Creating a Sustainable London

Back to Index * SLT Home Page * Lycos * Alta Vista

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

London has become used to a linear throughput of resources, utilising raw materials and then discarding them as waste when we are finished with them. To become more sustainable, London needs to reduce its excessive energy consumption, pursue circular resource flows and in the process reduce its waste output. These topics involve all Londoners because everyone is a consumer and everyone has a contribution to make. This is another reason why London needs more inclusive processes in formulating and implementing policies and strategies to tackle these issues.

Too much of the food we consume has travelled half way around the world. While it is true that food trade can be of financial benefit for exporters, some countries supplying substantial amounts of food to London have large minorities suffering from inadequate nutrition. Kenya supplies huge quantities of fresh beans and other vegetables to Britain, but a large proportion of its population is inadequately nourished. South Africa is supplying us with substantial quantities of fruit once again, but there are often insufficient affordable supplies in its own markets. Many other examples could be cited.

Meanwhile London's local food production has been suffering and urban fringe horticulture and fruit growing has all but vanished. Whilst supplies from local sources are now virtually non-existent, nearly 36,000 acres of land in London are classed as farmland. Vegetable growers on the edge of London say that they cannot compete with the price of vegetables flown in from places such as Kenya. There is no doubt, however, that a sustainable city will require a substantial proportion of its food requirements to be produced close by. A sustainable London will need to revive local food growing for local consumption.

Links between consumers and growers in the surrounding rural belt should be encouraged to provide fresh, safe food for city dwellers. Secure local markets for farmers reduce energy needed in food transport and also create a useful setting for environmental education for city people. In many of the world's major cities, including those in the USA, a very substantial proportion of food is grown locally. In the UK the National Food Alliance's project, Growing Food in Cities, highlights the potential for regenerating our environment, improving public health and contributing to community development through food growing in cities or on the urban fringe.

Timber and paper

First, supplies of fossil fuels are limited: we are burning oil, coal and gas several hundred thousand times faster than they accumulate in the Earth's crust. Secondly, this process causes air and noise pollution, affecting the local environment as well as forests and farm crops downwind.

Thirdly, the world is facing the threat of disastrous climate change, caused by the emission of 'greenhouse gases'. This should be taken far more seriously when discussing, for example, the expansion of transport, or industries such as tourism, that involve air travel. Tourism and aviation are two of London's industries to have prospered the most in recent years; they are aiming to expand further, yet as they are energy-greedy, this cannot be sustainable.

We have a unique opportunity to produce energy with less pollution and to use less of it by appropriate efficiency measures. Sadly, cutting down on emissions that cause air pollution and climate change is still seen as involving expense and a threat to the quality of life. They should rather be regarded as an opportunity to cut energy costs, improve business efficiency and the quality of our lives, and create large numbers of jobs locally.

Investment in London's energy efficiency could create tens of thousands of jobs for decades to come. In addition, new technologies such as solar photovoltaics - producing electricity from sunlight on the roofs and walls of buildings - have enormous potential and are being experimented with in cities all over Europe, but not, as yet, in London. Ironically, one of the world's major producers of photovoltaic cells, BP Solar, has its headquarters on the outskirts of London.

Yet, ironically, so far there are hardly any buildings equipped with PV panels in the London area. However in April 1996 London's first solar electric building was connected to the local grid. The building, on Homerton Grove Adventure Playground in the LB of Hackney, was designed and built by Constructive Individuals and a team of volunteers. And after publication of the manifesto, Peter Cuming was granted planning permission on appeal for the first solar powered house in London.

Much of London's energy consumption is in homes and offices. Effective steps to reduce energy use, desirable from every point of view - the classic win-win situation - are not being taken than simply because there is insufficient political and commercial will in London. By the use of sticks (regulation), carrots (grants) and tambourines (making lots of noise and getting lots of publicity), the present trickle of action on energy efficiency and new energy technologies in London could soon be turning into a tide.

C02 is the single most significant contributor to climate change; world-wide it has gone up by 26 per cent in the last 80 years, predominantly by fossil fuel combustion in the world's cities. In response to concern about climate change, cities in many countries the world over are initiating their own energy efficiency programmes. In continental Europe, 300 cities in Germany, Austria, France, Holland and Switzerland have formed themselves into the European Climate Alliance. Member cities are aiming to reduce the CO2 output of their members by 50 per cent (!) by 2010 through better energy supply and demand management. By initiating forceful energy efficiency measures, these cities are the major contributors towards implementing energy efficiency targets. set by national governments.

London has no C02 reduction strategy of its own. It is simply a factor in Britain's overall C02 strategy. In 1992 the Energy Savings Trust was established by the government and the gas and electricity industries. Unfortunately, funding for the Trust is minimal, making it difficult for it to help the country meet its international commitments for the year 2000.

Meanwhile the energy companies interpret their own remit as supplying at the lowest possible unit price, rather than encouraging and supporting customers to efficient usage of energy as in some other countries.

The threat of climate change, and the response cities should be making, are issues likely to preoccupy us in the 21st Century. They illustrate a major theme of this Manifesto: that the really big issues concerning London's future are at the moment hardly public knowledge. They are lost in the fog surrounding London government. The urgent need is for new structures and processes to bring them out into the open so they can be discussed publicly as part of a vigorous democratic process.

The speedier introduction of cleaner technologies for producing London's energy should be a concern for every Londoner. Perhaps they are concerned, but how much clout do Londoners have in order to get anything done about it?

Household waste adds up to 2,400,000 tonnes a year, or 6,600 tonnes a day, of which only some 5 per cent is currently recycled. The many different materials contained in household waste are not separated at source. Most other European cities greatly exceed London's household waste recycling performance. Right across Europe and the USA recycling has been increasing substantially every year.

London's waste is dumped in a few huge holes in the ground, such as Mucking on the Thames in Essex. Household waste, as well as commercial and industrial waste, is transported there by barge, and co-disposed in pits lined with clay, and then sealed with layers of clay, soil and grass. Inside the dump, methane gas from the rotting waste is now intercepted in plastic pipes and used to run small power stations. Mucking receives the rubbish of some 2 million people. Its methane-powered generators, however, supply electricity to just 30,000 people.

There are 33 waste collection authorities in London, plus hundreds of waste contractors each with differing commercial priorities. This level of deregulation isn't a recipe for efficient waste processing. Not surprisingly then, London still dumps 90% of its waste, rather than recycling or incinerating it. The government is committed to recycling 25 per cent of London's municipal waste by the year 2000, but there are grave doubts that this will be achieved, though, at last, the new UK landfill tax will give contractors an incentive to come up with new schemes for waste processing. But the London Waste Regulation Authority (LWRA), whilst being the regulatory body for London's waste disposal, has no powers to make the implementation of innovative waste treatment processes compulsory.

Many cities have chosen incineration as the most convenient route for modern waste management, because it reduces waste to a small percentage of its original volume. Energy recovery can be an added bonus. In the 1970s the GLC had plans to surround London with incinerators. Eventually one was built at Edmonton in North London and recently a second one was completed, SELCHP at Deptford in South London. The Edmonton Incinerator is not popular with local citizens because of concern about the contents of its waste gases. Incineration of plastics and batteries, in particular, can release dioxins and heavy metals into the environment. Today waste recycling and composting are the preferred alternative in most cities, and they are making rapid headway in both Europe and North America. In the USA waste recycling has increased dramatically in recent years.

Recycling is not only good for business but also for employment: 'Every million tons of solid waste tends to generate 1600 recycling jobs; if the same million tons were put in a landfill, only 600 workers would be involved; and incinerating that amount of waste would require only 80 workers' .

If these figures were applied to London, the recycling of 2,400,000 tonnes of household waste would create 2,400 new jobs, if existing jobs at landfill sites are excluded from the calculation. The number of jobs in reprocessing recycled materials, such as paper, glass and alu-can manufacture can only be guessed at, but, without a doubt, it would also be in the thousands.

London has a lot of catching up to do. Interestingly, recycling rates in the commercial sector far outstrip those of the domestic sector. London generates 31,000 tonnes of building wastes per day. Around 30 per cent of these relatively uniform materials - tarmac, concrete, subsoil etc. - are recycled and reused. The same is true for wastes from office buildings. Some major London companies, such as the National Westminster Bank, have come to realise that it makes financial, as well as environmental sense to initiate substantial recycling projects.

Throughout Europe, and increasingly in the USA, the municipal composting of organic waste is catching on. New York has recently installed a pilot plant at the Fresh Kills dump on Staten Island, recognising that the recovery and composting of organic wastes have the twin benefits of reducing the volume of dumped waste substantially whilst producing fertile soil for the recovery of inner city wasteland and the creation of urban or city-fringe horticulture.

Sewage

Once it is flushed out from peoples' homes and commercial enterprises, the sewage of the Thames region runs through a pipe network extending to 80,000 km which are connected to 400 treatment works, the largest of which, Beckton in South East London, serves some 2 million people. Every day it processes around 1 million tonnes of waste water. Converted into 6,000 tonnes of wet sewage sludge, this is pumped into ships and then dumped into the Thames estuary. In total, Thames Water every day disposes of some 22,000 tonnes of sewage sludge, containing 200 tonnes of non-renewable phosphates in the North Sea. With plans to incinerate this now far advanced, the question should be raised and publicly debated whether it would make more sense to compost it and turn it into fertiliser. Phosphate fertilisers now used on farms are likely to be in short supply in a matter of decades.

Circular resource flows and waste minimisation

An important principle of sustainability is to adopt circular resource flows, where outputs are used as inputs into the production system: waste becomes a resource, instead of being a nuisance to be disposed of. Sewage works should be fertiliser factories serving local market gardens. Toxic wastes should be designed out of production processes or converted back into useable materials. But London currently recycles only a small percentage of its wastes, and if current trends continue it will not achieve the government's own targets for recycling 25 per cent of household waste by the year 2000. The general public is keen to be more involved in recycling but is being given few options for this. This is another issue that requires much wider public debate.

Even more fundamental, and equally cost effective, is waste reduction. This could be achieved by the better use of materials, more local production requiring less packaging, and deliberate encouragement of longer-life products. Londoners have never had the opportunity to enter public discussions on these important options for more sustainable consumption patterns.

London has a huge economy of some £82 billion a year, on par with that of Saudi Arabia. It is a champion of the unbridled 'free' market and its transactions have a global reach. Over 30 per cent of its economy are financial services, with services as a whole making up nearly 80 per cent. It continues to invest where there is the highest rate of return, but has neglected creating a stable mixed economy in its own backyard.

London is a massive importer of food and industrial products, yet its own manufacturing base now makes up only 12 % of its total economy. London's recent rapid growth in GDP (over 30 per cent from 1984 to 1990) has left the unskilled and semi-skilled particularly vulnerable, with a dramatic rise in unemployment during the recession in the early 90s. The trend towards service sector activities has resulted in a pronounced East-West imbalance, with East London suffering from economic and social deprivation, largely as a result of the decline in manufacturing industry. The level of unemployment, especially among young people, is unacceptably high and requires urgent action.

An assessment of London's economy also requires us to understand its global environmental impacts. The conduct of London-based corporations regarding the exploitation of resources overseas is as relevant to the future of London as its rate of youth unemployment. The environment in distant countries is treated as a free resource, with the result that both local people and other living species are adversely affected.

Logging, mining, and oil and gas extraction in tropical rainforest areas, financed by London investment banks and operated by London-based companies, are a case in point. How can we make sure that the 'free' market differentiates between products that cause environmental and human damage and those that don't?

Interestingly, London is also strong on organisations representing rural communities in other parts of the world whose lives are being disrupted by the exploitation of their natural resources by London-based companies. There should be a public forum for their views and concerns to be aired, to help find solutions to conflict situations. London should promote more openness and accountability of its business activities.

To compensate for the inherent limitations of the free market as a tool for creating a sustainable economy - it supplies things people are able to pay for in money but ignores the needs of those with the least buying power and treats the environment as a free resource - , society has to make arrangements to meet needs which are neglected, and assure adequate living conditions for all concerned. These arrangements include prudent regulations of numerous kinds, i.e., ecological taxes, utility regulations, pricing structures and the public expenditure of the proceeds of these and other taxes. London has proper forum for discussion of these matters as they affect London in particular. The players on the stage of London's economy include government, local authorities, quasi-governmental bodies, the corporate sector, local enterprises, workers, investors and consumers. No one can play anyone else's part for them, they all have their unique contributions to make. But currently there is no London-wide forum to enable all these players to get together to discuss practical ways of making London's economy more sustainable.

Without such a forum progress towards a sustainable economy will depend on decisions taken by the various actors independently, or at best through partnerships which are not fully representative. Great advantages would be likely to result from more inclusive consensus-building processes.

Ecological taxes and social justice

London needs a voice to call for tax reform and for measures to protect disadvantaged people. Used in isolation, the effect of ecological taxation is that some goods are only affordable to those with high incomes. Ecological taxes must therefore be counter-balanced by ancillary measures to ensure that the proceeds of these taxes are applied for the conservation of the environment, as well as for promoting social justice, e.g. by providing resources for locally promoted sustainable development so as to benefit people disadvantaged by ecological taxation.

Alternative economic indicators

If London is to move towards becoming a more sustainable city, indicators to measure its progress towards that goal are needed. Recently new indices, such as the 'Index of Social Welfare' developed by London's New Economics Foundation, have tried to meet the shortcomings of existing GDP-based statistics. These, and the Local Government Management Board's 'Sustainability Indicators', have a vital role to play in formulating strategies for sustainable economic development for London. Since everyone has a part to play, the process of selecting the right indicators for London requires leadership, expertise and effective public participation.

A city's main natural resource is its people. The goal of a sustainable economy is not necessarily full employment. The real aim is to satisfy the needs of people for a secure livelihood: it may be that the needs of many can be met by their being involved in satisfying activities and having sufficient secure financial resources, however derived. London should urgently explore new ways to enable unemployed people to improve their situation; and unemployed people should be actively involved in this search.

The precautionary principle, too, increasingly finds an advocate in the insurance industry, influenced by the massive losses suffered in insuring environmental risks, in areas such as asbestos, storm damage and toxic waste dumps. London's vast insurance sector cannot afford to assume that any environmental risks can automatically be insured. Reality has proved otherwise. London's insurance industry is becoming a natural advocate of policies for precautionary action for pollution prevention. It is not surprising that 48 insurance companies have recently signed a Statement of Environmental Commitment.

Environmental and social audits

To help business develop in this way, more funds should be used to support advice, research and development of sustainable products, processes, industries practices and export strategies. A recent survey by Greenwich Environment Management Services showed that what businesses wanted most was confidential access to advice on sustainability: this is the kind of field in which more Londoners could be making a living by providing appropriate professional services.

Environmental purchasing and contracting

Individuals can influence government bodies, local authorities and companies to adopt environmental purchasing and contracting policies. They can lobby for the purchase of environmentally friendly products in order to reduce the waste of resources and to prevent pollution, even if these are sometimes more expensive. They should also encourage the choice of locally produced goods wherever possible. The emphasis on short-term profit must never be allowed to override the principles of sustainability.

Urban regeneration projects and human resources

All too often skills available in the community lie dormant. Too many people are being forced into early retirement when their experience could still make valuable contributions. REACH (Retired Executives Acting in the Community) is an agency to enable this resource to be used. These sorts of initiatives, making use of resources which would otherwise go to waste, can contribute to regenerating run-down areas and building a more sustainable economy in London.

Community Businesses

Questions like these, and the answers we choose to give them, are important because they indicate how much say citizens should have in the way land and buildings are used. In a sense, every part of London, whether publicly or privately owned, is part of what is 'ours'. It follows that ownership of urban land is not absolute but is a privilege involving social responsibilities. Many of these responsibilities are enshrined in the law. But there are wider responsibilities which go beyond the letter of the law. For example we would regard it as an abuse of the privilege of ownership for a company to keep a city site vacant for many years, just to suit its own financial interests. It gives the whole neighbourhood an air of being run down. Such abuse is all the more serious if there is a local shortage of land which could, for instance, be used for housing homeless people.

The current adversarial system does not assist citizens wishing to become involved in the planning process. In many ways it positively discourages participation and makes an already complex and confusing process more daunting than is necessary.

Local authorities make their planning decisions by reference to their Unitary Development Plans which they prepare having regard to the Strategic Guidance for London. This is prepared by the Minister for London. He does so with advice from the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC), but is not bound follow such advice; and in many respects the recently published version of the Guidance, although a great improvement on its predecessor, does not follow LPAC's excellent advice: it fails to set a holistic agenda for the strategic planning of London for the next decade or so; it fails to integrate planning, transport and social issues, and it fails to explain how resources will be provided and mechanisms put in place to ensure that policy is implemented. The Guidance offers very little comfort to the most needy Londoners, does not even refer to the dangers of climate change and contains little more than a polite nod towards Local Agenda 21.

Participation in planning

Any development should be preceded by an open, consensus-building process (click here for some examples - Implementation section). This would mean Parliament revising the national planning legislation; but in the meantime the use of these processes could be encouraged, through mediums such as the London Planning and Development Forum, in the interests of enlightened development. All public bodies should use them before engaging in, for example, road building schemes: this would ensure that these issues were properly aired, in a process involving everyone affected, before any decision is taken.

The proposed London Citizens Forum could help to promote these changes in the way decisions about land use and development are taken.

New forms of community

• co-operative self-build low-energy housing;
• designs incorporating passive solar gain, photovoltaics panels, etc.
• adding an 'eco-floor' to buildings - built-in greenhouses, grass roofs;
• provision of workshop spaces to enhance the local economy;
• sensitively increasing density to improve access while reducing travel;
• car-free areas - housing with no cars (e.g.Berlin, Edinburgh);
• land made available for permaculture projects.

Some forms of transport are inherently more sustainable than others: for example walking, cycling and, to a lesser extent, public transport are more sustainable than travel by motor car, due to the car's high energy consumption, its many polluting effects and the road space it requires. On the other hand in some circumstances people's needs are best served by the car. In some instances the needs of disabled people are better served by cars than public transport. In any case, an integrated approach, dealing with all forms of personal travel needs, the transportation of goods, short and long journeys is essential. This means the optimal integration of roads, railways, the underground, canals and rivers, and also air travel. At present this is sorely lacking.

Travel in London is normally only a means to an end, such as getting to work, to the shops or to school. If the ends can be met with less travel, for example by jobs, shops or schools being located nearer homes, or by goods being produced or crops grown nearer the shops, such measures would contribute to a more 'sustainable' transport system. As these examples illustrate, transport policy overlaps with other policies, such as land use planning, the economy, education and health provision. Another cross-over is between transport safety and unemployment: safer public transport may require more staff. Transport decisions involve large sums of money: the spending decisions must be related and integrated for public benefit. Thus a comprehensive approach is needed. And this certainly includes consultations with representatives of disabled people.

There is no space here to name the numerous organisations - campaigning groups, business organisations and governmental or quasi-governmental bodies - which have put forward authoritative views on many aspects of transport in London. They are well able to make their own input into the debate. The point which needs stressing is that decisions, London-wide or local, must be preceded by real debate, and input into that debate must not be limited to economists, transport experts and the representatives of powerful interests: 'ordinary people' are certainly the best judges of their own requirements; people with special needs are the best judges of these; and architects, ecologists and business people often have innovative ideas to contribute.

Nor is there room to point to current initiatives, examples from other cities or policy directions. Profound changes are needed, to restrain the use of the car; to restore local streets to our children; to reclaim our high streets for shopping and social encounter, to make cycling, walking and travel by public transport safe and pleasant; to create a diverse and just transport system. Imaginative policies are needed, making maximum use of new technology, and above all worked out by consensus-building processes, with due regard for special needs, both at the London-wide and at the local level.

Consensus-building will not be easy. Transport is the subject which illustrates most graphically both the moral dilemmas and the power struggles raised by sustainability. For the better off, accustomed to a car-based life-style, the car represents freedom. This vision clashes with the need to share and to be responsible.

Fortunately many young people today are growing up with a different vision. Until their vision is generally accepted, the car manufacturing and road-building industries will continue to lobby for further expansion of this form of travel. To resist this pressure, our elected representatives need support. This is the sort of support which the London Citizens Forum might help to gather.

Some policy recommendations

Suggested policies include:

• enhancing the pedestrian environment, supporting and boosting the initiatives of local authorities to improve the quality, security and ease of travel on foot;
• introducing measures to make better use of pedal power in a city which offers little opportunity to the cyclist;
• calming the car: car use should be reduced by a wide mix of fiscal and planning measures, such as residential roads calmed at 15mph in an hierarchical road structure
• boosting the bus: radical innovation in the form of new services tailored to the expectations of car travellers, plus more road priority for buses;
• introducing a wide range of new transport technologies such as trams, electric and hybrid low emission vehicles, both public and private.

If we look once again at our definition of a 'sustainable city', it is obvious that human health and the health of our environment are closely linked goals, that housing is a basic need for everyone and that education is vital for learning to lead sustainable lifestyles. Traditionally these subjects are dealt with by separate authorities or separate departments of local or national government, they are regulated by separate legislation and they are administered by separate institutions. There is little co-ordination. Workers in these different fields tend to be absorbed in their own problems and to have little time to relate to other disciplines.

Londoners need to explore the connections between these subjects and to find ways of communicating across barriers. There are also obvious links related to energy conservation and other 'environmental' issues. Bad environmental conditions typically occur because of the misuse and waste of resources, linking individual ill-health with wider environmental impacts. Equally important are the links between environmental questions and social issues, for example bad housing, which not only wastes energy and is bad for people's health but also interferes with educational development.

Another feature which health, education and housing have in common is the lack of opportunity for public participation in decision making in these areas. There is little enough opportunity at the local level, and almost none at the London-wide level. Huge sums of public money are spent on the education and health services, and on housing in London, yet the general public doesn't have a direct say in how much money should be spent or, indeed, how it should be invested.

Individual well-being depends on the well-being of the society to which the individual belongs. And vice versa. For London to work sustainably Londoners must learn to live sustainable life-styles; and to help them do so, London needs to learn to work as a sustainable city.

A new London-wide government would be able to consider these issues in the round. Further arrangements are needed to enable local citizens to voice their opinions and take an active part in decision-making. The London Citizens Forum could help to inform and gage public opinion and to stimulate debate.

Public health campaigns, such as the Public Health Alliance, suggest that a new vision is needed, a New Public Health, which acknowledges the many influences of environmental, economic, social and lifestyle factors. We need to consider, for example -

• how urban planning affects the quality of the housing stock, opportunities for physical exercise, the scope for local sociability, and crime or the fear of crime,
• how working conditions, in offices, workshops and factories affect health in a great variety of ways,
• how energy is produced and used and how this affects local air quality and hence our health.

Through the London Citizens Forum organisations working on these issues could gather evidence on the wider causes of ill-health in London and consider how to promote good health by environmental improvements.

Some policy recommendations:

• Reduce emissions from traffic and from industry to avoid air pollution.
• Reduce CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change.
• Phase out of all ozone destroying chemicals to avoid ozone depletion.
• Phase out nuclear power and reprocessing plants to reduce radiation risks.

• Assure that all people have the option of easy access to parks and allotments.
• Facilitate access to spaces where natural diversity is strongly in evidence.
• Ensure that Londoners have opportunities for purchasing organic food.
• Promote local food production for local consumption.

• Achieve high standards of health and safety at the workplace.
• Provide health education and training on request.
• Initiate policies for higher state benefits and minimum wage.
• Assure adequate health care and healthy living conditions for the unemployed.

• Improve road safety measures.
• Take more measures to reclaim streets and squares as communal spaces.
• Reduce need for travel by motor car.
• Tackle fear of crime in tubes and buses by more staff presence.

Housing is controlled by central government and the agencies it controls, by the London Boroughs, housing associations, landowners and developers. The vast majority is producer- driven, giving people little chance to participate in decision making on housing issues, whereas in large parts of the developing world and Europe, it is more consumer-driven. There is a great need to break down the barriers and widen the opportunities for participation.

The future of planning belongs to an increasingly decentralised approach to building local communities of interest, which have the powers and resources to initiate housing development projects and to manage these for the common good.

Self-build - a sustainable answer

There is clearly a role for a London Citizens Forum to facilitate London-wide exchanges of experience, promotion of best practice and monitoring of progress in self-help housing development, maintenance and management.

Some policy recommendations

• An integrated fuel & housing policy and a massive scheme to insulate homes.
• The idea of 'Right to Repair', employing local unemployed builders to repair their own estates whilst training unskilled people via work experience.
• The extension of 'Right to Manage' scheme for housing estates.
• Independent mediation groups to sort out disputes.
• 'Sensible Squatter' schemes to make empty housing stock available to homeless people, asylum seekers and people at risk.
• Using derelict sites to develop affordable housing across London.

Education and training for the 21st Century needs to start from the premise that life-long learning is a key aspect of our existence. People require educational support for self-help initiatives, livelihood planning and encouragement of personal creativity. We have to face the possibility that full employment may never return to our technology-driven society. It is apparent that education for sustainable living goes beyond conventional frameworks, involving not only academic competence, but education of the whole person. It also respects the crucial importance of practical skills needed for making and growing things.

Family and community as the foundation of learning

Young people, their energy and their needs

Education for values, empowerment and human development

Educational establishments and academics could make many vital contributions to an effective London Citizens Forum. The relationships could be of mutual benefit, with the London Citizens Forum providing opportunities for participation and involvement.

Back to Index * SLT Home Page * Lycos * Alta Vista