by UNESCO in cooperation with UNEP in Tbilisi in 1977. In the Tbilisi Declaration, environment was expected to address its ‘totality – natural and built, technological and social (economic, political, cultural-historical, ethical, and aesthetic)’ (UNESCO-UNEP 1977, point 3). The goals formulated for environmental education went far beyond ecological content in the curriculum and included development of a ‘clear awareness of, and concern about, economic, social, political, and ecological interdependence in urban and rural areas’ (UNESCO-UNEP 1977, point 2). These historical markers demonstrate that in the international arena, environment is not static: terminologies and expectations move from the important but somewhat

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

Environmental Education Research

663

narrow, nature-oriented focus, to broader interpretations that included economic, social, political and economic aspects and their interdependence. Nevertheless, development was mostly interpreted in economic terms, even as environment was the focus of attention. Building on such benchmarks as the report of the Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development (UN 1987), the process of change in interpretations of environment–development relationships was principally encapsulated by the UN in the first principle of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN 1992a). This proclaimed that people are the focus of concerns for SD, and are entitled to a productive relationship with nature. The documentation reinforced the message that developmental and environmental needs should be considered as integral components of the process of SD. ‘Rio’, then, represented another step in the shift from ‘development’ and ‘environment’ being considered separately to their combination, if not integration, in ‘SD’. A concern for the human condition was also more clearly linked to economic development, transcending previous views that promote the view it is an end in itself rather than a contributing factor to human advancement. While the Tbilisi EE statements referred to environment, Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 (UN 1992b) referred to environment and development when speaking of education and training. Educational efforts then were linked to a greater concern for human advancement and poverty alleviation, as previously expressed in the wider Brundtland Report’s definition of SD, i.e. in Our Common Future World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987, 43): SD is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

Inclusion of development into the international UN agenda about environment and education compels further examination of the dominant theories of progress and practices of growth, in particular the role of economic development related to poverty reduction. Indeed, UNESCO emphasized that poverty reduction, although the focus of the economic aspect of sustainable development, also needed to be considered by educators in relation to social, environmental, and cultural aspects (UNESCO 2006). At the same time, prevailing models of the market economy could not go unquestioned as, under current conditions, neither the environment nor half the world’s population benefit (UNESCO 2006). Therefore, as part of fully-fledged education for SD, there remains the need to search for different economic models that can contribute to SD, evaluated against criteria such as reduction of excessive wealth, more equitable distribution of capital and care for the environment. A fundamental challenge identified here is developing global governance and evaluative systems as these relate to market functions and the goals of environmental protection and equity (UNESCO 2006). While the focus on economic growth and critique has not gone unchallenged within mainstream political debate, it remains that concern about redistributing the world’s wealth has only recently appeared within ESD discourses (UNESCO 2009c). Debates about SD frequently emphasize the impossibility of continuing rampaging

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

664

M. Pavlova

economic growth on our planet. But when inflected into education discourses, the challenge for teaching and learning situations has been addressing diverse viewpoints on finding different patterns of consumption and production to safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities and the well-being of communities (UNESCO 2009b). In sum, by the time of the UN DESD, a concern for the human condition, in addition to environmental conditions, had become very much present in SD and ESD agendas. Economic development is increasingly viewed as a means of contributing to human development (e.g. UNESCO 2006), but not the overarching goal. Of course, it needs to be recognized that, since SD and ESD agendas have appeared in international political discourses, the debates they generate have influenced developments in environmental education. So, with this brief sketch in mind, a summary of the historical progression within the EE and ESD fields at the political level is presented in Table 1.2 Admittedly, while this table simplifies complexities and continuities of discourses, linking and stretching them beyond the table cells, it seeks to represent major shifts in the area, examples of which will be discussed further below. It remains that human–environment relationships are priorities for both EE and ESD; however, differences are apparent in terms of environment–development links and emphases. Discourses within the fields of EE and ESD … We continue to question how they (EE and ESD) can work beside each other, how they work similarly to critique, interrupt and re-inscribe normative, hegemonic and exclusionary ideologies and practices. (Hart 2008, 31) Table 1. Development of policy discourses. Perspective

Concepts

Environment and development are not closely linked

Environment

Integration of environment and development

Suited to a policy framework with an …

• Nature → nature +

man-made → totality of nature, built, technical and social, cultural • Utilization and conservation → improvement Development Economic development is not questioned → economic development within the Earth’s capacity Environment Natural, built, social, cultural Development The model of the market economy is questioned; social development is emphasized; development illuminates poverty and illiteracy, and empowers people

EE, where environment is at the centre of concerns; environment is external to the person; focus on curriculum and learning

ESD, where human beings are at the centre of concerns; environment is extension of the person; the aim is to promote a new model of society; the focus is on provision of education, curriculum and learning

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

Environmental Education Research

665

Although the policy discourses suggest strong differences in the domains of EE and ESD, it is clear that educational debate about both EE and ESD does not follow policy debates to the letter. Multiple perspectives on EE and ESD reveal different interpretations of both, while supporters and critics of both acknowledge that there are at least two opposing perspectives that create divisions in both fields as they relate to the substance and positioning of SD. Cartea (2005), for example, as an advocate of EE, states that divisions can be seen at the level of responses to attempts to validate the concept that a capitalist model of economic growth can be maintained within appropriate ecological limits. An increase in production and capital, as it is maintained, allows people to have resources necessary to repair environmental damage as well as prevent it in the future. The SD then is not critically distanced from notions of ‘market economy’ and remains linked to the contemporary faith in the power of science and technology to resolve environmental problems. Critiques of this view are varied; to illustrate but one line of argument concern is expressed about SD being regarded as maintaining the economic status quo rather than questioning it, such as when Rees points out that ‘Our Common Future assumes economic growth is the primary vehicle for addressing both poverty and environmental sustainability’ (cited in Stevenson 2006, 280). Equally, Education for Sustainability (EfS) has been advocated as a better framing, to avoid associations with economic development. However, as noted earlier in relation to ‘sustainable education’, ESD and EfS are often used interchangeably without qualification (such as on how they are associated, or not, with a critical environmental realism tradition, e.g. Huckle 1993, see below; or, whether the propositional form, namely ‘education for’ something or other, is either sound or helpful; again, see Stevenson 2006). A second point of division identified by Cartea (2005) concerns responses to positioning SD as a model to identify, investigate and promote alternatives to existing environmental and social problems. In this approach, SD is principally and deliberately associated with concepts of ‘equity’, ‘emancipation’ and ‘social change’. Huckle’s (1993, 2006) work is a consistent exemplar of this approach; in that, as an active promoter of a critical orientation to EE and ESD, Huckle has been keen to question both in terms of their political discourses: e.g. is it reformist or radical? The first, Huckle associates with industrialization and reform at most to the global capitalist system; the second, Huckle identifies as proposing a move beyond industrialization towards radical democratization of the global economy. In effect, from Huckle’s perspective, a key point of difference is whether to interpret the notion of development in SD as putting the economy first, or people? Discourses within the EE field are equally multifaceted mainly due to the differences in interpretation of the concept of environment. MacNaghten and Urry (1998), for example, have used a modern–postmodern continuum for analysing a variety of environmentalisms, to argue that the most influential environmental positions are based on modernist assumptions. Illustrations of these, ordered by their level of influence, are identified as: • naive environmental realism, which considers the environment as an entity separate from social practices; • environmental idealism, which focuses on environmental ethics abstracted from social practices;

666

M. Pavlova

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

• environmental instrumentalism, which focuses on human motivation and subsequent behaviour change towards the environment; and • critical environmental realism, which acknowledges the role of social practices in producing, reproducing and transforming environments and values. The last of these, it is noted, has been used in debate about the need for a transition to ESD (interpreted through a critical perspective), such that educators should rely on local knowledge, identities and discourses as a starting point for constructing knowledge. Such a view is also closely linked to a liberal-progressive and socially critical discourse on EE (e.g. Robottom 1987) that predominantly serves a critical human interest, based as it is upon critical (social) science, and cohering most closely with the notion of education for sustainability (Fien 1993; Huckle 1983). The diversity in interpretation and expectation within both fields, then, illustrates the point that it is essential to understand the dimensions of the particular ‘theoryin-use’ in education to be able to evaluate the relevance of EE or ESD, be that towards a ‘noösphere vision of the future’, or for teaching and learning that conforms with a transformative education framework. The next section illustrates this contention further. Pedagogical and learning approaches within ESD and EE When the educational goals and guiding principles for EE as stated in the Tbilisi Declaration3 (UNESCO-UNEP 1977, 2–3) are compared to the essential characteristics of ESD stated in the International Implementation Scheme (UNESCO 2005, 30–1), a number of observations can be made. Both EE and ESD share the following features: an emphasis on life-long learning and inclusion of formal and non-formal education; interdisciplinarity; inclusion of social, environmental and economic realms; and use of a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory learning, first-hand learning and development of higher order thinking skills (problem solving and critical thinking in the Tbilisi version). However, one major issue that differentiates ESD from EE is the extent to which local needs figure in the content, rather than provision, of education and capacity building for communities, i.e. as a basis for a transformative education. The ESD tends to focus on localities and people, whereas the EE tends to focus on protection and improvement of the environment. In EE, all measures are expected to be taken to ‘create new patterns of behaviour of individuals, groups, and society as a whole towards the environment’ (Tbilisi Declaration, UNESCO-UNEP 1977, 2). Summaries of other differences between EE and ESD in terms of pedagogical emphasis are presented in Table 2. The UNESCO’s preferred conception of the content of ESD was further developed in the Framework for the DESD International Implementation Scheme (UNESCO 2006). The following 15 strategic perspectives, and the connections between them, were identified as framing the foci of education and learning for SD, namely: Human rights, Peace and human security, Gender equality, Cultural diversity and intercultural understanding, Health, HIV/AIDS, Governance, Natural resources (water, energy, agriculture, biodiversity, etc.), Climate change, Rural development, Sustainable urbanization, Disaster prevention and mitigation, Poverty reduction, Corporate responsibility and accountability and Market economy (UNESCO 2006, 18–20).

Environmental Education Research

667

In essence, by the time of the Decade, ESD has a more explicit structural focus and ambition compared to the EE of Tbilisi:

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

The ultimate goal is to achieve peaceful coexistence among peoples, with less suffering, less hunger, less poverty in a world where people will be able to practice their rights as human beings and citizens in a dignified way. At the same time, the natural environment will play its regenerating role by avoiding biodiversity loss and waste accumulation in the biosphere and the geosphere. Richness in diversity in all sectors of the natural, cultural and social environment is a basic component for a stable ecosystem and for the safety and resilience of every community. (UNESCO 2006, 15)

For UNESCO, then, while EE and ESD may share many pedagogical approaches, the underlying emphasis within these two fields now differs conceptually and philosophically: EE focused on understanding local–global links and relating learning to the learner’s community at an early age; while ESD prioritizes embedding learning into locally and culturally appropriate contexts, emphasizing quality of life and capacity building for communities, and addressing SD concepts that address socio-ecological structures. Nevertheless, while these conceptual differences emerge at the level of analysis of UNESCO’s international policy, we should note that they are not always present in the realm of practice. For example, after the introduction of ESD into policy discourses, in Australia and Britain, as well as in many other places in the world, ‘education for sustainability’ was not seen as the priority for teachers, even if their practice and sensibilities prioritized such an orientation. Equally, in Latin America, the situation has been very different. The social and ethical dimensions of EE have remained a key emphasis in Brazil, through the adoption of principles and values in EE related to dignity, participation, co-responsibility, solidarity and equity. The importance of strengthening critical thought has also been explicitly recognized and promoted. Similarly, Colombian policy on EE has been based on the notion of an ‘environmental culture’ (essentially ethically focused) and on a theoretical and strategic framework for EE that foregrounds the role of socio-ecological structures too. In effect, education is positioned as a participatory process for the development of new citizens, for personal and social growth and for valuing cultural diversity. Thus, an explicit distinction has been made between ‘growth’ (crecimiento) and ‘development’ (desarrollo) (Sauvé, Brunelle, and Berryman 2005). González-Gaudiano (2003) concluded that, for many countries in Latin America, a social orientation has become an essential part of the EE programmes that exist in the region and these are now also demanded through any ‘new ESD’ approach. However, the Regional Strategy on Education for SD in Latin America (Regional Strategy 2007) maintains that EE in the region has followed ‘qualitatively different pathways’ from other regions in the world. Its orientation, debates and proposals have been linked, among other things, to ‘rural development, excessive urban growth, the fight against poverty, social and environmental justice, health, a critical stance on consumerism, gender equality and interculturalism’ (1). In short, over the past 30 years, EE in the region has been progressively positioned as a valid and broad approach to education, although its institutionalization has not yet been standardized (Regional Strategy 2007). The parallel existence of EE and ESD, then, has been acknowledged throughout this paper, to show how EE and ESD conceptualizations and implementation approaches differ among regions and even between countries within regions. If, as

‘Helps learners discover the symptoms and real causes of environmental problems’; Social environment includes economic, political, culturalhistorical, ethical, aesthetic aspects

and values clarification to every age, but with special emphasis on environmental sensitivity to the learner’s own community (in early years) • promotes the ‘value and necessity of local, national and international cooperation in the prevention and solution of environmental problems; explicitly considering environmental aspects in plans for development and growth’

• relates environmental sensitivity, knowledge, problem-solving skills

tolerance, environmental stewardship, adaptable workforce and quality of life; the emphasis is that ESD can be implemented in many culturally appropriate forms • social realm strongly related to local communities

• builds civil capacity for community-based decision-making, social

Capacity building (going beyond the school walls):

• accommodates the evolving nature of the concept of sustainability

development

• is based on the principles and values that underlie sustainable

Acknowledges the importance of links with the concept of SD:

• is locally relevant and culturally appropriate • takes into account context, global issues and local priorities

Much stronger emphasis on local context and culture, and the local context relates to all levels of education (not only early years)

Relationship between local and global (perspective is more general – in terms of content, provision and structure) Content related to provision of education and is ‘based on local needs, perceptions and conditions, but acknowledges that fulfilling local needs often has international effects and consequences’; knowledge about links between local and global

Relationship between local and global (in terms of content)

Content is related to an examination of ‘major environmental issues from local, national, regional, and international points of view so that students receive insights into environmental conditions in other geographical areas’; knowledge about issues in the other geographical areas There are statements relating EE to local communities but they are of a different nature in comparison to the ESD statements

Education for Sustainable Development (International implementation scheme, UNESCO 2005, 30–31)

Environmental Education (Tbilisi declaration – UNESCO-UNEP 1977, 2–3)

Table 2. Summary of the differences between EE and ESD in terms of focus.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

668 M. Pavlova

Environmental Education Research

669

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

Huckle (1993) contended, ‘education for environmental management’ remains the dominant paradigm for EE in Western schooling, then education can be expected to largely service technical human interests, and can only ever achieve a ‘greening of capitalism’. Yet, alternative conceptions, such as those mentioned above, serve to illustrate how EE and ESD might also support a noösphere-like vision and a positive planetary ethics. From a Latin American perspective, particular policies for a planetary EE and not just ESD can be understood as supportive of transformative learning, even as the contexts for their emergence and application, as much as the pathways to their attainment, remain highly distinctive and contextual.

Conclusions UNESCO’s mid-Decade review has successfully documented the diversity of approaches to planning and implementing education programmes that also reflect different understandings of human–nature (environment–development) relationships (UNESCO 2009a). Some programmes use a narrow interpretation of the environment and essentially promote an ecological content-focused education (environmental education in a narrow sense); others interpret environment in a broader way and include social aspects into educational considerations; still others use an ESD framework or include ESD themes and approaches to reframe existing curricula and nevertheless still call it EE. Although all models contain appropriate elements in educating learners about human–nature relationships, the levels of effectiveness, coherence and complexity of issues addressed can vary substantially, including what is meant by development, and which forms of development to pursue or resist; in other words, a label such as EE, ESD or EfS simply does not guarantee in policy or practise the provision of inclusive, quality and transformative education. Equally, approaches to EE and/or ESD are different across regions and countries now, were different 10, 20 and 30 years ago, and will continue to differ into the future. Therefore, EE and ESD should not be assessed solely against each other but against an independent, trans-educational benchmark, namely, the qualities envisaged by a transformative education. Notes 1. Expressed by some governments in their submissions to UNESCO regarding the DESD. 2. Based on the documents analysed in this section: UN 1972, 1987, 1992a, 1992b; UNESCO 1969, 2006, UNESCO-UNEP 1977. 3. This analysis is guided by two UNESCO documents that shaped EE and ESD interpretations at the political level.

Notes on contributor Margarita Pavlova is a senior lecturer in the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University and a member of the Griffith Institute for Educational Research. Her research focuses on policy and planning in technology and vocational education in the area of education for sustainability, development and green skills. She has published widely in the fields of her expertise including a sole authored book on Technology and vocational education for sustainable development: Empowering individuals for the future (Springer, 2009).

670

M. Pavlova

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

References Argyris, C., and D.A. Schön. 2004. Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. In Key issues in sustainable development and learning: A critical review, ed. W. Scott and S. Gough, 63–8. London: Routledge Falmer. Beck, U. 1994. Self-dissolution and self-endangerment of Industrial society: What does this mean? In Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, ed. U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, 174–83. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. 1997. The reinvention of politics: Rethinking modernity in the global social order. Cambridge: Polity Press. Belenky, M.F., and A.V. Stanton. 2000. Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, ed. J. Mezirow, 3–34. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bonnett, M. 2002. Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research 8, no. 1: 9–20. Cartea, P.Á.M. 2005. In praise of environmental education. Policy Futures in Education 3, no. 3: 284–95. Cranton, P., and K. King. 2003. Transformative learning as a professional development goal. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 98: 31–7. Daloz, L. 2000. Transformative learning for the common good. In Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, ed. Mezirow J. and Associates, 103– 24. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dirkx, J. 1997. Nurturing soul in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 74: 79–88. EarthTrends. 2008. Environmental information. http://www.wri.org (accessed December 12, 2010). Fien, J. 1993. Education for the environment: Critical curriculum theorising and environmental education. Geelong: Deakin University. Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development, Sub-committee for Education. 2006. Strategy for education and training for sustainable development and implementation plan 2006–2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herter and Herter. Freire, P., and D.P. Macedo. 1995. A dialogue: Culture, language, race. Harvard Educational Review 65: 377–402. Gardner, G. 2001. Accelerating the shift to sustainability. In State of the world, worldwatch institute report on progress towards a sustainable society, ed. L. Brown, 189–206. London: Earthscan. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. 1994a. Living in a post-traditional society. In Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, ed. U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, 56–109. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. 1994. Risk, trust, reflexivity. In Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, ed. U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, 184–97. Cambridge: Polity Press. González-Gaudiano, E. 2003. Hacia un decenio de la educación para el desarrollo sostenible [Towards a decade of education for sustainable development]. Agua y Desarrollo Sostentible [Water and Sustainable Development] 1, no. 5: 16–9. Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge of human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon. Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1, reason and rationalization in society. Trans. T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Hart, P. 2008. Ontological/epistemological pluralism within complex contested EE/ESD landscapes: Beyond politics and mirrors. In Environmental education: Identity, politics and citizenship, ed. E. Gonzále-Gaudiano and M.A. Peters, 25–38. Rotterdam: Sense. Hesselink, F., P.P. van Kempen, and A. Wals, eds. 2000. ESDebate. International debate on education for sustainable development. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Huckle, J., ed. 1983. Geographical education: Reflection and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

Environmental Education Research

671

Huckle, J. 1993. Environmental education and sustainability: A view from critical theory. In Environmental education: A pathway to sustainability, ed. Fien J., 43–68. Deakin University: Australia. http://john.huckle.org.uk/download/2406/Huckle930z.doc. Huckle, J. 2006. Education for sustainable development: A briefing paper for the Training and Development Agency for Schools. http://john.huckle.org.uk/download/2708/Education%20for%20Sustainable%20Development,%20a%20briefing%20paper%20for%20the% 20Teacher%20Training%20Agency.doc. King, K., and L. Wright. 2003. New perspectives on gains in the ABE classroom: Transformational learning results considered. Adult Basic Education 13: 100–23. Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LeFay, R. 2006. An ecological critique of education. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality 11, no. 1: 35–45. Lundegård, I., and P.-O. Wickman. 2007. Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research 13, no. 1: 1–15. MacNaghten, P., and J. Urry. 1998. Contested natures. London: Sage. Mezirow, J. 1978. Perspective transformation. Adult Education 28: 100–10. Peters, M.A., and E. Gonzalez-Gaudiano. 2008. Introduction. In Environmental education: Identity, politics and citizenship, ed. E. González-Gaudiano and M.A. Peters, 1–11. Rotterdam: Sense. Population Action International. 2008. Environment. http://www.populationaction.org/ (accessed January 14, 2008). Regional Strategy. 2007. Regional strategy: Building education for sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean. http://www.esd-world-conference-2009.org/fileadmin/ download/general/Estrategia_LA_para_la_DEDS.doc. Robottom, I. 1987. Towards inquiry-based professional development in environmental education. In Environmental Education: Practice and Possibility, ed. I. Robottom, 83–120. Geelong: Deakin University. Robottom, I. 2007. Re-badged environmental education: Is ESD more than just a slogan? Southern African Journal of Environmental Education 24: 90–6. Sauvé, L., R. Brunelle, and T. Berryman. 2005. Influence of the globalized and globalizing sustainable development framework on national policies related to environmental education. Policy Futures in Education 3, no. 3: 271–83. Sterling, S. 2004. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Schumacher Briefings no. 6. Devon: Green Books, Ltd. Sterling, S. 2007. From the push of fear, to the pull of hope: Learning by design. Southern African Journal of Environmental Education 24: 30–4. http://www.eeasa.org.za/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64:southern-african-journal-of-environmentaleducation-volume-24-2007&catid=45:journals&Itemid=72. Stevenson, R.B. 2006. Tensions and transitions in policy discourse: Recontextualizing a decontextualized EE/ESD debate. Environmental Education Research 12, no. 3–4: 277–90. Taylor, E. 2000. Fostering Mezirow’s transformative learning theory in the adult education classroom: A critical review. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education 14: 1–28. Transformative Learning Centre. 2004. About. http://tlc.oise.utoronto.ca/About.html (accessed February 01, 2012). UN. 1972. Declaration of the united nations conference on the human environment. http:// www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503. UN. 1987. Our common future. Report of the world commission on environment and development. Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427. http://www. un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm. UN. 1992a. June Rio declaration on environment and development. Presented at the united nations conference on environment and development (UNCED), June, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126–1annex1.htm (accessed September 16, 2009). UN. 1992b. June Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and training of AGENDA 21. Report of the United Nations Conference on Development June, in Rio de Janeiro. http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/rtf/sd_erio.rtf (accessed September 16, 2009).

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:37 09 May 2014

672

M. Pavlova

UNESCO. 1969. Final report of the intergovernmental conference of experts on the scientific basis for rational use and conservation of the resources of the biosphere. Paris: Author. UNESCO. 2005. United Nations decade of education for sustainable development 2005–2014. International implementation scheme. Paris: UNESCO Education Sector. UNESCO. 2006. Framework for the DESD international implementation scheme. Paris: UNESCO Education Sector. Retrieved October 7, 2009, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0014/001486/148650E.pdf. UNESCO. 2009a. Learning for a sustainable world: Review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO Education Sector. UNESCO. 2009b. Training guideline on incorporating education for sustainable development (ESD) into the curriculum. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/COPs/ News_documents/2009/0905Bangkok/ESD_training_guidelines_-3.pdf. UNESCO. 2009c. Bonn declaration on education for sustainable development. UNESCO world conference on education for sustainable development, March-April, in Bonn, Germany: German Commission for UNESCO. UNESCO-UNEP. 1977. Tbilisi declaration. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html (accessed July 2, 2009). UNESCO-UNEP. 1983. Environment Education: Dictionary. Paris: UNESCO. Vernadsky, V.I. 1926. Biosfera [The biosphere]. Leningrad: Nauka. Vernadsky, V.I. 1945. The biosphere and the noösphere. American Scientist. 33: 1–12. http:// larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/vernadsky/3207bios_and_noos.html. Vernadsky, V.I. 1998. The biosphere, complete annotated. New York, NY: Copernicus/ Springer. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WorldWatch Institute. 2008. Vision for a sustainable world. http://www.worldwatch.org/ taxonomy/term/109 (accessed January 14, 2008).