The challenges of governing long-term sustainable development

The main challenge of dealing with climate change is its complexity. This can best be seen at the annual United Nations Climate Change conference where also the Paris Agreement was negotiated. Negotiations generally also imply that concessions have to be made. According to the United Nations Emission Gap Report of 2019, temperatures can be expected to rise to 3.2 degrees Celsius until the end of the century under current climate commitments. Apart from climate commitments that are not ambitious enough, another major problem is the lack of a binding enforcement mechanism. 

In order to provide solutions to these problems, it is necessary to understand their root causes first. Considering this, we will discuss the major challenges of governing sustainable development and what this implies for traditional policy setting approaches. In the next article we will then proceed to introduce a governance approach capable of addressing these challenges. 

The causes for the complexity of managing climate change

The reasons for the challenges of managing the complexity of climate change are diverse but can be broken down into five major themes. Firstly, a multitude of actors with different perspectives and interests are involved. Secondly, its impact on different levels of scale from global to local. Thirdly, the problem definition and solution strategy are diffuse. Fourthly, its long-term nature and fifthly, because it is deeply rooted in our institutional structures. In the following we will briefly elaborate on each factor. 

Diversity of actors, perspectives and interests. What makes dealing with climate change so daunting is that it affects each part of society. This means that – often conflicting – perspectives and interests of a wide range of actors have to be considered when developing potential strategies for sustainable development. Taking into account the complexity of networks actors form around shared perspectives and interests, it seems almost impossible to reach a consensus that is still ambitious enough. Unless, a change in perspectives takes place caused by an environment stimulating societal learning. 

Impact on different levels of scale. If we look at society from a systemic perspective, we can distinguish between three levels – macro, meso and micro. The macro level is where large-scale change processes occur such as a climate change, societal values and political culture. The meso level refers to the dominant structure of society such as infrastructure for energy generation, cultural practices, regulations and networks of actors. The micro level represents niches where radical innovations are developed. Since these three levels co-evolve in parallel, influence and reinforce each other, complexity increases considerably. 

Diffuse problem definition and solution strategy. A problem can be characterised by where it is situated on a spectrum from simple to complex. Simple problems that can be easily defined only require expert knowledge that then provides the best solution. Complex problems such as climate change cannot be easily defined, since they affect each part of society due to their systemic nature. Resulting from this, it is not feasible to work out a clear solution strategy from the beginning that is equitable to everyone. Rather, continuous experimentation and learning are necessary since the path to sustainable development is characterised by a high level of uncertainty. 

Long-term nature. The effects of climate change play out over long periods of time with highly uncertain outcomes, which requires long-term planning in terms of solution strategies. These strategies need to be continuously adapted based on new learnings, but always using the long-term vision as the steering mechanism giving direction. 

Existing institutional structures. A substantial number of current institutional structures are currently not compatible with sustainable development. This problem is further exacerbated by decades of following an unsustainable growth path that has led to a point of technological lock-in. Examples for this are industrialized agricultural production, energy supply and mobility. 

Implications for traditional policy setting approaches

Traditional policy setting approaches are generally structured in a straightforward way. That is, define a problem, create a high-level plan, develop a concrete strategy and then implement the identified measures. Thereby the focus generally lies on achieving short- and mid-term goals and problem-solving through existing institutional structures. If we relate this simplified view of traditional policy making to the factors in the previous section, we can make the following observations. 

Since climate change is a complex problem, it is difficult to find a clear definition that is shared by everyone. For such problems, it is practically impossible to assess the best option in a linear way, as is the case in traditional policy making. Before concrete strategies can be developed, a shared vision of the future needs to be established. 

This is especially important when considering the diversity of actors and levels of scale involved. Managing and aligning complex social networks of this kind requires taking a systemic view that accounts for the interdependences between the different networks. In the case of traditional policy making, however, this additional coordination layer is missing. This results in policies that are developed taking only a fragmented view of a problem. 

In addition, and this is probably the most critical factor, climate change requires taking a long-term view while implementing short-term measures and adapting strategies accordingly along the process. This link, however, is missing in traditional policy making while the linear nature thereof inhibits flexibility to adapt strategies continuously based on new learnings. 

Finally, in terms of institutional structures, considering that the decade-long pursuit of economic growth has led to unsustainable carbon lock-in as a result of following the trajectory implied by them, it seems unlikely that these same structures will be able to solve the challenges of climate change. Unless, as mentioned before, a shift in perspectives occurs. 

Based on these findings, it seems rational to call for a new governance approach that takes a systemic view, acknowledges the complexities of persistent problems, creates room where different perspectives can be exchanged and social learning occurs, combines a long-term vision with short-term actions and nurtures spaces where radical innovations can develop and diffuse into the wider society.