By Professor Elizabeth Bomberg, Deputy Director of GESA and Professor of Environmental Politics, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh

Thanks to a collaboration fund between the Universities of Sydney and Edinburgh, sponsored by the Partnership Collaboration Awards Programme, our two associated institutes (Sydney Environment Institute and Edinburgh’s Global Environment and Society Academy) were able to host an excellent workshop this summer on ‘Sustainable Materialism.’ Our focus was on flows of materials (including food, energy, clothing), through our everyday lives and if/how these flows and practices represent a new type of environmentalism.  The delegates gathered at the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation (ECCI) in Edinburgh were amazingly diverse, representing disciplines of politics, environmental science, ecology, law, arts, architecture, literature, music, economics, sociology and more.  Eleven papers analysed the people and groups engaged in environmental practices – food movements, community energy, sustainable crafting and fashion – and explored their motivations, forms, diversity and impact on social change.

After co-organiser David Schlosberg introduced the main theme of sustainable materialism,  Gordon Walker examined social practice theory, suggesting how a focus on practice as a unit of analysis (cycling, gardening, etc.)  provides a nice antidote to the more traditional  individualist, behavioural framings of action. His paper successfully applied the approach to understanding the shared commitment to sustainable practices, and he made a very good case for its use. However, the ensuing discussion probed the role of agency, motivations and identity, all of which remain somewhat ambiguous in social practice applications.

Next up was a  series of super case studies: Sherilyn MacGregor on ‘urban commoning’ in Moss Side, Manchester, and Lisa Heinz on sustainable fashion.  The main discussion questions here concerned neoliberalism: what shapes ‘sustainable’ fashion choices; do they really challenge consumerism?  Similarly, to what extent do local initiatives simply compel overburdened communities to take on work that the state used to provide (clearing up alleys)?  Do such practices represent a ‘slippery slope’towards the commodification of sustainable activities?  , MacGregor recognised the danger, but her robust response also outlined the empowering character of the alley greening as a counter to paternal council approach to behaviour change.

An architectural dimension featured next with Lee Stickells on green buildings in the 1970s counterculture in Australia, and Tahl Kaminer on collective ownership of Israeli kibbutzim.  Amazing visuals in both cases.  These presentations promoted fascinating discussion about: land ownership (relevant also to the Scottish case) how to define ‘the collective’ as well as tricky questions of coloniser and colonised land and how/whether we could think of these examples in a decolonised perspective.  Another foundational question (did design affect collective practice or vice versa?) prompted broader discussions of the relationship between space and time, and structure and agency.

Session 4 explored micro-practices. These included community sustainability projects and the economic localisation of product and consumption they bring (presented by Wouter Spekkink);  an in-depth study of radically de-centralised, small-scale egg initiatives (Arunima Malik) and a study of community energy and its putative links to energy justice by Annalisa Savaresi.  The discussion included eggcellent questions and egg puns galore (Walker was the main culprit) but also a serious discussion of the key role of intermediators (in local markets and energy especially) and a critique of the ‘romantisation of the local’ (that is, the tendency to conflate ‘local’ with ‘sustainable’).

The last session stepped back again and allowed us to compare practice-based environmentalism with a more traditional type of environmental action (Joost de Moor). That in turn led us to explore the challenges for social movement scholars and how they might better understand relations between everyday life and social change (Luke Yates).  A rich discussion followed, including fundamental questions such as what is ‘political’ (both ‘troublemaking’ and ‘service provision’?), the processes of disengagement from national (or global) to the local, and a tendency to view ‘political’ narrowly. David labelled the latter as pure hogwash (delicately put), bemoaning the perception that ‘if you’re not protesting you’re not doing politics’. In short, media and researchers’ focus on ‘protest events’ and social movement organisations misses huge swathe of political activity, yet that neglect may in part be down to participants themselves:  people’s own political activity is invisible to them.

It was amazing how much was packed into one day. Moving forward, the group would like to synthesise the cases and findings discussed then take these further, exploring in more depth what are the implications for taking the material as a starting point of social change. An edited volume of papers is planned, along with a follow-up roundtable at an upcoming conference.

Elizabeth Bomberg  wishes to thank MSc student and workshop participant Laura Berry for notes on the workshop.

Note: this blog appears courtesy of Sydney Environment Institute

Elizabeth Bomberg is Professor of Environmental Politics at the University of Edinburgh, Deputy Director of the Global Environment & Society Academy, and Co-Director of the MSc programme in Global Environment Politics and Society.  Her primary teaching and research activity falls into the broad area of comparative environmental politics, with particular substantive emphasis on climate change, faith-based activism, shale politics and community energy.  Elizabeth’s recent publications have appeared in Environmental Politics,  Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Local Environment and Science of the Total Environment

“We now have a large alumni network around the world working on climate change. Many of these alums will be at the Paris COP and this time it is their job to be there.“

Prof. Dave Reay

Six years ago this month we were busy finalising plans for the University of Edinburgh’s delegation to COP 15 in Copenhagen. A large delegation had been out together made up of staff and students from our new MSc in Carbon Management. Hopes and excitement were high. Discussions in lectures centred on what the COP might deliver for business, policy and regulation, while every coffee shop meeting ended up in discussion of who was going to which ‘must see’ side event.

In the event COP 15 was a triumph for our students, despite being an abject failure for the global climate change negotiations.  Partnering with the Scottish Government and the British Council, our delegation led a day of discussions at the COP around Scotland’s role in tackling climate change. The students met a host of state leaders, made some wonderful contacts, and delivered a set of speeches that had every delegate in the place on their feet applauding.

This time around the pre-COP discussions here in Edinburgh have been no less engaging, yet our plans for the Paris COP have taken a very different shape. We now have a large alumni network around the world working on climate change. Many of these alums will be at the Paris COP and this time it is their job to be there. From advisors to the French Presidency, through national negotiators, to NGO leads and energy consultants, Edinburgh’s alumni now represent our most powerful impact on the climate negotiations. Current staff and students will of course be there too, but with a University of Edinburgh delegation that is outnumbered by its former students in Paris.

For the negotiations themselves, I’ll be following two key elements very closely. The first is the issue of ‘stock taking’ – effectively the proposed mechanism whereby every nation’s INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) is reviewed every 5 years to assess its efficacy in the context of the best scientific evidence. If Paris fails to deliver an agreement that will avoid 2^oC of post-industrial warming (i.e. ‘dangerous climate change’) then this mechanism is the best game in town to bridge the emissions gap. How it would work and, crucially, who would do this stock taking will be the subject of much discussion. Scientific bodies such as the IPCC have been suggested and certainly such assessments would need to be clear, independent and scientifically robust.

For me, the other crucial element of the Paris negotiations is that of capacity building. It has been referred to several times in draft negotiation texts – options that may be debated include the creation of a specific ‘capacity building mechanism’ that will more directly deliver financing. Certainly, capacity building must be addressed if the myriad contributions, commitments and targets that will whirl around the Blue Zone in Paris are actually to be delivered around the world.

This need is most obvious in the developing world, but applies in every nation. Without it, even the best efforts to increase climate change resilience and decarbonise energy systems risk being hobbled. Through our undergraduate, Masters and PhD programmes Edinburgh and universities like it are already helping to grow such climate change skills capacity. Innovations such as online learning and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are further extending our reach, but there is a lot more to do.  Helping potential students around the world to overcome the many financial, social, and physical barriers to education that they face is, I believe, the most important challenge for universities in the coming years.

Six years ago we left Copenhagen frustrated with policy makers and inspired by our students. In Paris this year some of those students are now themselves the policy makers. Whether this will help bring about a robust agreement remains to be seen, but it’s at least one small step towards the capacity building that will one day deliver global climate security.

Who are we?

The Global Environment and Society Academy (GESA) is a network of experts collaborating to develop innovative solutions for the world’s most challenging problems.

Led by Professor Dave Reay and Dr Elizabeth Bomberg GESA operates as one of four University of Edinburgh Academies, including Global Health, Global Justice and Global Development. The Academies were developed to find innovative solutions by bringing together experts from many different academic fields. We have faculty and student members across Geosciences, Informatics, Law, Art, Landscape Architecture, Business and Education, with teaching responsibilities and research interests in environment and society.

What do we do?

We tackle the nasty issues! We do this creatively, we collaborate, we look through many lenses as we set out to tackle global environmental challenges. This approach of multidisciplinary collaboration means we develop and encourage collegiality across the University and beyond; an approach that builds a vibrant Global community of talented people at the forefront of addressing environmental issues.

What can GESA do for you?

Whether you are continuing from Undergraduate study or returning to full time study, this will be an intense year of study and personal and academic development. Of course you’ll have your MSc programme group but wouldn’t it be good to have a place where you can meet Postgraduates from other disciplines, explore the multiple perspectives and work together?

Through our GESA Masters Network, we encourage and develop just that kind of collegiality across the University and beyond. We have a very active community. Some of the events you can attend as a GESA member include Reading Groups where you can hear the views of our expert speakers and meet our PhD Facilitators who come from a range of disciplines.

We host events that look at developing your research ideas, often putting you in touch with the right people to advise on topics. We can offer help with presentations skills, networking, employability skills, internships or work -based projects, particularly those with an interdisciplinary focus. As our network extends we find that many of these post-Masters opportunities are supported by a GESA alumni network that continues to build lifelong connections

While you are here with us in Edinburgh we are really interested in helping develop your projects and we can sometimes provide funding for these. Since taking up my post in June I’ve been helping some of our Masters Network students with their GESA supported projects such as our online discussion platform where students can develop ideas, share and discuss news items or write blogs. Another student project is the GESA Legacy Forest, which hopes to offer the chance for every GESA student to plant a tree when they graduate, truly an initiative in the GESA spirit.

I’ve also enjoyed working to provide seminars, photography competitions and Keynote speeches from some of the most prominent and respected experts within their fields.

What can you do for GESA?

Bring your enthusiasm, bring your discussions, bring your ideas and projects. Turn up, take part, make lifelong connections and really get the most out of this year. This is your Academy; it is what you make it.

Best of luck for this exciting year ahead, please do get in touch, I’m looking forward to our year ahead.

Rachel

Rachel Chisholm

Academic Facilitator for GESA

global-environment-society@ed.ac.uk

The University of Edinburgh has a long and proud history of taking action to address environmental challenges and social concerns, and our latest opportunity is responsible investing.

This is not something new- students and student groups such as People and Planet have been campaigning for many years on these issues, and the University has had a socially responsible investment policy in place since 2003. None the less, it is timely to consider what more we can do.

The University’s strategic plan contains a clear commitment to ‘make a significant, sustainable and socially responsible commitment to Scotland, the UK and the world’. In response, we already have a social responsibility and sustainability strategy and a climate action plan. We want to manage our own impacts, teach our students about the big global challenges of the twenty-first century, and apply our knowledge and research to making a real contribution to solving these issues. Those strategies are now being complemented by the development of a socially responsible investment approach.

I joined this University six months ago both because it convinced me that it wanted to be amongst the world’s best when thinking about social responsibility and sustainability, and because I saw a great opportunity for us to improve and to make changes for the better.

One of my first tasks has therefore been to help the university figure out exactly what being a responsible investor means, having been the first University in Europe to have signed the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment in early 2013.

“[Y]ou’re on earth. There’s no cure for that!”

Hamm in Endgame

― Samuel Beckett

 1.   Equity Issues in Tackling Environmental Challenges

It is no secret that international climate change negotiations are not making significant progress – mostly due to different perceptions and visions of the appropriate balance of responsibilities and allocation of costs among different countries. On the ground, a myriad of climate change response measures (renewable energy development, forest management for reducing greenhouse gas emission, etc.) raise concerns about actual and potential negative impacts on the broader environment and on human rights.

Across the board of environmental issues affecting our planet, global environmental protection is bedevilled by formidable questions concerning the Global North/South divide, the tensions between development and environmental protection, social and economic equality, human rights, different historic contributions to current global environmental challenges, asymmetries of power, and justice.

The evolving regulatory framework to address global environmental challenges raises equity and justice concerns. These concerns hinder progress at all levels; the functioning of a highly complex web of legal measures, involving multi-level relationships between governments, private companies, bilateral donors and NGOs, as well as indigenous peoples and local communities is hampered by:

• Vested interests and power asymmetries;
• Different visions among states of the appropriate balance of responsibilities and allocation of costs in addressing environmental challenges; and
• Fragmented efforts and limited effectiveness.

In particular, while environmental management is increasingly seen as an area that presents significant opportunities for business development, job creation and public sector savings, acute equity concerns pivot on the accompanying risks. First, among states, the risk of a profit-driven and high-tech environmental agenda which tends to side-line developing countries; and second, within states, the risk of the marginalisation of indigenous peoples and local communities and their contribution to environmental management, which is difficult to quantify in nakedly economic terms.

However, faced with such complex and difficult terrain, it is not an option to give in to pessimism; to say, like Hamm in Endgame, that there’s simply no cure. Improvements to the regulatory framework can, and should, be explored.

 2.         The Promises of Benefit-sharing

The idea of “benefit-sharing” may provide a new approach to these questions. Benefit-sharing basically implies that the States and local people that preserve the environment should benefit (in monetary, but also social, cultural and environmental terms) from the use of natural resources (such as forests, seeds, fish, minerals) involving others (local governments, NGOs or foreign companies, for example). In this sense, benefit-sharing is expected to contribute to forge fair and long-term partnerships among those deciding about, involved in and affected by the use of natural resources.

Benefit-sharing therefore entails not only assessing burdens, costs and risks, but also exploring constructive, proactive and culturally-sensitive opportunities to address environmental challenges while respecting and contributing to the realization of the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and respecting the views and responding to the needs of developing countries.

Although benefit-sharing is increasingly deployed in a variety of international environmental agreements (biodiversity, climate change, oceans, land and agriculture) and also in human rights and corporate accountability instruments, no single vision or comprehensive understanding exists of its contribution to equitably address global environmental challenges. Can benefit-sharing realise its promise of serving as a creative legal tool for equitably addressing these challenges? To what extent can it accommodate the special circumstances, cultural preferences and vulnerabilities of developing countries, and of indigenous peoples and local communities, in transitioning to the green economy? At present, there is no systematic study of whether benefit-sharing can theoretically and practically work as a means of finding consensus among States on how to address global environmental challenges, and of protecting the rights of indigenous peoples to participate in decision-making on natural resource development and continue to have access to natural resources for their cultural, spiritual and livelihood needs. Several questions remain unanswered:

• How is benefit-sharing utilised under different international treaties?
• What does benefit-sharing mean and how does it work in different countries and localities?
• Does benefit-sharing effectively support fairness in the areas of biodiversity, climate change, oceans and agriculture at different levels?
• What is the role of law in ensuring an equitable approach to environmental management?
• What are the roles and responsibilities of different organisations in promoting the idea of benefit-sharing?

 3.         New Project at Edinburgh Law School

A new five-year project at Edinburgh Law School, commencing in November 2013, seeks to address these equity issues by investigating benefit-sharing as an under-theorised and little-implemented regulatory approach to tackling environmental challenges. The project is titled: “BENELEX – Benefit-sharing for an equitable transition to the green economy: the role of law” and is led by Dr Elisa Morgera (School of Law) and funded by the European Research Council.

A project website will be launched in early 2014. For further information, please contact Annalisa Savaresi: annalisa.savaresi@ed.ac.uk

Dr Elisa Morgera is Senior Lecturer in Global Environment Law at the School of Law of the University of Edinburgh, and the Director of the LLM Programme in Global Environment and Climate Change Law. Elisa specializes in international, European and comparative environmental law, and has published widely on biodiversity, corporate accountability and the rights of indigenous and local communities. For more information about Elisa and her work visit http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/people/elisamorgera