Yesterday I was at a presentation, watching our client deliver the presentation we had helped write and create.
The subject was energy and carbon reduction - two issues that are linked.
We were at the clients' conference facilities in Berkshire, a purpose built conference centre with numerous meetings rooms. On the door outside our room it clearly stated the subject and title of the presentation.
When I arrived the first thing I did was make my way to the coffee machine - as you do when you arrive at work. Whilst there I overheard two ladies, who clearly looked after the running of the building, discussing whether they should turn on the lights in the central coffee area. It had natural daylight and it was bright outside.
"No" replied one of the ladies "Let's save the energy and cut our carbon."
They had not seen the presentation, they didn't really know what was going to be said but they gathered all they needed from the title on the door and that was enough to raise awareness and for them to take energy and carbon into consideration when making their decision.
What more could we ask for.
Saturday, 26 May 2012
Raising Awareness
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Who gets to decide?
So I hear that Donald Trump, or 'Billionaire Donald Trump' as he is known in most media, will be addressing the Scottish Parliament today arguing against off-shore wind energy on the basis that they are not financially viable and they will ruin tourism.
Hmm. Interesting.
Surely Trump has heard of economies of scale - the more you build/buy the cheaper the unit cost. Ruin tourism? I visit Scotland every year, I pass wind farms in the highlands but my overall experience of that wonderful part of the world is not tarnished.
Trump of course is the same man that bullied the residents of Aberdeenshire in his quest to build a golf course - like Scotland needs another gold course!
Apparently he intends to use the same intimidation tactics, backed up by his wealth to bully the Scottish Parliament against building an off-shore wind farm, which is within view of his new golf course resort.
The question in my mind is whether any of us have the right to prevent a scheme that will provide sustainable energy, reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
I hear the argument that says 'it doesn't look nice' but frankly, neither does the M25.
The 'countryside' as we like to call it, hasn't looked the same for thousands of years. We have built villages, towns, roads, bridges, railways, farms, and altered the land to what we think now looks nice but ask your grandparents, they'll probably have a different view.
The sea is the same, we might think it is untouched but beneath the surface we have left our marks.
My doubts regarding wind farms of any sort are for the safety of birds, bats and flying invertebrates but Trump isn't sticking up for them (and it might be a bit hypocritical of him to do so).
But do any us get to oppose something that will sustain future generations? Is it right that those with deep pockets get an audience and threaten to use their cash to stall the process? Is it all right for us to 'live for today' and 'to hell with tomorrow'?
Fast forward to 2030: 'We apologise for the disruption of energy supply to 3 days a week, this is because fuel from Russia and China is currently being rationed. In hindsight we probably shouldn't have listened to Billionaire Donald Trump and fellow protestors who opposed the installation of wind generated energy back in 2012. But hey ho.'
Hmm. Interesting.
Surely Trump has heard of economies of scale - the more you build/buy the cheaper the unit cost. Ruin tourism? I visit Scotland every year, I pass wind farms in the highlands but my overall experience of that wonderful part of the world is not tarnished.
Trump of course is the same man that bullied the residents of Aberdeenshire in his quest to build a golf course - like Scotland needs another gold course!
Apparently he intends to use the same intimidation tactics, backed up by his wealth to bully the Scottish Parliament against building an off-shore wind farm, which is within view of his new golf course resort.
The question in my mind is whether any of us have the right to prevent a scheme that will provide sustainable energy, reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
I hear the argument that says 'it doesn't look nice' but frankly, neither does the M25.
The 'countryside' as we like to call it, hasn't looked the same for thousands of years. We have built villages, towns, roads, bridges, railways, farms, and altered the land to what we think now looks nice but ask your grandparents, they'll probably have a different view.
The sea is the same, we might think it is untouched but beneath the surface we have left our marks.
My doubts regarding wind farms of any sort are for the safety of birds, bats and flying invertebrates but Trump isn't sticking up for them (and it might be a bit hypocritical of him to do so).
But do any us get to oppose something that will sustain future generations? Is it right that those with deep pockets get an audience and threaten to use their cash to stall the process? Is it all right for us to 'live for today' and 'to hell with tomorrow'?
Fast forward to 2030: 'We apologise for the disruption of energy supply to 3 days a week, this is because fuel from Russia and China is currently being rationed. In hindsight we probably shouldn't have listened to Billionaire Donald Trump and fellow protestors who opposed the installation of wind generated energy back in 2012. But hey ho.'
Monday, 9 April 2012
In praise of the hedge
Often they look slightly unruly, a little unkempt and without the crisp edges and uniform attributes that we seem to like in our gardens and neatly ploughed fields but hedges are amazing.
A hedge is often made up of a number of shrubs, trees and wild flowers, and in some cases they date back hundreds of years.
Oliver Rackham, who knows a thing or two about the countryside, argues that hedges became a natural replacement for the loss of woodland that was often cleared to make way for development or agriculture.
Once the humble hedge was the natural pesticide. A home for bug eating birds and insects that would feed on those pesky pests that enjoy taking a share of the crop. Birds would fly into the crop pick off the 'pests' and head back to the hedge.
The hedge is a food parlour, nursery, home and security guard. It also prevents soil erosion by acting as a windbreaker and the many species it is made up of improve air quality and lock-in carbon dioxide.
Alas the invention of the tractor and the combine harvester meant that small fields bounded by hedges were unproductive and so the hedges were lost, the fields made bigger and the natural pest control system was replaced by harmful sprays.
And so the insects and the birds and the mammals that relied on hedges went......? Went where?
Aerial photographs taken during the second world war mean it is possible to conclude that since the 1950s we have lost about half the hedges in England, that's over 200,000 km of hedgerow.
I'm reminded of this because I've recently seen about a quarter of a mile of hedge removed from a roadside near where I live. Presumably this is a precursor to development but why the hedge couldn't be retained I don't know.
And having spent the weekend in Devon and watching how quickly a huge housing development alters the landscape I'm left wondering what the birds are going to do when they start drifting back from Africa and Southern Europe to breed because one thing is for sure - there ain't as many options today as when they left at the end of last summer.
So next time you walk past a hedge with nettles on the ground, a bit of hawthorn poking out and some old beech weaving through, just think what good it is doing.
A hedge is often made up of a number of shrubs, trees and wild flowers, and in some cases they date back hundreds of years.
Oliver Rackham, who knows a thing or two about the countryside, argues that hedges became a natural replacement for the loss of woodland that was often cleared to make way for development or agriculture.
Once the humble hedge was the natural pesticide. A home for bug eating birds and insects that would feed on those pesky pests that enjoy taking a share of the crop. Birds would fly into the crop pick off the 'pests' and head back to the hedge.
The hedge is a food parlour, nursery, home and security guard. It also prevents soil erosion by acting as a windbreaker and the many species it is made up of improve air quality and lock-in carbon dioxide.
Alas the invention of the tractor and the combine harvester meant that small fields bounded by hedges were unproductive and so the hedges were lost, the fields made bigger and the natural pest control system was replaced by harmful sprays.
And so the insects and the birds and the mammals that relied on hedges went......? Went where?
Aerial photographs taken during the second world war mean it is possible to conclude that since the 1950s we have lost about half the hedges in England, that's over 200,000 km of hedgerow.
I'm reminded of this because I've recently seen about a quarter of a mile of hedge removed from a roadside near where I live. Presumably this is a precursor to development but why the hedge couldn't be retained I don't know.
And having spent the weekend in Devon and watching how quickly a huge housing development alters the landscape I'm left wondering what the birds are going to do when they start drifting back from Africa and Southern Europe to breed because one thing is for sure - there ain't as many options today as when they left at the end of last summer.
So next time you walk past a hedge with nettles on the ground, a bit of hawthorn poking out and some old beech weaving through, just think what good it is doing.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
What was the point?
News last week that the journalist Mike Daisey lied and contrived his sensational story about the wicked goings-on in Apple's supply chain has done a huge disservice to businesses who are trying to be more sustainable.
Daisey claimed that Apple's supplier Foxconn was responsible for employing underage workers, poisoning and maiming, all claims later disputed by his own Chinese interpreter.
So what has Mr Daisey achieved? He certainly upset Apple and made a few people think about what they were buying but the real damage has been the credibility of investigative journalism.
I believe that big corporations should have their environmental credentials scrutinized and that they should be held to account by the public, through good journalism. But who is going to believe another story about Apple? What big organisation that is exploiting a Chinese workforce will get away with it? What broadcaster, paper or magazine will want to run the risk of being the next "This American Life" ?
At a time when we want to make the world a better place, more sustainable and environmentally connected, this type of irresponsible journalism helps those scrupulous business hide what they are doing and detracts from all the good things that are organisations are achieving.
Daisey claimed that Apple's supplier Foxconn was responsible for employing underage workers, poisoning and maiming, all claims later disputed by his own Chinese interpreter.
So what has Mr Daisey achieved? He certainly upset Apple and made a few people think about what they were buying but the real damage has been the credibility of investigative journalism.
I believe that big corporations should have their environmental credentials scrutinized and that they should be held to account by the public, through good journalism. But who is going to believe another story about Apple? What big organisation that is exploiting a Chinese workforce will get away with it? What broadcaster, paper or magazine will want to run the risk of being the next "This American Life" ?
At a time when we want to make the world a better place, more sustainable and environmentally connected, this type of irresponsible journalism helps those scrupulous business hide what they are doing and detracts from all the good things that are organisations are achieving.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
The management and reality disconnect
If we have learned anything over the last few years about businesses and their environmental objectives it is this:
I've lost count of the number of times we have been told that middle management are the problem, when in fact middle management would love to help but they don't know what is expected of them.
All is not lost for environmental and sustainability managers though.
If senior management think the business is doing well with its environmental agenda, imagine how impressed they will be when it really is. If your business or organisation has a policy then you have permission to deliver the objectives.
I should point out that we are very fond of the phrase 'seek forgiveness not permission' - saves a lot of time and tends to lead to things actually getting done.
All you need now is a bit of help and a simple process. This is what we do:
Then discuss what everyone thinks the objectives are and why. The 'why' is crucial. Remember this is a discussion, it is non-directive.
Then ask the group to explain what strategy there should be for delivering the objectives.
Next, identify the different audiences and what the high level message for each audience should be. Messages should be relevant to the audience so what you say to your customers, suppliers, and staff will be slightly different. We did this exercise a few months ago and identified 14 different audiences. For each audience write a one-liner for every objective.
Finally work on the communication skills of those in the room to help them deliver the messages. They might need a presentation, some literature, a video or just confidence.
Then report back to management in six months time with news of just how far you've got with your objectives.
www.crexgroup.com
- Senior management will tell you they are doing well
- The business will almost certainly have an expensively designed document
- Anyone with 'environment' or 'sustainability' in their job title suffers from frustration brought on by a lack of universal support
I've lost count of the number of times we have been told that middle management are the problem, when in fact middle management would love to help but they don't know what is expected of them.
All is not lost for environmental and sustainability managers though.
If senior management think the business is doing well with its environmental agenda, imagine how impressed they will be when it really is. If your business or organisation has a policy then you have permission to deliver the objectives.
I should point out that we are very fond of the phrase 'seek forgiveness not permission' - saves a lot of time and tends to lead to things actually getting done.
All you need now is a bit of help and a simple process. This is what we do:
- Policy
- Objectives
- Strategy
- Messages
- Communication
Then discuss what everyone thinks the objectives are and why. The 'why' is crucial. Remember this is a discussion, it is non-directive.
Then ask the group to explain what strategy there should be for delivering the objectives.
Next, identify the different audiences and what the high level message for each audience should be. Messages should be relevant to the audience so what you say to your customers, suppliers, and staff will be slightly different. We did this exercise a few months ago and identified 14 different audiences. For each audience write a one-liner for every objective.
Finally work on the communication skills of those in the room to help them deliver the messages. They might need a presentation, some literature, a video or just confidence.
Then report back to management in six months time with news of just how far you've got with your objectives.
www.crexgroup.com
Monday, 27 February 2012
Perhaps Dawn Porter should hold a jumble sale instead?
So 12 lucky projects get to share £7.5 million to create Nature Improvement Areas (NIA).
Unfortunately the other 64 contenders 'leave with nothing' as they say on the best game shows.
If my maths is correct each NIA will receive roughly £625,000. And this is to reverse the devasting decline in quality and loss of habitat that has been left unchecked and under funded for decades. Is this really what Professor Lawton was hoping for when he described the appalling state of our green spaces?
Is it really going to make that much of a difference?
Let's put it onto context.
The government (same government, same bunch of people) has apparently spent £750,000 on Olympic games tickets.
Just a couple of weeks ago we were told that MPs took green spaces so seriously they had decided to rent non-native fig trees for Portcullis House at a cost of £400,0000.
The Leveson Inquiry which doesn't appear to be revealing anything we don't already know cost over £850,000 in its first three months.
And I saw today that the presenter and journalist Dawn Porter raised over £7,000 for charity yesterday by holding a jumble sale yesterday.
As the environmental press has been saying, the NIA funding is 'a boost' but it does seem like the environment is being thrown a few scraps to keep quiet rather than any meaningful investment being made.
The environment - the trees, soil, grass, hedges all those things that Lawton described in his report - is the infrastructure of our world and yet we always under invest. Contrast this with HS2 which the government has already spent £200 million on and is expected to spend £1 billion before works starts.
And I don't suppose there will be too many over paid consultants benefiting from NIA funding just some modestly paid employees of NGOs who will no doubt be supported by an army of volunteers working for nothing more than their expenses.
Which reminds me, I've got an idea for that failed Back-to-Work scheme......
Unfortunately the other 64 contenders 'leave with nothing' as they say on the best game shows.
If my maths is correct each NIA will receive roughly £625,000. And this is to reverse the devasting decline in quality and loss of habitat that has been left unchecked and under funded for decades. Is this really what Professor Lawton was hoping for when he described the appalling state of our green spaces?
Is it really going to make that much of a difference?
Let's put it onto context.
The government (same government, same bunch of people) has apparently spent £750,000 on Olympic games tickets.
Just a couple of weeks ago we were told that MPs took green spaces so seriously they had decided to rent non-native fig trees for Portcullis House at a cost of £400,0000.
The Leveson Inquiry which doesn't appear to be revealing anything we don't already know cost over £850,000 in its first three months.
And I saw today that the presenter and journalist Dawn Porter raised over £7,000 for charity yesterday by holding a jumble sale yesterday.
As the environmental press has been saying, the NIA funding is 'a boost' but it does seem like the environment is being thrown a few scraps to keep quiet rather than any meaningful investment being made.
The environment - the trees, soil, grass, hedges all those things that Lawton described in his report - is the infrastructure of our world and yet we always under invest. Contrast this with HS2 which the government has already spent £200 million on and is expected to spend £1 billion before works starts.
And I don't suppose there will be too many over paid consultants benefiting from NIA funding just some modestly paid employees of NGOs who will no doubt be supported by an army of volunteers working for nothing more than their expenses.
Which reminds me, I've got an idea for that failed Back-to-Work scheme......
You can't price everything all the time.
My colleagues and I had a meeting last week with some very nice people from a very successful international company.
It was one of those meetings where we quickly got into the nitty gritty and had a proper conversation about a number of issues relating to the environment and sustainability.
One subject we talked about was health and well-being. It is a hot topic at the moment because it seems everyone wants to contribute in some way. But, as we discussed, it's actually quite a complex subject.
We know of organisations that have run health and well-being initiatives, launched them with great fanfare, spent good money on resources but achieved very little. Why? Because the people that partake are normally those that are already pretty healthy. Motivating the overweight or unfit to join a yoga class or go for a swim (even if it is free) is not that easy.
So the subject of our discussion last week was about the business case for health and well-being initiatives. Our new friends wanted to know how they would justify the expenditure? How could they calculate the return? How would they show a cost saving because without one they wouldn't get approval.
We all know that 'research shows'.....less absenteeism, greater productivity, better staff retention etc etc etc. But what were the scientific conditions when these measurements were taken?
Are we to believe that personal trainers working in the thousands of gyms up and down the country have less days off work through illness and are more productive than those of us who cannot claim to be as fit? I wonder.
No, to me the answer is the corporate culture. A health and well-being initiative isn't going to have any impact unless the culture of the organisation supports it. Is the business normally a caring employer? Does the business have support systems in place or just a treadmill? Is there information for employees that would encourage them to be fitter and healthier for their own sake?
Health and well-being, like the environment and sustainability, need to be approached and designed holistically. taking everything into account. If you asked an architect to design a house you would expect them to design something that worked with and fitted into the landscape and if it didn't you would be upset and probably wouldn't use the design.
Any initiative that you launch needs to fit into your landscape, if it doesn't it won't get used and you won't achieve anything.
As for justifying the cost - if you create the right culture and have the initiatives I would expect you to see the results. But can I just ask why do you bother painting the office, or putting carpet down, or providing soft chairs.......?
It was one of those meetings where we quickly got into the nitty gritty and had a proper conversation about a number of issues relating to the environment and sustainability.
One subject we talked about was health and well-being. It is a hot topic at the moment because it seems everyone wants to contribute in some way. But, as we discussed, it's actually quite a complex subject.
We know of organisations that have run health and well-being initiatives, launched them with great fanfare, spent good money on resources but achieved very little. Why? Because the people that partake are normally those that are already pretty healthy. Motivating the overweight or unfit to join a yoga class or go for a swim (even if it is free) is not that easy.
So the subject of our discussion last week was about the business case for health and well-being initiatives. Our new friends wanted to know how they would justify the expenditure? How could they calculate the return? How would they show a cost saving because without one they wouldn't get approval.
We all know that 'research shows'.....less absenteeism, greater productivity, better staff retention etc etc etc. But what were the scientific conditions when these measurements were taken?
Are we to believe that personal trainers working in the thousands of gyms up and down the country have less days off work through illness and are more productive than those of us who cannot claim to be as fit? I wonder.
No, to me the answer is the corporate culture. A health and well-being initiative isn't going to have any impact unless the culture of the organisation supports it. Is the business normally a caring employer? Does the business have support systems in place or just a treadmill? Is there information for employees that would encourage them to be fitter and healthier for their own sake?
Health and well-being, like the environment and sustainability, need to be approached and designed holistically. taking everything into account. If you asked an architect to design a house you would expect them to design something that worked with and fitted into the landscape and if it didn't you would be upset and probably wouldn't use the design.
Any initiative that you launch needs to fit into your landscape, if it doesn't it won't get used and you won't achieve anything.
As for justifying the cost - if you create the right culture and have the initiatives I would expect you to see the results. But can I just ask why do you bother painting the office, or putting carpet down, or providing soft chairs.......?
Monday, 20 February 2012
Live life for tomorrow
When I was growing up in the 1970s I loved visiting my grandparents house, which always seemed huge compared to our own and full of curiosities, which I now know to just have been an accumulation of junk.
However, one room always intrigued me: Grandad's 'secret room'. This room always had the door closed and the curtain was always drawn. Inside the air was filled with a sweet and musty aroma and there was a gentle hum of electric motors. This was of course nothing sinister it was simply a spare room converted into a larder. Fridges and freezers had been installed, cupboards overflowed with tins and packets and bubbling away on an old side-board was the latest attempt at nettle or plum wine.
This was a room 'just in case'. And my grandparents weren't alone in being prepared for tomorrow, they were part of a generation of people that saved 'for a rainy day' and never threw anything away because 'it might come in handy one day'.
My grandparents were also the people that bought me my first pair of binoculars, my membership to the YOC and introduced me to their relatives in Sussex who worked on farms and were able to show me a completely different view of the world.
They had different values from my parents. Money wasn't a barrier to having a day out when all you needed was a flask, a packet of biscuits and river to walk along. They were a generation that lived life by the seasons of the year and always looked forward to the next.
My grandparents weren't business people, weren't educated at university and weren't very well read but to me they were more visionary than most people who have studied how to write a vision statement.
"Live life for today" is the motto of the 21st century. But what about tomorrow? Is it right that we should live our lives by such a selfish philosophy?
We are actually pretty good at surviving and all the evidence suggests we will continue to live longer, so maybe we should start thinking about our tomorrow and the tomorrow of others.
Maybe we should all start our own larder.
However, one room always intrigued me: Grandad's 'secret room'. This room always had the door closed and the curtain was always drawn. Inside the air was filled with a sweet and musty aroma and there was a gentle hum of electric motors. This was of course nothing sinister it was simply a spare room converted into a larder. Fridges and freezers had been installed, cupboards overflowed with tins and packets and bubbling away on an old side-board was the latest attempt at nettle or plum wine.
This was a room 'just in case'. And my grandparents weren't alone in being prepared for tomorrow, they were part of a generation of people that saved 'for a rainy day' and never threw anything away because 'it might come in handy one day'.
My grandparents were also the people that bought me my first pair of binoculars, my membership to the YOC and introduced me to their relatives in Sussex who worked on farms and were able to show me a completely different view of the world.
They had different values from my parents. Money wasn't a barrier to having a day out when all you needed was a flask, a packet of biscuits and river to walk along. They were a generation that lived life by the seasons of the year and always looked forward to the next.
My grandparents weren't business people, weren't educated at university and weren't very well read but to me they were more visionary than most people who have studied how to write a vision statement.
"Live life for today" is the motto of the 21st century. But what about tomorrow? Is it right that we should live our lives by such a selfish philosophy?
We are actually pretty good at surviving and all the evidence suggests we will continue to live longer, so maybe we should start thinking about our tomorrow and the tomorrow of others.
Maybe we should all start our own larder.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
The NHS Sustainable Development Conference
February 14th was the date for the third annual NHS Sustainable Development conference: Delivering the Sustainable Healthcare System.
Crex was there to discuss how the NHS can engage with employees and other stakeholders to shift mindset, change behaviour and achieve their goals collectively and more quickly.
The key messages were very mixed: on the one hand we were told that a poll of NHS Chief Executives felt that engaging with staff on issues of sustainability was easy. On the other hand the audience (people with sustainability in their job title) felt that they lacked senior management support, which of course is crucial.
The problem might be interpretation. For many at the conference sustainability meant 'energy' and reducing carbon. Far less people talked about environmental sustainability and embedding this into organisational culture.
Interestingly the greatest gains across the NHS has been in reducing carbon emissions from energy. Much less has been done about procurement, which involves many more people and is essentially about making the right the decision, not just installing a new boiler.
So the quick wins are being achieved, the hard work is still ahead of them.
Crex was there to discuss how the NHS can engage with employees and other stakeholders to shift mindset, change behaviour and achieve their goals collectively and more quickly.
The key messages were very mixed: on the one hand we were told that a poll of NHS Chief Executives felt that engaging with staff on issues of sustainability was easy. On the other hand the audience (people with sustainability in their job title) felt that they lacked senior management support, which of course is crucial.
The problem might be interpretation. For many at the conference sustainability meant 'energy' and reducing carbon. Far less people talked about environmental sustainability and embedding this into organisational culture.
Interestingly the greatest gains across the NHS has been in reducing carbon emissions from energy. Much less has been done about procurement, which involves many more people and is essentially about making the right the decision, not just installing a new boiler.
So the quick wins are being achieved, the hard work is still ahead of them.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Your responsibility as a communicator
Sustainable living and re-building green spaces to allow our wildlife to flourish ought to be an exciting proposition, one that provokes enthusiasm and passion, so you can imagine how disappointed I was to sit through four presentations on the theme of sustainability, climate change, and energy reduction and witness the growing boredom of the audience around me.
It is hard enough to motivate people, simplify the science and make it all relevant without being boring, incoherent and inconsistent.
A plea to anyone who is speaking to an audience on these subjects:
Only present on a subject you are passionate about. Audiences sense when you don't really mean it.
Tell a story. Have a beginning, middle and end. A stream of thoughts in random order doesn't work, no matter how good the quality of the material itself.
If you use slides make them interesting. Use pictures rather than text and don't ever put anything on the screen that can't be read. Saying 'you don't need to read this' is a waste of a slide and begs the question 'why put it up there?'
Spellcheck your slides - get someone else to spellcheck for you.
Format your slides - different fonts, sizes and colours do not make bullet points more interesting, just annoying.
If there is more than one person presenting and you are supposed to be talking about a theme then check what they are saying. Yesterday I watched as one person completely undermined the following presentation by dismissing the subject of her talk within his.
Try and do more than just present data. Set challenges, tasks, talk about consequences, opportunities and create a vision of what can be.
Finally, if you're not very confident at speaking then get some coaching, it really can help.
Many people are still getting to grips with the concept of sustainable living and working. Many don't understand biodiversity at all. Climate change, greenhouse gases and carbon emissions can seem too complicated to even bother trying to understand. So if you are asked to present then you have a responsibility to do a good job and get it right for all the other people like you who are trying to make a difference.
It isn't easy but an audience will make a link between you, your presentation style and the subject matter.
So just be great at it, you know you can be.
It is hard enough to motivate people, simplify the science and make it all relevant without being boring, incoherent and inconsistent.
A plea to anyone who is speaking to an audience on these subjects:
Many people are still getting to grips with the concept of sustainable living and working. Many don't understand biodiversity at all. Climate change, greenhouse gases and carbon emissions can seem too complicated to even bother trying to understand. So if you are asked to present then you have a responsibility to do a good job and get it right for all the other people like you who are trying to make a difference.
It isn't easy but an audience will make a link between you, your presentation style and the subject matter.
So just be great at it, you know you can be.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
What will Local Nature Partnerships be?
Just what are Local Nature Partnerships (LNP) and what does the Environment Minister expect them to do?
Last week was the first workshop to establish the terms of reference for an LNP in Berkshire. The workshop was the first of three focussing on different issues. The participants at this first meeting were local authority ecologists, representatives from the major conservation NGOs and the local records office. A great bunch of people although perhaps jaded by successive government initiatives that have fallen by the wayside..!
But there is hope. My only advice to them was to be ambitious, think big, and concentrate on how to influence others. The younger members of the group were clearly up for change but the older members? Well we shall see.
Every leader in business says you must have a vision and focus on how you can deliver that vision. That becomes the strategy. The strategy becomes the tasks you need to do. The tasks soon get ticked off as you complete them and make progress.
Anything is possible: change can happen, people can be influenced.
LNPs need a vision. They need to be seen as an opportunity for change and to raise the profile of the natural world within local politics.
I noticed that there weren't too many gongs in the honours list for 'services to conservation'. Now is the time for conservationists to step up and create an agenda for LNPs that make everyone pay attention and take action.
Good luck to anyone that is involved with creating an LNP over the next few months, I can't wait to see what you all come up with.
Last week was the first workshop to establish the terms of reference for an LNP in Berkshire. The workshop was the first of three focussing on different issues. The participants at this first meeting were local authority ecologists, representatives from the major conservation NGOs and the local records office. A great bunch of people although perhaps jaded by successive government initiatives that have fallen by the wayside..!
But there is hope. My only advice to them was to be ambitious, think big, and concentrate on how to influence others. The younger members of the group were clearly up for change but the older members? Well we shall see.
Every leader in business says you must have a vision and focus on how you can deliver that vision. That becomes the strategy. The strategy becomes the tasks you need to do. The tasks soon get ticked off as you complete them and make progress.
Anything is possible: change can happen, people can be influenced.
LNPs need a vision. They need to be seen as an opportunity for change and to raise the profile of the natural world within local politics.
I noticed that there weren't too many gongs in the honours list for 'services to conservation'. Now is the time for conservationists to step up and create an agenda for LNPs that make everyone pay attention and take action.
Good luck to anyone that is involved with creating an LNP over the next few months, I can't wait to see what you all come up with.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Being connected
Christmas is a great time for reading and I have enjoyed spending the past couple of weeks making progress through an ever increasing pile of books.
Monographs of the common tern, a year in the life of a salt marsh, discovering the problems associated with salmon and tuna population declines, a biography of Alfred Wallace and an Italian detective novel have all been enjoyed to varying degrees.
The theme from all of them is that everything is connected. As John Muir once said (and I'm paraphrasing) you can pull one part of the natural world but you will soon find that it is connected to the whole universe.
How many of us have considered this? Do we really associate manufacturing in a far-flung country with riverside logging that has changed the habitat for spawning salmon, damaging an ecosystem, leading to the decline of salmon and those animals that feed on salmon, which has resulted in less salmon being caught, jobs lost and local economies collapsing?
Probably not. Who is at fault? Probably everyone.
Consumers who want cheap goods, companies that want to increase their profits, legislators for allowing it to happen and we all fail to see the bigger picture - how things are connected and the impacts of our actions.
A number of recent TV programmes have claimed that there are currently 350,000 empty homes in the UK and yet our government seems to think that building is the answer to all our problems.
But only if you think the problem is just GDP.
In the Devon village that I was in last week there are numerous properties for sale which have been on the market for several months and yet just four miles down the road work has started on a 2000 home development on, what was, agricultural land. And it was good agricultural land with hedges, trees, grassland and streams. The type of land that encourages declining bird species and mammals. And yet the bulldozers have already made light work of it.
What is the bigger picture here?
We seem to think that because we have become a race that is good at surviving then it must be the same for everything else. But birds, mammals, invertebrates, trees and shrubs don't have access to our medicines. If there is a decline in available food they can't ship it in from across the world - they simply die.
When we fell a tree, dig up a shrub or remove a hedge do we consider the impact it might have? Do we even realise how many animals might use it or it's place in the food web?
There has been a lot of talk of austerity measures and I've spoken to a number of people who have been reflecting on their priorities and concluding that there is more to life than designer labels and having the shiniest, most technology advanced TV. Could someone pass this information on to the Chancellor.
Let's try and get a sense of being connected with our world, enjoy it, learn about it and then perhaps we won't treat it like some sort of throw-away fashion accessory.
Monographs of the common tern, a year in the life of a salt marsh, discovering the problems associated with salmon and tuna population declines, a biography of Alfred Wallace and an Italian detective novel have all been enjoyed to varying degrees.
The theme from all of them is that everything is connected. As John Muir once said (and I'm paraphrasing) you can pull one part of the natural world but you will soon find that it is connected to the whole universe.
How many of us have considered this? Do we really associate manufacturing in a far-flung country with riverside logging that has changed the habitat for spawning salmon, damaging an ecosystem, leading to the decline of salmon and those animals that feed on salmon, which has resulted in less salmon being caught, jobs lost and local economies collapsing?
Probably not. Who is at fault? Probably everyone.
Consumers who want cheap goods, companies that want to increase their profits, legislators for allowing it to happen and we all fail to see the bigger picture - how things are connected and the impacts of our actions.
A number of recent TV programmes have claimed that there are currently 350,000 empty homes in the UK and yet our government seems to think that building is the answer to all our problems.
But only if you think the problem is just GDP.
In the Devon village that I was in last week there are numerous properties for sale which have been on the market for several months and yet just four miles down the road work has started on a 2000 home development on, what was, agricultural land. And it was good agricultural land with hedges, trees, grassland and streams. The type of land that encourages declining bird species and mammals. And yet the bulldozers have already made light work of it.
What is the bigger picture here?
We seem to think that because we have become a race that is good at surviving then it must be the same for everything else. But birds, mammals, invertebrates, trees and shrubs don't have access to our medicines. If there is a decline in available food they can't ship it in from across the world - they simply die.
When we fell a tree, dig up a shrub or remove a hedge do we consider the impact it might have? Do we even realise how many animals might use it or it's place in the food web?
There has been a lot of talk of austerity measures and I've spoken to a number of people who have been reflecting on their priorities and concluding that there is more to life than designer labels and having the shiniest, most technology advanced TV. Could someone pass this information on to the Chancellor.
Let's try and get a sense of being connected with our world, enjoy it, learn about it and then perhaps we won't treat it like some sort of throw-away fashion accessory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)