Brook Lyndhurst in action: Coppicing for London Wetland Centre

The main activity for this year’s corporate volunteer day was coppicing. For those who don’t know – which at the time included a couple of us, who met the news of our activity with blank faces - coppicing is to “cut back (a tree or shrub) to ground level periodically to stimulate growth.” On the morning of December 9th the whole company gathered at the WWT London Wetland Centre in Barnes dressed in sturdy outdoor attire (see below for photographic evidence) for a hard day’s work.

We were greeted and guided throughout the day by Chris and David from the centre. The centre conserves wetlands for wildlife and people. As our guides explained many wetlands are highly productive and support far more species than would be expected for the surface area that they cover. As Wetland wildlife is under threat, the centre’s mission is to conduct work to save wildlife. This encompasses monitoring and priority setting, coordinating species conservation, investigating threats and taking action to tackle population declines.

In a bid to do our bit to help the centre on their mission, we spent the day cutting down trees and shrubs on the reserve using bow saws and loppers, and gathering the cut material along the water banks and reserve boundaries to encourage fauna enhancement and vegetation re-growth.

Woodland on the reserve is divided into designated tree blocks that are coppiced in rotation every year to ensure that there is the optimum range of vegetation for breeding birds and insects. Tall trees are also kept in check to prevent predators from perching, and to maintain flight lines across the wetlands.

By all accounts it was much harder work than sitting in our cozy offices, beavering away at the latest research conundrum. We all, however, thoroughly enjoyed spending a day outdoors, getting our hands dirty, and doing some good old physical labour. In all honesty we were all quite chuffed with the results of our day’s work and ended the evening in the pub for our Christmas do.


How to get ‘generation snooze’ to use fewer resources

This was originally a guest post from Brook Lyndhurst on the Green Alliance’s Green Living Blog:
http://greenlivingblog.org.uk/ 

To use our resources more sustainably, do we ‘just need to wake up’? This is the suggestion from Generation Awake, an EU campaign fronted by three singing shopping bags, which was launched last month with the aim of making “resource efficiency a habit.” It is one of numerous initiatives and events around ‘resource efficiency’ that tie in with theEuropean Week for Waste Reduction (19th – 27th November): WWF held a conference on the topic in October; the European Commission has adopted a Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe; and my colleagues are speaking at the Resource Recovery Forum’s “Influencing Resourceful Behaviours” conference on 23rdNovember.

Generation Awake

Generation Awake

It was Generation Awake, however, that gave me most pause for thought. At the campaign launch, European Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik is reported as saying:
“With our economy in difficulty and our resources dwindling, it’s time to start rethinking some of our habits. Using resources more carefully not only helps protect the environment, but saves money and reduces business costs. It’s about using less to do more. Everyone can do their bit. We just need to wake up!”

Roll over and go back to sleep
Really? Surely if it were that easy we’d have solved our environmental problems long ago. Isn’t the point that we already know “we need to wake up”, but that we don’t want to? We just keep rolling over, pressing snooze and nodding back off.

Perhaps I’m an old cynic, and maybe Commissioner Janez Potočnik is right, and the campaign’s message to ‘consume differently, and think before you choose’, will bring about a consumer-led revolution that transforms our environmentally damaging shopping habits into something sustainable.

However, the work that Brook Lyndhurst and others have been doing on consumer attitudes and behaviours as they relate to the environment, suggests that campaigns like this are highly unlikely to provide the breakthrough suggested in their hopeful strap lines.

Whatever the nuances of the debates around ‘marketing’ the environment to consumers, this much is clear: most of us are not sufficiently motivated by environmental issues that we’d be prepared to put our money where our mouths are and to ‘consume differently’.

So where is there left to go? Predictably, that is less clear, but it seems sensible to take an approach that starts from what we know about consumers and consumption, rather than what we’d like to believe. This was the premise behind work recently completed by Brook Lyndhurst for Defra that looked in depth at how consumers decide to purchase, use, reuse and dispose of household products. The results provide a wealth of information about the language, attitudes and behaviours that influence our relationships with the things we buy.

The reports’ conclusions suggest a range of possible policy responses that could help us all to use resources more efficiently. However, it acknowledges that this is an issue that will require an enormous effort and fundamental change on all our parts and is not something that is likely to be solved, even in some small way, by inciting people to ‘consume differently’.

Helping consumers use fewer resources
In particular the findings confirmed that the attraction of cheap, new products was usually far more important than any inclination people may have to make do and mend and to hang onto their products for longer. Bearing this important point in mind, the report includes detailed ideas on how best to engage with consumers on the issue of resource efficiency. These are underpinned by several key conclusions:

  • Help consumers to reduce the risk of making the wrong choice – Provide them with clearer and more certain means for judging the expected lifetimes of products (both new and second hand) and feasible repairs.
  • Focus on value and perceived value – Longer life products have to offer consumers clear and apparent value when compared with shorter life, possibly cheaper alternatives.
  • Improve service performance to help keep products in use – This potentially includes innovations in product service systems, as well as improvements to warranties/guarantees and repair and reuse services.
  • Build on positive norms and attitudes that are already apparent – Themes emerged around: the ‘wrongness’ of waste; the ‘feel-good’, pro-social aspects of giving unwanted products a new home; and the ‘cool’, ‘alternative’  or ‘creative’ image that some reuse activities have. These could all provide a realistic basis for more effective engagement with consumers on the issue of resource efficiency.

Brook Lyndhurst’s reports on the ‘Public understanding of product lifetimes’  are available to download from the Defra website. The findings from the reports will be presented at the Resource Recovery Forum’s “Influencing Resourceful Behaviours” conference on 23rd November 2011.

Click here to see the post in its original location on the Green Living Blog.


Brook Lyndhurst success at CIWM awards

It is not often that we at Brook Lyndhurst leave our spreadsheets behind and dress up for an awards ceremony, but we were proud and honoured to be informed that our Household Waste Prevention – A Review Of Evidence paper was to be awarded the James Jackson medal at the CIWM Professional Awards 2011.

The awarded paper is a summary of our comprehensive synthesis review of household waste prevention and was a real team effort. Jayne Cox, Sara Giorgi, Ellie Kivinen and David Fell from Brook Lyndhurst worked determinedly on this project alongside Veronica Sharp (Social Marketing Practice); David C Wilson (consultant and advisor to Defra); Kit Strange (Resource Recovery Forum); and Nick Blakey (Defra). The modular synthesis review – which itself was given an internal Defra award in 2009 for ‘excellence in the communication of science/engineering to policy makers’ – involved the scoping of over 800 pieces of government, academic, commercial, consultancy and NGO literature, and an in-depth review of over 80 studies. This review was the first time that this portfolio of evidence of policy and public attitude research on waste prevention had been drawn together and analysed. It is, therefore, an achievement that the team was able to produce a succinct paper summarising:

  • evidence on engaging consumers;
  • businesses and third sector organisations enabling consumers; and
  • policy measures encouraging consumers to rethink their behaviour to reduce their waste generation.

Being recognised by the prestigious CIWM and the waste industry was a particular accomplishment for us given that waste and resource efficiency is only one area of our work. The CIWM ceremony also served an appropriate occasion to pay a small tribute to the late Kit Strange, a visionary and hugely positive influence in the world of waste and resources, who poured his customary passion and insights into this project.

James Jackson Medal Winners
Sara and Jayne (far left ,and second from the left) collecting the CIWM award for best formal written paper

CIWM Professional Awards 2011 press release


Prevention at source

The week commencing November 19th is European Week for Waste Reduction (EWWR); perhaps not as appealing as London Fashion Week to the masses but worth a tout nonetheless.

The aim of this pan-European initiative is “to raise awareness more specifically on the act of preventing the production of waste prior to waste collection.” Promoters claim that we can make savings of up to €512 (£441) per person per year (based on an overall shopping trolley for 4 people) by implementing good habits while making purchases. These good habits include using a shopping list, choosing fruit and vegetables by weight rather than pre-packaged versions, selecting the exact amount you need from deli produce rather than pre-packed, buying non-perishable items in bulk or large packs, etc. For more tips and facts of interest to readers, beyond waste geeks like me, try taking the EWWR’s waste quiz.

The EWWR offers online and downloadable press support, communication tools, ideas for activities, case studies and examples of good practice. Perhaps the most interesting device on the website is a repository of waste prevention actions which have taken place during past EWWR initiatives. In true European-style this database is available in six European languages with a ‘Google Translate’ function filling in any gaps. Having a quick browse there is a bank of 804 activities categorised under ‘Better consumption’ in Italy and 251 initiatives under the theme ‘Less waste thrown away’ in the United Kingdom. This rich catalogue is worth a peep whether you are in search of inspiration to set up your own action or simply curious to know what may be happening in your area.

A few colleagues working on the Evaluation of the Volunteer Network for Zero Waste Scotland will be attending some of these EWWR inspired events as part of the qualitative fieldwork we are conducting.

Moving down the waste hierarchy from waste prevention to reuse and recycling, another website which recently caught my eye is Oxfordshire Waste Partnership’s Recycling A-Z. By simply entering your postcode, a preferred distance and then selecting a type of item from over 20 categories – including less commonly recycled/reused categories such as paint and automotive waste – you can find your nearest recycling and/or reuse facilities. Ideally this valuable mapping tool should be extended for nationwide coverage.

Whether through our seamless joined-up thinking or by chance, we will be unpacking a lot of the attitudes and behaviours behind waste prevention, reuse and recycling at the upcoming Influencing Resourceful Behaviour conference.

Given the current economic climate and social hardships, the objective of prevention at source should cease to be such political kryptonite.


FIT to burst

The government announced on Monday that the Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) for solar photovoltaics (PV) are to be dramatically reduced, potentially constituting a terrible blow to the UK solar industry, numerous community projects and individuals. Although a consultation on a review of the FITs was announced by government – due to close on 23 December 2011 – the announcement supersedes this and all installations coming online after 12 December 2011 will be subject to the new tariffs from April next year. The cuts are severe: for the smallest installations (up to 4kW) the FIT reduction will be 44%; some slightly larger installations will see a reduction of 56% and only the biggest installations (250kW-5MW) remain unchanged. All installations already in place will continue at the original tariff. There may be an additional insistence that homes must adopt various other energy efficiency measures to qualify for the scheme, something which until now has often happened voluntarily.

On the surface of things, it is easy to sympathise with the government’s need to manage the increasing cost of FIT payments. The original FITs, which began in April 2010, were based on the need to subsidise a new industry, gradually reducing the payments as the technology became cheaper, capacity among installers was increased and the business case was proved sufficiently for a solid market to be developed. However, the uptake was three times as much as expected, and the cost of installation has dropped by 30% since April 2010.

Greg Barker, minister for energy and climate change, writing in the Guardian on Monday, commented that:

‘The coalition’s proposals are about making the FIT scheme more intelligent, more nimble and responsive to market development and, crucially, better value for money for our hard-pressed consumers.’

He refers here to the notional premium on electricity bills to pay for the FITs. This is a gateway to a debate of epic proportions, taking in the historical and ongoing subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, the configuration of our energy companies and, finally, the extent to which we should all subsidise the transition to sustainable energy sources. I will not attempt to tackle these issues here but if we are discussing the future of a new industry within the wider economic or political context, or the health of numerous community and private projects around the country, they certainly cannot be ignored.

In all events, the short-term consequences are likely to be tragic. While the larger solar companies are expected to survive, arguably having been given the required leg-up, many have predicted the demise of high numbers of new companies and projects whose operational models were predicated on the FITs as originally conceived. Brook Lyndhurst has gained considerable experience working with community projects and expect that communities which have embraced solar technology will be distressed that models which were based around the ability both to service the original loan, and to provide an income to use for projects in the community, may no longer be valid or may require painful reworking. The relief of the burden on the state implied by the Big Society surely requires a longer term view which starts with a nurturing of these countless imaginative and energetic small-scale initiatives. Indeed, it is not necessarily the FIT reductions that are the problem for many, rather the brutal suddenness of the change.

Under the original FITs, solar PV was a practical option for individual households or for communities, in terms of access to space (e.g. rooftops), raising the capital and receiving a sufficient return on investment. Under the scheme, an installation could provide a reliable return on investment of between five and eight per cent (set to fall to 4.5% under the new FITs). A technology which facilitates this combination of environmental and financial motivation is the holy grail of the renewables sector, and the kick-start tariffs for a self-sustaining industry were cause for great optimism.

We must not be under any illusions as to the difference the new tariffs will make – just compare an installation before and after 12 December 2011 using the Energy Saving Trust’s calculator. There is a reek of short-sightedness about the tariff cuts, and we mourn the loss of any enterprise which fails to weather this blow, and the apparent lack of government’s commitment to the sector.

Notes:

  • An ‘urgent question’ was raised in Parliament on the FITs issue, proceedings are available from Hansard.
  • Click Green report that parliament is to launch an enquiry into the decision.
  • While this blog merely notes the announced changes to FITs, a more sophisticated view would investigate, at the very least, whether the government miscalculated the original FITs, or wonder whether this is an attempt to preference the wave, wind or tidal sectors, or at least to bring them into line? Furthermore, it would be instructive to unravel the relative merits of electricity consumers paying for the FITs through their bills as opposed to from allocated government funds, and whether a thriving solar sector does not in any case positively contribute to the UK economy overall. Greg Barker has said that the changes simply brings the UK in line with other European countries, and is a result of lessons learned elsewhere.