Australian Climate Movement Skills Audit Findings

by | Oct 10, 2024

Graphic with a dark blue background. Yellow text at the top reads "Climate Movement 2024 Skills Audit". There is a line drawing of a hand placing a vote in a ballot box next to the text. An image below the text shows many climate protesters holding up placards at a protest.

Survey Participants 

The September 2024 Australian climate movement skills audit was a survey designed to assess the skills and training needs of the climate movement. 121 activists participated in the survey, with participants coming from all Australian states and territories, except for the Northern Territory. Survey participants had varying lengths of involvement in the climate movement, ranging from less than a year to over 15 years. The majority of respondents (57%) had been involved from between 2-10 years. When asked about their approach to change, the majority of participants selected lobbying, mobilising, organising, and communications or messaging. Meanwhile, legal interventions and creating alternatives were less common approaches. 

Bar graph showing count of survey responses for approaches to change

Interestingly, there was a high level of participants who held a postgraduate qualification (46%) particularly among those who identified as women (54% of participants who identified as women had a postgraduate degree). This demonstrates a highly educated base of activists and supporters within the climate movement. 

Bar graph showing count of survey responses for highest level of education

Training and Skills

When it came to activist training and education, in the past most participants (70%) had learnt by doing, for example by organising events or other activities. Responses to this question remained relatively similar whether or not the participant was a paid employee within the climate movement or a volunteer. However, volunteers seemed to engage more with guides produced for an action, with 26% of volunteer participants saying that they had used a guide produced for an action or group they were involved in, compared to only 4% of paid climate movement employees who participated in the survey. Interestingly, formal training sessions rated relatively low, with only 21% of the total survey participants choosing this response in their top 3 most frequent ways of learning. 

Bar graph showing count of survey responses for how participants have mostly learnt in the past.

There is an interesting comparison to make between this survey question and a later one. While relatively few respondents selected “formal training sessions” in their responses to their past learning behaviour, later in the survey, participants were then asked to identify which learning formats appealed to them the most. The top responses for preferred learning formats were formal training sessions such as short and medium length workshops. This suggests that while activists favour these formal training options, they have not been regularly accessing these opportunities. This may mean that there is space to improve and increase the availability of formal training opportunities for activists. However, it also means that addressing ongoing barriers to participation in formal training is vital. These barriers will be discussed further below. 

In terms of preferred learning formats, options that required self-direction, such as following a guide, receiving a series of emails, or finding relevant resources online tended to be less popular. While a study group was not a highly popular option among all participants (25%), this option did perform slightly better with those who identified as women (43% of women), demonstrating that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to learning and skill development.  

Bar graph showing count of survey responses for preferred learning formats

Survey participants were asked to rate their own competency levels across a variety of topic areas. These ranged from knowing your issue, social action skills, strategy, solidarity and justice, communications, digital skills, working with others, management, capacity building, and wellbeing. Participants could choose between rankings including: Beginner, Developing, Competent, Advanced, and Expert. There was also a “Not Applicable” option for any skills that the participant did not feel were relevant to them. The graph below demonstrates the average rankings participants applied to themselves across all topic areas. It suggests that the movement has higher levels of competency in computer skills, team building, collective care, and time management. However, there are lower levels of self-reported competency in non-violent direct action, lobbying, disability justice, website and graphic design. 

Bar graph showing the average competency of survey respondents across a range of skills.

Skills such as website and graphic design could be considered specialist skills, which may not be relevant to all members of the movement. However, the survey results suggest that more work needs to be done to improve climate activists’ confidence in key areas such as lobbying, media liaison, building coalitions, strategy development, and climate justice (including disability, LGBTQI, First Nations and racial justice). 

Strategy development in particular was identified by survey participants as a priority area for development. While there were lower levels of competency for non-violent direct action, survey participants did not identify this as a priority area of development. This suggests that among those activists surveyed, NVDA is not considered an essential skill. 

Bar graph showing count of survey responses for priority areas for development.

When asked how often they would like to attend trainings, by far the most popular response was “several times per year”. However, when asked to choose a preference between in person or online trainings, participants did not come down strongly on either side, with the highest number of respondents selecting “either”. When asked to explain their choice, some activists indicated that while there was a benefit to the embodied nature of in person training, online options could be preferable due to accessibility requirements. For some, this meant that having hybrid options was ideal, allowing them to participate in person if possible, or move online if health, caring or travel considerations applied. 

Responses varied when it came to distances activists were willing to travel for training (less than an hour, 1-2 hours, interstate or overseas). This may be indicative of the fact that activists are willing to travel different distances depending on the type of training opportunity provided. Similarly, the majority of activists indicated that they could “sometimes” cover the costs of their own travel for trainings, suggesting that much depends on what these costs are and the relative pay-off of attending the training. 

On the whole, activists did not seem to mind learning in mixed groups, with people from across the climate movement and other social movements. However, 57% of activists who identified as people of colour or First Nations indicated that they would prefer to learn in a “People of Colour only group”, and 100% of participants who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander indicated that they would prefer to learn in a “First Nations only group” (of only 4 participants who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander). Meanwhile, only 13% of participants who identified as a woman or non-binary said that they would prefer to learn in a “women and non-binary only group”. This data demonstrates the importance of creating racially and culturally safe spaces for people of colour and First Nations activists to learn from each other. 

Bar graph showing count of survey responses for who participants prefer to learn with and from

This is particularly important because while 52% of survey participants identified that they had experienced barriers to learning in the climate movement, the number for participants who identified as people of colour or First Nations was much higher, at 77%. While many of the barriers identified were general barriers around cost and time, some talked about “lack of safety”, “whiteness and privilege” and “racism and NGO burnout culture”. When asked what would make trainings more accessible in the future, some of the suggestions from these participants were sharing of climate funds into First Nations led organisations and having “hard line rules and repercussions towards people who are racist”. 

Pie graph showing the count of survey responses to question "have you experienced any barriers to learning in the climate movement?". Responses are divided between "yes" and "no".

Other general ideas for making training more accessible among all survey participants included issues around cost, travel and online availability. Participants particularly talked about making training more available to regional and remote areas, either through local offerings, online options or subsidising the cost of travel. 

 

Training providers 

During the survey participants were asked if they had accessed training in the past that they found particularly useful or had any recommendations of training providers for the climate movement. There was a wide range of responses given, demonstrating the breadth of training that has been on offer to staff and volunteers in the climate movement. Some of the most popular organisations and training providers mentioned were:

  • Australian Progress
  • Australian Youth Climate Coalition 
  • Community Organising Fellowship 
  • Climate Action Network Australia
  • Extinction Rebellion 
  • Women’s Environmental Leadership Australia
  • Australian Conservation Foundation 
  • GetUp
  • Climate Reality
  • Climate Media Centre

Other groups and organisations that participants mentioned were: 

  • 350.org
  • 3CR (for example, trainings on media law and radio)
  • ACTU (Advanced Grassroots Campaign Program)
  • ActUp (Legals)
  • Al Gore (Climate Reality training) 
  • ANU (Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions)
  • APA Fellowship
  • Australian Energy Market Operator (short course on energy essentials)
  • Australian Institute of Company Directors
  • Australian Rural Leadership Foundation (Leading Australian Resilient Communities)
  • Ayni Institute (Seasons of Leadership)
  • Beyond Coal and Gas Jamboree
  • Billions Institute (Skid Row School) 
  • Climate for Change
  • Climatebase Fellowship
  • Common Cause (Communications Masterclass) 
  • Common Ground (venue)
  • Commons Social Change Library
  • Disrupt Burrup Hub (NVDA training)
  • Dragon Dreaming
  • Electrify Everything
  • Environment Victoria
  • Firesticks
  • Friends of the Earth (Community action training) 
  • Frontline Action on Coal
  • Global Compassion Coalition
  • Grassroots Climate Movement National Gathering
  • Greenpeace
  • Greens
  • Groupwork
  • Huddle
  • Hunter Community Alliance
  • IAP2 (Certificate of Engagement)
  • Kind Enterprises
  • Lock the Gate Alliance
  • Midwest Academy
  • Momentum (Organising training) 
  • Move Beyond Coal/ Stop Adani
  • Newkind
  • OrganiseUs
  • Parents for Climate
  • PowerLabs (Nerdy Movement School)
  • Psychology for a Safe Climate (Climate Aware Practitioner training)
  • Rising Tide
  • School Strike 4 Climate
  • Smart Energy Conference
  • Students of Sustainability Conference
  • Systems Change 101
  • Tasmanian Climate Collective
  • The Growth Collective (Leadership fundamentals training)
  • UNESCO
  • Youth Verdict

Participants also recommended various individuals who had provided training and mentorship: 

  • David McEwen (Parents for Climate)
  • Holly Hammond and Karrina Nolan
  • Huong Troung
  • James Vosper
  • Laura Kelly
  • Mary Heath (Rising Tide)
  • Mike Cannon-Brookes
  • Roger Hallam (podcasts, particularly “Hobbit Lawyers Go To Mordor”)
  • Saul Griffiths
  • Shaun Murray and Naomi Hodgson
  • Te Raukura

Conclusion

Overall, the survey results represent a movement with diverse skills and experiences. Individuals ranked themselves as having different levels of competency across the topic areas, ranging from “expert” to “beginner”. While one participant may have ranked themself as a “beginner” at social media posting and an “expert” at political analysis, another may have ranked themself as an “expert” in understanding climate justice and intersectionality and “competent” at campaigning. While this is self-reported data, it offers a positive indication that staff and volunteers across the Australian climate movement have varied knowledge and capabilities to share. The important step now is ensuring that effective processes and systems are in place to share these skills between individuals and groups in the movement. 

There is room to improve overall confidence across core skills such as strategy development, lobbying, media liaison, justice and building coalitions. Meanwhile, there is a clear appetite within the movement for skills development, with 89% of individuals surveyed saying that they were interested in further developing their skills for climate activism. However, some of the core barriers that have prevented activists from drawing on existing training have included issues of time, cost, travel, accessibility and racism. Future planning for training should attempt to reduce these barriers. In particular, offering hybrid options and subsidising travel for remote and regional activists could support activists to take up training opportunities. Additionally, providing people of colour and First Nations only training spaces is important. A thriving social movement needs a variety of skills and experiences among its members, investing more in training and skills development is an important way of building power in the Australian climate movement.