Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-01 11:55] – [Framing] maja | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 12:20] – [Planning 2016] maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
==== Agenda ==== | ==== Agenda ==== | ||
- | In the morning the participants focused om Marine CoLAB as a whole. Beginning with reflecting on **Marine CoLAB so far**: what worked and what needs more work. Grounded in this experience they moved into a visioning process lead by Giles to clarify the overall | + | In the morning the participants focused om **Marine CoLAB as a whole**. Beginning with reflecting on //Marine CoLAB so far//: what worked and what needs more work. Grounded in this experience they moved into a visioning process lead by Giles to clarify the overall Marine CoLAB //vision and mission//. At the end of the morning Sue took the group through a beautiful presentation and discussion of the //values based approach//, as a lens that can be used to shape and evaluate projects, experiments and the initiative itself. In the afternoon, the focus was on **Marine CoLAB project incubator**, |
{{> | {{> | ||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
=== What can we improve? === | === What can we improve? === | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
Line 143: | Line 145: | ||
(within organisations, | (within organisations, | ||
* Focus outwards | * Focus outwards | ||
- | * Create a thought piece explaining something like "this is the benefit of 12 months of Marine CoLAB", | + | * Create a thought piece explaining something like "this is the benefit of 12 months of Marine CoLAB", |
- | Communicate how it affected ways of working, what effects it had on specific projects, potential long term value for oceans, etc. | + | |
Line 150: | Line 151: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The visions of Marine CoLAB in 2021 | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Value is at heart of Marine CoLAB, connecting the public with oceans and increasing the environmental benefit. Value is also a challenge for Marine CoLAB, defining the rules of the game. The CoLAB is a framework that feeds the organisations involved with game-changing ideas and projects. It isn’t quite clear what the size of its pond is, but it is likely that its purpose is to think, or perhaps think and implement, more likely to connect and spawn initiatives rather than do everything itself. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Marine CoLAB perpetuates change in three areas: governmental/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Clarity about the added value of Marine CoLAB, for the organisations and the world. There is a clear articulation of strategy in three strands: | ||
+ | * Actual experiments that show change; including learning from the process, replicating and adapting experiments to other areas, developing metrics, etc. | ||
+ | * Good internal and external communication reaching broad audiences | ||
+ | * Values shift | ||
====Mission / MIX==== | ====Mission / MIX==== | ||
- | ( cross reference w. Giles' notes ) | + | < |
- | * network focused on values based solutions to protect & restore the ocean | + | * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the 'values based approach’ |
- | * a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the oceans & drive change | + | * Recognising existing values, rather than changing or creating ' |
- | * we aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health | + | * What is the timeframe? |
- | * recognising existing | + | Glue: values |
- | | + | When talking about a values based approach, there could be two possibilities: |
+ | | ||
+ | * Changing values: a more pro-active process, although perhaps an impossibility - possibly better to focus on changing behaviours instead. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | To do in 2016 → look at values based campaigning [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Next steps== | ||
+ | * Giles to compile a proposal for a mission statement based on these reflections and the materials from Lisbon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ( cross reference w. Giles' notes ) | ||
- | * s/ | ||
- | * values based -> USP | ||
- | * requires time-frame? | ||
- | * we aim to achieve | ||
- | * organisations all have a theory of change, glue is the values based piece... | ||
- | * as a lab, how do we experiment with strategies? | ||
- | * economic shift? perceptual shifts? | ||
- | |||
- | * clearer ideas for methods to ' | ||
- | * behaviour shift as a result of uncovering existing values, finding where values & behaviour are at odds. | ||
- | * something for 2016 -> values based campaigning (chris rose ? also NEF) | ||
====Values based approach==== | ====Values based approach==== | ||
Line 179: | Line 191: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | There is a need to find a language all Marine CoLAB participants understand, paying attention to jargon. There is a difference between the term " | + | == Presentation by Sue Ranger == |
+ | |||
+ | There is a need to find a language all Marine CoLAB participants understand, paying attention to jargon. There is a difference between the term " | ||
In order to uncover deeper values, we need to start with basic connectedness (of people and places, different disciplines, | In order to uncover deeper values, we need to start with basic connectedness (of people and places, different disciplines, | ||
Line 188: | Line 202: | ||
* issue based theory of change -> value based | * issue based theory of change -> value based | ||
* bringing various voices, with various values into discussion | * bringing various voices, with various values into discussion | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Discussion == | ||
+ | |||
+ | The values based approach is the hallmark of Marine CoLAB, a prism or lens through which the LAB and its activities are designed and assessed. Filling the gap between the values of humans and the value of oceans. The value of oceans tends to be misunderstood and needs to be communicated differently. An **iconic campaign** might help, as well as focusing on issues by describing the value of oceans, such as the plastics project and other **values based experiments**, | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are different methods to approach values, depending on the theory of change applied. Should Marine CoLAB have one or more theory of change? Is there a generic TOC or a range of context specific theories that can mobilise new voices and gather evidence? Is the uniqueness of Marine CoLAB’s TOC important? Would it not be more relevant to focus on adding value? | ||
+ | |||
+ | What are the values of Marine CoLAB? Could **shared values** be Marine CoLAB’s focus at all times and across all projects? | ||
+ | |||
+ | How to begin using a values based approach in Marine CoLAB: **learn by doing**! | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Next steps == | ||
+ | * invite speakers | ||
+ | * share readings | ||
+ | * personal exercises (akin to Sue’s values presentation) | ||
+ | * incorporating it in projects | ||
+ | * values a part of all Marine CoLAB communication | ||
====Project Incubator==== | ====Project Incubator==== | ||
Line 193: | Line 224: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | (cross reference with Aniol' | + | Mapping existing and emerging projects by organisations as a way to identify strategic lines of work for Marine CoLAB |
- | + | ||
- | * ways to identify strategic lines of work | + | |
- | * list of relevant projects | + | |
- | * marine safe | + | |
- | * coastal partnership network | + | |
- | * Thames river academy (educational projects) | + | |
- | * beach watch | + | |
- | * capturing the value of our coast (citizen science, data collection) | + | |
- | * capacity building at FFI (new educational programmes, masters, adult ed. etc) | + | |
- | * strengthening NGO capacity in Portugal (aniol) | + | |
- | * common ground (community voice project followup, biz case for marine resource mgmt) | + | |
- | * MPA programme (increase in capacity for creating marine protected areas) | + | |
- | * (FFI co-management approach) | + | |
- | * sustainable seafood in Portugal (MCS & Client Earth - reducing unlawful fishing) | + | |
- | * ocean schools (ocean awareness as part of general knowledge, general education) | + | |
- | * # | + | |
- | * Blue New Deal | + | |
- | * diverting EU marine funding to 'good things' | + | |
- | * three main groupings | + | The participants identified |
* opportunities around MPA & spatial planning, policy related | * opportunities around MPA & spatial planning, policy related | ||
* schools, training & educational projects | * schools, training & educational projects | ||
* exporting knowledge & support / capacity building | * exporting knowledge & support / capacity building | ||
- | * (global wave conference) | ||
- | * capturing the value of our coast -> possible focus for various experiments, | ||
- | * rethinking projects in terms of value lens, changes of impact with contributions from other partners | ||
- | * time-line and potential interactions between projects (dependencies....) | ||
- | | + | List of relevant projects |
- | * find specific ways for marine | + | |
- | * write up value space for each project | + | == MPAs and marine planning == |
- | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week | + | |
- | * edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | + | * Common ground: [[http:// |
+ | * MPA campaign/ | ||
+ | * Sustainable seafood in Portugal, Spain and EU (NEF, MCS & Client Earth - reducing unlawful fishing; scoping, looking at minimal standards for the seafood industry; including different stakeholders (policy, communities, | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Education and communication== | ||
+ | * Thames river academy (educational | ||
+ | * Ocean schools: ocean awareness | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Capacity building== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * Capacity building at FFI: new educational programmes, scholarships, | ||
+ | * (FFI co-management approach) | ||
+ | * Related: strengthening NGO capacity in Portugal (Aniol) | ||
+ | * Diverting EU marine funding to 'good things' | ||
+ | * http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Next steps == | ||
+ | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week, make a [[Project Incubator Form]] | ||
+ | * Edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | ||
+ | * (cross reference these notes with Aniol' | ||
+ | * Next workshop: | ||
+ | * Find specific ways for Marine CoLAB to inform or engage with existing and new projects (e.g. advisers) | ||
+ | * Write up value space for each project -> further mapping | ||
+ | * Rethink projects in terms of value lens, changes of impact with contributions from other partners, possibly create a time-line and potential interactions between projects (dependencies....) | ||
====Game On!==== | ====Game On!==== | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | Ocean Engagement: gaming approaches | ||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Challenge: "how can we change perception of the value of oceans through digital media?" | ||
+ | GameOn is an experiment to test the hypothesis that it is possible to do this by developing games or influencing game developers. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Several ides have surfaced, all with challenges and opportunities. The common challenge for all is deciding how and when to engage the pubic in the process, and who the target audience is (children, gamers, game developers…). It remains interesting to look at ways to make conservation games more mainstream, while at the same time focusing on awareness and education. There are many possible partners, but the CoLAB needs specific contacts and entry points to the games industry. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first [[game on experiment]] focused on public engagement with rules related to oceans, which might be less game focused, perhaps more suitable as a training tool. Instead, it might be better to focus on more general 'ocean awareness' | ||
+ | * __Develop a game__ (see below) | ||
+ | * __Influence game developers__: | ||
+ | |||
+ | If Marine CoLAB would develop a game, different approaches are possible: | ||
+ | * **Coached lab session** or " | ||
+ | * Develop **add-ons to existing games** | ||
+ | * Develop games as **tie-ins** to other games/ | ||
+ | * Develop a full-blown mainstream **marine conservation game**, e.g. a ’simcity-like’ versions of initial scenarios (from [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Out of these directions, the group distilled three most promising options for progress and looked at their advantages and disadvantages: | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Small Lab Games== | ||
+ | * Advantages: existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, practice-based learning of values; connecting environmental and technological challenges | ||
+ | * Disadvantages: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Marine Conservation Game== | ||
+ | * Advantages: Making such a game would connect digital and conservation worlds; There is possibly large impact and educational opportunities, | ||
+ | * Disadvantages high expectations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Influencing Game Developers== | ||
+ | * Advantages might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/ | ||
+ | * Disadvantages: | ||
+ | |||
- | * (cross reference with Sandy' | + | ==Next steps== |
- | * ideas that have surfaced / developed | + | * more preliminary research |
- | * challenge; how/when to engage the pubic to change rules / process | + | * Sandy, Sue & Heather: Potential research questions, masters topics for students |
- | * concluded that the first experiment was not so game focused, perhaps | + | * Heather: connect this experiment |
- | * perhaps better | + | * Sue/MCS, probe existing contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience. |
- | * two main options | + | |
- | * " | + | |
- | * influence exiting game devs or filmmakers / ocean ' | + | |
- | * current strands | + | |
- | * coached lab space to develop game(s) and/or app(s) | + | |
- | * develop add ons to existing games | + | |
- | * develop games as tie ins to other games/ | + | |
- | * BBC docos, google ocean, natgeo, etc | + | |
- | * mainstream marine conservation game (cf. beyond (..?) rising tide - maxis?) | + | |
- | * games can also be used as fund-raising vehicles | + | |
- | * simple experiments to test ides -> scale | + | |
- | * possible direction | + | |
- | -> sim city like versions | + | |
- | * three existing options for progress / requiring feedback | + | |
- | * small lab games (c.f fish hackathon) | + | |
- | * advantage; existing format, easier | + | |
- | * disadvantage; | + | |
- | * full on game | + | |
- | * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper & easier to create, existing | + | |
- | * disadvantage; | + | |
- | * questions; target audience? SIM-MPA? | + | |
- | * marine game/film leadership | + | |
- | * advantage; might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/ | + | |
- | good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers | + | |
- | | + | |
- | * ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, | + | |
- | * interest | + | |
- | * giles, testing assumptions, | + | |
- | * heather, perhaps | + | |
- | * mirella, perhaps more preliminary research to see which option is most promising | + | |
- | * MSC, existing contacts (octonauts) potential test audience. | + | |
- | * next steps; | + | |
- | * potential research questions, masters topics. | + | |
- | * sandy, sue & heather draft a few paragraphs re. research scope etc. "next week" | + | |
| | ||
+ | (cross reference with Sandy' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
====Plastics project==== | ====Plastics project==== | ||
Line 277: | Line 319: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | | + | |
- | * mayoral election in may 2016 | + | Working session of the now fully funded (CGF & OAK Foundation) Marine CoLAB project: campaign to make London free of Single Use Plastic Bottles. |
- | * focus as a marine project rather than just about ' | + | |
- | * " | + | Three topics to touch on: |
- | | + | |
- | * required; project implementation plan, timeline, external deadlines. kickoff meeting (before xmas) | + | * Reality check (commitments, |
- | * collaborative | + | |
- | * 2 ppl full time - project mgmt at ZSL (via Project Oceans), narrative & communication TEP | + | |
- | * FF interns | + | ==Values== |
- | * governance? overview committee, advisory group | + | |
- | * connections with existing NGOs working in ' | + | What will make individuals change behaviour (intrinsic, economic…)? |
- | * Emma Cunningham re. stakeholder interviews, industry, NGOs, etc | + | |
- | * how to ensure 'best advice' | + | * How to avoid industry backlash? |
- | * strategy for mayoral candidates | + | * How to make it sustainable? |
- | * establish | + | * Focus as a marine project rather than just about ' |
- | * any upcoming 'big things' | + | * Have to have a closer look at what has failed |
- | * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles | + | * how to ensure 'best advice' |
- | * potential case studies (selfridges, | + | * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles |
- | * how do we explicitly test values based research? | + | * Design campaign to include values as an essential part of it: continue discussion at the brainstorming meeting in December. |
+ | * How to explicitly test values based research? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Reality Check == | ||
+ | |||
+ | The funding proposal was successful: now a few urgent things to do: | ||
+ | * By 11 December 2015, All: Re:read the proposal, agree on commitments and/or adapt if needed. | ||
+ | * ASAP: Heather, Steve, Louisa: paperwork | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Collaborative | ||
+ | * Project management | ||
+ | * Governance: overview committee, advisory group - needs to be finalised | ||
+ | * Recruiting: By 16 December: Heather | ||
+ | * January: interview applicants | ||
+ | * Compile a project team ASAP | ||
+ | * Giles/FF: has staff for research & background, active mapping process. Connect FF’s interns to work on researching case studies (Bristol (tap friendly, public fountains…) Selfridges, ZSL, etc), C40, cities as chanpions, COP, tourism, Blue Bell… | ||
+ | * (Longer term): Form advisory group with different stakeholders (Sue has ideas) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Implementation plan | ||
+ | * 16 December: Initial startup meeting: Heather, Mirella, Amy, Giles, Louisa | ||
+ | * 12 January (from 2pm) Full planning meeting with other experts from organisations | ||
+ | * After January plan at least one meeting per month | ||
+ | * Short term focus: Mayoral election in May 2016: need strategy for mayoral candidates - Campaigns are written NOW (Louisa has a few people who should be engaged in this): | ||
+ | * How to get a meeting? Exploratory conversations to identify what is the opportunity for the candidates. | ||
+ | * Offer solutions/ | ||
+ | * Longer term: Systems Mapping exercise and stakeholder conversations (linked to advisory group) | ||
+ | * Identify target groups (from systems mapping) | ||
+ | * Outsource research: to e.g. frameworks research - additional funding will be available for this research from CGF. Which questions need asking? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Link to related initiatives, | ||
+ | * Research | ||
+ | |||
====Planning 2016==== | ====Planning 2016==== | ||
- | * 10 days of time is covered | + | 10 days of time per organisation |
- | * how best to structure the time? | + | |
- | * smaller, structured meetings around particular topics/ | + | ==Marine CoLAB as a collaborative network== |
- | * aggregating projects (mapping), specific project (plastics) | + | * What does a lab community look like? |
- | * discuss learning which emerges from projects | + | * Collaboration |
- | * what can we teach each other | + | * Added value of open thinking space, facilitated structure |
- | * sometime for thinking about wider issues, larger context, incubation of vague ideas. | + | * Further work required |
- | * time to proactively communicate, | + | |
- | * better integration of partners into project proposals -> more explicit collaborations | + | |
- | * clarify evidence base for the lab, both process and projects | + | |
- | * collaboration | + | |
- | * how can new/other partners get involved in the future? | + | |
- | * more focus on strategy, strategy | + | |
* 4~6 days of meetings of entire group | * 4~6 days of meetings of entire group | ||
- | * (cf. global strategy for sharks) | + | * some time for thinking about wider issues, larger context, incubation of vague ideas (cf. global strategy for sharks) |
- | * added value of open thinking space, facilitated structure | + | * What can we teach each other? Discuss learning which emerges from projects |
- | * further work required | + | * More focus on strategy, strategy |
- | * circulate set of objectives, further ideas | + | * To do: circulate set of objectives, further ideas towards a governance structure, business and operational models (next workshop early 2016) |
- | * what does a lab community look like? | + | |
- | * strategy for engagement? | + | == Marine CoLAB Activities / Projects == |
- | * clear criteria for 'a lab project'? | + | * Smaller, structured meetings around particular topics/ |
+ | * Aggregating projects (from existing/ | ||
+ | * Clarify | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Communication and stakeholder engagement == | ||
+ | * Time to proactively communicate! | ||
+ | * Clarify evidence base for the lab, both process and projects | ||
+ | * How can new/other partners get involved in the future? Strategy for engagement? | ||
+ | * Better integration of partners into project proposals -> more explicit collaborations | ||
+ | |||
====Next Steps==== | ====Next Steps==== |