Towards Nonviolence in Ravenshoe: Part 2

Ed Note: In the theoretical sense, a nonviolent campaign should include
research, education, negotiation, preparation for direct action and direct
action.  This article is focussed on the first three and can potentially
eliminate the need for the last two.

Since the last article in NvT, which described Ravenshoe, the potential
conflict around Tully-Millstream Hydro-Electricity project, and efforts to
get a conflict-resolution group together in the local district... we have
made some significant progress.

Personal Preparation
Our group achieved a level of cohesion and trust which left us feeling as if
"meetings" were really "family gatherings".  There were heaps of good vibes
and mutual support.

One tool we found for ourselves along this path came from a very artistic
group member who didn't feel comfortable with 'objective' studies,
traditional meetings, or continuous task orientation.  She wanted to engage
in lateral and creative thinking, and robbed us all of ideas to create a
fantasy role-playing game that included all the elements of life in
Ravenshoe.  Our lives, animals, plants, children, 'friend' and 'foe'.

Everyone participated in making the game a reality.  We took on a role or
persona by random allocation, and free-associated...giving each other
challenges, writing poetry, telling stories, making props, living fantasies. 
We all played together one evening, after a hard week's work conducting our
survey of the district.

It was one of the most amazing and empowering things I've ever experienced. 
It let us release our tensions, deal with our fears and reservations,
exorcise those niggly little frustrations with each other, and find ourselves
sharing space in an atmosphere of pure love.

It was perhaps the (temporary) culmination of a process which built trust and
tolerance enough to cope with the "work" we have given ourselves.  There has
come into being a feeling in our group that we are all part of a brave new
experiment in problem-solving.  There are no "right" or "wrong" answers...
just things to be tried, lessons to be learned.

I feel personally as if I am able to ask for trust, and get it.  When I get
ideas that maybe aren't clear to others, I don't have to "prove" them
intellectually first.  I am given space and support to put them into
practice.  Others are willing to wait and see what happens.

At the same time others in the group feel comfortable in putting up their own
ideas, and receive space and support in trying them.  We work and play
together.  Strong differences remain, and they are discussed.  We take them
into account, but they are not the major focus.  They take up far less time
than imagination and affection.

Listening Exercise (a survey)
After five months of working to achieve solidarity and understanding within
our group, we made our first step into the public community life of Ravenshoe
and district.

We decided that step would be humble, and would consist of listening to the
opinions, ideas, and feelings of local people (rather than preaching our
ideas to them).   To do this, we constructed a survey questionnaire, which
asked thirty open-ended questions about the Ravenshoe community, and the
potential impact of the Tully-Millstream project on that community.

The questions were arrived at through two days of brainstorming and
discussion about all the different people, groups, and interests that would
be affected by a large project of this kind.  They were phrased in as
open-ended a way as possible because we didn't want to be putting words into
people's mouths.  We wanted their words.

We ended up with questions like: "What do you consider to be the general
state of the local economy?  What strengths, what weaknesses?"  "Do you think
Ravenshoe will be a better or worse place to live in the future?  Why?" 
"What changes, if any, would you like to see in local conservation
practices?"  "What three things would you most like to see in Ravenshoe in
twenty-five years' time?"

Some of our questions were split into two parts: (i) if Tully-Millstream
project proceeds; (ii) if it is abandoned.

Respondents to our survey questionnaire were self-selecting.  Members of our
group sat at a table with signs and surveys for one day at the local Archer's
Creek Market, and for five days over two weeks in the main shopping street of
town.  We met and talked to all kinds of people.

It took forty-five minutes for a person to fill in a questionnaire, and we
encouraged people to do it at the table.  If people wanted to take one away,
we would let them.  Out of 130 forms printed and distributed, fifty were
completed and returned by the closing date.  The quality and thoughtfulness
of responses was very high.

I found two points of great interest in conducting this survey.

First, almost everyone who approached our table wanted to know "which side"
we were on.  It was almost as if public debate has decreed this is an
either/or issue.  Our group had agreed earlier on a response to this
question, which was that while individual members had their own opinion, the
group as a whole was impartial.  We didn't want to take a side. We wanted to
listen to all sides.  It was amazing to see how people opened up after this
response, and shared what they thought and felt.

Second, having said we were impartial, it became so.  I found personally I
could not repeat the formula without making it true.  My mind opened up.  I
lost my previous certainties, and began to really listen for the first time. 
I found I didn't have all the answers.  This was a bit uncomfortable for a
while, but gradually I began to recognise it for the truly empowering process
it was.

I began to see the potential for resolution of this problem.  I began to ask
myself (and others) the questions: (i)  what kind of hydro project could we
find consensus support for to build in this district?  (escaping the yes/no
false dichotomy); (ii) what positive and co-operative steps could we take on
other issues and problems in the district?

What People Said
From a nonviolence point of view, perhaps the major results were
1)  There is broad agreement within the district about the problems facing
people, and community values.  This agreement was to be found in any question
which did not specifically touch on Tully-Millstream.  On some questions, we
expected this, e.g. everyone sees the current economic outlook as poor, with
prospects for a continuing recession.  Everyone expresses some concern for
the future of children growing up in the district.  

The consensus on other issues was more surprising.  86% of respondents felt
that conservation of the natural environment was an important issue, for
reasons of ecological and human survival and well-being.  82% felt
energy-efficiency and energy-conservation were vital to the future of our
civilisation.  People from across the spectrum of opinion want to see
tree-planting, reforestation, and a sustainable timber industry created in
the district.

2) Within each opinion group (responses to the survey were separated into
"project supporters", "project opposers", and "others") there was a range of
reasons and feelings for each view.

Some people who support the scheme going ahead do so for sound environmental
reasons.  Clean, cheap renewable energy to lessen the impact of fossil-fuel
burners.  Others support the scheme for economic reasons and feel it is the
town's only hope.  Yet others feel it would be good for the economy, but not
tragic if it is abandoned.

Amongst those who oppose the scheme, there are some who see local benefits
from it proceeding, and some who see only tragedy and destruction.

3) Wherever specific questions were asked about Tully-Millstream, there was
sharp polarisation.  The degree of emotional commitment to one answer or
another was very surprising.  I found myself wondering where all this
vehemence came from.  Perhaps it is the history of the dispute, and the
shameful promises and threats that have been made by protagonists in it to
date.

The QEC (Queensland Electricity Commission) has promised 350 direct jobs for
seven years, and an injection of $750 Million into the regional economy. 
This makes it appear as the saviour of the town, but they are unwilling to
consider changing the scheme or negotiating about it.  QEC says "all or
nothing".

The formal conservation organisations have promised "direct actions bigger
than the Franklin campaign" if the scheme goes ahead, with some spokespeople
saying it will resemble a war.  They have not suggested alternative schemes. 
In some ways their stance is "nothing or war".

The state government is still sniffing the wind, and holding more inquiries. 
No-one has been working too hard at consulting local people.

4) The overwhelming majority of local people expect confrontation to occur if
the project is approved.  About half of these people expect that
confrontation to be violent.  Most expect that both the confrontation and the
violence  will be caused by an influx of "greenies" from outside the district
to run a blockade of construction.

5) Local people feel themselves to be powerless to affect any of the outcomes
on this issue.  They feel government and conservation organisations to be
remote, making decisions in the capital or regional centres for reasons that
have nothing to do with local welfare.  They do not believe they are capable
of changing this.  They are still angry and bitter over World Heritage
Listing.

We feel it is important to address each of these points.  To encourage local
residents (and everyone else) not to over-simplify the issues and continue
the polarisation.  Instead to recognise the range of insights, opinions,
perspectives, and knowledge within the district, and to see this diversity as
a potential source of strength.  Conflict can generate much creativity if
handled the right way.

We will also encourage local people to gain a sense of their own power.  Even
now there is a certain state and national focus on Ravenshoe.  If people
there got their act together, and began a process of negotiation with all
parties, they would receive significant public support and wield significant
influence over outcomes.  At present they won't, because they don't believe
they can.

There is scope to further empower the community by initiating a
community-based reforestation programme using private land, local skills,
local knowledge, existing seedling schemes, and an ethical investment
structure.  This can be done without government assistance, and would
immeasurably strengthen local self-reliance.

A Public Meeting
On January 23, 1992, our group conducted a "Tully-Millstream Information Day"
in Ravenshoe Town Hall.  We invited all public interest groups, public
authorities, and other interested parties to set up a stall in the afternoon
and talk to people about their roles/ideas/opinions.  This was to provide a
networking/educational experience.

In the evening we conducted a facilitated public discussion, which commenced
with the release of our survey results.  We put two proposals to this
meeting;
(i)  initiate a process of principled negotiation on the Tully-Millstream
project
(ii) initiate a community-based reforestation project

The first thing we expected this day to show was which of the various
protagonists was acting in good faith....and which weren't.

Many of the organisations we invited were suspicious of who we were, and of
our motives.  The conservation organisations expressed some reluctance and
fear.  They expected a harrowing reception (and I think were suspicious of
our impartial stance).  In the end, everyone who was invited agreed to
attend, with the sole exception of the QEC.

The attitude of the QEC is that they have proposed a scheme, and it is the
best one possible.  If it goes ahead they will begin to meet local
responsibilities.  If it doesn't, they won't.  This attitude looks set to be
the biggest single impediment to a constructive resolution of conflict.

However, even without the QEC, the afternoon session was quietly productive. 
People from across the range of interests and groups talked with members of
the public, and with each other.  There was a friendly buzz in the hall,
which bodes well for future discussions and co-operation.

The public meeting in the evening was a very powerful experience, which
deeply affected everyone present.  In terms of our objectives, it had mixed
results.  Some of our conflict-resolution group members are still recovering.

To begin with, our positive proposals were never seriously addressed.  From
the very first speaker, our group came under a sustained and bitter attack. 
We were "outsiders", "greenies", "ALP supporters", "wolves in sheep's
clothing", and "the cause of conflict, not its solution".

There were perhaps 180 people in the meeting, and perhaps 100 of them clapped
loud and long at one man's suggestion we get out of town.  Sitting there with
these feelings of apparent hatred washing over us in waves was not an
experience any of us is keen to repeat.  It was particularly hard for those
of our group who live and work in the town.

However, there were a number of very positive aspects to the night;

1) Those people who were "greenies", or who came to represent conservation
groups were able to speak freely and without fear...and people listened to
them.  I think our group was made the focus of four years of frustration and
anger.  By taking the heat, we opened a safe space for the honest exchange of
views by others, and we were glad to see that happen.  It had been one of our
original aims.

2) Many of those other eighty people, who witnessed the attacks on us, and
who had until then been suspicious or noncommittal, came down off their fence
and began to send messages of active support.  About thirty people stayed to
help us clean up, and asked us not to give up...that what we had done was
worthwhile.  We received promises of financial and other support.

Perhaps the most important result in this regard came from TREAT (Trees for
the Evelyn and Atherton Tablelands) a community group which has been active
for ten years and has great respect in the community.  The day after the
meeting, they were unanimous in offering whatever support they could for our
reforestation proposal.  With that support, we are now confident it will
happen.

3) Towards the end of the meeting, a small number of conservative people who
are prominent in the community, and who strongly support the Tully-Millstream
project, were also offering constructive comments on our efforts.

I think this represents one of the key dynamics of nonviolence...that when
people are attacked for holding principled views, and do not respond in kind
but stay constructive, those doing the attacking lose support.  Those holding
to truth and love gain.

Aftermath
The next morning, as we were returning the hall keys, some citizens were
talking angrily about the last night's meeting.  They wanted us to go away
and leave their town alone.  They volunteered to us that they thought we were
pathetic, so we started talking.  One walked away.  One threatened us and
walked away.  One finished by saying that if we started a reforestation
project, she would support it.

Our group all got together later on the night of the meeting to talk things
through and heal ourselves.  It had been a tough night, but there were lots
of hugs and laughter.

We saw through all the negativity, to the positive achievements, and we saw
the importance of not giving up on the people of this town, or on the healing
of our planet.  We are going to hold another public meeting next month.  Not
for everyone, but for anyone who wants to make a positive contribution to
Ravenshoe community.

We are going to begin a tree-planting programme.

We are going to offer training in nonviolence to any interested party.

We are going to show by positive example what people can achieve if only they
are willing to try.

Whatever else happens in Ravenshoe, and whatever "objective" results we
achieve, I am going to remember this group of people, and the strength we
found together, as one of the best experiences of my life.
Bryan Law

Contributions to the Ravenshoe Conflict Resolution Group can be made to
account number 51691-0726 of the Ravenshoe Branch, National Australia Bank,
or post any donations to P.O. Box 247 Herberton, Qld  4872.