The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER SIX STAGE 3. CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESSES - INTERNAL ISSUES INITIAL ISSUES

6.1 A central focus of many studies of planning and policy making has been to focus on the micropolitics of planning processes. Such studies have focused particularly on communication, and on the extent to which a particular arena provides an opportunity for rational discourse. Following this approach, this section focuses in particular on the effects of power relations within the consensus building arena in affecting the possibility of consensus being achieved.

6.2 Derived from the earlier discussion in chapters 4 and 5, it is possible to identify a number of key questions which arise partly in the early stages of designing consensus building processes, but which re-emerge within the process because they also relate partly to the internal dynamics of the process. These are accompanied by a further set of issues relating to the ways that participants engage in the process, as power relations are played out around the consensus building table. This section works from the premise that, in spite of the presence of ideal models of consensus building, such processes are in reality non-power-neutral. Therefore we regard certain criteria for consensus building, such as 'ensuring that all the parties taking part are in an equal position' (Petts, 1995, p. 521), as being unachievable in the real life practice of consensus building.

Initial issues

6.3 The very first moments of a consensus building process are important in building understanding about a number of different questions, including what the process is for, how it will operate, what is aims to achieve, what its scope and limitations are, and what is expected of the different participants.

6.4 One of the key initial considerations is how the treatment of the issues addressed in chapters 4 and 5 above will be communicated within (and outside) the consensus building arena. In particular, is the intention that the process and its context be explained fully to all participants, with key upstream issues and decisions identified? This may clearly open up sensitive areas, such as debates that have taken place over the inclusion or exclusion of certain stakeholders, or alluding to the positions of particular officers or members within agencies and authorities. However building trust depends to a large extent on transparency at these initial stages, rather than the presentation of a blank sheet (Richardson, forthcoming).

6.5 It is clearly of paramount importance that all participants recognise and accept the principles of the particular consensus building approach that is being used. A related issue is the extent to which common goals are adopted and pursued, and whether there exists a shared commitment to abide by the outcomes. An ideal process of consensus building would establish agreement on these issues early on. However in practice it is often likely to be the case that parties will enter a process with a firm view that certain outcomes will not be acceptable. Dealing with this issue effectively requires transparent identification of goals and outcomes, and at least some exploration of whether process goals are compatible with the objectives of the participants, so that realistic expectations can be reached.

6.6 A further difficult issue at the outset is the extent to which particular individuals can or will act as representatives of a particular stakeholder group or interest. This may require individual discussion with potential representatives, though open processes of selection often preclude this. It should then be established whether the participants together manage to provide representation for all stakeholders with a potential, actual, or significant interest in the specific policy issue or area. This might be achieved through explicit stakeholder analysis and selection within the process itself, as in the case of the Stanage Forum.

Role of the facilitator

6.7 A common factor in many cases of consensus building is the presence of a facilitator. Facilitators may be process or technical experts, or otherwise, but their role is a significant one in determining the approach to consensus building that will be adopted, and in steering the process in a way that accords with (hopefully) agreed objectives and ways of working. Sidaway (1998) identifies different third party roles within different conflict-resolution approaches:

• facilitator - assists by suggesting procedures (neutral)
• mediator - facilitates but also takes a more active role in brokering
• arbitrator - suggests solutions (in non-binding arbitration)

6.8 The common use of the term 'facilitator' in consensus building suggests that their neutrality is indeed seen as a key requirement. The facilitator is a person who is assumed to have an independent position, although there is a great deal of variation in what is meant by independence, and what other attributes are desirable or necessary for this crucial role. Buttoud (1999) argues that facilitators should be rigorous, honest and open, possibly coming from universities or NGOs, not from public bodies. However Petts (1995) stresses that although perceived independence is critical, this status can be achieved by drawing from other parts of an organisation, or a local person:

It would not be appropriate to say that the appointment of external consultants is essential to such a participation exercise. The key criterion of effectiveness is perceived independence of the organizer and facilitator, and this should be able to be achieved by use either of other departments within an authority or of a local person with relevant skills. (Petts, 1995).

6.9 However, we note that this review revealed no cases where a member of the community played the role of facilitator.

6.10 A further question is whether facilitators should be process experts, or professionals with expertise in the issues which are under debate. Here Buttoud (1999) argues that they should be experts in the field (in this case forestry), rather than process experts. It is argued that facilitators who are process experts tend to 'cinch down' the discussion. Conversely, Forester (1999) argues that process and subject experts actively taking a role as mediators and builders of consensus are intrinsically non-neutral (see also Edwards-Jones, 1997).

6.11 A second key manifestation of power relations is then the way in which the facilitator makes a difference to these power relations. Where deep rooted conflict exists, such as in the above example, can facilitators successfully enable the participants to explore this and find a common way forwards? This connects with John Forester's talk of 'deliberative practitioners' (Forester, 1999) and raises important questions about the power relationships between the facilitator and the other participants: can or should s/he be a neutral collator and assessor of facts (Edwards-Jones, 1997) or is the role a more explicitly active, and thus potentially powerful one?

Specific methods

6.12 Rather than discuss in detail the many different techniques which are employed in consensus building, the aim here is to briefly identify some of the broader issues relating to the selection of methods which might be used. A comprehensive list of tools and techniques for consensus building is set out in Williams, 1995. As has been stated, many of these methods are familiar in community development, sustainable development, and other areas where bottom-up participation has been a focus. Techniques such as Future Search and Planning for Real are emerging as methods of engaging communities in complex debates about sustainability, development options, and so on.

6.13 A primary consideration is whether the adopted consensus building approach is suitable to the objectives and needs of the different participants. Are the adopted methods likely to be suitable for dealing with, for example, the positions adopted by, and conflict between stakeholders, and the level of detail that needs to be reached in resolving complex issues. In broad-based participative approaches in particular there is a concern that the breadth of participation precludes detailed consideration of policy issues, or examination of the positions of different stakeholders. Even in more closed processes trade offs may be necessary between the need to work on existing differences between stakeholders, and the need to focus attention on the detail of policy options.

6.14 A challenging issue in the playing out of consensus building is whether the incremental decisions taken along the way are made by consensus. Scrutiny of decision making reveals whether consensuality is alternatively a hallmark of the process, a quality of the way the final decision is made, or is simply a label that has been attributed to the output of an unscrutinised process. The selection of methods, and their management, may play a significant part in ensuring consensuality, by attempting to ensure that different voices can be heard, and that the process keeps within its own remit.

6.15 The selection of methods also determines the intensity of the process, by prescribing the conditions within which stakeholders will meet and explore common ground or differences of position. Whilst some methods can be carried out very rapidly, the overwhelming evidence is that a great deal of time, and intense contact between stakeholders, are needed if consensus is to be established. Processes are often constrained for time by resource issues and the imperatives to achieve outcomes. But a pressure also exists in the other direction, as meetings fail to cover the full agenda and there never seems to be adequate time for adequate exploration of issues (Richardson, forthcoming). A criteria for successful consensus building is therefore whether adequate time for discussion before decision-making been allowed, but mitigated against the need for outputs to be policy responsive.

6.16 A final issue relating to the selection of methods is the question of the construction of knowledge within the process. One of the aims of participation in consensus building is to build a broad base of knowledge of different policy issues and problems, by incorporating the perspectives of different stakeholders. One of the challenges posed is that in opening up these valuable different windows on a policy issue, there is a need to find ways to capture knowledge which is held and articulated in very different ways, and may be attributed different levels of significance. So, criteria for consensus building are the degree of awareness of the issues and the perspectives of the different stakeholders generated by the process, and the nature of the knowledge that results. Is a common information base established which is equally accessible to all stakeholders, and what is the status of different forms of lay and expert knowledge?

Agenda setting

6.17 A widely recognised dynamic is that initiating bodies have power to control over the process of decision making simply by way they the restrict agenda for discussion (Alterman, 1982, Sharp and Connelly, 2000). Such restrictions can lead a process towards outcomes which been predetermined, or away from others which are perceived to be troublesome. One means of scrutinising this is to examine whether the process allows for alternative outcomes to be identified within the stakeholder group, and that decisions about the prioritisation of these options, and their following through, are also made within the process.

Moving ground

6.18 Successful consensus building depends critically on the interaction between different stakeholders as they work together to explore each other's positions and identify common visions. Of particular interest is the way in which stakeholders, who are often individuals representing a wider group, interest or organisation, play out their representative role. How do they negotiate the need to act as a fair representative of a particular position, but at the same time participate in a process which requires some movement and flexibility around that position? This question of dealing with the playing out of positions around the consensus building table is important, particularly where positions are deeply entrenched, or backed up by a strong institutional presence. In such cases the possibilities of movement seem limited, yet consensus relies on this possibility.

6.19 According to Petts (1995), the question of how far positions can shift is related to the relationship between participants who act as representatives, and their 'communities':

From observing the first phase of the process, all of the stakeholders did not have the same objectives. Some officers and Members said that they did not think that the views of the public would be changed as a result of the process, presumably hoping that they would. The County talked in terms of wanting to raise the profile of waste as a public issue, to listen to people' s opinions and to achieve a consensus that the waste strategy was acceptable. A majority of CAF members wanted to be able to influence the strategy and to have an effect on its implementation. (Petts, 1995).

6.20 This raises the question of who is expecting who to change? The consensual ideal depends on all stakeholders being willing to learn and explore common ground, and therefore being open to change. However the reality may be that everyone goes expecting that others will come to agree with them, and or be able to manipulate this through, for example, persuasion or control of language (e.g. Hastings, 1999). It is here that core questions concerning the extent of openness, honesty, and trust begin to emerge. If stakeholders are not operating openly or honestly, as they may well not be, then a number of unanticipated difficulties may arise.

Building social capital

6.21 Related to these questions concerning the positions of stakeholders is the possibility that through participating in consensus building processes, benefits may result for individuals, networks, communities and organisations. O'Riordan and Ward are upbeat about the positive benefits of participating in successful consensus building:

To be empowered is to be joyful in the process of reaching genuine and lasting consensus. (O'Riordan and Ward, 1997, 267).

6.22 Empowerment is integral to building social capital, and may bring longer term down-stream spin-offs, which may themselves turn out to be as important as the immediate outputs of consensus building. For example, the importance of confidence building through engagement in such processes may enable local development strategies to happen, which may be a pre-requisite for economic development:

If the community itself does not believe that it has a future, no-one will invest economic or social capital in that community. (Amdam, 2000, 582).

6.23 On the other hand, in even more extreme terms, Illsley and McCarthy's description of the collapse of the Whitfield Partnership shows that even the breakdown of a process of consensus building can result in increased social capital, with increased levels of local community activity (Illsley and McCarthy, 1999).

6.24 Such possibilities for disparity between perceived successful outcomes, and perceived success in the longer term, raise difficult issues in determining the effectiveness of consensus building. Within the literature there are differences over which criteria are most important. For example, Hastings et al (1999) define effectiveness in terms of having a policy impact, while Healey (1996) argues that the plans and policies may be less important outputs than the social, intellectual, and political capital that arise from the collaborative process.

Overall patterns of exclusion

6.25 As discussed above, the dynamics of policy making tend to lead towards exclusion as a natural process. At least three facets of exclusion can be identified: exclusion of stakeholders through explicit or implicit means, possibly including coalition drift; exclusion of issues from consideration by shaping and controlling agendas; exclusion of action outcomes in favour of bland statements. In an ideal situation, each of these forms of exclusion might be avoided, but the reality of policy making is that exclusion, in its different forms, can be a strategic aim of actors of all types. Consensus building processes may create situations which rebalance power relations between actors in certain ways, for a limited time, and depending on the specifics of their design and operation. However power and politics cannot be removed completely, and so exclusion needs to be recognised as a constantly present force, rather than something that is somehow removed once consensus building has begun.

6.26 In the face of such challenges, exclusion should often be considered as a necessary condition for consensus, rather than maintaining an unexamined image of a fully inclusive process. One of the ways consensus is often achieved is through trade offs between different forms of exclusion. Limiting participation may be considered necessary to achieve an action-oriented outcome in certain cases, whilst in others it may be considered more important to pursue consensus in a more open, democratic way, to meet the concerns of a wide range of interests. So in order to reach consensus some exclusion may nearly always have to occur, and the key issue is the need to be explicit about how the question of exclusion has been dealt with, and related to this the extent of clarity over the location of consensus. Explicit consensus building may therefore involve prioritisation between inclusivity of participants; holistic policy making; and process goals. Again, the critical issue is whether and how trade-offs and decisions about exclusion are made explicit and accountable.

SUMMARY

6.27 In this chapter we have focused on the micropolitics of consensus building, examining how power relations affect the possibility of consensus being reached. We argued 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. Transparency at the outset is regarded as important in establishing trust between participants, along with clear understanding and acceptance of the principles of the approach being used.

6.28 A further set of issues relate to the process itself. A context-dependent question to be considered is whether a facilitator is needed, and if so whether this role should be filled by a professional or expert on the issues being addressed, or on the participative process itself. Many considerations influence the selection and application of methods used, particularly where trade offs have to be made between breadth of participation and depth of consideration of policy issues, affect the ways that participants engage with each other.

6.29 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.

6.30 The key issues discussed in this chapter are of a rather different kind to those in the preceding chapters. Whilst the earlier discussion related to clear choices about alternative approaches, the implication here is that a series of principles can be identified which should be adhered to if consensus building is to be successful. These are listed in table 6.

Table 6. Consensus building processes: internal issues

« Previous | Contents | Next »