 Insider news and tasks for the 4CMR Advisory Board
This intranet site is to keep Advisory Board members for 4CMR updated on latest items of interest, and as a summary and reminder of where 4CMR stands in regard to key strategic issues with which the Board might assist. Board members are especially asked to look for the Still Needed items as areas where 4CMR could use your help. Feel free to pick these off as individuals, or in teams. As they are completed or accomplished, the Still Needed sign will disappear.
A Broader Issue
Before turning to the items below, there is a broader issue I would like to raise concerning the structure and function of the Advisory Board. I use here the example of the Board I had at the Institute for the Environment back at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will point out the features, and then provide a few caveats as to why there is a bit of a difference between that Board and the one for 4CMR.
At the Institute, the Board consisted of about 30 members from all walks of life. You can see them listed at http://www.ie.unc.edu/about/people/bov.cfm. They were large enough, and diverse enough in their interests, to be divided into several subcommittees: fund raising; new membership; media relations; strategic direction; University relations. They met as a full group twice per year for a half day (they were quite keen not to meet more than that), but then the sub-committees met an additional two times per year (often by phone). There was a Chair of the Board, a Vice-Chair, and Chairs of each sub-committee. This structure gave all of the Board members plenty to do, and I must say they did so brilliantly.
I like that structure, and could imagine the Advisory Board for 4CMR increasing in size and having a similar structure. However, there are dis-similarities to the Institute that are relevant:
1. The Institute was MUCH larger. It was the size of some of the Schools here at Cambridge. It had several hundred faculty, many hundreds of students, 5 research centres within it, and a budget 20 times as large as 4CMR. Therefore, we hired someone who spent their entire time managing the Board and its activities. We don't have the budget for that in 4CMR, at least at present (by the way, the Board funded that position in the Institute).
2. The Institute did research, designed and managed degree programmes, and had an extensive public engagement arm. Individual Board members usually had an interest of one of these aspects, so there was always some attraction for any given member. In 4CMR, we are primarily a research cenre. We don't offer degree programmes, although we do contribute to these in Land Economy. Therefore, it will be difficult to attract in Board members whose primary interest is in student education, which was the case for perhaps half of the Institute Board members.
3. The Institute received about $3M per year directly from the upper levels of administration at the University. Here at Cambridge, research centres must run off their own initiative and sources of funding. This makes it quite a challenge to devote a lot of time to non-research activities, because we are always running after the next grant. It can take a month or more to prepare a proposal to the Research Councils, and the success rates are quite low here in the UK due to severe constraints on research budgets. In many ways, we are always treading water, which is why core support awards from groups such as the Three Guineas Trust are so important to us.
4. The Institute had a separate Advisory Board and Academic Committee. The latter was the way in which scholars helped guide the Institute. They attended Board meetings, but were not usually part of the Board. Here in 4CMR, we must combine these two functions, which means we probably need to increase faculty/scholarly representation on the Board at the same time we are looking for additional non-academic appointments.
So, these are a few of the differences. Having said that, it does make sense to add some new members to the 4CMR Board, and to start dividing up into sub-committees with some quite distinct tasks so each member has something to which they feel they are contributing.
I would like to discuss this at the start of our next Board meeting
Summary of Advisory Board meeting of 25, March 2011 (Lent Term meeting)
The meeting was attended by Philip Arestis, Ian Hodge, Sarah Mukherjee, Serban Scrieciu, Hugh Parnell, Martin Chilcott, Sian Reid, Douglas Blausten, and Karen Wordsworth present from the Board, and Terry Barker and Doug Crawford-Brown representing the Centre. A memo was sent out the next week describing the meeting content and conclusion. Several key points emerged from the Board discussion:
1. In regards to our research, the areas on which we have been focussed involve government policy and its relationship to public and private sector investments in low carbon technology. Since we will be subject to the Research Excellence Framework in several years, which judges the quality of research at each university and in turn determines rankings and funding, our focus must be here on producing research of the highest academic standard, and getting that research into the absolute top scholarly journals. ACTION ITEM 1: There is little for the main body of Board to do in advising us on this point. However, if Board members run across research they have seen in other Centres that would be particularly significant in informing key decision-makers in the public and/or private sectors, they should inform Doug Crawford-Brown with the possibility that this might become a future area of research for 4CMR. 2. To engage effectively with the world, and to communicate findings, we need a simple, concise and consistent “take home” message. The discussion of the Board showed that a good candidate is the idea – backed by our research – that “the world can find a way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the risks of climate change without damaging the economy”. It was decided that this could be an effective basis for raising the profile of 4CMR outside the academic world. ACTION ITEM 2: The Board should help us create this message in a digestible form, and get it out through the avenues with which Board members are engaged. 4CMR will prepare sample statements of a few sentences each, acting more to grab initial attention rather than lay out a case. The example used was that a journalist looking at press releases will take a decision as to whether to pursue based on the first sentence or two. 3. We are already reaching some of the major targets in government: Department of Energy and Climate Change, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, US Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc. We also are engaging effectively with some large trade groups such as the Confederation of British Industries. We are not engaging effectively with organisations that don’t set policy but rather deliver on it. This might be major multi-national corporations; the Climate Wise group; Department for International Development; etc. Reaching such groups requires a clear message as to what we have to offer them – how our research findings inform the choices they face. ACTION ITEM 3: The Board should provide introductions to these groups through your extensive contacts. Once those introductions are made, it is of course the responsibility of 4CMR to cultivate those relationships. Typically, a Board member would walk with us to the initial meeting to bring a personal connection. 5. We must raise the profile of 4CMR, and that involves getting our message out in the general public. Therefore, we need a campaign to create reliable avenues of engagement with the press, trade organisations, public speaking, etc.
ACTION ITEM 5: The Board can help us through introductions in this world of the media and other avenues for forming public opinion, help us craft the messages we are putting out through those avenues, and keep a careful watch on our performance to help us get better at it and avoid pitfalls. 6. Finally, we discussed WHY we are putting out our message. It was decided that one of the primary reasons is to support individuals (e.g. politicians) and organisations (e.g. the business community) in building the will to stand up to pressures marshalled against movement forward on climate change policies and actions. This will require NOT focusing solely on climate change risks, and instead demonstrating how actions that reduce climate change will be desirable from an array of perspectives (improvements in health, energy security, resource conservation, etc). ACTION ITEM 6: The Board can help us to identify, and engage with, decision makers who need this kind of support, and to help us understand the kinds of support they require and how to phrase our findings so we provide that support. Where do we stand on each of these items as of Michaelmas term, 2011?
ACTION ITEM 1: This item is sorted, as the research areas of 4CMR are well defined.
STILL NEEDED: There is no further assistance needed from the Board, with the exception of having them watch the world for interesting research areas in which others are engaged and where 4CMR seems to be lagging. It would be particularly useful if you hear of groups whose climate change research is mentioned as being particularly strong academically, so we can learn from their success and perhaps form alliances.
ACTION ITEM 2: As can now be seen on the website (under About Us), our consistent message is now "The Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR) is dedicated to finding paths forward to reduce the risks of climate change and improve sustainability while allowing for a vibrant global economy. Through this, we help decision-makers move forward in meeting the challenge of reducing the risks from climate change."
STILL NEEDED: 2 or 3 Board members to help us review this message, and perhaps "market test it" with individuals and organisations you know. We particularly need a way to ensure the message has some media-grabbing potential. STILL NEEDED: Each Board member to identify and introduce us to an organisation with which we should be interacting, and providing an initial introduction. Towards this end, we had a very useful conversation with Bell Pottinger, who have offered to help in this regard. But many more introductions are needed because one can never predict which will result in something useful.
ACTION ITEM 4: Funding is at the same place it was in March, 2011. We have several large proposals into funding agencies (£3.5M and £5M to the EPSRC; £1.5M to DFID and ESRC). Our main focus at present is to prepare a next round of proposal to the Three Guineas Trust to form the core funding post-2012. We have approached The T&J Meyer Foundation for support, a process which which is still in play.
STILL NEEDED: Introductions by Board members to interesting private and foundation donors who might share our vision of integrated research, education and engagement. We especially need unrestricted core funding. There are opportunities here for named gifts of many kinds. Priorities are a Professorship; student stipends to allow students from across the University to participate in 4CMR's work; public information campaigns.
ACTION ITEM 5: We have had to change our media presence due to changing staff in this area. The past efforts were insufficient and not terribly effective. We have created a message to provide the world, but not the capacity or skills to deliver it effectively.
STILL NEEDED: A complete overhaul of our public affairs side, with the creation of significant media-worthy events. This has taken a back seat at 4CMR while we build the research results that will be news worthy, but it is time now to move agressively on this. Such events will need to be self-supporting, however, because we have no internal funding to cover these.
ACTION ITEM 6: We have not moved sufficiently on this, again because our usual cast of characters already know what they want from us.
STILL NEEDED: It would be quite useful if each Board member could identify an organisation with which we should be interacting but are not, and provide an introduction so we can meet with them to determine their information needs and ways of taking decisions. Progress/change so far in 2011
1. Dr Terry Barker retired on 31 September. But he has agreed to remain on as a Senior Departmental Fellow to guide our work on modelling.
2. We have changed some staff. Paul Haynes, Martin Sewell, Yongfu Huang and Dabo Guan have moved to positions elsewhere. We can discuss the reasons during the next Board meeting. This has freed up space and resources for some of the people described below.
3. We have a new Mellon Postdoctroal Fellow in Environmental Markets, Dr Sophie Chapman. She is a lawyer by training, and a recent Cambridge PhD in Politics and International Studies. She is leading a new Programme in Forest Carbon Law and Policy (PFCLP) to examine legal issues related to forest conservation and the international REDD+ programme (where poor nations are paid to leave forest carbon undeveloped). She is housed in Land Economy more generally, but is part of 4CMR staff.
Still Needed: The PFCLP has formed partnerships with prublic and private sector organisations - shown on the site - to attract in projects. If you know other organisations who might have an interest in this topic, especially if they can provide support in any form, please contact Sophie Chapman, and perhaps arrange an introduction.
4. We have a new Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in Real Estate and Planning, Dr Barbara Havel. She is leading a programme to understand how real estate decisions are taken on low carbon and sustainable development. As with the other Mellon Fellow, she is housed in Land Economy but part of the 4CMR staff.
Still Needed: Barabra Havel's work is related to a larger area of study at 4CMR to better understand how real estate decisions are taken on low carbon technologies, building practices, investments, etc. If you can provide, or introduce us to people who can provide, insight into these decisions, that would be quite helpful.
5. Dr Michael Grubb, Chief Economics Advisor to OFGEM, has joined 4CMR as Chair of Energy and Climate Policy. He is pulling together an international panel to guide 4CMR in its economics and energy work.
Still Needed: Michael Grubb is forming his panel. If your organisation has people with expertise in the economics of energy and/or climate change who could serve on this panel, please send Michael nominations.
6. We have 18 new MPhil and PhD students, collected together under what we call the Sustainability and Global Decarbonisation Research Group. They are from Land Economy, International Development, Architecture and Engineering. So we are now serving a central role in coordinating this kind of research across the University.
Still Needed: We are seeking a small pool of funding (on the order of £2000 per year) to pay for social events to bring these students together and help them form into a career-building network. Any spare cash lying about in the sofas?
7. We have another new Postdoctoral Fellow, Dr Sonja Klinsky, who comes from a background in public communication and is examining how climate policy is developing globally.
8. We have taken on a new project with the United Nations Environment Programme, helping Mexico build a series of models they can use in identifying the most effective strategies to reduce their carbon emissions so they can participate in international funding programmes (such as the Clean Development Mechanism, which transfers money from developed to developing economies in support of global decarbonisation).
9. We also have a significant project called ARCADIA in which we have built a model of the economy of London that is linked to assets, economic productivity, transport, demand for goods, etc. We are using it to identify the kinds of climate-related events (such as floods) to which the London economy is most vulnerable, and then helping the Greater London Authority, Environment Agency and others determine where those vulnerabilities might be reduced through investment in climate adaptation measures that are cost effective.
10. Dr Jean-Francois Mercure has developed a new approach to modelling how energy technology firms take decisions on investments in low carbon technologies, and how these decisions will be affected by the supply of energy (wind, solar, oil, coal, etc) available in the future in each of the nations whose economies we model here in 4CMR. This modelling reflects the role of investment uncertainty in driving or impeding investments.
Still Needed: Jean-Francois would like to discuss his approach with real-world decision-makers in the energy sphere to identify advances he could make. If you know of anyone with whom he could interact, please contact him.
11. 4CMR has become the official sponsor for the Zero Carbon Society, a student group here at the University devoted to professional development of students in the energy and climate change world. They are not an activist group, but rather one that provides opportunities for students to engage in related research, locate internships and jobs, etc. Twice termly they hold a recpetion where they bring people from the public and private sectors to meet with students and discuss how to prepare for a particular kind of career. For example, this month it is with the business sector.
Still Needed: There are two needs here. First, the Board has internal expertise to offer, or can identify people in their organisations who might attend these events and represent some sector. Outside professionals are asked to give a short (10 minute) overview of their work, how students can prepare for such work, and career opportunities. There is then a wine and canapes reception to speak with the students informally. Second, ZCS are searching for funding to help suupport the events. This is a naming opportunity!
12. We have added an Associates Programme, joined by scholars from a variety of disciplines here at Cambridge and a few other academic groups. The purpose is to build a base of expertise we can bring into 4CMR projects, and also to create ties to other research groups with whom we might collaborate. This helps place 4CMR at the centre of a significantly larger community of scholars so we avoid becoming insular.
13. We have four projects we are calling our Iconic Projects, which are not so much scholarly research as activities engaging with external partners to deliver on climate change strategies world-wide. Check them out and see if there are any where you could help in any way (perhaps funding us all to go Venice???).
For many of our other activities, see the Centre News section of the website.
Agenda for Board meeting in Michaelmas term (date TBD)
We have three primary issues to address in the next Board meeting:
1. Fund-raising. The focus here will be on the Threee Guineas Trust re-ask, and the identification of other foundations that can provide core support to 4CMR. We already know how to solicit research funds through the Research Councils, but private giving is more of a challenge for us. We will have a discussion as to what makes an organisation such as 4CMR an attractive recipient for giving, and how we can avoid mission creep while running after money.
2. Advising Map. The focus here is on the specific organisations and individuals with whom we need to be engaged if our work is to find a home in decisions and help move national and global policy. We will produce a map of these individuals and organisations, and identify strategies for engaging with them.
3. Media Campaign. The focus here is to begin to leverage some of the findings of 4CMR to create mentions in the media. We will produce a map of the avenues to getting these mentions, identify which of the 4CMR findings are news worthy, and specify the kinds of events that might attract media mentions.
That will be sufficient for about a 4 hour Advisory Board meeting.
|
Advisory Intranet |
Explore the University-wide research, education and engagement activities in...
 |
