« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: A REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICE
CHAPTER 2 WHAT IS CONSENSUS BUILDING?
2.1 Though approaches to consensus building vary, there are certain characteristics which are distinctive of consensus building compared with other approaches to public involvement. Consensus building can be understood as a particular form of decision making process based on core principles of consent - 'a negotiation in which the parties devise a solution from which they all benefit' (Sidaway, 1998). However the question of how benefits are perceived needs closer examination and will be returned to below. Perceptions of securing benefits may for example relate to short term goals, such as securing new public access to an upland area, or to longer term goals such as securing broad agreement between divergent interests over a new approach to access management. In this latter case, groups may sacrifice certain immediate objectives in pursuit of a longer term goal, making the question of benefit more complex.
2.2 Sidaway identifies three distinctions between consensual and non-consensual decision making. The first is related to the way in which decisions are reached - critically through mutual consent, not by voting, with each participant given the power of veto. The second concerns whether everyone with an interest and who is prepared to co-operate actually participates in the process. The third relates to whether a deliberate process of decision making is constructed to achieve and to maintain consensus, based on principles of fairness, openness and trust. From this perspective the process becomes as important as its output.
2.3 An example of this attention to process, which will be returned to in the body of this report, is the consensus building process adopted by the Stanage Forum in the Peak District National Park. The key principles adopted by participants in this process are set out in Annex B. Some of the features which make this process quite different from some more constrained approaches to public involvement are that stakeholders work actively together through an explicit and transparent process to establish common ground, explore options, and reach decisions through consent. A key tenet of the approach is that establishing consensus results in positive benefits, beyond what could be achieved by negotiation and compromise. The strength of the process is underpinned by a commitment by all stakeholders, including agencies, to abide by the outcomes of the process. As in this instance, independent facilitators are often used.
2.4 One can identify different 'locations' for consensus to be built, between different sets of actors with differing relationships. In particular, there is a need to clarify the relationship between consensus building, public participation, and partnerships. Talk of both partnership and participation is frequently used in policy literature, often with a lack of clarity about the differences between the two. For the purposes of this report, it is essential to separate partnership from participation, in order to identify the very different ways that consensus building can be operationalised.
2.5 Consensus building is generally understood as an approach to public participation. For the purposes of this project a useful definition of 'public participation' is that adopted by Stoker (1997) for 'political participation' (following Parry et al, 1992, p. 16): members of the public 'taking part in any of the processes of formulation, passage and implementation of public policies' (Stoker, 1997, p. 157). This is a wide ranging definition, which extends the emphasis of public participation beyond the development of policy, to decision-making and implementation. In perhaps the most widely used typology (Arnstein, 1969) public participation ranges from state control and informing the public through to citizen control. Consensus building, involving state and public actors, lies in the middle - elsewhere described by Wilcox as 'deciding and acting together' (Wilcox, 1994):
Consensus building represents a move up the ladder of public participation (Arnstein, 1969) from information provision and formal consultation to proactive involvement in influencing decisions. Traditional participatory methods are primarily reactive in that they require the formulation of plans and proposals prior to public involvement, and can be viewed as a means of legitimising decisions. By contrast, consensus-building approaches seek to involve people in the decision formulation process itself. (Petts, 1995).
2.6 In some situations Sidaway's (1998) definition implies that the ideal approach to consensus building is a broad based participative approach, which is open to all stakeholders, public and private organisation, state bodies, agencies, other organisations and key individuals. However consensus building may also take place between particular agencies operating in a more exclusive, partnership setting, where 'partnership' can be understood as:
Organisations coming together for 'collaborative advantage' (Huxham 1993) - to achieve an objective that no single organisation could achieve alone. (Wilson and Charlton, p.10).
2.7 Such partnerships often pursue consensuality in their ways of working:
Decision making by consensus tends to be favoured in partnerships and helps to increase perceptions of equality of status internally and fair representation externally. (op cit, p.5) .
2.8 However analysis reveals that a number of different types of partnership may exist, indicating greater or lesser degrees of consensuality (Wilson and Charlton, p 11):
- Where partners are seen to agree publicly - partnership is in name alone 'giving the impression of disparate groups operating together';
- Where partners work within a given agenda but retain their individual positions rather than sharing ownership of the process or adopting common objectives;
- 'True' partnership, where partners work to commonly agreed set of goals and objectives.
2.9 The existence of common goals, following a consensual approach, appears crucial to effective partnerships, yet a key question remains about the status of such shared positions or visions:
There was almost unanimous agreement amongst interviewees that a shared vision is vital for a partnership to succeed. The acid test seems to be whether or not it provides an enduring reference point for the partnership - is it something on which the members can reflect when difficult issues have to be resolved, and does it inform decision making or simply lead to more debate? (Wilson & Charlton, p.2)
2.10 Alongside broad-based participative and more exclusive partnership approaches to consensus building, hybrid forms exist which break down the distinction between 'public participation' as involving the state and the public as two separate players, and 'partnerships' as groupings of state agencies. Consensus can be built between different restricted groupings of stakeholders, possibly representing different sectors, and including community, state and business actors.
2.11 In rural Scotland, there is a strong emphasis on partnerships of this type in rural development:
[Towards a development strategy for rural Scotland: The Framework] suggests that the functions of local partnerships might include: The articulation of a vision for the local community which reflects local needs and concerns (Louise Brown Research, 2000: 2).
2.12 This question will be developed more fully in the following sections, since the issue of who is involved in building consensus is a critical design element. Here it is sufficient to point out that:
- consensus building process can involve different groups of actors
- these groupings may shift - the location of consensus may change during a process
- all but the most inclusive forms of consensus necessarily involve exclusion of some stakeholders
- exclusion raises issues relating to
- the nature of the interactions within the 'participating/partnership group' - issues around power relationships etc.
- the relationships between the participating groups and those outside - issues of representativeness, communication, mobilisation of action by those outside as a result of decisions taken by the group
2.13 However, experience suggests that where difficult conflicts exist, and where there is a need to build support, it is not enough to simply arrange events which promise to deliver rapid consensual solutions. It is the challenge of designing and managing public participation in a way which can work effectively within an environment of conflict, which has fuelled the spread of 'consensus building' as a potentially powerful approach.
The rural dimensions of consensus building
2.14 There is little discussion in the literature drawing out the specifically rural dimensions of consensus building. Whilst it is likely in many of the cases discussed in this report that their rural application makes a difference to the participative approaches that might be used, this aspect is rarely discussed. Building consensus in some senses is different between urban and rural areas. Particular conceptual issues from the existence of multiple communities, some of which are locally resident (e.g. rural communities), others remotely located (e.g. tourists) or dispersed (e.g. interest groups). Though multiple communities clearly also exist in urban areas, the differences are perhaps more strongly manifested in rural participative processes. Engaging geographically remote or dispersed groups raises a number of questions about representation and legitimacy of any participative process. Such issues perhaps create a tendency to use representative rather than fully open arenas in, for example, area management planning.
2.15 There also exist a specific set of logistical issues to do with practicalities of doing consensus building in rural areas. For example, consensus building approaches to rural community planning are made more difficult by the dispersed population, so that barriers such as access to meetings are made more difficult. In other cases, such as area management planning, the need to engage multiple communities of interest which are not locally resident makes process design complex.
« Previous | Contents | Next »