109

DESD We Can? Some Lessons Learnt from Two Mid-DESD Reviews
Arjen E. J. WALS
Education and Competence Studies, Wageningen University,
Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, The Netherlands
e-mail: arjen.wals@wur.nl

Abstract
This article presents lessons learnt from two DESD-related reviews in which the author participated: 1) a
UNESCO commissioned study reviewing the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD)(UNESCO, 2009a) in which the author acted as the global report coordinator, and 2) a review commissionedby the Swedish Development agency SIDA focusing on the current state of ESD, particularly in relation todevelopment (SIDA, 2010). The article touches on some of the findings, some of which are more universal(e.g., the necessity of understanding the historical context in which ESD is emerging and its relationship withEnvironmental Education) and some more region specific (e.g., the perspective on SD and ESD as it relates to
the Asia-Pacific region as has been singled out for this special issue). The article then zooms in on theconcepts of ‘sustainability competence’ and cross-boundary social learning as emerging concepts in thesecond half of the decade that connect formal, informal and non-formal learning.
Key words: competence, education for sustainable development, environmental education,
Gestaltungskompetenz, social learning

1. Midway into the DESD
From the mid-DESD reviews (UNESCO, 2009a;
SIDA, 2010) it can be concluded that around the world –although not everywhere – ESD has become an importantelement of environmental policy making and sustainable
development strategies. It can be said that the seeds
planted in the seventies at many international conferences on environmental education (EE), including the
Man and Environment Conference held in Stockholm in1972 and the UNESCO-UNEP Conference on Environmental Education held in Tbilisi in 1977 (UNESCOUNEP, 1978), found fertile soil of broad-based mutual
concern for sustainability as expressed at the UNCED
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (UNESCO,
1992) and, indeed, at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in 2002 (UN, 2002) where the United
Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UN-DESD 2005-2014) was proposed andaccepted.
Today, many policies of a variety of governments
both in the global north and south call for the integrationof ESD and/or ESD-related, so-called ‘adjectival’ educations, such as: climate change education, development
education, health education, peace education, citizenshipeducation and environmental education both in formal
and non-formal learning (SIDA, 2010). By the end of
2008, at least 78 countries had a coordinating bodyoverseeing the development and implementation of ESD
Global Environmental Research
14/2010: 109-118
printed in Japanand related educations. Members of national coordination bodies often include government representatives andrepresentatives from formal education (e.g., educational
policy-makers, administrators and, occasionally, teachers) and NGOs. In some countries, the private sector isalso represented. The levels of government involved incoordinating ESD differ from country to country. In some,the responsibility lies with government ministries whilein others, responsibilities have been decentralized to theregional level. There are also differences in the scope of
ESD covered by a national coordinating body, varying
from a narrower interpretation of ESD (e.g., coordinating
ESD in formal primary and secondary education,
streamlining it with existing EE programs) to a muchbroader interpretation. A broader interpretation usuallyalso covers non-formal learning and professional
development of teaching staff and spans the whole offormal education from early childhood to higher education. In general, there is little mention of representation oflabor unions, religious groups and the mass media innational coordinating bodies (UNESCO, 2009a).
UNESCO’s mid-DESD review (UNESCO, 2009a)
concludes that the presence of such a body in and byitself does not mean that this is an entity that createssynergy and energy and plays a stimulating role in engaging stakeholders in contributing to the development of
ESD. At the same time, the absence of such a body does
not necessarily mean that ESD is non-existent or weak.
There are examples of countries that lack a formal©2010 AIRIES110

A. E. J. WALS

national coordinating body but are home to a number ofrich ESD activities (e.g., Brazil). Nonetheless, it appears
that countries that do have a national coordinating bodyin place are more likely also to have the other ESD
provisions.
Inevitably ESD is not interpreted in the same way all
across the globe but manifests itself differently and insome instances is not used as a concept at all, as otherrelated concepts in some instances appear more appropriate and more generative. An example from the
Pacific Islands shows that the principles of, what ininternational policy discourse is referred to as, ESD are
deeply rooted in their traditional cultures. In Tongan
culture, for example, the main purpose of ako (learning)
is to gain knowledge and understanding that is considered important for cultural survival and continuity or:
nofo fakapotopoto which refers to ‘intelligent living’(Thaman & Thaman, 2009, p.65). A perspective on ESDfrom Latin America comes from Gadotti (2008) who sees
current education and educational institutions as barriers
to moving towards sustainable development (SD) as theytend to reinforce the principles and values of an unsustainable lifestyle and economy. He argues for an
economy that is not centered on a free market, profit
or continuous growth. Instead he favors a ‘solidarity
economy’ which incorporates the principles of inclusionand social emancipation and identifies sustainability andsolidarity as emergent and convergent themes. Gadotti
proposes that without social mobilization against thecurrent economic model, ESD will not reach its goals. In
addition, education for a sustainable life – not only for asustainable development – is required. With respect tothese divergences in meaning it can be observed that incomparison with the early years of the DESD there is lessof a push by the DESD’s governing body, UNESCO, fora uniform and agreed-upon view of ESD and much more
recognition of the need for locally relevant interpretations of ESD and related forms of education. This shift
is expressed in the mid-decade Bonn Declaration(UNESCO, 2009b):
The progress of ESD remains unevenly distributed
and requires different approaches in different contexts.
In the coming years, there is a clear need for bothdeveloped and developing countries, civil society andinternational organisations to make significant efforts
to: Mobilize adequate resources and funding infavour of ESD, in particular through integrating ESD
into national development policy and budgetary
frameworks, into UN common country programming
processes and other country-level policy frameworks(such as sector-wide approaches), as well as into EFA
and MDG [Millennium Development Goal] initiatives.
Promote and include ESD in the priorities of foundations and donors.
Clearly, to formulate global guidelines for ESD,
which should be more or less independent of culture, ishardly possible. There is an inevitable tension between

these guidelines and the local context which should be
addressed but may not always be resolved. The 2007
UNESCO Education Sector Report on drivers and barriers for implementing SD in schools (Björneloo & Nyberg,2007) asks two questions: How can we uphold cultural
diversity in the age of globalization? How is it possible tostrengthen minority cultures in this current wave ofwestern culture, which is spreading around the world?
These are crucial questions since there is a struggle
between global and local initiatives, also within the UN.
UNESCO has a strong commitment to ESD which is
locally relevant but also promotes global mandatesof furthering particular educational goals ‘for all’
(McKenzie, 2009).
Globalization has led to exponential growth of communication possibilities and access to information ofwhich the authority base is oftentimes unclear or dubious.
Even in the poorest parts of the world people now haveaccess to wireless networks and use cell phones as theirmain lifeline. Where companies and governments havefailed to provide clean drinking water for all – a development goal of the last millennium one could say – they
have succeeded in rolling out wireless all over the globe(Wals, 2010). Cases have been reported of people living
in poverty who have come to rely on their cell phone insuch a way that charging the phone receives higher
priority than feeding their children. The latter illustrates
the different sides of the globalization coin. As technology has in some ways provided ‘access for all’ to theinformation and communication age, and the world ofconsumerism, it also has disrupted the lives of many innegative ways (Ellwood, 2003; Kenway and Bullen,2001).
For ESD the homogenizing effect of the economic
liberalization that oftentimes is associated with globalization is posing a challenge (Jickling & Wals, 2008). For
instance, the rise of the knowledge society and the commoditization of education in general and higher education in particular, tend to favor the creation of a global
economy with a mobile, resilient and ‘life-long learning’
workforce who also play the role of eager consumers ofuniversal products at the expense of local identities,
critical thinking and values alternative to material ones
(Raven, 2001).
The international experts’ workshop on Faith-based
Organizations and Education for Sustainability (organized by UNESCO-CAT, 2007) refers to an SD-divide.
First there is the 20% of humanity living “overdeveloped” lifestyles (including wealthy people in privileged
areas of poor countries) who must learn to undevelop (ordevelop in an alternative direction), to reduce their current overconsumption and to find fulfilling lifestyles thatare not exclusively based on material values and allow
for a more moderate use of natural resources. And, second, there are the masses of poor who face quite adifferent challenge. The not-yet-overdeveloped rest of
humanity, including all the poor in the South and all
indigenous and traditional peoples, must learn to fulfill
their needs (including running water, food security, andDESD We Can? Some Lessons Learnt from Two Mid-DESD Reviews

adequate health care) in a sustainable way without falling
for the lure of overdevelopment and consumerism.
Rather than being exposed to the subtle colonialism ofadvertising and materialism, they should be offered or,
better perhaps, co-create alternative models of development. At the UNESCO-CAT workshop it was often noted
that, ‘not only should we in the overdeveloped world notpreach sustainability to indigenous peoples: we should
aim to learn from those who have been practicing sustainable lifestyles over the centuries.’ (UNESCO-CAT, 2007,p.16).

2. Understanding EE and ESD and Their
Interface
The inter-relationship with environmental education(EE) is emphasized in nearly all regional reports thatprovided input for the mid-decade review of the Decadefor Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO,
2009a). This is no surprise as in many countries aroundthe world EE is firmly established, particularly in formal
education systems. The simultaneous existence and development of EE and ESD has given rise in some countries to questions about the relationships between the twoand calls for distinctions by some or for convergence byothers. The resulting confusion or stale-mate in somecases can hinder policy implementation. Also, it appears
that in countries with a strong EE tradition, ESD tends tobuild upon EE-structures and policies already in placeparticularly in countries that have interpreted EE broadly
to include social, economic and political dimensions. The
quote below illustrates this:[...] issues of development, survival, livelihoods,
improved quality of education and improved qualityof life, and more sustainable living practices. It is perhaps for this reason that environmental educators insouthern Africa have long been concerned with environmental education processes that are processes ofsocial change. (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2004, p.10)
In countries where such a tradition is absent or weakat best, ESD and DESD appear to have provided an
opportunity to create new structures from scratch and apossibility of catching up with those countries that
already had a strong EE-tradition. When analyzing
regional synthesis reports and regional strategies, one canroughly find three different ways of viewing therelationship between EE and ESD which resemble someof the ones identified in the ESD debate held in 1999
(Hesselink et al., 2000). The way the relationship is perceived tends to be related to the historic role EE has
played in a country (prominent or marginal) and the way
EE itself is interpreted (broadly or narrowly). With
regard to the former, there are countries that had alreadydeveloped nature conservation education over one
hundred years ago. This paved the way for EE in the
1960s and 1970s, whereas in other countries this was
hardly the case. In some countries with a strong

111

EE-tradition, it is often narrowly viewed as expanded
nature conservation education or a combination of environmental protection education and resource management education (e.g., several countries in Europe &North America). In other countries with a strong
EE-tradition (e.g., several African and Latin Americancountries) it may be interpreted more broadly, in tune
with the Tbilisi Declaration, to include socioeconomic
and political aspects. When interpreted as such EE and
ESD become almost synonymous.
Figure 1 illustrates that ESD and EE relate to one
another from a ‘content’-perspective. The figure showsthat when both EE and ESD are interpreted broadly toinclude political, social, cultural and economic aspects(EE+ and ESD+), they become almost synonymous.
Interestingly enough, when interpreted narrowly (EE-and
ESD-) to focus mainly on the environmental andecological, they also become almost synonymous. EE in
the Tbilisi spirit is generally considered EE+, while ESD
as described in UNESCO documents is generally
considered ESD+ especially when related to all the
MDGs (and not just to MDG number 7 which focuses on‘environmental sustainability’).
Whereas during the early years of ESD much attention was given to the meaning and content of the SD in
ESD, recent ESD documents and discourse tend to pay
much more attention to the ‘E’ in ESD. The underlying
learning processes of ESD are beginning to become thesubject of debate. Generally speaking there appears to bea shift from training and instruction (simply put: telling
and training people how to life their lives) to learningand capacity building for SD (simply put: enabling people to contribute to sustainability in a meaningful andcontextually relevant way). This shift reflects the perceived need for continuous engagement in sustainability
in formal, non-formal and informal settings on the one
hand and the need for capacity-building, participationand self-determination for sustainable development on

Fig. 1 Different interpretations of ESD and EE and theirrelationship from a content perspective.

112

A. E. J. WALS

the other. These different outlooks on ESD have important consequences and often have a social and cultural
background as different societies have different boundaries for participation, autonomous thinking and selfdetermination, and corresponding views of democracy.
A fundamental principle of ESD is the idea that eachindividual has the responsibility of participating in local
and global discussions about our common future. Learning is seen as a key component of innovation that leads tosocial change. A central aspect of ESD is that learners
develop the ability to evaluate global and inter-generational issues and formulate strategies for solving the
problems that arise from these issues (Almlöv & Moberg,
2008, p.174). There are differences however in the amountof space these learners are provided to work towards theirown, self-determined and co-created, solutions to sustainability issues and challenges. These differences are
related to a country’s or region’s interpretation of democracy, participation and inclusiveness.
After all, the question: “Is education about social
reproduction or about enabling social transformation?” isnot answered in the same way across the globe and thisresults in different ways in which educators imagine theeducated citizen interacting within society (Jickling &Wals, 2008). This has major implications for the way
ESD is interpreted and implemented as the space there isfor participation, self-determination and autonomous
thinking influences the kind of ESD that emerges in acountry or region. When this space is narrow, a moretransmissive version of ESD is likely to result with astrong emphasis on instructional forms of teaching andknowledge transfer. When this space is broad, then an
ESD will emerge that is characterized by higher levels ofparticipation, self-determination, autonomous thinking
and knowledge co-creation. The latter versions of ESD
require alternative teaching and learning strategies that
also allow for the development of new competences.
Figure 2 shows the pedagogical dimension of ESD and

Fig. 2 Different interpretations of ESD and EE and theirrelationship from a pedagogical perspective.

EE. A country’s tradition in governance might affectwhat a country emphasizes, a more pedagogical orientation towards ESD consequently implying (social)learning, participation and capacity-building or a more
instrumental orientation that emphasizes a change in
people’s behaviour.

3. Relation between ESD and Other Emerging
Education
The framework of the DESD International Implementation Scheme suggests that full-fledged ESD requires the integration of the three dimensions referred toearlier in this review (UNESCO, 2009a):• the socio-cultural dimension which refers to issues
related to human rights, peace and human security,
gender equality, cultural diversity and intercultural
understanding, health, HIV & AIDS and new forms ofgovernance;• the environmental dimension which refers to issues
related to natural resources (water, energy, agriculture,
biodiversity),climate change, rural development, sustainable urbanization, disaster prevention and mitigation;• the economic dimension which refers to issues related to poverty reduction, corporate responsibility
and accountability and re-orienting the market economy.
Besides EE, there are many other kinds of educationthat are related to ESD, all related to one of the dimensions mentioned.
In the socio-cultural dimension for instance, there ispeace education, citizenship education, development
education, HIV/AIDS education, health education andhuman rights education. When it comes to the environmental dimension it includes, besides EE obviously, also
biodiversity education, food security education andespecially climate change education, which is profoundat this moment. The rise of climate change education isseen by some as the next stage in the evolution of nature
conservation education to environmental education to
ESD as it addresses an overarching sustainability issue
that can only be addressed in an integrative way frommultiple angles, disciplines and perspectives (Kagawa &Selby, 2010). However, others, particularly within thecontext of the UNESCO DESD argue that climate change
education is an important part of ESD just like some ofthe other ‘adjectival’ educations (UNESCO, 2006, p28).
Economically, one could think of examples like Disaster
Risk Reduction and the Programme of Education for
Emergencies and Reconstruction (PEER) which mightoverlap with other dimensions as well.
It is clear there is a wide range of interpretations of
ESD, yet there is consensus about some core components.
The kind of sustainability challenges a country faces
might affect the SD-components that are emphasized. A
strong history in EE but also the way EE is interpreted
itself is likely to affect the meaning of ESD as well.
Where such a history is lacking or where EE has been

DESD We Can? Some Lessons Learnt from Two Mid-DESD Reviews

interpreted narrowly to focus on nature conservation andenvironmental protection, ESD can be developed andgiven meaning on its own terms. At the same time an
emergence of a whole range of other ‘adjectival’ educations that tend to privilege a single ESD-issue (e.g., peace,
human rights, gender, HIV/AIDS) can be seen across theglobe which may require some fine-tuning so that they
end up reinforcing one another rather than competingwith one another.

4. Key SD-challenges in the Asia-PacificRegionAs the local realities and manifestations of‘unsustainability’ are often quite different and deeply
rooted in local histories and political and cultural traditions the development of regional strategies for the development and implementation of ESD is part of
UNESCO’s DESD strategy. Such strategies have beendeveloped in each of the UN regions: (sub-Saharan)
Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe & North America and Latin
America & the Caribbean. Here, given the available
space, only a snap-shot of the unique challenges of the
Asia-Pacific region will be provided. This snap-shotcomes from the Mid-DESD review conducted by theauthor for which much input was provided by the
UNESCO Regional Office in Bangkok (UNESCO,
2009a; UNESCO, 2009c).
The Asia-Pacific region includes five sub-regions thatare all impressive in size and diversity and combined
hold more than half the world’s population. Some key
challenges to consider when interpreting ESD progress in
the Asia-Pacific include the following issues, which varyfrom sub region to sub region, country to country andalso within national borders:
Cultural barriers• Ethnic, religious and linguistic barriers resulting inmigration, lack of citizenship, human rights issues
and conflict;• Traditional concepts and beliefs, particularly withregard to girls’ education and life skills education; and• Loss of indigenous and traditional knowledge.
Geography• The geographic size of larger countries in the region,
large populations and diverse languages is a big challenge for sustainable development due to difficulties
in networking, transportation and communication andlimited delivery of services; and• Rural and remote areas, in particular, small island
nations are often faced with marginalized populations
and more expensive delivery of services.
Governance and national coordination• Lack of interministerial coordination and cooperation
can result in limited or uncoordinated political leadership on key issues. This poses a challenge as many
countries require political support to implement new
programmes, concepts and ideas;• Decentralized management and decision making
between the national and provincial levels in larger

113

countries can result in variability in the levels ofdevelopment; and• Lack of financing for key projects, corruption, security and armed conflict also pose major challenges.
Education• Shortage of donor support for formal and non-formal
education to overcome issues associated with underpaid or under-qualified teachers and trainers;• Gender disparity in education, including disparities
among teachers and management levels in primary,secondary and higher education;• Universal primary education and universal completion can only be achieved in most countries if theefficiency, quality and inclusiveness of the education
system is improved;• Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) willremain outside the reach of most young children
unless efforts are undertaken to provide adequate
financial resources for all children to participate; and• Marginalized and disadvantaged groups continue toface obstacles that prevent quality education andlearning, such as:• street children and working children;• religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities as wellas indigenous peoples;• persons/children with disabilities or with special
needs;• children of very poor families;• populations in remote areas; and• children in more difficult circumstances (i.e.,
places affected by armed conflict, disasters andcalamities)
Human resource capacity• Low adult (15 and over) literacy rates, especiallyamong women;• Limited training and professional development in avariety of contexts including industry, formal education and the community;• The need for cooperation and coordination between
different government departments and ministries andthe private sector to synergize skills training programmes that better match the needs of trainees andlabour market demand; and• Effective initiatives for adolescents and youth, needed
to develop their life and livelihood skills, including
adolescent and reproductive health.
Natural disasters• In the recent past, the Asia-Pacific region has faced anincreasing number of recurring natural disasters –tsunamis, earthquakes, cyclones, floods, droughts,
volcanic eruptions, etc. – which remain a challenge
for sustainable development due to temporary andprolonged disruptions to infrastructure, the surrounding environment, socio-economic structures and waysof life.
Many of these challenges were re-emphasized as thematic sustainable development priorities by UNESCO
Member States during 2008 Asia-Pacific Sub-regional

114

A. E. J. WALSGood Governance, Gender Equality, Healthand HIV/AIDS, Reproductive Health,
Peace/Conflict, Human Rights, Access to
Education, Human Trafficking, Drug
Addiction
Cultural Heritage, Cultural Preservation,
Indigenous Knowledge

Committee updates members on the implementation ofother members’ past events and promotes joint planningand alignment of activities. ESD requires the full supportof the government to move forward. As ESD is across-sectoral initiative, many government ministries anddepartments, in addition to NGOs and IGOs, are involvedin ESD-related activities. It is not only difficult tocoordinate ESD activities among the various ministries,
departments and sectors, but also challenging to identify
ESD in existing initiatives and philosophies.

Urbanization, Poverty, Food Security, Rural
Development

6. SD Competence

Table 1 Thematic SD-priorities in the Asia-Pacific Region(Source: UNESCO Bangkok Regional Office,
UNESCO, 2009c)
SD Pillar
SocialCulturalEconomic

Thematic SD priorities

Environmental Climate Change, Fresh Water,
Energy/Natural Resources, Air Pollution,
Desertification, Environmental
Conservation, Biodiversity, Natural Disasters

ESD Consultations, sponsored by the Japanese Finds inTrust (Table 1).

5. Region-specific ESD Issues
Regional consultation workshops show that ESD in
the Asia-Pacific region is now at a point where countries
are beginning to engage in clear strategies for ESD –moving from ESD in theory to practice – by identifying
clear thematic national SD priorities, linking priorities toexisting aims and objectives for education and learning incurrent policies, building inter-ministerial support,
discussing financing and engaging with the right people
at the national level. These recent developments arebuilding towards a goal to incorporate or link ESD tonational development plans, national sustainable development strategies and/or poverty reduction strategies inorder to increase the importance of the role of ESD in
addressing the growing list of recent sustainable development challenges in the Asia-Pacific region.
ESD is most developed in the region within formal
education. There is little government engagement in the
non-formal and informal education settings. As a result
there is insufficient government funding for non-formal
and informal ESD awareness raising programmes andinitiatives. Furthermore there is little attention to thedevelopment of ESD-materials and tools for groups thatfall under the category of non-formal and informal
education. In some ESD-related areas there appears to be
more activity in informal and non-formal education, e.g.,
the work of the Asia-Pacific Centre for International
Understanding (APCEIU) based in Seoul, ACCU – theAsia-Pacific Centre for UNESCO based in Tokyo in thecontext of peace-building and inter-cultural dialogue but
also through the Asia ESD Good Practice Project(AGEPP) supported by the Toyota Foundation whichpays a lot of attention to community-based ESD.
There is an emphasis on promoting regional cooperation. For example, UNESCO Bangkok and several UN
agencies have discussed the DESD in the UN DESD
Interagency Steering Committee of the Asia-Pacific. The

As the ‘E’ in ESD is increasingly being emphasized
there is more attention to the kinds of capacities or
qualities people need to develop in order to be able tocontribute to sustainable development. The concept of‘sustainability competence’ refers to those qualities people need to have to be able to act when confronted with asustainability challenge. SD competence is not necessarily the same as ESD competence as the latter has much
more to do with one’s capacity to engage people meaningfully in SD matters. Nonetheless, SD competence canhelp inform ESD competence as well. Recently someresearch has been done with respect to the meaning ofsustainability competence which may inform the coming
years in the DESD. The point of departure is the question: What are the kinds of outcomes of an ESD processthat focuses on capacity building for SD? The Swedish
contribution to a report on ESD in higher education insome European countries states the following in thisregard (Wals, 2007):
The competency required for SD is manifold, but
the basis of it is relevant knowledge and an ability tothink, act and take responsibility out of a holistic
understanding of the preconditions of life on earth ina global perspective. It includes the ability to engage
in continuous learning from others and the ability tocooperate over disciplinary and professional borders,
to think and analyse critically and to solve problems
seeing possibilities and limitations in ones processional role. An important ability is also that of complex thinking and using specialists for different areas.
Leaders need to have the ability to create enthusiasm
and to think in new creative ways.
In the same report the Dutch contribution states thatcomponents of sustainability competence include:
understanding sustainable development, systems thinking, adopting an integral view, personal leadership andentrepreneurship, unlocking creativity, appreciating
chaos and complexity, and fostering collective change.
The German contribution to the same report introduces
the notion of Gestaltungskompetenz (De Haan 2006).
Gestaltungskompetenz describes pupils’ abilities to apply
knowledge on sustainable development and to identify
problems of non-sustainable development. This means,they are able to draw conclusions from studies into theDESD We Can? Some Lessons Learnt from Two Mid-DESD Reviews

115

present or future in the areas of ecological, economic andsocial development in their varying relations of interdependence, make decisions on the basis of these
conclusions, understand these decisions and apply them
individually, as part of a community and politically inorder to further sustainable development processes (Wals& Blewitt, 2010).
Thus Gestaltungkompetenz aims to fashion a historical, systems orientated and largely holistic framework
for understanding and action. There are elements ofsimilarity with both deep ecology and critical cultural
theory in their design and application with specificacknowledgement of the importance of mediation,
dialogue and social participation but it also seems
that a more incisive recognition of, and engagement
with, the dangers and negative consequences ofsocietal power relationships, conflict, inequality andideology is required. Table 2 lists some elements ofGestaltungskompetenz in the context of sustainability.
One could say that Gestaltungskompetenz with a planetary consciousness constitutes sustainability competence.
Gestalt switching (Wals & Blewitt, 2010) refers to theswitching back and forth between different mind-sets. In
the context of sustainability there is a multitude of“gestalts” in play. Figure 3 identifies four of them: thetemporal gestalt (past, present, future and intergenerational mind-sets), the disciplinary gestalt (a range ofsocial science and natural science mind-sets), the spatial
gestalt (local, regional, global and beyond global
mind-sets) and the cultural gestalt (multiple cultural
mind-sets whereby culture is broadly understood).
Sustainability competence then refers to one’s ability torespond to a sustainability challenge with all thesegestalts in mind and to consider the challenge from a
range of vantage points. The switching back and forth
between different positions requires an awareness of ones
own predominant gestalts and willingness to, at least
temporarily, put oneself in another gestalt on all four
dimensions identified in Fig. 3. It can be argued that one
gestalt needs to be added still which might be called the“trans-human” Gestalt which suggests we also need to beable to imagine the world from the perspective on thenon- or more than human world, allowing more
eco-centric and bio-centric mind-sets to enter our thinking and acting as well. Transformative social learning
towards sustainability requires the integrative switchingback and forth between the various Gestalts, mind-sets or
lenses identified here.
An important task of ESD is to help learners appreciate and utilize differences. The development of knowledge and understanding has both personal and sharedelements to it. Social interaction allows one to relate or
mirror his or her ideas, insights, experiences and feelings
to those of others (see also the transcultural dimension in
Fig. 3). In this process of ‘relating to’ or ‘mirroring’ these
personal ideas, insights, experiences and feelings arelikely to change as a result. This mirroring may lead thelearner to rethink his or her ideas in light of alternative,
possibly contesting, viewpoints or ways of thinking andfeeling. At the same time (learning) experiences, which
are shared with others, are likely to gain importance. This
is not to say that personal experiences, which are kept tooneself, are insignificant. But shared viewpoints or waysof thinking and feeling give the learner a sense ofcompetence and belonging to the community of learners.
Another component of sustainability competence,
related to these gestalts and the ability to switch between
them, is the ability to cope with uncertainty. This is amajor challenge for higher education as traditionallymany scientists consider minimizing uncertainty andmaximizing predictability one of their key quests. The
emergent uncertainty paradigm however holds that it isan illusion to think that we will ever be able to achieve
zero uncertainty or even get close to that. Instead thisuncertainty paradigm suggests that more science, information, knowledge might not necessarily lead to lessuncertainty, it may actually lead to more as new complexities and questions arise. Instead of putting ouracademic minds towards minimizing uncertainty andmaximizing predictability it might be more fruitful to put

Table 2 Elements of Sustainability-oriented Gestaltungskompetenz (Free after: Michelsen and Adomssent (2007) andde Haan (2010).
• Competence to think in a forward-looking manner, to deal withuncertainty, and with predictions,• expectations and plans for the future• Competence to work in an interdisciplinary manner• Competence of being open-minded and willing to engage withdifferent perspectives and world-views• Competence to achieve open-minded perception, transcultural understanding and cooperation• Participatory competence• Planning and implementation competence• Ability to feel empathy, sympathy and solidarity• Competence to motivate oneself and others• Competence to reflect in a distanced manner on individual andcultural concepts• Competence to deal with paradoxes and contradictions• Competence to reflect upon’ s own values and principles andto mirror them with those of others

Fig. 3 Four key Gestalts in play in transformative learning
towards a more sustainable world.

116

A. E. J. WALS

our energy towards living with uncertainty: seeing it as agiven, something that cannot be conquered. In light ofsustainability this also implies that we need to develop a‘precautionary reflexivity’ that can steer us clear of theinaction, paralysis and apathy that often results from theprevailing ‘wait and see’ attitude among many citizens,
including scientists, which suggests that while we are notsure, and while there is disagreement among scientist andpolicy-makers about what is happening to the planet, wehave no reason to break with our existing routines andcan return to business as usual. In their edited volume on
education and climate change, Kagawa and Selby write:“As a fundamental contribution to climate change[prevention and adaptation], it seems that educational
spaces should build a culture of learning awash withuncertainty and in which uncertainty provokes transformative yet precautionary commitment rather thanparalysis” (Kagawa and Selby 2010, p243).
Finally, there are a number of what could be called‘generic competencies’ that are not specific to sustainability but may turn to be crucial nonetheless. Of
those ‘leadership’ may be one that stands out. One
organisation, LEAD – which was born from the Rio
Earth Summit in 1992 – has made sustainability leadership the core of its mission. LEAD does so by identifying
outstanding people across sectors and cultures, developing their leadership potential and understanding ofsustainable development, and mobilising and supportingthem as a network to achieve the change required(www.lead.org).
Currently both the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and UNESCO areemphasizing themes like capacity building, competencedevelopment and learning in the second part of the DESD.
UNECE has an expert group working on identifying
competences for ESD (www.unece.org/env/esd/SC.EGC.
htm), while UNESCO focuses Phase 2 of the DESD
monitoring effort on the actual learning taking place inthe name of ESD (www.unesco.org/en/esd/monitoringevaluation-process/expert-group/).

7. Cross-boundary Social Learning
Perhaps most ESD activity around the world isgenerated not by formal government organisations but
rather by NGOs, which sometimes work with formal
education systems but more often work in non-formal
and informal learning settings (UNESCO, 2009a). Informal and non-formal education tends to refer to thecollective learning that takes place outside of formal
educational systems in everyday life for instance in thecontext of families, work places, clubs, web-based
communities and so on. Non-formal learning can be moreor less structured and range from the learning occurringin study groups, non-governmental organizations, social
movements, youth clubs, churches, folk high schools andthe like. Informal and non-formal education in all theirforms are characterized by being voluntary, by having
active participation and by encouraging reciprocal ex-change of ideas, as well as by the increasingly important
influence and role of Information and Communications
Technologies (ICTs). They are an important part of theconcept of life long learning and occur everywhere, evenat times within formal education and school systems.
Much of this learning takes place at the crossroads
between formal, non-formal and informal learning
between multiple stakeholders. Social learning is often
used to refer to learning that contributes to and occurs ina ‘learning system’ in which people learn from, as a resultof and with one another and collectively become morecapable of withstanding setbacks, of dealing with
insecurity, complexity and risks. Such a system needs
people who not only accept one another’s differences but
are also able to put these differences to use. More andmore often, ‘social learning’ is introduced in organisations and companies as a means to actively involve people in far-reaching processes of change (Bradbury, 2007;
Cramer & Loeber, 2007; Lund-Thomsen, 2007). There
are various ways to describe social learning, but it isessentially about bringing together people of various
backgrounds and with different values, perspectives,knowledge and experiences, both from inside and outside
the group or organisation, in order to come to a creative
quest for answers to questions for which no ready-madesolutions are available. Social learning is a process inwhich people are stimulated to reflect upon implicit
assumptions and common frames of reference, this inorder to create room for new perspectives and actions.
The most important characteristics of social learning are:• it is about learning from one another together,• it is assumed that we can learn more from one another
if we do not all think alike or act alike, in other words:
we learn more in heterogeneous groups than we do inhomogenous groups,• it is about creating trust and social cohesion, precisely
in order to become more accepting and to make use of
the different ways in which people view the world,• it is about creating ‘ownership’ with respect to boththe learning process as well as the solutions that arefound, which increases the chance that things will
actually take place, and• it is about collective meaning and sense making.
In some parts of the world, in both Western and
Non-Western contexts, we see multi-stakeholder partnerships emerge that use social learning to co-create theirown pathways towards sustainability. The recent rise ofRegional Centres of Expertise (RCEs) across the globe
are seen by some as testimony to the potentialof cross-boundary social learning (UNESCO, 2009a;
Mochizuki & Fadeeva, 2008).

8. Conclusion
Midway through the DESD, ESD is on the agenda inmost countries around the world. In many countries there
is coordinated effort to develop and support ESD. Thereis an increased recognition and acceptance that there is noDESD We Can? Some Lessons Learnt from Two Mid-DESD Reviews‘one size fits all’ version ESD and that historically grown
and current political and socio-cultural realities andspecific environmental and ecological challenges make acontextual grounding of ESD essential. Such grounding
sometimes means strengthening ESD-related educationand forms of learning without using the concept of ESD
itself. Whereas there may at one point have been an
attempt from the international policy arena to convert themuch earlier established EE into ESD there is now
recognition, also within UNESCO, that this is not necessary and can sometimes even have adverse effects(UNESCO 2009a). The mid-DESD review reveals thatthe relationship between Environmental Education (EE)and ESD is a crucial one to understand. Blindness to thevarious manifestations of EE and ESD, their histories andthe ways in which they relate, can lead to misunderstandings and negative effects on the implementation of
both. There are important differences to be observed interms of both the contents of EE and ESD and theunderlying pedagogical and didactic dimensions which
are deeply connected to a country’s or region’s perspectives of citizen participation and democracy. The often
forgotten ‘E’ in ESD can be conceptualized in different
ways, depending on the amount of space there is forparticipation, self-determination and autonomous thinking. When this space is narrow, a more transmissive
version of ESD is likely to result with a strong emphasis
on instructional forms of teaching and knowledge transfer. When this space is broad, then an ESD will emergethat is characterized by higher levels of participation,
self-determination, autonomous thinking and knowledge
co-creation. The latter, more transformative, versions of
ESD require alternative teaching and learning strategies
that also allow for the development of new competences.
A country’s tradition in governance might affect whether
a country emphasizes a more pedagogical orientation
towards ESD, consequently implying (social) learning,participation and capacity-building or a more instrumental orientation that emphasizes a change in people’s
behaviour. It should be acknowledged that in many partsof the world EE is broadly interpreted in ways that verymuch mimic broad interpretations of ESD.
Paying attention to the he ‘E’ in ESD requires a closer
look at both the kind of learning outcomes ESD seeks todevelop and the kind of learning processes and conditions are most conducive to making the realization ofsuch outcomes more likely. In this contribution not muchattention has been paid to the learning processes andlearning environments that are needed. Rather the focus
has been on the capacities or qualities people need todevelop in order to be able to contribute to more sustainable development. Thinking about ‘sustainability competence’ and Gestaltungscompetenz helps in getting abetter understanding of those qualities people need tohave in order to be able to act when confronted with asustainability challenge. Some elements of such competence have been presented but much more research will
have to be done on these competences and how they canbe developed and strengthened. The question will also

117

need to be raised whether these competences transcend
localities and are universally appropriate or whether they
are bound to context.
Although both the challenge of sustainable development and the call for ESD are worldwide, there is a
general understanding that the local realities and manifestations of ‘unsustainability’ are often quite different
and deeply rooted in local histories and political andcultural traditions: each region has its own pressing
issues and hurdles to overcome when trying to address
them. At the same time we see an undercurrent of common themes and systemic patterns that appear to transcend regions. The contextual differences that do exist
from region to region but within these hugely diverse
regions themselves as well, will lead to different meanings, priorities and strategies for ESD. These differences
are often rooted in governance traditions but also in the
key existential challenges a region is presently facing.
Traditions in governance are likely to affect whether acountry adopts a more pedagogical orientation towards
ESD emphasizing (social) learning, democracy andparticipation or a more instrumental one emphasizingchanging people’s behaviour in a pre- and expert determined direction.
It appears increasingly clear that the search forsustainability cannot be limited to classrooms, thecorporate boardroom, a local environmental education
center, a regional government authority, etc. Instead,learning in the context of sustainability requires‘hybridity’ and synergy between multiple actors in society and the blurring of formal, non-formal and informal
education. Opportunities for this type of cross-boundary
learning expand with increased permeability between
units, disciplines, generations, cultures, institutions,sectors and so on.
Currently we are witnessing an avalanche of interactive methods and new forms of knowledge co-creation
involving a wide range of societal actors with different
interests, perspectives and values but with similar challenges. In the remainder of the DESD we will need to geta better sense of how these processes take place in practice, how they are mediated and facilitated and whether
they indeed are leading to capacity-building and competence development that ultimately will lead to a worldthat is more sustainable than the one currently inprospect.
References
Almlöv, M. and E. Moberg (2008) Students in possession of theissues of tomorrow. An innovative student-led course project.
Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,2(2):173-179.
Björneloo, I and E. Nyberg, eds. (2007) Drivers and Barriers for
Implementing Sustainable Development in Pre-School throughUpper Secondary. Education for sustainable development inaction. Report of the Göteborg Workshop held 27-29 March
2006. Technical paper number 4, UNESCO’s Education Section,
UNESCO, Paris.
Bradbury, H. (2007) Social learning for sustainable development:
embracing technical and cultural changeas originally inspired by

118

A. E. J. WALS

the natural step. In: A.E.J. Wals, ed., Social Learning towards a
Sustainable World. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 279-298.
Cramer, J. and A. Loeber (2007) Learning about corporate social
responsibility from a sustainable development perspective: A
Dutch experiment. In: A.E.J. Wals, ed., Social Learning towards
a Sustainable World, Wageningen Academic Publisher,
265-278s.
Ellwood, W. (2003) The No-nonsense Guide to Globalization.
New Internationalist Publications Ltd., Oxford.
Gadotti, M. (2008) What we need to learn to save the planet.
International Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2(1): 21-30.
Haan, G. de (2006) The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research,
12(1):19-32.
De Haan (2010) The development of ESD-related competencies insupportive institutional frameworks. International Review of
Education, 56:315-328.
Hesselink, F., P.P. van Kempen and A.E.J. Wals (2000) ESDebate:
International On-line Debate on Education for Sustainable
Development. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
www.hect.nl/publications/ESDebate2.pdf (accessed October, 13,2010).
Jickling, B. and A.E.J. Wals (2008) Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable development.
Journal for Curriculum Studies, 40(1): 8-11.
Kagawa, F. and D. Selby., eds. (2010) Education and Climate
Change. Living and Learning in Interesting Times. Routledge,
London.
Kenway, J. and E. Bullen (2001) Consuming Children: Education-Entertainment-Advertising. Maidenhead, Open University
Press.
Lotz-Sisitka, H., L. Olvitt, M. Gumede and T. Pesanayi (2006)
History and Context of ESD in Southern Africa: Supporting
participation in the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development. Howick, SADC REEP.
Lund-Thomsen, P. (2007) Corporate social responsibility: towards
a new dialogue? In: A.E.J. Wals, ed., Social Learning towards a
Sustainable World. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 299-312.
McKenzie, M. (2009) Politics of Inhabitation: Interscaler
Contexts of the Socioecological and Education. (Unpublished)
Michelsen, G. and Adomssent, M. (2007) Education for sustainable
development strategies in German universities. In: A.E.J. Wals,ed., From Cosmetic Reform to Meaningful Integration:
Implementing Education for Sustainable Development in Higher
Education Institutes – the State of Affairs in Six European
Countries, Amsterdam, DHO.
Mochizuki, Y. and Z. Fadeeva (2008) Regional centres of expertiseon education for sustainable development: An overview.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
9(4):369-381.
Raven, J. and J. Stephenson, eds. (2001) Competence in the learning society. New York, Peter Lang.
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)(2010) Education for sustainable development: research
overview. In: A. Wals and G. Kieft, eds., Sida Review 2010, 13,
Sida, Stockholm.
Thaman, K.H. and R.R. Thaman (2009) Pacific island principles:learning to live wise and sustainable lives. In: P.B.Corcoran and
P.M.Osano,eds., Young People, Education, and Sustainable
Development, Wageningen Academic Publishers, 63-75.
UN (2002) JDSD: Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/Eng
lish/POI_PD.htm(accessed on October 28, 2009).

UNESCO (1992) Agenda 21: the United Nations Programme of
Action from Rio, United Nations Publications, New York.
UNESCO (2006) ESD Toolkit.
http://www.esdtoolkit.org (accessed on November 4, 2009)
UNESCO (2009a) Review of Contexts and Structures for ESD.
http://www.unesco.org/education/justpublished_desd2009.pdf(accessed on November 4, 2009)
UNESCO (2009b) The Bonn Declaration, World Conference on
Education for Sustainable Development, held 31 March – 2
April 2009 in Bonn. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO (2009c) ESD Currents. Changing Perspectives from theAsia-Pacific. The working paper on the Asia-Pacific regional
strategy for ESD.
www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/esd/documents/esd_publications/working-paper.pdf(accessed October 13, 2010)
UNESCO-UNEP (1978) Intergovernmental Conference on
Environmental Education. Tbilsi (USSR), 14-26 October 1977,
Final Report. UNESCO, Paris.
unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0003/000327/032763eo.pdf(accessed October 13, 2010)
UNESCO-CAT (2007) Report of the International Experts’ workshop held in Barcelona from 22nd to 24th March 2007. Organized by UNESCO-CAT.
http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/ Barcelona%20Report.pdf(accessed on November 15, 2010)
Wals, A.E.J., ed. (2007) From Cosmetic Reform to Meaningful
Integration: Implementing Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutes: The State of Affairs in Six
European Countries. IMESD meeting held in Amsterdam in
December of 2007, Amsterdam, DHO.
Wals, A.E.J. and J. Blewitt (2010) Third wave sustainability inhigher education: some (inter)national trends and developments.
In: P. Jones, D. Selby and S. Sterling, eds., Green Infusions:Embedding Sustainability across the Higher Education
Curriculum, Earthscan, London.
Wals, A.E.J. (2010) Message in A Bottle: learning Our Way out ofUn-sustainability. Inaugural lecture held on May 27th, 2010,
accepting the endowed UNESCO Chair of Social Learning andSustainable Development. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
www.naturearteducation.org/Message_in_a_bottle.htm

Arjen E.J. WALS
Arjen Wals is a Professor of Social Learning andSustainable Development. He is also a UNESCO
Chair in the same field. Wals has worked at
Wageningen University since 1992 in various
departments. His research focuses on learning
processes that contribute to a more sustainable
world. Wals obtained his PhD in 1991 with a Fulbright fellowship at the
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. His dissertation tackled the interface
between environmental psychology and environmental education. A central
question in his work is how to create conditions that support new forms oflearning that take full advantage of the diversity, creativity andresourcefulness that is all around us, but so far remains largely untapped inour search for a world that is more sustainable than the one currently inprospect. Popular books include: Higher Education and the Challenge of
Sustainability (Kluwer Academic, 2004) and Social Learning towards a
Sustainable World (Wageningen Academic, 2007).

(Received 14 October 2010, Accepted 1 December 2010)