Sustainability forum March 2004

Options for a Sustainable Development Advisory Body (SDAB)

Draft 24 February 2004

Discussion Paper from the SDF Research and Policy Working Group

“Partnership is at the heart of the sustainable development approach”

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Sustainable Development for New Zealand: Programme of Action, Wellington 2003, p. 11.

“The Prime Minister should establish an advisory body responsible for overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the Government's proposed New Zealand Strategy on Sustainable Development”

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Creating Our Future: Sustainable Development for New Zealand, Wellington 2003, Recommendation 3.

Background:

The Sustainable Development Forum (SDF) held 14 February 2002 at the RSNZ Office in Wellington identified a range of possible functions for a national sustainable development advisory body. Among its functions could be advice to Government, strategic planning, social action, collaboration, dissemination of information and convenor of sustainable development expertise and interest across the country.

A SDF Steering Group was given the task to prepare next steps and recommend Terms of Reference and an action plan to the SDF. The Forum held 28/29 November 2002 at the University of Auckland discussed the feasibility of an independent board on sustainable to advise government on sustainable development issues and terms of reference to guide it. The Forum resolved to further investigate options of cooperation between Government and civil society. The Steering Group then prepared a document “Proposed Terms of Reference for a National Council (or Advisory Body) for Sustainable Development” for discussion at the Forum held 11 April 2003 at the RSNZ Office in Wellington. The Forum resolved to establish a Research and Policy Working Group (RPWG) to provide papers on sustainability issues and on the matter of an independent advisory body.

This paper informs about the following issues:

(independent) national sustainable development advisory bodies (SDAB), as they exist – in various forms - in over 90 countries;
mission and functions of a SDAB in New Zealand;
possible terms of reference for a SDAB;
issues of governance and reporting;
various options for establishing a SDAB;
issues of funding and accountability;
examples of independent advisory bodies operating in New Zealand;
options for a SDAB IN New Zealand;
recommendation to the Forum in Wellington 12 March 2004.

1. Origins and development of independent advisory bodies:

The 1992 Rio agreements recommended active participation along with governments in the implementation of sustainable development. Agenda 21 established the UN Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD) to initiate and coordinate national strategies for sustainable development and advise on the establishment of SDABs. Since 1992, more than 90 countries – not yet New Zealand – have established some form of a multi-stakeholder participatory body to promote and implement sustainable development at the national level. The Earth Council, also established by Agenda 21, had an initiating and coordinating function for the establishment of independent advisory bodies. It refers to them as National Councils for Sustainable Development (NCSDs).

According to the Earth Council NCSDs vary widely in form and function, but perform some common roles (see www.ncsdnetwork.org).

They are:

Facilitating the focused participation and cooperation of civil and economic society with governments for sustainable development;
Assisting governments in decision-making and policy formation;
Integrating economic, social and environmental action and perspectives;
Providing a systematic and informed participation of civil society at national and international level.

Most NCSDs play key roles in translating Agenda 21 into national strategies for sustainable development.

NCSDs are particularly developed in Europe. They exist in 22 countries. The European Environmental Advisory Councils (EEAC) network coordinates their activities at EU level. The survey of all NCSDs (accessible through the EEAC website www.eeac-network.org) reveals a high consistency of missions and functions. The examples of the Sustainable Development Commission in the UK and the National Sustainability Council in Germany are, therefore, typical for most European NCSDs.

Accordingly, NCSDs are:

Created by civil society;
Recognized and funded by Governments;
Made up by independent representatives of civil society (NGOs, experts, business etc.);
Giving advice to Government (e.g. on a national strategy for sustainable development);
Initiating dialogue in society.

While RPWG believes that a strong case could be made for establishing a NCSD in New Zealand to catch up with OECD developments, some preliminary issues should be considered. The following chapters address issues related to SDABs – a more generic term for an independent entity advising government – to allow a more informed discussion on the appropriate form of a SDAB.

2. Possible mission and functions:

The mission of a SDAB should be to make contributions for a national sustainable development strategy, to give advice to Government on sustainable development policies and to promote the public dialogue on sustainability issues. The functions of a SDAB should be to:

act as an independent advisory body to Government;
perform a coordinating role among groups working on issues relevant to sustainable development;
be an initiator of public dialogue on sustainability;
work with SDABs in other countries and at international level;
be a repository / facilitator of knowledge.

RPWG recommends the establishment of a SDAB in New Zealand to deliver the above.

3. Possible terms of reference:

a) To review how far sustainable development is being achieved in New Zealand in all relevant fields, and identify any relevant processes or policies detrimental to, or enhance the achievement of sustainable development;
b) To identify unsustainable trends that will not be reversed on the basis of current or planned action, and recommend action to reverse the trends;
c) To deepen understanding of the concept of sustainable development, increase awareness of the issues it raises and help build agreement on them;
d) To encourage and stimulate good practice and governance of sustainable development and undertake research into options and strategies for moving forward;
e) To provide a process for constructive engagement and consensus building on the issues, options and strategies for sustainable development.

4. Governance and reporting:

It is critical that a SDAB is credible to both civil society and Government. To this end, a SDAB responds to requests from Government, but also must be allowed to follow its own working agenda. In many countries SDABs are sponsored by the Government and report directly to the Prime Minister (or head of government, respectively).

RPWG recommends that the SDAB reports to the Minister responsible for sustainable development. Currently, the SD portfolio resides with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC).

5. Options for a SDAB

An independent SDAB needs to be publicly and professionally credible. As an independent body it needs to be established outside Government. To this end, several options are available:

(1) The functions of a SDAB could be fulfilled by an already existing body. One option is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) or a body established by the PCE. In any case, the PCE would have to ensure the representation of wide-spread views held in civil society. Given the resource implications that can hardly be expected to be met by the PCE, the SDAB role would best be performed by an independent body that represents both, relevant civil society groups and expertise in the area of sustainable development. To this end, the PCE could act as a facilitator and identify suitable groups and individuals to form an independent SDAB.
(2) Rather than involving the PCE, the Government itself - for example, the Prime Minister’s Office - could establish an independent SDAB. The obvious advantage would be a higher degree of recognition by Government. The establishment of a SDAB – similar to the establishment of the Bioethics Council - would give credibility to the Government’s claim for establishing a process for dialogue and co-operation in an area of fundamental importance. This option would also be in line with developments in a number of leading OECD countries such as the UK or Germany. Crucial here is the challenge to ensure representation of relevant groups and independent expertise.
(3) This challenge could best be met by allowing civil society itself to form an independent SDAB. SDF or the emerging network ‘Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand (SANZ)’ – as the broadest representation of key civil society groups – would be best suited to establish a SDAB. This option is recommended by RPWG as it best ensures the fundamental concern of both, SDF and SANZ, i.e. giving sustainability a strong voice and making the country’s expertise truly available. Under this option, Government’s role would be to recognise the SDAB and fund or help funding its operation. Examples of this option include Scandinavian countries and the European Union (European Environmental Advisory Council – EEAC).

The bottom line is that there is a wealth of knowledge and expertise available in civil society. This knowledge and expertise is, of course, not limited to professional or academic groups. New Zealand is blessed with the availability of ancient wisdom coming from tangata whenua. More than any other OECD country, New Zealand’s history and identity is shaped by the partnership between its indigenous population and European settlement. An ancient concept such as sustainability is best utilised by emphasising this partnership. RPWG strongly believes that New Zealand’s civil society has matured enough to allow a genuine representation of all New Zealanders, i.e. indigenous people (Maori) and non-indigenous people (from European and other cultures). It is time for civil society to speak for itself and not rely on guidance by it government.

6. Funding and Accountability

RPWG recommends that Government provide funding for the establishment of a SDAB in New Zealand. While this raises questions about levels of independence it is clear that an under-funded group will struggle to deliver value as per the mission and functions outlined above.

On the establishment of a SDAB, agreement needs to be reached on tenure for elected members, governance structure, accountability reporting to stakeholders and the establishment of an effective review process.

7. Examples of independent advisory bodies operating in New Zealand

The concept of councils or advisory bodies which provide advice to government and coordination of information and dialogue within civil society is not new in New Zealand. The following as examples of bodies both inside and outside of government which perform these roles in other sectors.

Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council; see www.alac.org.nz

ALAC is the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand - Te Kaunihera Whakatupato Waipiro o Aotearoa. It is a crown owned entity which operates under the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council Act (1976). ALAC's primary objective is to promote moderation in the use of alcohol and to develop and promote strategies that will reduce alcohol related problems for the nation.

Mental Health Commission; see www.mhc.govt.nz

The Commission's specific functions are defined by the Mental Health Commission Act 1998. There are three key functions set out in the legislation:

monitor and report to Government on the performance of the Ministry of Health and Health Funding Authority in the implementation of the Government's National Mental Health Strategy
work with the sector to promote better understanding by the public of mental illness, and eliminate discrimination
strengthen the mental health workforce.

While it has a legislative mandate to monitor the performance of key sector agencies, the Mental Health Commission believes the mental health sector needs to identify and promote effective practices, and recognise excellence and innovation. The Commission facilitates and promotes:

leadership at all levels within the mental health sector
use of evidence based practices in all aspects of mental health service delivery to lead to best possible outcomes for service uses, particulary for Maori and
innovation and continued service improvement and development.

The Commission is working to promote recovery approaches and to ensure that meeting the needs of consumers, families and significant others providing support, is paramount in the delivery of mental health services. The Commission is focusing on building up children and young persons services, and services for people with multiple disabilities, such as drug and alcohol and mental illness. Through all of the Commission's work, there is an emphasis on the needs of Maori. The Commission also recognises the distinct needs of Pacific people.

The Commission has the right to undertake whatever tasks are required to meet its responsibilities. This includes the right to review, examine and report back to the Minister on the status of the mental health system, the progress being made toward achieving the mental health strategy and find out what barriers are preventing the objectives being reached. It is monitoring all agencies involved in mental health care.

Disabled People Association; see www.dpa.org.nz

DPA (New Zealand) is an umbrella organisation representing people with disabilities, the organisations involved in advocacy on their behalf, and service providers.

As a national assembly encompassing people with all types of disabilities - physical, sensory, intellectual, psychiatric, neurological and age related - DPA is the voice of people with disabilities in New Zealand.

Goal Areas:

Information and Advice
Coordination and cooperation
Strategic Planning
Monitoring
Self-advocacy
Treaty Partnership
International.

Bioethics Council; see www.gm.govt.nz/topics

Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council was established in December 2002 with the goal of enhancing New Zealand’s understanding of the cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of biotechnology, and ensure that the use of biotechnology has regard for the values held by New Zealanders. In doing this, the Council will have three main roles:

1. To provide independent advice to Government on biotechnological issues that have a significant cultural, ethical and spiritual dimension.

2. To promote and participate in public dialogue on cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of biotechnology, and enable public participation in the Council’s activities.

3. To provide information to the public on the cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of biotechnology.

Government appointed Sir Paul Reeves as the inaugural Chair of the Council and further ten members representing wide range of skills relevant to the sciences, ethics, tikanga Maori, and cultural and spiritual values surrounding biotechnology. The membership of the Council also reflects the fact that it is required to demonstrate its commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi and to consult and engage with Maori in a way that specifically provides for their needs.

The Council is independent of government, sets its own work programme and priorities, and communicates freely its activities and findings. At the moment, it is set up as a Ministerial Advisory Committee, reporting to the Government through the Minister for the Environment. This structure will be reviewed after two years, when consideration will be given to possibly establishing the Council as a statutory or more formal body.

Though the Council is an independent body, it has links to government agencies, the biotechnology sector, and the public. It is expected to co-ordinate with other advisory and decision-making bodies concerned with ethics and values and to establish links with similar international bodies. The Council will also maintain a watching brief with a view to facilitating public understanding on different world views related to biotechnology.

In line with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, the Council’s guidelines or recommendations will not be binding and nor will the Council be a decision-making body.

8. Recommendation

RPWG recommends to establish a working group jointly formed by members of the New Zealand government and the SDF to explore the options outlined in this paper. A report should be presented to the next national forum – of either SDF or SANZ – for discussion and adoption.