« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: A REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICE
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Across rural Scotland, agencies are actively engaging local communities and a wide range of stakeholders in the planning and management of rural areas. At the heart of the new participative approach is the principle of consensus: that conflicts between interests are resolvable, and that mutual agreement on outcomes may be reached. However in practice this increase in participation and partnership results in greater exposure of conflicts and differences of interest, which need to be sensitively managed. It is therefore crucial that participative events and processes, which create interfaces between different interests with the aim of building consensus, are carefully designed to defuse and resolve conflicts and differences of interest, rather than inadvertently exacerbate them. Otherwise there is a risk that increased participation will lead to weaker decision-making, as well as a breakdown of trust between stakeholders.
Purpose of the report
1.2 This report consists of a review and analysis of experience of consensus building approaches in rural development and planning, based on a combination of primary and secondary research, 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. We have structured this report to provide a guide to a process of informed decision making in designing and following through consensus building processes. It highlights at each stage the important issues and rationales which should be considered, illustrated using cases described in the literature. This analysis is used to inform recommendations with regard to several possible applications of salience in current Scottish policy making relating to rural development. No attempt is made to adopt a position 'for' or 'against' consensus building. Instead, we hope to encourage a more reflective approach to be adopted in considering whether and how to use some form of consensus building approach, and to contribute to more critical analysis of, and debate over, its appropriateness in decision making. This 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 texts.
1.3 The project begins from the perspective that it is unlikely that consensus building will be successful if pursued idealistically and uncritically. All public participation needs to be carefully planned to ensure that serious attempts to engage communities and other interests are not (for example) undermined by decisions taken elsewhere, or by structural weaknesses. Recognition of the wider context of policy- and decision-making is essential in ensuring that trust and commitment is built up. Furthermore, attention needs to be given to how consensual principles and practices can be institutionalised, or embedded in the structure and culture of organisations, rather than be implemented in isolated events or processes which can be held up as transparent and accessible, but which fail to impact on the thinking or decisions of key actors.
1.4 This review of practice therefore begins from the premise that there are likely to be many practical barriers to the achievement of consensus. These may relate to the design of events and processes, the actions of stakeholders, and to the relation of consensus building work to the decision making frameworks of existing institutions. It is important to identify these barriers, and to seek to understand their significance, so that realistic expectations of consensus building in different contexts can be established. Critical to progress in this direction is explicit recognition of a range of issues involved in the design and operation of consensus building processes. Achieving consensual decisions involves design - consensus building - and it is therefore shaped by choices which may be more or less explicit. An ideal of inclusionary and open decision making exists, and these choices are often about compromising the ideals of inclusion. This may be perceived to be beneficial, appropriate, or even unavoidable in practice, but it is the way such decisions are taken that needs to be considered far more carefully than has often been the case. 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.
1.5 The terms 'consensus' and 'consensus building' are used with increasing frequency, and it is often unclear exactly what decision making processes, with what level of democratic legitimacy, they describe. Hence one purpose of the report is to highlight the need for clarity and transparency in the key decisions relating to consensual decision making: including determining whether or not to adopt a consensus building approach, and if so of what type, and then how to deal with issues arising during the activity of consensus building.
1.6 A second important purpose is to clarify the concept of consensus building by locating it carefully in relation to two other important dimensions of current policymaking - public participation and partnership working. For example, O'Riordan describes the consensual nature of DoE's approach to Local Agenda 21, based on participation and partnership, in this way:
The idea is to create fundamentally different ways of working in which partnerships are created, conflict is avoided and public participation is treated as a core part of decision making (O'Riordan and Ward, 1997).
1.7 So consensus building should be understood as more than simply a technique of public participation. Depending on the approach adopted, it may also form an element of partnership working. Consensus building can also contain elements of both participation and partnership, so creating a link between the two, which potentially allows for partnerships and public participation to be integrated more closely with decision making.
Research aims and objectives
1.8 This report aims to identify appropriate consensus building approaches which could be adopted in different contexts of policy making, planning and management across rural Scotland.
1.9 It does this 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 broad recommendations on suitable approaches to consensus building appropriate to different rural development settings.
1.10 The report analyses a range of issues relating to consensus building which are of general relevance to rural development in Scotland, and briefly explores how this analysis could be used to pursue consensus building in three specific applications.
Methodology
1.11 The arguments and recommendations set out in this 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. In this review, we have concentrated attention on detailed critical and reflective analyses of consensus building, rather than purely descriptive accounts.
1.12 The first step was to identify current practice in consensus building and conflict resolution in rural Scotland and elsewhere. The review in particular sought to identify applications of consensus building and conflict resolution between landscape, nature conservation, access and leisure, and local community and economic interests. The search for relevant literature included key academic and professional journals, and the web sites and publications databases of key organisations (listed in Annex A). Existing reviews and good practice guides (e.g. Sidaway, 1998, and Govan et al, 1998) were used as starting points, but the review extended beyond rural Scotland to include relevant experience of consensus building approaches, including national park planning and management, participative forest management, and community planning processes in other settings.
1.13 However, given the paucity of literature containing detailed analysis or evaluation of consensus building practice, use was made of broader literature relating in particular to public participation and partnership working. In particular, the review identified a serious lack of evaluative or analytical literature relating to consensus building approaches in rural Scotland. The work of the Access Forum is widely known, for example, but there has been no evaluation of its process or achievements since its inception in 1994. When following up references to other well known participative projects we generally found that the research trail led to newsletters and internal documents rather than publicly available analytical reports or accounts. For these reasons, rather than restricting the focus to rural Scotland, we found it necessary to draw the net more widely to identify useful analyses of practical experience of consensus building.
1.14 This report therefore identifies the lessons learned from practical experience, but also draws from more theoretical debates on the possibilities and limits to consensus building as an approach to public participation. A further contribution to the study resulted from a parallel project involving close observation and evaluation of consensus building in practice in the Peak District National Park: the Stanage Forum. This resulted in added value through cross-fertilisation between review and observation of practice, informed by discussions with experts. Examples from the Stanage Forum are used throughout the report to illustrate the issues being raised.
The Stanage forum
1.15 The Stanage Forum represents a good example of a broad based, explicit consensus building process, following commonly agreed procedural rules. The process followed by the Stanage Forum is based on the principles set out in Annex B. The Stanage area of the Peak District National Park is an area with a fragile moorland ecology, partly designated as a Special Protected Area under the EU Birds Directive, but under intense visitor pressure from a wide range of users including rock climbers, hillwalkers, four wheel drive vehicles, horse riders and dog walkers. In 2000 the National Park Authority launched a consensus building approach to the preparation of a new management plan for the area, bringing together previously conflicting stakeholders to create the Stanage Forum. The Forum consists of an open public arena which holds well publicised meetings, and a linked website ( www.peakdistrict.org). A Steering Group selected by the Forum continues the work between the major public events. A lead officer and a facilitator manage the process. The Forum's task is to produce a new area management plan, for adoption by itself and by the National Park Authority (Richardson and Connelly, 2001).
The project team
1.16 The research was conducted by Dr. Tim Richardson and Stephen Connelly, of the Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield. Technical, editorial and administrative support was provided by Dale Shaw.
Structure of the report
1.17 This report is designed to assist in the process of evaluating the appropriateness of consensus building approaches in particular contexts, and in informing their design and implementation. The structure followed is based on a 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
1.18 Each stage is addressed in turn, indicating the decisions that need to be made, what the issues are that need to be considered, and illustrating these from literature. This structure reflects the logic of an actual process and can be used heuristically as a guide through the process of setting up a consensus building process. This is followed by a brief discussion of the issues raised in the evaluation of consensus building, together with a checklist for policy makers considering the use of consensus building approaches.
1.19 The report concludes with a brief discussion of how consensus building might be applied in three different policy areas in rural Scotland: Community Planning, National Parks, and National Forest Programmes.
1.20 A full list of references is given at the end of the report. This is accompanied by a bibliography, in which the literature dealing with different relevant aspects of consensus building is grouped together.
« Previous | Contents | Next »