Climate Change : Local deliberation on a global issue

Last week I was in Edmonton, Canada discussing how to go about setting up a province-wide public deliberation on Climate Change. There are a number of significant challenges around taking forward a regional deliberation on climate change and this is particularly true in Alberta – a province with a thriving economy based on its rich natural resources.

In this post I want to look at just one of those challenges - a question which can be transferred to any regional or local deliberation on climate change:

How can a localised deliberation effectively address what is a shared and global issue?

Just before arriving  in Alberta I read a recently published US Government scientific report which outlines ten key findings on climate change. These findings are bold for a US focused climate change document, and with Obama at the helm, we can expect to see more where this came from;

Ten Key Findings from the recent US Global Change Research Programme report:

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and projected to grow.
3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
4. Climate change will stress water resources
5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
7. Risks to human health will increase.
8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
9. Thresholds have already been crossed and have lead to large – and in some cases, irreversible – changes.
10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.

However, these points are not country or region-specific, and we all know that even decisive action from the mighty USofA cannot address climate change on its own. Climate change is a shared and global concern, involving and affecting all nations and citizens, particularly those from key areas of growth and vulnerability such as India, China, Africa and Brazil.

In Canada, the Albertan economy has benefited enormously from the extraction of natural resources in the North of the province, making it one of the most dramatic Canadian economic success stories of recent years. However environmentalists and sustainability experts consider the oil extraction industry in general and the Athabascan oil sands in particular to be disastrous for the environment.

Yet does now seem as if there is now a real chance for meaningful dialogue and deliberation at this point in time more than any other. A number of influential factors have recently shifted, providing a clear opportunity for progress on climate issues in Alberta for the following reasons:

• It is becoming clear that ‘business as usual’ extraction of resources cannot continue, partly in light of the current economic climate and partly due to increasing global pressure to curb emissions
• The USA, Canada’s most influential neighbour  is taking a strong lead on environmental issues as reflected in proposed initiatives such as Cap-and-Trade
• The scientific evidence base connecting human action to climate change is becoming more compelling, the messaging is more mainstream, and public concern seems to be on the increase in key countries including Canada.
• Influentials are changing their attitudes; indeed one of the authors of the Albertan economic success story, ex-premier, Peter Lougheed, is now looking to re-write the ending by slowing down development and taking a more measured approach to extraction. Although this might not be the answer that green advocacy groups such as the Pembina Institute are looking for – it is perhaps indicative of a rising sea-change in attitudes towards the environment from both political and business leaders.

All the same, due to the significant economic interests that the energy industry brings to Alberta,  it will still be challenging to create a truly open and meaningful deliberative dialogue on environmental and energy issues in the province. What is more, if the shared and global nature of the  issue is not addressed adequately as part of any local deliberation there are a number of serious resultant risks in any such regional process:

1) Potential participants do not engage with the proposed citizen engagement process in the first place as they feel it cannot make a difference. The lack of acknowledgment of the global context of the climate project may leave individuals feeling overwhelmed by the scale of the issue.

2) Participants, once engaged, feel powerless to affect real change, and feel that their contributions are without significant meaning given the scale of the task in hand. Whatever initiatives or actions are proposed at a regional level at the end of an engagement process are seen to be just a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to the true scale of the problem.

3)    Participants do not fully engage with and understand the wider context of the challenge of climate change and sustainability and end up making recommendations based solely on the regional experience (This is not to say that say, the Albertan context is not important and special, but it is not and should not be considered to be the full story.) No region can solve the problems alone.

4)    The benefits and lessons learned through an experimental  deliberative engagement project are not disseminated to benefit or inspire others. This process of communication and ‘reporting out’ could make a significant impact on the way in which climate change is addressed by citizens and decision makers across the globe, as examples of best practice are sought out increasingly by provincial leaders  unsure as to how to proceed on climate change.

How can we address these issues?

I believe that there are a number of factors to consider when planning a regional deliberation on a shared global issue such as climate change. Firstly there is a need to address the scale of the issue in a way which feels empowering, not overwhelming. Humanising climate change and encouraging connections is important to help ensure that potential participants do not feel that they are experiencing and solving the problem in geographic isolation. Connection can help to provide a sense of global perspective and of being part of a larger community.

Secondly, deliberation cannot be confined to linking concerns with discussion -  there needs to be a further connection between deliberation and action. In other words, participants should feel that they are not acting independently, but that their decisions and ideas should be coordinated or  linked in some way across regional boundaries in order to be more effective in addressing the issues.

Finally; learning from any regional deliberation is well-disseminated in order to inspire others to participate in planning their own regional or local deliberations.

Below, I have outlined just a few potential ideas to address the four risks listed above. Ideas below correspond to points above.

1) A global network of interested organisations should be grown around the project and clearly signposted so that participants and decision makers feel, and are, part of a larger more powerful international network of deliberation working to advance the issues in a productive way.

2) Participants could be enabled to connect at some point in the deliberations with citizens in other countries, whether directly over the web or asynchronously through video reports and forums. Twinning of global towns and cities based on a commitment to progress on environmental and economic issues could be facilitated to encourage global dialogue and understanding.

3)    Deliberations should necessarily have some global context and framing, and should not be concerned solely with regional issues. Information and materials provided should have an inspiring global dimension and not focus solely upon the region in which the deliberation is located.

4)    All processes should be designed with replication and transferability in mind. Materials should be produced under the creative commons license for distribution. Translation should be encouraged and made available where appropriate. Regional pilots such as the Alberta project should be seen as innovators, leading the way – but  should also acknowledge that they cannot ‘solve’ the problems alone.

In conclusion, climate change is a global problem requiring an understanding of some part of the complex systems behind the issue before a meaningful and empowering deliberation can take place. I believe that locally focused dialogue and action has a very important role to play in finding a solution, but that any meaningful deliberation relating to policy change must address the global context. Finding the balance between local-global is the key in terms of framing the issues, motivating participation, and for more informed and impactful policy input.

Audit of Political Engagement : Duty to Involve

The Hansard Society published its latest Audit of Political Engagement on April 1st. Makes for a fascinating read considering how much energy has gone into meeting NI4.

(NI4: National Indicator4 is a benchmark by which local authorities are judged on how empowered people feel at a local level.)

I have highlighted some of the most interesting parts from a public engagement perspective here below in green.

Perceived influence over decision-making at the local and national levels
An overwhelming majority of the public feel they have ‘not very much influence’ or ‘no influence at all’ over decision-making in both their local area (73%) and the country as a whole (85%). However, more people feel they have an influence in their local area than in the country as a whole (25% versus 14%).

So it seems as if there is a swing towards local influence rather than national, yet still the positive results are very low overall showing that the public at large still feel disengaged from the policy decisions that affect their lives.

Reasons for not feeling influential in decision-making
The most commonly cited reasons for not feeling influential in decision-making point to a belief that politicians and the political system overlook the public’s views. The top two answers, ‘nobody listens to what I have to say’ (29%) and ‘decisions are made without talking to the people’ (20%) convey a strong feeling among the public that they are ignored by decision-makers. Other popularly cited reasons include ‘the system doesn’t allow for me to have an influence’ (19%) and ‘politicians are just out for themselves’ (17%).

So, we have more opportunties than ever before to be listened to through a variety of initiatives at local and national levels – yet still people feel as if their input is not taken into account, that decisions will be made without them.

Desire to be involved in decision-making
Half the public do not actually want to be involved in decision-making in their local area. Even more – 55% – do not wish to be involved in decision-making in the country as a whole.

This is really the most interesting one for me – about half of us just don’t want to be involved… why is this – I have a number of ideas:

1) because we feel like we’re not being listened to by those in power as mentioned above.

2) We’re too busy and tired to get involved anyway, we have better things to do with our time (see below.)

3) The formats for engagement that exist require alot of time and effort for people to participate in them effectively-in other words, traditional methods are still letting us down.

4) The effects of ‘consultation fatigue’ or cynicism increase owing to many meaningless consultation tickbox exercises. These create a vicious circle, bringing down the standards and reputation of public involvement across the board, and reaffirming people’s feelings of not being listened to.

Barriers to participation among potential participants
People who do not currently feel that they have an influence in decision-making – but who say they would like to be involved – were asked what factors, if any, prevent them from doing so. Nearly half (40%) cite lack of time as the main reason.

Let’s have a quick dose of realism to finish off – it seems like we basically have better things to do with our time! The experience of public involvement at national or local level should be a pleasure, not a pain – it is just one of many activities and commitments that competes for attention in people’s lives. Too often, still, it is an uninspiring experience for those who do actually turn up at the town hall.

The Duty to Involve (which requires local government to involve citizens in decision making as a matter of course) has just come into play as of April 1st. I just hope that it leads to higher quality, more considered consultation and involvement – not just MORE consultation and involvement. If this is the case, then we should expect to see even worse results in these areas in next year’s audit.

So – if we want people to engage with services, with local decision making and with policy formulation then we are going to have to try a damn sight harder to make those processess better; making them more

1) Genuine

2) Open and Inviting

3)Enjoyable

4) Responsive (ie. tell people what happened afterwards.)

I am sure there are a few more to add to this… any ideas?

Citizenship: Passive, and devoid of erotic promise?

In between drinking tea, browsing Which? for camcorders, and packing for my holidays  I’ve been thinking about how we perceive ourselves in relation to society… or more specifically – how uninspiring and lacking in appeal the notion of ‘citizenship’ is…. As Barbara Ehrenreich put it when talking of the public sector:

“Everything enticing and appealing is located in the (thoroughly private) consumer spectacle. In contrast, the public sector looms as a realm devoid of erotic promise.”

This made me go back to the ”Citizens or Consumers” study (Lewis, Inthorn, Wahl-Jorgensen, 2005) which looked into portrayals of the public by US and UK news media over a set period of time in 2001-2002. Two insights that were supported by this report and study of over 8000 news media portrayals of members of the public were that:

1) “Instead of beginning with public opinion or the action of citizens and using this to address the politicians,the news media begin with the politician’s agenda and then invoke the actions, thoughts or feelings of citizens in response to this agenda.” (ie. the public is cast in a role of respondent, rather than activist - news is generally produced in a top-down, expert-led way.)

2) “The great majority of references to citizens or public opinion in the news- over 95% – are not based on any identifieable sources of evidence.” (ie. there are alot of ‘the public believe this, most people think that’ type of claims being made in the press which are largely unfounded… again, the public is pushed into the backseat, with no active role.)

If the public is consistently portrayed as being passive and responsive rather than active and agenda-setting, and if centrally controlled news media still has a profound influence on our self-perception as a society (whether accessed online or off); then what does this mean for individuals’ attitudes to the worth of individual behaviour change and the future of consumerism in an environmental context?

‘Consumer’ or ‘citizen’ – each are likely to have quite different personal responses to the challenge of climate change. So how far does the media impact on our self-perception in taking up either one of these roles, and therefore our willingness to act altruistically for the good of society?

Rather than think about this myself any further (as I do have quite alot of packing left to do) I’ll leave you with another couple of quotes on this relationship between how we perceive ourselves as being active or passive and the relatively short term thinking that underpins our value system. 

First quote is from Victor Lebow, a retail analyst working post WW2 (1955):

“Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and selling of good into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction in commodoties… We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing rate.”

This seems more relevant than ever to me, but I still want to buy that camcorder.

The second  quote is from the environmentalist Donella Meadows (2001):

“The Earth says: money measures nothing more than the relative power of some humans over other humans, and that power is puny compared with the powers of the climate, the oceans, the uncounted multitudes of one-celled organisms that created the atmosphere, that recycle the waste, that have lasted for three billion years. The fact that the economy, which has lasted for maybe 200 years, puts zero value on these things means only that the economy knows nothing about value – or about lasting.”

This seems to put things into context, though not sure about the ’Earth says’ bit…

Anyway, the authors of “Citizens or Consumers” make some interesting suggestions as to how the portrayal of publics by news media could be altered in order to encourage a more lively and active citizenship. They say for example, that by using polling data in a more bottom-up and active way; “we might begin with what people want and then ask the politicians to respond to those demands.” I  think this has great potential for a more meaningful and useful interaction between media, publics and politicians and seems particularly relevant to the climate change debate in terms of releasing deadlock on tough policy decisions.

Also, trends towards a more networked journalism have been on the increase (possibly) since the publication of the ’citizens or consumers?’ study … so when might we start to see more user-generated policies where citizens are enabled to play an active role rather than to respond by ‘buying’ or ‘not buying’ through the ballot box?

Howver, in the spirit of a long term planning approach I’m going to spend a bit more time mulling over what a sexy/cool/remotely appealing ’citizenship’ might look like while I roam around  the lowlands of Scotland. Must go and finish that packing….!

Community Cohesion and Local Government

Involve  have just produced a really interesting new study looking at community cohesion and participation.

The report is available to download for free here.

Karin Gavelin, one of the authors has written an article about the findings here.

An extract from that article is below. I highlighted some of the points that really stand out for me.

“Many of the people we spoke to welcomed the significant investments that  government is now making to support cohesion and integration, as set out in the government’s response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion.

However, they also raised concerns about the ability of national government to succeed with an agenda that is ultimately about building relationships at the neighbourhood level. They spoke of the spontaneous ways in which people interact with each other locally; meeting at the school gates, in the post office or walking the dog. They argued that for many people it is these casual interactions with other locals, perhaps not more than a nod and a smile on the way to work, that makes them feel connected to the place where they live. In contrast, a local authority initiative to build community cohesion through public participation can come across as contrived.

The idea that community cohesion can be built through public debates about citizenship or moral values was met with particular scepticism from the people in our study. Many felt that such exercises are just too far removed from the real-life problems and inequalities that are at the root of the divides and tensions in Britain’s communities.

As one community development worker commented: “Trying to achieve cohesion is a tall order when people are living in deprivation and perceive the authorities to treat them unfairly.” Other times, an activity will fall flat simply because the local authority has yet to learn that just opening the doors to the town hall will not be enough to draw in the crowds, or indeed make much difference for wider community relations. Many people will not take the time to attend events run by the local council, but they may have plenty to say if the council comes to them.

Again and again, the people we spoke to stressed that social relationships are unlikely to flourish in a formal political setting. If local authorities want to improve community relations they need to tap into and learn from the ways that people interact organically within communities, rather than solely add more opportunities for participation in council activities. Moreover, for any participation activity to have resonance with local residents, it needs to build on issues that they care about, rather than the visions and rhetoric of civil servants and elected members.

For local authorities, this means that before they embark on any activity involving the local community, they need  to stop and take stock. The research shows that it pays to take the time to find out what is already going on in the area: who lives there, what motivates people, what connects and divides them? In practice, this means going to where people are, whether at the school gates, in sport centres, the corner shop or a local pub, rather than expect people to show up at the town hall. It means talking to local residents to find out what they care about, and then bring them together around real-life issues that connect them.”

PS. The report is called “Everybody needs good neighbours”. I never did get over Helen Daniels’ death…

Public Engagement in Local Government Conference

Went along to speak at an engagement conference yesterday. Here’s a selection of themes that came up around the room in the session I attended:

1. How to avoid the problems presented by traditional ‘town hall’ meetings.
2. Are we ‘marginalising the mainstream’? Engagement funding is targeted at deprived areas (and with good reason) but who else is getting left out at the community level?
3. People still don’t know who represents them – the elected representative to citizen ratio is so high
4. We may be in danger of making communities ‘responsible’ for solving their own problems
5. Tension and confusion between representative and participative democracy – clarity and boundaries needed
6. How do we ‘mainstream’ engagement so it becomes more than a ‘3yr wonder’?

I have a few initial ideas and responses to two of those more practical points, others need more thinking-time and discussion. All of them need more heads working on the subject and sharing ideas

The problem with town hall meetings

You could try hosting your meeting in a community venue at more convenient times of day than weekday evenings. With Involve I’ve been working on the Say&Play approach where a school fun day is used as the site for a consultation and so attract mums and dads with caring responsibilites can bring their children with them to the event.

There are lots of different formats other than a Q+A session which can get dominated by the same voices and can put off potential participants at their first meeting. Try a World Cafe perhaps – look at www.peopleandparticipation.net for more ideas to make your meetings more interesting and interactive.

Finding your representative

Online tools are making it much easier for people to find out who their elected representatives are but also to interact with them. Sites like WIMPS are using postcode searches (combined with great video content) to match young people with their representatives. Council websites are catching on too – see Westminster’s postcode search here.

Apart from finding out the name and contact information for your representatives, a whole lot more can be achieved in terms of participation when they go online and seek to engage with communities by blogging. This way a 2-way conversation is instantly made possible.

Here are a few examples of councillors wot blog:

Antonia’s Blog

Ann Garner

Iain Lindley

Hope those quick reflections give some pause for thought. I’ll be picking up on the other issues in separate blogposts in future.

Also will be sharing my presentation on slideshare – as soon as I get the images to work properly! (Who would use new technology eh??)

 

 

 

 

 

Audit of Political Engagement

Read this year’s Audit of Political Engagement

The Hansard Society have produced an Audit of Political Engagement every year since 2003. This body of work has developed into a valuable analysis of citizen engagement over this period. This year’s edition has a special focus on the constitution in light of current reform proposals.

Juicy bits include:

Efficacy of participation

Less than a third of the public believe that ‘when people like me get involved in

politics, they really can change the way that the country is run’ (31%), while 42%

disagree with this statement.

Around half of the public have never heard of or know hardly anything at all about the

constitutional arrangements governing Britain. In fact, more people claim to know

about the European Union than the constitutional arrangements in Britain.

Out of 11 key constitutional issues facing the country, there are none which more

than half of the public feel they understand.

Factoid: I actually feature in a prior edition of the Audit looking very very short.