In this post I'm going to summarize some (if not all) of the points that were raised about the resiliency plan framework at our meeting (in London, Ontario) on Tuesday. Those of you who were there may want to add to this, or you may want to correct me. I'm doing this from memory (despite how my head was somewhat foggy because of a cold; and I was twenty minutes late that day).

---

As in the past, there was discussion about how the resiliency plan differs from the city government disaster plans, which focus on keeping city government services going, above all else -- without directly focusing on keeping people warm, and so on.

There was a lot of discussion about the extent to which implementing this framework would involve focusing on crises on the horizon. I don't think anyone suggested that we shouldn't expect such crises; instead, people were questioning the extent to which such a message should be presented during the resiliency organizing efforts (and during anything that Post-Carbon London does, for that matter). There was concern that a message about the danger of crises will cause people to tune us out because such a message is a long way from the point of view of many people around here. Yet, in the resiliency organizing there's also a major networking side to the project -- as opposed to the crisis plans and the crisis messages -- since resiliency planning involves gathering contacts and information, as well as approaching groups with presentations, and approaching the groups to plan together. Overall, such networking seemed to be more of interest for people at the meeting, who wanted to focus less on the crisis side of the resiliency organizing. But no one seemed to want to abandon the resiliency framework, despite how it has a major crisis component; the discussion about all of this basically was about where to place our focus. The person who was the most vocal in expressing concerns about a crisis message said that crisis preparation should be mentioned in presentations about the resiliency project; thus, the crisis side of it wouldn't be swept under the rug -- which would be a bad idea, given that people outside of the Post-Carbon group may then notice it in the resiliency framework on their own.

A point was made about how the crisis side of the project could become more and more of a focus as problems (e.g. economic recession or depression) mount. A joke was made about how there would be "popular demand" for such a crisis focus.

There was discussion about how the framework can't actually be implemented in a linear step-by-step way, as certain steps (e.g. #2) wouldn't ever be finished, and there would be some movement up and down the list. People who spoke about that seemed to think that moving back and forth between the points in that way is the only approach that makes sense.

Regarding 'step' 9 -
"When shortages develop and the economy comes unhinged, work with contributing groups and local officials to implement the plan"...
There was a comment (which also was made at the general meeting) about how we aren't so much preparing for temporary crises (like the ones that the city disaster plan is set up to address). Instead, it's a long-term situation that we'll be trying to deal with. (I'll come back to this.)

Questions also were raised about the sort of crises that we would be trying to prepare for. What types of crises would those be? What might they be like? We didn't get into specifics.

There was discussion about the extent to which this resiliency organizing will be what the Post-Carbon group will do from now on. This question basically was unresolved, but it is clear that there will be more to the group -- beyond resiliency organizing. However, a general meeting -- as opposed to a resiliency planning meeting -- would be a much more appropriate place to sort this out. And the extent to which this resiliency organizing is a focus will depend on how much people contribute to it, as opposed to other projects. At this point it isn't clear who will be committed to what. The pace at which the resiliency organizing would occur also isn't clear.

People were questioning whether this project would be too big for the Post-Carbon to take on. Yet, there also was talk about how this resiliency organizing could be picked away at incrementally (either more quickly or more slowly). And there was discussion about how groups and organizations outside of Post-Carbon London may contribute to the plan (e.g. by sending information) more out of self-interest (e.g. to promote a farm business), or to fulfill a particular mandate (e.g. promoting local food security); hence, the resiliency project could take on a life of its own, to extent, beyond what's done to develop it on Post-Carbon London. More than once, someone suggested that the project could remain active without any of us who are part of it right now.

One person was questioning the extent to which the resiliency organizing would involve repeated meetings rather than other forms of action.

Questions were raised about how city officials would react to this resiliency project, and about how we would approach them about it. While we have discussed how there are differences between the resiliency framework approach and the perspective of city officials, one person at the meeting -- who has repeatedly had contact with the local government during Post-Carbon initiatives -- expressed optimism about the potential for dialogue with politicians and others in the municipal government. Someone else at the meeting commented on how they would have to learn how to contact these people given that they have not done so in the past.

People looked to Selena to prepare a presentation we could use to approach people about the resiliency project given how she has already done some presentation work.

There was discussion about the extent to which approaching other groups and organizations will consist of educating them (i.e. trying to sway them?) rather than just giving a sort of overview of the resiliency framework and Post-Carbon London. There seemed to be some disagreement about the potential for bringing outside groups and organizations on board without efforts to bridge gaps of understanding or perspective. One person suggested that education wouldn't be a major part of the resiliency organizing, yet a couple of people commented on how out of synch Post-Carbon London is with many other groups and organizations (but certainly not all other groups and organizations) in terms of our perspective. (This relates to the talk about concerns about crises.) Yet, potential compatibilities were noted at times (e.g. local farmer focuses on local food) .

Our involvement the Relocalization Network in general was contrasted with organizing in this more structured resiliency project. There was talk about how, for this group, the Relocalization site has been a place for open-ended possibilities -- as opposed to more structured projects. At least two people people indicated that they saw the resiliency project as somewhat top-down, or even bureaucratic -- in part, because it involves trying to work with city officials. Yet, as I've indicated here, and as I will indicate further below, there also was discussion about how the resiliency organizing is very bottom up -- in some ways at least -- as people outside of Post-Carbon London may use it in their own ways, and they may help to build it (possibly to fulfill an organizational mandate -- as noted).

To return to the Relocalization Network, there was talk about how this resource barely has been used, and about how the site in general has involved a lot of talk that has little direct connection to actions. A couple of comments were made about how we could start to use it more -- either through group decisions and efforts, or through individuals finding their own ways to use it, since the site is a very open-ended tool.

People talked about how the resiliency framework might work once some of it has been put in place. One the one hand, someone talked about how it would operate in an ongoing way -- rather than in discrete crises; groups and individuals could continuously use it (to contact one another, for instance); it wouldn't be confined to temporary crises. A somewhat different but somewhat similar point of view was that the resiliency project would operate in spurts: At one point someone from a certain group may decide to contact others in the resiliency documents, and then, for a time, there may be dialogue between them about a certain project or issue; other such spurts would happen here and there. (The person talking about this made an analogy with connections between brain synapses.)
It seemed to me that people were stressing how we would be facilitating communication between various groups and people through the resiliency project.

There was talk about how others from outside of the Post-Carbon group could independently go to the resiliency documents and use them for themselves (to connect with farmers, for instance).

A point was made about how London is an enormous place -- with hundreds of thousands of people -- rather than an actual community. (This was pointed out the general meeting as well.) Yet, as was said, this city is what we'll be working with.

---

To all of that I'll add that at the general meeting about a week and a half ago there was some interest in trying to link the resiliency organizing (and other Post-Carbon efforts) to particular areas of the city (e.g. specific neighbourhoods) in some way. At the time I was thinking about how lists of groups might be divided up by area of the city, but I don't think I said anything to that effect.

---

(Of course, that summary probably reflects my own point of view in certain respects. I haven't made a deliberate effort to try to put my own spin on it, but I do have various opinions on all of this. For instance, as I read it over, it looks like my own view that the resiliency project isn't too big for this group to take on came across when I commented on that part of the meeting. Basically my own commentary is mixed in with basic summary. The commentary generally is a summary of what was said, but there isn't a clear separation between my own voice and that of others.)