BACKGROUND

About five years ago I met Barry and Pam at the Atlantic Wildlife Institute, which is located about 15 KM outside of Sackville on a large property bordering the headwaters of the Tantramar River. At the time, AWI consisted of about a dozen buildings, each designed for a specific type of animal care.

The Institute takes in wildlife in the same way that a researcher would take air or water samples. Each animal tells a story and through hands-on care and possible release, we can learn about the causes of displacement, most of which are due to human actions. However, caring for animals is not enough. What is learned has to be passed on to others, so that the entire community can work to maintain the diversity of species necessary for life. There’s more information on the AWI website. Too often, environmental knowledge gets passed on only to those who are already committed, so AWI also reaches out through programs such as youth at risk. AWI is really about learning.

OUR FIRST MAJOR PROJECT

In order to create a focal point for learning activities, we decided to build a learning centre a few years ago. It would be slightly removed from the wildlife care facilities, so that the animals would not be bothered (AWI is not a zoo). We were able to build the Wildlife Learning Centre, at a cost of almost $400,000 through the support our many partners. This project showed us what we could do by working in collaboration with government, the private sector, academia, and the community.

The success of this project started several conversations. For example, we knew that with the limited staff that we had, we could not get our message out to everyone. We also wanted to start a network that would help to get science-based practices out to everyone who might come into contact with wildlife, ranging from the general public to veterinarians. For instance, many of the animals that arrive at AWI should never have been disturbed in the first place.

We wanted to build a more public office that would connect with the community and act as a node in the embryonic network. The idea was to create an environmental services centre in Sackville, which was already home to the Canadian Wildlife Service, Bird Studies Canada and other environmental groups. In 2005 we started talking to community groups and interested individuals and from these conversations our idea grew.

Almost every group that we met with had the same issue. They all needed space to do their work or to operate their programs. Few had dedicated buildings and they were constantly looking for low-cost locations. Many were operated out of someone’s house. The problem was that most lacked the consistent funds to pay rent on a long-term basis.

A COMMONS

It was at this time that I became interested in the notion of the “Work Commons” and watched with interest as Rob, Dan, and Cynthia created the Queen Street Commons in Charlottetown. I saw how individuals could purchase memberships for $35 a month and that with sufficient members, a work commons would be financially sustainable. Why not merge the idea of a work commons with an environmental centre, based on some form of cooperative? From this idea we progressed to the concept of three pillars (environmental, cultural, entrepreneurial), reflecting the makeup of our community.

With this concept, we were able to get a business plan funded by our Town Council and generate more support from businesses and organisations. As of today, we are in the process of securing a piece of property thanks to the generosity of Irving Oil.

There is a real need for physical space in our community. Non-profit organisation need a place to work and meet but cannot afford a dedicated space. The Commons will allow several non-profits to share office space. Home-based business need a place to meet with other people, or host meetings. Our Commons will be a place for the community to build; a gathering place for emerging businesses to form partnerships & friendships, and an appealing setting to think and interact with other creative people.

A COMMON POINT FOR STAFFING

I believe that a Commons would be a valuable addition to any community. It would be the place to build our own sense of community, something that has been lacking in many of our industrial age towns and cities. A common venue could also help with that other component that is missing from most non-profits: core funding.

Any non-profit organisation in this country will tell you that funding for administration and overhead is almost impossible to secure. You can get program funding or infrastructure funding but no money for administration or day-to-day operations. However, if you have a Commons, you now have the common physical space to share staff. One person can work for several non-profits. Instead of going after small pockets of funds, non-profits located in a commons can collaborate and seek funding together, because they now have a single physical address.

The path appears to be one of first providing valued programs and services, followed by collaboration and network building. Then you build physical infrastructure so that you can cooperate even more and grow your services. So far, we have been successful on this journey and I look forward to eventually breaking ground. Thanks to everyone who is working to make it happen.

In recent discussions about building new businesses or community economic development projects I’m beginning to feel that the largest obstacles to effective communication are the outdated models that we use.

Given the dominance of the corporate governance model in business, government and non-profit organisations, it’s no wonder that many of us don’t see any other options.

For instance, last night our local chamber of commerce was briefed on the NB Self-sufficiency Task Force. We heard about the need to create 70,000 jobs and that it’s not a question of big business versus small business, but export versus services. According to the logic, exporting companies bring in wealth while support companies just shift money around inside the province. We need more export companies to be self-sufficient, and we need more large companies to create jobs, and of course we need more people due to our aging demographics (more retired people than younger taxpayers). Framed in this way, it’s hard to argue with this logic.

However, it’s like Marshall McLuhan said, “We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future”. My readings and conversations over the past few years give me cause to question the line of reasoning from the task force and other policy influencers.

For instance, Thomas Homer-Dixon proposes that we build more resilient communities that can take care of themselves when our tightly-coupled global supply chain cracks as the result of some highly probable event such as an oil crisis, an environmental disaster or a pandemic. An export orientation won’t help if global shipping is significantly reduced for six months, but local greenhouses would make us more resilient.

Yochai Benkler shows how the Internet and open source development are enabling the social production of knowledge. According to Nine Shift, creating knowledge is the fastest growing segment of our economy, as manufacturing jobs continue to decrease. Dan Pink sees the rise of a free-agent nation and surmises that creativity is more important for economic success than industrial style productivity. Jon Husband sums up this change, from hierarchy to wirearchy :

Wirearchy – a dynamic flow of power and authority, based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology.

The corporation is a model developed for the industrial age, using command and control systems. It enabled the dominance of the salaried employee as the primary means for most people to generate wealth. However, the Industrial Age will be over in North America and Europe by 2020. All data and trends indicate a rapid decrease in the importance of the manufacturing sector, our primary vehicle of economic development for the past century.

At the same time, we are facing complex challenges to our civilization that cannot be addressed by linear or command and control solutions. Unfortunately, our organisations are ill-equipped to deal with these complex issues. Complex environments are unpredictible, whereas our institutions are based on predictibility. Take for instance government budgets, corporate quarterly growth expectations or educational curricula that are slow to change and assume the same standard for everyone.

Basically, we have the wrong models and inadequate tools to even begin to address our most pressing issues. Our problem is that we cannot even talk about our problems. Reframing the conversation may be our biggest challenge for the short term so that we, as a society, can start to think about the long term.

This is the final reminder to join us in Saint John this Tuesday, March 20th, for a free workshop on Value Networks (explained here). I can assure you that those in attendance will be more animated than the locals shown in this photo ;-)

Photo by Josh Bousel.