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!