"Diversity grows resilience": Lessons from Groundswell for climate communicators

Throughout the festival, there was a productive tension between pragmatism and bold vision that felt familiar from our recent explorations of climate messaging.

During one session, one of my favourite current sources of inspiration – author Rob Hopkins – called for us to “Fall in love with the future’, and issued a challenge: “the last thing the world needs is another generation of pragmatists. Be bold, be audacious.”

The vision-creating themes could have come straight from the “Has the climate emergency failed?” SXSW London debate earlier this year.

This tension between practical, incremental change and transformational thinking runs through so much of our work with clients in the climate and nature space. How do you communicate urgent action while also painting a picture of something people actually want to move towards? How do you balance the reality of economic pressures with the need for system change?

The food and farming community at Groundswell seemed to be wrestling with these questions in every session. Lots of hope, vision and potential, but as one audience member speaking about Canterbury’s The Good Shed farmers market put it: “If you’re not profitable you’re not sustainable.”

A brutal economic reality that sits alongside the pressing need for regenerative practices that can help address climate and biodiversity crises.

One of the brilliant things about Groundswell was the diversity in the attendees, the openness to thoughts, challenges and perspectives, and not shying away from interconnections and trade-offs.

As regenerative farming guru Gabe Brown put it “diversity grows resiliency.” This is as true on a farm, as in an organisation or movement.

And as is often the case, some of most important lesson for communicators came from discussions about who isn’t in the room, and speakers were honest about the challenge of reaching beyond this space.

One grounding moment came during Professor Lang’s  Food system shocks: what’s needed for civil food resilience session, when an audience member highlighted that the poorest fifth of UK households, need to spend 40-50% of their disposable income on food to afford the EatWell plate.

This reality check a reminder that nature and climate communication must grapple with social justice. You can’t separate environmental challenges from issues of access, affordability, and equity. One of many, many conversational paths that led back to policymakers and systemic change. 

This echoes themes from our recent London Climate Action Week insights on moving beyond echo chambers. As we explored then, the most effective nature communication happens when we centre voices and knowledge that are often marginalised.

I’ve been getting more interested in nature, hope and longing, and the way that nature can be a jumping off point to paint “something delicious to run towards.” (Hopkins again!)

But food too – we all need to eat, and given the chance, we want to eat well.

How can we work together to connect the dots of our meals with wider public and policymaker engagement systemic change. As Forefront Advisor’s Dustin Benton put it during A land use framework: powering the change in farming and nature?: “The food security of the future, is climate and nature security”.

This insight feels crucial for nature communication. If we can help people envision the sensory experience of their future food, farms, thriving ecosystems, and the communities that depend on them, we can move a step closer to widespread support for change.

Reflecting on Groundswell, several insights feel particularly relevant for our work with nature and climate clients:

Embrace complexity: The conversations that energised people most were those that didn’t shy away from interconnections and trade-offs. Nature communication that acknowledges complexity while still providing clear actions feels more honest and ultimately more compelling.

Centre community resilience: The most powerful sessions connected environmental challenges to community wellbeing, local food systems, and social infrastructure. This suggests opportunities for nature organisations to frame their work in terms of building resilient communities.

Bridge pragmatism and vision: Rather than choosing between practical incremental change and transformational vision, the most effective communicators found ways to hold both—showing how small changes contribute to bigger shifts.

Diversify voices and knowledge systems: The strength of Groundswell came from bringing together different types of expertise. For nature communication, this means actively seeking out farmers, land managers, indigenous knowledge holders, and community leaders alongside scientists and conservationists.