The Real Capital Framework (RCF) helps scientists and policy advisors create compelling decision basis reports for policy makers. Using the RCF you will present the science in a way that policy makers will find actionable.
However, there are a lot of groups out there who want to get their message across – citizen advocates, nature protection associations, local community developers etc. So this post is for you. It is early days, though. What follows is the RCF adaptation for testing.
We start with the idea that a group wants to make itself heard on an issue. Before campaigning they need to create material they all agree on, and can use to hand out during campaigning, and have available on their social media.
We propose the group gets together to go though this simple 10-step procedure to explore all the aspects. And then produce the two documents – a fact sheet and an advocacy flyer.
At the end of this posts are the results and considerations from a test run in Sweden. See what you think!
(image) proposal for an advocacy flyer
The steps
- Identify the issue, the challenge, as reported by scientific investigation
(What is being said with authority and concern?) - Analyse the problem to identify the Real Capital involved
(What’s being destroyed?) - Identify measures of the status of this Real Capital and document its status
(Prove the damage is happening) - According to research, pinpoint what the status of the Real Capital should be to address the issue. Illustrate the gap with graphs, tables, diagrams
(Create an irrefutable contrast) - State consequences of inaction
(Make the stakes clear) - Explore the materiality of the situation, where responsibility lies
(Identify who must act) - Find policy statements from material actors
(Hold authorities to their own words) - Rank Solutions by Impact
(Prioritize winnable battles) - Craft Authority Challenges
(Demand accountability) - Prepare materials and campaign
(Take action)
When you have completed these steps, document your work into a fact sheet, we offer a template below:
First test run: Swedish Forests.
The document below shows the results of a test group of forest enthusiasts from the local nature conservancy society in one municipality.
Some observations:
The answers to the questions should have been easy as the group has worked with this issue for a long time. Some parts were. However, we encountered some stumbling blocks along the way:
- What the status should be: we had spent so much time working out what was wrong, we had lost the references to reports that were normative. It took some time to find statements we could use and come up with a simple enough “ask”.
- Finding values: so much has been stated by the Swedish government at high level, that it was difficult to match the values with the real capital that is a mature, living forest.
- Consequences of inaction: here we had to extrapolate the present situation, new demands on forestry as part of the green revolution, and expanding market pressure. This data is not easy to present in a way that ordinary people can understand.
- Effort. The whole exercise was heavy, as it was holistic. However, when the final document was produced we wondered what it was that had been so heavy. We concluded that RCF looks promising as a framework to bring clarity.
Download the trial factsheet here.
Fee free to post your comments below.
Stephen Hinton Consulting 