Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- marine_colab:workshop_201507 [2015-07-10 14:34] – [Review of the experiments] nik
+++ marine_colab:workshop_201507 [2015-09-15 09:26] – [Techniques in detail] nik
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 We reviewed the progress and conclusions from three experiments; [[transparency experiment|Transparency of Marine Industries]] and blue divestment, [[plastic_pollution_experiment|Plastic pollution]] from a systems change perspective and [[game_on_experiment|Game On!]].
-The [[transparency experiment|Transparency of Marine Industries]] initiative sought to test the ideas around using transparency as a tool to improve the marine environment. The focus was on mapping existing initiatives, checking the availability of data sources & looking at what data may be required for informed decision making.
+===Transparency of Marine Industries===
-What information is available? an overwhelming amount, making it practically impossible to look at everything. reducing the scope to include available shipping & fisheries data, the conclusion was that info is available, there are still significant gaps since technology is not always good enough to identify illegal fishing (for example). If data is available, it may not always used or discrepancies followed up. shipping data is patchy in places
+The **[[transparency experiment|Transparency of Marine Industries]]** initiative sought to test the ideas around using transparency as a tool to improve the marine environment. The focus was on mapping existing initiatives, checking the availability of data sources & looking at what data may be required for informed decision making. What information is available? an overwhelming amount, making it practically impossible to look at everything. reducing the scope to include available shipping & fisheries data, the conclusion was that info is available, there are still significant gaps since technology is not always good enough to identify illegal fishing (for example). If data is available, it may not always used or discrepancies followed up. shipping data is patchy in places
-The group is optimistic, but still somewhat confused about the scope and depth of the issues. Divestment in seafood companies with poor environmental and legal commitments is seen as viable (especially via pension funds) and there are several ideas about using financial sector as lever. While there are groups currently involved in  divestment programmes, there is a concern that it may not be systemic enough, various initiatives could be brought together.
+The group is optimistic, but still somewhat confused about the scope and depth of the issues. Divestment in seafood companies with poor environmental and legal commitments is seen as viable (especially via pension funds) and there are several ideas about using financial sector as lever. While there are groups currently involved in  divestment programmes, there is a concern that it may not be systemic enough, various initiatives could be brought together. There are good signs for financing opportunities as several investment companies are interested in fisheries reform (fisheries reform report. ref. heather). Scope for open data experiments. does open data, access & hacking a public API lead to new & unexpected results?
-There are some financing opportunities as several investment companies are interested in fisheries reform (fisheries reform report. ref. heather). Scope for open data experiments. does open data, access & hacking a public API lead to new & unexpected results?
+**conclusion**
+  * system mapping was important to understand scope, problems and new requirements.
+  * better data, better use of data, new data required.
-conclusion; system mapping was important to understand scope, problems and new requirements. better data, better use of data, new data required.
+**challenges**
-challenges;
   * further diagnostics
   * crystallise objective -> perhaps focus on IUU (Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing)
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
   * what is the shared toolkit?
-next steps;
+**next steps**
   * clarify - what is the change in the marine system which wish to see?
   * identify & connect with external actors to involve
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
   work on how enforcement authorities can use the available data for prosecution
+=== Plastic pollution===
+The **[[plastic_pollution_experiment|Plastic pollution]]** experiment centred on the question "how could me make London single use plastic bottle free by 2016"
+After some background research conducted in Portugal and UK it was determined that it was not a crazy idea, and while it has a niche focus with a single issue, it is bold enough to be interesting. The experiment involved key informant interviews with 20~30 individuals directly involved with the issue. Data from sewage & waste companies in the UK was referenced. There could be a lot to learn from the various initiatives ot reduce plastic bag use and projects like  [[http://www.litterati.org/|litterati]] for photographing and geotagging rubbish. A ocmplciating factor is that every London borough has a different waste management process, and one of the highest landfill/population ratios in EU.
+**ideas / next steps**
+  * London marathon - reusable bottle design as souvenir
+  * changing ingrained behaviour on plastic as disposable
+    * refill units at coffee shops (for example, sponsorship deals)
+    * the 'considerate hoteliers' project 'fountains for the future'
+  * opportunities to collaborate with existing initiatives.
+  * 'surfers against sewage' proposed a contest to prototype small scale pilot project
+  * pay attention to waste messaging issues (e.g. NW Europe is locked into incineration for power production with existing contracts for waste disposal & incineration. etc.)
+  * a proposed manifesto for the Thames is inthe works, ask each of the next mayoral candidates to sign up?
+  * a closer look at countries such as Denmark and Germany which have existing deposit schemes for glass & plastic bottles. compare reuse and recycling rates (ref. MCS)
+**conclusions**
+   * validated hypothesis as 'not a crazy idea'
+   * have determined ways to talk about issues more clearly
+   * a platform is established (i.e. Selfridges events as an avenue for non-targeted change)
+**questions**
+  * are there ideas around temporal scaling? week -> month -> forever (to align with existing initiatives)
+  * are we compounding environmental issues by removing single use plastic bottles?
+  * what are the impacts of the projected change?
+  * any differences between high density and low density areas?
+===Game On!===
+The **[[game_on_experiment|Game on]]** experiment is looking at way to get the public more involved in influencing decision making process, in particular habitats directive. The experiment involves developing a game (board or computer game) to test the ideas.
+The intitial conclusion is that it probably wouldn't help that much with specific issues, which led to a new hypothesis;
+  * some kind of simulation for NGOs to help decision making wrt. campaigning could improve quality of outcomes.
+  * an advocacy training tool to help NGOs understand legislative process, stakeholder analysis, negotiations
+  * a game aimed at wider public, interested in involved in marine issues would need to be more 'general'
+**Method**
+  * various discussions with young gamers (n=10~15 age ~10yrs) were held
+  * discussions with existing stakeholders were held (internal)
+  * simple example games described
+**Conclusion**
+  * general ocean education game could be interesting
+  * "social innovation exchange" as possible venue for further development -> half day workshop perhaps?
+**questions & comments**
+  * tie in with existing BBC projects, perhaps with new Ocean documentaries
+  * other existing opportunities?
+  * campaign / advocacy game sounds like a good idea (perhaps w. book "How to Campaign" as a basis)
+  * existing game from 'seaworld' (? ask nicola) for advocacy and training
+  * that games could be kept simple for training
+==== Evaluation and Feedback about the experiments====
+(...)
+==== Evaluation and Feedback about the Marine CoLAB so far===
+The participants value above all else the collaboration with everyone involved. They appreciate that the workshops gave them time to get to know each other, to learn about which expertise exist in the group and hear about people’s current work that can lead to interesting contributions to Marine CoLAB. New opportunities emerged for the group as a whole, as well as smaller (bilateral) collaborations. It was useful to spend enough time and several cycles of working on the "big picture", then finding out how to translate it in practical experiments. This translation was not always easy, particularly when the participants’ ambitions are bigger than the time available to implement the ideas in between the workshops. The more concrete the experiments become and more closely related to existing work, the easier it would be to commit time and resources to their development. The themes that emerged from the workshops are interesting, although some of the participants doubt whether they are the best ones for longer term initiatives. The group found it challenging to find the right balance between the lab-approach (i.e. iterative experiments) and the NGO approach of long-term and high-impact campaigns. The facilitated process was valued as a catalyst and a way to challenge and probe the ideas from different perspectives.
+For the future, the participants are wondering how to create initiatives that are greater than the sum of the work they already do as individual organisations. More work on stakeholder engagement is needed, as is finding the right balance of inward and outward focused work. Another concern is whether Marine CoLAB should focus on one or more initiatives. Having one initiative would have the benefit of everyone’s contribution, but it isn’t sure whether the whole group should work on a single issue. Even the participants decide to continue working on existing experiments, they would like to have a way to collect new ideas and a place to discuss and possibly develop them. Towards the end of the scoping phase, as the experiments developed, the participants expressed a need for more open-ended conversations and smaller working groups for specific issues. Time (in between the workshops) and focus (of experiments) seem to have been and will continue to the biggest challenges for Marine CoLAB.
 ==== Retrocasting and Extrapolation ====
-* [[transparency extrapolation]]
+  * [[transparency extrapolation]]
   * [[plastic pollution extrapolation]]
 ====Techniques in detail====
-  * Retrocasting & Extrapolation.
+  * Retrocasting & Extrapolation. (ref. http://lib.fo.am/futurist_fieldguide/retrocasting)
   * Outcome Pathways Design.
-  * Evaluation. (what, so what, now what?)
+  * Evaluation. (what?, so what?, now what?)
-  * critical thinking (6 hats).
+  * six ways of thinking