Lake Ellesmere and Community Based Environmental Management

Felipe: Alright, let's play good and bad guys, ok?
Everybody: I'M WITH THE GOOD GUYS
Felipe: Aw, no! We cannot be all goods otherwise it's all for nothing!

Lake Ellesmere has appeared lately in some of the subjects I’m studying and also seems to be taking a good amount of media attention; I’ve run into this lake a couple of times in The Press, it has also been mentioned in a Maori Resource Management paper I’m doing and also in this subject.
I will use this to talk about C(B)EM, Community (Based) Environmental Management. The idea could be briefly summarized as the process of manage environmental issues and resources in a collective and locally based way by mean of voluntary and community actions [R.D. Margerum (2008). "A Typology of Collaboration Efforts in Environmental Management", Environmental Management, 41:487:500.].

At first sight, this looks like a feasible idea, as people living with a problem will be the most interested in solving it, but it makes me wonder about a couple of things. In the first place, the burden transfered to citizens and, secondly and related to that, the role of government in all this: are they enhancing citizen implication or simply avoiding a lot of costs by putting those responsibilities on people’s hands?
Letting the management of environment issues completely into collective action can end in a situation of mistrust towards the government or even the feeling that such a money-sucking institution is not necessary at all. Maybe in some centuries when humankind will evolve towards a utopian society of equity and inclusiveness this will be possible, but right now, a strong government is a need, to face lobbies and to give a sense of unity. I’m not touching now the numerous weak points of the current government system that exist in many countries today, as the list could be long enough to make a new blog, but getting completely rid of those institutions won’t help IEM approaches, for two reasons.
First, the idea of “people’s problem, people’s solution” is a perfect shield to hide behind and let people deal alone with troubles that may be bigger than them and break the concept of broader belonging (“it’s their problem, not mine” mind). Secondly, what would avoid government institutions from moving to this idea in environmental management to social, cultural, education of health issues? Instead of a completely independent and self-raised system of management, the objective should be an active governance where institutions and communities would work together to have the general and specific views of the problem and avoid worsening problems.

Having said this, citizenship involvement is crucial to get things moving and can be well enhanced to seize the huge knowledge and ability of those people, but institutions have to be actively involved in this process or the general view will be that people are doing the job that belongs to them. Back to Lake Ellesmere, there exists the Waihora Ellesmere Trust  (you've got a very good report about the trust's activities and working here), as the means to get C(B)EM moving on, but there is also a 12-million NZD agreement among big actors, the Goverment, ECan, Fronterra and Ngai Tahu, to undertake the cleaning of the lake and take care at the same time of the lake, the cultural meaning for the local iwi, the farmers that live and have the area as their way of earning a life, and the environment [infromation from The Press published August 26^th]. IEM cannot exist without both community and institutions; money raising, coordination with other areas, contribution with professionals and expertise and care for the big picture are things that should be given by institutions; after all, taxes are supposed to be for these things and people cannot use another whole working day after theirs. But at the same time, no government initiative can succeed without the people digging, cleaning, planting or, simply, acting properly and accomplishing the required standards and actions. Does it mean people should be passive and let government think for them? Definitely no! Just on the contrary, it is people and communities who are the most capable to change their houses, living, gardens, consumption patterns, transport, to create trusts and community centres, to organize plantings, meetings, events, and be the lever point to make things change. Rather than people, it’s the role of government that makes me wonder. Government has the role to enhance these initiatives, coordinate and get everybody involved to make sure they are approached right. People and communities are the base but need a cohesive net to do something big out of a bunch of small things; in this arena, IEM is the ground to grow marvellous synergies for today and tomorrow.

[Do you want to read more about C(B)EM? Check Elinor Ostrom’s wide work about community governance in the commons and Rich Margerum’s IEM approach for the same issue.]

Moving Planet in Christchurch

Well, alright!...
...where I have to push this country to move it forward?

Today’s entry is going to be dedicated to an ongoingevent in the field of environmental awareness and care. I`m talking about MovingPlanet, an event organized by the international organization 350.org with themain idea of raising awareness about fossil fuels and alternatives. Here in Christchurch it will be organized by 350 Chch in Hagley Park, with local events to get people into bike riding, car alternatives and renewable energies but, asI’m reading on their page, with a real focus on transport issues. There will beplenty of ideas to get rid of the car and a bike workshop.

As they claim (check www.350.org for more info), they are “creating a movement tosolve climate crisis” and take their name because of the 350 ppm. of CO2 which is the maximum safe level.

It sounds like a good idea, right? Well, from an IEM perspective,it can be as well, and is a good example to show how IEM approaches don’t need to come from a formal institution nor been given the IEM-name. Nevertheless,this initiative takes care of the famous triple-bottom line with little actionsthat can have a great impact on a particular person and a community;eventually, if a huge number of people join, this impact will be sawn over theentire global ecosystem, as their main aim is. Let’s take for example, the use of bike, as it’s the main focus point of the Chch Moving Planet:

Does it affect the three lines of the triple-bottom line?

Definitely yes! It affects the environmental sphere inan obvious way, diminishing emissions locally and globally, noise and visualpollution. It affects also the socio-cultural sphere by changing people’s wayto interact with the environment around them, improves their social inclusion by taking part in those activities and meetings and, as it is aerobic activity, it has repercussion over the health, rhythm of life, and general happiness. And finally,it affects the economic sphere, as this substitution improves private budget by saving in petrol and cars (and gyms probably), but also is beneficial for the local and city’s budgets, as it promotes public transport use as a side effect,diminishes traffic congestion and, by enhancing local movement and living,improves small commerce and services sector.

Is it inclusive?

In some areas, the social barrier between people being able to afford a car or not can determine their ability to access jobs and education because of the design of the cities and economic/income distribution.Even if this is not such a sharp problem in New Zealand, this initiative is inclusive as it blows social barriers; there are no divisions among stakeholders, lobby groups, leverage collectives. The favoured are much bigger than the affected ones (car industry as the main group) and the side effects are beneficial for the community as a whole.

Is the problem correctly defined?

Traffic is a main contributor to cities’ pollution ina bunch of places in the world. Despite it’s not New Zealand’s nor Canterbury’s main polluter regarding air quality, the problem of traffic emissions here is seen as a symptom of a much broader problem which encompasses the lack of environmental awareness. I think it’s a good thing trying to see the main picture, and this solution could appear as focused in a small problem but also improves the entire picture. Bikes and cars are quite visible and,consequently, present in our lives; using the bike is a declaration of principles, and can make a significant impact in the way people understandtheir relation with the ecosystem, not only those who bike-ride, but also those who see it and decide to change other aspects of their lives that are affordable to them.

Does it include the other issues related in the given ecosystem to achieve a complete view and reach the best solution?

Well, this is a tricky one. To begin with, the horizontal distribution of Christchurch and transport system cannot be changed nor by a small community, a group of aware neighbours, nor even all the bike riders of Canterbury by their own. It needs institutional involvement, substantial changes in the public transport network, and community development. Nowadays Christchurch is facing the development of its future and the scale of investments, changes and planning has probably no rival in all its history; this is both anopportunity and a threat for the environment (including the people and human environment) and the level of institutional commitment will shape itdramatically.

So, what’s the general conclusion? From an IEM perspective, this event and the initiatives they try to enhance are a very good starting point. Nevertheless, the planning model of the cities cannot bechanged without some institutional involvement, but people’s awareness is a powerful weapon and constitutes the main potential of this event and the entire 350.org’s initiative. Small actions are as important as mammoth enterprises and their repercussion on people’s lives’ improvement shouldn’t be dismissed so easily; after all, mountains are made of a bunch of sand grains, right?

And finally, one proof to show you that it’s not abudget issue, if you cannot afford the whole bike, you can save one wheel ;)

Edited on Monday26^th September:

Having a look at the page, it seems this day had agood tracking and assistance in the main cities it was celebrated, any ideasabout Chch? Please feel free to comment!

Lighting future up

Felipe: No, that helmet full of holes isn't good! It lets bullets in!
Mafalda: But' lets ideas out.

There haven’t been any entries these last two weeks because... there were holidays! Nevertheless, here we come back with some news. The semester is half way to its end and, despite I know I’m getting some readings, the comments and feedback are null, so I have added Google advertising; maybe this way the number of visits will increase. Soon you will see some advertising around here.

Today I will talk about two pieces of news I’ve found and, even if they’re not initially related with the environment, but which take care of one of the spheres I’ve mentioned in other entries: the social sphere. Each one of these spheres has a “bottom-line”, a minimum which is considered acceptable, and no action to improve any of them can imply the conditions to fall below this line. It’s the base and the objective of IEM practices is always keeping these lines high so all the spheres that affect environment mutually profit from this enhancement [This theory concept comes from Freer Sperckley (1981). Social Audit - A Management Tool for Co-operative Working, Beechwood College, Leeds, UK].

The first news (seen in The Press published August 26th) is caused by the anniversary of the first Christchurch quake. As some Cantabrians in nearby areas may have seen during the night, since September 4th there are two beams shining in the night sky from Cathedral Square and they will be on until February 23rd, to remember people the future that is to be re-built in Christchurch.
The second, also related with the social sphere, comes from the North Island; there, New Plymouth prison is teaching the prisoners to knit and they donate their creations to Women’s Refuge (more info here).

Ok, I recognize you could be wondering what on earth these so different pieces of news have to do with environment, but I think they take care of one of the line of the “triple” that usually is forgotten or dismissed and that can be very helpful regarding to prepare the field for future IEM actions.
Are people who make the work for the environment and who are (or must be) educated and cultivated to appreciate, value and protect environment; enhancing people into their communities, making sure their culture and welfare levels are high is a way to uphold the standard of that wire of the triple-bottom line. Even if these projects aren’t directly related to some environmental challenge which needs to be managed, they improve people’s life, by giving hope and mission, building stronger communities and, this way, facilitating the settlement of a basis for dialogue, bargaining, negotiation and cooperation that will be extremely helpful when approaching environmental problems; this way, given-hope people from Chch will pay more attention to their city reconstruction, and benefited people from New Plymouth prison initiative will be more valuable and will give better contribution to their community that if they are treated as cons and problem women. People will take more care about what surrounds them, will value better their strengths and know more deeply their weaknesses, so they can contribute better to their places, and this means the environment. Cultured, happy and focused people (the kind of people these projects help to create) value their environment and their Nature more deeply and are more willing to get involved into their conservation and management.
Using the phrases from The Press, the future is bright. And people are who are called to build this future.