I do think we were explicit in saying that the “double entendre” is intentional, i.e., it is meant to speak to both the sustainability of the decisions themselves (an IAP2 concern) and the degree to which sustainability as a principle (triple bottom line) can or is incorporated into decisions by government, industry and others.

The reason, as John points out, that we are looking at these two aspects together is that we believe that achieving the triple bottom line of sustainability (not good for the environment alone) is nearly impossible without broad, inclusive stakeholder participation. How else do we understand more fully all of the intended and unintended consequences of our proposed actions and solutions.

The world is full of examples of where “experts” got together and came up with the “perfect” solution, only to see it fail miserably, because it did not account for some aspect of whatever system was being tinkered with. In hindsight, there is almost always someone who says “I could have told you what was going to happen” – or WORSE – says “I told you so.”

Public participation is all about identifying people and information that are relevant to a decision. We encourage decision makers to be inclusive and get all points of view. We implore them to think about how people will be differentially affected by their decisions and help give voice to those people. In doing so, we believe public participation is the natural ally of decision makers that respect and desire to incorporate sustainability principles into their decisions.

The conference is intended to explore that relationship.

Many of us realize that ‘sustainability’ has now become overused and wrongly applied in many cases. IAP2 has used it in reference to lasting decision-making for so long we might have assumed we had grandfathered rights…maybe not.

The point is that for issues that effect people, authentic public involvement and citizen engagement results in better, enduring, lasting, sticky, sustainable decisions, than decisions that are made without public participation.

First, sustainability (Wikipedia) as “the capacity to endure” (e.g. decisions that can and will last because they are wise and have broad support).

Second, sustainability in the context of making decisions that affect or need to be in line with the triple bottom line (Wikipedia) of economic, ecological and social performance.

Let me see if I can get someone from IAP2 to clear this up further.

Unfortunately, it ia often used (or abused) to mean “good for the environment (or whatever the subject at hand).

After reading and re-reading the IAP2′s text about “sustainability” in Decision-Making, Decisions, and Outcomes, I can honestly say that I do not understand what they are talking about.

I suggest this Wikipedia link on “sustainable development” (the latter one has a U.N. list of topics, underwhich “Capacity-Building” might be what IAP2 is reaching for):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development

I suggest they choose one (of the many) definitions out there, and THEN see if what they are trying to say still makes sense. If it does, then they need to *cite* that definition to their audience.

Otherwise, the IAP2 conference session will only create a lot of nodding heads — without any real focus or result. (As such, the session may become a good example of “unsustainable decision-making”, if that’s what they mean.)

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com