« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: A REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This study reviews recent experience of consensus building approaches in rural development and planning, in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, and to begin to consider how different approaches may be used in different contexts in rural Scotland.
MAIN FINDINGS
- Consensus building has become a widely used approach to decision-making in a variety of rural development and planning contexts.
- Different consensus building approaches are used in practice, which can make use of single events, longer processes, or can embed consensual principles more fundamentally in the structure of institutions.
- Consensus building can engage stakeholders, partners and communities in different configurations, ranging from broad based participative arenas to closed partnerships.
- There is an emerging pattern in rural development practice of consensus building taking place between small partnerships, using consultation processes to engage a wider range of interests.
- Many instances of apparent or claimed consensus building do not stand up to careful analysis, particularly when the impact on decision-making is looked at. This is often because processes described as achieving consensus have not identified or followed explicit principles of consensual working.
- There is a serious deficit of independent or stakeholder based evaluation or critical analysis of consensus building processes in rural Scotland (and elsewhere). This means that claims of consensus are difficult to sustain, and the lessons of attempts to build consensus around difficult policy issues are not being learned.
- Further analysis of significant attempts to build consensus is needed, to identify barriers to consensus, and to seek to understand their significance, so that realistic expectations of consensus building in different contexts can be established.
- Consensus building often demands difficult process choices, which can involve compromising the ideals of inclusion. Such compromises may be perceived as being beneficial, appropriate, or even unavoidable in practice, but it is the way such decisions are taken that needs to be considered far more reflectively than has often been the case. Choices should be made explicitly and transparently.
BACKGROUND
2. Consensus building is a favoured approach to participation and policy making which fits with current policy and societal attitudes. It offers solutions in a broad range of complex situations. But consensus building is not necessarily always the best approach, and a key question remains: 'is consensus building appropriate here?'. If the answer is perceived to be 'yes', then a subsequent set of major considerations concern which individuals, communities, interests or organisations should be involved; and what kind of consensus building is being sought.
3. This project consists of a review and analysis of experience of consensus building approaches in rural development and planning, in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, and to begin to consider how different approaches may be used in different contexts in rural Scotland.
4. The brief was to identify appropriate consensus building approaches which could be adopted in different contexts of policy making, planning and management across rural Scotland. This was achieved by:
- reviewing current approaches to consensus building and conflict resolution in countryside planning and management
- identifying strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to consensus building
- obtaining expert views on the benefits and drawbacks of different approaches to consensus building
- making recommendations on suitable approaches to consensus building appropriate to different rural development settings
5. Dr Tim Richardson co-ordinated the study, with the assistance of Stephen Connelly. Both are based at the Department of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Sheffield
METHODOLOGY
6. The arguments and recommendations set out in the report are derived primarily from a desk study of wide ranging literature dealing directly and indirectly with the use of consensus building in a variety of planning and development settings. The review concentrates on detailed critical and reflective analyses of consensus building, rather than purely descriptive accounts. The review identified a paucity of critical analysis of consensus building practice in rural Scotland, suggesting the need for further clarification of key concepts, and the need for further detailed analysis of cases.
USING CONSENSUS BUILDING REFLECTIVELY
7. No attempt is made to adopt a position 'for' or 'against' consensus building. Instead, the intention is to encourage a more reflective approach in considering whether and how to use some form of consensus building approach in particular rural development and planning situations, and to contribute to more critical analysis of, and debate over, its utility. The main report is not intended as a manual, or as a stand alone guide to best practice. It should be regarded as critical reading to accompany such guides.
THE STANAGE FORUM
8. A further contribution to the study was made from a parallel project involving close observation and evaluation of consensus building in practice in the Stanage Forum, in the Peak District National Park. This resulted in added value through cross-fertilisation between review and observation of practice, informed by discussions with experts.
CONCEPTUALISING CONSENSUS BUILDING
9. The report provides a guide to reflective and critically aware decision making in designing and following through consensus building processes. The structure followed in the report is based on a four stage conceptualisation of consensus building which depends on a number of decision making stages:
A - why use consensus building?
B - designing a consensus building process
C - consensus building in action - internal issues
D - consensus building in action - contextual issues
10. Each stage is addressed in turn, indicating the decisions that need to be made, and highlighting the issues that need to be considered in making them. This structure reflects the logic of an actual process, and can be used heuristically as a guide through the setting up of a consensus building process. Along the way, the study draws together evidence of the existence of many practical barriers to the achievement of consensus.
WHY USE CONSENSUS BUILDING?
11. A key question in many situations will be whether or not a consensus building approach should be attempted. There is no generic answer, and the report argues for a reflexive approach to this key question, requiring a number of issues to be carefully considered. The first key issue is determining which rationale(s) underpin the consensus building approach. Is consensus building being considered for instrumental reasons, to build support for potentially controversial, proposals, perhaps in recognition of conflict between different interests, or is the intention to broaden the base of knowledge and experience that informs decision making? Or are there political and social reasons for pursuing consensus? Could consensus building be a way of working through ideological and political differences between interests, or a means of establishing social capital? Alternatively, are there normative and ethical reasons for building consensus, in recognition of the rights of communities and other interests to be involved in decisions affecting them? In each case one or more of these rationales may suggest that a consensus building approach could be appropriate.
12. A number of varying applications of consensus building exist, which can be broadly grouped into those seeking to resolve conflicts, and those seeking to manage complex planning and management situations. In assessing whether to pursue a consensus building approach, a number of issues are identified in the report for careful consideration. These include the possible presence of irreconcilable differences between interests; the limits of consensus building approaches in terms of really getting to grips with deep seated conflict; the risk of exacerbating rather than resolving conflict; and the need for acceptance of the approach among potential participants, particularly those regarded as critical to success. These issues need to be carefully negotiated for consensus building to secure legitimacy. The resource implications, both in terms of time and finance are particularly significant for consensus building processes.
13. Exploring these issues increases the likelihood that realistic expectations of consensus building in different contexts can be established. Ideal consensus is just that - an ideal - and many so-called consensus building processes fall short in one aspect or another. This may be the result of a lack of inclusivity, a lack of decision-making power, or a failure to use explicit consensus-building methods. Such weaknesses, particularly when left unexamined, leave decision making more open to practices of bargaining, negotiation and coercion, which undermine claims that consensus has been achieved in a particular situation. Consideration of these preliminary issues leads on to more detailed questions relating to the detailed design of consensus building processes.
DESIGNING A CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS
14. Once it has been determined that a consensus building approach should be pursued, a further set of process design questions are raised, which should be addressed consciously and transparently. This is necessary because the ideal inclusive consensus building process is difficult (if not impossible) to achieve in practice. Therefore critical decisions need to be made at the design stage on limiting the process, which necessitates exclusion of people, interests, issues, actions and possible substantive outcomes.
15. The report argues the need to adopt an explicit consensus building process, rather than assume that consensus will emerge from structures such as partnerships. Given this, several key questions arise. Firstly consensus building covers two very different approaches - conflictual approaches which identify differences and seek to change them, or non-conflictual approaches which seek common ground and build on it. The choice between these approaches affects all other design decisions.
16. From this follows a series of decisions about the major design issues: What structures will be used to facilitate consensus building? Who will be included and excluded? With which participants will consensus actually be sought? In particular, if a fully inclusive process is impossible, then pragmatic and ethical arguments are important (and likely to conflict) in determining whether consensus is attempted within a stakeholder group or partnership, or between agencies. This limitation on the 'location of consensus' also raises the question of how to ensure linkage between those inside and outside the process, in order to ensure representativeness.
17. Because of these linkage issues, and more generally because of implications for working practices, the idea of the 'level of consensus' becomes important - whether consensus is attempted in a single event, a longer process, or becomes fully institutionalised. The impact of non-institutionalised consensus building on the decision making process in general is further constrained by the timing of events or processes.
18. Finally, it should be noted that not everything is under the designers' control. Participants will most likely be approaching the process with different goals, and with different levels of willingness to participate. In particular the 'public' and their representatives from the community sector may well be more reluctant than anticipated - due to fatigue, distrust or simply a perception that engagement in the process is not worthwhile.
CONSENSUS BUILDING IN ACTION - INTERNAL ISSUES
19. The report next focuses on the micropolitics of consensus building, examining how power relations affect the possibility of consensus being reached. The report argues that, contrary to ideal models of consensus building, in practice power relations crucially affect the internal dynamics of consensus making. A number of issues relating to legitimacy, accountability and transparency were identified. A further set of issues relate to the process itself, including the presence and role of a facilitator. In selecting and applying the specific methods used, trade offs have to be made between for example the breadth of participation and depth of consideration of policy issues, affecting the ways that participants engage with each other.
20. The ways in which stakeholders interact and play out their positions have a significant impact on the potential for movement in positions, which is a prerequisite for consensus. Consensus building can bring wider benefits in building social, intellectual and political capital. However the most significant aspect of the micropolitics is that exclusion is in most cases an unavoidable dimension of consensus building practice.
CONSENSUS BUILDING IN ACTION - EXTERNAL ISSUES
21. The final stage is to discuss the effectiveness of consensus building processes in the context of broader planning and policy making frameworks. The report argues that a key test of the value of a consensus building process is whether its participants have any ability to affect policy or decision making. Two key issues potentially enhance or constrain the effectiveness of consensus building, relating to how it fits into wider planning and development processes. These are firstly the extent of linkage between the process and decision making structures, and secondly the level of integration between the process and other parallel policy making processes. The complexity of governance frameworks is recognised as raising difficult challenges for both of these forms of linkage. Finally the report argues that a means of overcoming many potential barriers is to embed consensus building within institutional structures. In the report these issues are organised into key questions relating to linkage, impact, barriers and broader outcomes.
A CHECKLIST FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING
22. From the analysis of the key principles and issues underpinning consensus building, a set of key questions and principles have been identified. These are set out in an Annex to the report, which can be used in two ways. Firstly as a decision checklist for policy makers and others considering whether and how to carry out or engage in consensus building. And secondly as a basis for evaluating the quality of a given consensus building process. The questions and principles should help in making transparent the key decisions that are made, and so assist policy makers, evaluators and researchers to approach consensus building reflectively. Addressing these questions, and assessing whether the principles hold true makes it possible to acknowledge the many ways in which consensus building is attempted in less than ideal circumstances, and may lead to the conclusion that in certain situations it is not appropriate to attempt it.
APPLICATIONS OF CONSENSUS BUILDING: COMMUNITY PLANNING, NATIONAL PARKS AND NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMMES
23. It is clear from this study that there exists no generic framework for consensus building which can be universally applied. Consensus building approaches need to be developed specifically for their application, and will be heavily determined by the nature of the issues being addressed, the type of output required, the range and nature of possible stakeholders and the tensions between them, and the different needs for democratic participation, debate and action.
24. Drawing from the analysis, and in particular using the decision checklist, some initial observations are made on the application of consensus building within specific policy applications: Community Planning, National Park planning, and National Forest Programmes.
FURTHER CRITICAL EXAMINATION
25. The study identifies a lack of evaluation or critical analysis of consensus building practice in rural Scotland, which needs to be rectified so that the issues discussed in this report can be better understood within specific contexts. The report therefore recommends more detailed research into the applications of consensus building to Community Planning, the planning and management of the new National Parks, and the implementation of National Forest Programmes.
26. There is also a more general need to examine how consensus building methods can be linked with decision making, and integrated with other policy processes operating at different levels or focusing on different policy issues. The demands of consensus building suggest that a more integrated approach to participation is explored, which can make the most effective use of its intensive approach where necessary and appropriate, and subject to reasonable rather than ideal expectations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
27. The report contains a bibliography, which groups together the literature dealing with different aspects of consensus building.
« Previous | Contents | Next »