In answer to phase 1 question[]
I was reading the other day about the internet being set up so that if half of it were wiped out it would still function. That's kind of what I feel has happened with regards to UK sustainability networks This is my take. The UK local authorities were well served by the la21 uk campaign under the Local Government Management Board (LGMB), and it provided to them the basic network function (meets, mails and advocacy). Then things went off course when LGMB was wound up and its replacement IDeA appeared to 'drop the baton' (sadly just the moment when perhaps UK wide local sustainability needed its voice most i.e the so called 'transition from la21 to community strategies'). By the time IdeA had picked things up again, things had so fundamentally changed that much UK wide sustainability networking had been destroyed.
But,things are still happening. Old county sustainability groups kept going - off and on, occasional regional conference have been held, some local agenda 21 processes carried on regardless, devolved adminstrations picked and ran with their own networks. The English Regions have dabbled. The Sustainable Development Commission started to support networking with a mailist and some advocacy. Despite everything, networks continued to work.
I think a group like the Sustainable Development Commission has a key role in pursuading the Regional Assemblies and Government Offices to plug this obvious networking 'english gap'. It might not be earth shattering stuff: a annual conference, occasional newsletter, english web hub, but worth it none the less. It may also be the missing ingredient to make the Prime Minster's request for 'reinvigation' of local sustainability work. Afterall the Prime Minister referred to reinvigoration of what had been happening (under the heading in his speech titled 'Local Agenda 21'). Reinvigoration in my book should mean further stimulation and support, not reinventing a different (Community Action 2020) wheel.
For the record thanks for asking these questions and please feel free to cut and paste this in the right section! I'm no Wiki expert, nor familiar with etiquette! Bryan
Some edits moved[]
I've moved Jamie's comments around to fit the structure of the page; and will be inclined to do similarly for other contributions that are clearly wandering from their natural home. This could be viewed as taking a minor liberty in wikiland, so if there's any problem with such changes please let me know. It's done sensitively with the intent of enhancing individuals' input and building the best page. --Tim Gray 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Tension between bureaucratic structures and real peoples' activity[]
I have been involved in a network-approach to support for the global dimension in the school curriculum in response to the department for international development. They adopted the local government regions of England as the basis for this work but it has proved very difficult (with a very limited budget) to get Local Authorities and the local voluntary sector to engage at a regional level in South East England. It is an absurdly large and inconveniently-shaped region.
What we have is a localist approach. People operate at a town or borough level. I would be interested in how a sustainability network has experienced this tension between bureaucratic structures and real peoples' activity. Angus Willson
- Hi Angus, Several years ago I was involved with a couple of regional getherings for LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems, no budget whatsoever). They tended to atttract people from near the venue, but I think people still found them useful. I understand the South East Forum for Sustainability has held networking events in London, and this seems to me sensible from the point of view of accessibility (for events with a South East focus). I also think that London and the South East as a whole, particularly from the point of view of sustainability, makes sense in a way that the two admin regions separately do not. Philralph 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thinking of a name?[]
Don't know if this is off topic a bit, but might help crystalise ideas for what network would be about - 'England 21' anyone? Philralph 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is going to sound harshly negative I'm afraid: Ack! No!
- I don't think a name is important at this stage. If there is no groundswell of interest, and no consensus on what it's about, a name will be superfluous. (My personal opinion is that the network idea will only work if done in a very unilateral way and dropped out of the sky in front of people, but I'd be pleased to be proved wrong by democracy!)
- Any name it does get should convey some meaning in its own right and not hang itself on something the market doesn't understand. It should be an "OK, no more farting about, this time we mean business" name, because I don't think us weirdo greenie sustainabilists can afford to indulge ourselves any more. --Tim Gray 14:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Note re Acronyms[]
Just done some edits to explain a few of the main acronyms. Appreciate that entries sometimes done in a hurry - this not meant to deter anyone - the fewer acronyms the better, but would rather have your edits / contribtuions however you can manage them, Regards Philralph 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)