Inception Report

August 2009

A project for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)

Evidence Review: Locality and Community Climate Change Resilience

Workshop Summary Report October 2014

Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited in partnership with Lancaster University, University of Sussex, and Dr Alexia Coke.

Workshop Report

October 2014

Project title:


Contracting organisation:

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Lead contractor:

Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited Address:

1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7QY, UK

Contacts:

Clare Twigger-Ross (Project Director) [email protected]

Report details:

Tel.

020 7407 8700

Fax.

020 7928 6950

Website:

www.cep.co.uk

Report title:

Workshop Report (DRAFT)

Date issued:

October 2014

Version no.:

2.0

Author(s):

Katya Brooks and Rolands Sadauskis (CEP)


Collingwood Environmental Planning 1

Workshop Report

October 2014

Contents 1. Introduction to the workshop .................................................................. 3 Aim ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Participants ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Overview of the workshop programme ............................................................................................................. 3

2. Key points from the workshop ................................................................. 4 Session 1: Introduction by Katharine Knox ........................................................................................................ 4 Session 2: Outlining an approach to community resilience ............................................................................... 4 Session 3: Small group discussion on key questions .......................................................................................... 4 Session 4: Evidence review methodology, progress, initial results and emerging issues .................................. 5 Session 5: Identifying practical examples of locality and community climate change resilience projects ........ 9 Session 6: Small group discussion on approach to considering practical examples ........................................ 11 Session 7: Next steps ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix 1: Participants List ........................................................................ 13 Appendix 2: Workshop PowerPoint Slides ................................................... 14



Workshop Report

October 2014

1. Introduction to the workshop This report provides a record of the workshop ‘Focusing the Evidence: Community Climate Change Resilience Practices’ organised by Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited (CEP), project contractors for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s (JRF) Locality and Community Climate Change Resilience evidence review. The workshop was held at the JRF’s London offices, on Wednesday 1 October 2014. This report draws on notes taken during the learning event as recorded by participants during working sessions (for example, on worksheets, post-it notes and flip-charts), presentations and verbal contributions made by participants during plenary discussions.

Aim The overall aim of the workshop was to provide an opportunity for engagement, collaboration and knowledge sharing between research and practice in focusing and progressing with the evidence review.

Objectives 1. To review our approach to community resilience 2. To discuss our progress on the evidence review, specifically gaps and key questions to take forward; 3. To discuss implications of initial findings of the review for practice 4. To get a picture of current practice across the UK in relation to community climate change resilience, with a focus on : 

Community food growing



Community energy (generation and efficiency)



Community flood risk management

Whilst focusing on these three areas, our interest in hearing about any community-based projects addressing climate change impacts (e.g. water scarcity, heatwaves) was emphasised to participants.

Participants The workshop was well attended with 22 participants in total (See Appendix 1 for the full list), bringing together researchers; practitioners from voluntary and community organisations and local authority; members of the Project Team (three from CEP and four ‘Experts’) and Katharine Knox, the JRF Project Manager. The workshop was facilitated by members of the Project Team.

Overview of the workshop programme The approach to the workshop was intended to maximise opportunities for learning and exchange between all parties, as well as providing valuable input to the evidence review. Table 1 outlines the agenda. Table 1: Workshop agenda Time 10.30 11.00 11.15 11.35

Session Arrival, registration and coffee 1. Introduction and background to the project by JRF 2. Outlining an approach to community resilience  Overview presented by CEP 3. The proposed key questions and conceptual approach  What are your views on these?  What are the implications for the focus of the research?



Workshop Report

11.55 12:45 13.30

14.10

14:50 15.00

October 2014

4. Evidence review methodology, progress, initial results and emerging issues  What are the key messages about gaps and questions to take forward? Lunch 5. Identifying practical examples of locality and community climate change resilience projects  ‘Pop-up’ session: participants will volunteer to give a 2-3minute introduction to a community project  Proposed approach to finding and assessing case studies presented by CEP 6. The proposed approach to considering practical examples  What are your views the range of case studies, the direction to be taken in the research and questions being asked? 7. Next steps Close

2. Key points from the workshop This section outlines key points elicited by the presentations, small group activities and plenary discussions throughout the six main sessions of the day.

Session 1: Introduction by Katharine Knox In her presentation (given without PowerPoint slides) Katharine Knox, Policy and Research Programme Manager for the JRF, facilitated introductions by all participants, outlined the aims of and background to the Locality and Community Resilience to Climate Change evidence review. She explained how the project fits into the JRF’s wider Climate Change and Communities programme, which includes a new website (ClimateJust) currently in development that will provide an online resource for practitioners on issues of social disadvantage and climate change. In the national context, Katharine considered the changing role of public health in response to climate change and questioned whether this will result in greater opportunities to bring resources together.

Session 2: Outlining an approach to community resilience Clare Twigger-Ross presented an overview of the set of assumptions, framings and definitions of resilience we started with along with the approach taken to data collection and analysis, including scoping what the climate change impacts and effects are on communities, developing the search terms and inclusion / exclusion criteria, identifying and gathering evidence, undertaking quality assessment. Initial findings of which are summarised in the Briefing Note circulated prior to the workshop and the corresponding PowerPoint slides are included in Appendix X.

Session 3: Small group discussion on key questions Following on from the preceding presentation, to elicit the views of participants about the proposed approach to community resilience the project team facilitated three small group discussions around the following three questions: 1. Do you have a picture of a climate change resilience community – how far are the definitions suggested consistent with it? 2. From your knowledge of community climate change resilience practices, what are the benefits of conceptualising the topic in the way described in the workshop Briefing Note and presentation? 3. Do you have any concerns about the implications of this approach for understanding and developing community climate change resilience? If so, please note and explain these.

Key points from small group discussions On the whole, participants endorsed the approach to and definitions of community resilience being taken by the project team and found it to resonate with their own experiences as reflected by these comments: “The five resilience capacities are very helpful – an understanding of these will help to link external



Workshop Report

October 2014

agencies and social capital”; “I like the four stages of resilience for communities”1; and, the “reactive / proactive resilience is a useful distinction”. It was suggested that the project should place emphasis on ‘proactive’ resilience but still consider ‘reactive’ resilience as both happen at the same time but to exercise caution in use of the latter due to the fact that “maintaining may reproduce vulnerabilities.” Participants felt it important for the project to not “get too hung up on definitions” and to use “the right”, relevant language for the target audience and/or community to help build the trust and confidence essential for sustained engagement. Participants raised several questions, concerns and suggestions regarding the implications of the approach for understanding and developing community climate change resilience for the project team to consider. One question for the review to address is: Does promoting the idea that communities can be climate resilient create a false sense of security given the uncertainties around climate change and the consequences? Participants highlighted the importance of keeping issues of diversity and equality in the frame and recognising that issues around social capital are a precursor to community climate change resilience. Furthermore, it will be essential for the review to ensure clarity about the strength and quality of evidence being used (this point is expanded on by Professor Gordon Walker in his commentary in Session 7) and the research and initiatives appraised by the review need to be embedded within communities. Participants pointed out that the existing framework does not discuss timescales and recommended that this be addressed.

Session 4: Evidence review methodology, progress, initial results and emerging issues The aim of this session was to facilitate discussion on our progress to date on the evidence review, specifically to garner participants’ perspectives on any identifiable gaps in coverage of the evidence and key questions we should take forward. Participants worked in small groups of two or three people, to consider the eight propositions of pertinence to the research as detailed in Table 3. They were asked to place red dot stickers on the proposition(s) that they feel need further research and to reflect on the following three questions: 1. What evidence supports the proposition? 2. What is the evidence against the proposition? 3. Does this proposition raise other issues for community climate change resilience?

1

The four stages of community resilience can be observed as: resistance, bounce-back, adaptation, transformation.



Workshop Report

October 2014

Key reflections from participants on eight propositions related to the research

Proposition

No. of endorsements

Rank

Table 3: Propositions, as ranked by participants, in order of importance for further research to be undertaken.

1 In areas of vulnerability (e.g. where there are high levels of deprivation in terms of incomes, health, etc.) community climate change resilience is not a priority

6

2 Intermediary = organisations are critical to the development of community climate change resilience

5

2 Effective community = climate change resilience depends on political will and strategic direction at the national level

5

3 Communities that are = resilient to some impacts

3


Key reflections

In support:  Many communities have far more pressing issues than climate change but they have most to gain becoming more resilient to because they are most exposed to climate change impacts Against:  Fuel poverty may be a priority and therefore, climate change resilience is a priority indirectly. E.g. the action of improving home insulation addresses climate change impacts and personal concern (lowering energy bills).  Addressing vulnerability is arguably the best resilience strategy – diversity, equality, empowerment Other issues:  It depends on how ‘resilience’ is framed. Reframe community climate change resilience in terms of jobs, security, etc. to generate engagement In support:  There is a lot of evidence in support of this proposition  From personal experiences, it is important to have an intermediary person or organisation with connections and time to devote to community development activities Against:  The evidence is not being conveyed. Challenge for getting evidence into policy. Other issues:  What do we mean by ‘intermediary’? Should be a trusted organisation. In support:  Strong national framework important to enable communities to take a leading role in their futures, setting statutory obligations, controlling resources and planning tools  Example of Germany and ‘Energiewende’ Against:  Low income communities are less likely to engage with the planning system and use localism powers  Political will only goes so far: “Politicians are not the ones actually doing the work!”  Risk repelling people from participating in community activities and organisations (e.g. Big Society policy) Other issues:  Do local authorities take action because they have a statutory duty? More evidence needed. In support:  The same aspects apply to different groups working on different shocks, e.g. connections, knowledge and skills Collingwood Environmental Planning 6

Workshop Report

October 2014

of climate change (e.g. flooding) are more likely to be resilient to other impacts (e.g. overheating, droughts)

3 Achieving adaptation to = climate change is too urgent to be left to bottom-up initiatives

3

4 Initiatives to promote resistance to specific climate change impacts (e.g. flooding, drought) can preclude sustained community resilience across wider climate change impacts

3

5 Community climate change resilience is only effective if local authorities take a leading role.

2


 Existing, working knowledge of their community: people, assets / resources, support agencies Against:  Differences between community – groups / place  Differences in terminology  More likely to be able to act on but not necessarily more resilient Other issues:  ‘Ownership’ defines and changes discussion In support:  It is not being solely left to bottom-up initiatives. E.g. top down initiatives: National Adaptation Plan, NHS Sustainability Development Unit, Environment Agency, Energy Cities (Europe)  Wider scale: wider impact and achievement Against:  The process for action to happen is faster at the community level; cannot rely on action at State level  Bottom-up initiatives can show the popular demand for climate action and give courage to policy-makers to take action Other issues:  Many top-down approaches rely on engaging with local community actors (often bottom-up). More coordination between bottom-up and top-down initiatives is needed.  Most good case studies will come from intermediary level  Capacity and resources at all levels  The issue of who represents a bottom-up initiative is not benign In support:  Risk fragmenting policy response and funding sources for other resilience initiatives  Effectiveness: there are specific knowledges around community climate change resilience and best practice that may not be broadly applicable Against:  Specific initiatives can be a way to ‘get in to’ other issues / climate change impacts Other issues:  Does successfully acting give you a greater sense of ‘agency’, or does it tire you out?!?  Does being involved in an initiative and becoming resilient to a specific climate change impact make you more aware of and likely to act on another? In support:  Local authorities and politicians can become a blocker or an enabler. Need to make a distinction between councillors, officers and individual advocates Against:  Play an important role but do not necessarily have to be the driver or lead: Feola and Nunes (2012) say a strong relationship with a local authority is a success factor for a transition initiative (not as leading role)  There are other players and models that don’t involve local authorities


Workshop Report

6 Community climate change resilience requires the same capacities as other types of community development

October 2014

1


Other issues:  Important to learn from experience, e.g. West Sussex, Cumbria and Cornwall flood groups; NFF community group development model  Need for empowering transformative individuals wherever they are In support:  Social and community capital are similar for community climate change resilience and community development Against:  Multidimensional nature of and distinctive knowledge needed regarding climate change impacts and action Other issues:  It is taken as a given that a community with strong social capital will be good at resilience building


Workshop Report

October 2014

Session 5: Identifying practical examples of locality and community climate change resilience projects As part of the evidence review we are seeking to identify case studies of practical, innovative examples of community resilience to climate change. We need to examine how any community action relates to the wider context of local authorities, and other networks, with the aim of understanding what sort of role communities can have within that wider framework. Prior to the selection of our case studies we put out a call to participants for examples of community practice to help us to get a picture of current community climate change resilience practice across the UK. Participants were invited to give a two minute overview (or ‘pop-up’ presentations) of a community project or initiative that they have first-hand experience of (as a researcher or practitioner) that is actively working to develop resilience to climate change impacts or transition towards low carbon communities. We thought this would be a great way to exchange experiences between the workshop participants, to help us to get a picture of current community climate change resilience practice across the UK and to identify possible case studies to follow up for the evidence review.

‘Pop-up’ presentations by participants Ten workshop participants presented case examples of local projects and initiatives that aim to increase community resilience to climate driven risks. Table 2 lists the presenters, their affiliation and the case example of community climate change resilience projects and initiatives that each presented. Table 2: Presenters and presentation topic Presenter

Affiliation

Roberta Antonaci

The Conservation Volunteers (TCV)

John Bannister

Guildford Environmenta l Forum, Transition Guildford

Peter Bulmer

West Cheshire and Chester County Council

Alexia Coke

Independent

Jayne Cox

Brook Lyndhurst

Case example presented TCV’s Green Impacts project, UK-wide Through this project, TCV has developed a resilience framework and assessment tool to analyse the impact of volunteering on building community resilience and to identify the elements (under four categories: Activities, Organisation, Connections and Skills and Knowledge) that lead to rapid responses by communities to a shock. Wey Valley Solar Schools project, Surrey (since 2011) A group associated with Guildford Environmental Forum, established after the 2011 prospectus attracted £650,000 from investors in the community. Six schools have been provided with solar PV, a total of 260kw and money comes from the Government’s Feed-in Tariff, guaranteed for 25 years. Any profit over 6% goes to the school and students are involved in deciding how this is to be spent. Snow Angels, West Cheshire (since 2012) Funding received from Defra in 2012 to develop work on community resilience in West Cheshire and the Snow Angels initiative was established, whereby volunteers offer practical support to elderly people during extreme winter weather. The concept is now being rolled out across the county. A video has been created to share knowledge and promote Snow Angels in other communities. Transition Lewes, East Sussex (since 2007) Chosen as a good example of what the Transition Town movement is doing. Transition Lewes was one of the first groups to set up a community energy company (OVESCo). OVESCo had a contract with Lewes District Council to help low income households install solar thermal panels, wood burning stoves, GSHP's, biomass boilers and PV panels. An Industrial and Provident Society has been set up so that the community can invest in renewable power generation projects. Hold a successful annual eco-open house event which shows how to retrofit homes with climate change adaptation technologies. Also set up SNUG social enterprise to promote draft proofing, etc. (with Transition Brixton) and Lewes weekly food market for trading and promoting local food. Cynefin, Welsh Government programme (2013-16) The programme managed by Severn Wye energy agency and being evaluated



Workshop Report

Nicola Hillary

October 2014

Transition Network

Tom Roberts

University of Surrey

Neil Simcock

Lancaster University

Penny Walker

Independent, Founder and Chair of Growing Communities

Tessa Wiley

Big Lottery Fund

by Brook Lyndhurst. It is a place-based change programme exploring new ways for government to work with communities to improve local environments and livelihoods in parallel. It is understood as a way of working and there are no targets. Nine Place Coordinators are funded to devise their own programmes with local communities across Wales. Nine months into the programme there are 50 work streams. Case studies in Rhonda (flood resilience network) and Llanelli. Transition Network: Transition Totnes, Devon and Jamaica Plain New Economy Transition, Boston, USA 400 registered Transition groups in the UK and 1247 worldwide. They’re all doing it differently. Transition Totnes focuses on an economy project for a low carbon future and social wellbeing. A partnership of public, private and voluntary and community sector organisations evaluated the community’s needs and opportunities around food, renewables, retrofitting, care sector and are now taking action. Local entrepreneurs’ forum raised £25,000 in 2013. Jamaica Plain New Economy Transition hold an annual State of the Environment forum and work is framed around jobs, economy and undertaken in both English and Spanish. North East Kent European Marine Site, Thanet coast (since early 2000s) Established under the Habitats Directive. Chosen as a community project that has successfully reconnected local people to the local environment and regenerated the economy of a one of the most deprived areas in the UK, through promotion of eco- and green-tourism. As a result, the community has been persuaded to allow managed retreat instead of building coastal flood defences. RECCKN project: Silverdale, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire A community-based energy ‘demand-reduction’ project with the broad aim to build social capital and networks in a low income and relatively deprived community through the use of public spaces and local events, such as discussion forums (e.g. ‘Energy Question Time’). Events aimed to encourage people to share their own knowledge and experience on energysaving/efficiency (e.g. home insulation, sustainable technologies and general ‘behaviour changes’ in the home that can reduce energy usage and fuel bills). High engagement and knowledge; low budget. Growing Communities: London Borough of Hackney A company where the emphasis is on creating an alternative food trading system, not a local food project: 80-90% of income from trading. Operate a weekly veg box scheme, a weekly organic farmers market and grow food in Hackney and Dagenham. Paid growers, apprentices and volunteers but we cross-subsidise the growing. Want to create jobs and explicitly driven by an understanding of Climate Change and Peak Oil. Sustain Eden, Cumbria (first established in 2009, CLS funding since 2013) Project started in response to floods in Cockermouth in 2009. Worked with voluntary and community organisations to work with communities to resolve issues, such as flood risk and fuel poverty and empower communities to be resilient. New partnership now funded by BLF’s Communities Living Sustainably (CLS) programme. Supported four voluntary organisations to have emergency plans, almost 700 people have attended flood awareness raising sessions; 650 people have attended events where they’ve shared their own expertise, stories, skills, knowledge; and delivered flood defence training.

Commentary from the experts Two of the project team’s experts, Professors Andy Stirling and Gordon Walker each gave a ten minute commentary in response to the presentations.



Workshop Report

October 2014

Prof. Andrew Stirling Professor Stirling commented on the politics and power inside the concept of resilience and also ‘social cohesion’, ‘sustainability’, ‘trust’ and ‘evidence-based’. He suggested that “they are all about preserving things and have an innate conservatism to them” and that we need to confront these issues. When using the term resilience it is important to keep the following questions in mind: Resilience to what? As seen by whom and with what kinds of threat in mind? Are we talking about structure or function, e.g. with food or energy? Are we talking about an institutional structure or infrastructure or the qualities of services being resilient? Likewise, it is important to clarify the use of ‘shock’ and ‘stress’. Ultimately, he feels that to be resilient, communities need to be empowered and to be provided with resources and that “by looking at the devil in the detail, you can see some things are common to all of it that can lead to some explicit framing of transformative social change.” Prof. Gordon Walker Professor Walker’s commentary focused on three points: the concept of ‘community’; evidence for the review; and governance models. He recognised the competition over claiming the term “community” politically and the importance of the national context, giving the example of the impact that the shift in national energy policy in Germany has had on increasing local action. He noted that the ‘Big Society’ had not been mentioned in discussions to date and questioned whether the “flourishing” community action in evidence in the presentations is at all “connected to this, implemented underneath it, in spite of it, or in resistance to it in some way.” There is a real challenge in knowing what counts as quality evidence for this project. Due to the fast-paced and longitudinal nature of projects and process of change, evidence is perhaps best captured by local knowledge and non-academic sources. From the case studies presented, he noted the range of different governance models and relationships (e.g. between local governments and community; local and national governments); business models (e.g. ESCos, social enterprises, community interest companies, etc.) and ways of professionalising community development work, which counter the ‘soft’ impression people may hold.

Session 6: Small group discussion on approach to considering practical examples To gather participants’ responses to the range of case examples presented and their endorsement of the direction to be taken by the research, the project team facilitated three small group discussions around the following three questions: 1. What surprised you from the case studies that you heard? 2. What resonated with your experience? 3. What are the most important things that the case studies could contribute to the research?

Key points from small group discussions What surprised you from the case studies that you heard? Participants were surprised in a positive way by the variety and breadth of examples, experiences, funding streams (particularly that most of the projects had survived over time and found sources of funding) and governance models; and the common emphasis on collaborative approaches in evidence across the case studies presented. Whilst participants commented on the presentations providing strong evidence of successful projects, speculation was made as to the number of successful projects in existence that have not been captured and the number of projects that fail. Specific mention was given to the Wey Valley Solar Schools project in Guildford, Surrey and the amount of money raised in a short timeframe. It was suggested that this could be indicative of what can be achieved



Workshop Report

October 2014

in a wealthy community and that more contextual information is needed to understand the factors in place that have made these examples successful and be able to replicate and learn from them. Some surprise (or lack thereof) was expressed at the inherent ‘familiarity’ and lack of differences and critique amongst the examples given. Suggested reasons for this are the close ties and networks in which community projects operate. What resonated with your experience? Participants were reassured by the focus on community resilience across the case studies as their own experiences suggest that communities will “latch on to resilience before climate change”. The question was raised: How is the extent to which a case example is contributing to community resilience being measured? Is it being measured? The role of trusted intermediaries was suggested as a crucial factor for successful community engagement and that the process of change takes time was commonly cited by participants to resonate with their own experiences. As evidenced in the example of Growing Communities, community interest companies can have a wider impact beyond the community where they originated. What are the most important things that the case studies could contribute to the research? Case studies should include practitioners’ perspectives and enable practitioners to pick up on the success factors in order to replicate their success. Whilst participants felt that case studies should place strong emphasis on reporting successful community projects, it is as important for the evidence review to include case studies of failed projects for learning and sharing of knowledge and processes. Advocacy projects that push the agenda should be considered. Case studies should explore ownership, the role of the funder and the power balance in the relationships between a funder and an initiative and who is seen as the giver or beneficiary.

Session 7: Next steps 

31 October 2014: Interim Report to be submitted to the JRF



7 November 2014: CEP to follow up and finalise examples of community practices in the UK to be investigated and written up as case studies for the evidence review



November 2014: Interviews with case example contacts to be conducted



31 March 2015: Final report to be submitted to the JRF



Workshop Report

October 2014

Appendix 1: Participants List Name

Organisation

Roberta Antonaci

The Conservation Volunteers

Nick Banks

Centre for Sustainable Energy

John Bannister

Guildford Environmental Forum

Katya Brooks (Project Team)

Collingwood Environmental Planning

Peter Bulmer

Cheshire and Chester County Council

Paul Cobbing

National Flood Forum

Alexia Coke (Project Team)

Independent

Jayne Cox

Brook Lyndhurst

Sarah Curtis

University of Durham

Nicola Hillary

Transition Network

Eliot Haworth

Repowering

Katherine Knox (Project Team)

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Richard Nunes

University of Reading

Paula Orr (Project Team)


Agamemnon Otero

Repowering and Brixton Energy, Transition Brixton

Tom Roberts

University of Surrey

Neil Simcock (Project Team)


Andy Stirling (Project Team)

University of Sussex

Clare Twigger-Ross (Project Team)


Gordon Walker (Project Team)


Penny Walker

Independent

Tessa Wiley

Big Lottery Fund



Workshop Report

October 2014

Appendix 2: Workshop PowerPoint Slides



Workshop Report


October 2014


Workshop Report


October 2014


Workshop Report


October 2014
