Back to work on the blog and Social Innovation

It looks like much of what I work on gets classified as Social Innovation these days. Here's the p[resentation I did on this today

The 100 Months initiative and public engagement

The article below looks at the new 100 Months initaitive on climate change and financial systems. Your comments welcome!

Most people on this list have probably heard about the ‘100 months’ initiative launched by nef (the New Economics Foundation) (www.onehundredmonths.org. The report is drafted by a group of NGO and ex-NGO people along with a journalist and an MEP and was launched with a major article in the Guardian.

It calls for a range of actions (as below). But what does this actually mean for those of us working on the ground on climate change? Does anyone out there see this as a big step forward? Is this a tool that can be used? Is it just another ‘green and good’ paper exercise?

It is perhaps worth looking at this in a little detail. The key aims are:

· Executing a bold new vision for a low-carbon energy system that will include making ‘every building a power station’.
· Creating and training a ‘carbon army’ of workers for a vast environmental reconstruction programme.
· Establishing an Oil Legacy Fund, paid for by a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies
· Ensuring more realistic fossil fuel prices that include the cost to the environment, and that are high enough to tackle climate change by creating economic incentives to drive efficiency and bring alternative fuels to market.
· Minimising corporate tax evasion by clamping down on tax havens and corporate financial reporting.
· Re-regulating the domestic financial system
· Breaking up the discredited financial institutions that have needed so much public money to prop them up in the latest credit crunch. Large banking and finance groups should be forcibly demerged.

There’s nothing there I would disagree with. But here’s a few points to consider.

1. The first two points (on climate and energy) are hardly new. The idea of a massive task force to insulate and upgrade the nations’ homes was set out and costed in the 1980s (it’s depressing to think about how we’d have transformed society if we’d actually started then…). But it’s not happened despite repeated calls. Consider why not…

2. The remaining five points all relate to the economic system and are massive transformations. It’s easy to suggest re-regulating financial systems and again this is not new, but taking on the vested financial interests of the world might be a campaign a little longer than just 100 months (hard to see how the UK could do this on its’ own…)

3. This is (just a little!) top-down. Andrew Simms of nef finished his article with ‘Now it is time for the government to lead….’. The whole programme seems to be based on the idea that strong policy is enough to change the world. Policy wonks the world over cling to this belief. I would disagree – we need strong policy but we also need good infrastructure and we also need effective engagement. Active engagement often leads policy rather than being led by it.

4. That last point is what perhaps lets this down. Governments need to get elected and to do that they need to appeal to enough of the public. At the moment the public (and the media) may be aware of climate change as a threat but they are not engaged to anything like the necessary level.

They are, I would suggest, highly unlikely at present to give support to a strong radical programme to cut CO2 emissions if that means difficult life changes. They are vastly less likely to support the ‘break-up of financial institutions’ and re-regulation (“what’s that mean to my pension / mortgage / etc….”) unless there is either a crisis vastly greater than the minor-sub-recession we’re in now or they feel they have some onwership of what is going on.

Getting support for these changes will need an unparalleled programme of engagement and capacity-building to give people the skills and understanding so that they can engage effectively with this problem and get active both politically / collectively and in their personal lives.

There is nothing clear in this report (or the bits I have read) that suggest how such a programme should be developed. The 100 months website merely asks for an email address, promises mailings, and then asks you to sign up other people.... But if this programme is to have any chance of getting support outside the hallowed ranks of the 750,000 (or so) Guardian and Independent readers then the first 20 months needs to be devoted not so much to detailed analysis of financial systems but much more to transforming how people see and engage with this threat to our future.

So:
* Can we tackle climate change effectively without transforming the financial systems?
* Is a massive drive to transform the financial systems a diversion from work that can be done within the current systems?
* What does a central government programme for popular engagement with climate change look like? Could it work?
* How can the few thousand grass roots climate change initiatives actually use and work with initiatives such as this?

Comments welcome

Dear reader (please ignore last post!)

As Chair of London21 I’ve been thinking about possible approaches to better connectivity and networking around climate change action in London and elsewhere. This led me to a certain degree of analysis of what is going on within the action ecosystem (not just grass roots!).

The result is the paper here that looks at the different types of activity going on, what the various types of action are bringing to the table and what this might mean for connectivity.

If you have the time to read it, your comments would be welcome here!

Networking and supporting

voluntary action on climate change

This discussion paper has been produced by Chris Church, Chair of London 21 and Director of CEA. The ideas and opinions in it are his alone but are derived in part from a range of information sources. Comments are welcome, initially by email to chrischurch@phonecoop.coop but there may be further web-based discussion. Use of this material for not-for-profit purposes is welcome but please inform and credit the author.

There is a huge spread of voluntary activity around climate change in London and across the UK. London 21 was set up to network and support local action towards sustainable development, and the new immediate focus on climate change has led to some to look to the L21 network for support, while others are developing quite different networks.

This paper looks at the various types of organised activity that are going on and suggests some ways forward. It then considers whether there is a need for some form of London-wide networking on climate issues. While its’ initial focus is London it seems that the same issues are common to other areas.

The paper looks at

• What is happening?
• What is not happening?
• What should be happening?
• How can collective activity best be supported?

What is happening?

It is arguable that there are six broad categories or communities of action, as set out below. These exist side-by-side or even on top of one another. People within these groupings may be talking to others but are often unaware of activity similar to their own across the city and may well have little knowledge or understanding of the approaches being used by other groups.

These groupings can be seen as dividing into the following sectors, although there is clearly a substantial degree of overlap.

1. ‘Activist’ / protest groups. These are groups and individuals heavily involved in action around Heathrow expansion, Climate Camp, and are likely to be actively supportive of direct action. They may be linked to (or ‘descended from’) anti-roads protests, Reclaim the Streets and similar groups. There are a range of groups within this grouping, including loose networks such as Rising Tide London.

2. Lobbying groups. These are people who may join Heathrow protests but may be more focused on political lobbying around the Bill. They can be characterised by local FoE groups.

3. Groups working around local government. These may be linked to / descended from LA21 activity; they may be involved in a range of other environmental activity and may be seen as ‘local sustainability’ activists. In some cases climate is still a new issue for these groups. Some are more oppositional than others but all want to see their councils being more effective.

4. Transition towns. This grouping has a stronger identity than some with a clear focus based on Rob Hopkinson’s work and with an emphasis on peak oil as well as climate. In London Brixton has done most work – there are some overlaps and occasionally tensions between these groups and others. They are also focusing on practical actions around energy production, food growing etc.

5. Carbon Reduction Action Groups and other new structures. These are very carbon focused but also tend to have a strong local focus on footprint reduction. These may also link to national programmes such as Global Action Plan eco-teams, COIN et al.

6. Community organisations active on climate. These are groups which would not describe themselves as primarily environmental but are active to varying degrees on climate change. The current NESTA-funded ‘Big Green Challenge’ programme includes a number of these within its’ 100 finalists and they may also be supported through the Every Action Counts programme. These also include faith-based groups (some of whom may be plugged into networks such as Operation Noah, CEL etc. but others are not).

In addition to these there are also a range of social enterprises, consultancies with a local action focus, energy projects etc. and the mix is further enriched by local food projects, fuel poverty action, energy advice centres, transport groups and others whose actions feed into reducing carbon emissions. There has also (certainly in London) been a growth in new organisations and initaitives, as people see a niche where they feel there is little or no activity and set up some form of structure to act.

Those most active on this issue may well (and rightly) suggest that the six groupings are very interwoven but I think that it is the case that most groups would be based in one of the categories. Some of these groupings have a degree of coordination or networking already while some are very dispersed. It is also the case that the level of resources available to these groupings varies widely.

What is not happening?

Again there are a range of answers.

· Inter-group co-operation. The lower-than-hoped-for turn-out at the recent Heathrow demonstration suggests that on-site protest activity is not a priority for some of these groupings or that they do not feel ownership of or engagement with such activity. Similarly local environmental networks are not necessarily being used effectively by new organisations who may know little of what is already happening in their localities. Some established networks may not be very welcoming to keen but inexperienced new organisations.

· Political engagement. Above and beyond lobbying postcards from FoE et al. MPs in many parts of London appear (this is based on limited data) to be getting only limited pressure from their constituents on climate change. Some activists have little trust in the system while others are busy running their local projects etc. It is also the case that many newer activists lack the confidence to lobby directly.

· Anything very much (in some boroughs). Just as there is a wide variation in the levels of activity by local councils so there is also variation in voluntary activity between boroughs. Those most active on climate change tend to be ones where there has either been a long-standing network or group that has taken on the climate change issue as a number one priority or (and/or) where a key activist has successfully ‘moved and shaked’ to develop new activity. But there seem to be several boroughs where action is low-level.

· Sharing of ideas and information. No matter what a group is focused on there are certain elements of core information that are likely to be useful (e.g. information about London and borough-level emissions, differences between London and the rest of the UK etc.). But there is no core information repository, not is there any first point of call for anyone trying to find a group within which to get active. This is leading to a lot of duplication.

· Action regionally (around the GLA in London). The current period of change aside, there remains a low level of understanding in many groups of the Mayors’ Climate Plan, of what is being done to implement this and of how groups could use or interact with this work. The need to monitor work by the Mayor and GLA may become more important if it emerges that environment and climate are being seen as lower priorities.

What should be happening?

It is arguable that effective long term change needs work in three key areas

· Policy – we need strong international, national and local policies to act as a foundation and driver for action.

· Infrastructure – we need a rapid development of the kind of infrastructure that can enable people to live low-carbon almost without noticing.

· Enagagement – we need many more engaged citizens and communities who can support demands for stronger policies and new infrastructure and who can build awareness, engagement and action within their own communities.

Other have made a similar divide into Government (for policy), Market (for infrastructure), and Public (for engagement). However much of the infrastructure change may come from the public sector and also from social enterprises etc.

It is of course the case that the each different groupings identified in the first section will have different priorities in terms of these approaches.

The table below sets out some initial ideas on how these priorities may link to these work areas. Each is allocated six stars – these have been distributed on how the focus of their activity is perceived. It should be stressed that this merely looks at how activities appear to be focused within each grouping. It makes no statement or judgement about the effectiveness of any of the six approaches.

Grouping type:	Action around Policy	Action around Infrastructure	Action around Engagement
Activist protest	***	*	**
Political lobbying	****		**
Local sustainability	**	**	**
Transition towns	**	**	**
CRAGs	*	**	***
Community-based action	*	**	***

A key point emerging from this is that the different approaches have a degree of complementarity. This is reflected in many places already where there is working cooperation between groups.

Better support for collective voluntary activity

It is widely recognised that levels of public engagement on climate change are too low at present. There is awareness but that awareness is not resulting in engagement and action.

Some of these grouping are still focusing on awareness-raising and should perhaps consider their role in this. Most are seeking to build engagement but each is likely to have appeal to certain groups within society. Some indeed may be selling an over-complex or radical message that will not work for certain sectors (but will work for their own core audience). One simple advantage of better cooperation would be that someone seeking to get engaged for the first time in voluntary action could be directed by any group to the one in the locality where their needs and expectations are most likely to be met.

As a network London 21 exists to support and enable local and London-wide activity. There are similar networks in many other parts of the UK. Better support for local activity is going to be important: the question is ‘what kind of support would be both realistic and effective?’.

One thing should be clear at this point. Any attempt to set up some form of large staffed pan-London network that claims to speak for several groupings is likely to be ignored by some, criticised by others and may draw away energy that could be put to better use.

However it is the case that there may be a role for some coordinative support activity for voluntary / activist groups. The elements of this might include:

· A recognised and supported regional climate change information dissemination system

· An informal ‘network of networks’ or some form of linkage to allow for better exchange of information and views between the different groupings

· Skill and capacity-building work (on lobbying, developing engagement, tackling more complex issues etc.)

· Development of a simple core ‘platform’ or declaration or set of principles.

· Information dissemination

This could include a newsletter, a website, e-lists (some already exist), a directory /map of local action, social networking, etc. This would at least ensure that people would have the opportunity to discover what else is happening and for organisations within specific groupings to share their news, ideas etc.

· A ‘network of networks’

Within each group there are likely to be those that see the value of networking. Bringing such people together (with various possible degrees of organisation or informality) would open the doors in the very loose dividing walls that currently exist between many groups.

· Skills and capacity-building

There is already a certain amount of training on offer for local climate activists (through e.g. COIN, Talk Action) and other related training (ETN, Every Action Counts etc.). Many of these are well supported. It may be the case that if there was better support, coordination (and follow-up with those who have been trained) then the effectiveness of local action could rise significantly.

· A core platform

This may be time-consuming and even unworkable but there are regional forums and agencies in every part of the UK. In some cases those active locally on climate have little voice within or influence on such organisations. This might be something to consider for the future.

Comments are welcome on this paper (see introduction) Chris Church June 2008

Dear reader

As Chair of London21 I’ve been thinking about possible approaches to better connectivity and networking around climate change action in London and elsewhere. This led me to a certain degree of analysis of what is going on within the action ecosystem (not just grass roots!).

The result was that short attached paper that looks at the different types of activity going on, what the various types of action are bringing to the table and what this might mean for connectivity.

If you have the time to read it, your comments would be welcome here!

The social impacts of environmental action

Changed Places, Changed Lives: The social impacts of environmental action
The report from BTCV summarises the results of a collaborative research initiative involving BTCV, the Black Environment Network (BEN) and the Evaluation Trust.
It is based on six case studies of work, mostly with groups of people facing some fairly serious disadvantages, including Asian women with mental health problems, travellers in Belfast and refugees in Glasgow. The report and supporting materials can be found at: http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/changedplaces

If you would like a copy send an email to S.Frempong@btcv.org.uk (with your name and address)

This has been a very interesting piece of work. I’ve been involved in drawing together some very diverse case studies. The final report highlights the fact that for many people, especially those in poorer urban communities, interaction with their surroundings includes little or no opportunity to engage with the natural environment. That lack of engagement may be just one part of a wider alienation but it may also contribute to a lack of interest in and respect for the environment. This may affect not just people’s perceptions of their locality, but also of how they see global issues such as climate change and how they engage in a healthy lifestyle.

One conclusion is that over the past decade organisations such as BTCV, City Farms and Groundwork Trusts have developed a new kind of worker, ‘community environment worker’ part environmental project developer and part community development practitioner. Focusing on this kind of work led to a set of guidelines to which an ‘exemplary worker’ might aspire
· The worker is able to work at different levels with individuals, community organisations, other agencies and communities at large to achieve environmental, health and social justice gains.
· She/he recognises that this demands a willingness to engage over a long period of time, building relationships and trust with groups and with people, and that there is an art in recognising and realising opportunities for creative work combining environment with health or other issues.
· She/he will have taken the time to develop an understanding of the way of life of those involved in any specific project and will be able to empathise over the problems they face.
· Her/his skills lie in focusing on the environment and the work in hand rather than on the distinguishing attributes or disabilities of individuals, whilst meeting those individual needs with awareness and sensitivity, and giving space for people to develop in their own way.
· She/he organises individual work programmes within a larger project to match people’s strengths, skills, abilities and aspirations while also ensuring that day-to-day activities are run in ways appropriate to the needs of all those involved;
· She/he helps people feel competent, confident and valued through agreeing and accomplishing tasks, through giving praise and recognition, and through encouraging those involved to take the initiative to find the best ways to continue to access learning opportunities and build their social and practical skills.
· She/he actively encourages participants to take ownership of the environmental work, framing it within their own life and identity.

A second key point is that the results (albeit limited) show a strong commonality in terms of the value of people-centred environmental action as a way to build individuals’ identity, confidence and self-esteem. The challenge arising from this work is to use a ‘socio-environmental’ approach to connect excluded social groups and disadvantaged communities with the natural environment and to do this in ways that helps build that identity and maximises both the social and environmental impacts.

Encouraging and enabling people and communities to see caring for the environment as a central part of who they are is an important aspect of building support for the major environmental and social changes that we need to deliver over the next decade. If this is done well then there will be truly sustainable development and the energy within those communities will be a powerful force for environmental action.

Nuclear power – still no thanks!
This is an article written for the London 21 newsletter (www.london21.org) - comments welcome

It’s 28 years since several thousand people took part in the UK’s largest ever direct action when they climber over or cut through the fence at the site of what was to be the Torness nuclear power station in southern Scotland. That station was built, and the one after that at Sizewell. But that was it for nuclear power. The collapse of Thatcher’s proposed programme of ten new nukes was not just down to the 100,000+ people who went on the UK’s largest ever environmental demonstration on the 1st anniversary of Chernobyl in 1987. It was stopped in its tracks a year later when the exorbitant economic costs were finally made transparent when the electricity industry was set for privatisation.

Now it’s back. With a new angle. The industry used to claim that without nuclear power we’d ‘freeze in the dark’. Now they say it’s needed to stop us cooking in the global oven.

Should anyone be thinking that this makes some kind of sense it might be worth reviewing why we didn’t like it first time. The three key reasons were:

UNSAFE. The risks of a catastrophe may be small, but it’s a very foolish engineer who will tell you that any worst case is ‘impossible’. The risks remain, as do the rather more problematic and immediate risks arising from the UK’s legacy of nuclear waste. High, medium and low-level wastes all pose serious problems for our environment and our health and there is still no effective method of ensuring the long-term security of high-level waste (2.5 Million years is the length of time needed to allow for full radioactive decay of key pollutants) in operation anywhere in the world.

UNECONOMIC. Surprise, surprise: nuclear power has not got cheaper since the 1980s (compare and contrast with wind and photovoltaics). The nuclear station being built in Finland and promoted two years ago as the ‘first of the new generation’ is now way behind schedule and over budget. The government has said that industry will pay the costs of building the new stations, but it’s very clear that the industry will expect subsidies or guaranteed prices. Meanwhile the costs of clearing up the nuclear industry’s legacy to date has hot £73Buillion of our money.

UNNECESSARY. Nuclear power is only a source of electricity – it’s not an oil substitute. We have shot past early targets set for wind power in the UK (the same targets derided as ‘impossible and unrealistic’ by the nuclear industry) but we have still only scratched the surface of the potential for renewables world-wide. Photovoltaics and solar thermal are still hugely under-used, but more significantly our homes and offices still waste far more energy than that generated by nuclear power. More worryingly, there is always only so much capital to invest: if it all gets tied up in nuclear power, the likelihood is that new sources of energy will be starved of investment.

We could go on to talk about the problems of uranium mining and enrichment, and more significantly of creating more material for nuclear weapons (governmental or otherwise), but there’s one final problem.

We have to cut CO2 emissions by 80% or more. To do that we need to make major changes to our consumption patterns (rather more than just giving up plastic bags…) The centralised ‘solution’ of nuclear power sends a very damaging message to consumers: that the industry can generate all the electricity you need and that you can carry on consuming (and wasting) as before. Nuclear power is all too likely to encourage us to carry on in a truly unsustainable direction – and take us further over the edge.