Universal access to water is about democracy

Image

Goal 6 of the United Nations Sustainable Development goals aims to ensure ‘availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’. This is in line with the notion that access to water is a human right, which was approved in resolutions by the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council in 2010. Ensuring that access to water and sanitation is provided for all is not merely a question of technical accessibility, but about democratic politics. However, if this is to be achieved, especially in the developing world, we need to critically examine the dominant international trends that treat water as a commodity as this is a major impediment for achieving Goal 6. Professor José Esteban Castro writes as part of a blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes giving recommendations for targets and indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This post is also available in Spanish.

The challenge

The 2014 UN report on the progress made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) shows that despite considerable advancements, access to safe water and sanitation services continues to be a major concern. Although the report celebrates nominally reaching the target for reducing by half the proportion of the world’s population that do not have access to “improved” water sources, it predicts that 45 countries will not meet the target. Moreover, the report recognises that people with improved water sources “may not necessarily have safe water” [1]. In short, if we consider water quality and safety, we are far from meeting the MDG target for water.

The situation is even direr in relation to sanitation services. The MDG progress report confirms that one billion people worldwide still practice open defecation, and that we are very far from meeting the MDG target of halving the world’s population without sanitation by 2015 [1]. We must remember that the MDGs aim at halving the proportion of the world’s population without access to these essential services. A very large number of humans will continue to suffer from preventable diseases and early death even if the targets were met. This means, according to probably too optimistic official figures, that 0.7 billion people would still lack access to water even if we meet the MDGs, and 1.73 billion people would still lack access to some form of sanitation after 2015.

Water commodification

In recent years, water has been declared the “next commodity” [2] by financial experts worldwide and a process of massive water (and land) grabbing is taking place now in Africa, Asia, Latin America, but also Europe [3]. This includes different forms of commodification, including privatisation of water resources and water-based services. Privatising water is an example of the more general process of commodification of life in general, turning natural goods into marketable private property.

In urban areas, the key expression of water commodification is the rise of the bottled water industry, and bottled water has been called by some the “ultimate” commodity. We have already excellent examples of how to tackle this latter threat, as shown by the ban on plastic bottled water in favour of publicly-provided tap water adopted by the governments of leading world cities like San Francisco and New York. Similarly, many world cities, including Atlanta, Berlin, Jakarta, and Paris, among many others, are cancelling the privatisation of water and sanitation services and returning these services to the public sector [4]. These examples of de-commodification are paving the way forward.

If we are to achieve “available and sustainable drinking water and sanitation for all” as stated in Goal 6, we will need to guarantee access to safe water and sanitation infrastructure even for the large share of the world population that cannot afford to pay the full cost of these services. The countries that have managed to provide universal access to these services, such as most of Western Europe or the US, achieved this during the 20^th century because they accepted that these services are not a commodity, but a public good that must be universally available to everyone. This historical lesson needs to be taken seriously into account if we are truly committed to achieving Goal 6. The indicators to be adopted for measuring progress in relation to Goal 6 must contemplate relevant economic, political, and social factors that have an impact on access to water and sanitation services.

Water as a human right

In making essential water services accessible to all, the main confrontation is between exclusionary and inclusionary societal projects. The former produce inequality and injustice by treating water as a commodity that must be available only to those who can afford to pay the market cost. Inclusive projects are grounded on the principles of equality and substantive, material democracy, and conceive access to these services to be a public good that must be guaranteed by the state. The confrontations between these divergent societal projects can be exemplified with the debate about the human right to water. This debate focused on access to small amounts of water needed by human beings for a dignified life, estimated by the World Health Organization at roughly between 50 and 100 litres per person, per day for domestic needs.

For many years a large number of countries involved in this debate rejected the possibility of sanctioning access to water as a human right, with highly divergent arguments. Finally, in July 2010 122 countries voted in favour of the UN resolution and sanctioned the human right to water, but 41 countries abstained from the vote while 29 were absent. [5] Global society, or at least the governments representing their people, does not have an agreement on something as basic as granting an essential amount of safe water to every human being on the planet as a right, just for being human. It is a clear example of the social, political, and ethical dilemma that we face.

Implementing the human right to water in all countries should be a target for Goal 6. However, the target must be specified with relevant indicators. Countries should put in place legal and policy mechanisms to prevent the commodification of water resources and services. If countries continue to allow the control of water resources and services by private companies and wealthy individuals, the human right to water will be no more than a romantic idea never put into practice.

Implementing the human right to water also requires tackling the world’s water crisis, particularly the pollution of water bodies and the human-driven processes of desertification and desiccation. These are enormous tasks that many governments in the developing world, including those already committed to the human right to water, will find extremely difficult owing to financial restrictions, lack of human resources, etc. The indicators for this target must take into account the need for international co-responsibility in this matter.

The role of democracy

A large share of the global population continues to lack adequate access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation facilities, which is the result of structural social injustice and inequality. Policy decisions in relation to water and sanitation services worldwide, including Europe, have almost always been implemented in the absence of democratic public debate. Water politics and management are seldom transparent to citizens, largely unaccountable, and tend to be openly authoritarian and top-down. There are currently no effective mechanisms to enable common citizens to exercise democratic control over these activities. In deciding on indicators for Goal 6, there are two main aspects to foster the democratisation process in relation to water:

Democratisation of access to safe water and sanitation designed to promote substantive democratic practice in the water sector, based on the principle of equality.

Policies that make the activities of government and management of water and sanitation services subject to citizen scrutiny and control.

Summary of action points for reaching SDG 6:

Realise the causes of failure to meet adequate access to water and sanitation are multidimensional, involving natural, social, and individual processes and factors that require systemic solutions drawing on interdisciplinary expertise and inter-sector collaboration in policymaking and implementation.

The water sector must be subject to democratic control that democratises water politics and management, which requires putting in place effective legal and administrative mechanisms for meaningful citizen involvement.

Governments, international financial institutions, aid agencies, and other relevant actors must abandon their support for water commodification and privatisation. Policies of water commodification that prevailed for the last three decades failed to contribute towards the MDGs, and have created widespread social conflicts.

Support the development of public-public and public-community partnerships to make universal access to water and sanitation a public good and a human right in practice. Rebuild the policy and planning capacities of the public sector at all levels, with emphasis on local authorities.

Despite significant improvements towards achieving the MDG on reducing the deficit of water and sanitation services coverage, there is still an enormous gap to achieve the goal of universal access to these services. The Declaration of the Human Right to Water by the UN in 2010 provides an opportunity to rethink and reconfigure the priorities and the mechanisms to be adopted in the post-2015 development strategies. However, the process leading to that declaration also contains a warning: dozens of countries did not support the notion that there is a universal human right to have access to essential water and sanitation, and the reason for many is that they consider that these services must be commodified, not treated as rights or as public goods.

Achieving universal access to essential water and sanitation services is an inclusive political project, which by definition cannot be achieved through exclusionary politics, such as the commodification of water and water services. It will require long-term planning, not just to build the necessary infrastructures and extend coverage, but also to make the systems sustainable over time and the services available to all, independent of their capacity to pay. The public policies required to achieve the universalisation of essential services must be grounded on the principle of equality, and must subordinate economic efficiency and private profit to the higher goals of democratic wealth distribution and civilised well-being.

Esteban Castro is a professor of sociology at Newcastle University in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology. His research focuses mainly on Latin America and Europe, especially Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. He coordinates the international research network WATERLAT-GOBACIT (www.waterlat.org) dedicated to research, teaching and practical action in relation to the politics and management of water. He is also doing research on the interrelation between socio-ecological inequalities and injustice and the democratisation process in Latin America. esteban.castro@ncl.ac.uk

[1] UN. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014. New York, United Nations, 2014, pp. 44-45. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014 MDG report/MDG 2014 English web.pdf.

[2] Castro, José Esteban. Water is not (yet) a commodity: Commodification and rationalization revisited, Human Figurations, 2013, Vol 2, Issue 1 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0002.103?view=text;rgn=main

[3] Mehta, L., G. J. Veldwisch, and J.r Franco (Eds.), Special Issue: Water grabbing? Focus on the (re)appropriation of finite water resources, 2012, Vol. 5, Issue 2 http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/tp1-2/1881-vol5/213-issue5-2

[4] Kishimoto, S., E. Lobina, and O. Petitjean (Eds.). Our public water future. The global experience with remunicipalisation. Amsterdam, London, Paris, Cape Town, and Brussels, Transnational Institute (TNI), Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), Multinationals Observatory, Municipal Services Project (MSP) and the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU). 2015, http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/ourpublicwaterfuture-1.pdf.

[5] Amnesty International and WASH United, Recognition of the human rights to water and sanitation by UN Member States at the international level. An overview of resolutions and declarations that recognise the human rights to water and sanitation. 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/IOR4013802015ENGLISH.PDF.

Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes:

The North and Northness

Posted on 3 June, 2015 by Fiona

What creates a place? In May 2015, Newcastle University’s Cultural Significance of Place Research Group (CSoP) held an event exploring ideas of Northness in culture. The contributions ranged from reflections on the mythical, literary and musical construction of the North, to analyses of the modern romance of the North of England through the eyes of a Sunderland AFC fan. Across disciplines, the question was asked: who created our region? Whether they call up a lost past, or hint at a new political future, ideas of the North are as important today as ever.

Different ways to carve up the map

One of the most striking things to be learned from the various studies presented at this event is that there have been many different ways of conceiving of the geographical entity that is the North, whether that be a selection of four towns in England that aren’t London, or a transpennine dragon whose nose points towards St. Petersburg. When we see the geographical uncertainty involved in identifying this region, it helps us to understand the extent to which art and culture have been the agents in forming this space. In fact, as keynote speaker Professor Penny Fielding reminded us, this has had a long history, from the eighteenth-century conceptions of Northern democracy and social unity to nineteenth-century literature of the Industrial Revolution. As such, the associations of the North with these ideas are the product of centuries of story-telling.

North as opposed to South

The strength of Northern identity has by no means diminished, however, which is significant in an age of globalisation and technological advance. The explanation offered at ‘North and Northness’ was that the North has strengthened because it is increasingly defined against the South. In an analysis of Mackem linguistic purism, it was demonstrated that the North is often set against perceived Southern softness and femininity, in the context of a burgeoning capital city. Most starkly, however, North is conceived of as ‘home’ in the very tonality of North East folk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVfZKB32J8

‘The North Country Maid’ is bi-tonal, offering a sense of hope and joy in the chorus, which is in a different (major) key to the verse. Visit the North East Folk website for more examples from the Social Renewal funded project by Dr Simon McKerrell.

Where next for the North?

This is a pertinent question, given the debates surrounding devolution and decentralisation in the United Kingdom as a whole. Taking even the #takeuswithyouScotland trend as an example, the conversation is on-going. The political, legal and cultural future of the North is by no means certain, given how disastrous attempts to define it have been in the past. Evidence from the attempted artistic construction of the North in Artranspennine98, and from the current confusion over which cities in the UK deserve more devolved powers, suggests that it’s not so easy to make the North in your own image. The conclusion that must be drawn from the ‘North and Northness’ discussion is that although we can trace its construction, it’s a complicated task to re-mould it now.

Contributors to the North and Northness event:

Professor Penny Fielding, University of Edinburgh – Curating the North
Dr Simon McKerrell, Newcastle University – Musical Metaphors of the North
Derek James, University of Exeter – Can the concept of ‘northness’ be applied to tea smuggling in the eighteenth century?
Dr Michael Pearce, University of Sunderland – Anyone from the North East who says ‘mum’ should be shot
Dr Peter O’Brien, Newcastle University – Decentralisation and devolution in the UK: where next for the North of England?

For more information about the Cultural Significance of Place Research Group, please see their website or email Chris Whitehead.

By Fiona Simmons, NISR

Solving the energy trilemma

Posted on 1 June, 2015 by Fiona

The world faces steep challenges in meeting current and future energy demands with low-carbon energy sources. How can Goal 7 of the Sustainable Development Goals: ‘ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all’, be achieved? Written by Professor Phil Taylor, Director of the Institute for Sustainability, this is the third post of a blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, providing recommendations for the SDG targets and indicators that will be officially decided in September 2015.

Achieving universal access to secure, sustainable and affordable energy is known as the ‘energy trilemma’. If SDG 7 is to be realized it requires an approach to energy that is customer-led — a society pull rather than a technology push. Access to energy is important for a variety of reasons including health, economic development, education, and communications, but target indicators need to identify what kind of ‘modern energy’ is required and for what purpose.

SDG 7 needs to define what is meant by the term ‘modern energy’. If it means high power quality, then the standards used in Europe or other developed parts of the world may not be appropriate for countries that do not require the same level of power quality to meet their needs. High power quality also means higher infrastructure costs and higher levels of carbon in the energy system. We must be careful in assuming that all people, all cultures want the same type of access to affordable and reliable energy. Simply because richer nations have energy infrastructure everywhere doesn’t mean that other countries want the same, which is why ‘energy for all’ should be attuned with local cultural values and needs of individual countries.

Price carbon and boost low-carbon energy

Target 7.2 is about increasing the share of renewables, but does not mention the amount of renewables or the role of other low-carbon sources of energy such as nuclear. In order for countries to make the transition to low-carbon energy nuclear should also be an option, especially in eliminating dependence on coal. There should be a target in place that increases renewable energy generation specifically. While much progress has been made in the deployment of renewable energy technologies, there is much work to be done in increasing generation of renewable energy itself.

If for example China and other countries continue to build coal fired power stations how can the share of renewables be increased? And if renewable energy generation increases there will need to be a reduction in non-renewable energy sources if benefits are to be realised. Decommissioning (or reducing the running time) of fossil fuel-based energy sources cannot take place all at once, but needs to be planned carefully, which requires a ‘system architect’ [1].

Indicators for Target 7.2 need to address the actual cost of carbon otherwise it will be very hard for countries, especially low-income economies, to invest in renewables instead of fossil fuel based sources of energy. Countries need appropriate costing and taxation of carbon. Transparent and appropriate costing of carbon through carbon trading or taxation schemes will ensure access to sustainable energy supply for all by taking revenues generated and reinvesting them into the low-carbon transition.

There are currently smart grid technologies and electrical energy storage options [2] for increasing access to renewable energy, but the share of renewables will never change significantly unless the balance sheet or investment proposition is changed for fossil fuels. An indicator that looks at the costing of carbon in relation to increasing the share of renewables would help set countries on track for a low-carbon future. As renewables continue to penetrate the global energy market all countries will start to run into energy balancing problems for the grid and issues with stability.

This is why energy storage is vital to making clean energy resources available to all. While energy storage is viewed as too expensive for wide scale deployment now, it is only a matter of time before it becomes widely available as the cost of carbon increases and the cost of renewable energy supply goes down. Demonstrations in the UK have shown the viability of electrical energy storage and the valuable impact it has on energy efficiency and distribution [3].

For developing and developed economies there is also potential for using recycled batteries from electric vehicles to provide on or off-grid energy supplies. This prospect is of special interest to isolated rural or urban communities who do not have access to reliable energy infrastructure. Community-led off-grid sources of electric power, mainly from renewables, need to be seriously considered for target 7.b as this would likely help countries save considerable capital by using microgeneration instead of centralised services. There is evidence that community-led energy projects can build stronger communities and reduce costs and off-grid communities in developing countries, such as Malawi, have improved health outcomes [4]. Therefore an indicator for off-grid energy services is needed.

Aside from the problems with generalising “modern energy” to all countries and cultures, the proposed indicators do not specify whether developments emerge from centralized electricity grid infrastructure, or from customer-driven, off-grid supply. These need to be considered seriously within the indicators, particularly as a way of accounting across cultures and needs.

Community-led power schemes, mainly from renewables and supported by technologies such as second-life electric vehicle batteries will meet the needs of both rural and urban groups – and, driven by user needs, add “appropriate” to affordable, reliable and low-carbon energy solutions. The speed of deployment and capital requirements of microgeneration and local delivery also compare favorably to centralised services as well as embedding energy-sector economic activity within communities.

Increasing energy efficiency

There is a problem with the way we buy and sell energy in European countries such as the UK. There is a set of generation-obsessed national and international energy policies in place that provide rewards, targets and incentives for renewable energy generation, but little for energy savings. What underlies all of this is the ‘unbundled’ [5] energy market that separates energy supply from transmission and distribution.

In terms of profit, the energy supplier has little value in increasing energy efficiency in an unbundled market because they simply sell electricity, and have nothing to do with the wires that deliver it. When you have a split between supply and assets you break the link between consumption and infrastructure savings, which makes energy efficiency hard to get off the ground. However, this is not the case in all countries.

For example in India the supply company and the utility are part of the same business. In the case where they have overloaded grid infrastructure and don’t want to make costly upgrades to the grid, they could decide to put energy efficiency measures in place instead. Since the supplier and utility are bundled together this can be done easily and the savings from energy efficiency could outweigh costs of investing in more infrastructure. However, we also need to encourage efficiency at the level of the end-user which smart grid technologies play an important role in allowing energy users to monitor their energy usage and identify potential savings.

An indicator for Target 7.3 should address specifically what business models countries are using to increase and deliver energy efficiency. If they are using bundled models this is more likely to increase efficiency overall than if the supply and transmission were separate. Other countries that are beginning to establish or increase accessibility to electricity should avoid having an unbundled market. Instead they should look at developing a system that sells energy as a service [6] rather than by the kilowatt-hour.

Smart grid lab at Newcastle University

When considering energy, similarly to dealing with hunger, cities and urban energy systems must be given due attention for Goal 7 as the majority of populations will increasingly live in urban areas. While the goal focuses on global access to sustainable energy supply the largest energy demands come from cities, to balance supply with demand requires digitally-enabled solutions to providing sustainable energy, which are being tested at Science Central in Newcastle, UK. In making the low-carbon transition cities will not only be able to increase energy efficiency, but reduce air pollution, improve public health and well-being, and create new forms of economy based on innovation.

Summary of action points for reaching SDGs on energy:

Support bundled instead of unbundled energy markets as a way to increase energy efficiency and ensure sustainable energy supply for all.

Account for off-grid solutions as part of user-appropriate energy provision and promote community-led energy provision to unlock non-centralised energy supply.

Set a target for not only increasing the share of renewables but total renewable energy generation as part of a low-carbon transition plan.

Cost carbon appropriately as it is mainly a ‘hidden cost’ in most countries’ energy balance sheets and diverts attention from the actual cost of fossil fuel dependence.

Define what is meant by ‘modern energy’ in the targets and indicators for Goal 7, helping countries define their own energy needs and values, which should be led by community initiatives.

[1] Taylor, P. ‘We need an independent architect to redesign the UK energy industry’. The Guardian.

[2] Taylor, P. Energy Storage – Sheltering networks from the ‘perfect storm’ http://www.abb.co.uk/cawp/seitp202/4a808cb15062d1b8c12578380055f70a.aspx

[3] Lyons, PF, Wade, NS, Jiang, T, Taylor, P, Hashiesh, F, Michel, M, Miller, D. ‘Design and analysis of electrical energy storage demonstration projects on UK distribution networks’, Applied Energy, 137: 677-691

[4] ‘Evaluation of Off-grid Community Managed Renewable Energy Projects in Malawi’. IOD PARC

[5] Anuta, OH, Taylor, P, Jones, D, McEntee, T, Wade, N. (2014) ‘An international review of the implications of regulatory and electricity market structures on the emergence of grid scale electricity storage’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38: 489-508

[6] Hinells, PBM, Rezessy, S. ‘Liberating the power of Energy Services and ESCOs in a liberalised energy market’.

Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes:

To end urban hunger, focus on low-income housing and settlements in cities

Posted on 22 May, 2015 by Fiona

Millions of adults who live in low-income urban areas regularly fall short of the calorie requirement recommended for a healthy life. The relationship between low income housing and food security needs to be targeted by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in order to achieve Goal 2: ‘to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture’. Dr Suzanne Speak (GURU, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape) contributes to the Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institute blog series by showing how the UN SDGs could end urban hunger.

Food security for the urban poor

In its 2013 report on the State of World Food Security, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that one in eight people in the world were suffering from chronic hunger and undernourishment in 2011-13. While the crises of acute famine or drought afflicting small farmers and rural dwellers are well reported to the international community, the ongoing, daily undernourishment of many low-income people in urban areas is less well understood or prioritised.

The focus on food security has, until recently, been overwhelmingly on rural problems and on issues of food availability at a global and national scale. The UN Sustainable Development Goals do little to address this rural focus. Despite SDG 2 aiming to ‘end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture’, there remains no explicit reference to urban hunger. Yet many millions of urban adults regularly fall short of the 2,100 kilocalories recommended for a healthy, active life. Urban food insecurity has been significantly overlooked, especially by some of the professionals who could influence it most. Food security remains invisible to urban planners and managers in comparison to other problems such as unemployment, overcrowding and decaying infrastructure [1].

Urbanisation has brought with it the urbanisation of poverty and now, many low-income urban populations are equally at risk of poverty and food insecurity. Indeed, the UN itself acknowledges the food security and malnutrition issues associated with this urbanisation of poverty [2]. There are many reasons for this urban food stress. While it is difficult for urban policymakers to intervene to address all of them, here are three points around housing and settlement policy which can help drive urban food strategies.

Increase secure livelihoods

Urban dwellers pay up to 30% more for their food than rural households [3]. However, livelihoods are unstable, being more dependent on waged income from precarious informal employment. Much of the informal-sector activity takes place outdoors (construction, street vending, or rickshaw drawing), making the rainy season an especially difficult period. Seasonal variations need to be taken into consideration when designing urban interventions. Urban households may need to remit funds back to the rural family, putting further stress on income and budgets.

The UN SDGs can help to address the problem of urban food insecurity through focused work on urban poverty. However, poverty is not the only issue affecting urban food security. We need to recognise the synergy between food security and several of the goals, especially Goal 11 on cities and human settlements, and Goals 6 and 7 on water, sanitation and energy.

Promote sustainable urban agriculture and improve access to land

As the homes of the poor are usually small they have less storage to set food aside for harder times. Urban agriculture could play a significant role in managing fluctuations in food availability and support women who are unable to work outside the home. Indeed target 5a urges ‘reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land ….’ Urban land is as vital for women’s livelihoods as is rural land. However, authorities seldom recognise this. Many urban migrants, men and women, tend to have good agricultural skills but there is less land available. However, encouraging urban agriculture for low income households would support SDG 12 to “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns”.

City authorities can do much to support both food security and gender equality by enabling the urban poor to have access to land for livelihood and agricultural purposes, and reconsidering their attitudes towards urban agriculture. This cannot be achieved easily, given the spiralling cost of urban land in many cities of the south. Nevertheless, urban planning policy can, and in some countries does, manage to regulate in such a way that undeveloped urban land can be temporarily put to more productive use. This requires municipal planning authorities to have strong vision and commitment to addressing urban hunger. It also requires strong governance and improved capacity within municipalities to develop and enforce regulation, such as land banking, which pushes up the cost of land and removes it from productive use.

Ensure easy access to food markets and adequate conditions for cooking

The absence of markets and the small size of low-income housing, which has limited kitchen facilities, means an over reliance on street vendors and processed ‘snack’ foods for daily calorie intake. Street foods are often more expensive, and less nutritious, than home-prepared foods. Urban household budgets also compete with other resources such as water, devoting a significantly higher share of their limited household budget to drinking water than rural households.

SDG 6 aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. However, food safety can be more problematic in urban settlements, where inadequate space and services for food production and storage have implications for both individual and public health. The lack of basic water, sanitation, drainage and solid-waste disposal services makes it impossible for the poor to prevent contamination of water and food.

Reliance on street foods further exposes urban residents to higher levels of food contamination and low nutritional intake. In this respect, two SDGs are particularly relevant — SDG 6 to ‘ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’ may be critical in improving food safety. Targets 6.1 – 6.5 are especially relevant to enabling low-income urban people to avoid food borne disease and lead healthier lives in general. In this respect they will be more productive for the city and better able to improve their own livelihoods.

Even if food can be purchased and stored effectively, much cooking is done on open fires or kerosene stoves, both of which produce toxic fumes in small, badly ventilated houses. In this respect SDG 7 can help in its determination to “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all”.

SDG 11 recognises the importance of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. However, this cannot be achieved until the availability of, access to and use of food in low income settlements is recognised as a specific and urgent issue, and addressed by urban professionals not simply those engaged in agriculture.

Summary of action points for reaching SDGs on hunger:

The UN SDGs can help address urban food insecurity by targeting urban poverty, but it is not the only issue affecting food security which includes human settlements, water, sanitation and energy.
Rather than be seen as inappropriate in urban planning by city managers, low-income households should be encouraged to take up urban agriculture to alleviate hunger in cities.
Create food markets, sharing networks and urban agriculture projects to decrease reliance on street food which is often more expensive, less nutritious and more likely to be contaminated than home-prepared meals.

These are only some examples of actions that could be taken to address food security for the urban poor. However, the importance of markets and income-earning opportunities cannot be over-emphasised as it is sustainable livelihoods that will enable people to ensure their food security for present and future generations. Urban planners and similar practitioners could play a key role in achieving food security, improving food nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture together by focusing on the plights of low-income urban areas.

[1] Maxwell, D. (1999). The political economy of urban food security in Sub-Saharan Africa.World Development, 27(11), 1939-1953.

[2] United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition August 2013 available at: http://www.unscn.org/files/Statements/August_31-_UNSCN_World_Urban_Forum_6-_Statement_final_3108_finalfinal.pdf

[3] World Food Programme. Annual Session. Rome 20-23 May 2002 Report on Agenda Item 5 Policy Issues (http://www.wfp.org/eb)

Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes:

Sustainable Development Goal Indicators are technical, but also political

Posted on 15 May, 2015 by Fiona

This is the first of a blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), exploring the targets and indicators of sustainable development that have been mapped out for the United Nations post-2015. The Theme Institutes are well placed to contribute to the SDGs, which aim to address the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development. Dr Graham Long is Senior Lecturer in Politics, in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology at Newcastle University, and he introduces the series, hosted by the Institute for Sustainability, with a political context for the SDGs, arguing that the goals in practice may differ from what has been set out on paper.

SDG indicators: the technical track

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) currently under negotiation at the UN have reached the ‘science bit’. A dedicated technical track is in place to decide upon the indicators to accompany the goals and targets – that is, what will be (and indeed what can be) measured. This exercise will extend into March 2016. The UN Statistical Commission (UNSC) and National Statistical Commissions are charged with arriving at an account of how progress towards the goals will be measured. Alongside a set of global indicators, particular national and even regional indicators might also emerge. When, say, David Hulme – a leading international expert on the Millennium Development Goals – calls for academic engagement, the coming months may be a decisive moment for just that.

This is all good, technical stuff on which academics have the knowledge and the mindset to engage – assessing weighty issues of methodology and measurability, science and statistics, proxies and paradigms, disaggregation and ‘data revolution’. Via the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and the Scientific and Technological UN Major Group, as well as other expert groups and networks, academics have already had input into this process. Indeed, the Scientific and Technological Major Group’s core role is to facilitate the participation of the scientific community on matters of sustainable development. The UNSC, SDSN and the Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG) on the Data Revolution, have all recently run open consultations on these kinds of technical questions. As new drafts of the indicators are prepared, we can expect opportunities for input to continue.

However, just because this is a ‘technical’ exercise, doesn’t mean that it’s not also political – that is, it is fundamentally about “who gets what, when and how”[1]. Indeed, the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) states that it expects “broad political guidance” from states on questions of indicators. States (and other actors) involved in negotiating the SDGs are acutely aware of how important the indicators are for the framework that results. Given very broad goal areas, and targets (currently) of varying quality and effectiveness, the indicators will bear a lot of the burden of the SDG framework. They can, in effect, ‘make or break’ the agreement that results. What we choose to measure will dictate where states’ activities are directed as states are keen on saying, ‘what gets measured gets done’. The concrete indicators will be taken to indicate, amongst other things, what these broad and aspirational goals were really driving at in the first place.

Indicators and the review process

Accurate data – and the right data – will be important for the review and follow up framework for the goals. Data is indeed “the raw material of accountability”, as the IEAG proclaims. However, there is a lot more to accountability than just data – notably, the responsiveness of actors and the presence of standards and sanctions. The SDG agenda is not even really about accountability – even though it will be accompanied by a monitoring mechanism of some stripe. These are “aspirational” and “voluntary” goals, and their complexity tells against attempts to allocate responsibilities to particular actors.

Even if we are speaking of ‘monitoring’ or ‘follow up’ rather than accountability in a strict sense, indicators are but raw materials of a process. They have to be assessed in appropriate structures and forums. Whilst the indicators themselves are technical, the arenas in which they will be used are decidedly not. And without institutions that allow for scrutiny, all the scientifically valid indicators and successful measurement in the world will not give us effective review or monitoring, let alone accountability. This framework for monitoring and review is up for discussion at the next set of intergovernmental negotiations in May. Received wisdom indicates that state, regional and global institutions will have a role, with the recently-established “High Level Political Forum”. However, much of how this will operate is still to be decided.

Reflecting goals and targets

On the one hand, a broad and complex agenda to apply to every country suggests that comprehensive coverage would require a large number of indicators. On the other, there is a clear limit on the number that will be practicable. In the context of these conflicting imperatives, which indicators are finally chosen is a question with great political significance for the goals. It looks important to select indicators that at least reflect the spirit, intent or guiding idea of each goal area. Indicators must strive for technical rigour. But if they do not accurately capture the key aspirations for each goal, then the goal in practice – come March 2016 – will not reflect the goal on paper in September 2015. Again, this demonstrates how important the formulation and selection of indicators will be. States, through negotiation, will decide on the essence of the goals and exercise final control over how this judgement will be made, something that will surely prove to be difficult and controversial.

The limit to the scope for “technical” assessment is clearly indicated by the way that, even as the indicator process was confirmed as technical, many states vigorously rejected technical proofing of the targets, even though the targets are very mixed in quality and just as crucial. For some states, evidently, the targets are too political to be technical. Other states invoked technical inputs precisely to make the opposite political point. When the Scientific and Technological Major Group – offering “the science perspective” – reported that only 29% of the targets are “well-formulated and based on latest scientific evidence”[2], this finding was widely invoked in favour of proofing and pruning of targets.

No escape from politics

We should proceed with caution about any assumption that the indicator debate, by virtue of being “technical” or “scientific”, is not also political. For those stepping into such issues, ‘forewarned is forearmed’. But also, the SDGs offer a much broader agenda for study by almost every branch of the sciences and social sciences – from assessments of their ultimate ends and assumptions, or their place in a wider history of ‘development’ initiatives, down to the detailed content of every indicator. The SDGs need expert scrutiny in every root and branch. Not only where such academic input would be welcomed by states, but also precisely where it might not be.

[1] To adapt Harold Lasswell’s phrase from his book Politics: who gets what, when, how (New York: Whittlesey House. 1936).

[2] http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/review-of-targets-for-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-science-perspective-2015/SDG-Report.pdf

These are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily reflect the position of any larger organisation. (Contact graham.long@newcastle.ac.uk to find out more)

Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes:

The Whole Grain Truth

Posted on 1 May, 2015 by Fiona

Professor Chris Seal is a Professor of Food and Human Nutrition, and Kay Mann is a postgraduate student, within the Human Nutrition Research Centre at Newcastle University. They are calling for the next government to introduce clear guidelines on the amount of whole grain we should be consuming.

The evidence: Whole grains are good for us

Current literature suggests that those eating three or more servings of whole grain, compared with those that eat none or only small amounts, have a 20-30% reduction in their risk of developing cardio-vascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Higher whole grain intake has also been linked to lower body weight, BMI and cholesterol levels. Other research suggests that eating whole grains can make you feel fuller for longer and that you do not need to eat as much of a wholegrain food compared with a refined version to feel full.

The problem: The picture in the UK

Our new research on over 3000 UK adults and children who took part in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) between 2008 and 2012 shows that over 80% of us are not eating enough whole grains. Amazingly, almost one in five people don’t eat any whole grains at all!

One reason for this may be that in the UK there aren’t any specific recommendations on the amount of whole grain we should eat each day, other than the NHS Eatwell Plate advice to “choose wholegrain varieties whenever you can”. Countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and Denmark give much more specific daily recommendations. These range from a minimum of 3 servings (or 48g) per day in the US to between 60g and 90g per day for women and men in Denmark.

Three servings (around 48g) is equivalent to:

3 slices of wholemeal bread
A bowl of porridge or wholegrain breakfast cereal and a slice of wholemeal toast
A portion of whole grain rice/pasta/quinoa or other whole grains

UK public advice about whole grains was first introduced back in 2007, when it was recommended to look out for ‘whole’ on food labels and to ‘choose brown varieties where possible’. We analysed whole grain intake from the NDNS back then and it seems little has changed in consumer habits since.

The amount of whole grain we eat in the UK is still very low – an average of around 20g a day for adults– compared with Denmark where the average daily intake is around 55g. In the UK, we tend to eat a lot of white bread, rice, pasta and cereals and lots of processed foods, all of which have no – or very little – whole grain in them and also tend to be higher in fat and sugar.

In Denmark, since the introduction of a whole grain campaign backed by the government and food producers, whole grain intake has risen by 72 per cent. We’d like to see a similar commitment here in the UK with a government-backed daily intake recommendation which can be used to develop successful public health campaigns.

So what are whole grains and what do they do?

Whole grains are defined as the ‘intact, ground, cracked or flaked kernel after the removal of the inedible parts such as the hull and husk’. This means that the three component parts of a grain – the outer bran, the germ and endosperm – remain in the final food product. Combined, these contain important nutrients such as fibre, vitamins and minerals and phytochemicals. When grains are refined to make white flour, many of these valuable nutrients are lost, and only a few are return with mandatory fortification.

Whole grains include; whole wheat (wholemeal), whole/rolled oats, brown rice, wholegrain rye, whole barley, whole corn/maize, whole millet and quinoa. The key is to look for the word ‘whole’ on an ingredients list and also for the ingredient to be high up on the list. These ingredients can be found in foods such as wholemeal bread, wholegrain breakfast cereals, porridge, wholegrain pasta and rice.

There are a small number of people that suffer from a gluten intolerance, which means that they have to avoid eating grains that contain high levels of gluten such as wheat, barley and rye. It is still possible for them to get their whole grains. Whole grain oats do not contain gluten but can sometimes be contaminated with wheat during harvesting and processing, others such as amaranth, buckwheat, brown rice and quinoa are also gluten free.

How whole grains have their effects is not clear. Certainly a key factor is better digestive health, but we also see lowered blood cholesterol, reduction in inflammation, lower body weight and lower weight gain in people who eat more whole grains.

The solution

We advocate:

the introduction of specific guidelines to promote whole grain intake in the UK
an emphasis on how easy it is to introduce more whole grains into diet – no major lifestyle change is needed
small tweaks to diet such as replacing white rice and pasta for brown, eating porridge or a wholegrain cereal for breakfast instead of a refined grain breakfast cereal, or swapping white bread for whole meal bread

Building up STEAM

Posted on 21 April, 2015 by Fiona

Professor Rachel Armstrong is Professor of Experimental Architecture in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, and her Idea for an Incoming Government is to put the A back into STEM education. In British education, but also in our society, the arts play a part that fundamentally enriches, and Professor Armstrong urges an incoming government not to allow our cultural landscape to turn into a tedious shade of grey. Read about the Institute for Social Renewal’s other contributions to policy on our website.

What’s the problem?

In a technologically advanced age, STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) subjects are regarded as a fundamental way to boost the technological competence of our workforce. As a result, they have taken a central position in British education. While the original educational concerns that forged STEM promoted a more widespread uptake of these subjects, other commentators suggest that the term embodies synergies between these disciplines, which highlight the importance of cross-disciplinary collaborations in the innovation process.

After a period of activism where the innovative potential of collaborative practices invited the introduction of ‘A’ for arts into the acronym shortly after its conception, we find that our core competencies are abbreviated back down to ‘left’ brain activities. While absolute distinctions between ‘left’ (logical) and ‘right’ (creative) in itself is a controversial claim, the generalization symbolizes broad differences between the sciences and arts. The consequences, unintentional or otherwise, of omitting the ‘A’ may push us back to the Enlightenment views of a knowledge dichotomy that Snow challenged over half a century ago in his 1959, Two Cultures Rede lecture.

Presumably, the climate that has allowed the arts to wither from centre-stage education relates to a streamlining of investment that appears more directly related to immediate returns in employment, global competitiveness and economic growth. Newcastle City Council is living testimony to such measures, having had its creative arts funding slashed by 50% in 2013, provoking widespread outcry.

The solution

It is imperative that ‘A’ is immediately reinstated. Even Ada Lovelace herself, who is attributed to designing the first computer program and has become a figurehead for the recruitment of young women into STEM subjects, advocated a ‘poetical science’. It is also not sufficient to assume that the creativity associated with the arts and humanities will inevitably be infused into scientific subjects without specifically creating funded opportunities for this to occur and to keep on happening.

Moreover, justifying arts in purely utilitarian terms such as facilitating technological innovation and leadership in an efficient workforce completely fails to acknowledge their enduring enrichment of society and culture. Additionally, the future of the arts should be in no way enslaved to its enlistment to STEAM.

The evidence

Civilizations are more than a function of their economic growth. Their vigour is acquired through the hearts of their communities – and passions are not won by facts. So, while science claims a necessary position of neutrality, objectivity and distance from their studies, the arts are deeply immersed in their subjects. The objective goal of achieving technological advancement without investing in shared values will only take us so far in uniting people.

In this age of great challenges, it is imperative that we can think beyond the limits of rational solutions and deal with the uncertainties of our situation by venturing into unknown territories. The consequences of starving our students and civic communities of these skills are far more insidious and enduring than facing any financial crisis.

STEAM is not just a procedural set of issues aimed at managing the meaningful integration of arts with science but also draws attention to investments made in the arts at a national and European governmental level. The scientification of our society is embodied in a recent international conference entitled ‘The future of Europe is Science’ that proposed to address subjects such as ‘How will we keep healthy? How are we going to live, learn, work and interact in the future? How will we produce and consume and how will we manage resources?’. While many aspects of our lives can (within limits) be evaluated objectively, such as average income, or employment statistics, these questions cannot be exclusively served through an objective, empirical scientific analysis. Indeed, a Europe without humanities and arts feels a chillingly soulless place. Right now, we are faced with spreading neoliberal malignancy that is turning our cultural landscape into a tedious shade of grey. It is reducing our daily lives to the pursuit of one bottom line – money – where we are aware of the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

If we are to survive what is likely to be an extremely challenging century, where we face many contradictions that do not clearly present us with logical solutions, such as reducing the gap between the have and have not’s, tackling dramatic weather changes, combating drastic resource challenges and managing ideological conflicts, then we’ll need to be extremely imaginative across all disciplines. It is only through actively nurturing creativity from an early age that we will be able to do more with less, produce new kinds of value, work productively in partnership with nature and find new ways of working within constraints.

Importantly, while we actively acknowledge our limits, we must also relentlessly pursue new ways to transcend them. This simply cannot be done purely objectively. It requires personal investment, which means believing in common goals and embracing the seemingly impossible. If we are to protect and restore our heritage, our community and our faith in humankind then we need a different toolset that creates a counterbalance within STEM, one that that refuses to be answerable to sciences, yet also has the capacity to potentiate them, so that we can remain critical of developments – while also fulfilling our passions.

We should indeed build on firm foundations that ensure that our workforce, leaders and next generations have the intellectual and practical skills to be competitive on a global scale, but we must also sow the seeds of our culture with the imaginative flexibility to deal with the unknown, uphold a humane quality of life and to invent into new spaces that have never before existed. So, let us not forget the broader needs of our society when thinking about our institutional goals, national productivity and shared futures – and urgently invest in the creative capacity of people by putting the ‘A’ back into STEM.

Making school buildings fit for purpose

Posted on 17 April, 2015 by Fiona

In ‘Ideas for an Incoming Government’ no. 14, Dr Pam Woolner from the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences argues that with pupil numbers rising, our schools are under pressure, and our school buildings need to catch up. Her idea is to make working with school students, staff and the wider community a priority in tackling the problem.

What’s the problem?

Our school estate is not fit for purpose. Although this government and the previous Labour administrations have overseen new school building, it was long overdue and has not got anywhere near renewing or refurbishing all the schools in need. It has also led to very uneven provision: schools built over the last 150 years that have been designed for disparate understandings of education.

Meanwhile, student numbers are generally rising, putting pressure on this already-strained infrastructure. For the first time in decades, the UK is experiencing a sustained increase in birth rate which will translate into steady increases in school numbers. As Sarah Healey (then Director, Education Funding Group, DfE) commented in 2013, “this is not a very short temporary bulge […] so it will continue to be a challenge.” (Westminster Education Forum, 16.1.13).

This is concerning because there is an established, if not entirely understood, link between the quality of the school space and student outcomes. In particular, research shows that there are clear negative consequences of inadequate school buildings. Focused research has found direct effects on learning of specific physical problems including noise, high and low temperatures, poor air quality and limited learning space. Other studies reveal correlations between measures of school building and classroom quality with student outcomes including attitude, attendance and attainment. We can see how a poor school environment might contribute to a spiral of decline: this could involve declining student attitudes, increases in poor behaviour, reduced well-being and attendance, lowered staff morale and difficulties in staff retention.

Yet research into the physical environment of education also demonstrates that there is not a single perfect or ideal setting for learning. Although spacious, well-ventilated classrooms with good acoustics and temperature controls will tend to be beneficial, the suitability of other aspects of the school building will depend on what the school community wants to do: collaborative learning in groups, hands-on science, musical performance and sport all make particular, sometimes conflicting, demands on space.

The solution

There is some evidence that in effective schools, staff tend to engage with the physical environment and attempt to make it fit their needs. Other research suggests an important role for students in such evaluation and adaptation activities. In these processes, everyone comes to understand the helps and hindrances of their particular building much better and are able to make better use of it.

The evidence base reveals the negative effect of poor school premises, but it does not provide priorities for fixing them, and shows that there is no ideal to aim for. We need to understand the intentions and needs of the school community to design them an appropriate setting.

This all implies a necessity of actively involving school students, staff and the wider community in any redesign or rebuilding, helping them to think collaboratively about exactly what their requirements are. There is expertise among architecture and design professionals to make such participation happen, but it needs to be a central requirement of rebuilding and refurbishment processes to ensure that it does. Unfortunately, it is this element of participation that is being determinedly left out of the current government’s funding arrangements for school rebuilding.

An incoming government needs to ensure that the understandings which school users have of education in their settings are brought together and developed to drive decisions in re-builds, re-designs and refurbishments. Ultimately, this is the most productive way to address the shortcomings of the school estate, which if ignored will detrimentally affect the education of the citizens of tomorrow.

The evidence

Bakó-Birób, Zs., Clements-Croomea, D.J, Kochhara, N., Awbia, H.B. and Williams, M.J. (2012) ‘Ventilation rates in schools and pupils’ performance’, Building and Environment, 48: 215-23.

Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J. Kobbacy, K (2013) A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59: 678-689.

Durán-Narucki , V. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 278-286.

Flutter, J. (2006). ‘This place could help you learn’: student participation in creating better learning environments. Educational Review 58(2): 183-193.

Maxwell, L.E. (2003) Home and School Density Effects on Elementary School Children: The Role of Spatial Density Environment and Behavior 35: 566 – 577

Uline,C. L. Tschannen-Moran, M., and DeVere Wolsey, T. (2009).The walls still speak: The stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3):400–426.

Woolner, P. (2015) (Ed.) School Design Together, Abingdon: Routledge

Woolner, P.and Hall, E. (2010). Noise in Schools: A Holistic Approach to the Issue, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7(8): 3255-3269.

Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins,S., McCaughey, C., Wall, K. (2007a) A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for Building Schools for the Future. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1): 47-70.

Tackling Obesity – Through Planning and the Built Environment

Posted on 14 April, 2015 by Fiona

With obesity rates at crisis point across the UK, Dr Tim Townshend, Director of Planning and Urban Design within the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, discusses the part that our built environment has to play. Part of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal‘s Ideas for an Incoming Government series, Dr Townshend argues that central government and local authorities need to take action now to promote healthy living in our communities.

What is the problem?

Rates of obesity have reached crisis point, with accompanying health problems (type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease etc.). In 2007 the Foresight Report ‘Tackling Obesities: Future Choices’ suggested there was enough expert evidence to implicate built environment in the obesity crisis. The places where we live, work, go to school and spend our leisure time can either provide, or constrain, opportunities for physical activity and access to both healthy and unhealthy food. However, the planning system in England is ill equipped to act on this evidence.

This needs action now. Even if the influence of the built environment is small at the individual level, given its impact is over whole communities and that it generally survives several generations unchanged, it is highly significant in aggregate. The change in policy initially needs to address the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF calls for the planning system to promote ‘healthy communities’, but it is vague in its focus and how this might be achieved.

Obesity is not the only health crisis to face the country – however, it is one in which intervention in the built environment could make a significant difference and interventions to tackle obesity have the potential to deliver broader health and well-being benefits. For example, there is evidence that providing adequate good quality open spaces will encourage physical activity – we also know that physical activity and greenery/green space are also linked to improved mental health and well-being. Moreover obesity is also a problem that has a distinct socioeconomic profile – poorer communities are more adversely affected by obesity and related health/well-being issues than their better off neighbours – and therefore addressing this issue can help tackle health inequalities through the planning system.

The Solution

Action by Central Government/ Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

The NPPF:

The NPPF (or its replacement) needs to be strengthened – it should state that planning policies must deliver (not merely promote) environments that support healthy lifestyle choices.
The NPPF should be clear that policies that deliver healthier environments should be enshrined in core polices of the Local Development Framework (LDF) – i.e. not just Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) so they carry enough weight to be acted upon.
The viability clause – paragraph 173 – must be rewritten. The elements which support healthy lifestyles, good quality public realm, greenspace, bespoke cycle provision are expensive – however ‘viability’ should not be used as an acceptable reason to remove elements of design in the planning process which are proven to be linked to healthy behaviours and outcomes.

More broadly non-planning actions DCLG should consider include:

Including directives that aim to improve health and wellbeing in other built environment guidelines – such as UK Building Regulations
Introducing a ‘healthy lifestyle’ kitemark or rating system (like that used for energy efficiency) for new buildings, particularly housing.

Action by Local Authorities

Local authorities should have planning policies that:

Deliver healthier lifestyles and greater well-being through the built environment incorporated in their Local Development Framework – to ensure enough weight is attached to these policies. Supplementary Planning Documents may be used to support and/or enhance core policies.
Enable ‘active travel’ (walking/cycling) to be ‘designed in’ as part of everyday life for communities wherever possible
Ensure adequate greenspace – in its full variety of forms (pocket parks; parks; sports pitches; garden allotments; wildlife areas etc) – is provided, particularly when new housing is developed
Restrict the proliferation of fast food outlets – in particular prohibit new outlets in the proximity of schools and children’s centres

More broadly:

Ensure the new public health responsibilities in local authorities (Public Health Boards etc.) are fully linked into to planning practice – for example through robust review processes.

The evidence

There is a vast body of evidence, it’s not all in a form that can be used by planning – however the Government Office for Science Foresight Report provides a useful summary:

FORESIGHT 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices – Project report. London: Government Office for Science.

Also see:

LAKE, A. & TOWNSHEND, T. 2006. Obesogenic environments: exploring the built and food environments. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126, 262-267.

TOWNSHEND, T. G. & LAKE, A. A. 2009. Exploring obesogenic urban form, Theory, policy and practice, Health and Place, 15, 909-916.

Townshend T.G. (2014) Walkable Neighbourhoods: principles, measures and health impacts, in Burton E., & Cooper, R Well-being and the Environment, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell

TOWNSHEND, T.G., GALLO, R. & LAKE, A.A. (May 2015) Obesogenic Built Environment: Concepts and Complexities in BARTON, H., GRANT, M., THOMPSON, S., & BURGESS, S. (Eds) The Routledge Handbook of Planning for Health and Well-being, Abingdon, Routledge.

School-Community Advisory Groups: ‘Turning Schools Inside Out’

Posted on 10 April, 2015 by Fiona

To turn schools inside out, develop a localised community curriculum, argues Professor David Leat from the Research Centre for Learning and Teaching (CfLaT), School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences. To read other Ideas for an Incoming Government, view the entire series hosted by the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal blog.

What’s the problem?

We have a national curriculum which lays out what should be taught to school pupils. When the National Curriculum was first introduced the mistake was made of cramming in too much content and successive reviews have chipped away at this content. However it is increasingly recognised that schools need greater freedom to offer a curriculum that is locally developed to reflect local resources, issues and needs for a proportion of the school week. We need a policy which allows and supports schools, in partnership with local stakeholders, to develop a localised community curriculum.

The solution

Schools should be able to apply to the DES for licence to devote between 20 and 40% of their school year to curriculum which is developed locally in partnership with community stakeholders which would include businesses, community organisations/charities, specialist societies, public services and universities. The submitted plan would include the aims of such curriculum work related both to the goals of National Curriculum and to individual school aims and characteristics of the region/locality. Once accepted the plan would be included in the school inspection remit. Relevance comes from the meaningful work that is produced by the students which will address many of the challenges facing schools in relation to motivation, behaviour, transitions and wider educational outcomes (such as self-concept and resilience).

In practice schools would establish a community curriculum advisory group (CAG) which would advise and assist in developing inter-disciplinary, challenging and authentic projects for the students. The advisory group would consist of 5-12 members (larger in large secondary schools) drawn from the constituencies outlined earlier, but including one or two governors. Many might be parents and there should be a minimum of one from the business community and one from the culture/arts sector. The school would have the final say about the composition of the CAG. The aim of the CAG would be:

To review curriculum plans for year groups or subject departments;
To advise on and support curriculum development that uses the potential of the locality and community – thus acting as a conduit for school-community relationships;
Have regard to soft skills and EU competences;
Guide and support the school in recognising and validating the wider learning outcomes of school students, from both school activities and out-of-school activities – which would include possible development of digital portfolios.

The school could also submit an application for a community curriculum award at one of three levels (for the sake of argument: bronze, silver and gold). Such an application would have to include evidence of the wider learning outcomes for the students, and of the ‘products’ generated by the students validated by users or others in the community.

Benefits

The policy would make a substantial difference to schools, allowing them to release the creativity of staff and school leaders and free them from the excesses of ‘teaching to the test’.
Pupils would feel the difference through the authentic work and challenges that they are offered – thus engaging with work that matters.
Universities would feel the difference in having students who are better prepared for research and both collaborative and independent study.
Employers would benefit from having employees who have a wider spectrum of skills (with no diminution of basic skills).
The creation of CAGs would also bring fresh air to the feverish issue of accountability. Currently the government and its agent, Ofsted, determine the criteria for judging the performance of schools. This is an over-centralised model which is unresponsive to local need and creativity.

There would be teething troubles over how representative CAGs are and it is important that schools have control of their composition, so that they do not feel that they are being ‘done to’.

The evidence

A Demos report (Sodha & Gugliemi, 2009), detailed the disaffection and alienation evident amongst young people of school age, and the harm that they encounter. Recently, an Independent Advisory Group, coordinated by Pearson, recommended that England must adopt a framework of key competences such as that developed by the European Union (e.g. learning to learn, working as part of a team and intercultural competence) AND a recognition of vocational learning for ALL students (Anderson 2014).

The RSA have produced a report (Facer 2010) which summarises the literature relating to ‘Area Based Curriculum’ and reporting on two ABC projects in Manchester and Peterborough. The outcomes in Peterborough, where Curriculum Development Partnerships were pioneered included:

Teachers learned about the locality and felt more connected
School and partner representatives reported a change to the way organisations engage with schools
Partners reported that more schools are now open to working with outside agencies

In the US there is a substantial resurgence in interest in Community Education (although with a greater involvement of social workers that we are suggesting) and here the evidence is for far greater engagement. ‘High Tech High’ in California has a very high profile and reputation for project based work, often but not always, linked to the community (http://www.hightechhigh.org/about/results.php).

Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal

We are the Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University

Author Archives: Fiona

Universal access to water is about democracy

Image

The North and Northness

Solving the energy trilemma

To end urban hunger, focus on low-income housing and settlements in cities

Sustainable Development Goal Indicators are technical, but also political