This body of work recognises that the relationship that individuals develop with others (especially between state and non-state actors) and their environment is crucial to the quality of action on climate and sustainability. The panel discussion was building on ongoing research on relative trust in green minerals governance in Australia and Ghana, undertaken collaboratively between researchers at the African Leadership Centre at King’s and scholars at the University of Canberra, University of Queensland and La Trobe University.
The key themes discussed were around the power of social and personal relationships in foregrounding scientific and technical programmes in climate and sustainability. These psychosocial relationships are understudied despite their centrality. This has resulted in the slow pace of the uptake of equity and justice concepts in transitions to net zero emissions. This has also led to a widening gap between aspirations of climate and environmental sustainability policies and their application in practice in communities. It appears there is a disconnect between the bigger picture, global scientific advancements and equitable distribution of benefits or civic participation in decisions that affect lives and livelihoods.
The consensus among the key experts was that no positive outcome in climate action is possible without equitable and mutually beneficial relationship between communities, societies, governments, and investors in the environmental sustainability (and energy) sectors. This is a true definition of justice and equity in the transitions to net zero. As the ongoing research by the King’s and Australian researchers shows, relationship building (between communities, mining companies, investors, and governments) is an important avenue for nurturing and sustaining trust in critical minerals governance – critical minerals being sine qua non for the clean energy technologies necessary for the energy transitions.
Several case study scenarios from southern and western Africa, South America and the Asia-Pacific region were discussed. Each case added evidence of the imperatives of relationship building for effective climate and sustainability policy and practice.
The Social and the Personal (relationships) in climate and sustainability present both opportunities and challenges for global security
In situating the discussion within the context of global security risk and green criminology, Dr Annette Hubschle, an expert in global risk governance and environmental sustainability at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, emphasised the importance of recognising and amplifying the voices of local and indigenous communities by local and international oil, gas, and mining companies, civil society and organisations. This is not only appropriate, Dr Hubschle argued, but also has implications for advancing regional and global security.
The more cordial the relationship, the more just the policy making, and the less suffering for humans and wildlife, thereby offering closer assurance of social and political stability. She recommends empowering and co-designing solutions with communities caught in the midst of climate and sustainability programmes, such as those who depend on the flora and fauna affected by green minerals mining and sustainability initiatives.
Existing people-centred interventions have relied mainly on the goodwill of international companies in the sector. As argued by Dr Evan Hamman, an environmental regulation and compliance expert based in the University of Canberra in Australia, this ‘voluntary regulation’ presents both an opportunity and a challenge. Companies are now voluntarily engaging with third party Environment, Social, Governance (ESG) frameworks to govern their operations and interactions in mining and extractive enclaves. Companies are leveraging on their corporate governance goodwill to design more ambitious, holistic versions of corporate social responsibility programmes to support and build sustainable relationships with communities and the environment.
However, with the exception of recently enacted disclosure obligations such as in the European Union (EU), most corporate positions are entirely voluntary without any legally binding commitments. Volunteerism and vagaries in disclosure regimes has also meant that companies end up emphasising the ‘Environment’ dimensions of ESG to the neglect or subjugation of the ‘social’ or ‘governance’ concerns. Dr Hamman recommends more deeply embedding concepts from voluntary international ESG frameworks into national laws in order to create a culture of accountability among private actors operating domestically and overseas.
The psychosocial relationship-building in climate and sustainability has to be a multidimensional process that recognises the agency of all stakeholders, including national and local governments and non-state actors at all levels. Four cases from Zimbabwe, Ghana, the Philippines and the Amazon Forest area were discussed, which reinforce this point.
Goodwill is not enough
In discussing the importance of governments working with communities towards climate adaptation and mitigation, Veronica Nonhlanhla Jakasi, a chartered development finance analyst and advisor to the Zimbabwean government emphasised the risks involved in the neglect of such relationship building. She argued that governments’ goodwill in reducing marginalisation of communities through participatory interventions is not enough – limited public financing is the biggest impediment. In Zimbabwe, as in other developing countries, already marginalised populations are further marginalised due to their exclusion from decision making processes. This is despite governmental acknowledgement that local participation in decision-making and governance could enhance environmental preservation and allow for the most efficient and equitable allocation of resources to foster trust among the public and with the state. To narrow the finance gap, Jakasi insists that governments should leverage both foreign and domestic private finance. However, with the high-interest rates associated with international sustainability financing, the gap will likely be exacerbated thereby further alienating communities in climate and sustainability interventions.
Civil society, interpreted broadly to include organised members of society, have filled the programmatic and engagement deficits in state-society-corporate engagements in participatory governance. In Ghana, whilst civil society capabilities are well developed, tensions arise between them and state and corporate duty-bearers where interests do not align. Nasir Alfa Mohammed, a legal practitioner and civil society leader in Ghana’s energy landscape, acknowledges the occasional economic-sustainability trade-offs by state leaders, which damage their relationship with civil society. According to him, there is a gap in transparency and accountability in Ghana, especially due to political leaders’ own economic interests in the extractive sector, which is a major obstacle in policy implementation and enforcement. To mitigate this, he finds it imperative to engage with civil society and communities in environmental policy.
Coercive brokers complicate relationship (trust) building in climate action
The Amazon Rainforest communities introduce another complexity to the discourse on psychosociology of climate and sustainability. According to Nicholas Pope, an early career scholar on green transitions’ risks at King’s, this complexity is occasioned by the emergence of a number of armed groups that use violence to silence the communities in resource-rich areas. Some of these groups, also referred to as ‘coercive brokers,’ pursue social and political objectives, and thus form coalitions with different actors from both public and private sectors. To Pope, this not only threatens the safety of the communities in the Amazon Forest zone, but also the advocacy for social and environmental protection in the region. Trust building therefore takes on a different dimension such that both legitimate and illegitimate relationships become essential to community participation in environmental sustainability. He calls for government interventions to shift involved actors from destructive to productive spaces.
There is also neo-colonialism that characterises adaptation programmes, and which silences indigenous knowledge and voices, especially in contexts of developing countries and the Asia Pacific Region. Justin See, a research fellow at the Sydney Environmental Institute, reiterated this point through the findings from his recently published work on adaptation programmes in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Fiji. According to him, Euro-centric ‘concrete’ solutions are inadequate in the face of uncertain climatic conditions. Local and indigenous populations are already asserting their agency, and this should be amplified through varied ways. These include relationship building, reframing of coercive mindsets, meaningful engagements beyond consultations, and distribution of ownership between communities and development agencies.
Conclusion and way forward
The relevance of the psychological and social dimensions in the global efforts to address climate change is as important as the scientific advancements, and any missed opportunities in balancing interventions in both regards is detrimental to climate, sustainability, and net zero targets.
All the experts agreed that whether in the context of Africa, Australia, Asia Pacific, or South America, the quality of relationship building among stakeholders has the best chance of ensuring that climate and sustainability is authentic and just transition to net zero scenarios is attainable.
The following is a summary of proposals to enhance the psychosociology of climate and sustainability.
- Scientific and technical solutions should necessarily be co-designed with communities who are impacted the most by both the crisis and the interventions. This builds trust and eliminates occasions of miscalculation of interests. Such an approach requires rethinking purpose of interventions to include human-centredness. Saving the environment through scientific advancement is as important as carrying people along. Civil society can be a good liaison in this regard.
- Local and indigenous populations have agency and are involved in various ways in climate and environmental governance. These voices and efforts should be amplified through meaningful engagements and ownership-enhancing interventions beyond consultations. Communal ownership of the programmes and outcomes should be a priority.
- Voluntary international ESG frameworks have been an important step to keep companies committed to building social relationships in communities. However, this could be improved by formalising some of those commitments in law, with a focus on both the environment and society. This has the best chance for changing firm behaviour on questions of sustainability.
- Participatory governance is expensive and has to be funded by someone. Governments in the Global South have not tapped adequately into domestic financing sources. This should be done in tandem with the quest for foreign capital to fund such activities.
- As both legitimate and illegitimate relationship building happens in resource-intensive regions of the world, governments should factor the nuances into their interventions. Destructive partnerships should be remodelled into productive encounters with appropriate incentives in place.
Additional reporting by Ivan Muvunyi, Msc Leadership and Development).