The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: A REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICE

CHAPTER THREE CONSENSUS BUILDING IN CONTEXT

3.1 The current emphasis on consensual approaches in general, and explicit consensus building processes in particular, is situated in a general shift towards more inclusionary governance. This shift is embodied both in major government policy initiatives at the UK and Scottish level, and in changes in broader societal attitudes.

3.2 The turn towards consensual approaches can be seen as a response to two potentially contradictory shifts in broad social attitudes towards the appropriate relationship of state and citizen. On the one hand there is a turn towards more participative democracy and less willingness to trust the representative democracy system, and at the same time there is increasingly differentiation of identities and of demands. As Healey says:

Citizens will demand more say in how the environment is managed and expect accountability from all agencies, i.e.; democracy will be strongly asserted. But this will be in a context of substantial conflict between different interests arising from a more pluralist society, as well as conflicts between economic, social and environmental objectives. Resolving these conflicts in democratic ways will be a critical issue. (Healey, 1990).

Policy initiatives

3.3 The response within governance structures has been a shift towards assuming that consensus, and not conflict, is the way to resolve these difficult issues, and thus the foregrounding of consensus building processes. Major shifts in approaches to governance, together with the major policy themes of sustainable development and social inclusion, are each underpinned, more or less explicitly, by principles of inclusionary and consensual decision making.

The modernisation of governance

3.4 Inclusiveness in the policy-making process is now enshrined as a key principle, at the core of the modernising government agenda. The government's vision of successfully modernised local government in England, set out in the 1998 consultation paper, is characterised by councils engaging directly with their local communities, and actively promoting public participation (DETR, 1998). The preparation of community strategies/plans through a process of consultation and active involvement of local government, agencies and the public is implicitly based on the ideal of collective development of a plan recognised as being in everyone's interest.

Sustainable development

3.5 Sustainable development is now a broad objective across many policy areas, with wide acceptance that public involvement and consensual decision making processes are an integral and necessary component. Thus Leach et al state that:

Global consensus emerged in the 1990s that the key to sustainable development is local-level solutions. Such approaches are evident across a wide range of sectors and in the policies of governments, donors and NGOs. All root for shared management of natural resources across the board, based on the assumption that communities are homogenous and consensual. (Leach et al, 2000).

3.6 Of particular importance in the UK and Scottish context has been the preparation of local sustainable development plans and strategies, within the Local Agenda 21 framework that emerged from the Rio Summit:

The following objectives are proposed for this programme area: a). By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on 'a local Agenda 21' for the community (Agenda 21, Para 28.2).

3.7 Two arguments link sustainable development and consensual approaches. Firstly the substantive argument that we all share an overriding common interest in not degrading the planet (Macnaghten, 1996; Healey, 1996), and secondly the process argument that consensus building is perceived to provide a means of decision-making which is more sustainable, in that it builds public support for decisions. This is an expression of the significance of 'process' in delivering sustainable development:

If our plans are to be sustainable they require decisions which are sustainable, and sustainable decisions must be based on consensus. We cannot separate content from process. (Williams, 1995, p 264).

3.8 Both policy and academic literature express forcibly this dominant discourse, based on several major assumptions which are rarely challenged: that communities are in themselves consensual in nature, and that integrating the community's view into decision-making will somehow lead to sustainable rather than un-sustainable development. Specifically, consensus building has been recognised as being integral to an endogenous approach to sustainable rural development. There is a conviction amongst at least some development practitioners that locally-based, community-oriented development is more likely to generate enhanced well-being to people in disadvantaged rural areas than is top-down development, and that they represent a recognition by the central state and other development agencies that, in many situations, consensus and endogenously motivated action is essential to ensure sustainable development (Forestry Commission, 1996).

3.9 Here, it is important not to elide the separate concepts of well-being and self-determination. For example, a top-down agricultural incentive system has underpinned the economic well-being of the crofting counties for many decades, but with little consensus-building in evidence. That is shifting to increased community self-determination, but it is a more open question whether this will result in benefits to economic well-being. Clearly it is desirable to meet both objectives but it is wrong to pre-suppose these form a single concept.

Social inclusion

3.10 In a way similar to the process view of sustainable development, within debates about social inclusion there is a strong view expressed that bringing citizens more actively into governance will both stimulate the recreation of a sense of community, and rebuild the relationship between people and state (e.g. CEC, 1992).

Consensus building and traditional approaches to decision making and public participation

3.11 These broader policy and social shifts have resulted in new approaches to decision making, redefining who makes decisions and the manner in which they are made. A discourse of consensusality has emerged, displacing a discourse of decision making through political opposition and conflict, institutionalised as bargaining and voting, within an environment of lobbying and power struggles.

3.12 In traditional representative democracy, decisions are made by representatives, elected through a contested rather than consensual process, and the decision making process is one of institutionalised conflict between political parties. The involvement of the wider public is generally through consultation. To the extent that decisions are intended to represent a collective, public interest they are made through a small group balancing demands, rather than through the constructions of consensus 'out there' in the community.

3.13 Officials have tended to stress the importance of representative democracy and the powers of elected officials to make decisions (Wiedemann & Femers, 1993), viewing public participation based on consultation as adequate (Petts, 1995). This approach is now widely recognised as inadequate, and a turn towards participation has taken place, but there are signs of an increasingly uneasy relationship between representative and participative democracy.

3.14 Methods used in public participation programmes have come under scrutiny as a result of the shift in policy discourse. A weakness of traditional approaches to public participation has been its top down nature. Renn et al show that top down consultation produces rather than defuses conflict. Such approaches lack popular acceptance because they ignore local affected interests in favour of 'objectivity', and they ignore local knowledge, with the effect that outcomes are often 'incompetent, irrelevant or simply unworkable' (Renn et al, 1998: 1). Traditional methods of participation, such as public meetings, remain in very frequent use, are increasingly criticised for their inherently conflictual nature:

The most ineffective method of consultation was the open public meeting. While popular amongst both authorities and companies, public meetings are generally not recommended. There is usually only a brief time `to get it right' and one mistake or false impression in what is normally a fairly adversarial staging can provoke mistrust. They are easily dominated by interests who want to air a particular grievance and people are often unwilling to speak in such formal settings, so that the views of the minority can begin to dominate (Petts & Eduljee, 1994: 410-412, cited in Petts, 1995).

3.15 Other consultation approaches, such as the use of questionnaires, tend to avoid such conflicts but achieve this by limiting the contact and dialogue with the public. The public is not given any real say, and decision making is left entirely in the hands of the policy makers (Booth and Richardson, 2001).

3.16 As a result of this type of rethinking of participation, new non-conflictual approaches have emerged which are intended to give the public more say. The aim is that decisions are made by more people, and in ways which embody a more consensual approach.

3.17 The new approach to public involvement takes a range of forms and has a range of rationales, as mentioned above, which devolve power over decision making to different degrees. Within this range there remains a fundamental split between top down consultative approaches, where decision making powers still lie with elected representatives, and systems where power is shared with others. Traditionally this has been seen as a contrast between top down and bottom up (Young 1996), but at the interface between these is a growing focus on bringing state and citizen decision making together (Wilcox, 1994; Selman, 1998).

3.18 Planners and policy makers are now faced with selecting from a wide selection of tools when designing participation into policy processes. Consensus building often takes place as a form of public participation (though as we discuss in this report it in many cases needs to be understood more broadly), and it draws on some of the tools which have been developed for increasing public participation in decision making (e.g. visioning techniques; audits and appraisals; parish maps; planning for real; community profiling; small group discussions; focus groups; environment fora; round tables; and citizens' juries (Young, 1996, Williams 1995)).

3.19 However, consensus building should be seen as an approach to public participation rather than just as a method. Indeed, several different methods of participation might be employed in consensus building (table 1), which might be used in other approaches to decision making which do not presuppose that consensus is necessary or desirable. As mentioned above, and explored in more detail in the next section, consensus building has a distinctive rationale which embraces not just participation but the entire policy process. Consensus building seeks to improve the quality of public participation in decisions by facilitating effective empowerment of the public; a fair decision; and active support of the final decision as being the best that can be achieved in the circumstances (Sidaway, 1998). Thus pursuing a consensus building approach implies that specific methods, such as citizen's juries, should be applied in particular, distinctive ways. Consensus building therefore needs to be understood as being in a different category to broader practice in public consultation and involvement.

Table 1. Typical methods of participation (adapted from Environment Agency, 2000)

The Scottish context

3.20 These social and policy shifts, and their reflection in changing approaches to decision making processes have specific manifestations at the Scottish level. In grounding this study in rural Scotland, it is important to set out how, broadly, participation is being framed in the current Scottish policy climate. At national level the Scottish Parliament has made strong commitments to participation in governance:

Civic participation is an essential tool of modern government. Its benefits include: making better policy; building ownership and consensus around some policy outcomes; accounting for actions taken; and promoting participation. (Scottish Executive Policy Unit, 2000, Executive Summary)

Devolution: the expectation that devolution would lead to a new openness in the policy-making process was encapsulated in the report of the Consultative Steering Group (Scottish Office, 1998) :

Our recommendations…envisage a process which involves genuine participation and consultation led by the Executive…It will be important for both the Executive and the Parliament to take full account of the views of those most likely to be affected in the consideration of policy or legislative proposals. (Scottish Executive Policy Unit, 2000, para 2)

3.21 However, although the nature of participation is framed in this very open, inclusive way, there is a reliance on stakeholder democracy for its delivery. In the Scottish policy context, we note the coining of a concept of 'civic Scotland', which embodies the idea that certain organisations or individuals have either legitimate interests, or powers, in becoming actively involved in the Scottish Executive's various policy processes:

Broadly speaking, we are dealing here with 'civic Scotland'; those organisations and individuals with the interest and wherewithal to respond proactively to the consultation opportunities offered by the Executive. (op cit, para 43) .

That these individuals and organisations should be the main interlocutors in Executive consultation exercises is natural and should not be seen as a problem. Many will bring to the table links deep into particular communities of interest and will therefore offer a genuinely representative voice. Many will be able to bring to bear experience relevant to the issue under consideration. (op cit, para 44) .

Whether the responses of civic Scotland should be complemented by the views of a wider public is addressed in the next section (op cit, para 45) .

However effective our consultation techniques, including use of the internet, in all foreseeable circumstances we will be accessing directly the views of only a modest proportion of the Scottish population. The representativeness of those views will be enhanced to the extent to which they come from organisations that claim a representative function. But they are not the views of the public direct. Does this matter? (op cit, para 65)

3.22 Of particular interest to many of the policy areas which are within the scope of consensus building as addressed in this report, the view is taken that the wider public does not really have the capacity to be properly involved, and in any case may not have a proper 'interest' in the issues at stake:

The answer will usually depend on the subject of the consultation. In some policy areas, particularly where consultations are technical and focused, representative organizations will cover well the relevant constituency of interest. The wider public is not likely to have a direct interest or the capacity to contribute a useful view. (op cit, para 66) .

3.23 In other areas, and in particular where representative organisations may be considered to be promoting minority views (on whose judgement?), the public may provide a balancing mechanism.

On other issues, the interests of the general public will be further to the fore. There may not be representative organisations to cover effectively all the poles of interest. Or the representative organisations might choose to promote the views of a minority, or suppress the views of a minority, or simply exaggerate the constituency for which they claim to speak. In these circumstances, the Executive should consider ways of testing public opinion direct. (op cit, para 67) .

3.24 The role of the wider public appears to be performed by a mixture of civic participation (by 'civic Scotland') alongside the representative democracy afforded by elected representatives

Promoting participation: developing participation in the policy-making process is a legitimate democratic goal in its own right. Active participation deepens the quality of public debate and public interest that should in turn strengthen the processes of representative democracy. (op cit, para 5).

3.25 By civic participation we mean direct public involvement in the policy-making process other than through their elected representatives, councillors and MSPs. Civic participation therefore underpins participative democracy, which relies on the public being involved in decision making, rather than representative democracy, where the elected representatives dominate the policy process. The tools of civic participation are therefore those of consultation and participation, which may or may not be designed around consensual principles.

3.26 So, in the policy language of the new Scottish Parliament, the emphasis of public involvement is placed squarely on civic stakeholder participation. In terms of the definitions and discussion above, this is a limiting of the location of consensus building to certain actors, as representatives of the people - either elected or as organisations in civic Scotland. This raises the crucial issues, for participation in the broadest senses and for consensus building in particular, of who is participating and what is their role in communication, debate, and crucially in decision-making.

3.27 However, while this sets a general framework - an ethos of a more participative democracy, and a more specific approach to participation in national policy making - the situation on the ground is more complex, and different approaches are also being taken. Different situations call for different approaches in terms of which stakeholders are involved, and at what level in the decision making process they can or should be involved. Agencies across rural Scotland such as Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission are actively engaging communities in the planning and management of natural resources including local nature reserves and woodlands (SNH 1999, Forth Estuary Forum, undated, Forest Enterprise, undated). At a larger scales and with a different focus, community planning and Local Agenda 21 processes are engaging citizens and stakeholders in consensual approaches (Rogers, 2000, and LA21 review: LGMB, 1997). The body of this report examines these issues in more detail, and provides guidance on the crucial decisions to be made in deploying consensus building approaches in complex situations.

« Previous | Contents | Next »