| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| marine_colab:workshop_201505 [2015-05-08 08:43] – [Organisational introductions] maja | marine_colab:workshop_201505 [2015-05-08 09:10] – [Organisational introductions] maja |
|---|
| Andrew talked about the need to find balance between 'small incremental initiatives' and 'large ambitious scope', with lower level interventions (like short term experiments) feeding into big galvanising projects. It might be worth looking at other initiatives that are knocking at the Foundation’s door and using the Marine CoLAB as a sounding board. He urged the participants to ensure 'what we do plays to our unique strengths', for example the connection with Lisbon’s Oceans Initiative with their economic valuation studies, but also focus on communication, social investment, attitude change, (re)framing and public engagement. While working on smaller experiments, larger possibilities should be kept 'in the back pocket', keeping in mind the infrastructure needed to deliver these possibilities, e.g. setting up platforms and protocols to make the larger initiatives happen (c.f. Campaign to end loneliness) | Andrew talked about the need to find balance between 'small incremental initiatives' and 'large ambitious scope', with lower level interventions (like short term experiments) feeding into big galvanising projects. It might be worth looking at other initiatives that are knocking at the Foundation’s door and using the Marine CoLAB as a sounding board. He urged the participants to ensure 'what we do plays to our unique strengths', for example the connection with Lisbon’s Oceans Initiative with their economic valuation studies, but also focus on communication, social investment, attitude change, (re)framing and public engagement. While working on smaller experiments, larger possibilities should be kept 'in the back pocket', keeping in mind the infrastructure needed to deliver these possibilities, e.g. setting up platforms and protocols to make the larger initiatives happen (c.f. Campaign to end loneliness) |
| |
| Maja framed the third Marine CoLAB workshop with a twofold purpose: building on the themes and experiments from the previous workshops and deepening the connection with the participants’ organisational contexts and current work. The day therefore began with introductions. While the first two workshops focused on individual personalities and talents, this introduction presented participants’ professional situations. This showed how the existing work can contribute to Marine CoLAB and perhaps form new connections for (bilateral) collaborations and experiments. After the introduction the participants moved into a discussion on the themes and experiments developed so far. | Maja framed the third Marine CoLAB workshop with a twofold purpose: building on the themes and experiments from the previous workshops and deepening the connection with the participants’ organisational contexts and current work. While the first two workshops focused on introductions to individual personalities and talents, this workshop began with introductions to participants’ professional situations. The participants reflected on how their existing work can contribute to Marine CoLAB. After the introduction the participants moved into a discussion on the emerging themes of Systems Change, Changing Perceptions and Public Engagement. The discussion presented these themes as broad challenges for Marine CoLAB as a whole and looked at the relationship to the proposed (or new) experiments. |
| |
| * Systems Change | As part of a LAB approach we expect to have several feedback loops between the big picture and iterative experiments: while the first version of the experiments was designed in the previous workshop, it is useful to explore if and how the experiments develop the themes (and if they don’t, then adapt or leave the experiments behind). By the end of the morning the aim was to have a better grasp of the themes and their relationship to Marine CoLAB in general and the experiments in particular. |
| * Changing Perceptions | |
| * Public Engagement | |
| |
| The discussion presented these themes as broad challenges for Marine CoLAB as a whole and looked at the relationship to the proposed (or new) experiments. As part of a LAB approach we expect to have several feedback loops between the big picture and iterative experiments: while the first version of the experiments were designed in the previous workshop, it is useful to explore if and how the experiments develop the themes (and if they don’t, then adapt or leave the experiments behind). By the end of the morning the aim was to have a better grasp of the themes and their relationship to Marine CoLAB in general and the experiments in particular. | In the afternoon the group agreed which experiments they would want to develop. They could either continue developing existing designs or finding new ones. Before the designs were finalised, they were tested using a role playing exercise called a pre-enactment. The aim of this lab exercise was to test some of the participants’ assumptions from different points of view, in a safe space. The workshop ended with a design and planning session for groups to clarify their implementation plans (and be able to answer; "why, what, how, who and when" for each experiment). The aim was to provide a concrete action and reflection plan to finish the first small scale experiments by the next workshop, without losing sight of the big picture. The experiments should allow the participants to experience what it’s like to collaborate with each other, to learn their strengths and weaknesses, interests and expertise in a relatively low risk environment. This process also allows the participants to have (some) experimental results on which they can build sound conclusions and develop larger initiatives. |
| |
| After lunch the group agreed which experiments they would want to develop, either continuing existing designs or finding new ones. Before the designs were finalised, they were tested using a role playing exercise called a preenactment. The aim of this lab exercise was to test some of the participants’ assumptions from different points of view, in a safe space, before committing further time and resources. The workshop ended with a design and planning session for groups to clarify their implementation plans (and be able to answer; why, what, how, who and when). This should provide a concrete action and reflection plan to finish the first small scale experiments by the next workshop, without losing sight of the big picture. The experiments should allow the participants to experience what it’s like to collaborate with each other, to learn their strengths and weaknesses, interests and expertise in a relatively low risk environment. This process also allows the participants to have (some) experimental results on which they can build sound conclusions and develop larger initiatives. | After the second workshop some participants voiced concern that we are not thinking 'big' or 'ambitious' enough, and there are others who feel we’re moving too fast and coming up with experiments too quickly. As a small reminder: the LAB approach is an iterative process that can encompass different rhythms at different times, ideally without losing perspective. With each iteration experiments can gradually expand in scope and complexity, while always being able to fall back on a previous, tested experiment, instead of failing massively or having to start from scratch. |
| | |
| Some participants voiced concern that we are not thinking 'big' or 'ambitious' enough, and others who feel we’re moving too fast and coming up with experiments too quickly. As a small reminder: the LAB approach is an iterative process that can encompass different rhythms at different times, hopefully without losing perspective. With each iteration experiments can gradually expand in scope and complexity, while always being able to fall back on a previous, tested experiment, instead of failing massively or having to start from scratch. | |
| |
| Heather Koldewey, who was absent at the previous workshop remarked that there needs to be a clearer way to include any absentees in the experiments. She volunteered to follow up with two absentees to help them find ways they can contribute to the progress of the experiments. There also needs to be a stronger ownership of experiments and one or more people taking responsibility for moving the work forward. | Heather Koldewey, who was absent at the previous workshop remarked that there needs to be a clearer way to include any absentees in the experiments. She volunteered to follow up with two absentees to help them find ways they can contribute to the progress of the experiments. There also needs to be a stronger ownership of experiments and one or more people taking responsibility for moving the work forward. |
| Nicola Frost at [[http://www.fauna-flora.org/|Fauna and Flora International]] works on site-based safeguarding of marine protected areas & sustainable fisheries, with an interest in embedding site-specific work into a wider context (using a systems thinking approach). FFI are operational in 18 countries and work on access, finance, adaptive reflection and incentives for behavioural change. Their work includes community engagement and empowering local stakeholders through capacity building. Although their scale is quite local, they have an understanding of wider issues and look at how national and international challenges might impact the relationship between people and biodiversity. They’re interested in innovative approaches to the governance of marine protected areas, such as co-management in order to incentivise people and change perceptions. Their current focus is on fisheries, pollution, oil & gas. They believe in a constructive engagement with business, including impact investing, improving fishing practice, public/private funding models. | Nicola Frost at [[http://www.fauna-flora.org/|Fauna and Flora International]] works on site-based safeguarding of marine protected areas & sustainable fisheries, with an interest in embedding site-specific work into a wider context (using a systems thinking approach). FFI are operational in 18 countries and work on access, finance, adaptive reflection and incentives for behavioural change. Their work includes community engagement and empowering local stakeholders through capacity building. Although their scale is quite local, they have an understanding of wider issues and look at how national and international challenges might impact the relationship between people and biodiversity. They’re interested in innovative approaches to the governance of marine protected areas, such as co-management in order to incentivise people and change perceptions. Their current focus is on fisheries, pollution, oil & gas. They believe in a constructive engagement with business, including impact investing, improving fishing practice, public/private funding models. |
| |
| Aniol Esteban of the [[http://www.neweconomics.org/New Economics Foundation]] is interested in the fundamental change of economic systems that is required to deliver sustainability & social justice. His work is a balancing act between long term change & short term engagement ('daily corrections') to drive change, which involves a range of different strategies, from changing policy to finding new narratives, capacity building, etc. One of NEF’s key roles is speaking the language of economics. For example, working with economic models of the Common Fisheries Policy to understand sustainability, trade-offs, jobs, CO2e, profit, etc. They look at macro-economic structures that strengthen the economic capacity of marine conservation. A few examples are the 'Marine Socio-Economics Project' (http://www.mseproject.net), 'The blue new deal' restarting marine conservation conversation - prosperity of coastal communities and the EMFF, directing fisheries fund into the 'right directions'. | Aniol Esteban of the [[http://www.neweconomics.org/|New Economics Foundation]] is interested in the fundamental change of economic systems that is required to deliver sustainability & social justice. His work is a balancing act between long term change & short term engagement ('daily corrections') to drive change, which involves a range of different strategies, from changing policy to finding new narratives, capacity building, etc. One of NEF’s key roles is speaking the language of economics. For example, working with economic models of the Common Fisheries Policy to understand sustainability, trade-offs, jobs, CO2e, profit, etc. They look at macro-economic structures that strengthen the economic capacity of marine conservation. A few examples are the 'Marine Socio-Economics Project' (http://www.mseproject.net), 'The blue new deal' restarting marine conservation conversation - prosperity of coastal communities and the EMFF, directing fisheries fund into the 'right directions'. |
| |
| Sandy Luk at [[http://www.clientearth.org/|Client Earth focuses]] on rules, which include laws, but also include spoken and unspoken habits, conventions, codes of conduct etc. They defend the right of people and wildlife to a healthy life. They ensure that good rules are in place and that the rules are clear enough so people can can stick to them. If no good rules exist, they work on reforming them. For example, in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)they work to ensure that the wildlife rules (protected areas) are applied to fisheries (i.e. no exemption for fishing). If good rules exist they ensure their proper implementation. If the rules are broken, they can proceed to legal enforcement through the courts. They are also interested in finding gaps in rule systems and working on voluntary codes of conduct (e.g. sustainable seafood coalition (SSC) working with supply chain codes and labelling codes (defined terms and standards). | Sandy Luk at [[http://www.clientearth.org/|Client Earth]] focuses on rules, which include laws, but also include spoken and unspoken habits, conventions, codes of conduct etc. They defend the right of people and wildlife to a healthy life. They ensure that good rules are in place and that the rules are clear enough so people can can stick to them. If no good rules exist, they work on reforming them. For example, in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)they work to ensure that the wildlife rules (protected areas) are applied to fisheries (i.e. no exemption for fishing). If good rules exist they ensure their proper implementation. If the rules are broken, they can proceed to legal enforcement through the courts. They are also interested in finding gaps in rule systems and working on voluntary codes of conduct (e.g. sustainable seafood coalition (SSC) working with supply chain codes and labelling codes (defined terms and standards). |
| |
| Andrew Farmer of the [[http://www.ieep.org.uk/|Institute for European Environmental Policy]] works on policy analysis of European environmental laws. They work with diverse organisations with an EU focus. They look at rules, gaps, implementation and implementation failures. Considering the complexity of EU regulation, they work on better structuring and formulation of EU environmental law. In the marine field, they work on TEEB analysis for policy makers and analysis of coastal zones. Their work includes training and economics. Andrew works on waste legislation, that has large gaps for marine litter. The gaps are related to 'historical legacy problems (e.g. the Baltic sea), whose effects on the policy need to be better understood and integrated in decision making. Recently they have been involved in the 'Greener Britain' UK environmental policy manifesto (see http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1417/Greener_Britain.pdf), but they usually work more behind the scenes. | Andrew Farmer of the [[http://www.ieep.org.uk/|Institute for European Environmental Policy]] works on policy analysis of European environmental laws. They work with diverse organisations with an EU focus. They look at rules, gaps, implementation and implementation failures. Considering the complexity of EU regulation, they work on better structuring and formulation of EU environmental law. In the marine field, they work on TEEB analysis for policy makers and analysis of coastal zones. Their work includes training and economics. Andrew works on waste legislation, that has large gaps for marine litter. The gaps are related to 'historical legacy problems (e.g. the Baltic sea), whose effects on the policy need to be better understood and integrated in decision making. Recently they have been involved in the 'Greener Britain' UK environmental policy manifesto (see http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1417/Greener_Britain.pdf), but they usually work more behind the scenes. |
| Amy Pryor works at the [[http://www.thamesweb.com/|Thames Estuary Partnership]], a neutral, non lobbying, non advocacy organisation. They are the secretariat for [[http://www.coastalpartnershipsnetwork.org.uk|Coastal Partnerships Network]], their work is hosted by the UCL Vice-Provost for research. This gives them the ability to convene multidisciplinary projects in areas of social justice, marine biology and engineering. Their geographic region extends from the tower bridge to the north sea (possibly up to Chelsea in the future). They are starting to move to EU level (c.f. water framework directive) and work with national frameworks such as the 'catchment based approach' which proves problematic around London (terms of reference). They are involved with [[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thames-estuary-2100-te2100|Thames Estuary 2100]] (TE2100), looking at flood defences to protect London over the next 100 years (including new wetlands) not just for humans but for all species. They work to engage social communities through projects and partnerships, looking at bottom-up co-management, small scale interventions and societal change through apprenticeships and curriculum of the 'River Academy' (transferable skills learned from environmental projects). | Amy Pryor works at the [[http://www.thamesweb.com/|Thames Estuary Partnership]], a neutral, non lobbying, non advocacy organisation. They are the secretariat for [[http://www.coastalpartnershipsnetwork.org.uk|Coastal Partnerships Network]], their work is hosted by the UCL Vice-Provost for research. This gives them the ability to convene multidisciplinary projects in areas of social justice, marine biology and engineering. Their geographic region extends from the tower bridge to the north sea (possibly up to Chelsea in the future). They are starting to move to EU level (c.f. water framework directive) and work with national frameworks such as the 'catchment based approach' which proves problematic around London (terms of reference). They are involved with [[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thames-estuary-2100-te2100|Thames Estuary 2100]] (TE2100), looking at flood defences to protect London over the next 100 years (including new wetlands) not just for humans but for all species. They work to engage social communities through projects and partnerships, looking at bottom-up co-management, small scale interventions and societal change through apprenticeships and curriculum of the 'River Academy' (transferable skills learned from environmental projects). |
| |
| Sue Ranger of the [[|https://www.mcsuk.org/Marine Conservation Society]] was absent, so Louisa mentioned her work with the 'community voice method' bringing new narratives from different views in films, allowing people and their issues to become real to each other. | Sue Ranger of the [[https://www.mcsuk.org/|Marine Conservation Society]] was absent, so Louisa mentioned her work with the 'community voice method' bringing new narratives from different views in films, allowing people and their issues to become real to each other. |
| |
| ==== Emerging Themes ==== | ==== Emerging Themes ==== |
| ==== Pre-enactment ==== | ==== Pre-enactment ==== |
| |
| In the pre-enactment (a role-playing exercise of a situation that could happen in the near future) the two experiment teams met their key stakeholders (played by other participants) whom they wanted involved in the follow-up of their successful experiments. | In the [[:/future_fabulators/prehearsing_the_future|pre-enactment]] (a role-playing exercise of a situation that could happen in the near future) the two experiment teams met their key stakeholders (played by other participants) whom they wanted involved in the follow-up of their successful experiments. |
| |
| <blockquote>Scenario: You have just concluded your successful Marine CoLAB experiment and have presented some of your findings at a prestigious public event. After a long day of presentations, you are hosting a dinner for some people you'd like to involve in a new project. This project will take your experiment to the next level. You would like these people to be involved in the design of your initiative, but you may still have more questions than answers. The dinner is held on a nearby island. There is a 15 minute ferry ride during which you will have a chance to talk to your stakeholders, answer their questions and find potential partners, funders, or anything else you may need for your Marine CoLAB initiative to succeed.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Scenario: You have just concluded your successful Marine CoLAB experiment and have presented some of your findings at a prestigious public event. After a long day of presentations, you are hosting a dinner for some people you'd like to involve in a new project. This project will take your experiment to the next level. You would like these people to be involved in the design of your initiative, but you may still have more questions than answers. The dinner is held on a nearby island. There is a 15 minute ferry ride during which you will have a chance to talk to your stakeholders, answer their questions and find potential partners, funders, or anything else you may need for your Marine CoLAB initiative to succeed.</blockquote> |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/17375881126/in/set-72157650383972831}}\\ | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/17375881126/in/set-72157650383972831}}\\ |
| |
| Feedback from 'stakeholders': | Feedback from 'stakeholders': |
| * [[plastic_pollution_experiment#plastic_pollution_pre-enactment|On Plastic Pollution]] | * __On Plastic Pollution__: look at economic arguments, check if the issue and approach are too 'niche' and examine how to achieve larger systems change; many questions require clearer answers; the format of the public event should take into account the stakeholders; learn to listen better and pay attention to group dynamics... [[plastic_pollution_experiment#plastic_pollution_pre-enactment|more feedback]] |
| * [[http://lib.fo.am/marine_colab/transparency_experiment#pre-enactmentfeedback|On Transparency of Marine Industries]] | * __On Transparency of Marine Industries__: work on clarifying the messages, look at feasibility, capacity, possible conflicts of interest and sensitivity of information, listen to the needs of your stakeholders... [[transparency_experiment#pre-enactment|more feedback]] |
| |
| ==== Implementation ==== | ==== Implementation ==== |
nik