| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision |
| marine_colab:workshop_201505 [2015-05-08 09:10] – [Organisational introductions] maja | marine_colab:workshop_201505 [2016-08-10 08:10] (current) – nik |
|---|
| 11 November. In the evening of the Marine CoLAB there would be a showing of a (selection from) the CGF funded Marine film festival programme (in a small cinema in Shoreditch). There will be a discussion around valuing the oceans with lab members, funders and other invited participants (~40 in total). | 11 November. In the evening of the Marine CoLAB there would be a showing of a (selection from) the CGF funded Marine film festival programme (in a small cinema in Shoreditch). There will be a discussion around valuing the oceans with lab members, funders and other invited participants (~40 in total). |
| |
| Louisa ended with with a quote from "Playing for Time" by Lucy Neal, that described CGF’s view on what a lab approach should be: a liminal space where possibilities aren’t fixed and the participants inhabit a field of continuous transformation, where trying, failing and trying again is an encouraged practice… | Louisa ended with with a quote from [[http://www.lucyneal.co.uk/#/playing-for-time/4566233512|"Playing for Time" by Lucy Neal]], that described CGF’s view on what a lab approach should be: a liminal space where possibilities aren’t fixed and the participants inhabit a field of continuous transformation, where trying, failing and trying again is an encouraged practice… |
| |
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> |
| __**1. Marine conservation isn't a constraint to economic development**__: One of the widespread misconceptions of marine conservation is that it is a constraint to economic development. In order to change this perception there should be a stronger, more visible **link between 'natural resources' and economic arguments**. For example: | __**1. Marine conservation isn't a constraint to economic development**__: One of the widespread misconceptions of marine conservation is that it is a constraint to economic development. In order to change this perception there should be a stronger, more visible **link between 'natural resources' and economic arguments**. For example: |
| |
| * There are strong economic arguments to increasing the health of a natural asset which connects to **human livelihood** (eg. job creation). | * There are strong economic arguments to increasing the health of a natural asset which connects to **human livelihood** (eg. job creation, see [[gone_fishing_in_the_thames_experiment|Gone fishing]] experiment designed at the March workshop). |
| * Being in closer contact and having more **interaction** with marine protected areas can make a difference in **resource management**. Where is the onus of resource management in various places? How to **bring the ocean closer to the people**? Working with communities with tenure over resources can help. There is always a 'champion' who takes initiative, surrounding communities take notice, which can be a potential source of replication. although it can be quite slow. Locally, awareness could be raised, e.g. that London boroughs are all 'coastal' wrt. Thames estuary. | * Being in closer contact and having more **interaction** with marine protected areas can make a difference in **resource management**. Where is the onus of resource management in various places? How to **bring the ocean closer to the people**? Working with communities with tenure over resources can help. There is always a 'champion' who takes initiative, surrounding communities take notice, which can be a potential source of replication. although it can be quite slow. Locally, awareness could be raised, e.g. that London boroughs are all 'coastal' wrt. Thames estuary. |
| * The perception of marine conservation being a threat to economy is not shared globally, for example in the Philippines marine protected areas (MPAs) are considered aspirational, as something that needs to be invested in. How can this **diversity of views** be made apparent worldwide? How can diversity of views contribute to diversification of livelihoods? How can successes be scaled up? It often looks like there is only 'dabbling' in alternative livelihoods, with a lack of **'viable alternatives'**. | * The perception of marine conservation being a threat to economy is not shared globally, for example in the Philippines marine protected areas (MPAs) are considered aspirational, as something that needs to be invested in. How can this **diversity of views** be made apparent worldwide? How can diversity of views contribute to diversification of livelihoods? How can successes be scaled up? It often looks like there is only 'dabbling' in alternative livelihoods, with a lack of **'viable alternatives'**. |
| * Once a solution is identified, **replication** becomes an issue. There are different methods to either work with individual 'pollinators' or community->community replication, but both are quite ad-hoc and often rely on geographic connections. Are there ways to make this more systematic, more trans-local? | * Once a solution is identified, **replication** becomes an issue. There are different methods to either work with individual 'pollinators' or community->community replication, but both are quite ad-hoc and often rely on geographic connections. Are there ways to make this more systematic, more trans-local? |
| |
| __**2. It is about more than just cost/benefit**__: Cost/benefit analysis provides a skewed method for understanding trade-offs or long term changes. The relationship between costs and benefits often tend to be skewed toward immediate cost reduction: *small costs often over-ride large benefits*. There is a need to change this perception especially for *decision makers*, to allow them to look at the broader picture than the narrow cost/benefit analysis. Which *tools* could they use to include the big picture in their equation? to better understand long term effects? | __**2. It is about more than just cost/benefit**__: Cost/benefit analysis provides a skewed method for understanding trade-offs or long term changes. The relationship between costs and benefits often tend to be skewed toward immediate cost reduction: *small costs often over-ride large benefits*. There is a need to change this perception especially for *decision makers*, to allow them to look at the broader picture than the narrow cost/benefit analysis. Which *tools* could they use to include the big picture in their equation? To better understand long term effects? See [[valuing_what_matters_experiment|Valuing what matters]] experiment designed at the March workshop. |
| |
| A widespread post-GFC perception is that the "environment is a luxury" and revealing 'hidden value' in economic terms has a limited impact (c.f. healthy food). The long-term nature of marine conservation is a challenge from an economic perspective. MPAs work, but in many cases have a time frame that is seen as 'too long' (i.e. at least 5~10 years) to establish, that is usually longer than political and economic cycles. | A widespread post-GFC perception is that the "environment is a luxury" and revealing 'hidden value' in economic terms has a limited impact (c.f. healthy food). The long-term nature of marine conservation is a challenge from an economic perspective. MPAs work, but in many cases have a time frame that is seen as 'too long' (i.e. at least 5~10 years) to establish, that is usually longer than political and economic cycles. |
| |
| __**3. Marine NGOs are not just animal lovers**__: If marine NGOs are seen as more concerned about animals than people only small part of the population is reached. Furthermore, businesses see the work of Marine NGOs as generally being 'bad for business'. More contact with businesses, speaking the language of economics and engaging diverse communities could help change this perception. | __**3. Marine NGOs are not just animal lovers**__: If marine NGOs are seen as more concerned about animals than people only small part of the population is reached. Furthermore, businesses see the work of Marine NGOs as generally being 'bad for business'. More contact with businesses, speaking the language of economics and engaging diverse communities could help change this perception. In the previous workshop, [[charm_offensive_experiment|The Charm Offensive]] experiment was designed to tackle this issue. |
| |
| |
| Systems change can happen through collaboration, by actively looking for 'windows of opportunity' in wider discussions, grassroots initiatives, disruptive business models, etc. The best practices need sharing, especially successful scaling and replication initiatives. A systems-level observation is a way to keep track of relations between deliberate actions. This type of observation makes it possible to find key points of influence, access and change. | Systems change can happen through collaboration, by actively looking for 'windows of opportunity' in wider discussions, grassroots initiatives, disruptive business models, etc. The best practices need sharing, especially successful scaling and replication initiatives. A systems-level observation is a way to keep track of relations between deliberate actions. This type of observation makes it possible to find key points of influence, access and change. |
| |
| Are there common issues (or a single issue) that links all players in the Marine CoLAB? For example: | Are there common issues (or a single issue) that links all players in the Marine CoLAB? See [[system_change_experiment|System Change]] experiment designed at the March workshop. For example: |
| * Sea bed mining issues | * Sea bed mining issues |
| * Plastic pollution: how to analyse it from a systems perspective? could all Marine CoLAB participants use their skills and resources to tackle this issue? how to leverage and transfer best results? can we link water frameworks directive and marine strategy directive using 'litter' as an indicator? | * Plastic pollution: how to analyse it from a systems perspective? could all Marine CoLAB participants use their skills and resources to tackle this issue? how to leverage and transfer best results? can we link water frameworks directive and marine strategy directive using 'litter' as an indicator? |
| To engage the public in a meaningful way, it should be clear who the target audience is, in what are they being engaged, and how, when and where will they be engaged (e.g. divestment re. marine destructive biz, new biz models, etc). Citizen science (including science games, simulations etc.) as a method of engagement has a lot of potential in both public engagement and changing perceptions. It is important that the public has an agency that extends beyond the game or the individual intervention of another sort, to provide new, changing narratives (which can be translated into long term plans) and paints a picture towards a preferred future. | To engage the public in a meaningful way, it should be clear who the target audience is, in what are they being engaged, and how, when and where will they be engaged (e.g. divestment re. marine destructive biz, new biz models, etc). Citizen science (including science games, simulations etc.) as a method of engagement has a lot of potential in both public engagement and changing perceptions. It is important that the public has an agency that extends beyond the game or the individual intervention of another sort, to provide new, changing narratives (which can be translated into long term plans) and paints a picture towards a preferred future. |
| |
| In the previous workshop an experiment was designed to explore public engagement with rules using a game. The hypothesis was that the public could be best engaged at various specific points of legislative process. This would be explored through a game where players would learn about the legislative process and the consequences of different decisions at particular times. The underlying theme was to help clarify people’s relationship to the ocean. In the game there could be progressing levels of engagement, from understanding the problem and then moving to solutions. Games asre seen as having a lot of potential, but it is a potentially difficult channel (kids growing up with games). Games which are seen as 'blatantly educational' are often problematic. Different types of games appeal to different ages and genders, so the challenge would be to create a game which rovides an engaging understanding about the big picture. The journey of the users of the game should extend well beyond the game itself and provide opportunities for changing mindsets in their daily life. | In the previous workshop the [[game_on_experiment|Game On!]] experiment was designed to explore public engagement with rules using a game. The hypothesis was that the public could be best engaged at various specific points of legislative process. This would be explored through a game where players would learn about the legislative process and the consequences of different decisions at particular times. The underlying theme was to help clarify people’s relationship to the ocean. In the game there could be progressing levels of engagement, from understanding the problem and then moving to solutions. Games asre seen as having a lot of potential, but it is a potentially difficult channel (kids growing up with games). Games which are seen as 'blatantly educational' are often problematic. Different types of games appeal to different ages and genders, so the challenge would be to create a game which rovides an engaging understanding about the big picture. The journey of the users of the game should extend well beyond the game itself and provide opportunities for changing mindsets in their daily life. |
| |
| |
| Following the pre-enactment the experiment teams were invited to incorporate the feedback into their designs and to proceed to make the concrete implementation plans until the next workshop. The plans until July 2015 can be found on the experiment pages: | Following the pre-enactment the experiment teams were invited to incorporate the feedback into their designs and to proceed to make the concrete implementation plans until the next workshop. The plans until July 2015 can be found on the experiment pages: |
| |
| * [[plastic_pollution_experiment#implementation|Plastic Pollution]]: a feasibility study and public discussion panel | * [[plastic_pollution_experiment#implementation|Plastic Pollution implementation]]: a feasibility study and public discussion panel |
| * [[transparency_experiment#implementation|Transparency of Marine Industries]]: Mapping and scoping the state of the art in (marine) transparency initiatives, as well as determining key environmental indicators. | * [[transparency_experiment#implementation|Transparency of Marine Industries implementation]]: Mapping and scoping the state of the art in (marine) transparency initiatives, as well as determining key environmental indicators. |
| |
| The experiment teams will take the lead on their respective tasks, and will invite all Marine CoLAB participants to contribute information, expertise, research, contacts and feedback. In the July workshop the progress and possible follow-up will be presented, discussed and evaluated. | The experiment teams will take the lead on their respective tasks, and will invite all Marine CoLAB participants to contribute information, expertise, research, contacts and feedback. In the July workshop the progress and possible follow-up will be presented, discussed and evaluated. |
| |
| |
| | ---- |
| | some [[:workshop_notes]] |
maja