Promoting community and environmental sustainability

This special issue of International Social Work is focused on ‘Promoting Community and Environmental Sustainability’. It is published to coincide with the 2018 Joint World Conference on Social Work and Social Development being held in Dublin, Ireland in July 2018 and with the publication of the third report of the Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development process, both of which share the same theme. The papers have been selected from among those already published online and so must not be read as specially commissioned for a specific purpose. However this approach does enable the journal to stand back from The Agenda process, reflect on the issues which are raised, and take a broad perspective.

‘Promoting community and environmental sustainability’ is the third pillar of The Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development, which emerged from the consultation at the world conference in Hong Kong in 2010. Developing community sustainability has long been at the centre of social work thinking and practice but the focus on the physical environment seemed new and timely when it was proposed in 2010. It certainly put social work at the cutting edge of the exploration of the relationship between people and communities and their physical environment before the launch of the consultation on the SDGs. Whilst ideas are rarely ‘new’ – concepts and theories usually evolve from what went before – social work can justifiably claim to have been among the first in the 21st century to make public statements explicitly linking human wellbeing and community sustainability to developments in the physical environment.

However this link between wellbeing and the physical environment was already evident in the work of many social work pioneers of the 19th century, such as Octavia Hill (Wohl, 1971) and Jane Addams (1902; 1930), both of whom were active in protecting and improving the physical environment, seeing this as intrinsic to improving the circumstances and wellbeing of the mass of people living in poverty. So by exploring these themes, we are also rediscovering our roots – and the reality that social work has to take a holistic approach if we wish to understand and support people to respond to their difficulties.

The four pillars of the Global Agenda are intrinsically linked. Originally focused on ‘environmental sustainability’, the conceptualisation of this third pillar evolved as the three global partners explored what it meant in terms not only of daily practice but also global policy and advocacy – and how it linked to the other three pillars. The first report on ‘promoting social and economic equalities’ highlighted the risks inherent in the growing economic inequalities in the world and explored how social workers helped people to challenge inequality and improve their own situation (IASSW, ICSW and IFSW, 2014).

The second report on ‘promoting the dignity and worth of peoples’ explored how social workers can help people to shape environments in which they ‘can live without fear, give expression to their identity and personality as they wish whilst showing respect to others, care for their family and community members, practise their beliefs and religions, participate in and shape their communities through social as well as political engagement and have access to the resources needed for a dignified and secure life’ (IASSW, ICSW and IFSW, 2016). The fourth pillar – ‘strengthening recognition of the importance of human relationships’ – will be launched in Dublin in July 2018 and highlighted in subsequent World Social Work Days, culminating in the 2020 world conferences, which will also examine the agenda for promoting social work and social development over the next decade.

Whilst social workers around the world readily identified with the need to respond to the environmental crises caused by climate change and over-exploitation of resources, many working in more developed economies found it difficult to see how this could affect their daily work. This presented a challenge to our concept of human behaviour and how social workers should respond to personal and community difficulties.

From the outset, The Global Agenda was explicit that people can only be understood in their environment; this third pillar was described as relating to ‘proactive engagement with social, human and ecological development’ (IASSW, ICSW and IFSW, 2010). The organisations eventually settled on the concept of ‘promoting community and environmental sustainability’ as speaking more clearly to the current practice of social work and social development around the world (IASSW, ICSW and IFSW 2016).

When initially exploring the scope of the third pillar, the three organisations suggested it included the following elements: supporting development initiatives that are sustainable and which integrate the human dimension and involve local communities; reaffirming support for initiatives aimed at protecting the natural environment; improving disaster prevention and management; promoting community capacity building in responding to environmental challenges and human and natural disasters (e.g. flooding, water degradation, food insecurity); promoting standards in education and practice that facilitate sustainable social development outcomes, including the prevention, mitigation and response to disasters; and encouraging and facilitating research into the social work role in relation to disasters and environmental challenges (IASSW, ICSW and IFSW, 2010; IASSW, ICSW and IFSW, 2012; Jones and Truell 2012). It was emphasised that community sustainability and environmental sustainability should be seen as equal elements within the pillar.

Five years after the launch of The Global Agenda process, the UN adopted the SDGs, which included the principle of ‘leave no one behind’ (United Nations 2015; United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs 2016). The SDGs give added significance and relevance to The Global Agenda, as they relate to all four of the interconnected pillars that the social work profession had deemed critical for the well-being of society (Kwon 2017). Commenting on the implications for social work of the SDGs and The Global Agenda, one social worker commented:

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide social workers an opportunity to redefine their role pertaining to people empowerment, socio-economic development, human rights and the environment… The Global Agenda [for Social Work and Social Development] enhances these possibilities for Social Workers as the SDG goals and values have parallel relevance and application with Social Work practice. However, there are challenges too, as Social Work practice addressing both human rights and environmental concerns address structural issues viewed as politically sensitive and therefore might be confrontational in nature. Nonetheless, social workers must stand alongside their service users as partners in development and address issues of injustice and inequality courageously and uncompromisingly abiding by Social Work Principles and Values’. (Jayasooria, 2016)

The articles in this issue, from contrasting settings, explore different elements of the third pillar. Närhi and Matthies (2016) analyse international literature on the interpretations of ecological social work. They argue that ‘it is a big challenge for social workers to bridge the gap between mainstream case work and the ecocritical perspective. This means understanding case work in the broadest sense of the person-in-environment and even going beyond case work towards more structural and macro-level strategies in social work. They conclude that, even though ‘there is plenty of evidence that ecosocial issues are relatively broadly neglected in the curricula, practice and professional discourse of at least Western social work’, ‘the current literature provides several examples of ecosocial work’ in direct practice.

Bowles, Boetto, Jones et al. (2016) examine the extent to which issues of environmental sustainability are represented in the national social work codes of ethics of the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia and in the work of IFSW. The findings suggest that national codes do not include concern for environmental sustainability as a core professional concern. The authors make recommendations for developing ethical practice and further argue that IFSW should take a leadership role in advocating for environmental sustainability.

In contrast, Hoe, Wahab, Bakar et al. (2017) report on a study aiming to uncover the influential factors affecting community participation in a rural poverty alleviation programme among the Iban people. These communities live in traditional longhouses in a forested and mountainous area in Sarawak, Malaysia, where the physical environment powerfully shapes social development. Having spent a very short period visiting an Iban community, I have a personal interest in this research which ‘explored a number of important factors of community participation in decision-making, implementation, benefits sharing and programme evaluation’. The research identifies that the success of the programme was related to the degree of involvement of community members with knowledge and skills. The value of recognising and working with the strengths of people is a core lesson for all social work practice.

Mafile’o and Vakalahi (2016) advocate for the further development of ‘Pacific indigenous social work, which has developed across borders reflecting the diaspora of Pacific peoples outside their homelands’. They suggest this needs to be locally developed reflecting the cultures and traditions of the Pacific peoples, which they suggest include: ‘unity with the natural environment, having relationships which have endured over time, celebration through custom and group interaction, lifeways that are rooted in a system of knowledge, having a sustainable economic growth and a unique language’. They conclude that ‘Pacific cultural values, knowledge, processes and skills are pivotal for development of social work practice in contemporary Pacific settings and add to the diversifying international body of social work knowledge’.

Sjöberg, Többe-Schukalla, Singh et al. (2016) examine the very different cultural context of northern Europe, exploring ‘how community work is being undertaken in marginalized urban settings in Germany and Sweden, in relation to changing contexts of respective welfare models’. ‘Economic globalization and neoliberal ideology drives a process of dissolving collective projects and collectivity, toward increasing individualism’: the withdrawal of the state from many aspects of traditional community support opens up different opportunities. ‘The transformation of welfare regimes has resulted in a growing need and new challenges for community work and collective empowerment.’ This article highlights the need for new community based responses in developed economies in the absence of the former state funded models, connecting with the concepts of community action implicit in ecosocial and green social work approaches, which are more common in social work methods used in less developed economies.

Schenck, Blaauw, Viljoen et al. (2017) examine community work methods in the very different South African community of informal waste pickers. Research shows that ‘official waste management systems cannot survive without the myriad waste pickers, even though they do not receive any formal support’. They provide a crucial environmental service yet live a precarious existence with erratic access to food, which is often taken from the waste dump or donated as surplus from supermarkets and restaurants. Others have demonstrated that ‘hunger and food insecurity should not be seen as only a family problem; it also relates to human rights and social justice, and has deep political roots and should therefore be of significant concern to the social work profession’. The article explores social work interventions at individual and policy levels.

The social, ecological and political challenges inherent in the current global situation can easily appear overwhelming; some suggest there is a new syndrome of eco-grief among those working in this field or especially sensitised to the challenges (Hutner 2015). Boddy, O’Leary, Tsui et al. (2017) assert that social work has a key role in inspiring hope, even though ‘its unique, critical and temporal role has not been well mapped in social work theory’. Some research suggests that people report developing hope through connectedness with the natural environment. Whilst not specifically located in the discourse around ecosocial and green social work, this article offers a conceptual framework which ‘highlights the richness of hope, its application in social work practice and its position in social work relationships’, something which seems especially timely.

Finally, Veal, King and Marston (2016) bring us back to a broader discussion about the theoretical and political factors shaping social work practice, from the perspective of ‘The Capability Approach’. They assert that ‘the Capability Approach’s recognition of poverty and development as complex, multidimensional phenomena aligns with social work values, while social work’s well-established and reflexive direct-level practice may provide the applied knowledge needed in the theory’. The article observes that ‘sustainable development is understood to encompass economic, social and environmental dimensions’ (World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987), but that the social is frequently ignored which ‘tends to discount the important role of social justice, equity, inclusion, participation and human rights within the realisation of sustainable development’. They argue that to contribute to sustainable development, social workers need to ‘engage in a more complex and inclusive dialogue that engages local actors and stakeholders within the process of social development, whether this be through advocacy, policy, practice or as agents of change within community settings’.

The extent to which social workers can find ways to practise within the current organisational structures in ways which promote community and environmental sustainability is a key question for the international and national professional bodies and will no doubt be explored in Dublin and beyond.