One important lesson is that community media, like all community development processes, cannot depend on volunteers alone. It requires a "paid position."
Another early decision by the steering committee also affected the project. We had planned to ensure local committees were formed before going ahead with implementing the process. Based on the experience of Communication for Survival, where months were spent activating local committees, it was decided to go ahead with the cooperation of local partners rather than forming groups to support the facilitators. But this meant it was difficult to go step by step through the process, particularly in terms of the collaboration agreements which are so important to a project which values local control but still wants to get the job done.

We stuck by our decision to hire local facilitators but it also has to be recognized that community development is not easy and requires a different attitude and orientation to community processes. One learning was that a careful hiring process is absolutely necessary. Facilitators have to be self-motivated; able to work with little supervision, and recognize that community development is not a linear process.

One aspect of the design that was implemented, having a halftime coordinator the first year and quarter time the next, was also problematic. The concept was an outside coordinator should work her/himself out of a job to reduce local dependency. But this didn't recognize we were working with a very short timeline, which actually required more participation from a coordinator in the second year with replication and evaluation support.

Basically we had insufficient funding to do all we wanted to do. However, it was an opportunity to test principles; develop new technologies and spread to other communities; nobody has voiced regret about the implementation of the project.

Sharing Our Future depended on the support of many partners and communities and it was difficult to flesh out that support during the developmental stage. We are talking about communities and groups that have suffered many cutbacks and disappointments in the proposal process.

Another difficulty was the time span between the developmental phase and the pilot project. Nevertheless, the developmental phase was a welcome and necessary opportunity to approach prospective partners and design a detailed process.

Motivating youth to participate in community media was a highlight of the experiment. This was especially obvious in the last SOF event, which brought youth from throughout the region to network and learn new skills. Also significant was the way the SOF partners worked together to support the project.

We also implemented an innovative and eclectic approach to community media. Our experiments with portable community radio and streaming audio from the communities worked well.

The three conferences were also very interesting. We evolved a process, which included skills training; evaluation; networking and promoting the project in the community by broadcasting the event.

The project has definitely contributed to the legitimization of participatory communications in western Newfoundland. This has been achieved through networking; mainstream media coverage; local self-promotion and community forums implemented on a regular basis.

The Community Education Network's involvement in participatory grassroots communication began with the Port au Port community television forum project of 1993. The raison d'etre for the project was to enhance its mandate of promoting lifelong learning on the peninsula, one of the most economically devastated areas of rural Canada with pronounced learning and literacy problems, but at the same time rich in its cultural and social traditions.

The trigger video for the project demonstrates perceptions, which continue to be valid. Community development professionals talk of the need to bring the population at large into the planning process for learning on the peninsula; they recognize the importance of local control of the learning process.

As reported by Ron Faris..."Learning, whether in the formal or non-formal sector, is a profoundly social process that is embedded in the socio-economic and cultural context in which it occurs." (The way forward: Building a learning nation, 2001)

Participatory grassroots communication begins by placing the tools of communication in the hands of the local community. This control of communication means it is much more likely to reach the goal of all the voices - the right and the responsibility to share knowledge.

Local control of the Sharing Our Future process meant that the a priori identified topic of outmigration was not a major issue, while exploring the relationship of community economic development and community communications became a major issue.

The inclusive character of participatory grassroots communications, as we practice it, means a multi-generational structure. Typically youth receive training in basic technical skills and become community reporters interviewing their elders. This creates a loop in the community whereby youth gain knowledge of the local and adults learn respect for youth.

This positive mirroring - a long recognized facet of participatory communications - is also part of the emphasis on cultural celebration. Unless people can feel pride in their own identity, and indeed have some basic sense of who they are, they will not be able to participate in a process of working together to plan for the future.

From the point of view of the community development practitioner, this project has been firmly rooted in a basic principle of the Community Education Network - a respect for local ways of doing things.

Cambridge's Simon Szreter views social capital theory as having a potential impact similar to that of Keynesian thought in the 1930's and 40's. He argues that a new literacy based on "equality of communicative competence" will enable all community members to function more effectively in the local market economy and be actively involved in participatory democracy....
(Faris, The way forward: Building a learning nation).

In brief, Sharing Our Future has been a three year experiment in basic principles and practices of participatory grassroots communications in rural Canadian communities. The process has been extensively documented and is "transparently" shared on the Sharing Our Future website.