Funding community-led climate action: exploring some key tensions
Back at the start of 2020, as we read through some of the earliest interesting expressions of interest coming into our in-trays for the Climate Action Fund, we began to reflect on some of the key tensions that would arise as we looked to hone the criteria around what a successful application would look like.
Through reviewing what groups across the UK were seeking funding for, and through conversation and exploration with colleagues and a range of strategic partners, we have identified a number of ‘tensions’ in how to prioritise what ‘good’ looks like, and how to shape the programme.
Before delving into those, let’s recap on what we were explicitly looking to fund. In this first round of funding, we were looking to fund place-based, community-led projects that took a partnership approach to working across whole communities. We were deliberately looking to select a range of projects, to demonstrate and test the types of activity we might fund in the future — including selecting projects working across and through a range of approaches, partnership types, scale, context and themes.
Some other key attributes we looked for are in the image above, and it’s important to note that we didn’t make any pre-identified assumptions about approaches to measuring carbon reduction (or, more broadly, climate impact).
There are two key defining features of the climate emergency: its scale (global) and urgency (very). Combined with some further tricky elements — including difficulties in measurement (particularly in people-led approaches), and the uneven nature of its impacts (bringing in ethical issues around equity, diversity and inclusion … and ultimately climate justice) — Climate Change is the very definition of a “wicked issue”.
Key Tensions related to Carbon / Climate
The first set of tensions relate to how we interpret what good practice in terms of community action on climate should look like. Do we focus on climate change mitigation or adaptation? What should the balance be between overall climate impact, and community engagement? How should we treat an application that had deep impact, but would be tough to scale? And what level of importance should we place on the ability to accurately measure the overall carbon reduction — and hence, climate impact.
First, where should the focus be for our Fund between climate adaptation and carbon mitigation? Both are important given what we know about the likely effects of climate change that are already ‘locked-in’, and how this will have differential impact across communities (the subject of a future blog). The approaches that communities might take, and the projects they would put forward for these two areas of focus are likely to be very different. Overall, our steer for the early phase of the Fund was to gear towards a mitigation-first approach — driven in part by a clear steer from the IPCC about the short-timeframe remaining to take action on climate change mitigation.
If we were to develop beacon projects on community-led action in the first phases of the Fund therefore, mitigation approaches felt most urgent. Ultimately however, there is a fine line to tread between what is important and what is urgent. Adaptation is an undoubtedly an equally important issue and it is critical for communities to work on adaptation measures in the short-term — in terms of framing, this has tended to point us towards language around building resilience locally.
Second, what should the balance be between overall climate impact, and community engagement? Comparing one community application with another, should we be looking to prioritise the most significant (or most immediate) carbon reduction measures to seek some quick environmental wins (based on the rationale above, around urgency of the issue), OR should we prioritise supporting those which have the biggest opportunity for wide engagement with the issue (and all the co-benefits that could have)? Discussion of the co-benefits of climate action can be an excellent way of widening engagement with the climate agenda, and helps to place the Climate Action Fund in the broader context of The National Lottery Community Fund’s wider work in communities. But, while they are nice to have, how ‘nice’ are they compared with overall climate impact? When thinking this through, it quickly becomes obvious that, whilst £100m is an awful lot of money, it is dwarfed by the context of this global issue; so … what is our role as a funder in this space?
Our overall steer in the early phases was to follow our guiding principles. What does our phrase ‘people in the lead’ really look like in this space? And how can we show ‘generous leadership’? We agreed it would be important to have a mix of approaches, and that they wouldn’t necessarily be ‘one or the other’; each case would be weighed up on its own merits. Wider learning, developing understanding, and considering approaches to communication and narrative are all vital elements of encouraging people to think differently about the issue.
Third, how should we balance the overall scale of a project’s carbon reduction potential with its ability to be replicable in communities across the UK (and beyond)? Should we be prioritising ‘quick win’ carbon reduction projects, or focus on those which are likely to be scalable (rather than one-off)? This raises obvious questions around what scalability really means: under what circumstances, and how transferable is a project to different local contexts?
Whilst there may be no ‘right’ answer, context is ever-important; we would need to review how many communities are likely to have similar circumstances; how adaptable the model / learning will be; and what the capacity and willingness of the lead organisation to share their learning and inspire others really is.
Finally, what level of importance should we place on the ability to accurately measure the overall carbon reduction — and hence, climate impact? This ‘tension’ is closely related to both of the first two tensions above: the challenge of finding consistent and verifiable carbon measurement framework(s), for a wide range of interventions. Whilst the potential of some approaches (e.g. installation of renewable energy technology, or energy-efficiency measures) is relatively well understood, some significant assumptions would need to be made for certain types of funding investment (e.g. in behaviour change work).
Our initial view was guided by the fact that, whilst we had not established set targets for carbon reduction across the Climate Action Fund, we would nonetheless attempt to quantify its environmental impact from the start. With reliable environmental impact data, value-for-money could be measured in one sense, by a measure such as carbon impact per £. But this needs to be considered alongside the balance of arguments outlined above. We agreed to seek early input from our support partners in establishing a standardised measurement framework (and tools), which would be as widely applicable as possible at the community level. Whilst different approaches and contexts may impact on the ability to remain consistent in measurement, we would establish a core principle of keeping any assumptions made clear (robust, and open to scrutiny) and consistently applied, or a clear explanation as to how they have been adapted to fit the local context.
Key Tensions related to Project Approach
The second set of tensions relate to how we understand the different approaches taken by the proposed climate action projects. Should we prioritise projects which are ‘shovel-ready’, over ones that might be more ambitious but which would take some time to develop? Should there be any priority attached to the beneficiary group(s) that each project was targeting? What should climate action ‘look like’ — thinking and writing, digging and building, talking or taking to the streets? How should we tackle the difficult balancing act of raising awareness, and raising climate anxiety? And what freedoms should be given to communities to make mistakes and learn from them?
First, should we prioritise tried-and-tested projects that are immediately ready to go? Some solutions may require a longer-term development period (particularly those which are untested, or potentially more innovative in terms of use of technology or their delivery mechanism). Nonetheless, there is a significant time pressure associated with the topic (as outlined above), and aligned with this a level of external pressure to get going.
Our overall steer from the Fund’s governance structures (advisory and decision-making panel) was that we should be prepared to take on a bit of risk with this programme. We may get some things wrong, but we also need to push the ambition of what we can achieve with the Fund. Failure, in itself, shouldn’t be seen as a negative thing, so long as the risk had been carefully considered and sufficient learning (and sharing) accompanies every investment. In fact, we might expect at least one or two of our projects to ‘fail’, if we are encouraging novel and ambitious approaches to be taken by our applicant communities. Rather than applying a ‘risk assessment’ mentality in decision-making, we should take the approach of a ‘risk-benefit assessment’. Nonetheless, other projects may come to us which have already been de-risked, having done signficant background research or piloted an approach for example. For this reason, we established a two-tier funding approach: a longer-term larger award bracket for full awards, and a shorter, smaller bracket for development awards — seeking to test a new approach or new type of partnership.
Second, should we seek to prioritise one beneficiary group(s) over another? As noted above, different segments of the population have different starting points when it comes to climate change: either a different degree of engagement with the issue, or a different exposure to the impacts of climate change, or both. Climate change, and proactive climate action, has — to some extent — been seen as a predominantly middle-class concern in recent decades, in the UK at least. Whilst there are big equity and social justice issues related to the differential impacts of climate change across communities, it is also clear that the wealthiest segments of the population contribute disproportionately to the problem and (arguably) provide opportunities for projects with larger-scale carbon impacts. (A report by Leeds University, published in March 2020, showed that the wealthiest tenth of the population consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom tenth, wherever they live).
In asking this question, our CEO made it clear that the TNL Community Fund was available ‘to all’. While our traditional ‘heartland’ for funding may be in the more deprived communities, our standard approach should be to ensure that we ask this question and keep a broad mind as to where our funding will have the biggest impact. At the same time, we will endeavour to proactively ensure that under-represented voices are sought out and encouraged to apply, and that those with ‘lived experience’ are included and prioritised in our funding.
Third, what does ‘good’ community-led climate action look like, and what is most appropriate for us to support? Arguably, political pressure — including through campaigning and lobbying — has the potential for deeper / more wide-ranging impact on the issue as a whole. However, as a public sector funder, we are not able to support this type of activity. Without this element within our portfolio, would we be accused of ‘tinkering at the edges’? Certainly — by some.
There are many campaigning organisations out there, and we need to recognise the reality that many local partnerships may have a campaigning element to what they do. However, this should not be the interpretation of how we focus on encouraging ‘climate action’ through this Fund: we need to be clear in the role of National Lottery funding in the broader funding landscape. Nonetheless, there is a lot to be learnt from other successful movements (such as Extinction Rebellion). We will look to share relevant learning, where it exists and is appropriate: both with the community sector, and with other funders. The Climate Action Fund has an education role — we will share best practice, and facilitate the dissemination of ‘what works’ and in what contexts (as well as what the challenges are).
Fourth, how should we tackle the difficult balancing act of raising awareness, and raising climate anxiety? The climate emergency is a challenging and emotive topic; we are dealing with uncertain futures, and with the widest possible range of stakeholders. A lot of the language (and significant public profile) surrounding the topic, including increasing prominence of ‘doomsday scenarios’, can be worrying. Public and individual concern can be a driver for action. But grief and despair can lead to paralysis / inaction. Merely the approach to increasing awareness and debate on this issue can have significant mental health impacts.
This ‘tension’ can be a tight-rope to tread: getting across the urgency of the issue, whilst retaining positive language and an empowering approach. Part of this is a communications issue, but it is something we should consider in choosing what to fund. Should we fund (some) groups with more ‘extreme’ language & engagement techniques? And what freedoms should be given to communities to make mistakes and learn from them? To some extent we will be taking a ‘trial and error’ approach, and seeking to bring in learning from the fields of ‘disaster response’, ‘trauma-informed practice’, emergency preparedness and work to develop resilient communities. We will encourage our grant holders to consider this issue carefully. Recognising that young people in particular experience ‘climate anxiety’, we have brought some expertise into the Advisory Panel in the form of Clover Hogan from Force of Nature.
Lastly, what freedoms should be given to communities to make mistakes and learn from them? How much influence should the National Lottery Community Fund seek to have in guiding grantholders as to their approach? Whilst our approach is driven by our ‘People in the Lead’ framework, our role as a funder will be to facilitate the sharing of learning as efficiently and as widely as possible, and we will encourage and develop mechanisms for peer-to-peer guidance.
A range of other tensions
The nine key tensions outlined above inevitably don’t provide a complete picture. But my aim in sharing them at this stage is to make it visible the extent to which funders, and other decision-makers, need to be aware of the dynamic landscape of factors in terms of what makes for a ‘good’ project. There is no science here, no right and wrong, and trade-offs are inevitable.
I have called the issues outlined above ‘tensions’ for a reason. There are not likely to be clear-cut correct answers on making a good funding decision. Reading back on the above, I notice the repetition of several key words: FOCUS and BALANCE. The ‘right’ answer is not one, or the other. But by having the discussion, and making the tensions more visible, we hoped to raise the level of debate & understanding — particularly at the various stages of our decision-making process — and to set down a marker by which to review our strategy as we move into project delivery, and planning future rounds of funding.
