Capacity Building and Sustainable Development: Comparative Lessons and the Russian North

Transcription

1 Capacity Building and Sustainable Development: Comparative Lessons and the Russian North Greg Poelzer, Associate Professor, Political Studies and Director, International Centre for Northern Governance and Development, University of Saskatchewan Introduction Climate change, demand for natural resources, globalization, increasing political power of Indigenous groups, demographic changes are all key drivers shaping the global futures. As Laurence C. Smith powerfully captures in his treatise, The World in 2050, these drivers present Northern countries enormous challenges and opportunities. (Smith, 2010). Responding to these forces, sustainable development, at least in formal declarations, is taken for granted today as a guiding principle for government policy and industry practice across the Circumpolar North. Russia is no exception. Over the past decade, the Russian government on the national level has enacted numerous measures that in response to external drivers with the goal of ensuring long term sustainability in the North and has participated as a core member of international bodies, such as the Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians and the Arctic Council, the latter whose founding principles are based on sustainable development. Russian industry has also embraced publicly the notion of sustainable development. The oil company Rosneft, for instance, produces sustainability reports annually going back to 2006 and the company contends that its activities are guided by the combination of economic, environmental, and social indicators. Proclaiming the importance of sustainable development in Northern regions, of course, is the not same thing as implementing or achieving sustainable development. Success requires intent on the part of public decision makers and industry; success also requires capacity at local and regional levels. Communities and regions need the human capacity individual, institutional, and societal to participate in defining policy problems, particularly as they affect a region and its local communities; to identify, develop and implement policy instruments, often in negotiating measures with national authorities and to secure requisite resources; and, finally, to evaluate and assess the effectiveness in achieving policy goals. This paper looks at the question of sustainable development in the Russian North through the lens of capacity building. It begins by defining the concept of capacity building, as well as its relationship to sustainable development. It then considers cases from around the Circumpolar North to draw out key lessons that may be applicable to other Northern regions, including Russia. Finally, the paper examines

2 briefly the capability of Russia to do capacity building in the Russian North to meet the challenges of urban sustainable development. What is Capacity Building? Capacity building (also known as capacity development), like many social science and public policy concepts, does not have single agreed upon definition. Some proponents have a fairly wide understanding of the term most closely linked with the broader concept of community development. Others use a more narrow definition focusing on technical knowledge and skills of individuals to function within state institutions. At its core, capacity building focuses on the process and goals of strengthening human potential in the participation of public decision-making and the achievement of public goals within the opportunities and constraints of the social, political, economic, and natural environment. In this regard, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) provides a useful starting definition of capacity building, as a long-term continual process of development that involves all stakeholders; including ministries, local authorities, non-governmental organizations, professionals, community members, academics and more. Increasingly, the private sector, through private-public partnerships and through the direct investment of industry itself, is becoming one of the most important stakeholders. Although education and training are typically at the core of capacity building, it is important to stress that the process itself is often much broader, using a country s human, scientific, technological, organizational, and institutional and resource capabilities. The goal of capacity building is to enable a country, region, or local community to tackle problems related to policy and methods of development, while considering the potential, limits and needs of the people of the country [region, or local community] concerned. Capacity building also needs to be understood at multiple levels: individual, institutional level, and societal levels. According to the UNDP, each level has the following dimensions: Individual Level- Capacity-building on an individual level requires the development of conditions that allow individual participants to build and enhance existing knowledge and skills. It also calls for the establishment of conditions that will allow individuals to engage in the process of learning and adapting to change Institutional Level- Capacity building on an institutional level should involve aiding pre-existing institutions in developing countries. It should not involve creating new institutions, rather modernizing existing institutions and supporting them in forming sound policies,

3 organizational structures, and effective methods of management and revenue control Societal Level- Capacity building at the societal level should support the establishment of a more interactive public administration that learns equally from its actions and from feedback it receives from the population at large. Capacity building must be used to develop public administrators that are responsive and accountable. Working within the perspective above, capacity building means building human potential of individuals to tackle important local and regional issues; introducing, adapting, or strengthening local, regional and national institutions and legal frameworks, in ways that are culturally appropriate, to achieve public goals; and, fostering responsive governing institutions and processes built on an engaged citizens, both of which draw on networks within and across national borders. If we accept the basic premise of the drivers identified by Smith (2010) in shaping Northern regions to meet their current and future needs, then no Circumpolar nation today can fully meet the constraints and opportunities precipitated by these drivers. Sustainable development, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, will require individuals with new knowledge and skills, institutions and legal frameworks to respond to these changes, and a broader policy environment that is responsive to local and regional needs. Sustainable development is the goal. Capacity building is a means to achieving it. Among the nations of the Circumpolar North, the significant challenges of territorial expanse, the impact of climate change on basic infrastructure, demographic challenges, and the imperative for capacity building may be greatest in Russia. Comparative Lessons Capacity building has been a central premise of Northern development strategies for some time. The next section of the paper highlights recent capacity building initiatives individual, institutional, and societal in Norway, Sweden, and Canada that may have applicability for the Russian North. Individual Level Historically, capacity building in Northern regions has focused heavily on resource development mega-projects and short horizon approaches to skills training. Capacity building for sustainable development inherently requires a multi-generational approach. A comprehensive approach from K-12 through adult education and post-secondary

4 training that is locally/regionally based has the greatest impact on capacity building of individuals with positive consequences for regional development. Climate change, demand for Northern resources, and the globalization of a knowledge economy makes investment in individual capacity building even more urgent as the gap between large urban centres in the South and smaller, more remote Northern communities is widening. The Nordic countries have long understood the connection between investment in human capital on the one hand and sustainable development and wealth generation on the other hand. Norway, for instance, with a modest population of about 5 million people has 8 universities, 9 specialized university institutions, 20 university colleges, 2 national academies of the arts, 16 private colleges, and vocational training programs. Not surprisingly, the proportion of the population with university degrees has increased from 8 percent to 20 percent over the last four decades. However, it is important to stress that the capacity building assets are not located only in southern urban areas, but rather distributed across the country. There are 2 universities, as well as 4 university colleges, in the Norwegian North, including Sami University College, which serves the indigenous Sami population. It is also important to note that much of the postsecondary programming is not a simply a generic clone of southern models, but instead meets the social, economic, and environmental priorities of the North. One of the most important recent developments was the creation of the University of Northern British Columbia located in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada. Prior to its opening in 1994, the province of British Columbia had one of the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education in Canada and the north had the lowest participation rate in the province. With access to programming in Prince George, as well as three satellite campuses, the participation rate turned around dramatically. Most importantly, 70 per cent of those educated in the North stayed in the North, breaking decades long cycles of skilled personnel coming to the North for a couple of years and leaving with the institutional memory of key public and private institutions in their suitcases. Individual capacity is translating into stronger local and regional institutions. Institutional Level Universities and colleges not only play a role in building individual capacity, but also institutional capacity, including the institution of an innovative market economy. A consistent finding in studies of regional development in Scandinavia and other places indicate that those municipalities and regions that have access to higher education and research institutions do far better than those that do not. Studies in Sweden, including studies of the policy of decentralization of the university system across non-core regions, demonstrate that newly established

5 institutions have a significant and positively correlated increase in regional productivity. The investment in regional colleges and universities appears to have the greatest impact of among various policy instruments. One study of efficiencies of Swedish regional policies found When we analyzed the government s investments in regional colleges as a natural experiment, systematic significant evidence was found that the resulting increase in the number of patents and productivity gains were larger in regions in which the new colleges and universities are located than in the regions with old universities, although from a lower starting level. We found the effects of university-based researchers to be considerably larger than the effects of the size of the student body. (Andersson, 2005: 831) The latter point is important as any expansion of the college system or introduction of new universities in the Northern regions. Although per capita student costs are likely to be much higher in the North given the smaller student numbers and hence the apprehension of investment in costly individual capacity building, the return on investment may even be greater in the North as it relates to institution level capacity building. Along with the state, one of the most important stakeholders in building capacity at the institutional level is the private sector, often in partnership with the private sector. There are examples, particularly in Scandinavia, where the combination of national and local governments, individual businesses, and community business organizations have proven to hold great promise. The development of substantial high technology and new economy centres in Tromsø and Bodø in Norway, Umeå and Luleå in Sweden, and Oulu and Rovaneimi in Finland are cases in point. In these cases, local and national government played important roles, particularly in the coordination of commercial activities and support for necessary investment. The Norwegian High North Strategy, for instance, has undertaken a number of specific initiatives that combine public and private investments to ensure that Norway remains globally competitive and environmentally sustainable in traditional economic sectors such off-shore oil and gas, but also in cutting edge sectors such as bioprospecting. One of its major investments has been in NORUT, the Northern Research Institute, the largest owner is the University of Tromsø, but also includes Narvik University College and Finnmark University College, as well as more than a dozen industry and government partners. NORUT has 130 employees and an annual turnover of about 125 million NOK. Importantly, not all of the research and commercialization expertise is located in Tromsø (a city of about 70,000 residents, slightly smaller than city like Prince George), but also in two smaller and remote communities, Narvik (pop. 18,000) and Alta (pop. 19,000). The Norwegian government has also made a substantial investment in the development of the MabCent-SFI centre one of the country s Research-Based Innovation Centers funded by the Research Council of Norway at the University of Tromsø, in northern Norway. The focus of MabCent-SFI is to search for compounds from bioactives from Arctic and sub-arctic organisms for the purpose of innovation and commercialization on an internationally competitive basis. Along with

6 government investment, the centre has four industry partners in areas of pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, and research tools. The importance of capacity building at the institutional level is demonstrated in other jurisdictions. Those that have this capacity are able to undertake evaluation of opportunities, organize pursuing viable opportunities, and undertake the necessary planning. The city of Luleå in northern Sweden actively pursued new economic opportunities based on the advantage of being northern. Facebook will base its European servers, scheduled for completion in 2014, in Luleå because of the year round cold climate and dependable infrastructure. The Luleå Facebook data center is enormous and will host three 300,000-square foot (28,000-square meter) server buildings. The energy consumption will be considerable, reported to be on the order of about 120 MW. The power source will draw on northern advantages, as well, namely from hydropower. The estimated construction costs are in the neighbourhood of 5 billion kronor ($760 million). Another example is Uminova, an impressive science research park located in the northern city of Umeå, Sweden. One of the areas of particular strength in Umeå is the biotechnology sector organized through the innovation cluster entity, Biotech Umeå, with more than an 60 industry and government partners. One of the most important lessons of the Nordic experience is that the institutional level capacity building can lead to tremendous opportunities. Frankly, it is hard to imagine how the above examples could have been realized with a focus on individual level capacity building alone. Societal Level Capacity building at the societal level is increasingly important, particularly in an era of globalization. The Nordic countries offer perhaps the best models of capacity building and sustainable development that operate at the societal level. One of the best examples of capacity building at the societal level is the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process employed in Norway to manage its off-shore petroleum resources. Globally, most environmental assessment processes operate on a project-by-project basis without long term strategic planning, without comprehensive on-going monitoring of cumulative impacts, and without on-going engagement of civil society and local communities. Norway is one of the few instances where the state sector, industry and local and regional concerns are built in to an on-going environmental assessment process. This ensures certainty for industry attracting significant investment; it also builds local public confidence because environmentally sensitive sectors, such as fisheries are protected strongly.

7 The Norwegian government also recognizes capacity building at the societal level requires international engagement and that a long-term approach is needed to develop strong centres of expertise and sustainable cooperation. Narvik, a small city in Northern Norway, has been a leading international hub for cold climate technology for more than two decades and has developed expertise in hydropower, solar power/solar panel production, wind power, bioenergy, as well as research in technologies for structures, materials, infrastructure and operations for use in cold climates. It has budget of 75 million NOK and international partners from Sweden, Canada and Russia. It is also embarking on research on LNG technology and the feasibility of Narvik as a commercial port, further strengthening its capacity to build a sustainable future. The Nordic world offers a multitude of initiatives in societal level capacity building, including fostering Barents regional cooperation in educational, municipal and business collaboration. The strategy is deliberate and the politics of smallness may play be an unintended advantage. Small countries need high degrees of public sector responsiveness if they are to be successful everyone knows everyone. At the same time, small countries need to take cooperative approaches if they are to succeed on the global stage, as they do not have the power and resources to go it alone. Whatever the origins for the emergence of these approaches, they do provide models that instructive for all Northern countries, including Russia. Concluding Thoughts: Capacity Building and the Russian North By far, Russia has the largest territorial expanse among the eight Circumpolar countries; by far, it also has the largest challenges for sustainable development of Northern urban communities. The impact of climate change on physical transportation infrastructure, housing stock, and resource development are simply colossal. At the same time, investments during the Soviet period in higher education and research institutions across Siberia and the Russian North provide a profound base to engage in capacity building at the individual and institutional levels. But, this base is highly variable. Large urban centres are in a far greater advantageous position compared to smaller and more remote urban centres in the North. Globalization, culturally, politically, and economically, also provide greater opportunities. But, globalization is a double-edged sword. Massive subsidies for the North have largely disappeared; market prices have become much more the norm. The gap within the North had widened. This will place enormous strains in the North and many of its urban centres. At the same time, governance frameworks over natural resources and environmental management are likely to matter greatly over the long run. Capacity building on institutional and societal levels will become increasingly important. In some areas of the North, how smaller Indigenous communities are accommodated may have important consequences for the sustainability of nearby larger urban centres. Approaches such as strategic environmental assessment may prove to be models worth exploring. Whatever policies decision-makers pursue to ensure sustainable development of Northern urban centres,

8 capacity building needs to be central to deliberations. Otherwise, policies on paper will remain just that on paper. If they are central to deliberations, the North itself will play a leading role in addressing challenges and seizing opportunities for a more sustainable and prosperous future. Sources Cited Smith, Laurence C. The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilzation s Northern Future. New York: Dutton Adult, 2010.