Integrating spheres and ideas - IEM in practice

It's all connected 

Interconnected spheres of IEM: Rod Barker (2022).

An IEM processes is multifaceted, it takes coordination and facilitation to make sense of complex information and processes to attain certain outcomes. According to Cairns (1991), a large challenge for IEM is working with government institutions that battle over policy powers to maintain control over their spheres of influence.

As most things are in this universe, there are innumerable interrelationships between multiple forces and organisms that are constantly changing. Luckily for me the universe was not included as a problem for my study assignment, yet it did feel that way at times.

In the final weeks of my study about IEM, I've found out what it can be like to be part of an integrated environmental policy approach. Mentioned in the previous blog, attaining shared views on relatively simple things, such as 'sustainability' become massive barriers to forward movement. Making progress on complex issues is not to be under estimated, that's what I've learnt. Things seem to take 3 x longer and then, more confusion or lack of interest from other team members awaits. The IEM spirit sometimes feels to be drained from existence. Combine this with human behavioural characteristics and voila, there’s more delays, frustration and confusion. Well, that’s enough of my sob story, lets get on with overcoming barriers.

One of the major hurdles as I figured correctly, was to define sustainability in a way that five people could accept. This took about two months and yes, it was fraught with confusion. One of the ideas when researching and writing an analysis report was to use individual interpretations of what each team member thought sustainability meant. So, along we went on this merry path for some time, until………… we received feedback from our course leader telling us that this method was not an integrated approach. Well, as you might imagine, this was met with all kinds of comments. And then as sane people do, we took heed and reformed our ill thinking ways to formulate an integrated version of sustainability. Fancy that, a new concept of sustainability, and, here it is –

sustainability is defined as ensuring the social, economic, cultural well-beings are enhanced and provided for future generations (Resource Management Act, 1991). This is through ensuring natural resources and biodiversity are protected (Bansard & Schöder 2021; Bührs 1995), Māori cultural values are integrated into land management (Funk & Kerr, 2007), and ensuring economic benefits are within ecological constraints and do not compromise social well-being (Bührs 2021; Australian/New Zealand Standard, 2021). 

While this interpretation of sustainability could be deemed as holistic, personally, I prefer the model of strong sustainability shown below which places natural elements as a base for which all life depends.

Models of sustainability taken from Morandin Ahuerma, Indra & Contreras Hernández, Armando & Ayala-Ortiz, Dante & Pérez-Maqueo, Octavio. (2019).

On the right, Giddings model shows how all factors of life rely on natural capital (this can be scientifically verified), where weak sustainability on the left depicts sustainability as being a combination of fictitious and potentially self-destructive behaviours (which can also be scientifically verified). However, as exhibited throughout human history, sometimes stories (religion or economics for example) take precedence over reality. Especially, when there are people that have power and influence who want to maintain a certain story so they can remain in power. I digress once again, anyway, back to IEM and confusion. There are good reasons as it turns out to seek clarity and ask questions on how others understand or interpret meanings. Below, the stakeholder shared meaning model developed by O’Rourke and Barnett (2011) seeks to elucidate how meanings for things are shared.

 

Even then, how do we know how much of a meaning is shared? A good point to make and it seems that asking open questions is a clever way to do this. For example, what is your understanding of IEM? This simple question, can reveal a lot of information and could be useful for others using an IEM approach. For some people, IEM could mean long winded conversations, talking about things and not doing them, then asking why was it not done? Or even it could mean, I'm busy doing other stuff, maybe you should do it - or leave it to that last minute type of approach. So, to avoid these kinds of things, I recommend working with like minded people who have similar understandings of what it means to get things done in a timely, inclusive, collaborative, efficient and fun way.

As simple as the model of shared meaning might seem, please, please, please, do not underestimate how difficult it can be to find shared meaning, especially when it's needed most. A focus for the research mentioned in the previous blog (hill country farms to forests), our team zoomed in scope on the implications for land use change driven by carbon off-setting measures by government. The social section of the research and report (which I happen to have a fond appreciation for) narrowed in on demographic change, infrastructure and subjective wellbeing which included the Living Standards Framework developed by Treasure NZ. Thankfully, the Living Standards Framework (LSF) developed by the Treasury NZ provided some interconnection with multiple spheres, e.g. environmental, cultural, social, economic and policy.  See model below.

Within the Living Standards Framework 2022, wellbeing is explained as being within three main categories that include individual and collective wellbeing, institutions and governance, and thirdly the wealth of Aotearoa. Each of these categories have domains and within each domain there are a number of wellbeing indicators. The national wealth category has four domains and associated indicators, these are:

1. Natural environment: with indicators such as average temperature, biodiversity, genetic resources, soil and water health, fish and timber stocks.
2. Social cohesion: with indicators such as, sense of identity and belonging, trust of others and discrimination. 
3. Financial and physical capital: with indicators such as, total net fixed assets and gross fixed capital formation.
4. Human capacity: with indicators such as, cognitive skills at age 15, level of education, health expectancy, and Māori language speakers (Treasury NZ, 2022).

 

Sustainability is mentioned within the LSF, however, the Treasury definition is similar to weak sustainability and therefore, lacks evidence-based policy approval, by at least myself. It takes courage to truly embrace a transformative shift towards strong sustainability and reject the weak version. And in order to do this, humanity will need to face its fears of not being an ever-expanding superorganism with everlasting resources with infinite godlike capacities. If there was a god, it would have infinite powers of shared meaning and IEM spirit oozing from its orifices. This brings us back to religion and how humanity looks for answers to questions that seem beyond reality. Mary Tucker and Nate Hagens discuss this topic and explain how religion and science can be integrated. Tucker suggests that Buddhist philosophy tends to view humanity as being integrated in a anthro-cosmological way. Proponent of this perspective Thich Nhat Hanh (2013) offers a relational approach to an interconnected socioecological worldview,
At this very moment, the Earth is above you, below you, all around you, and even inside you. The Earth is everywhere. You may be used to thinking of the Earth as only the ground beneath your feet. But the water, the sea, the sky, and everything around us comes from the Earth. Everything outside us and everything inside us comes from the Earth. We often forget that the planet we are living on has given us all the elements that make up our bodies. The water in our flesh, our bones, and all the microscopic cells inside our bodies all come from the Earth and are part of the Earth. The Earth is not just the environment we live in. We are the Earth and we are always carrying her within us. Realizing this, we can see that the Earth is truly alive. We are a living, breathing manifestation of this beautiful and generous planet. Knowing this, we can begin to transform our relationship to the Earth. We can begin to walk differently and to care for her differently. We will fall completely in love with the Earth. When we are in love with someone or something, there is no separation between ourselves and the person or thing we love. We do whatever we can for them and this brings us great joy and nourishment. That is the relationship each of us can have with the Earth. That is the relationship each of us must have with the Earth if the Earth is to survive, and if we are to survive as well (p.7). 

 

Hanh (2013) attempts to integrate people with the lifegiving functions of the Earth. Through this conceptualisation we can be seen as part of this planet and that love can provide connectedness for us within this world.

 

References
Treasury New Zealand. (2022). Wellbeing in Aotearoa New Zealand.  https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2022-04/sp-wellbeing-aotearoa-new-zealand-12apr22.pdf

Barnett, S., & O'Rourke, S. (2011). Communication, organisation and innovation (3rd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson New Zealand.

Cairns, J, J.1991.. The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management. In J. J. Cairns, & T. V. Crawford, Integrated Environmental Management (pp. 5-20). Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

Hanh, T. H. (2013). Love Letter to the Earth. Parallax Press, ISBN:9781937006389.

Morandin Ahuerma, Indra & Contreras Hernández, Armando & Ayala-Ortiz, Dante & Pérez-Maqueo, Octavio. (2019). Socio–Ecosystemic Sustainability. Sustainability. 11. 3354.10.3390/su11123354.