Engaging the "sustainability conversation"

I've been involved in sustainability related topics since the mid-90s. Back then, local governments were wary of "sustainability" – the "3-legged stool" of economy, social, and environment was threatening to the "old business as usual" approach. Only a few organizations – one of them was the Real Estate Foundation of BC – seemed to understand that talking about sustainability was a way to get past ideological growth vs. no-growth polarizations.

We've come a long way

Sustainability isn't a dirty word anymore. Asking questions about growth, where and how it happens, whether or not it's sustainable – these are now part of what most politicians, civic staff, citizens, and even developers see as due diligence.

On the road to the "mainstreaming" of sustainability, however, we seem to have lost some of our passion for public meetings on the topic. Last year, for example, my once highly-charged, highly-participatory community by and large failed to get excited by a region-wide sustainability strategy process.

Apathy and its discontents

Do we fail to fill the halls because of process burnout? Or process suspicion – "they" never follow through on what we've wanted in the past, why should I participate now? Or is it because things like "sustainability" and "regional growth strategy" are just too vague, too far removed from the everyday issues most of us are dealing with?

I'm not sure. But, as one of my mentors used to say, "Local government is the 'hell's kitchen of sustainability." Engagement with local processes is how we do real work around sustainability. It's how we protect our investments in our families, homes, neighbourhoods, and communities. We can't afford to stay away from the kitchen, no matter how hot the fire, for a number of reasons:

• because we the citizens are footing the bill for expensive planning processes;
• because we the citizens as taxpayers deserve better results than we're getting;
• because, if we don't get better results, we the citizens (as taxpayers) will be footing expensive bills for failing infrastructure, for inadequately preparing our communities for the impact of climate change preparation; and, finally,
• because – as homeowners – if we don't engage meaningfully, we aren't protecting our investments in our homes and properties.

You can't spin authenticity

That said, I don't see any quick fixes on the road to civic participation. Open houses, public meetings – I'm not the only person they fail to engage. But I don't think we should stop using them. Face to face, real-space contact is important. But as recent case study work for the Real Estate Foundation of BC is showing, there are many ways to engage people when it comes to planning the future of our communities.

One of these ways is via new technologies and media. When these are applied to civic engagement they tend to be labelled as GOV2.0 or OPENGOV. Across the globe there are exciting examples of governments are using new technologies to share information and, generally, make real-time conversations between government and citizens possible. But they aren't a silver bullet. As far as I can see, there is no short cut to animating people and getting good information and ideas into the flow of governance and decision-making. Whatever we do, it'll take time – and "authentic" investment in trust-building.

This means that local governments can't expect miracles from either a consultant or a sexy new technology. No consultant can use social media to deliver engagement if local government isn't committed to being honest, open, and "authentic" online. You can't – as one of my communications mentors puts it – "spin" authenticity.

When it's real... it's about leadership, not technology

I work with local government on an ad hoc, as-needed basis to provide various communications related services. I'm watching examples of GOV2.0 grow and change in a host of places across the globe. What am I learning? That GOV2.0 isn't just about using social media. And it certainly isn't about having a consultant drop in and set up online presence for 3-12 months.

GOV2.0 – where it's real and working – is about civic leadership. It's about chutzpah and starting real conversations in a variety of places. It could be through a regular column in the local newspaper. Or a regular blog online. Or a regular online video on YouTube. Or a regular podcast.

Regular. Consistent. Every week, or every month. In a space that encourages (ie. makes it super easy) for we the citizens to comment and respond. And (this is critical), responsiveness. To respond to every (every!) comment. Promptly. As in, Now.

What if local government isn't taking the great leap forward?

If your local leaders aren't stepping into the risky business of authentic engagement there is still a lot that citizens can do to generate the needed conversations about sustainability in community. The regional sustainability strategy (rss) in my area is an example. It may not work in all communities; in our region it generated an informing parallel conversation to the rss. More than that, it's continuing to stimulate conversations about sustainability months after the official process finished. We now have a number of lively conversations about buildings, land use, conservation, transportation, and the future taking place across a variety of (mostly Facebook) sites.

Meet people where they are. Speak with your own voice.

Are more people going to turn up for public meetings related to sustainability in the Comox Valley because of this? I don't know. Conversations take place in different venues, through different media. Some take place in open houses. Many take place via letters to the editor in the local paper. Growing numbers are online. The beauty of online venues is the opportunity for authentic, direct conversations that aren't heavily structured or mediated, and that can't be "managed."

Civic engagement is the blood that flows through the veins of our governance structures. If we're serious about meeting sustainability challenges, we need healthy flow. Local governments can help by using a range of media to talk about changes in the community, about possible responses, and about policy directions. If people are not coming to meetings, don't expect them to come to meetings. If they're talking about sustainability online, join the conversation online.

Yes, this is risky. But the return on investment of honest, open engagement is proving to be high in jurisdictions that are taking the risk. Which is why local government needs to be doing it's own social engagement. Sure, hire someone to help walk you through the process, maybe even to kick things off. But in the end, high visabilityz folk need to be active (sometimes it's the Mayor, or a Councillor, or a CAO or Director or Planning). Then, when the sustainability roadshow comes to town, the channels are already open and conversation bubbling. There's no trick to it.

...and in the end... stop fretting!

Let's stop fretting about empty chairs at public meetings. Instead, let's get active in other ways of engagement, from local newspaper columns to cable TV columns to the wide and expanding options online. If local government isn't picking up the GOV2.0 ball, lets create our own channels and invite them in. I like what people like Councillor Michele Rule in Kelowna, Arjun Singh in Kamloops, Naomi Devine in Whistler (to name a few) are doing online and in real-space. Take a look at their various channels.

Be inspired, not disappointed. We have new tools. People are making them work in lots of places. And they're fun to use!

hanspetermeyer

Editor, CITinfoResource

Related articles

• The Challenge of Gaining Ground: Bringing the Resilient Cities Conversation Home (development-issues.com)
• Letter to Mark Holland: Sustainability and Vancouver Island communities (CITinfoResource.com)
• Tim Pringle talks about "performance" and "prescriptive" approaches to land use and development (CITinfoResource.com)