Large, time-locked physical assemblies don't seem to be the proper setting for building ideas, knowledge or action plans in the collective sense that I believe is called for in our present and highly exigent circumstances. (Moreover, given today's communications infrastructure, their present organization of time, money and human resources is little less than absurd.) But there are other ways of bringing people in contact which can help in this respect, and it is that to which the remainder of this note is given over.

3. The New Communications Loop:

For better or worse this is a communications-intensive exercise. The information and communications technologies that we now have at our disposal give us an opportunity to handle some of these issues in some rather different and I believe much more powerful ways. And that, in fact, is what I hope we are now going to be able to accomplish with this little effort over the next two months. What I am proposing here is to build on our own fairly extensive experience in international networking, including via these SOA technologies, in order to put our heads together in an attempt to give some direction and a much higher degree of thoughtfulness and knowledgeability to the follow-up to the Vancouver meeting.

An important axiom of this effort is our shared understanding that none of us has a great deal of time to give to this exercise (not only because it is unpaid and strictly pro bono publico but also because we are all so tied up with other work and concerns). But it is not the quantity of input that is the critical variable in this case, but rather the quality, specifically: (i) the extremely good backgrounds of those who have agreed to participate, (ii) their ability to focus exactly and well on our very specific agenda, (iii) their energy and good will in all this, and (iv) finally the fact that today's communications infrastructure can be put to work quite nicely for these purposes.

The main channels of these communications are to be (a) email and (b) document sharing. For reasons of time, the main means of communications for this short collaborative effort has to be email. (For those who do not have access to this technology (fortunately a fast declining minimum), we shall try to make it possible for them to follow and contribute via fax and mail; however for reasons of time and budget I cannot really anticipate being able to do too much along these lines (bearing in mind that this is a pro bono effort on all our parts).

While many of you are already fully aware of how these are handled, in the next note I try to resume briefly the main lines of what this entails.

4. Conquering The "Brains On The Knee" Syndrome

Here quickly is one classic way in which the brains on the knee syndrome works on the sort of issues which bring us together in this case. To understand it properly we must move outside of the problem set, taking the point of view of the behavioral psychologist or anthropologist (and not that of a political partisan.)

A President or Minister perceives or is instructed that she has a problem. Her greatest concern, truly, is that the problem, whatever it may be, not explode on her watch. (This creates a de facto situation in which temporizing, delay, short term fixes and wall-papering among her main instruments of response. Whatever.) Her next step is to develop a special staff group or commission of some sort, whose job it is to come up with a position paper which will at once make a clear statement of the problem and the eventual trade-offs (though this for sure in language and terms which are seen as non-threatening and fully acceptable to those who are responsible for the whole drill). This document may be the subject of various inputs from staffers, external consultants and more or less numerous consultations with other groups and agencies - all of which however are invariably subjected to an "upward filtering" process which will consistently (or at least with rarest exceptions) filter out all the more radical ideas, on the grounds that they must conform to the 'hidden agenda' of the Minister and others who have taken over the controls of the exercise (this sorting process works implicitly of course). The invariable result: a tame statement of the issues and a greatly reduced solution set - which in the cases that concern us here almost always means the more or less certain elimination of anything of the sort or scale potential that could move policy and practice to sustainability.

Another characteristic of this process is that it is driven by a relatively small number and range of people and interests, irrespective of how it is publicly advertised. The values of the minister and her staff are those which drive the whole process. Those who are consulted, the inputs that are in any event selected for inclusion in the more formal findings or products of the exercise invariably represent not only someone's special agenda but also a very reduced cross-section of the society which they purport to represent. One of the jokes in poorer taste in this respect is the "participation process", which in nine out of ten cases is really a process of managed participation. When people are brought into a public meeting or around a table, that is already the second step. The first is a process of filtration which in most cases involves making sure that the potentially most disruptive elements are somehow eliminated. (Thus, in Vancouver, though this is of course but on example among thousands, there was no attempt to bring into the meeting the various degrees of perhaps sometimes wild and but at least would-be responsible people and local groups who are trying to make sustainable transportation into a reality into their communities. In all such cases, the agenda pushers attempt to eliminate or isolate such influences. We saw this in spades in last year's Women's Conference in China, where the Chinese organizers did everything in their power to keep the citizens groups isolated from the formal meeting. In my view the kinds of "tenting" that we saw in Rio for the NGOs is basically not an attempt to integrate differing views and values, but really to isolate them.)

Once the meeting is called, no matter how large, it then is 'managed', and this management in my view invariably consists of finding ways which in effect have the result of reducing the collective intelligence of the meeting. The reasons given for this purportedly involve protocol, limited time available, etc., but the result is the same. The intelligence of the gathering goes down with the dimming of the lights almost each time a potted presentation is made.

5. Exploiting and Working with Creative Differences:

One of the things I least like about the garden variety physical meeting format is the search for consensus, either through aggressive meeting management or some sort of collective will bending, giving way or just not caring enough to struggle. After decades of this stuff, I have seen that in most cases where the object of debate is more than averagely complex -- say sustainable transportation, just to cite an example that happens to come to mind - this consensus is both premature and, almost always, impoverishing in a number of ways. At this point, what I think we need to be looking for is not only the areas of consensus, which in this group I would anticipate will be expanding, but also our creative differences. It is these which I hope we will keep our eye out for in the weeks immediately ahead - and it is by exploring and developing these that we are most likely going to arrive at our most useful findings and proposals.

In this regards, I thought that you might find some interest in the following remarks which display some of the vitality, concerns and willingness to consider different views and approaches on the part of several who have expressed interest in what we are trying to do here:

• "If you can get 50 people to agree with asking OECD to rethink the nature of its report, I'm happy to be part of the group. My pragmatic/negative side says they won't be able to cope with the request. Perhaps it would be more constructive to stop the next one (before the planning goes too far) and get a grip of the agenda, subject matter, speakers, format etc. By the way, in your talk I think the most important finding is your #2 Reality Check: that by whatever criteria, we are going backwards, and part of the problem is the long time horizon to the environmental and financial costs. I also find your sustainability impact index compelling, and your idea that leaders must demonstrate by example, however 'difficult' this may be. Your phrase 'an insult to the concept that took us to Vancouver' was much better than my description. We had a judge in Australia who wanted a bike instead of a car as part of his remuneration package - the system couldn't handle it! Keep me in touch with the reaction of others."
  Derek Scrafton, Australia

• "There is some truth in your harsh judgment of the conference, although I did certainly get something out of participating. I do agree that another book is not the most needed outcome. I do support the idea of a task force to continue the work on this area. I would certainly be interested in some kind of involvement in further discussions with the OECD or others over how to conclude or rather how to continue the discussion of the "draft principles of sustainable transportation". I do NOT share the view that "principles are unimportant". I do share the view that "sustainable transportation" is a problematic and possibly misleading term. I do not at all find that the draft principles or the debate over them was a waste of time or money, even though I share the view that the principles were too vague and too North American/Automobile biased, compared to what I would like. Moreover, although I do not completely subscribe to the principles in their current form, I will nevertheless help to distribute them (with my own remarks added) exactly as what they were: a platform for further and much needed discussion of sustainability versus transportation trends and policies."
  Henrik Gudmundsson, Denmark

• "I liked your letter. Yes, please register me as a backer. Within the usual limitations of time I want to be fully involved. I am keen on a special issue of WTPP. Let's hope there is a wave of enthusiasm. This could be the first conference that actually triggered a series of shock waves, each bigger than the last one until the point is reached that we get serious international action and change on the ground where it matters at local level. Here's to progress!"
  John Whitelegg, UK

• "Please sign me up. I agree with many of your frustrations about process - I really think the follow-up is where we always fall down. I think we need to think about whether we are going to try to influence the next OECD meeting or not (because I sense will need to start now) - the Round Table had proposed what I thought would be quite an interesting process for the principles which got completely quashed for the more traditional approach we ended up with - I'm not clear whether the real problem was. Anyway, are we gearing up for a separate meeting, or trying to open up/change the style of the next OECD meeting? I'm keen on freight issues which weren't discussed too much in Vancouver, but I think they are an important part of the sustainability challenge (though it does get into sticky questions of trade and consumption etc. that many don't like to talk about). We also have a lot of interested members in our FoE network (54 countries) who are working on transportation issues, so if we want to broaden this group beyond OECD let me know."
  Sandy Scott, USA.

• "Count me in but when it comes to "next steps" I think we are going to need more specifics about how we should be brilliant, responsible, and effective. I was thinking of a few criteria. For example: * turning the perception of policy/planning and action upside-down * sharing real successes and pathways to success, not bar graphs * getting all sorts of people talking to each other -- mixing it up (not segregating) * having a chance to set up better ongoing systems for ongoing communication * having a deadline for some real commitment (conference focus as lobbying deadline people can use locally) * actually setting it up so something gets accomplished at the event * actually setting it up to facilitate things getting accomplished after the event. * generalized and massive cultural change * other? what are they?"
  Sue Zielinski, Canada

• "Please add me to your list of those who feel that more follow-up is needed. I appreciate that you can't say what that follow-up should be, but I personally am busy doing things locally and believe more is accomplished by "acting locally". I would find, therefore, that the best kind of conference follow-up is to get an on-going linkage between those working locally on sustainable transportation projects off the ground. I would recommend that the existing alt-transp mailing list (@flora.ottawa.on.ca -- on majordomo software) should be publicized to your list so that many of these people can become subscribers (there are about 300 world-wide now)."
  Chris Bradshaw, Canada

• "Count me in, and consider this a check in the first box ('I wholly support...). I approach urban transport from the perspective of a resource/land use/transport policy analyst who has a strong belief that transportation system efficiency and cost-effectiveness should be primary goals, e.g. we should not throw scarce public money at alternative urban transport systems just because they seem to some as the right technical fix. Let me know how I might help in the 'cooperative exercise.' "
  Dick Nelson, USA

• "I think that the idea of more follow-up, analysis and action is excellent! However, your cover letter is not very specific. Perhaps you already have some actions in mind. I'd like to hear about them. Comments: I don't think that what is needed is more time for reflection, as suggested in your cover letter. Rather, I think what is needed is a network for implementing the principles, and specifically overcoming the tremendous policy inertia based on decades of using transportation subsidies and underpricing to achieve short term political objectives. These points are implied in the conference principles, but there appears to be no method proposed to apply these concepts in decision making, or even to communicate them to the broader circle of transportation professionals (planners, policy makers, etc.). We also need forums for educating the general public concerning their implications toward transportation decision making. I also recommend the development of a "Sustainable Community Transportation Guidebook" and technical handbooks for accurate transportation economic analysis which incorporates least-cost planning principles and the implications of generated traffic, and specific guidelines for applying TDM."
  Todd Littman, Canada

• "I wholly support your call for a collective rethink of follow- up recommendations for the conference. I am trying to advance a very practical aspect of sustainable transport here in Australia and that is the maintenance of biodiversity on transport corridors and in adjacent ecosystems especially in waterways.. Transport have acquired a huge estate of road / rail/ pipeline/ electricity transmission reserves that contain an assemblage of Australia's flora and fauna. In cleared agricultural areas these remnants are often the only refuges still on public land of Aussie Flora & fauna. The co-operative management program I am promoting through workshops is called the "National Protocol System". Although this may seem strange to you, my view is that transport should make a positive contribution to sustainable development. It cannot make positive contributions sustainable development (maintenance of biodiversity is a prime objective of sustainable development) if the transport agencies are busy wiping out this wonderful resource they did not ask for but got".
  Quentin Farmar-Bowers, Australia

• "I am sympathetic and interested in the issues in your recent communications. To me, there are important tradeoffs to be explored between encouraging mobility and constraining mobility, and knowing more people with the same interests and knowing fewer people more intimately and intensely. The tradeoffs encompass both facts and values. I am not certain that the answer is to give (quoting John Adams) "absolute priority to those forms of land use and modes of transport -- walking, cycling, and local bus service -- that promote a human scale of living," because I am not sure that there is any way to do so beyond the degree to which that priority is already given. Land use and transport modes may not be the best direct leverage points. In other words, the topic of sustainable transportation interests me, and I want to work in it, as I do, but I am cautious about signing on to a program of solutions or even of principles until I know more. I know I support with all my heart the integrated resource planning that Dick Nelson is working on. While I find John Adams ideas very stimulating, I would surely not want to be a promoter of his ideas and values and representations of facts. I had lots of problems with your " Information Society & Sustainable Development Memorandum of Commitment" floating around on email last summer. I am trying to work with well meaning people who are hanging their hats on the idea of "telecommunications as a mode of transportation" but this simple, seemingly useful notion causes all kinds of implementation problems."
  John Niles, USA

All of which should give you a feeling for the fact that rote agreement is not something that is first on the minds of those who have chosen to join this exercise. But the drive to creative interaction and perhaps eventually to some sort of useful consensus and set of action recommendations clearly is.