lab account

8/14/2019 Lab Account

1/32

GALVANISINGCOMMUNITY-LED

RESPONSES TOCLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY PAPER


2/32

PART 1: THE CRISIS OF REFORM IN PUBLIC SERVICES 2

Acknowledgements

The primary evidence base for this paper is the experience of the ten community

initiatives that were the nalists for the Big Green Challenge. The ten nalists

presented their own progress reports throughout the competition year 2008/2009

and they have been the subject of detailed evaluations commissioned by NESTA.

The last of these was carried out in the last few months of 2009 by Brook Lyndhurst

and included focus groups and stakeholder, participant and nalist interviews, with

the ndings reported to NESTA in February 2010. This evaluation evidence is used

extensively in this paper to highlight the lessons that can be drawn from the nalists.

In addition, evidence is drawn from 17 other community-led initiatives that enteredthe Big Green Challenge (which are now receiving funding from DECC), and the

Eden Forum (a project in the South West of England part-funded by NESTA).

NESTA would like to thank the members of the community organisations for

the time, effort and enthusiasm they have shown in responding to the numerous

requests for information and comments about their initiatives during the Big Green

Challenge:

The Green Valleys, Brecon Beacons www.thegreenvalleys.org

Home Energy Services, Ludlow www.h-e-s.org

The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust www.islandsgoinggreen.org

Low Carbon West Oxford www.lowcarbonwestoxford.org.uk

Waste Oil Recycling in Prisons Project www.nesta.org.uk/big-green-challenge

St Bedes Catholic High School, Lytham www.easy2begreen.co.uk

Back 2 Earth, Hackney City Farm www.hackneycityfarm.co.uk

Faith and Climate Change in Birmingham www.faithandclimatechange.wordpress.com

Global Generation, Kings Cross, London www.globalgeneration.org.uk

The Meadows Ozone Community Energy Company, Nottingham www.meadowspartnershiptrust.org.uk

This paper has been written on behalf of NESTA by Trevor Houghton (Houghton

Research) and draws on consultations and direct contributions from Peter Capener

at NESTA and Jayne Cox, who with colleagues from Brook Lyndhurst, undertook the

independent evaluation of the Big Green Challenge.


3/32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

Alongside action by government and business,

community-led innovation will be central to

the UKs ability to achieve its CO2 emission

reduction targets. In order to galvanise community-

led responses to climate change, government will

however need to be more active in creating theconditions within which community leadership

can fourish. This paper draws out the lessons or

UK government climate change policy, drawing

on communities experience o NESTAs Big

Green Challenge. It proposes a series o practical

recommendations by which government could

ensure that communities are more willing and able

to take action in their own right with respect to

climate change.

The Big Green Challenge demonstrates that,

together with other government initiatives,community-led innovation can be a powerul

means or delivering national strategic objectives

at a lower cost to the public purse and with

less bureaucracy than traditional grant unding

processes or community and voluntary groups.

The Big Green Challenge was an innovation

competition to stimulate and support community-

led responses to climate change with a 1 million

prize und. The challenge to entrants was to develop

and implement sustainable ideas or reducing CO2

in their communities. The Big Green Challenge

winners achieved reductions in CO2 emissions obetween 10 per cent and 32 per cent in just one

year. When these reductions are set against the UK

target o achieving a 34 per cent reduction by 2020

it can be seen that these community-led initiatives

have delivered substantial cuts in emissions in

a very short time span and have the potential to

deliver deep cuts that will exceed the UK 2020

target in a matter o years.

The main lesson that should be drawn rom the

experience o Big Green Challenge nalists is that

the simple process o acting together is a powerulorce or changing peoples perception o their own

capabilities and has the potential or generating

collective action to tackle big problems like climate

change. The Big Green Challenge nalists were

able to start the process o culture change in their

communities, namely in collective belies and

behaviour. They were able to achieve this because

participants elt more strongly that they should be

doing something, through meeting people to shareideas with and becoming more convinced they could

actually make a dierence.

From this, and in a very short time, the Big Green

Challenge nalists have strengthened the capacity o

their communities to act, by or example developing

legal structures, the ownership o physical

inrastructure, new organisational orms, and skills

in business, nancial planning, and networking.

As a result o this, community initiatives have the

potential to become sel-sustaining. Having realisedthe strength o collective action, communities

actually require relatively light touch (though no less

important) interventions rom central government

to take orward initiatives in their own localities or

communities o interest.

A key part o the innovation revealed in the Big

Green Challenge was communities taking control

o their own energy supply or perormance as

a means to generating income to support other

community climate change activities. However, the

experience o these projects shows that in some

instances the design o programmes, the orms oregulation and bureaucratic processes put in place

by government, its agents and key partners such as

energy companies, actually hinder rather than aid

the development o community-led initiatives.

Given the prospects o substantial cuts in public

spending into the oreseeable uture, realising the

potential to create sel-sustaining community-led

initiatives should be an integral part o government

policies to tackle climate change.

Government needs to design programmes that alignmore closely with the ways in which community-led

initiatives work most eectively. This will depend on

a more outcome-driven approach, one that provides

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


4/32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

space to local organisations to innovate and devise

appropriate solutions in their communities (or

example, conditions in programmes that disallow

DIY approaches and the use o local contractors

need to be revised while maintaining controls on

quality o installations). Regulatory regimes need

to be appropriate to small-scale projects, and

bureaucratic processes should be simpler and

speedier.

But the most important thing or government to

do is to help community-led initiatives to become

more sel-sustaining and less reliant on short-term

grant unding. Community-led initiatives require

appropriate nancing mechanisms. This could

include providing seed corn nance and business

development support in the initial stages o getting

an initiative o the ground, and underwritingsome o the nancial risks o initiatives to make

them more attractive to private investors. Further,

government needs to recognise the need to support

the core administration o community-led initiatives,

not to assume an inexhaustible pool o volunteer

labour.

Longer-term, government needs to be seeking

advice and input rom community organisations

about the development o smart grids, as these

oer many opportunities to create a avourable

environment or local initiatives.

There are six main ways in which government could

galvanise the community-led responses to climate

change, with specic recommendations as detailed

below. These changes would represent a signicant

and valuable shit in policy rom regarding

communities essentially as passive recipients o

initiatives to working with communities to unleash

their potential, and rom ocusing mainly on the

individual household or business to building a much

stronger sense o collective action and purpose.

1.Creatinganindependentincomestream

forcommunity-ledinitiatives

Supportingcommunityownershipof

renewableenergy

Government should:

Promote community ownership o renewable

energy schemes where revenues are to be

reinvested in other carbon emission reduction

measures. This should include, as well as basic

advice, support through national planning

policy and support mechanisms or initial

development.

Investigate and put in place mechanisms or

giving access to capital nance on preerable

terms to community-led initiatives developing

renewable energy schemes.

Provide or support the development o early-

stage investment or communities looking to

carry out at-risk work on renewable energyprojects and to invest in organisational

capacity development.

Feed-inTariffsandtheRenewableHeat

Incentive

Government should:

Ensure processes or accessing FITs and the

RHI are kept simple and straightorward or

community-led initiatives.

Provide guidance and some orm o handholding service to communities to ensure they

can access this support.

Exempt community organisations rom having

to pay back capital grants in order to benet

rom FITs.

Accesstodistributiongrids

Government should:

Follow through on ensuring appropriate

licensing arrangements are put in place tomake it easier or community energy schemes

to interact with the wider electricity system and

ensuring that these work.

Include community organisations and social

enterprises in the consultations about

developing smart electricity grids and earmark

some o the existing development unding or

addressing how to integrate community-based

schemes into the uture vision.

Recognise the role o community-led schemes

in developing low carbon heat supply by

ensuring that such schemes are included in

local heat planning.

2.Buildingcommunitycapacitytodevelop

carbonemissionreductioninitiatives

Through the EST and other agencies,

government should urther develop and und

support services or community-led initiatives.

These should be developed in collaboration with

community organisations.

Give emphasis on networking community

organisations to provide peer to peer support/

mentoring.

Provide dierentiated support and unding or


5/32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

initiatives at dierent stages o development.

Strengthen the range o specialist advice

available to communities, including legal

support.

Work with potential unders like the BigLottery Fund and other charitable trusts

to develop ocused unding or community

capacity building around sustainability and

climate change issues.

3.Supportingcommunity-ledinitiativesas

socialenterprises

Government should:

Promote and nancially back the development

o trade association-type support bodies to

enable peer to peer support among community-

led initiatives.

Give a specic remit to RDAs to provide

business support services to social enterprises

ocusing on carbon emission reduction.

4.Sendingtherightsignalsconsistency

andoutcomes

National, regional and local government andagencies should:

Aim to send consistent long-term signals on

carbon reduction to local communities by

setting out clear outcomes in programmes.

This includes avoiding the negative signals

generated by the experience o the stop-start

delivery o some nancial support mechanisms

such as the Low Carbon Buildings Programme

and major energy eciency programmes such

as CERT.

Utilise an approach that joins top-down

messaging with bottom-up action to raise

awareness and promote behaviour change, or

example utilising examples o local community

action in national campaigns or resourcing

local action to consolidate the impact o

national campaigns.

5.Scaling-upandreplication

Government should change its approach to

spreading the impact o community-led initiatives

by:

Relying less on direct replication o best

practice models.

Focusing more on creating the opportunities

or communities to develop their own

solutions, learning rom each other but not

based on models imposed rom the centre.

Accepting that it is part o any innovatory

process that a proportion o initiatives willail and or this to be openly recognised by

decision-makers.

Reviewing the interace between communities

and energy suppliers, local authorities, central

government on climate change issues and

working to remove the barriers to eective

partnership with community-led initiatives.

This approach should also be refected in the

design o key programmes such as the energy

suppliers obligations under the Community

Energy Saving programme and the Carbon

Emissions Reduction Target, FITs and Renewable

Heat Incentive, the ESTs Green Communities

programme and DECCs Low Carbon

Communities Challenge and any ollow-on

initiative.

6.Measuringandrecognisingsuccess

Government should und the development

o a single standardised carbon ootprint

methodology and toolkit linked to NPI 186 that

can also be used at a community level. It shouldensure that the methodology:

Is developed with the input o community-led

initiatives.

Allows or lay people to collect appropriate

data and process it or their own use.

Is applicable to a very wide range o carbon

emission reduction actions.

Is suitable to very dierent local contexts,

or example dierent kinds o housing stock,

sources o reduction (business, housing,arms), and local uel mix (or example where

there is no gas supply and heating uel is

bought occasionally in bulk).

Government should also:

Encourage energy suppliers and local

insulation scheme managers to make

monitoring data available to community-led

initiatives.

Develop a national community award to give

recognition to communities that have achieved

particular milestones in carbon reduction.


6/32

CONTENTS 6

CONTENTS

Part 1: Lessons from the Big Green Challenge the value of 7community-led initiatives

Part 2: Fostering community-led innovation and action on climate 15change

Part 3: How government can intervene to support community-led 23innovation and action to cut carbon emissions

Endnotes 29

Reerences 30


7/32

7PART 1: LESSONS FROM THE BIG GREEN CHALLENGE THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY-LED INITIATIVES

PART 1:

LESSONS FROM THE BIG GREEN

CHALLENGE THE VALUE OF

COMMUNITY-LED INITIATIVES

In order to make appropriate interventionsto realise the full potential of communityaction, government needs to understand

the processes behind community-led initiatives

and how they can be used to reach furtherand achieve more. Here the lessons from theBig Green Challenge are used to show whatfactors enable community-led initiatives towork effectively to deliver deep cuts in carbonemissions.

The Big Green Challenge

Launched in October 2007, the Big GreenChallenge was an innovation competition tostimulate and support community-led responsesto climate change with a 1 million prize fund.The challenge to entrants was to develop andimplement sustainable ideas for reducing CO2emissions in their communities. The Big GreenChallenge was innovative in being a stagedprocess: unusually open and light touch inits early phases to invite participation from awide range of groups and communities, butprogressively more demanding in its later stagesto bring forward the development of projects withthe greatest potential. It was most importantly

outcome-driven in that it was looking for creativecommunity-led solutions to reduce carbonemissions. This approach ensured a large numberof entrants more than 350 communities in therst stage but it has also produced signicantresults in cutting emissions from the winningcommunities.

There were ve competition criteria for the BigGreen Challenge.

1. The primary outcome was carbon emission

reduction. In aggregate, the ten nalists cutcarbon dioxide emissions by between 1,773and 2,083 tonnes over the competition yearduring a period when they were laying thefoundations for more substantive work and

much larger further cuts.1 Measuring what hasbeen achieved as CO2 emissions reductionfor a community-led initiative is not astraightforward exercise. In practice it was not

possible to capture all the reductions achievedby the Big Green Challenge nalists in theirrst full year of activity as they included sucha wide range of actions. The baselines for eachcommunity were also very varied because ofthe big range of size and type of initiative.The winners achieved carbon emissionreductions in the range 10 per cent to 32 percent reductions over their baselines in thecompetition year. When these reductions areset against the UK target of achieving a 34per cent reduction by 2020 it can be seen thatthese community-led initiatives have deliveredsubstantial cuts in emissions in a very shorttime span and have the potential to deliverdeep cuts that will exceed the UK 2020 targetin a matter of years.

2. A key objective of the competition wasto promote innovation. The winners havedemonstrated a great inventiveness intheir approaches to cutting emissions andactivating their communities, which isdescribed later in this paper.

3. The ten nalists were largely community-ledprojects and were judged for their communityengagement. Up to 5,800 people wereengaged in the nalists work with around2,000 involved in a substantive way.

4. A range of organisational and managementmodels were adopted by the nalists andthese were judged for their sustainability.The winners have established themselvesas legal entities (such as co-operatives orcommunity interest companies) and have set

up structures that are capable of growth anddevelopment while fully involving their localcommunities.

5. The nalists approaches were also judged


8/32

8

The Big Green Challenge fnalists

The three winners (each receiving 300,000):

The Green Valleys is an initiative that is developing community-owned micro-hydroschemes, and improving the energy efciency of homes in the Brecon Beacons NationalPark.

Household Energy Services/Lightoot Enterprises is a community-based energy servicecompany that helps households to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efciencyand save money on fuel bills. It operates in the Welsh borders.

Isle o Eigg Heritage Trust. Residents of the Isle of Eigg are working together to createa green island by generating renewable electricity, installing insulation and solar panels,producing local food and developing low-carbon community transport schemes.

The runner-up (receiving 100,000):

Low Carbon West Oxord. The community is working together on energy efciency with35 households and ve businesses each year, by planting trees, and by working on localtransport and food projects. The resources to support this work are provided by WestOxford Community Renewables, an Industrial and Provident Society for the benet ofthe community that is developing a portfolio of renewable energy projects.

The other nalists:

Faith and Climate Change brings together a wide range of organisations in Birminghamto address environmental issues in places of worship and in faith communities.

Global Generations Living Buildings Local Links project gives young volunteersopportunities to develop food-growing spaces, biodiverse green roofs and plant-lteredgrey water systems on ofce rooftops, school grounds and development sites in theKings Cross area of London.

Hackney City Farm is home to Back 2 Earth, an environmental project which ispioneering 60 ideas for achieving a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions across thefarm site and in the wider community.

The Meadows Ozone Community Energy Company is a community-owned energyservices company in Nottingham providing local people with advice on energy efciency

and interest-free green loans. Their initiative aims to combat fuel poverty at the sametime as reducing carbon emissions.

St Bedes High School in Lytham is aiming to become one of the rst ever carbon-neutral schools by installing renewable energy equipment and creating a green culturethroughout the school.

Waste Oil Recycling Prisons Project at HMP Ford in West Sussex is reducing carbonemissions at the same time as helping offenders to develop new skills.

In 2008, all the nalists had received 20,000, plus mentoring and business support fromNESTA to develop their initiatives over the following year.

PART 1: LESSONS FROM THE BIG GREEN CHALLENGE THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY-LED INITIATIVES


9/32

9

for their scalability/replicability. The winnershave provided some organisational and legalmodels capable of replication and with anumber of elements that could be used byother community-led initiatives.

The Big Green Challenge demonstratesthat, alongside other government initiatives,community-led innovation can be a powerfulmeans for delivering national strategic objectives at a lower cost to the public purse and withless bureaucracy than traditional grant fundingprocesses for community and voluntary groups.

Defning communities and community-ledinitiativesFor the purpose of this paper, communities

are considered to be self-dening groups ofindividuals or organisations brought togetherby geography, identify or interest. The BigGreen Challenge nalists are predominantlycommunities dened by geography but includesome communities of identity or interest such asFaith and Climate Change.

Throughout this paper, the Big Green Challengenalists are referred to as community-ledinitiatives. There is a variation in the degreeto which communities have actually led theseinitiatives, with some being more a partnershipbetween communities and NGOs while othershave grown out of grassroots action and areclearly led by the local community. The wordinitiative is used to indicate that these areongoing processes and are not time-limitedas might be implied by their description as aproject.

Going beyond the technical fxEven if we were to accept that most of ournecessary carbon emission reductions will bemade through technological change, it has to be

recognised that human behaviour can completelynegate any technological improvement (forexample, the homeowner who insulates theirhome but then chooses to y on overseasholidays three times a year). But at a much morefundamental level the human factor has a largeimpact on:

The level of take-up of technical measuresto cut carbon emissions, within as manyhouseholds as possible.

The range of carbon emission reducingactions undertaken as a result of individualdecisions, within any one household.

The adoption of carbon emission-reducing

behaviours.

Innovation in developing new approaches toreducing carbon emissions.

In the space of one year, some of the Big GreenChallenge nalists have achieved substantial cutsin carbon emissions and have the potential todeliver deeper cuts in just a few years.

These communities are frequently working onactivities that are at a scale that the ofcialcentralised programmes wouldnt spot or wantto get involved in (because it is too resource-intensive to do without volunteers), or wouldntbe good at (because centralised programmes arenot responsive or trusted enough). In particular

the more successful of these community-basedinitiatives are pointing the way to the deliveryof in-depth systemic change. Some also providea path to creating self-sustaining and self-motivated initiatives.

Three main factors have been identied to explainthe impact and reach of the Big Green Challengenalists:

Starting the process of culture change.

Building the capacity to act.

The potential to become self-sustaining.

Starting the process o culture change

Changing collective behaviour, belies and valuesystemsThere is much talk of behaviour change as anecessary factor in achieving carbon reductions.The Big Green Challenge has shown that

community-based initiatives can initiate a processof culture change in the community whichreinforces and sustains individual behaviourchange.

In this instance, culture change can be denedas a change in collective behaviour, beliefs andvalue systems. The process will involve, in thejargon of behaviour change theory, creatingnew descriptive norms which specify what isdone, based on the observation of the majorityof others (Darnton 2008) and personal norms

such as a belief that it is possible to take actionthat will make a difference. This underpins ashift towards normalising behaviour that seeksto cut carbon emissions, supported by a beliefthat collectively a community can make a real



10/32

10

contribution to tackling climate change and that itis a joint responsibility to take action. Without thisdegree of social change it is unlikely that targetsfor CO2 emission reductions will be met.

The experience of the Big Green Challengenalists suggests that the process of culturechange is predicated on a number of factors. Theexperience of acting together is a key part ofsuch change where participants receive supportfrom each other, reinforcing a sense that they canmake a difference collectively. Being surroundedby enthusiastic people, they are able to act wherebefore they were alone and passive. This involvescreating a safe space where it is okay to putviews into practice and to adopt what might havepreviously been perceived as marginal viewpoints

or identities (such as being green).

The views of peers are part of this ethos.Belonging to the community becomes aninspiration to action that is matched by a feelingof obligation to support common aims. Thiscontext then creates an atmosphere where peoplefeel they are being helped by their community todo what they want to do (as opposed to feelingthey are being made to do something) and thiscan then lead on to being more ambitious andtaking further steps that previously appeared toodifcult.

Ive seen the potential for the fun that can be

had; I think thats where Ive shifted culturally.

Ive always shied against it in the past, as Ive

said, the earnest worthy feel to it all.

Participant interview, St Bedes

The Big Green Challenge nalists demonstratedve main motivations or reasons for adopting newbehaviours that underlie the process of culturechange:

Participants feeling more strongly that theyshould be doing something (personal norms).

Meeting new or more people to share ideaswith (social norms/learning).

Being convinced that they could actuallymake a difference (personal norms).

Being more condent that they could actuallydo it (personal norms).

Finding it to be less difcult than they thoughtit would be (personal norms).

There was also strong evidence that collectiveendeavour is a strong motivating and supporting

force for behaviour change. Common feedbackfrom participants was the feeling that doing ittogether had helped them adopt new practicesor change how they live, not least by giving theman overall sense that it was easier to do than they

imagined. Participation also led to changes inhabits:

And it becomes a way of life. It is like

changing bad habits for new habits, but good

habits. So that you dont actually think about

it, it just becomes a way of life.

Focus group, Isle o Eigg

Key behavioural success factors included:

Providing a range of options so that people

could join in at a level at which they feltcomfortable.

Lack of preaching about climate change andthe scale of what needs to be done.

Locating carbon reduction issues at a personaland local level, for example highlighting localimpacts of climate change.

Providing the means to action as well as a callto action, through direct contact and practical,hands-on support.

As a result, participants generally feel morestrongly that they should be doing something,they are more convinced they can make adifference, are more condent they can achievechange in their own lives, and have a sense that itis less difcult than they thought it would be. Thisapplied both to behavioural change and to widercommunity development, including community-owned micro generation.

Directed but responsive leadership

The most successful of the Big Green Challengenalists showed that effective leadershipprovided a directed but responsive approachwhich resulted in tangible outcomes. Unpackingwhat effective leadership means in this contexthighlights the following factors as beingimportant. This leadership is provided by:

Catalytic individuals who have a clear senseof direction and preparedness to take somerisks with an entrepreneurial approach.

People who are embedded in theircommunity with strong links to a range ofindividuals and local organisations.

Individuals with some relevant experience of



11/32

11

management derived from their day job.

People capable of identifying and connectingwith the experts/professionals who canprovide them with appropriate support both

within their communities and from outsideorganisations.

Such leadership is capable of breaking the mouldand innovating. It may in some instances fall toindividuals to provide such leadership but severalof the most successful Big Green Challengenalists were led by small groups which managedto balance preparedness to take risks withexpertise and experience.

The trusted local ace reaching the parts that

others cannot reachIt is often a claimed strength of third sectororganisations that they are capable of reachingthe parts that others cannot reach (Appleby2009). This is not universally true, as it isdependent on the capabilities of communityorganisations and the degree of theirembeddedness in their communities. However, inthe case of the Big Green Challenge, the nalistshave shown a capability to use existing localnetworks, face-to-face contacts, word of mouthchannels and trusted individuals to communicateideas, and to motivate action by a broad range ofordinary people in their communities.

While it remains true that some of those whohave become involved were already motivatedand active, there was also evidence that manynalists brought in new people with varyinglevels of environmental interest who would nothave taken action otherwise. While Big GreenChallenge nalists found it difcult to reach out tomore marginalised groups in their communities;there were some notable successes. For instanceGlobal Generation gave a specic example of

how aspects of personal identity had encouragedthe young people it worked with to becomeinvolved. For some of their Generators, who aresometimes from low income or ethnic minoritybackgrounds, being involved in gardeningprojects with high-prole businesses (such asthe Guardian newspaper) was about improvingtheir future employment prospects as much asgardening, and this may have helped them getsupport from their parents to be involved.

It is also important to recognise the limitations

of what community organisations can do withlargely voluntary labour. The nalists showedthat often the trusted local face also needed theback-up of expertise and this was often providedby outside professionals (such as from the Energy

Saving Trust or an NGO) though in some instancesthis also came from within the community bylocal businesses providingpro bono support.For instance Low Carbon West Oxford receivedextensive free advice from a local law rm. Some

initiatives also indicated that there was a nitepool of voluntary capacity in any one area.

Reaching outThe Big Green Challenge nalists havebeen inventive in coming up with ways ofcommunicating their experiences.

A wide range of methods have been used by thenalists to engage with their fellow citizens intheir communities. Many of the most successfulhave simply invited other people to join them in

doing some activity, such as creating growingspaces and allotments, having a picnic or plantingtrees. The Green Valleys have made much use ofthe artists in their community to create artworksthat symbolise what they are trying to achieve.An ongoing project is to weave a giganticwoollen blanket which will be a work of art butwill then be laid down to help remediate an areaof damaged upland peat bog. The wool, whichhas little commercial value, has been donated bylocal farmers, coming from the sheep that havecontributed to the damage through overgrazing.

Some have made particular efforts to link up withother similar communities wishing to emulatetheir example. The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust hasfor example set-up an online resource to shareits knowledge and experience with other smallisland communities that want to become moresustainable. The website showcases the workbeing done on Eigg and on other islands that theyare working with, and aims to encourage othersto follow in their footsteps. Another nalist, StBedes, developed a website which is designedto help other schools run their model, as well as

being a means of engaging their own community.Faith and Climate Change has used Twitter toreach out to faith groups in the Birmingham area.

At the heart of what has been achieved indissemination activities by the nalists is thatordinary people are relating their own directexperience to other ordinary people, motivatingthem to become involved and take action. Thiscan be seen to be a much more powerful wayof motivating people than advertising andexhortation by experts or politicians. It does

however have big resource implications and manyof the nalists struggled to balance disseminationactivities with actually running their initiatives.



12/32

12

Putting it togetherBy combining the experience of collective actionwith directed but responsive leadership, usingtrusted local people and reaching out both withinand beyond their communities, the Big Green

Challenge nalists have put in train a powerfulprocess that is beginning to create a new cultureof taking responsibility to act to cut carbonemissions.

Building the capacity to act

The Big Green Challenge nalists have, in a veryshort time, developed the capacities of theircommunities to act on climate change. Building

these capacities was a fundamental part of theprocess of culture change in these communities.Though these capacities are in most instances notspecic to action on climate change, they are theessential basis for effective community action orthe operation of successful social enterprises. Insome instances the nalists have got to the pointwhere they are investment ready in that they areprimed to both attract and effectively use nancefrom a range of sources (in the form of the BigGreen Challenge prize, private investment, orfurther grants).

The key capacities to act include:

Legal structuresMany of the Big Green Challenge nalists haveestablished themselves as registered Co-opsor Community Interest Companies, givingthemselves a legal status. Alongside acquiringthis status several have also done important workin developing model contractual arrangements(such as the Green Valleys with private owners ofhydro schemes, Low Carbon West Oxford withleasing roofs for photovoltaic systems). In some

instances these legal structures will underpinnalists ability to develop as social enterprises(as discussed later).

Ownership o physical inrastructureBarry Quirk, chief executive of the LondonBorough of Lewisham, identied a number ofbenets of community ownership in his report onasset transfer. These included:

Effective asset ownership and managementrequires a transformation in the culture of an

organisation in terms of management capacityand organisational development, which can beempowering for all those involved.

Ownership of a capital asset can be one of the

key factors in providing collateral for furtherborrowing, in levering in additional assets, andgenerating surpluses to nance new activity,thus providing a springboard for furthergrowth (Quirk 2007).

Several Big Green Challenge nalists have gonedown the road of ownership of assets such asowning or renting community buildings or plantgenerating renewable energy. Ownership of assetsalso gives a visibility to an organisation and,where this is combined with renewable energytechnologies, provides a demonstration andinspiration to the community.

An important aspect of community ownershipof renewable energy plant is that it can generate

an income stream (for example from electricityor heat sales) for further community initiativesand reduces dependence on grant funding that istypical of many community projects and in someinstances is a limiting factor on their development.This capacity is key to initiatives becoming self-sustaining as discussed below.

OrganisationSome of the Big Green Challenge nalists haveestablished democratic structures to administerand manage their organisations and theirnances. They have also been innovative increating structures that provide an input intodecision-making for community members (theGreen Valleys). Several of these are based on anexpert hub serving a largely volunteer base oflocal community/action groups. This federal typestructure maintains a central decision-making rolefor representatives of the local groups who sit ona board or management committee overseeingthe work of the whole initiative.

Business and fnancial planningBig Green Challenge nalists have utilised retired

business people and accountants, universityMSc students andpro bono support from localprofessionals to develop their nancial andbusiness plans. They have developed expertisein producing funding bids. In a few instances (forexample, the Green Valleys) they have producedfull business plans and risk assessments that willgreatly enhance their ability to go out to fundingbodies and particularly private investors tonance their initiatives.

Skills

All the Big Green Challenge nalists havedeveloped the skills base in their communities.These have varied from communication skills(as Green Ambassadors, Hackney City Farm),technical skills (such as turning waste cooking oil



13/32

13

into biodiesel in Waste Oil Recycling in Prisons),energy surveying (such as the local volunteersworking alongside professionals with HomeEnergy Services) or woodland management (theGreen Valleys). They have also developed softer

skills such as how to support each other andwork together. This can be important in raisingthe condence and abilities of ordinary people indecision-making (for example around large sumsof money) and to sustaining voluntary inputs.

NetworkingThe most successful of the Big Green Challengenalists have been very effective at networkingthe organisations and individuals in theircommunities, enabling them to act collectivelyand cohesively. For instance Faith and Climate

Change has established partnerships betweenfaith organisations. Some have shown adroitnessat accessing and mobilising the expertise withintheir communities (the Green Valleys) or in theirlocalities, for example Low Carbon West Oxfordand Waste Oil Recycling in Prisons made use ofthe expertise of their local universities.

The potential to become sel-sustaining

A new context the squeeze on public spendingFrom 2011, public spending is projected to rise byonly 0.8 per cent a year in real terms until 2014 a sharp adjustment for public services whichhave grown accustomed to relatively steadyincreases in investment. Given that some servicesare likely to be privileged over others, this willmean signicant cuts for some areas. The Institutefor Fiscal Studies has estimated the total cutsrequired by 2013-14 at 35.7 billion. Even with thecuts and efciency savings set out by the currentgovernment, there remains a gap of 15 billion ofsavings yet to be identied.

Given the prospects of substantial cuts in publicspending into the foreseeable future, realising thepotential to create self-sustaining community-led initiatives should be part of governmentsapproach to tackle climate change. The BigGreen Challenge nalists provide some examplesof approaches to creating independent fundingstreams and accessing private nance that mightsupplement or completely replace grant andproject funding from the public purse. Developingindependent funding streams allows initiatives

to make long-term and innovative plans withoutthe restrictions or the uncertainties of having torely on grant funding. Here, four examples aredescribed.

Training and education servicesSeveral of the nalists are providing training andeducation services which generate an incomestream. For example Waste Oil Recycling inPrisons has developed the only accredited

training programme on small-scale biodieselproduction from waste oil as a training product.

Green loans and credit unionsMeadows is operating in an area of highdeprivation, with many people affected by debtand fuel poverty. To tackle these issues they havedeveloped an interest-free green loans schemein partnership with a local credit union. Theloans help homeowners and tenants to purchaseenergy-efcient appliances and make energy-saving improvements to their homes.

Ethical/green community investorsLow Carbon West Oxford has sought to harnessnancial support by issuing a share offer. This willprovide a core of share capital for investment in aportfolio of renewable energy projects schemeswhich will provide a long-term income stream tosustain their initiative. Much of this income will gointo nancing carbon reduction measures in localhomes and in the community.

Accessing private risk capitalThe Green Valleys have realised that any singlemicro-hydro scheme is too small and insignicantto attract standard private nance, so they areaggregating 40 micro-hydro projects to providean attractive investment portfolio with relativelylow levels of risk given the tried and tested natureof the technology. This will ultimately enable theBrecon Beacons to become zero-carbon and anexporter of renewable electricity. Much of thisrevenue will be reinvested into carbon reductionmeasures in the community.

In the same way, Low Carbon West Oxford

has developed a portfolio of projects usingdifferent renewable energy technologies, therebyspreading the technical risks for investors andbalancing ease of installation (photovoltaics)against technologies (wind and micro-hydro)that have a longer development process but abigger nancial return. A key part of their offer toinvestors is full accounting of not just a nancialreturn but a carbon and social return as well.

As can be seen these approaches are leading tothe position where initiatives have a semi or fully

independent income that is being reinvested inthe local community. Money that previously wasowing out of these communities (paying forcarbon intensive energy) will in the future beretained, strengthening the local economy and



14/32

adding to the well-being of these areas.

Lessons or government interventions

The main lesson that should be drawn fromthe experience of Big Green Challenge nalistsdescribed in this section is that the simpleprocess of acting together is a powerful forcefor changing peoples perception of their owncapabilities and the potential for collective actionto tackle big problems like climate change.Having realised the strength of collective action,communities actually require relatively lighttouch (though no less important) interventionsfrom central government to bring forward

initiatives in their own localities or communitiesof interest. Appropriate small interventions mightinclude increasing access to expert support andassistance with networking the sort of supportalready being provided through the EnergySaving Trusts Green Communities programme.

The most signicant interventions that could beprovided by government could be around helpingcommunity-led initiatives to become more self-sustaining and less reliant on short-term grants.This might include providing seed corn fundingand business development/mentoring supportin the initial stages of getting an initiative off theground, and underwriting some of the nancialrisks of initiatives to make them more attractiveto private investors. Specic recommendationslinked to these types of intervention are exploredfurther in the nal section of this paper.

14PART 1: LESSONS FROM THE BIG GREEN CHALLENGE THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY-LED INITIATIVES


15/32

PART 2: FOSTERING COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION AND ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 15

This section deals with two aspects of creatinga favourable and open environment to fostercommunity-led innovation and action. The rstconcerns identifying the negative factors thatare impeding community-led initiatives such as

poor working relationships with key partners andmismatches in the design of programmes andforms of regulation. The second concerns thepositive factors that could assist community-ledinitiatives such as creating independent incomestreams and providing support for entrepreneurialapproaches.

Negative actors that impede community-led initiatives

Misalignment between community needs andcurrent mechanisms or CO2 emission reductionThe experience of the Big Green Challengenalists shows that in some instances thedesign of programmes, the forms of regulationand bureaucratic processes put in place bygovernment, its agents and key partners such asenergy companies, actually hinder rather than aidcommunity-led innovation and action.

Here some examples are provided of themisalignment between the way in which

the nalists want to work and the design ofprogrammes and the regulatory context in whichthey operate. This is important because theinterface between communities and the mainmechanisms for delivering CO2 emission reductionare often complex, inaccessible, and dont reectcommunity needs, thereby greatly reducing thepotential impact communities can make in termsof CO2 emission reduction.

Creative packages o actionsMuch of the innovation demonstrated by Big

Green Challenge nalists has been in devisingcreative packages of actions that combine tomake an integrated, deep approach to reducingcarbon emissions. For example Low Carbon WestOxford combined actions on renewable energy

generation, domestic energy efciency, landuse management, and production of local food.Other nalists had packages that also addressedsustainable transport and waste/recycling.

The barrier experienced by the nalists was thatsuch combined approaches cut across a numberof policy boundaries and so were not well gearedto the narrow single stream approaches of manygovernment programmes.

Do-it-yoursel approachesCommunity-led initiatives are frequently focusedon a DIY approach based on volunteers or localexperts donating their time with limited supportfrom paid staff. A large part of the success of theBig Green Challenge nalists was in accessing andmobilising this low or no-cost volunteer input.

The nalist experience was however that thisdoes not t well with government, its agentsand energy suppliers requiring speciallyaccredited,2 professional contractors (who areoften national as opposed to local companies)to carry out works associated with their fundingprogrammes. For example the Green Valleyswas very effective in nding local and often freeexpertise (engineering/nancial/construction)to install micro-hydro schemes at very low costwhich meant it was not worth them applying

for government funding which would haverequired them to use accredited paid contactors signicantly adding to the total costs.

The costs of special accreditations can stie thedevelopment of capacity amongst small localcontractors for the manufacture and installation ofenergy efciency measures and microgenerationtechnologies. Set against this is the need toensure good standards and to clamp down oncowboy installers. So a balance is needed toensure the market place is not heavily skewed in

favour of large national companies who can affordthe relevant accreditations.

Outcomes, risks and incentivesThe nalists praised the approach of the Big

PART 2:

FOSTERING COMMUNITY-LED

INNOVATION AND ACTION

ON CLIMATE CHANGE


16/32

PART 2: FOSTERING COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION AND ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 16

Green Challenge in putting the emphasis onachieving the outcome of reduced emissions andleaving it to the inventiveness and risk taking ofthe community initiatives to decide how to deliver.The nalists reported that the incentive of a prize

did raise the scale of their ambitions. The space totake risks, and for some approaches to fail whileothers succeed, was highly valued by the nalists.

Several nalists compared this approach with theoutput counting required by some governmentand energy company programmes. A key impactof this was to foster a regime of playing it safe inorder to meet the required target which in turnstied innovation.

Linking top-down messages and bottom-up

activityIt was signicant that where Big Green Challengenalists goals positively aligned with thestrategic goals of local, regional and nationaltiers of government and government agencies,it greatly aided partnership working and theimpact of the initiatives. At a regional level, theGreen Valleys and Low Carbon West Oxfordbeneted signicantly from their links to theBrecon Beacons National Park Authority andSEEDA respectively. They both received nancialsupport for project leaders but there was alsocross-fertilisation of learning on carbon reductionactivity. At a local level the signals sent throughNational Performance Indicators and Local AreaAgreements are important. Faith and ClimateChange described a very positive relationshipwith its Local Strategic Partnership whichprovided moral and nancial support.

Conversely, another nalist had wanted to engagewith a local authority to help deliver their NI186commitment, but then found out that they hadntsigned up to it. This raises the question that if wewant to hit our carbon reduction targets, should

local authorities actually have the choice over thisimportant national performance commitment?At a broader level the consistency and clarity ofthe top-down message and its linkage to bottom-up activity was shown to be a vital motivatingfactor. The experience of the nalist was thatgovernment still seems to think that people arebetter informed about climate change than theyare, and that ofcial leaets and advertisingcampaigns are not necessarily getting through.

Measuring carbon emissions reductions

The nalists highlighted that feedback from themonitoring of carbon emissions reductions wasa motivating factor and could become a usefulinitiative-wide management tool. Some pointedto the future and the need for good monitoring

data to justify sustainable energy projects withinLocal Development Frameworks and in informingthe design of smart grids and district heatingschemes.

However, the experience of carbon footprintmethodologies was frequently frustrating becauseof their limited scope and inability to cover thefull range of activities undertaken by the nalists(for example, covering the growing of local foodas well as home insulation). The CO2 monitoringalso placed a heavy burden on communities dueto the lack of readily available alternative sourcesof information. In the future, larger initiatives mayneed a combination of access to monitoring datafrom energy suppliers and installers (linked toprogrammes like CERT) as well as having access

to appropriate carbon footprint tools to obtainfull feedback on their impact.

The balance between capital and revenue undingIt was highlighted by the Big Green Challengenalists that community-led initiatives dependenton voluntary inputs from their community doneed a professional administrative core to provideadequate ongoing co-ordination and support.

The nalists identied nding funding forpeople and core costs as being hard to comeby and something that most community groupsneeded. Finalists said they thought communityfunding was shrinking and that there was morecompetition for what was left. The ScottishClimate Change Challenge Fund has addressedthis issue directly for example by investing incommunity capacity building.

Utilising the receipts rom trading activitiesSome nalists were utilising funding from severalsources in combination with attempts to developtheir own independent income from tradingactivities (most often selling electricity generated

from renewable energy). The latter was seenby several nalists as a critical source to bedeveloped to help them move away from grantdependency and becoming fully self-sustaining.

However the experience of some nalists was thatconditions on some funding programmes actuallyplaced real restrictions on how money was spentand effectively prevented its use for setting uptrading activities. This particularly applied toprojects trying to set up income streams fromgenerating electricity from renewable energy

installations. One specic problem they faced wasrelated to the Low Carbon Buildings Programmesrestrictions on funding linked to EU law on stateaid.3


17/32

17PART 2: FOSTERING COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION AND ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Gaining permissionsThe Green Valleys is one Big Green Challengenalist that has attempted to work with planningand regulatory agencies to adapt policies andpractices to make them more appropriate to

the large number of micro-hydro developmentsthey are bringing forward in the Brecon BeaconsNational Park. This has included an extendednegotiation with the National Park as the localplanning authority about the use of Section106 planning agreements (which set out thespecic planning gains attached to any newdevelopment). In this instance the Green Valleyshave promoted their use to ensure each hydroscheme has a condition attached to their planningpermission that they should invest in conservationof the water resource/upland peat bogs. They

have also worked with the Environment Agencyto speed up the process of issuing abstractionlicences.

Despite such positive experiences, gainingplanning permission and abstraction licencesremains a signicant barrier to community-ledprojects to develop renewable energy projects.For example, this key conclusion of the EdenForum, a network of community-led initiatives inthe SW of England:

Costly application and planning processesand environmental impact assessments makes

it extremely risky business for the investor to

engage in a community energy project that

may or may never become reality.

Eden Forum 2009

In addition there is sometimes a misalignmentbetween how government policy is applied bydifferent government departments and agenciessuch as DECC, the Environment Agency, NaturalEngland and English Heritage. For a potentialmicro-hydro project for instance, the applicant

may nd herself with a proposal completely inline with government policies and commitments(regarding carbon reduction targets, generationof clean energy, etc.) but often will not receive theplanning permission to install a micro-hydro sitebecause of conservation issues with regards toeither the building or the site (Eden Forum 2009).

Relationships with key partnersFew of the nalists reported having productiverelationships with energy companies and severalwere fearful of being taken over or squeezed out

by these major commercial interests.

Similarly nalists had very mixed experienceof working with the appropriate departmentsof their local authorities. This included some

misalignment on overall goals and lack ofexpertise on renewable energy in local planningdepartments.

Based on this experience, in aggregate it did not

seem that the signicant scale of energy activitybeing delivered through ofcial organisationswas very accessible to or supportive ofcommunity-led initiatives.

Working with the ESTThe Energy Saving Trust (EST) is the key deliveryagent for governments policies relevant tocommunity-led energy initiatives to cut carbonemissions. The ESTs Green Communitiesprogramme aims to support, facilitate andpromote community based energy projects. EST

administered a pilot of the Green Neighbourhoodsprogramme, with the aim of giving a greenmakeover to up to 100 neighbourhoods inEngland to reduce their carbon footprints bymore than 60 per cent. The EST also providesenergy advice and support through a UK networkof advice centres.

This support was an important contributor tothe success of many of the Big Green Challengenalists.

However there were times when the t with acommunity-led approach could have been moreeffective. Issues that were reported by the nalistsand members of their communities included:

Accessibility of some of the funding availablethrough EST programmes.

Uncertainty towards the EST as an outsideorganisation, unknown to the local community.

In some cases local EST services ran counterto those of the nalists.

A perceived lack of practical expertise on keysubjects (such as microgeneration) from ESTsadvice service.

Some of these issues are already being addressedby EST.

Positive actors supporting community-ledinitiatives

Creating an independent income stream orcommunity-led initiativesThe concept is simple, a community develops arenewable energy scheme (helping to cut carbon


18/32

emissions) and makes money from energy sales,that revenue is then available to fund furthercarbon emission reduction measures in homes,businesses and community building.

It is recognised that government is alreadyproviding appropriate basic advice tocommunities wishing to develop renewableenergy projects. In Scotland this has beenavailable for some time through CommunityEnergy Scotland which has also drawn up aguide entitled Step by Step Guide to Financinga Renewable Energy Projectwhich includescase studies of communities that are currentlydeveloping their own wind projects (see: www.communityenergyscotland.org.uk/revenue-generating.asp).

Government announced in the UK Low CarbonTransition plan that it would be providing newfunding to develop an online How to guide forcommunity energy, to be available from early2010; this will be an information hub for anyonelooking to install renewable and low-carbonheat and electricity generating technologiesat community scale. The EST is now providingthis advice through the Green Communitiesprogramme (see: www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/cafe/Green-Communities/Project-Support/

Undertaking-a-community-scale-renewable-energy-project).

But further support is needed particularly to getthrough the initial stages of development. Here

a couple of models for helping communitiesthrough that rst step to becoming self-sustainingare presented and they show social enterprisescould be the key actors in providing the support.

Access to investment capital is difcult forcommunity-led initiatives and there have been anumber of proposals put forward to respond tothis need.

Infrastructure UK was recently established toadvise government on funding infrastructure over

the coming 50 years. This includes the 90 millionearmarked to catalyse investment in energyand climate change infrastructure to be jointlyadministered with the European Investment Bank.Alongside this there have been various proposalsfor green investment banks (Green Alliance 2009)and a National Infrastructure Bank by Vince Cableof the Liberal Democrats. Such a bank might bea vehicle for providing nance on special termsfor community-led initiatives. Another idea putforward by Green New Deal Group (2009), iscreating a Green Government Bond as a savings

18

Model 1: Supporting Community Ownership o Renewable Energy

Community Renewable Energy (CoRE) is a social enterprise that is putting large-scalerenewable energy technology projects in the hands of local communities across the north ofEngland. It is funded by Regional Development Agency One North East and is also receivingsupport from DECC through the Big Green Challenge Plus.

Ross Weddle, Managing Director of CoRE, explains the organisations approach:Communities come to us with ideas for renewable energy projects that will provide them

with sustainable and secure energy supplies. We engage with each community to evaluate

their idea and, if we feel it has enough commercial potential, we support it from initial

technical development through to planning and implementation.

Every renewable energy project delivered by CoRE is owned by the community. CoRE workswith local people to develop the project and takes a share in the company set up throughCoREs energy services company (ESCo). The ESCo then manages the energy supply as wellas billing and maintenance. Once the ESCo is generating an income, CoRE takes a share ofthat income to cover its development costs and fund further projects in other communities.

See: www.core.coop/site/ and www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/public_services_lab/environment/

big_green_challenge/decc_projects

PART 2: FOSTERING COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION AND ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE


19/32


mechanism for both institutional (pension funds)and ordinary savers to support investment incarbon reduction.

Further examples of community-led approaches

to securing community investment are outlinedbelow.

Making Feed-in Taris (FITs) and SmartGrids work or community-led initiatives

The introduction o FITs and the Renewable HeatIncentive

Among the Big Green Challenge nalists therewere great expectations about the positiveimpact of the introduction of FITs (for low-carbonelectricity to be introduced in April 2010) and the

Model 2: Providing investment capital or community ownership

West Oxord Community Renewables

This is an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS) developed alongside Low Carbon WestOxford. It develops community-owned renewable energy projects and donates most ofthe income to Low Carbon West Oxford to support its carbon reduction activities acrossthe community including a revolving loan fund to help householders undertake low carbonretrotting. The IPS seeks member investors concerned about long-term broader societaland environmental goals rather than short-term nancial gain. Shares are issued at the valueof 1. The value of the shares could decrease or increase but is not likely to exceed 1. Theminimum shareholding for full adult members is 10 and the maximum permitted by lawis 20,000 except for other Industrial and Provident Societies and nominee investors whocan hold shares worth more than 20,000. Larger sums can be accepted as loans, grantsor donations. The investments help to develop a pipeline of renewable energy projects.Once the energy projects are up and running, they will start generating revenue derived

from selling the electricity to the grid. The revenue generated provides a return to individualinvestors. West Oxford Community Renewables is developing accounting methods that willallow it to make carbon returns as well as nancial ones and it will report to its membersannually on nancial, environmental and social results of its investments.

Based on information provided by the project.

Community Power Cornwall is using a similar investment model to support communitieswith an ambition to set up their own renewable energy projects. In this case, the investmentshelp communities set up their energy projects. The revenue generated provides a returnto investors, supports a local low carbon fund and invests in a wider revolving fund thatwill have the capacity to offer loans and equity nance for future independent communityenergy initiatives.

South West Energy Bond This idea, inspired by Community Power Cornwalls model,targets one of the main barriers preventing community-scale renewable energy projects,nancing, and recognises the opportunity to develop sustainable business models. Aworking group of the Eden Forum is looking at scaling up renewable energy supply acrossthe region and is investigating the possibility to design and issue a bond that will nancedistributed energy projects in the South West. This South West bond proposal includes theidea to mobilise 10,000 people to support the bond which would be endorsed by the RoyalSociety of the encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) Fellowshipnetwork.

Based on extracts (Eden Forum 2009).


20/32

20

Renewable Heat Incentive for low carbon heatto be introduced in April 2011) as a steady andreliable revenue stream for their wider activities.

However this was matched with concern about

the level and form the FITs will take. In an openletter to government published in the Guardian(18th December 2009) from 26 representatives oforganisations ranging from the National HousingFederation to Friends of the Earth highlightedthe signicance of FITs as a mechanism forsupporting decentralised renewable energy. Theletter stated:

Local, decentralised renewable electricity

generation has advantages beyond cutting

carbon emissions. Businesses generating

their own clean electricity will reduce theirenergy bills, increase their competitiveness

and reduce their vulnerability to future fossil

energy price rises. Communities can gain an

income and a stake in the creation of a low-

carbon economy, and households, social and

private landlords and local authorities can cut

energy bills and tackle fuel poverty. It will also

generate many jobs.

Andrew Battersby, Chair of Mendip PowerGroup (an organisation representing a numberof individual and community owned small-scale hydro schemes) states simply what smallcommunity generators need:

An effective FIT supported by the tax

structure and with less bureaucracy is the key.

(REA 2009)

The nal tariff levels and details of eligibilityfor FITs were announced in January 2010(DECC 2010a) and many of the most seriousconcerns have been addressed. However it willbe important that the practical delivery of both

FITs and the Renewable Heat Incentive, whenit is introduced in April 2010, is monitored andthat every effort is made to make the process forreceiving support as simple and straightforwardas possible. There are remaining concerns thatcommunity-led initiatives that have developedRE projects with grants from the Low CarbonBuildings Programme in the run-up to theintroduction of FITs will have to repay thesegrants to be eligible to receive FITs.

Interestingly, the Welsh Assembly has recently

established a fund that will directly support socialenterprises in Wales with capital grants (seehttp://wales.gov.uk/news/latest/100121greenenergycash/?lang=en). The fund will enable projectsto then generate an income from the resulting

FIT offering the potential for reinvestment incommunity capacity and further action. The fundalso provides initial grants to support feasibilitystudies and preparatory costs thereby supportingcommunities at a crucial stage by providing

at risk funding. It is unclear as to whether thisapproach will be pursued within the rest of theUK.

The development of local heat distribution wouldgreatly aid community-led initiatives wishingto utilise biomass and other heat generatingtechnologies and could be an important factorin scaling up their impact on carbon emissions.This is in line with governments objective toimprove the infrastructure for the distribution ofheat which is very much part of the next stage of

carbon emission reduction with a strong focus onlow carbon heat supply.

In the 2009 Budget, the Government announced25 million in funding for low carbon communityheating schemes, allowing at least tencommunities to benet from cleaner, locallyproduced energy. Of this, 21.96 million isbeing made available through the Homes andCommunities Agency to deliver low carbonprojects in Growth Areas and Growth Points (seewww.homesandcommunities.co.uk/low-carbon-infrastructure ). In the UK Low Carbon TransitionPlan it was also announced that local authoritieswould have new responsibilities and powersregarding energy planning, heat mapping andplanning powers to require new developments toconnect to heating schemes (HMG 2009, 95-96).Recently CLG have also announced their plansfor Local Carbon Frameworks. In addition it hasbeen proposed that there would be an uplift inthe Renewable Heat Incentive to support districtheating (DECC 2010b). These are positive moveswhere community-led initiatives could really addvalue.

Smart GridsVery much linked to the introduction of FITs willbe access to the distribution grids and the wholeconcept of the smart grid, which suggests that:

many consumers will also be producers; it

is likely that power will be generated much

more widely by homes, businesses and

communities, from low carbon technologies

including solar power and small-scale wind.

Networks will need to allow operators to sense

power generation from multiple sources, andmanage two-way ows of electricity without

damage to equipment or disruption to supply.

(DECC 2009)



21/32


To reap the full benets of owning renewableenergy schemes and to aid their development,community-led initiatives will need easy access tothe local distribution grids not only for electricitybut, where they are developed, also for heat.Access is both a regulatory and a technical issue;the terms of access must be fair and appropriatemetering technologies must work for all parties.The process of connection also needs to beas simple and expeditious as possible. TheGovernment stated that it will introduce newlicensing arrangements that make it easier forcommunity energy schemes to interact with thewider electricity system and that further work isplanned to ensure arrangements work effectivelyin practice (HMG 2009).

At the end of 2009 the Government launched anew UK Smart Grid Demonstration Fund of up to6 million to accelerate development in the UK.In addition Ofgem will be making 500 millionavailable over ve years from April 2010 throughthe Low Carbon Network Fund for larger scale

trials (DECC 2009). While this funding currently isfocused on developing commercial opportunitiesfor UK industry it should also include the potentialfor aiding community-led development of smallscale renewable and low carbon electricitygeneration.

A particular area that might be addressed inthe development of smart grids is the potentialfor groups of domestic or other small-scaleconsumers to aggregate their electricity orheat demand to participate more effectively in

the wholesale market. Similarly, domestic andsmall-scale generators of surplus electricity orheat might be able to sell their energy directlyto an end-user (at a more favourable price)if they could aggregate their generation. The

issues of appropriate metering technologies andadministrative/regulatory systems would need tobe addressed to realise this potential.

An important element of the development ofSmart Grids is the whole concept of increasingthe ability to manage demand and therefore tooptimise the efciency of electricity generationon an hour by hour basis. Most of the Big GreenChallenge nalists have been including increasedfeedback to consumers on their energy demandas part of the package measures they haveoffered to their communities. One has taken thisto a very advance level.

While this specic example is geared to acommunity that is not connected to the NationalGrid, it is an example of the level of co-operationon balancing supply and demand that can beachieved in a highly motivated community. It isthis type of experience that needs to be fed into the development of Smart Grids on a nationalscale.

Supporting entrepreneurial approachesThroughout this paper it has been shown thatcommunity-led initiatives do need some levelof ongoing outside support to ourish anddevelop. The Big Green Challenge winners alsodemonstrate that an entrepreneurial approachis most effective. It is suggested here that abusiness orientated form of support may be moreappropriate than some existing types of support.It is noted that the 20 winning communities in theLow Carbon Communities Challenge (operated

through DECC) can access dedicated help to setup social enterprises through the Ofce of theThird Sectors Social Enterprise Action Researchprogramme.

Trafc lights on the Isle o Eigg

Every home on the Isle of Eigg is tted with an OWL energy meter to enable people to

monitor use (the rst community to have this level of engagement); these are also set tosound an alarm when electricity use at any time goes over 4Kw. Every household has agreedto a voluntary cap on electricity use at 5Kw per household at any time. This appears to bethe rst voluntary demand curb in Europe.

Another layer of demand management has come with the introduction of an energy trafclight system, where days are red or green depending on the level of power available onthe island (e.g. due to level of water ow or wind). This has been possible because of themuch wider recognition in the community that this is their own power system.


22/32

22

Several of the Big Green Challenge nalists arealready, or are on the way, to becoming socialenterprises and as a consequence it would beappropriate to look at support models basedon supporting businesses. Comparisons withthe support provided to community enterprisesoperating in the waste management sector arepertinent (see box). REalliance is effectively atrade body supported by WRAP (a government-

funded agency). This might be compared withthe support provided by the Transition TownsNetwork or the Low Carbon CommunitiesNetwork (see: http://lowcarboncommunities.net/) which both emphasise mutual support andsharing skills between community practitioners.

Lessons or government interventions

The experiences of the Big Green Challenge

nalists suggest that government needs todesign programmes that align more closely withthe ways in which community-led initiativeswork most effectively. This will include a moreoutcome-driven environment giving space to local

organisations to innovate and devise appropriatesolutions in their communities. Conditions inprogrammes that disallow DIY approaches anduse of local contractors need to be revised whilemaintaining controls on quality of installations.Similarly restrictions on use of receipts needto be removed. Regulatory regimes need to beappropriate to the scale of developments thismay mean providing simplied and speedier

bureaucratic processes for small-scale projects.Government needs to recognise the need forsupporting the core administration of community-led initiatives and to not assume there is aninexhaustible pool of volunteer labour.

The potential for many community-led initiativesto become self-sustaining through developingrenewable energy projects can be realised bygovernment putting in place appropriate nancialmechanisms to support projects in their earlystages. In the longer term government needs to

be seeking the advice and input from communityorganisations about the development of smartgrids as these offer many opportunities to createa favourable environment for local initiatives.

REalliance a model or supporting community energy initiative as socialenterprises

REalliance is a Community Interest Company that was formed by a partnership of fournetworks: the Community Recycling Network UK, the Furniture Reuse Network, theCommunity Composting Network, and London Community Resource Network. Its principalactivities are to provide development support, guidance and information for Third SectorWaste Management Organisations and to represent community sustainable resourcemanagement groups. The support provided is designed to enable organisations to sustainand develop the waste management activities they provide to their local communities.

By ensuring that policymakers at all levels of government are aware of the needs ofcommunity sustainable resource management groups, REalliance CIC aims to ensure thatthese groups have a favourable environment in which to operate and that any new policiesand regulations treat these groups satisfactorily.

REalliance is supported by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme)WRAP itself helps to develop third sector organisations through the provision of technical,marketing, strategic or other support to directly increase capacity. Their support comprisesdedicated case management combined, in selected cases, with funded independentspecialist support or interim management assistance.

See: www.realliance.org.uk



23/32

PART 3: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN INTERVENE TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION AND ACTION 23

This paper has focused on how and whycommunity-led initiatives can be effective in

reducing carbon emissions. Lessons have beendrawn to suggest how government can improvesupport and catalyse community action to thisend. Here a number of specic recommendationsare put forward to set out the main prioritiesfor government in supporting community-ledresponses to climate change.

The ocus or government interventions

Here the emphasis is on interventions that leavecommunities more willing and able to take actionin their own right, with respect to climate change.Mobilising communities involves tapping into localcreativity, enthusiasm and the growing desire toact. It is characterised by the need for dialogue,a shift to working with communities as opposedto regarding communities as passive recipients ofservices, and a need to build a sense of collectiveaction and purpose, as opposed to focusing onlyon the individual household or business.

Six key areas are highlighted:

Creating an independent income stream forcommunity-led initiatives.

Building community capacity to developcarbon emission reduction initiatives.

Supporting community-led initiatives andsocial enterprises.

Sending the right signals consistency andoutcomes.

Scaling up and replication.

Measuring and recognising success.

Creating an independent income stream orcommunity-led initiatives

Community ownership o renewable energyschemesThe evaluation of the nalists found that a keypart of the innovation revealed in the Big GreenChallenge was communities taking control of theirown energy supply or performance as a means ofgenerating income to support other communityclimate change activities.

This nding could provide the basis for arevolution in community action on carbonemission reduction. Governments key role is toassist the community in taking the rst step developing the renewable energy source. Afterthat the community has an independent incomestream and can devise their own local solutions.

Recommendation supporting communityownership o renewable energyGovernment should:

Promote community ownership of renewableenergy schemes where revenues are to bereinvested in other carbon emission reduction

measures. This should include, as well as basicadvice, support through national planningpolicy and support mechanisms for initialdevelopment.

Investigate and put in place mechanisms forgiving access to capital nance on preferableterms to community-led initiatives developingrenewable energy schemes.

Provide or support the development of early-stage investment for communities looking to

carry out at-risk work on renewable energyprojects and to invest in organisationalcapacity development.

PART 3:

HOW GOVERNMENT CAN

INTERVENE TO SUPPORT

COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION

AND ACTION TO CUT CARBON

EMISSIONS


24/32


25/32

25

Provide differentiated support and funding forinitiatives at different stages of development.

Strengthen the range of specialist adviceavailable to communities, including legal

support.

Work with potential funders like the BigLottery Fund and other charitable truststo develop focused funding for communitycapacity building around sustainability andclimate change issues.

Support or community-led initiatives associal enterprises

Given that many of the Big Green Challengenalists and other community-led initiatives areadopting a social enterprise model, it would beappropriate for business-type support to bedeveloped geared specically to carbon emissionreduction social enterprises. Again there are goodexamples of peer to peer support being effectivein related areas. This is an area where RDAs arealready providing some services and these mightbe further developed.

The introduction of the Feed-in Tariff heralds ashift away from grant funding for capital works.This will require communities to develop a morecommercial approach to seeking investment.In this sense community initiatives will bearmany similarities to small businesses andsimilar approaches (adapted to the needs ofcommunities) to supporting communities tobecome investment ready will be required.

Recommendation Support or community-ledinitiatives as social enterprisesGovernment should:

Promote and nancially support thedevelopment of trade association-typesupport bodies to enable peer to peer supportamong community-led initiatives.

Review the options for developing aninvestment readiness service for communitiesand in particular consider giving a specicremit to RDAs to provide business supportservices to social enterprises focusing oncarbon emission reduction.

Sending the right signals consistency andoutcomes

In order to build a real sense of collective actionand purpose it is essential all tiers of government

provide consistent signals on carbon emissionreduction. The need for consistency cannot beoveremphasised and this specically appliesto ensuring that nancial support mechanismsprovide a steady and uninterrupted stream offunding to enable initiatives to be progressedwith condence in the long-term direction. Ashas been heavily emphasised by the lessons ofthe actual structure of the Big Green Challenge,setting goals and targets within governmentprogrammes needs to be based on outcomes asthis is a much more effective way of providing

space for innovation and local t than focusingon outputs.

In addition, the experience of the Big GreenChallenge nalists suggests that greaterefforts to join top-down ofcial advertisingand information campaigns with bottom-upcommunity activity would bring dividends inachieving greater awareness of the potentialfor community-led responses to climate changeas well as enhancing the impact of nationalawareness campaigns.

Recommendation sending the right signalsNational, regional and local government andagencies should:

Aim to send consistent long-term signals oncarbon reduction to local communities bysetting out clear outcomes in programmes.This includes avoiding the negative signalsgenerated by the experience of the stop-start delivery of some nancial supportmechanisms such as the Low CarbonBuildings Programme and major energy

efciency programmes such as CERT.

Utilise an approach that joins top-downmessaging with bottom-up action to raiseawareness and promote behaviour change, forexample utilising examples of local communityaction in national campaigns or resourcinglocal action to consolidate the impact ofnational campaigns.

Scaling-up and replication

The Big Green Challenge nalists are all localand are therefore small-scale projects affectingat most the carbon emissions equivalent to

PART 3: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN INTERVENE TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION AND ACTION


26/32

26

hundreds of households, not thousands or millionsof households. So it could be suggested that thecontribution such initiatives can make may bevery marginal to the huge task required to make

a 34 per cent reduction in carbon emissions inthe UK by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by2050.

One response to this is that there is potential for

replication of the models developed by some ofthe Big Green Challenge nalists.

However there are also dangers with the idea

that any community-based model can betransposed into other areas as a ready madeidentikit solution. The traditional top-downpiloting or scaling-up model falls short as ittries to implement locally devised solutions in

The potential or replication in National Parks

The Green Valleys model supports the development of micro-hydro schemes by local

communities, farmers and other land owners in the Brecon Beacons National Park. Theincome stream from electricity sales from the community-owned schemes is then used tofund further measures to cut carbon emissions in those communities.

The replication of the complete Green Valleys package based on high head micro-hydrois constrained by the topography of the land, i.e. it is most appropriate to areas with largeareas of steep uplands such as many of our National Parks but would also include somelocal authority areas such as those in West Wales. Many of the elements of the GreenValleys model might be adapted to other more low lying areas where alternative renewabletechnologies might be more appropriate such as wind or low head micro-hydro. Theprojects model is being promoted by other agencies throughout Wales and the GreenValleys list a number of Welsh regions who have expressed strong interest.

This initiative organised its rst major dissemination event in September 2009 directed atother National Parks across the whole of the UK. The innovative linkage between micro-hydro an

lab account

Documents