Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 30, Nos.

34, October-December 2005

Global Learning and Education for Sustainable

Development
ANDREAS OTTO BRUNOLD

Globalization is a fundamental factor affecting higher education in this century. More than
ever before, the processes of globalization are being integrated into a set of social,
technological, economic, cultural and ecological factors, so that we are now beginning to accept
that we are facing a completely irreversible world-wide phenomenon. The concept of
sustainable development integrates these factors and leads, beside environmental education, to
a demand for global learning and education for sustainable development. To get a better
understanding of the subject, the decision-game Prisoners Dilemma focuses on the aspect of
the public good.

The Concept of Sustainable Development

The basic philosophy of the concept of sustainable development can be characterized
as a doubled integration: On the one hand, as an integration of contents and, on the
other hand, as an integration of social participants and actors (Andersen et al., 1999:
38). The integration of contents was because of its conflicts within their goals also
called a magic square frame of aims (see Figure 1) of the dimensions of the principles
of sustainable development (Fiedler, 1998: 62).
The integration of social forces is caused by wide spread education processes. One
element of this is lies in the system of education, where a big part of our ability to
reflect our needs is constructed and fixed.

FIGURE 1. MAGIC SQUARE FRAME OF AIMS

ISSN 0379-7724 print/ISSN 1469-8358 online/05/030295-12 # 2005 UNESCO

DOI: 10.1080/03797720600624815
296 A. O. BRUNOLD

From Environmental Education to Education for Sustainable

Development
For more than twenty years environmental education has been a national and
international aim and also an accepted goal in the field of education policy (Bolscho
and Seybold, 1996: 412). In the German national context, the environmental
programme of the German government in 1971 (Deutscher Bundestag, 1972), the
suggestions of the conference of ministers of culture for Environment and Education
in 1970 and the preparatory programme of the German Ministry of Education and
Science in the year 1991 were important milestones in this development.
In the international context, the history of environmental education stretches from
the UN-Conference On the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972 to the
Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education held in Tiflis in 1977,
then further with the UNESCO/UNEP Conference in Moscow in 1987 to the
UNCED in Rio, which marked a change of thinking in setting public priorities
(Weizsacker, 1992: 209).
At the 44th Session of the International Conference on Education (ICE, 1994),1 held
in Geneva, in 1994, the Ministers of Education agreed on an Integral action plan of
frames for an education in the field of peace, civil rights, and democracy. This plan of
frames formulated the necessity to develop the areas of peace, civil rights, democracy,
and environment not only in a common policy, but also in all of the areas of education
(UNESCO, 1994: 479). Therefore policy should not only address education processes,
but also strategies for changing habits (WBGU, 1993: 192; Sigrun, 1991). Finally, the
report of the Commission of World Policy, published in 1995, indicates the
importance of co-operation between all countries for a policy on One World (SEF,
1995: 48).
A common signature of these developments is the knowledge, that environmental
problems should not only be solved in an administrative, technical or economic way,
but that environmental education should be seen as an unalterable part of
environmental policy.
In contradiction to the developed countries of the North, where environmental
education has a relative assured status in the formal education system, immense
structural deficits are to be seen in the countries of the South. The classical demand of
transfers in technologies therefore should be understood as transfers of knowledge in
an extensive sense, by which developed countries could also learn from developing
countries and vice versa. Obviously (just) in the area of education, the difference
between north and south over the last few years has been growing wider. Therefore
knowledge in risk management will be important for those countries, in which
industrialization is still in its infancy. The transfer of knowledge among developed and
developing countries is therefore an absolutely essential instrument of global risk
management.
This cognition (perception) is too little widespread in the developed countries
and also still scarcely in the developing countries. This is why both formal and non-
formal education are indispensable prerequisites for creating a change of awareness.
This was a recommended aim made at the 1990 World Conference on Education in

1
More about this at ,http://portal.unesco.org/education/fr/ev.php-URL_ID54827&URL_DO5
DO_TOPIC& URL_SECTION5201.html..
 EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 297

Jomtien/Thailand (Jomtien Declaration, 1990) and to guarantee general access to

formal and non-formal education by means of the programme Education for All
(EFA).
For the coverage of global environmental problems and its consequences, it is
necessary to be conscious of the environment, because the consciousness in solving
problems in general is a condition for changing environmental habits in forms of
production and consuming patterns. Environmental education also leads to an
important unlearning of damaging attitudes and for learning attitudes in line with the
environment requirements. Therefore criteria for a successful environmental education
are learning-processes from immediate experiences in every day situations of life
(orientation in situations), in connection with ones own actions (orientation in acting)
and the integration of the contents, which have to be taught, in the context of social
politics (orientation of problems) (WBGU, 1999).
Chapter 36 of Agenda 21, which resulted from this, is focused above all on the
possibility of reorienting education towards sustainable development as well as
reinforcing (public) consciousness raising (BMU, 1997: 261262).
Much of what we know about the environment, about human use of nature and
ecosystems, will no longer be up to date in a few years time or it will have changed.
Applying this set of dated knowledge may even be considered to do harm. Teaching
environmental knowledge must therefore be accompanied by a sense of relativity and
uncertainty of this knowledge. This is not easily compatible with the way learning has
been organised until now (de Haan and Harenberg, 1998: 102). It is necessary to
rethink and redefine learning, a process which is determined by challenging knowledge
that seems to be indisputable (Schratz, 1996: 26). In doing so the awareness of the
uncertainty of knowledge is becoming an educational aim. Nature can only seem
precious to those who know it and who dispose of some experience with it. To the
extent to which nature is forgotten, absent from everyday experience and replaced by
virtual realities, it cannot accept reality either. Taken as a whole, consumer buying
habits and needs in industrial nations of the western world constitute an essential
aspect of the subject.

The Concept of Global Learning

Global learning has to be seen as a mediation of a perspective, which assembles
connections of nearby observable problems to worldwide processes and lines of
conflicts (Gugel and Jager, 1996). This concept leads beyond national interests and is
involved in social and political developments coherent in a global space within
pedagogical possibilities of reaction- and action. Therefore, global learning is an
extension (amplification) of the horizon of education as a result of the globalization
processes and uses interdisciplinary methods.
Over the coming years, the concept of global learning will be discussed more
and more and developed in the area of developmental and environmental policies
and the education of them. In furthering the advancement of the concept of global
learning, the area of global hazards will be seen as a central point of view for the
future development of mankind (Peccei, 1979; Wilhelmi, 1992: 23). Common
indicators of all global hazards go beyond national frontiers. The majority of people
living in endangered areas are involved and are affecting future generations (Zurn,
1995: 4950).
298 A. O. BRUNOLD

One of the substantial and important tasks for global learning therefore is to
transport knowledge and abilities and the preparedness for constructive action in
conflicts and to prepare available appropriate programmes (Eckert et al., 1992; Gugel
and Jager, 1997: 168173). For an appropriate adaptation to the subject of global
learning there have been great efforts in the area of political education, which have
been a key to promoting sustainable development (BMZ, 1992; WBGU, 1996;
Weizsacker, 1990: 1345).
Since the 1970s, there has been a wide consensus, that the solution to a variety of
environmental and development problems lies with political education (s., Deutcher
Bundestag, 1972). In spite of these developments, there have also been changes in the
theoretical implications and didactical models in the area of environmental and
development education (Erdmann and Wehner, 1996: 151).
In the 1950s and 1960s, theoretical aspects of education were most prominent,
characterized by an emphasis on formal orientation in information. The curriculum
theory of the 1970s claimed to formulate and define educational objectives in a new
way. These models were covered widely by particular governments in their policies in
the area of development.
During the same period, cognitive structures of education had been mostly at the
forefront of learning. The 1980s brought a stronger attention to participation and
active methods of learning.
It was becoming more and more obvious that the term, Third World, was in need of
greater attention, equitable to the large number of problems and developments facing
this diverse group. In the field of development pedagogy, learning about the Third
World was no longer the central educational objective, but learning with and from the
Third World was put at the centre of the didactic conceptions. The concept of
intercultural learning which was therefore created points a complex and global view
on this subject, for there is no longer an expression or a presence of a Third World,
which becomes obsolete and is replaced by a consciousness of One World
(Scheunpflug and Seitz, 1992). Differentiation instead of homogeneity and an equality
of all questions about future global rescues are signifying the spatial, objective and
social dimensions, and also the circumstances in a time of a modified model in
development policies (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2. MODIFIED MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT POLICY (SEITZ, 1998: 5570)

 EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 299

While the traditional understanding of learning and education knowledge has been
accumulated additively and corresponded to the ideal of a time in which mechanisms of
cause and effect did not have to be considered to be global key problems, todays
information society seems to lack knowledge of orientation because of the vast amount
of information which is getting harder and harder to cope with. In the past, the supply
of knowledge could remain at the same level for a relatively long time and lengthy
periods went by before important discoveries in economy and technology changed
society and culture (UNESCO, 1991: 27). Knowledge that was acquired in youth used
to be sufficient for the entire human life. This has changed entirely over the years.
Growing specialisation is necessary to administer, convey, and use knowledge, which
results in the fact that the individual takes a smaller and smaller part in societys
collective knowledge (Fietkau, 1984: 24).
This is why global learning is gaining a new quality, since the speed at which
knowledge becomes dated has lead to new modes of learning. The difficulty of grasping
cybernetic models or imagining scenarios shows that human beings are still conditioned
for their immediate surroundings because of their genetic endowment. Learning by
simulating and thinking in networks, however, are indispensable whenever the
consequences of human actions are to be anticipated and developments are to be
made future-compliant (Schreier, 1994; Weinbrenner, 1997: 122151).
Key issues in modern times are involved here, which can not only be subsumed
under the environmental, but also in the field of developmental pedagogy (Klafki,
1991: 4950). Cognitive knowledge and the understanding of the necessity of change do
not suffice to create the reason for a new deeply rooted global ecological and social
ethic of responsibility. A change in behaviour in this context corresponds to a change in
values, which should also give the impetus to a change in our patterns of consumer
habits (Umweltbundesamt, 1997: 220251).
Thus, the One-World-Education is a form of political education, which must not be
neglected, since it includes the idea that the industrial nations, above all, are the main
cause of environmental and developmental deficits have to take the first step to
overcome these problems. Thus environmental education in urban centres of
population acquires considerable importance (Gartner and Hoebel-Mavers, 1990;
Rosler, 1993). Environmental education in schools therefore requires a new ethical
responsibility.
It has long been acknowledged that responsible behaviour towards the environment
can neither be exclusively supported by a change of values and attitudes that are
relevant for the environment nor exclusively by the knowledge that is relevant for the
environment. Behind this is the supposition that more environmental knowledge may
lead to more environmental awareness, which is again a prerequisite for environmen-
tally suitable behaviour.
This premise is still alive because environmental education is dominated by
sciences, which have difficulty in giving up the thought that interpreting the ecology
of natural balance correctly logically leads to the right behaviour in environmental
issues.
The results of research into environmental awareness can be reduced to the formula
that no substantial connection between environmental knowledge, attitudes towards
the environment and environmental behaviour can be proved (De Haan, 1997: 132).
Nevertheless strengthening the populations environmental awareness is considered to
be the central task for the future (WBGU, 1996: 3).
300 A. O. BRUNOLD

This is why problems of transforming dispositions into concrete action are not taken
into account in most cases (Ilien, 1994; Weizsacker and Winterfeld, 1995: 445) or
limited to a local or national perspective, which does not fulfil the demands of the new
quality of complex environmental change on a global basis (WBGU, 1996: 51).
However, an essential prerequisite is learning to forget, dated knowledge and
wrong everyday theories (Fietkau and Kessel, 1981: 101). Environmental pedagogy
therefore points out that institutions and schools have to forget internalized basic
assumptions.

Consequences for Political Education and Levels of Global

Learning
It is therefore necessary to support educational politics, and especially of ecological
awareness both in the developed nations of the First World and in the developing
countries of the Third World. The countries in the North should be aware of their
exemplary function. It is an essential educational aim to show that sustainable and
forward-looking development is not the responsibility of the Third World in the first
place and that developmental aid of the North for the South without changing
behaviour in the North does not have strong effects or may even do harm.
In this respect the principle of global learning is a form of political education which
should not be neglected since it is based on the understanding that, first and foremost,
the industrial nations as the main cause of environmental and developmental deficits.
To get a better understanding of the subject, often methods of rational choice and
theory are used to emphasize the aspects of public goods. One of the best known
examples is a decision-game called the Prisoners Dilemma.

The Prisoners Dilemma A Game of Rational Choice

The decision-game, Prisoners Dilemma2 is a game which has been and continues to
be studied by people in a variety of disciplines, ranging from Biology to Sociology and
Public Policy (Axelrod, 1984; Poundstone, 1993; Nowak et al., 1995: 7681; Godfray,
1992: 2067; Nowak and Sigmund, 1992 :2503). Among its interesting characteristics
is that the best strategy for a given player is often one that increases the payoff to ones
partner as well. It has also been shown that there is no single best strategy: how to
maximize ones own payoff depends on the strategy adopted by ones partner.
As co-operation is usually analysed in game theory by means of a non-zero-sum
game, the two players in the game can choose between two moves, either co-operate
or defect. The idea is that each player gains, when both co-operate; yet, if only one of

2
The game got its name from the hypothetical situation, when two criminals were arrested under the
suspicion of having committed a crime together. However, the police do not have sufficient proof in order to
have them convicted. The two prisoners are isolated from each other, and the police visit each of them and
offer a deal: the one who offers evidence against the other one will be freed. If none of them accepts the offer,
they are in fact co-operating against the police, and both of them will get only a small punishment because of
lack of proof. They both gain. However, if one of them betrays the other one, by confessing to the police, the
defector will gain more, since he is freed; the one who remained silent, on the other hand, will receive the full
punishment, since he did not help the police, and there is sufficient proof. If both betray, both will be
punished, but less severely than if they had refused to talk. The dilemma resides in the fact that each prisoner
has a choice between only two options, but cannot make a good decision without knowing what the other one
will do.
 EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 301

TABLE 1. THE GAME

Action of A/Action of B Co-operate Defect

Co-operate Fairly good (+3) Bad (25)
Defect Good (+5) Mediocre (0)

Source: Table by Poundstone, W. Prisoners Dilemma Anchor Books. New York: Doubleday,
1993.

them co-operates, the other one, who defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose
(or gain very little) but not as much as the cheated co-operator whose co-operation is
not returned. The whole game situation and its different outcomes is summarized in
Table 1, where hypothetical points are given as an example of how the differences in
result might be quantified.
Outcomes for actor A (in words, and in hypothetical points) depending on the
combination of As action and Bs action, in the prisoners dilemma game situation. A
similar scheme applies to the outcomes for B.
Such a distribution of losses and gains seems natural for many situations, since the
co-operator whose action is not returned will lose resources to the defector, without
either of them being able to collect the additional gain coming from the synergy of
their co-operation. For simplicity we might consider the Prisoners dilemma as zero-
sum-game in so far as there is no mutual co-operation: either each gets none when both
defect, or when one of them co-operates, the defector gets (+5), and the co-operator
(25), in total (0). On the other hand, if both co-operate the resulting synergy creates an
additional gain that makes the sum positive: each of them gets (3), in total (6).
The gain for mutual co-operation (3) in the prisoners dilemma is smaller than the
gain for one-sided defection (5), so that there would always be a temptation to defect.
Yet, we will assume that the synergistic effect is smaller than the gains obtained by
defection. This is realistic if we take into account the fact that the synergy usually only
gets its full power after a long term process of mutual co-operation (Figure 3).
The prisoners dilemma is meant to study short term decision-making, where the
actors do not have any specific expectations about future interactions or collaborations
(as is the case in the original situation of the jailed criminals). This is the normal
situation during blind-variation-and-selective-retention evolution.

FIGURE 3. PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

302 A. O. BRUNOLD

FIGURE 4. THE CONFLICT IN THE PRISONERS DILEMMA

Long-term co-operation can only evolve after short-term co-operation has been
selected. Evolution is cumulative, adding small improvements upon small improve-
ments, but without blindly making major jumps (Figure 4).
The problem with the prisoners dilemma is that if both decision-makers were purely
rational, they would never co-operate. Indeed, rational decision-making means that
you make the decision which is best for you, whatever the other actor chooses. Suppose
the other one defects, then it is rational to defect yourself: you will not gain anything,
but if you do not defect you will be stuck with a (25) loss. Suppose the other one co-
operates, then you will gain anyway, but you will gain more if you do not co-operate,
so here too the rational choice is to defect. The problem is that if both actors are
rational, both will decide to defect, and none of them will gain anything. However, if
both would irrationally decide to co-operate, both would gain (3) points. This
seeming paradox can be formulated more explicitly through the principle of sub-
optimization.

Environmental Politics and Climate Protection A Game of

Rational Choice
The following situation is given as a realistic scenario: Driver A is thinking of installing
a catalytic converter in his/her car. His/her decision depends on what all the other car-
drivers, B, are doing. If all car-drivers B will install a catalytic converter too, driver A
estimates the advantage of the unpolluted air personally with an amount of J1,500 and
all the other car-drivers B, too. The converter costs J1,000 (Table 2).

TABLE 2. A GAME OF RATIONAL CHOICE

B
Catalytic converter No catalytic converter
A Catalytic converter 500/500 21000/0
No catalytic converter 1500/500 0/0

Source: The author.

 EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 303

TABLE 3. RESULTS BY COOPERATING OR NOT COOPERATING

B
Co-operation Competition
A Co-operation 3/3 25/5
Competition 5/25 0/0

Source: The author.

The game will be played with the following rules:

1. On each turn of the game, you and all drivers B must choose, without knowing the
others choice, between cooperating with each other and trying to take advantage
of each other.
2. Following every turn of the game, you and all drivers B will each receive a certain
number of points, the number depending for each of you on the choices made by
both of you.
3. Should you both decide to co-operate, you will each receive (3) points.
4. If one of you has decided to co-operate but the other has opted for competition,
the competitor will receive (5) points and the co-operator (25).
5. Finally, if both decide to outdo one another, each of you will receive none (Table 3).
The game will continue until the leader of the game tires of it, and includes this
additional stipulation: The chances of surviving to play the next turn are closely related
to the average number of points received on previous turns. If this average on a given
turn drops below a critical number (chosen in an unknown way by the leader of the
game), the game will be finished. The same is true for all the car-drivers B, of course,
but since neither of them knows the critical number, neither of them has any choice but
to try on each and every turn to maximize your own income. What is the successful
strategy?

References3
ANDERSEN, U., HOMBERGER, I., and PENEDO, N. Lokale Agenda 21 und Entwicklungspolitik
[Local Agenda 21 and Development Policy], in, Politische Bildung, Beitrage zur wissenscha-
flichen Grundlegung und zur Unterrichtspraxis, Entwicklung der Entwicklungspolitik Jhrg. 32,
Band 3/1999 [Political Education. Contributions to Scientific Foundation and Practising.
Development of Development-Policy, Years Set 32, Volume 3/1999]. Schwalbach/Ts. 1999, p.
38.
AXELROD, R. The Evolution of Co-operation. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
BOLSCHO, D., and SEYBOLD, H. Umweltbildung und okologisches Lernen. Ein Studien- und
Praxisbuch [Environmental Education and Ecological Learning. A Studies and Practice-Book].
Berlin, 1996, p. 41.
BRUNOLD, A. Globales Lernen und Lokale Agenda 21. Aspekte kommunaler Bildungsprozesse in
der Einen Welt [Global Learning and Local Agenda 21. Aspects of Communal and
Educational Processes in One World]. Wiesbaden, 2004, p. 47.

3
All reference items indicated are available in the German language.
304 A. O. BRUNOLD

BUNDESMINISTERIUM FUR UMWELT, NATURSCHUTZ UND REAKTORSICHERHEIT (BMU) [Ministry

for the Environment, Protection of Nature and Nuclear- Safety]. Umweltpolitik, a.a.O.
[Environmental Policy]. Bonn: BMU, 1997, 1997, p. 261.
BUNDESMINISTERIUM FUR WIRTSCHAFTLICHE ZUSAMMENARBEIT UND ENTWICKLUNG (BMZ)
[Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development). Umwelt und Entwicklung
[Environment and Development]. Bericht der Bundesregierung uber die Konferenz der Vereinten
Nationen fur Umwelt und Entwicklung im Juni 1992 in Rio des Janeiro, Entwicklungspolitik,
Materialien Nr. 84 [Environment and Development. Report of German Government about the
United Nations Conference for Environment and Development, June 1992, Rio de Janeiro.
Development Policy, Materials No. 84]. Bonn: BMZ, 1992.
DE HAAN, G. Skizzen zu einer lebensstilbezogenen Umweltbildung [Outlines to a Lifestyle-
Drawn Environmental Education], in, LOHMEYER, M., et al., Okologische Bildung im Spagat
zwischen Leitbildern und Lebensstilen. Loccumer Protokolle 25/97 [Ecological Education in the
Twine between Models and Lifestyles. Loccumer Journals 25/97]. Loccum, 1997, p. 132.
DE HAAN, G. and HARENBERG, D. Nachhaltigkeit als Bildungs- und Erziehungsaufgabe,
Moglichkeiten und Grenzen schulischen Umweltlernens [Sustainability on the Agenda of
Education. Possibilities and Limits of Environmental Education in School], in,
LANDESZENTRALE FUR POLITISCHE BILDUNG, ed. Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Der Burger im
Staat, 48 Jhrg., Heft 2 [Central Office for Political Education, ed., Sustainable Development,
The Citizen in the State 48. Number 2]. Villingen-Schwennigen, 1998, p. 102.
DEUTSCHER BUNDESTAG [German Parliament]. Umweltschutz. Das Umweltprogramm der
Bundesregierung vom 14.10.1971 [Environmental Program of the Social-Liberal Coalition
1971. German Bundestag, ed. Environment Protection. Environmental Program of the German
Government 1971. Printed matter of the Bundestag 6/2710]. Stuttgart, 1972.
ECKERT, R., GOLDBACH, H. and WILLEMS, H. Konfliktintervention, Perspektivenubernahme in
gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzungen [Intervention to Conflicts. Adoption of Perspectives in
Social Conflicts]. Opladen, 1992.
ERDMANN, K.-H. and WEHNER, G. Die Bedeutung des Wissens fur die Umwelt- und
Naturschutzbildung [The Importance of Knowledge for an Education of Environmental
Protection and Nature], in, ERDMANN, K.-H., and NAUBER, J. Eds. Beitrage zur
Okosystemforschung und Umwelterziehung Band III [Contributions to Research of Economic
Systems and Environmental Education, Volume III]. Bonn, 1996, p. 151.
FIEDLER, K. Zur Umsetzung der Agenda 21 in den Staaten und Kommunen [Practice of
Agenda 21 in States and Municipalities], in, ICLEI, KUHN, S., SUCHY, G., and ZIMMERMANN, M.,
eds. Lokale Agenda 21 Deutschland, Kommunale Strategien fur eine zukunftsbestandige
Entwicklung [Local Agenda 21 Germany. Communal Strategies for a Constant Development
in the Future]. Berlin, 1998.
FIETKAU, H.-J. Bedingungen okologischen Handelns. Gesellschaftliche Aufgaben der
Umweltpsychologie [Conditions of Ecological Action. Social Tasks of Environment
Psychology]. Weinheim, 1984, p. 24.
FIETKAU, H.-J. and KESSEL, H. Umweltlernen, Veranderungsmoglichkeiten des
Umweltbewutseins [Environmental Learning. Possibilities for Changes in Environmental
Awareness]. Konigstein/Ts, 1981, p. 10.
GARTNER, H. and HOEBEL-MAVERS, M. eds. Okologisches Handeln in Ballungsraumen,
[Ecological Action in Areas of Agglomerations. Volume 1], Reihe Umwelterziehung 1
[Environment Education Series. Volume 1] Hamburg, 1990.
GODFRAY, H.C.J. The Evolution of Forgiveness, Nature 355 (1992): 2067.
GUGEL, G. and JAGER, U. Friedenspadagogische Uberlegungen zum Globalen Lernen
[Peace-Educational Considerations on Global Learning], in, LSW/SCHULSTELLE DRITTE
WELT/EINE WELT (Ed.). Unser Bild vom Suden. Kritische Medienanalyse [LSW/School Agency
Third World/OneWorld, ed., Our Picture of the South. Critical Analysis of the Media]. Soest,
1996.
 EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 305

GUGEL, G. and JAGER, U. Globales Lernen, Eine Perspektive zur friedenspadagogischen

Bildungsarbeit [Global Learning. Perspective for a Peace-Educational Formation], in,
VOGT, W.R., and JUNG, E. eds. Kultur des Friedens, Wege zur Einen Welt [Culture of Peace.
Ways to One World]. Darmstadt, 1997, pp. 168173.
ILIEN, A. Schulische Bildung in der Krise [The Crisis of School Education]. Aufsatze zur Offnung
der Schule. Umweltbildung und Selbstregulierung [Essays for Opening School. Environmental
Education and Self-Regulation]. Hannover, 1994.
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION (ICE). The Appraisal and Perspectives of Education
for International Understanding. Declaration of the 44th session of ICE. Geneva, 1994.
KLAFKI, W. Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik [New Studies about Theory of
Education and Didactics]. Weinheim/Basel, 1991, p. 49.
NOWAK, M.A., and SIGMUND, K. Tit for Tat in Heterogeneous Populations, Nature 355
(1992): 2503.
NOWAK, M.A., MAY, R.M. and SIGMUND, K. The Arithmetics of Mutual Help, Scientific
American, June (1995): 7681.
PECCEI, A. (Ed.). Das menschliche Dilemma, Zukunft und Lernen. Bericht an den Club of Rome
[The Human Dilemma. Future and Learning. Report to the Club of Rome]. Vienna, 1979.
POUNDSTONE, W. Prisoners Dilemma. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1993.
ROSLER, M. Okologische Verkehrsplanung im Ballungsraum [Ecological Trafficplaning in
Areas of Agglomerations], Reihe Umwelterziehung 5 [Environment Education Series, Volume
5]. Hamburg, 1993.
SCHEUNPFLUG, A., and SEITZ, K. Selbstorganisation und Chaos, Entwicklungspolitik und
Entwicklungspadagogik in neuer Sicht [Self-Organization and Chaos. Development Policy and
Devlopment Education in New Sight]. Tubingen, 1992.
SIGRUN, P. Umweltkatastrophe Mensch, Uber unsere Grenzen und Moglichkeiten okologisch
bewut zu handeln [Environmental Disaster of Human Mankind. About Our Limits and
Possibilities to Act Ecologicaly]. Heidelberg, 1991.
SCHRATZ, M. Gemeinsam Schule lebendig gestalten [Working Together to Make the School
Lively]. Weinheim/Basel, 1996, p. 26.
SCHREIER, H. ed. Die Zukunft der Umwelterziehung [The Future of Environmental
Education], Reihe Umwelterziehung 7 [Environmental Education Series, Volume 7].
Hamburg, 1994.
SEITZ, K. Globales Lernen - Bildungswende fur eine Zukunftsfahige Entwicklung [Global
Learning Turn-Around to an Education for Sustainable Development], in, FUHRING, G.
Lernen in weltweitem Horizont [Learning in a World-Wide Horizon]. Munster, 1998, pp. 5770.
STIFTUNG ENTWICKLUNG UND FRIEDEN (SEF) [Development and Peace Foundation]. Nachbarn
in Einer Welt. Der Bericht der Kommission fur Weltordnungspolitik [Neighbours in One World.
Commission Report for World Order Policy. The Commission on Global Governance]. Bonn,
1995, p. 48.
UMWELTBUNDESAMT [Federal Environmental Agency]. Nachhaltiges Deutschland. Wege zu einer
dauerhaft-umweltgerechten Entwicklung [Sustainable Germany. Ways towards a Durable
Environmental Development]. Berlin, 1997, pp. 220251.
UNESCO. Global Forum on Education for All: Final Report. Paris, 2000.
UNESCO-Dokument 25 C/4. Dritter mittelfristiger Plan 1990-1995 [Third Medium-Termed Plan
1990-1995]. Bonn, 1991, p. 27.
UNESCO heute, 41. Jhrg., Ausgabe IV [UNESCO Today, 41.Series, Volume IV]. Bonn, 1994, p.
479.
WEINBRENNER, P. Didaktische und methodische Konzepte fur die Bearbeitung okologischer
und zukunftsorientierter Themen [Didactical and Methodological Concepts of the Treatment
of Ecological and Future-Oriented Topics], in, FRECH, S., HALDER-WERDON, E., and HUG, M.
eds. Natur Kultur. Perspektiven okologischer und politischer Bildung [Nature Culture.
Perspectives of Ecological and Political Education]. Schwalbach/Taunus, 1997, pp. 122151.
306 A. O. BRUNOLD

WEIZSACKER, E.-U. VON. Erdpolitik. Okologische Realpolitik an der Schwelle zum Jahrhundert der
Umwelt [Earth-Policy. Ecological Policy on the Doorstep to a Century of Environment].
Darmstadt, 1992, p. 209.
WEIZSACKER, E.U. VON and WINTERFELD, U., VON. Umwelterziehung war erst der Anfang
[Environmental Education was Just the Beginning], in, Jahrbuch Okologie 1995 [Yearbook
Ecology 1995]. Munchen, 1995, p. 94.
WEIZSACKER, R., VON. Ansprache bei der Eroffnungsveranstaltung zur Ersten Europaischen
Konferenz fur Umwelt und Gesundheit der WHO [Speech at the Opening Ceremony at the
First European Conference for Environment and Health of the WHO], in, Reden und Interviews
(6) [Speeches and Interviews (6)]. Bonn, 1990, p. 134.
WILHELMI, H.H. Welche Bildung fur die Zukunft [Which Education for the Future?], in,
Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspadagogik, 15. Jg., Heft 1, Marz 1992 [Journal for Development-
Education, 15.series, number 1 (March 1992)], p. 2.
WISSENSCHAFTLICHER BEIRAT DER BUNDESREGIERUNG GLOBALE UMWELTVERANDERUNGEN
(WBGU) [German Advisory Council on Global Change]. Welt im Wandel. Grundstruktur
globaler Mensch-Umwelt-Beziehungen, Jahresgutachten 1993 [The World in Change. Basic
Structure of the Global Human Environment Relationship. Expert-Audit 1993]. Bonn, 1993, p.
192.
WISSENSCHAFTLICHER BEIRAT DER BUNDESREGIERUNG GLOBALE UMWELTVERANDERUNGEN
(WBGU) [German Advisory Council on Global Change]. Ibid. Berlin, 1996, pp. 3, 51.
WISSENSCHAFTLICHER BEIRAT DER BUNDESREGIERUNG GLOBALE UMWELTVERANDERUNGEN
(WBGU) [German Advisory Council on Global Change]. Ibid. Berlin, 1999.
WORLD CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION FOR ALL. World Declaration on Education for All. Meeting
Basic Learning Needs (Jomtien Declaration). Jomtien, Thailand, 59 March 1990. New York,
1990.
ZURN, M. Globale Gefahrdungen und internationale Kooperation [Global Hazards and
International Cooperation], in, LANDESZENTRALE FUR POLITISCHE BILDUNG BADEN-
WURTTEMBERG (LpB BW). Der Burger im Staat, Heft 1/1995, Sicherheitspolitik unter
geanderten weltpolitischen Rahmenbedingungen [The Citizen in the State. Safety Policy under
Changed Basic Global Parameters 1 (1995)]. Villingen-Schwenningen, 1995, p. 49.