Verbal report of Megan Black, TfGM.
Minutes:
The Partnership received a presentation on progress developing the Challenge Groups since the last meeting.
It was explained that this would be followed by a deeper dive into each of the Challenge Group outcomes and proposed Task and Finish Groups by the Chairs of those Groups. Each of the Chairs were invited to comment on how their Challenge Group operated, including, Terms of Reference, membership, next steps and any issues arising from the Group.
a) LOW CARBON BUILDINGS CHALLENGE GROUP
Consideration was given to a report that outlined the progress made in establishing a Low Carbon Buildings Challenge Group as agreed at the last meeting of the GM Green City Region Partnership.
The Chair of the Group provided a verbal summary from the first meeting, which took place on 10 October 2019. The Group discussed using existing groups to support the work of the Challenge Group, embedded energy, planning implications and behavioural change.
A lengthy discussion took place about the current delivery model being insufficient to realise retrofit ambitions in the long term view.
RESOLVED/-
1. That the Partnership noted progress in developing the Low Carbon Buildings Challenge Group priorities.
2. The Partnership noted the issues arising from the last meeting of the Group and next steps (Sections 2 and 3 of the report).
3. That the Partnership agreed the proposed Terms of Reference for the Low Carbon Buildings Challenge Group attached to the report.
b) ENERGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GROUP
The Partnership considered a report that outlined the progress made in establishing an Energy Innovation Challenge Group as agreed at the last meeting of the GM Green City Region Partnership.
The Chair of the Challenge Group explained that discussions at the meeting on 7 October 2019 covered work through the Strategic Infrastructure Group, gaps and local engagement, membership, the energy master-planning, the hydrogen strategy, managing transitions, targets and on shore wind.
RESOLVED/-
1. That the Partnership noted progress in developing the Energy Innovation Challenge Group priorities.
2. The Partnership noted the issues arising from the last meeting of the Group and next steps (Sections 2 and 3 of the report).
3. That the Partnership agreed the proposed Terms of Reference for the Energy Innovation Challenge Group attached to the report.
c) NATURAL CAPITAL CHALLENGE GROUP
A report was considered that outlined the progress made in establishing a Natural Capital Challenge Group as agreed at the last meeting of the GM Green City Region Partnership.
The Chair explained that the existing Natural Capital Group would be the Challenge Group. Discussions at the meeting, which took place on 27 September 2019 covered the Environment Act, policy and metrics, nature recovery network, climate change/biodiversity emergency agreement, new funding, environmental education, ecotherapy and health.
RESOLVED/-
1. That the Partnership noted progress in developing the Natural Capital Challenge Group priorities.
2. The Partnership noted the issues arising from the last meeting of the Group and next steps (Sections 2 and 3 of the report).
3. That the Partnership agreed the proposed Terms of Reference for the Natural Capital Challenge Group attached to the report.
d) SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION CHALLENGE GROUP
A report was presented that outlined the progress made in establishing a Sustainable Consumption and Production Challenge Group as agreed at the last meeting of the GM Green City Region Partnership.
The first meeting of this Group took place on 2 October 2019. The Chair explained that discussions covered municipal waste, responsible consumer, communications work and messages across groups, solar panels, consumer behaviour, data, the Waste & Resources Committee, the English waste strategy, the food strategy and health benefits.
RESOLVED/-
1. That the Partnership noted progress in developing the Sustainable Consumption and Production Challenge Group priorities.
2. The Partnership noted the issues arising from the last meeting of the Group and next steps (Sections 2 and 3 of the report).
3. That the Partnership agreed the proposed Terms of Reference for the SC&P Challenge Group attached to the report.
e) COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOUR CHALLENGE GROUP
Consideration was given to a report that outlined the progress made in establishing a Communications and Behaviour Challenge Group as agreed at the last meeting of the GM Green City Region Partnership.
This Group met on 11 October 2019 and discussed work across the areas, communications and engagement, functionality, overarching messages, carbon literacy training and common threads for Greater Manchester.
It was suggested that the membership was quite narrow and everybody was encouraged to attend the next meeting on 17 December 2019. The Group was open to fresh ideas from all sectors.
RESOLVED/-
1. That the Partnership noted progress in developing the Communications and Behaviour Challenge Group priorities.
2. The Partnership noted the issues arising from the last meeting of the Group and next steps (Sections 2 and 3 of the report).
3. That the Partnership agreed the proposed Terms of Reference for the Communications and Behaviour Challenge Group attached to the report.
f) 5 YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FORUM
A report was considered that outlined the progress made in establishing a 5 Year Environmental Plan Forum as agreed at the last meeting of the GM Green City Region Partnership.
The Chair advised that the main discussions that took place at the first meeting on 23 September 2019 covered connections between the Challenge Groups, the critical friend role and how to support the development of the 5 Year Environmental Plan.
RESOLVED/-
1. That the Partnership noted progress in developing the 5 Year Environmental Plan Forum priorities.
2. The Partnership noted the issues arising from the last meeting of the Group and next steps (Sections 2 and 3 of the report).
3. That the Partnership agreed the proposed Terms of Reference for the 5 Year Environmental Plan Forum attached to the report.
The Partnership raised a number of questions, comments and concerns about the work of the Challenge Groups, which were noted as:
· A Member suggested that the Challenge Groups could be renamed as Action Groups.
· It was agreed that a plain English narrative about the 15% year-on-year carbon reduction in emissions would be developed for key stakeholders.
· It was recommended by a Member that the GMCA should lead by example and explain what it was doing to become carbon neutral.
· As part of the communications work, a website would be set up to advertise the work and key messages of the Partnership.
· A question was raised regarding LAs and what part they were playing in delivering the 5 Year Environmental Plan; was there a coherent approach.
· It was suggested that the cultural aspect had been omitted from the Communications and Behavioural Change Challenge Group. A Greater Manchester climate change communications strategy was needed along with key messages.
· A concern was raised about the mandatory national 10% biodiversity gain requirements in 25 Year Environmental Plan and whether that was deliverable.
· It was reported that Bury Council had been unsuccessful in the Urban Tree Challenge and Greater Manchester should put pressure on the Forestry Commission to get their share. The Chair of the Natural Capital Challenge Group explained that each LA should have a receptor site. Net gain should not stop development but allow spend in high need areas.
· Regarding the tree cover target, a concern was raised about the metrics not being adequate. Work was needed to understand the scale and required funding.
· It was noted that there were strong links between the Challenge Groups. However, there must be synergy between the Groups and Terms of Reference. A cross functional piece of work was required. It was suggested that overlapping membership and a Challenge Group Chair’s meeting would be beneficial.
· Transport impacts should be considered across the Challenge Groups.
· A discussion took place about building the business cases for investment that included health benefits. It was explained that a cost benefit analysis tool, linked with the Treasury’s Green Book, which represented health outcomes had been adopted and was ready to use.
Resolved/-
1. That a narrative about the 15% year-on-year reductions in emissions this year would be developed for key stakeholders.
2. GMCA would develop a one page briefing in actions already underway, in advance of the next Climate Strike.