Planet 2050 Workshop October 26-31st, Lund Sweden

At the end of some leave in October, I have been invited to attend a workshop called the Planet2050 in Lund, Sweden, from the 26th to the 31st.

http://www.theplanet2050.org/

While there, I’ll be sharing insights and lessons from EPA’s Rising Above Hot Air workshop on Tuesday September 30th.

That said, frankly, I am humbled by the attendance list, and need some help from people back home. I will be writing up a day journal of the workshop on a blog, summarising and reflecting on proceedings. I am inviting comments and responses from interested people, which I’ll try to share at the workshop, and after.

The aim of the workshop is to

(i) describe a number of desirable futures for Earth between the years 2030 and 2050;

(ii) explore pathways to move from the present situation toward those futures; and

(iii) identify more immediate constraints to, and opportunities for, moving human environment systems onto the more desirable pathways.

Each participant has been asked to provide a short vision statement for a desirable future and pathways there, which I attach for your information.

The organisers intend a book to come out of it, amongst other communications.

 

 

Weathercocks and signposts

This paper reviews the value of two approaches to behaviour change for activist and non governmental organisations – the authors are from WWF’s strategies for change project. The two approaches explored are a recently very popular (social marketing) based approach versus an alternative approach more common in politics(framing / identity and values based).

I have been thinking that its implications for environmental NGOs (whom it is written for) are a bit different than its implications for environmental practitioners more broadly (who have different levels of resources, and often different goals).

A friend who sent it to me earlier is one with whom I’ve had many passionate arguments with about whether or not its most important to go for values or behaviour change.

The worry for me of this paper for activist organisations in particular is that this may be the rationalisation for moving away from ‘client’ based engagement that people uncomfortable with marketing based approach have been waiting for (starting where the people are at, rather than where you are at, and working from there is what I love about marketing approaches). The danger here is of change agents ending up to talking about ‘to themselves, about themselves’ if you go on the Jason Clarke principle that change agents are fundamentally different from the broader population. Certainly research from the NSW ‘who cares’ series suggests that people who integrate knowledge, attitudes and behaviour consistently are far from a majority in the population (see the market segmentation in the 2006 report).

While I believe the authors of ‘weathercocks’ make a genuine effort to be broad in their consideration of the contributions of marketing based approaches, they do state an intent to make an argument for a shift away from them for environmental NGOs. They emphasise the need for different strategies for their sector, but I unconvinced that they’ve really added anything new to a well rounded approach to behaviour change for everyone else with this critique , and may be neglecting its contribution to their own sector – there are more holistic approaches to environmental change based on marketing than the ‘foot in door’ approach

Maybe this isn’t such a big deal – I can’t get away from the thought that its really about points of entry into the immensely complex task of intentional social change – it follows that different players would have different strengths and opportunities to contribute. But I do hope that a new values based approach for NGOs flowing from this way of thinking is engaging of the broader populations values, rather than back to the one way self expression of some environmental change approaches….