Thursday, 5 December 2013

Solar panels for apartment owners - my story

Classified as: reflective journal - advocacy

Solar panels on apartment roof

(Update 7 December 2013 - just changed the title of this post to reflect what it's about better)

I had solar panels installed on the roof of my apartment block on Tuesday (3 November 2013). Several people have expressed interest in how I managed this, so here's some info.

First, I should say that I live in a small apartment block in inner northwest Melbourne. There are ten one-bedroom flats in the block and it's two storey. My flat is on the ground floor. The block overlooks a park, and the roof orientation is almost due north (yep it's a great location, I know I'm lucky!).

Owners live in five of the ten flats, and most owners come to the annual Owners' Corporation Annual General Meeting (AGM), so I know most of them. We've had our differences, but most of us have pro-environment attitudes (which are common in this part of Melbourne). I've also been here a while so I guess people trust me.

That's all background to say that my story is not going to be relevant to all apartment owners, many of whom would probably face far more barriers. However I think what can be achieved in a situation like this may also provide a precedent for people in bigger blocks and less supportive social environments.

The roof, like all external parts of the building, is common property. This means that to put anything on the roof, you have to get permission from the Owners' Corporation. I first requested permission at the AGM in 2012. We had talked about sustainability related measures at previous AGMs,  including expanding the garden area and allowing owners to grow (small) fruit trees, vegetables and herbs (agreed and done) and putting in water tanks (agreed but not done, as yet).

As my request was for an individual to make changes  to common property, it had to go to a postal ballot. The AGM agreed that a postal ballot could be held and that I should provide background information, so I contacted Moreland Energy Foundation (of which I'm a member) and Positive Charge. Positive Charge is a not-for-profit organisation, set up by Moreland Energy Foundation to help people get "smart energy solutions". It is supported by five local Councils in Melbourne, including Moreland, where I live. I also contacted eight solar energy providers, and got quotes from several of them.

I then wrote a summary of the information, including links and a pamphlet about solar provided by one of the companies. I also included my contact details so that anyone could contact me for more information. The company that manages our Owners' Corporation administration distributed this with a postal ballot, and the eventual result of the ballot was six in favour, one against, two abstaining (because they wanted more information at the next AGM) and one not voting.

On this result I could proceed, but I waited until after this years' AGM to do so. I couldn't attend that, but the issue was discussed a bit further. Some owners had expressed interest, and I was hoping some might join me in putting in panels. There is an additional cost for installation on a two storey building, so it would have made financial sense. However although people are interested, no-one else feels in a position to do it yet. The estimate I have been given is that solar will pay for itself in about four years, so I will keep my neighbours informed about how that goes.

My electricity usage is very low for most of the year. The block is a solid 1960s double brick construction with external sun blinds on north facing windows, and I have gas hot water and cooking. I also have floor-length curtains with wool-felt lining on the large windows. Most of the year my daily usage is less than 2kWH (kilowatt hours). The only time I use a lot is in winter, because I have an electric space heater, so for June-August it goes up to about 8-9kWH.

I have a 1.5kW system, and on Tuesday, which was partly overcast and partly sunny, it generated 3.3kWH in half a day. Yesterday, which was overcast and raining a lot of the time (good old Melbourne) it still generated 1.4kWH. Today is cool, partly overcast and partly sunny (uh oh now just starting to thunder, rain and hail!) and it's produced 2.7kWH by 12.30 PM. So it's looking good for me financially.

Obviously the financial incentive of solar is greater for resident owners, but it would also increase the value of rented apartments, particularly for those on the first floor which get hotter in summer, as it would greatly reduce air-conditioning costs.

The only hiccups so far are, firstly, that the installers didn't quite get the frame flush with the boundary of my flat (and the one above it) so possibly there could be a lack of space for my upstairs neighbour if they decide to get panels also. There is space for ten 1.5kW systems on the north facing roof, but it is pretty tight. The manager of the solar company believes there is still enough space, but has assured me they will move the frame free of charge should that ever become necessary, so hopefully that will be ok.

The other issue was that I was told, when getting quotes, that cabling and the inverter could be installed internally, but in the event that wasn't possible as the flats have concrete floors and the cable couldn't go through from the first floor to ground floor. So the installers put both cabling and the inverter on the back external wall of the flats. The back wall only faces a fence, but nevertheless the system is more visible than I originally expected, so I hope other owners don't object to that.

These are (I hope) not major hiccups but they do show some of the traps when dealing with communal property, so are worthwhile for other people to know about.

Two other points: people who live in apartment blocks of over two stories would most likely not have sufficient roof space to install even a 1.5kWH system per apartment, even if the Owners' Corporation allows it; and renters are dependent on owners to install roof top solar. My next post will look at community solar projects, which offer some possible solutions for renters, people in big apartment blocks, and people on low incomes who can't afford the up- front costs of solar.

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Contact with nature

I've been to some places in rural Australia lately, and I just want to post these photos because they're so beautiful.

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Submissions on carbon tax now being published

Update 14 November -  Submissions on carbon tax now being published

Classified as: reflective journal - advocacy

I received an email from a public servant apologising for the delay in responding to my queries yesterday. The submissions are being progressively posted here and hopefully will all (including mine) be up later today.

Just to make it clear, I am not trying to blame public servants for this failure of process. No doubt they have been doing their best. Partly I imagine the problems would have arisen because it's been a very rushed process.

I've posted before about the limitations of Tony Abbott's so-called 'mandate' to remove the carbon price and associated mechanisms. There's also an article on ABC fact check about this.  In one way it's obvious - there's no legal or enforceable mandate - but it also points to the need for informed debate.

Now that the submissions are finally going up, perhaps they will help with that debate.  Melissa Sweet of Croakey expressed concern on twitter that there were few from public health. It is concerning but perhaps there may be more today.

From a human perspective, the debate about climate change is all about health ultimately - the health and wellbeing of current and future generations. But looking beyond just our own human needs (as far as that's possible*) it's also about the health and survival of our beautiful world, and other species.

So let the debate roll on! There is a National Day of Climate Action this Sunday 17 November - hope to see you there. Check the link for details in your city.

*(I understand that there is a philosophical question whether, as beings embodied as  'human', we can ever see anything from other than a human perspective, but won't get into that here.) 

Update 12 November 2013 - "Why call for 'public comment' and then keep it secret?"

The submissions on the carbon tax repeal have still not been published and the bill is due to debated tomorrow (Wednesday 13 November).

Why call for public comment and then keep it secret? 

I have submitted in many similar processes and  I don't recall anything like this ever happening.

Normally the process is that submissions are published on the website as they are received. I have rung the information line on the website to ask what was happening about the submissions and was told that they can't give me any information. So I asked if I could speak to one of the public servants handling the submissions and was told that they weren't answering phone enquiries, but that I could email them.

So I emailed my enquiry, and - as happened when I emailed my submission - there was no reply.

So I rang the Environment Minister's office and was told they couldn't say anything because the process was being handled by the Department. When I asked why the Department wasn't publishing the submissions, the staff member I spoke to suggested the public servants might be too busy or over-whelmed.

I've been a public servant and I would say that's unlikely. My guess is there's a block somewhere - for example the public servants may have been told they can't publish the submissions until the Minister has signed off on the process, and the Minister is not signing. That way, no-one's forbidden to do anything, they just don't get permission.

Or maybe the senior public servants are second guessing the Minister and deciding that he doesn't want the submissions published, although I think that's more unlikely. Either way, there's a block happening and we the public aren't allowed to see the submissions, even though the legislation is about to be debated.

I don't know if Opposition MPs have been allowed to see the submissions, but I doubt it. Not seeing the submissions limits their ability to represent people's views in the debate also.

Maybe the government is banking on people being tired of politics and just not caring, but to me this process shows a lack of accountability and a disregard for democratic process.

More  earlier post and a copy of my short  submission is below. You can also read some longer and thoughtful public health responses to the proposed legislation at Croakey.


... climate change is a major public health issue that potentially threatens the health and wellbeing of current and future generations of Australians. The government has a responsibility to treat it seriously as such, rather than as an adversarial political ‘winner take all’ issue.

So I put in a submission to Repealing the Carbon Tax - Call for Public Comment

Excuse me quoting myself, but the comment above from the end of my submission probably sums up my key line of  thought (after I'd corrected a small typo in the original!).

A copy of the full submission is below. It's quite short because I didn't have much time to do it. I have to admit I also wondered if it was worth doing, given that the government appears intent on its course of action - but eventually decided I should at least try.

Submissions closed on Monday, but so far none have been put on the website, so I don't know how many were made or what they said. I haven't even yet received an acknowledgement for mine.

Federal parliament sits next week, and repealing the "carbon tax" legislation is meant to be one of the first pieces of business. The government won't have much time to look at the submissions, and the public will have even less, since they are not even up on the website yet.

This does make me a bit cynical about whether the whole thing is a token exercise, and whether Mr Abbott really cares at all about what we think.

Copy of my submission:

Submission to the Carbon Tax Repeal Consultation,
Carbon Tax Repeal Taskforce
Department of the Environment
GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

Valerie Kay,
PhD candidate,
School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University

Please note that the views expressed in this submission are my own and do not purport to represent the views of Monash University or the School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine

Thank you for providing an opportunity to make a submission on the carbon tax repeal legislation. Please note that the “carbon tax” should be more properly called a “carbon price”.
This submission addresses broad technical issues with the legislation in particular:
The bills do not specify how Australia intends to meet its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Convention),although the government has stated that it intends to meet those obligations
The measures by which Australia intends to meet its obligations (which presumably are the proposed “Direct Action”) have not been presented to the Australian public in a form which would enable a reasoned assessment or endorsement
The bills have been presented in a way which ismisleading, in particular through the use of the words “carbon tax”.
Research by Crosby Textor (please see end of this submission for more information on sources) for the Liberal National party coalition (LNP) following the recent federal election found that very few voters spontaneously nominated the carbon price as a reason for voting for the LNP. A significant number of voters only identified the so-called “carbon tax” when prompted, and as part of a general concern over cost of living.
In fact, the voters for whom cost of living increases would normally be a major concern – low income earners – weregenerally over-compensated for cost of living increases related to the carbon price under the previous government’s legislation.  
It appears possible therefore that vulnerable voters may have been misled about the carbon price legislation – they may have believed that it was increasing their costs of living when in fact it was reducing them.
The government has not presented the Australian people with clear information showing the current and future impact of the carbon price and associated mechanisms on Australia’s carbon emissions.
There are a number of speculative figures being circulated but as far as I am aware there is no clear summary of current and likely future impacts of the carbon price and associated mechanisms, such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation,and its investment in alternative energy.
There is certainly some evidence that emissions from the electricity sector may be declining but there has been no clear analysis available to the public of how much of this is attributable to the carbon price and associated mechanisms, nor what is likely to happen under different future scenarios.
Experts on climate change and health, including Australia’s recognised authority, Professor Tony McMichael, and his colleagues at ANU, and international experts as summarised in The Lancet (14 May 2009) have drawn attention to the risks of climate change for population health in Australia.
The government’s stated intention to meet its obligations under the Convention shows that the government accepts that there is potential for profound risks to human health and wellbeing through climate change.
In democratic societies it is generally assumed that governments have a responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of the people. A so-called ‘mandate’ achieved by winning a majority of the popular vote cannot be understood as exempting a government from this responsibility.
In these circumstances, where:
The government has not explained how it will meet its obligations under the Convention in the absence of a carbon price and the associated mechanisms
A significant number of voters potentially may have been misinformed about the carbon price and its impacts onthe cost of living
There has been no clear public information on the current and likely future impact of the carbon price and associated mechanisms on Australia’s carbon emissions
It can be argued that the government is defaulting on its responsibilities to:
properly inform the Australian Parliament and the Australian population on the likely outcomes of its proposed legislation and
protect the current and future health and wellbeing of the Australian population.
In these circumstances I urge the government to reconsider the proposed legislation.
Further I urge the government to reconsider specifically its proposal to abolish the Climate Change Authority and bring its work under the direct responsibility of the Minister. Climate change has already been overly politicised. To remove the independent authority under these circumstances simply risks politicising it even further, and is an unconscionable decision.
In summary, climate change is a major public health issues that potentially threatens the health and wellbeing of current and future generations of Australians. The government has a responsibility to treat it seriously as such, rather than as an adversarial political ‘winner take all’ issue.
As part of my PhD studies I am maintaining a blog. Further information about the references and key sources for this submission may be found there, in particular at the following pages:
Election reflections: has Tony Abbott really got a mandate on the carbon price? Where to for climate and health?
@WePublicHealth - LNP fails us all on climate and health

I am happy to provide any further information on this submission. Please feel free to contact me on the details provided on the submission cover page.


Monday, 4 November 2013

Why we should acknowledge elders and traditional owners

Dr Aaron Hollins (@WePublicHealth)
Earlier I asked this re acknowledging elders and traditional owners

Classified as: reflective journal - advocacy

This tweet today from Aaron Hollins as @WePublicHealth inspired this post.

It's a relevant question for organisations and individuals. Some make an acknowledgement before formal events, some don't. I like to make an acknowledgement, and as a non-Indigenous person I've consulted with Indigenous colleagues on this. They seem to suggest it is good to do this if you genuinely want to do it (otherwise I guess it can become tokenism).

My belief is that non-Indigenous people in this country owe everything we have to Indigenous people and we should be glad to acknowledge it. This is illustrated most starkly by the fact that in the nineteenth century, the Indigenous population died at pretty much the same rate as the white population increased, as shown in the graph below.

The Indigenous population didn't start to grow again until the early twentieth century and even then they faced (and still face) the consequences of dispossession and institutionalised racism. The people's health has still not recovered fully, though hopefully it will continue to do so.

The Aboriginal people were the guardians of this land for thousands of years. Historical and archeological records tell us that they managed it in a sustainable way: they cared for the land and they shared what it gave them. William Thomas, the original so-called "Protector of Aborigines" (who could not and did not protect them, even though he came to partially understand and respect their way of life) wrote that amongst the Bunurong people, in contrast to Europeans:

" ... none lacketh while others have it, nor is the gift considered as a favour, but a right brought to the needy ..."

Non-Indigenous people owe all our prosperity to these custodians of the land, and our prosperity came at great cost to them. Potentially it will also be at great cost to the land and all of us, if we don't start to live more sustainability.

I think we non-Indigenous people can learn a huge amount from Indigenous people, and we should proud to acknowledge what we owe them and what we can learn from them, whenever we have the opportunity to do so.


The graph was drawn by me, using data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics
Main historical references are:
Papers of William Thomas in the La Trobe Library Collection
Gammadge, Bill The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia 2011

Historical – Bunurong and Waworong people

They hold that the bush and all it contains are man’s general property, that private property is only what utensils are carried in the bag, and this general claim to nature’s bounty extends even to the success of the day; hence at the close, those who have been successful divide with those who have not been so. There is no ‘complaining in the streets’ of a native encampment, none lacketh while others have it, nor is the gift considered as a favour, but a right brought to the needy, and thrown down at his feet.

(William Thomas, Protector of Aborigines, Victoria, 1854)

See also ‘The Biggest Estate on Earth’ (Gammadge)



What happened to this way of life?
This story underlies

The health gap

But also

Wealth for invaders

(Australian Bureau of Statistics data)  


Historical – Bunurong and Waworong people

They hold that the bush and all it contains are man’s general property, that private property is only what utensils are carried in the bag, and this general claim to nature’s bounty extends even to the success of the day; hence at the close, those who have been successful divide with those who have not been so. There is no ‘complaining in the streets’ of a native encampment, none lacketh while others have it, nor is the gift considered as a favour, but a right brought to the needy, and thrown down at his feet.

(William Thomas, Protector of Aborigines, Victoria, 1854)

See also ‘The Biggest Estate on Earth’ (Gammadge)


What happened to this way of life?
This story underlies

The health gap

But also

Wealth for invaders

(Australian Bureau of Statistics data)  



Sunday, 27 October 2013

Transitioning from wasters to savers - can we do it?

Simple fresh vegetarian food can be a feast
A third of all the food grown in the world is wasted, according to a new report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

The FAO estimates that this waste is responsible for 3.3 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent which makes it the "third top emitter after U.S.A. and China".

Amazing stuff that  highlights the importance of work that community organisations and groups like SecondBite are doing in saving food.

If you haven't read the earlier case study on Christ Church Community Centre, you can check it out here. It's one example of the good work being done by many community level organisations.

Other interesting initiatives I've found out about through Twitter recently are Remote Indigenous Gardens and Basin View Integrated Garden.

The Remote Indigenous Gardens aim to improve access to fresh fruit and vegetables, which are often hard to obtain and extremely expensive in remote areas. Prior to European invasion, native fruit and vegetables formed the majority of Indigenous people's diets, so it's great to hear about bush tucker, bush medicine and useful plants being grown in gardens like Banatjarl.

Some of the community gardens in this research project also feature Indigenous plants and I plan to highlight them in case studies soon.

The Basin View Integrated Garden is a large sustainable garden design incorporating aquaculture. It looks as if it would be too expensive for most community organisations in its complete form but it is a very interesting concept.

General information about community gardens in Victoria can be found through Cultivating Community or through some local Councils.

(Update 28 October - just want to add that there are now over 400 schools participating in the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Foundation.)

Community gardening and food saving initiatives can be part of a broader move towards community self reliance and resilience, by improving access to fresh food, promoting healthy eating and social justice and inclusion. This also reduces the carbon emissions caused by food waste, food processing and transport (food miles).

In moving towards local self reliance, local communities are inevitably at odds with large scale capitalism. The community movement is essentially about thrift - making the most of limited resources - and sharing, whereas capitalism is about growth and profit - using more resources to produce more things to sell to more people.

Although community gardeners might not think it, they are in competition with capitalist organisations like supermarkets. Inevitably I think this division is going to become more apparent and  the community reliance movement will face opposition. However the movement from a society based on growth (and waste) to a society based on thrift and conservation seems essential if we want to create a fairer and more sustainable society.

Population growth may sustain the growth imperative of capitalism for some time but it is possible that population growth may start to decline globally this century (as it has in wealthy countries). This would depend on many factors particularly increasing access to education and human rights for women in poor countries, better sharing of global resources to reduce poverty and improved access to contraception.

Moving to a stable population and a society of thrift and sharing, rather than competition and growth, requires a huge change in the governance of society at national and international level, including the need to ensure that people still have meaningful participation and employment. While these concerns may seem remote to health promoters and community members working at local level, such people actually have a great deal of knowledge and wisdom to contribute.

I was therefore very pleased to come across the Community Economies Collective recently. The work of the collective aims to:

  • "produce a more inclusive understanding of economy
  • highlight the extent and contribution of hidden and alternative economies
  • theorize economy and community as sites of becoming
  • build sustainable non-capitalist economic alternatives
  • foster ethical economic experimentation
  • engender collaborations between activists, academics and communities".

It is also based on the feminist theory of J K Gibson Graham. I hope to make contact with the collective soon and explore possible links with the work of this research project and the participants in it.

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Bandt opponents shooting themselves in the foot?

In the recent debate over Adam Bandt's tweet:

"Why Tony Abbott's plan means more bushfires for Australia & more pics like this of Sydney ... "

I've seen several people arguing that bushfires in September and October aren't unusual.

For example, helen stream, a commenter at The Conversation, quoted some information, which she said was drawn from contemporary media, showing 14 cases of bushfires in September and October in NSW (full quote at the end of this post). I've seen those figures quoted elsewhere and heard that similar figures were used in News Limited media (although I haven't seen them because I don't usually read those media).

At first I thought well, that's interesting, it must be more common to have bushfires at this time of year than I'd thought (which is presumably what the commenter wanted people to think). Then later, after reading that Environment Minister Greg Hunt  draws his information on bushfires  from Wikipedia, I checked out Wikipedia also.

To cut this long story short, I went back and looked again at Ms stream's figures after reading Wikipedia, and noticed the following pattern:

Decade       Bushfires in September or October in NSW (according to helen stream's figures)
1920-29   1
1930-39    -
1940-49    1
1950-59    1
1960-69    -
1970-79    -
1980-89    1
1990-99    3
2000-09    7

On the face of it, that looks very much like bushfires in Spring in NSW are increasing very rapidly, exactly in line with what one would expect with climate change.  

Now I certainly would not put too much faith in Ms stream's figures, because they are clearly politically motivated (even if they show the opposite of what she wants them to). But it would certainly be interesting if any researchers had the time to follow this up, or have already looked at these figures?

It's also equally interesting that climate change opponents are apparently so desperate that they will use figures that actually undermine their case.

I haven't seen anyone else pointing this out yet, so I thought I'd publish it here for information and comment.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt and several other conservative MPs criticised Mr Bandt for "politicising" the bush fires. Bill Shorten, the ALP Opposition Leader, also backed away from the issue, saying it was not an appropriate time to look at it. Tony Abbott went so far as to say that UN climate chief Christiana Figueres was "talking through her hat" in linking climate change and bushfires.

I'd suggest that conservative politicians should take a good look at the figures that are being used to (supposedly) support their case that there's no link between climate change and bushfires!

Comments and further information are welcome as ever.

From helen stream, commenter at The Conversation, 22 October 2013:

"[OCTOBER 1951
From Sydney Morning Herald 24 October 1951, Page 1 headlines:
Firefighters battled yesterday with more than 100 bushfires near Sydney and in the country. ']
From Sydney Morning Herald 13 October 1948 Page 1
FIGHT FOR HOMES Bushfires At Mt Colah.
From Sydney Morning Herald 8 October 1928, Page 11 headlines:
Fires and Storm 
The city was encircled by bushfires, and many buildings were Unroofed.
North-Western NSW: Bushfires – 01/09/84 deaths – 4
Western Sydney and Central Coast, NSW: 16/10/91 deaths – 2
Hunter Valley, NSW: 01/09/96
Central Coast/Hunter Valley/south coast. 15/08/96
NW NSW : Bush Fire 30/10/01
Sydney, NSW: Bushfires 09/10/02
Northern NSW: Bushfire 27/09/02
Central Coast, QLD/NSW: Bushfires 27/09/02
Cessnock, NSW: Bushfire 19/10/02 deaths – 1
NSW Bushfires 24/09/06 
Bushfires: Sydney and South Coast, NSW 24/09/06 ']"

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Project update - projects addressing environmental sustainability and equity/social inclusion

Participants in the action research project have identified some projects or actions that they feel are promoting both environmental sustainability and equity/social inclusion. These range from a simple action such as one PCP encouraging agencies to inform themselves about the Home Energy Saver Scheme by attending a local forum, right though to a major partnership project involving 14 agencies working with vulnerable clients to increase housing sustainability and reduce energy costs (Pass the Parcel).

I am currently analysing the information I've been given about the projects to identify key characteristics. The table below is my first attempt and will no doubt be worked through and further refined as the project progresses.

This table is based on information that participants gave me about projects, so the characteristics below reflect what different participants saw as significant about the project. This could vary depending on the perspective of the person talking - for instance a local Elder might highlight different characteristics of a project than a Council or PCP officer, for example. Again the information will be further developed and analysed as the project progresses.

All of the projects aimed to promote health and wellbeing. This is central to the work of the agencies and community groups represented in this research project so I have not included this information in the table below.

Some of the most common characteristics of the projects are:  promoting social inclusion, for example by building community, reducing isolation, improving access to services or reducing living costs for low income groups (19 projects) building capacity, for example through developing skills and knowledge of agency staff or community members (12 projects), reducing energy costs and increasing housing sustainability (8 projects), increasing access to food, especially fresh and locally grown food, and reducing food waste (7 projects) and increasing access to nature, largely through community gardens (6 projects). (There is of course considerable overlap between the latter two).

Four projects also had a specific Indigenous component, for example through the participation of Indigenous community members and through aiming to increase awareness of Indigenous culture.

This table is a work in progress and may not reflect the final classifications of the projects. I will be inviting research participants to comment on this draft as part of the action research.

I have looked at projects promoting adaptation separately and will include some information about them later but it is worth noting that there is considerable overlap in practice between the concepts of adaptation, resilience, climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability (the term I usually use in this project).

From a sustainability perspective, a gap in this work is that it is not addressing the activities of the wealthier people (and businesses) who create more carbon emissions. The people these projects are aiming to assist are often those who will be a most at risk from climate change, but they are not the people who are most responsible for creating it.

PCPs, and health and community agencies generally, often focus their work on those who are affected by health inequities. However, as identified in the first stage of this project, there is also a need for action and advocacy to those more powerful groups who are creating the social and environmental inequities that underly the health inequities.

Projects promoting environmental sustainability and equity/social inclusion - some key characteristics (draft only)