The Labour leadership election and the challenge to the style of modern party politics

Posted on 18 August, 2015 by Fiona

Professor Mark Tewdwr-Jones, Professor of Planning in Newcastle School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, argues in this NISR blog that more is at stake in the Labour leadership election than the future of the one party. What has been demonstrated by the leadership contest is that voters are troubled by the sameness of the political language employed, and that there is a call to be principled and hold your convictions closely, if you’re to win the trust of the British electorate.

Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity has emerged not necessarily because the grassroots Labour membership suddenly clamour for socialist polities (no doubt some do), but because of a twenty-year frustration with a political party that appears to have lost its principles and convictions.

Blairism moderated the party to make it electable, faced with a right wing political agenda that had reshaped the country and political attitudes. But the Blair-Brown era of Labour only served to react to a form of Conservatism; it played the tune already composed by neo-liberalism. When neo-liberalism was found wanting in the 2007-8 recession, the country expected and indeed demanded an ideological change. But, after 2008, the business-as-usual manifestation of all political parties seemed to jar with a country that, at its heart, still believed in conviction politics and principles.

Photo credit: Labour Party, available under a Flickr Creative Commons Licence. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode)

The political language of post-1994 is devoid of any meaning. It is the language of not only moderation and compromise but also of neutrality. The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all employ this non-speak: a never ending stream of platitudes that only hint at issues without stating a firm vision of course of action. Promises to be economically credible, to tackle poverty, to address climate change, to deal with immigration, to oppose tuition fees, to save our health service all sound fine as headlines, but dig deeper and the specific policies are often absent. And the electorate have realised this, particularly younger generations of voters. After all, how many of these promises have turned out to be false promises or else have masked opposite agendas? The Liberal Democrats paid the ultimate price in this regard at the 2015 General Election when their platitudes about tuition fees and protection of state services became hollow.

Furthermore, since politicians from all the major parties employ the same style of political speak, they all tend to sound the same. Outpourings of grief and tributes paid to deceased politicians such as Michael Foot and Tony Benn demonstrated not a fondness for socialism, but rather sadness for the demise of a type of politician that is increasingly rare in the 21^st century. Blairism turned the language of moderation and neutrality into a fine art; we believed it for a time but eventually even supportive Labour members saw through the charade. Politics became dull because politicians and political parties tried to cover all the messy contradictory issues we need to face through a series of bland platitudes: if political parties appear to stand for everything, they are nothing.

Corbyn’s popularity has emerged at a particular moment in time because the public are fed up with the blandness of political language. They are fed up with the lack of conviction and principles in political debates. And they are irritated by the fact that the three main Westminster political parties sound the same on issues; there is now no choice. This is also perhaps the reason why the Scottish Nationalists have surged ahead in Scotland; they sound different, they celebrate their ideology, they set out the issues they support and oppose, and they are not afraid of being portrayed by the media in an unpopular light for doing so.

Viewing Corbyn’s popularity as a threat to Labour’s electoral chances misses the point completely. It’s not about a threat to Labour per se, but rather to what Labour has become over the last 30 years; a party that is bland, vague, devoid of ideology, too close to the Tories. Turning that around is not easy: those 30 years have given rise to a complete generation of Blairites both within the House of Commons and in the party apparatus. Their reactions to Corbyn’s rise in the opinion polls demonstrates that they have no armoury to deal with the surge because they only have one style of thinking: moderation, compromise and neutrality at all costs to be electorally successful. But Corbyn’s agenda is proving to be more electorally successful and is rather based on ideology, conviction and principle. The three other leadership contenders respond to the Corbyn ‘threat’ with the usual platitudes and blandness. No wonder they are not making much impact.

Photo credit: Chris Beckett, available under a Flickr Creative Commons Licence. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode)

Does this mean that a split in the Labour Party is likely if Corbyn wins? Tentatively, the answer has to be yes, since some of the other leadership candidates have already stated that they would refuse to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet. Plus, post 1997, many in the Westminster Labour Party bubble are on the centre/right of the party. And on this issue, the right wing press cannot contain their delight with the prospect of a Labour Party tearing itself apart and putting pay to any prospect of it winning not just the 2020 General Election but possibly polls beyond that.

But let’s consider another scenario: what if Corbyn’s election as Labour leader galvanises political debate nationally, gives rise to conviction politics, and leads to a significant rise in the party’s standing in the opinion polls? What would those Labour members do who opposed Corbyn if his election makes Labour more credible as an alternative party of government than it currently is? Only time would reveal whether this would begin a honeymoon period for a new political leader or signal a more fundamental shift in British politics. It happened north of the border; could it happen in England and Wales? Not only would such a scenario rupture the present form of Labour Party thinking; it would begin to unravel the ‘sameness’ that has characterised party political thinking for the last 20 years. This may be healthy in any democracy but it would corrupt the compromising, middle ground, moderating agendas of post-Blairite Labour politics. It would not only rupture Labour; it would lead to a more significant series of divides emerging, between the north and south of the country, between cities and the countryside, and between those who support and oppose neo-liberalism.

That scenario may be too much to contemplate at the present time. But politicians from all parties are starting to realise that the Labour leadership election campaign could be about something much more than the future of Labour.

Professor Mark Tewdwr-Jones

Reducing inequality…in national wealth

Posted on 24 July, 2015 by Jenny

The next in the blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes giving recommendations for targets and indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, is from Dr Andrew Walton, Lecturer in Political Philosophy in School of Geography, Politics and Sociology.

In the current proposal for the Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 10 states the aim to ‘reduce inequality within and among countries’. For many (good) reasons, much articulation of this goal has focused on its first component – reducing inequality between co-citizens within countries. But it is important also to consider what should be the appropriate target for the second component. What should be our aim and measure in reducing inequality amongst countries? My suggestion is to lessen the gap in per capita national wealth – the value of each country’s financial and physical assets.

Measures of (in)equality

The basic idea of measuring (in)equality involves comparing the circumstances of certain actors. Thus, any conceptualisation of equality must specify an answer to two questions:

Which actor should be compared?
What aspect(s) of their circumstances should be compared?

There are different ways to conceptualise and measure (in)equality historically [1]:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)	Countries	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen (country ÷ population)	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
Income	Persons or households	Disposable income / expenditure
Wealth	Persons or households	Assets, including financial holdings and physical goods, such as real estate

Perhaps obviously, these models ask us to think about (in)equality in rather different ways. For example, on current figures using GDP suggests that China is better-off than Switzerland, whereas GDP/capita suggests the opposite [2]. Similarly, both GDP and GDP/capita suggest that Brazil is a relatively well-off country, but measuring income and wealth highlight that it is home to individuals who are worse-off than almost the entire populations of similarly well-off countries [3].

What these differences highlight is that asking which model we should use to measure (in)equality pushes us to explore deeper philosophical questions about our underlying reasons for being concerned with (in)equality, and to find a measure that is tailored to these concerns. My suggestion here is that some of our underlying concerns point in the direction of exploring how countries compare in per capita wealth [4].

Why compare countries and why compare them per capita?

For many people it will seem obvious that there is something important about whether their country is well-off. It is sometimes thought important for ensuring that their country is respected by others and very commonly because it has a significant impact on whether its citizens have comfortable lives.

Some argue that comparing national circumstances is a mistake. They suggest that, ultimately, it is only the welfare of people that matters and, as noted above, cross-country comparisons can hide that some individuals within countries are badly-off. Advocates of this view might argue that Goal 10 should be collapsed into one goal: measuring (in)equality amongst individuals worldwide.

We should reject the conclusions of this argument. Because the SDGs also consider (in)equality within countries and have other goals targeting aspects of individual welfare, they will not overlook the worry mentioned above. Meanwhile, because one thing that benefits people’s welfare is to participate in the collective decisions and development of their nation, even this individual-centred view can acknowledge the importance of a world involving country groupings and, thus, the additional relevance of cross-country comparisons.

However, we should accept the point that countries are, in essence, valuable only insofar as they benefit their populations and our comparisons between them should reflect this concern. It is for this reason that our cross-country comparison should focus on a per capita measure, which looks at how some aspect of a country’s circumstance relates to its people.

Why compare wealth?

Some possible ways we could make per capita inter-country comparisons would be the following:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Final value of goods & services produced within nation’s borders
Wealth/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Assets, including currency, stock, bond holdings and physical goods, such as land, natural resources, and rights to global commons
Capabilities	‘Average’ citizen	Human development indicators, such as life expectancy, education, income

A reasonable case could be made that reducing inequality between countries in any of these respects would be a worthwhile target. Nevertheless, I proposed at the beginning of this post that the goal should be to focus on wealth/capita. Two related points support this view.

First, neither GDP/capita nor capabilities takes full account of the aspects of a country’s circumstance that affects the welfare of its population. To take two clear examples, currency reserves and natural resources, which are considered in wealth/capita, but not these other measures, both allow a country to provide its population with economic security and future consumption [5].

Second, many of the assets that countries hold are a matter of luck. For example, no country did anything to entitle it to the oil or gold that lies within its borders and, indeed, much of their economic wealth arises from the fortunes of the market.

In cases where there is a good that many actors desire and which no actor is entitled automatically to own, it seems sensible to distribute that good equally. If Isaac and I are sat beneath a tree feeling hungry when an apple falls on his head, it seems reasonable for us to share it. Similarly, insofar as it is valuable for countries to hold financial and physical assets and their current holdings have arisen from good fortune, there is a reason to aim for equalising their shares.

Moving towards international equality

A more fully fledged case for measuring inter-country (in)equality in terms of per capita national wealth is that achieving parity in this regard can, under certain conditions, represent a truly idealistic aim. There is a moral argument that a distribution of assets is fair if it mirrors what each relevant actor would have bought with equal purchasing power in the context of all goods being priced at a market-clearing equilibrium [6]. Such a distribution, in the international context, would entail equality in per capita national wealth and it is fair because it reflects the equality of all parties in their access to these goods and allows them to shape their holdings according to what they believe is worth having.

Realising this aim is perhaps a more long-term project than for the framework of the SDGs. Nevertheless, it helps show the value of building our understanding of (in)equality in national wealth and beginning to reduce it, whilst casting light on some important steps for moving towards this goal:

Pursue (the second component of) Goal 10 by:

Establishing a national wealth index and collect data on countries’ standings.
Setting a target of reducing inequality in per capita holdings.

Connect these targets and their longer-term aim to:

Adding impetus to Goal 16.7 of ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making, in order for countries’ choices about asset holdings to reflect the collective interests of their people.
Helping articulate Goals 17.10-17.12 on shaping international trade towards an equal and equilibrated market.

Dr Andrew Walton is lecturer in political philosophy at Newcastle University. His main research interests are in global justice, liberal-egalitarian and socialist thought and questions of justice in public policy.

[1] The essential ideas used to construct this table are taken from Milanovic, B., Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)

[2] These figures can be found via UN, ‘National Accounts Main Aggregates Database’, available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[3] See, for example, Credit Suisse, ‘Global Wealth Report 2014’, available at https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[4] This suggestion is elaborated in more detail in Walton, A., ‘On the Currency of International Equality’, forthcoming.

[5] It is worth noting that Capabilities also seems to point towards important aspects of human welfare. However, many other SDGs will pursue these kinds of concerns anyway, leaving space for the second part of Goal 10 to speak to the concerns I mention here.

[6] This view is most commonly associated with Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).

Labour’s future lies in co-operation and solidarity, not managerialism and party politics

Posted on 23 July, 2015 by Jenny

David Webb is a Lecturer in Town Planning at Newcastle University. His research has explored the governing principles behind urban management, in particular New Labour’s ‘top down’ housing market renewal programme. More recently, his interests lie in co-operative influences on the heritage conservation movement and the cultural heritage of co-operation.

This May’s election news was crushing for the Labour Party and the left. And yet the political promise of the leadership contenders looks uninspiring. In choosing its next leader, to inspire a comeback, Labour faces a choice between a left wing stalwart ready to stick to their principles and debunk the myth that Britain’s economic fortunes were caused by state ‘profligacy’ or a return to the Blairite vision of a socially tempered devotion to market governance. But there is another way, perhaps the only route available to Labour if it wishes to exploit the opportunities created by a politically fractured and polarised UK: cooperation and solidarity.

Working together

The Guardian’s election round-up offered a shrewd analysis of the relationship between the SNP’s landslide and the appeal of Labour to swing voters in the south. The SNP’s rise may not, it seems, have just been exploited by the Conservatives and the Murdoch press. It could actually have been actively encouraged as part of a deliberate electoral strategy. This amounts to a divide and rule approach aimed at undermining the solidarity of those opposed to the Tory party alliance of landed interests and financiers. But political pluralism can be used to strengthen solidarity as well as break it. The roots of solidarity do not lie in us all thinking the same, but in strengthening core values through mutual working while allowing freedom and diversity to flourish.

Co-operative working could be the key to realising strength from political diversity. As Johnston Birchall argued in the 1980s, in his book ‘Building Sustainable Communities’ , co-operatives are a highly malleable form of organisation capable of appealing as much to individualism as to collectivism (Birchall, 1988). Phillip Blond, architect of the Conservatives’ ‘Big Society’, also understood this. He hoped to use co-operatives as a means of promoting Anglican Conservatism and ‘family values’ over corrosive privatisation (Blond, 2010). With retrospect, Blond’s agenda never seriously challenged the Tory party’s neoliberal core. But the Coalition did demonstrate the ability of co-operatives, in different guises, to appeal across the spectrum, with 75% of neighbourhood planning initiatives having taken place in Conservative controlled areas (Geoghegan, 2013).

Co-operative Socialism, on the other hand, gave birth to the Labour Party, with many more members of the First International supporting Proudhon and Bakunin’s mutualism than Marx’s problematic dictatorship of the proletariat. John Ruskin and William Morris both demonstrate the potential for co-operatives to have a romantic appeal to the affluent classes, these days obsessed with local food and organic produce. Co-operative working, then, is a word than can be mobilised in conservative or radical guises to respond to the political challenges being faced.

Right to left

A retreat to the left by Labour now will lose them the election in 2020: they simply cannot match the weight of tabloid papers and Conservative ministers insistent on pinning austerity on reckless spending policies. All Blair’s new public sector management tools offered was a double whammy of conformist, bureaucratic service delivery and preparations for future privatisation.

Labour needs a new concept that will allow it to start on the right and draw the electorate to the left. This is, in fact, what David Cameron has been doing with his discourse on austerity. During the 2010 election he was much more circumspect about the causes of the economic crash. This time, backed up by a raft of neoliberal converts in the Lib Dems, he went all guns blazing to pin austerity on profligate state spending. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, offered an inconsistent message that veered between apologising for his party’s economic record and offering price control policies in areas like energy that came across as more of the same.

There have been occasional Conservative attempts to challenge market concentration which the Labour party might learn from. Their plans to increase house building will not work because of market concentration in land ownership and the development industry. But rather than confront these industries with regulation, gentle efforts have been made to encourage new market entrants, focusing on areas such as custom build where new building technologies and approaches already have the potential to challenge the big players. Labour could do the same, continuing the Coalition’s encouragement of co-operative local service delivery and exploring a range of ways to promote co-operative energy producers, house builders and utilities providers using innovative organisational forms rather than giant nationalised companies.

Co-operatives can be deployed as a means of market regulation, as a replacement for some rail services for example, thus helping to highlight the inherent failures of heavily regulated, privately delivered services. They have the potential to reduce the huge expenses currently directed at regulating bodies, contractual arrangements and business failures not to mention profit margins. But they also have the potential to maintain a basically neoliberal form of market delivery: something that will be essential in Labour’s early fight back against the Tories. In the longer term, examples like the anarcho-communist village of Marinelada in Spain show that radical forms of organisation can provide realistic and sustainable solutions (Hancox, 2013).

Rebuild

Co-operation has one last virtue that may prove crucial in 2020, which is that an alliance around co-operative principles may be stronger than a party system where Labour expends valuable resources fighting against the Greens and the SNP. If the south wants light touch regulation, give it to them by using co-operative thinking to inspire ethically conscious consumerism and regulation through local accountability. If Scotland wants progressive Socialism, then encourage a form of co-operative ownership of large public services and infrastructure akin to the Netherlands’ housing association sector. Solidarity from diversity. Yes, this is a vision that has neoliberal tinges, and that is why it offers the best base from which to rebuild.

References

Birchall, J. (1988) Building communities : the co-operative way Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Blond, P. (2010) Red Tory : how the left and right have broken Britain and how we can fix it Faber and Faber: London.

Geoghegan, J. (2013) Poorer areas see few neighbourhood plan applications. Downloaded 21st July 2015 from: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1175787/poorer-areas-few-neighbourhood-plan-applications

Hancox, D. (2013) Spain’s communist model village.Downloaded 21st July 2015 from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/marinaleda-spanish-communist-village-utopia

Salmon fishing on the Tweed

Posted on 13 July, 2015 by Fiona

A north east listening project

On the radio and online we are witnessing renewed concern to record local memories of cherished landscapes before they are lost forever. Examples of how this can be done include the BBC Listening Project and the National Trust Sounds of our Shores – a crowd-funded sound-map of people’s favourite seaside sounds. These examples build on classic Mass Observation recordings of everyday life (1937-1970) – notably Pub Conversations.

Inspired by this approach, Dr Helen Jarvis and postgraduate student Tessa Holland (both from the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology) are collecting impressions of the once-thriving salmon fishing industry in Berwick upon Tweed; both to stimulate public debate on this disappearing livelihood, and to record the wealth of local knowledge involved.

The project involves a series of ‘pop-up’ citizen-led story-telling events that coincide with the town celebrating 900 years of history, with collaboration from fishing communities and local history experts representing Our Families (a Berwick Record Office, Heritage Lottery funded project for Berwick 900). Participating in a summer of fishing-related feasts and festivals, including the crowning of the Salmon Queen, offers the ideal opportunity to raise awareness of the issues at stake.

The salmon fishing project moves to Berwick Town Hall, with a storytelling booth, from 17^th to 19^th July. After this time the exhibition will be held at the Watchtower Gallery until August 16^th.

Salmon fishing on the Tweed

Written accounts of net fishing on the Tweed exist from the 1200s, but the skills and knowledge of the river date back to before records began. Net and coble fishing is a traditional way of life which made Berwick-upon-Tweed famous and the industry once provided jobs for around 800 local people. The local significance of the industry is captured in pictures and memories of customs such as ‘blessing the salmon’ at the opening of the Tweed salmon netting season, midnight on 14^th February. The vicar of Norham ended the custom in 1987 when the fishery in his parish closed.

Blessing the salmon

Blessing the salmon, 1946, by permission of Berwick Record Office.

Loss of the nets

Chronic disinvestment and loss of the nets began in the 1980s, when many of the fisheries were bought out and closed down. Indeed, this experience – of close-knit community ties and generations of fishing expertise dismantled at a stroke – resonates with text-book accounts of deindustrialisation in heavy industries such as coal and steel. In each case, powerful commercial and political interests claimed economic competitiveness and new technology as motivation for consigning ‘outmoded’ industries to the past.

Since the Tweed Act of 1857 the right to catch and sell wild Tweed salmon is only held by net fisheries; rod-caught salmon cannot be sold commercially, so without the nets, there is no legal source for the wider, non-angling public. The rights to work these dormant fisheries are now held by the Tweed Foundation. Only two net fisheries remain active today – one at Paxton, and one at Gardo (near Berwick Old Bridge). The Paxton fishery now works in partnership with the Tweed Foundation to fish only for educational and scientific purposes. This explains why, despite the undisputed potential for a premium brand of locally caught wild salmon to put Berwick on the map, none is available to buy at the fishmonger or eat in local restaurants. The irony is that Berwick is closely identified with ‘slow food’ and ‘slow living’ civic organisations that promote locally produced, sustainable food and cultural heritage.

Prospects for renewal?

Despite its decline, powerful local attachments to salmon fishing traditions continue to shape the cultural heritage and landscape of this market town. From stories recorded so far, we learn that, in the past ‘thousands of people would go to watch the netting of the salmon – all through the season’ and this made the river a site of spectacle. This hints at some of the non-economic benefits that have been undermined by loss of the nets.

It is too early to report on the impact that public dialogue might have in reviving the last remaining fishing stations – and it is beyond the current scope of the project to make policy recommendations. But it is provocative to consider novel examples of government policy for small towns, like Berwick, which need to attract and retain residents, jobs and tourist income. In France, the government subsidises cafés that provide music and entertainment, justifying this by the combined stimulus to jobs and spending in public spaces – that in turn foster a convivial public life (Banerjee 2001). Is it far-fetched in this context to regard net fishing as a form of entertainment?

Dr Helen Jarvis, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology

SDGs need to align with global policies for biodiversity

Posted on 3 July, 2015 by Fiona

Dr Philip McGowan is a Senior Lecturer in Biodiversity and Conservation in the School of Biology at Newcastle University. He has worked for many years in international species conservation. In this blog, part of the cross Societal Challenge Theme Institute series giving recommendations for targets and indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Dr McGowan argues the SDGs need to align with the global policies already in place on biodiversity in order to genuinely protect our planet.

Goal 15 requires the protection of the terrestrial environment by stopping the deterioration of biodiversity, using resources wisely and restoring ecosystems where needed. Goal 14 has similar requirements for the oceans. These join a plethora of global commitments and processes intended to promote conservation and ensure a sustainable environment, and lessons suggest that they are hard to address. To avoid the SDGs becoming just another set of commitments to be met, clever thinking would help chart the course for policies and action to fill a range of these commitments and lead to genuine protection for our planet.

Global commitments for biodiversity

The importance of biodiversity to humans and the survival of our planet — and the seriousness of its currently observed deterioration — has resulted in a range of global political commitments known as Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). These include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (181 Parties), the Convention on Migratory Species (154 Parties and Member States), Convention on Biological Diversity (196 Parties), the Convention on Combatting Desertification (195 Parties) and the World Heritage Convention (161 Parties), to name a few.

All are concerned with the deterioration of biodiversity, whether it is species, habitats or the processes that lead to degradation and, as the numbers in brackets above indicate, many countries have signed up to these conventions. In addition, many governments felt a need to strengthen the interface between science and policy, in the manner that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done for that subject, and consequently, the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was established recently and now has 124 member states.

This attention on biodiversity is welcome and very badly needed, especially given suggestions that we are heading for the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history [1]. It is an important statement by governments that biodiversity conservation, which was a target in support of Millennium Development Goal 7, is now raised to the level of a Goal with its own set of contributory targets. There are some significant challenges ahead, however, in determining how best to pursue this bold Goal, especially in light of the wide range of other commitments that countries have. Two examples illustrate this.

Connect SDGs with biodiversity goals in place

The adoption of the SDGs surely marks time to streamline all these global goals and targets so that political, social and scientific efforts are most effectively directed to where they will have the biggest gain on our ability to look after the planet. Although some of the conventions above are mentioned in the SDGs’ preamble, the wording of the goals and their targets could show much stronger convergence with these other processes. For example, much of our concern about species is ultimately captured by Target 12 of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (CBD), which commits the CBD’s Parties to: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.

This target replaces the Convention’s ‘2010’ target of Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss, which was also one of the targets by which the Millennium Development Goal 7 Ensure Environmental Sustainability was to be measured. Although the status of species continues to decline, we do know that conservation action can stop extinctions [2]. Some conventions address the particular needs of species and can play a role in halting extinctions, but clearer synergy between these MEAs would be hugely helpful in maximising the benefit of political commitment, maintaining and increasing civil society input and making the most of scarce resources.

There are elements of the CBD’s other targets (known as ‘Aichi Targets’) that are captured in the targets for Goal 15 (and indeed Goal 14), but there are also many areas where they do not overlap. If prioritisation becomes necessary, which of these targets (in both the SDGs and the CBD) might make the most significant contribution to planetary sustainability? Which should governments pay most attention to? How can conservation policies and actions be best aligned effectively to stem the deterioration in biodiversity? Indeed proposed Target 15.1 suggests that actions should be in line with other international agreements, but clearer guidance for achieving this is needed.

Measuring trends in biodiversity is difficult

The second example that illustrates the challenge in meeting Goal 15 lies in the wording of the Goal itself and the targets proposed for it. There are two points. First, it is interesting that some habitats have been singled out for mention, whilst others have not. For example, there is specific mention of managing forests sustainably, when there is evidence that grasslands have experienced a much more significant decline in extent since 1700 [3]. Secondly, the wording of the Goal and contributory targets do not make for easy measurement. As noted above, the CBD has a clear commitment to stop the extinction of species and the SDG has expanded this to halting the loss of all biodiversity.

Grassland in the Philippines. Grasslands are experiencing rapid decline.

Given that the CBD defined biodiversity as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”, it is clearly not an easy task to measure this and conclude that there are no further declines. Hence the shorthand use of species in many cases, and habitats in others, to reflect the declining state of biodiversity. Is that still enough, given our increasing understanding of the variation and interactions between species and ecosystems?

All in all, the commitments made under the SDGs are to be welcomed but the real work comes in aligning these bold new responsibilities with existing commitments and aspirations of many of the world’s governments. There is much to be gained from developing synergies amongst the objectives and workplans (whatever they are called in each case) of these MEAs. The challenge is to translate the political aspirations that are captured in the wording of Goal 15 (and indeed Goal 16) and targets into indicators that can be measured and reflect appropriate metrics by which to assess the status of biodiversity.

[1] Barnosky et al. 2011 Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction arrived? Nature 471: 51-57.
[2] Hoffmann, M. et al (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330: 1503-1509
[3] Boakes et al. 2010 Extreme contagion in global habitat clearance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 277: 1081–1085.

Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes:

The challenges and realities of implementing compulsory language learning in schools

Posted on 29 June, 2015 by Fiona

René Koglbauer is Senior Lecturer in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences (ECLS). He is also Deputy Head and Director of Operations of the School and Director of the North Leadership Centre. In this blog, he argues that the proposed changes to the teaching of modern foreign languages in our schools should not be rushed, and that we should engage in active discussions with practitioners, school leaders, researchers and subject associations to make this a successful change.

What’s the problem?

Since the majority Conservative Government were elected in May, there has been more discussion on the role of languages in schools. Most recently, Schools Minister Nick Gibb MP outlined proposals to reintroduce compulsory language learning in schools. It’s positive to see that the Government are recognising the importance of language learning and to re-position the unique knowledge and skills it brings to the secondary school curriculum. However, should this policy go ahead, we must ensure this isn’t rushed.

There has been a shortage of language teachers in recent years. In the last two years alone, recruitment targets for teacher training places haven’t been met, with 16% going empty for the 2014-15 cohort and the forecast for the coming academic year suggesting a continued decline in applications and consequently in filling allocated training places.

There is also the problem of resources. Recent and proposed cuts mean that an average school will likely struggle to fund the facilities and materials needed. With Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw calling for text books to ‘re-enter’ classrooms, there is further pressure on resources.

We also need to consider whether a single, more rigorous GCSE exam is the right way forward for this policy. Nicky Morgan announced last week that EBacc students will have to gain a grade 5 – equivalent to a low B or high C. What is seen as a ‘good mark’ has therefore risen further. It’s time to get more creative with assessment, looking at how we can keep diverse learners motivated and supported throughout their learning journey.

What’s the solution?

The Government has suggested that where language participation figures don’t improve, schools won’t be able to achieve top grading. Is this really the best approach to motivate and encourage a positive working culture? To get teachers and school leaders on-board, we must not force this onto them too quickly. We need a slower, step-by-step approach, ensuring that change is fully understood, embraced and driven by the school, its culture and its communities, rather than being imposed from outside.

Unless the right implementation is put in place, we risk losing these valuable opportunities to get languages back at the heart of the school curriculum. If we rush and use the stick rather than the carrot, we will simply see demotivated and frustrated teachers, pupils, parents and school leaders. We must engage in active discussion with practitioners, school leaders, researchers and subject associations to make this a successful change.

A healthy diet for sustainable development

Posted on 16 June, 2015 by Fiona

The United Nations proposed Sustainable Development Goals include ending hunger, improved nutrition and sustainable agriculture (Goal 2), healthy lives and well-being (Goal 3) and sustainable consumption and production patterns (Goal 12). To achieve these goals we need to move towards a diet that is adequate, healthy and sustainable for all, argues Dr Wendy Wrieden from the Newcastle University’s Institute of Health and Society. Part of a blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes giving recommendations for targets and indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Many public health organisations emphasise a healthy balanced diet consisting of at least two-thirds fruit, vegetables and whole grain cereal products, with smaller amounts of meat, fish and dairy. This model has also been adopted to create a more sustainable dietary pattern (see for example the New Nordic Diet [1], and the Double Pyramid and the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian population. It is well established that consumption of meat and animal products use proportionally more resources than plant foods in both land and energy and generate more greenhouse gases [2]. Therefore to realise the sustainable development goals that address diet, plant-based diets should be emphasised as a healthier more sustainable option.

Lessons from the UK on diet and sustainability

A move towards a more plant-based diet (i.e. fruit and vegetables, wholegrain cereal products with minimal processing) would be good for population health and the environment. A plant-based diet is likely to be lower in calories [1] which should alleviate the obesity epidemic as well as prevent chronic diseases such as cancer. Researchers in Scotland have shown that the ‘Livewell Diet’ can be achieved which meets the recommendations for health (as displayed for example in the eatwell plate and the UK Dietary Reference Values [3] ) and results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25%. Eatwell plate diet

The Livewell Diet is characterised by five main sustainable diet principles: waste less food, eat less processed food, eat more plants, eat less meat and buy food that meets a credible certified standard. However, convincing consumers of the need to change their diet is not easy and our work on the Scottish Diet [4] using UK food purchase survey data, with adjustment for waste showed that there has been little change in the diet over the period 2000-2012.

Make access to fruit and veg-based diets a priority

While eating fruits and vegetables is the basis of a healthy, sustainable diet, the daily average fruit and vegetable consumption has shown no change since 2000 i.e still less than 2.5 portions per day (5 a day recommended). There were similar findings for fibre intake which remained low and only equated to around two-thirds of the recommended daily allowance. Red and processed meat consumption did reduce slightly, but processed meat was around two-thirds of total meat consumption thus adding to energy costs due to processing.

What was apparent from this study is that there are clear socioeconomic differences as those who consume large amounts of meat and sugar, and less fibre, fruit and vegetables tend to be more from deprived groups. However, even for the least deprived fifth of the population the goals for fruit and vegetables, fibre and free sugars were not being met. Using the UK as an example, to meet target 2.1 creating access to diets mainly based on fruit, vegetables and fibre is necessary for ending hunger by 2030 and for 2.2 in ending malnutrition.

Is a healthy diet more sustainable?

We should not assume that a healthy diet will always be more environmentally sustainable. The general public have different ideas as to what constitutes a healthy diet such as the current trend for low carbohydrate which could reduce the plant contribution to the diet even more. Plant-based diets tend to be higher in carbohydrates and lower in proteins [5]. The environmental impact of diet to date has been restricted to considering the greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions up to the time the food reaches the regional distribution centre (RDG), often termed pre-RDG GHG.

This does not take into account the post RDC GHG of aspects such as refrigeration and transport of fruit and vegetables and the waste generated (25% of avoidable household waste compared with 6% for meat and fish). Broader environmental issues need to be considered such as land use change, use of water resources, seasonality of food production, pollutants and biodiversity [6], not to mention the actual cost of the diet to the consumer. In addition there is evidence that organically produced food is not necessarily “environmentally superior”- this appears to be the case for poultry, eggs and milk [1] [7] [8] and is of particular relevance to target 12.2 in achieving “…sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources”.

There are plans for these aspects to be incorporated into further work at Newcastle University in the coming years building on the current Life Cycle Analysis work carried out on eggs, poultry and pork in the School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development [7] [9] and expertise in dietary assessment and survey methodology in the Human Nutrition Research Centre [9] .

Reduce dependence on animal-based diets

We need to define healthy and sustainable diets that are culturally and financially acceptable across the globe, especially in meeting targets 12.2-12.5 in reducing food, energy and chemical wastes at all levels of the food production chain. Most of the diets designed to date are for developed nations but what about the developing nations aspiring to a more Western diet and increasing the demand for animal products. There are no targets for reducing dependence on animal-based diets which is interconnected with achieving less energy intensive and low-carbon economies.

Inequalities in dietary intake occur within countries and health and social inequalities are a contributing factor as well as an outcome. The problem will not be solved by health and agricultural scientists alone, but requires combining expertise from a range of relevant disciplines. We need to also understand the causes of poor dietary intake and work with social scientists to address the economic and cultural reasons for inequalities that will ultimately allow us to achieve Goal 3 to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for everyone.

[1] SAXE, H. (2014) The New Nordic Diet is an effective tool in environmental protection: it reduces the associated socioeconomic cost of diets. Am J Clin Nutr, 99, 1117-25

[2] MILLWARD, D. J. & GARNETT, T. 2010. Plenary Lecture 3: Food and the planet: nutritional dilemmas of greenhouse gas emission reductions through reduced intakes of meat and dairy foods. Proc Nutr Soc, 69, 103-18

[3] Department of Health (1991), Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom. Report of the Panel on Dietary Reference Values of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) Department of Health report on Health and Social Subjects 41. London: HMSO

[4] Wrieden, W.L., Armstrong, J., Sherriff A, Anderson, A.S., Barton K.L. 2013., Slow pace of dietary change in Scotland: 2001-9. British Journal of Nutrition, vol 109,pp.1892-1902

[5] TURNER-McGRIEVY et al (2015). Randomization to plant-based dietary approaches leads to larger short-term improvements in Dietary Inflammatory Index scores and macronutrient intake compared with diets that contain meat ^☆http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027153171400267X#

[6] MACDIARMID, J. et al. 2012. Sustainable diets for the future: Can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? Am J Clin Nutr, 96, 632-9.

[7] LEINONEN , I.,WILLIAMS, A.G , J. WISEMAN, J.,GUY , J. & I. KYRIAZAKIS. I. 2012a.Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Egg production systems. Poult. Sci. Vol. 91:pp26-40:

[8] LEINONEN, I., WILLIAMS, A.G. AND KYRIAZAKIS, I. 2014. The effects of welfare-enhancing system changes on the environmental impacts of broiler and egg production. Poultry Science. 93, 256-266.

[9] FOSTER, E & ADAMSON, A. (2014) Challenges involved in measuring intake in early life: focus on methods. Proc.Nut.Soc, 73 (2), 201-9

Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes:

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:

Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal

We are the Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University

The Labour leadership election and the challenge to the style of modern party politics

Labour’s future lies in co-operation and solidarity, not managerialism and party politics

Salmon fishing on the Tweed

SDGs need to align with global policies for biodiversity

The challenges and realities of implementing compulsory language learning in schools

A healthy diet for sustainable development

Universal access to water is about democracy

Image

The North and Northness

Solving the energy trilemma