THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING...
The dialogue between bridgebuilders and the municipality is essential for the sustainable energy transition in Zuidoost to be successful. During our project, we initiated this dialogue in a co-creation session. Its aim was not to make decisions or design solutions, but to create a shared space to talk openly about issues which emerge around the energy transition. The session gave us insights into what stands in the way of the dialogue, how it should be facilitated, and what is needed for it to continue.
CREATE COMMON UNDERSTANDING
When facilitating a dialogue, it is important that all parties share a common understanding of the topic at hand. For this reason, we began our co-creation session with a short presentation outlining our project, the research process, and the core issue we had identified: a cycle of distrust between residents, bridgebuilders, and the municipality.
BE FLEXIBLE
Initially, we had planned several exercises to follow the introductory presentation. However, participants began sharing their experiences and frustrations while the presentation was still ongoing, prompting us to reconsider our approach. Ultimately, we allowed the dialogue to unfold more freely, creating space for open and honest conversation.
...BUT ALSO ASSERTIVE
While giving participants the freedom to speak generated many valuable insights, tensions occasionally ran high and risked derailing the dialogue. We learned that facilitators must be able to recognise these turning-point moments and intervene when necessary. When discussions escalate, it can be helpful to propose a change of topic or to highlight points of common ground.
Ensure a neutral setting
Several participants emphasised how rare it was to engage in open dialogue with other key actors in a neutral setting. The fact that the session was not hosted by any of the stakeholders—many of whom share difficult histories and ongoing conflicts—proved to be crucial.
IMPACT VS ACCOUNTABILTY
One of the recurring themes throughout the session concerned how the work of bridgebuilders is valued. Bridgebuilders expressed frustration with formal indicators such as KPIs, as they felt those fail to capture the essence of their work: building trust, maintaining a presence in the neighbourhood, and responding flexibly to community needs. Municipal participants acknowledged this tension, but pointed out that some form of measurable accountability is required. This highlighted a clear gap between institutional systems and everyday practice.
SIDE EFFECT OF SUBSIDY
Another key insight related to subsidies. Funding was described as both necessary and problematic. While subsidies enable local initiatives, they can also reinforce existing power structures. Bridgebuilders with strong ties to the municipality are often more successful in accessing funds, while newer initiatives struggle to do so. This dynamic encourages competition rather than cooperation.
PATCHY GRASSROOTS
Finally, the dialogue revealed tensions among bridgebuilders themselves. Distrust and lack of coordination exist not only between the municipality and the community, but also within the local ecosystem. This became particularly evident during a network-mapping exercise, where participants struggled to identify who is connected to whom and how decisions are made. The absence of a shared overview complicates collaboration and reinforces fragmentation.
The dialogue showed clearly that one-off sessions are not enough. Many participants said this was one of the rare moments where tensions could be talked about openly, instead of being dealt with behind the scenes. Without ongoing dialogue, misunderstandings linger, competition grows, and trust continues to break down.
Keeping the dialogue going requires a different mindset. Instead of a one-time event, dialogue needs to become a regular practice. That means clear follow-up, continuity, and shared responsibility. Participants also highlighted how important neutral spaces are—places that are supported, but not steered, by the municipality. At the same time, expectations need to be realistic, recognising that time, energy, and resources are limited on all sides.
In the end, the first dialogue did not solve the issues that came up and it was never meant to. Its real value was in making tensions visible and shared. By doing so, it created a starting point for more open collaboration and showed what is needed for dialogue to truly support the energy transition in Amsterdam Zuidoost.