Difference between revisions of "Talk:Status report"

From EcoliseWiki
m (Taking out information from discussion pages)
Line 1: Line 1:
Change released date for October 9th and make mid December (or even earlier) as the date to compile and take out of the wiki and work offline.
--[[User:Gil Penha-Lopes|Gil Penha-Lopes]] ([[User talk:Gil Penha-Lopes|talk]]) 20:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
== Meeting with Markus ==
== Meeting with Markus ==

Revision as of 20:36, 7 October 2018

Change released date for October 9th and make mid December (or even earlier) as the date to compile and take out of the wiki and work offline. --Gil Penha-Lopes (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Meeting with Markus

Chapter 1 Add more contexts frameworks. More from a conventional language and perspective and show the contradictions (policies, science, etc...)

Chapter 2

Chapter 4 Adding a over arching Intro "Social Capital" - we might have some resistance or objection to this. However, we will keep it due to its use generally in the literature. Cultural component SDGs as overarching framework

Chapter 5 - title - make it more concrete and clear - add Intro - showing this integrative and holistic approach - careful with specific examples that might make the reader not getting the holistic aspect of these CLI. - Using conventional jargons for the titles of sessions: Nature-Based Solutions; Social Innovation, etc...

Chapter 6 - proposal to have sections for different audiences (research, education, practice, etc...) + add a final section that merges them together. - Add recommendations plus invitations to connect with.

Gil Penha-Lopes (talk) 24th May 2018

Strategic issues and other framing questions

- How to consider ICLEI initiatives? - How to not limit this survey at ECOLISE partners but also allow a greater focus on them? - Will Colibris integrate ECOLISE or not?


Linked to Chapter 5.4

Although there is a variation of how the networks and initiatives organize themselves, most of the initiatives show an organizational structure with (elected) boards, committees and (thematic/project based) working groups (e.g. INFORSE, Impact Hub Sao Paolo, Basic income network/Germany, Co-housing network/GER/ARG, ENOLL network/UK, PB network, SEED UK, Slow Food network/SPA/GER). In general, many transnational networks have a central decision making structure and decentralized local decision making bodies as described above. All cases show linkages to local and governmental bodies, some to international policy bodies like the EU (e.g. Timebanks, Living Knowledge, Credit Unions), UN (e.g. Slow Food Network, RIPESS, Global Ecovillage Network) and FAO (e.g. Enoll network) and (inter)national business companies (e.g. Impact Hub, Ashoka). [1]

The most common organizational form of a CBI is a cooperative. The most common organizational form of a CBI is a cooperative. This is evenly distributed among the represented countries. A quarter of the initiatives declared the absence of a legal form, often presenting it as an identifying characteristic of their organisation, as any assigned legal status could put boundaries to their activities or contradict their attempt to develop an alternative way to manage resources and relationships.In most cases, the decision-making process is based on full participation and consensus. In cases like these, the goal of the process is to find common ground and to stimulate discussions until the group reaches mutual agreement by addressing all concerns. In some cases decision-making is more structured. It might be based on general assemblies, meeting of the board of directors, committees, etc. Though consensus can take longer than other decision-making methods, it also fosters creativity, cooperation and commitment to final decisions and activities. In particular, the group participants of the CBI can often be split into small sub-operational groups, each one responsible for organizing and carrying out one or more specific activities/tasks. The use and importance of online communications is, in fact, acknowledged by many CBIs. Avoiding monetary intermediation and defending on a free and solidarity-based service can be a more inclusive organizational format for economically disadvantaged individuals compared to business-based enterprises (Italy). CBIs requiring more professionalism, lobbying and policy making activities, tend to have a more hierarchical organisational structure. [2]

Some initial thoughts

When I was editing the contents page, I was thinking this page should make sense both from logic of the commons repository page, as well as a report table of contents, so i started writing as if the report is already writen - using present tense - following the idea that I got from Tom that this is first a knowledge commons repository and second a report (to be extracted from the repository). Most of the links derive from the table sections (the table we shared yesterday) e.g. number of CLI etc....Also I've named it 'knowledge commons based report', rather than status report, but feel free to change, it's just that I thought the title of the report should somehow reflect what we aim to do - which in my view is really innovative: so we are co-creating a knowledge commons, that will hopefully continue to evolve and grow, as other people come in and continue building on it, and while we do that we have these periodic reports - so now we are doing the first one - where we provide the most updated picture of CLI in Europe, or maybe eventually it will grow to include a worldwide review. So that is my vision so far, and i got it from Tom and Gil, so I think it's your vision too. This makes me think that 'status report' does not fully grasp what we are doing, that is why I've named it knowledge commons based report - but maybe that is not the best name either...anyway something to discuss.

Following our discussion on Skype this morning I've removed the knowledge commons from the title and put in more in the background. --Tom Henfrey (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (CEST)

Although I will be gathering contents for the many pages, i will not start those pages unless we agree on the name for the links...so there is not a confusion and we have a lot of pages/names/links for the same think. I've got that much now. I only advanced with the page on Community-Led Initiatives because Tom suggested yesterday - to have a page that defines this (the page still needs a lot of work, but I just started it...).

I've started some of these - careful thought at this point will hopefully minimise the number of changes, but when they happen we'll just have to pu tit up with it! --Tom Henfrey (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (CEST)

Also US or UK English is fine by me, I tend to write US, but i can manage UK too.

I'm thinking that this will be very hard to manage consistently across the site, particularly when we have a larger user community. So maybe we just let people use whatever comes most naturally, then we edit for consistency in the Status Report itself, after finalising the text structurally.--Tom Henfrey (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (CEST)

User:Ines16:22, 27 September, 2017

Structure and Scope of Contents Page (and others)

When I started editing the text, it occurred to me that this would read better more as a list of contents and description of the report, with most of the information in other pages. For example, the existing background text under the first chapter can go into a page of its own (that also gives background for the wiki), and link to others. I might give this a try... --(talk) 16:13, 3 October 2017 (CEST)User: Tom Henfrey

I've started this, I think it works fine for the Introduction and Chapter 2 (and Chapter is easy to envisage as a series of country pages); Chapters 3 and 4 probably need more work --Tom Henfrey (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2017 (CEST)

Chapter 2: Networks' Analyses

Chapter Leader: Gil Penha-Lopes

Community-led initiatives in Europe by sectoral domain: although most CLIs deal with crosscutting issues, some locate their action predominantly within one or more specific domains. This overview addresses the following key domains (although examples of CLI working within other domains may be given): Food, Energy, Transport, Waste, Water, Economy, Forestry and Biodiversity, Civic Engagement.

I am waiting for some information from TN, PA-UK and GEN. (Gil Penha-Lopes, April 30th, 2018)

"The most frequent primary overarching themes addressed by the transition initiatives were food (96 cases), energy (45 cases) and education (28) (multiple choice question). In 15 cases the transition initiatives first addressed more than one theme simultaneously" (Feola and Nunes 2013:241)

Geographical locations of community-led initiatives in Europe: Factors affecting distribution of CLIs - e.g. mapping, cultural, socio-economic, infrastructural. 'Institutionalisation' of community where it is absent? Obsolescence as measure of success?

I am waiting for some information from TN, PA-UK and GEN. (Gil Penha-Lopes, April 30th, 2018)

Estimated numbers of community-led initiatives in Europe;

Numbers of beneficiaries of community-led initiatives in Europe, including: number of jobs created and volunteers involved.

(5 to 10 pages)

    • The capacity of these initiatives to persist;

    • If or how initiatives scale up or replicate, including: referring to the number of spinoffs/follow initiatives;

    • New audiences captured, new spaces created;

TN The post-political critique correctly identifies that Transition in practice still tends to be found in well-off locations, comprising well-resourced individuals assiduously disavowing conflict or disagreement, with consensus seen as a great virtue. Their spread from Totnes has been geographically uneven. This emphasises and repeats already existing patterns of privilege, or ‘hot spots’ (Feola and Him, 2016: 2114) of ‘alternative milleus’ (Longhurst, 2013) rather than challenge or reconfigure these, as has been claimed for the diversity of the movement (Grossmann and Creamer, 2016). However, this analysis can overlook the wide variety of activities (above, and table) Transition engage in. This range of activities then attracts a wide array of participants. (Aiken 2017:308528)

    • Environmental indicators (e.g. reduced carbon emissions); and
    • Contributions to environment and social justice.

  • Characterize how CLIs are performing in terms of:
    • carbon reduction (avoided emissions, due to the presence of these initiatives)
    • effects on social capital
    • effects on social inclusion

TN "Overall, less than half of the transition initiatives represent the diversity in their community fairly or very well. The transition initiative members predominantly belong to the age range 30-65 years old," (Feola and Nunes 2013:241) "On a related note, our results also confirm that the level of diversity representation and inclusivity is lowest among urban transition initiatives." (Feola and Nunes 2013:253)

Permaculture Results showed the participation of women at or above parity (53%), while participation by race showed a white supermajority (96%). Multivariate regression demonstrated that race, gender, and socioeconomic status are shaping participation in distinct ways and that each interact with structural factors. The effects of gender on social roles varied with ecosystem vitality, with women scoring higher than men in countries with high levels of ecosystem vitality, and the reverse where ecosystem vitality was low. The observed effect of race on practice varied with national inequality, such that the scores of respondents of color were equivalent to white respondents in countries with the least inequality, but descended as inequality increased, while whites were unaffected. (Ferguson and Lovell 2015:1)

GEN 2017 survey report Gaia Education and SDG

  • Explicitly refering back to the core scientific and societal issues explained in the introduction and demonstrates how the overview of CLIs in Europe provides key insights into pathways for sustainability.


(max 6 pages)

  1. Kemp, R., Zuijderwijk, L., Weaver, P., Seyfang, G., Avelino, F., Strasser, T., Becerra, L., Backhaus, J., Ruijsink, S., 2015. Doing things differently : exploring Transformative Social innovation and its practical challenges. TRANSIT Brief ; 1
  2. TESS. TESS D4.1 Case-study integration. (2016).