Can Theory U unlock the potential to double UK tree cover?
Trees provide a huge number of environmental benefits. Just 13% of the UK’s total land area is covered with trees (in Northern Ireland this is only 8%) compared to an EU average of 35%. In order to keep the UK on track for net zero emissions by 2045 our analysis suggests we need a massive reduction in the emissions associated with land use and agriculture; doubling tree cover is the key mechanism for switching our land from a carbon source, to a carbon sink, and a priority focus for our campaigning.
But doubling tree cover is big, systemic challenge. There are multiple dependencies, associated with the demand for land (e.g. diet, development) and the way it is owned and controlled. We need to do more to identify the key points of leverage, to turn a fiercely held political ambition into a set of practical actions and detailed policy asks. And we need to build a mass movement in support.
In order to unlock the opportunities at Friends of the Earth we’re taking a parallel approach. Our campaigners will be doing what they do best: lobbying politicians, mobilising supporters, translating the widespread love of trees and drive for meaningful climate action into a powerful political force that unites people across generations and backgrounds. At the same time, in the Experiments team, we will look beyond the campaigning horizon to develop and nurture the experiments to equip us and the communities we work in to prepare for and thrive in an increasingly uncertain future.
In the Experiments team we build on our heritage of developing policy by demonstrating what is possible, as well as desirable. Our projects aim to make a difference by restoring our natural systems, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and re-connecting people with each other and with nature. Our work is focused on demonstrating the feasibility of the tree cover goal, and uncovering the practical opportunities that both make the best use of new approaches (financial or technological) and have the potential to catalyse activity on the ground.
In order to address this challenge we’re conducting an experiment of our own, using the ‘Theory U’ model developed by the Presencing Institute at MIT. Theory U is based on a model of change that aims to get below the surface of the ‘iceberg’ i.e. the events through which the system manifests itself (in this instance, biodiversity loss, or the low priority for trees and woodland in urban fringe areas) to understand what’s driving these symptoms (for example the structural conditions that pit trees against housing development, or the mental models that encourage those who work the land to see themselves as either foresters or farmers, but not both).
We are very grateful to the League of Intrapreneurs (and in particular Maggie de Pree, who provided expert facilitation) and Comic Relief for their support with this programme. This write-up has also been shaped by the reflective practice that Maggie has directly supported with the core team.
What did we do?
In advance of the workshop we had already narrowed down our thinking to focus on land use in and around cities. We brought together eight practitioners from different parts of the tree cover system in and around London, with Friends of the Earth staff from different parts of the organisation in order to:
- Build our understanding of the system, including blindspots, barriers and opportunities.
- Start to identify the points of leverage — where can we take action to show what’s possible
- Start to build a network of collaborators for this work.
During the morning we introduced different ‘voices from the field’ — including some of our participants’ — to encourage us to think broadly about the system. We then turned the lens on ourselves and our own role within the system, through a guided dialogue: why does this issue matter to us personally? When have we successfully catalysed action ourselves? What did we learn from this? This approach encouraged us to reflect on our own personal agency: we cannot expect others to act if we would not be prepared to do it ourselves, and there is also much to be learned from what has brought us collectively to our current awareness of the system. Throughout Maggie encouraged us to open ourselves up to the inner child — the voice of curiosity — and not be blocked by whatever may be holding us back from dreaming big (status, fear of judgement, organisational position etc.)
In the afternoon we then built a 3d map or sculpture of the system, using a range of materials to make visible the inter-relationships between the different elements. We reflected on what this brought to light — and then what would need to shift to take us to the ‘ideal’ system. We followed guidelines from U-Lab to guide us through this process. Finally, we took a step back from our diagnosis to consider what was becoming clearer (i.e. where the pressure points are) and where we need to go deeper.
What did we learn?
About the system
One of our key learning points was that we could have been clearer in the way that we defined ‘the system’. It can be hard to frame tree cover as a ‘purposeful activity system’ — often it’s perceived as a ‘situation’, a snapshot in time — rather than something that is active, dynamic and shaped by human agents. Systems practitioners often use different models to ensure that we have a clear sense of our boundaries; a useful one in this instance (as part of our pre-work) might have been the BATWOVE model (described here), which in particular would have focused our attention on who the ‘victims’ of this system are: who suffers most (or will suffer most) as a consequence of the lack of tree cover, and how do we bring in their perspective? This is tricky; the ‘victims’ in the green belt aren’t necessarily direct victims (unlike in the city, where you could point towards people vulnerable to flash flooding, poor air or overheating). Nevertheless, we have some key points for consideration.
Urban and ‘peri-urban’ are very different systems — with very different actors and constraints
- The ‘green belt’ is a strangely invisible concept — and fertile ground for experimentation. It doesn’t have a strong presence in our collective imagination, so there’s scope to step into this space with a strong vision.
- There’s loads of great work but a lack of coordination of initiatives around tree planting — and no one with a strong, over-arching vision (especially in the green belt). But there is energy and drive to make this happen.
- We need to understand the structures better (how do governance and decision-making operate in this cross-boundary space)?
- We need to think hard about who the actors are in the green belt (a differently bounded system) — and connect with them (the golf course owners, warehouse developers, local authorities, tenant farmers, housing developers, road builders).
- There are some great examples we can draw on. For example the Forest of Marston Vale has increased tree cover from 3% to 15% by working with housing developers.
- Maintenance is a big issue; not just finding the money, but also developing awareness that woodland needs to be proactively managed.
Above all we learned that we need to… learn more. We need to get out again, and loop round the system observing and sensing on the ground in the greenbelt. This flipchart captured many of our ‘blindspots’.
One issue that has emerged subsequently is the question of whether we are really getting below the surface levels of the ‘iceberg’. We’re exploring the structures, but what about the mental models and the vision? One of the blindspots captured above is “what would motivate private landowners to plant trees?” Above and beyond cash, this goes to the heart of the question. We all feel strong connections with trees — in our ice-breaker exercise we were all asked to visualise a tree that has meaning for us, and the stories that emerged instantly were powerful and emotive. And there are lots of examples of coaches using nature connection in work with business and other leaders to create a systemic perspective. Once people are given permission to step out of their business shoes (literally) they can connect powerfully with the earth, and build strong bonds with trees. How might we bring this angle into our work? Yes, we need to motivate communities and create the right incentives, but how might we change the psychology of decision-makers around trees?
About the process
The 3D modelling was useful, and fun. But what did we learn?
The 3D aspect helped bring out some of the physical connectivity. For example, our maps brought out the importance of blurring the boundaries and creating nature corridors — bringing the wild further into the city and creating connection. It also highlighted the messiness of the current picture; there are a lot of actors involved, but the key problem may have been that we were trying to map two very different systems at once (urban and fringe) in which the same actors play more than one role. Seeing this ‘mess’ (systems thinkers love a good mess) on the table was a good prompt that we need to go back to the drawing board. The map also made some of the gaps more visible; not just the gaps in our knowledge but the information black hole that surrounds land ownership around cities more broadly. No one seem to have a full picture of who owns what. The need for transparency may be an important ‘jumping off’ point. Finally, the maps did help us to bring our future visions into being; more space for children, more children’s voices in decision-making, bigger, bolder tree cover everywhere.
Photos thanks to Maggie de Pree
Ultimately, the tools are only as good as a) the clarity of the ‘intention’ or systems definition and b) the relationships of trust in the room. People need to feel comfortable enough to engage in an unfamiliar process and to challenge others (for example, we observed that the placement of elements was rarely challenged in our workshop).
We also need to find more ways to bring different voices into the system, and to ensure that we are not perpetuating some of structural conditions that might be causing the problem. Although we had a good gender balance in the room, most of the women came from a community engagement background and the men were more likely to be more at home with the data and technical information. And all our participants were white. And this matters: diversity of perspectives is a key component of idea generation. Paying more attention to building the group earlier on — and acknowledging some of these ‘blindspots’ is likely to lead to better conversations — and more surprising and creative solutions.
What next?
Our aim over the next six weeks is to develop some viable prototype projects to ‘green’ the greenbelt. We’ll be going back to more detailed ‘sensing’ (in the Theory U terminology, see below) and we’ll be hoping to move from there to a clearer vision. In practice, we’ll be working up hypotheses, and seeing how we develop prototypes to test them. At this stage they will be mock-ups, maps, storyboards or prototype interactions — it’s a lot harder to experiment with a tree than a product or service. We aim to emerge from the bottom of the U with a set of pitches, and a network of collaborators open to championing these with us. We’re not bounded to working in and around London either, so we’ll be looking to explore the opportunities around other cities.
In the meantime, do you know about someone doing something exciting? Someone with a powerful vision for this land? A developer thinking differently about their obligations? A local authority open to experimenting with the land it holds — including through different ownership models? A golf course owner with a love of nature? A food grower with a vision for expanding productive trees? An investor with a yearning to test out a carbon financing model in the UK? Or someone we’ve not even thought of. If so, we’d love you to get in touch.
