Here's the transcript of the webchat we conducted with John Sauven - thanks for the questions!
Hi everyone, we're waiting for John to arrive but if you have any questions, please start submitting them and we'll get straight on to them when he's here.
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 4:55:34 PM
(It's Jamie here by the way)
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 4:55:52 PM
ok, first question which was submitted during the forum at the NCVO in February (sorry, don't know who asked it):
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 5:04:50 PM
I am concerned about the gap between campaigners at CV and networks. They seem distant in terms of local knowledge. Should their work space be integrated into ASU?
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 5:04:51 PM
John: We're a global organisation and that differentiates us from other organisations. How we connect between the local, the global, our ships, our local networks, so that they all connect in one organisation is fluid and evolving. I'm always open to ideas about how we could do that better.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:07:30 PM
Next question: why not have a national skillshare for a particular campaign? Inspires people at all levels, builds a big team. Allows isolated activists to join in and could re-vitalise the network.
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 5:08:38 PM
I fully support the idea of developing more long-term campaigns that are more engaging and less stop-start. This could help in getting better quality public engagement. The key with regard to a national skillshare is how we can achieve our objectives in a cost-effective way. So whether that's a national skillshare or something else, we would need to discuss further.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:10:44 PM
Next question: Last year you said we had 100 months left to make the impact we needed to prevent disastrous climate change. Now we only have 88 left. Is it still possible or do we just need to plan to ameliorate against it?
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 5:11:50 PM
Climate scientists have consistently said that emissions must peak in the near-term (that's meant to mean five to 10 years max) if we are to stay within a two degree rise in temperatures. Can we achieve that? Well, the answer to that must be yes. But it would mean that solving the problems of climate change must be a priority for major emitters.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:14:15 PM
I would say that two things have to happen: massive investment in clean technology and a huge energy efficiency drive. For rich countries, this would also mean tackling issues like consumption. How do we do it? Change our priorities. For example, £97 billion being spent on Trident would go a long way to solving the problem. Or $1.2 trillion currently spent globally on the military annually. As you can see, it's not a shortage of money, resources, innovation, technology but political will.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:18:06 PM
What do you think of the new methods of movement building that have evolved over the last 5 years around the Internet? In particular the idea that giving ownership and control to members engages them, and makes them advocate the organisation far more which grows it virally.
by annesley at 4/14/2010 5:20:05 PM
Only through the internet can we connect with millions of people across the world to make our campaigns truly effective. The recent example of the campaign against Nestle shows how effective this can be. The key must be how we can take this a stage further by using these tools to engage far more people, new audiences, more creativity and innovation than we've been able to do to date. So the more online networks we can build, the more successful our campaigns will be.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:22:59 PM
Another question: Over the last few years GP has produced a lot of reports and talked to a lot of politicians but we have done precious few direct actions and very little in the way of public engagement - why? And where is the urgency given the small amount of time we have left?
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 5:23:54 PM
Our campaigns are based around a model that we call IDEAL. This stands for investigations, documentation, expose, action, lobbying. If you take the global campaigns that we've been running, they normally contain all these elements. So for example if you take the campaign to save the Amazon, we've carried out multi-year investigations across the globe, exposed large multinational corporations, carried out direct actions in Europe and in the Amazon, and achieved phenomenal results. We hope to have similar results in Indonesia. Whats key to a successful campaign is finding the right leverage points to change the balance of power in our favour. Sometimes this will require more or less of certain kinds of activities within the IDEAL model. The current Nestle campaign has generated 1.2 million views of the video and around 200,000 emails to the CEO. It is also included direct communication at various company sites and many other activities around the world with more to come. These are the kinds of campaigns that we need to do more of.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:29:39 PM
With regard to the urgency, we need to agree what Greenpeace's USP (unique selling point). This is a nice branding term but we have to be clear what we bring to the party. We're not a military task force, we're not a government, we don't have endless resources. So what we do, for example investigations, exposes, and direct action, has to be finely tuned for maximum impact. In some areas, we are good; some of the work we've done around forests, stopping new coal power stations, airport expansion like the third runway, have been real achievements. But we need to do better given the urgency. For that we need everybody's engagement, creativity and innovation. And we need to be prepared to take more risks.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:33:36 PM
The environmental movement has been campaigning, lobbying and running direct actions for over 40 years. We are no closer to solving the problem. Do you simply intend to continue with the same failed techniques for the next 88 months?
by annesley at 4/14/2010 5:35:16 PM
In my previous reply, I outlined the IDEAL Greenpeace as a model for campaigning. If you look at the work we've been doing in the Amazon, or currently in Indonesia, it hasn't failed. In fact just the opposite. We are regarded by many friends and foes alike as the most effective campaigning organisation that is bringing real change on the ground. We have also lead the campaign in the UK against new coal, winning a significant change in government policy, and when it comes to aviation expansion, we united the broadest coalition of forces yet seen in an environmental campaign. Given the urgency can we do better? Yes! Should we take more risks? Yes. Do we need to engage more people in our campaigns? Yes. So that rather than saying we've failed, which isn't true, we should really ask ourselves how we can do better.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:39:39 PM
I didn't explain my previous question. The idea around new movement building is to give the campaign, innovation and direct action design to the grass roots. That control leads to them becoming engaged and excited advocates and will grow the movement virally.
by annesley at 4/14/2010 5:40:42 PM
I agree about more engagement from the grassroots. Greenpeace has for several years been involved in huge coalitions with grassroots organisations around coal, aviation expansion, and today around tar sands. I suppose the issue that we need to discuss is how we match the local grassroots organisations with Greenpeace's global campaigns. I think our strength as an organisation is when we can marry the local with the global.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:42:36 PM
Another question: Greenpeace used to look cool on the high street with colourful leaflets, banners, creative signups and even costumes
Nowadays we are lucky to get a single black and white post card focussed on data capture - what happened? Does GP no longer care about public engagement?
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 5:47:32 PM
First of all, I accept that we go through ups and downs when it comes to campaigning on the high street and the quality of the materials. We have put more effort into this. The recent campaign materials we produced for Nestle, Trident and the upcoming tar sands will hopefully reflect a much better quality of materials and public engagement. But I always welcome your personal feedback and how we can improve the campaign work that we do. The experience of people out on the high street and talking to members of the public is critical to achieving our campaign successes.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:50:36 PM
I read on Nestle's facebook that they've agreed to GP's demands on halting forest destruction through their buying power. I was expecting to hear from GP soonish about this - am I right in thinking that the short term campaign objectives have been achieved?
by Elizabeth at 4/14/2010 5:50:48 PM
I met representatives from Nestle this afternoon, this was a follow-up meeting that I had with their executives in Geneva last week. Our demands to Nestle were simple: stop buying palm oil and pulp and paper from Sinar Mas either directly or indirectly. They have made one minor move and that is to cancel their direct palm oil contracts with Sinar Mas. But this only represents a tiny percentage of their palm oil coming from Sinar Mas as they mostly buy indirectly. And they have taken no action on pulp and paper. After today's meeting, we hope that in the coming weeks they will take real action but in the meantime the campaign continues.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:55:36 PM
Sorry John. Explained myself badly again. There have been huge successes. In changing thinking and moving some things in the right direction. However, my argument is that we are no nearer to actually solving the problem which means that the tactics are not sufficient to the urgency of the problem and we need to re-think.
by annesley at 4/14/2010 5:56:18 PM
I'm always happy to rethink our tactics. We always need to innovate and change so the question I put back to you is come up with some answers that are not captured by our IDEAL model of campaigning. Or in more practical terms, the types of things we are doing in our campaign against Nestle.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 5:58:28 PM
"I suppose the issue that we need to discuss is how we match the local grassroots organisations with Greenpeace's global campaigns." - What I am saying is that the grassroots should *define* GPs global campaigns.
by annesley at 4/14/2010 6:00:22 PM
Ok, define it! What does it look like? I've given you the IDEAL model of Greenpeace campaigning. Explain your ideal model - it has to be something more than just saying 'grassroots'.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 6:01:33 PM
Another question from the forum: are we losing the arguments about nuclear power and why we are slowly losing the argument about climate change?
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 6:02:54 PM
On nuclear power, the industry has been very successful at a superficial level, giving themselves a new lease of life using climate change and low carbon electricity arguments. But the question still remains as to whether any will be built. Margaret Thatcher promised ten new nuclear power stations and built one. At the moment, we seem very dependent on EDF, a French state owned nuclear power company, to decide the fate of nuclear power in the UK. But this company is facing massive problems with a nuclear power station under construction in Finland and another in France.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 6:06:05 PM
Are we losing the arguments about climate change? There is no doubt that the climate skeptics have had a field day since Copenhagen. Some of this was own goals. But I think what is significant about the current election is that all three main political parties in their manifestos are totally committed to action on climate change. So while there might be ups and downs, as there are with all issues, it's becoming more deeply embedded. For example, recycling went through a period when it was all a waste of time but now everyone just accepts it as the right thing to do. Climate change is of course a much more difficult issue, it requires a much greater political commitment and that's why we need to keep holding politicians feet to the fire!
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 6:09:32 PM
We'll keep taking questions for another 10 mins until 7.20pm so we have time to answer them before we finish, as John is going to a hustings event tonight.
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 6:12:17 PM
The idea is that GP HQ should encourage and prioritise peer reviewed campaign research and peer reviewed direct action ideas coming through the RACs from the local groups. This radically increases enthusiasm and engagement from grass roots whilst maintaining GPs expert advice and quality assessment.
by annesley at 4/14/2010 6:14:38 PM
One thing we have to be clear about is that Greenpeace is a global organisation. We run priority campaigns mostly decided by the organisation as a whole. As environmental problems increasingly become not just more global in nature but also in terms of how we solve them, we've got to get the right balance between the campaigns we're running in the rich northern countries and the fast-developing countries and the global south. In an ideal world, we would link these all together in one global campaign whether it's around climate, forests, oceans or our other priority areas. So while the input, engagement and participation from the grassroots is not just welcomed but critical to our success, it can't be disconnected or divorced from our global priorities, and the organisation as a whole.
by greenpeaceuk at 4/14/2010 6:19:10 PM
Okay, there don't seem to be anymore questions right now so we'll close the chat down. Thanks very much for all the questions and for taking part. Hope you found it useful. John has left the building. Good evening.
by shrinkydinky at 4/14/2010 6:25:20 PM
Comments