The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER SEVEN STAGE 4. CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESSES - EXTERNAL ISSUES

7.1 The final issue concerns the effectiveness of consensus building processes. A major rationale for any consensus building process, whether as a broad process of public involvement or within a tightly confined group of agency partners, is that it should have an impact on policy or decision making. The agenda for widening democratic participation in particular demands that consensus building processes should be effective, alongside other goals such as building social capital through the consensus building process itself. These process goals will not be achieved if it is clear that participants' substantive goals will not be influenced by the process. In particular, where the public are involved, their ability to affect policy is arguably the key test of whether the process has any value:

In the absence of an observable effect, perhaps we should be cautious about accepting that the initiative involves the community as a true partner. (Hastings et al, 1996, p. 270).

7.2 We recognise that 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. Attention therefore 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 bubbles which can be held up as transparent and accessible processes, but which may fail to impact on the thinking or decisions of key actors. Therefore it is vital to pay attention to how consensus building processes fit into the wider processes of governance and policy making.

7.3 There are two key aspects to this question. The first is the linkage between a consensus building process and the structures that will implement the decisions emerging from the process. The second is the extent of integration between a given consensus building process and other policy making processes. For policy makers and process designers this is the issue of how to locate the consensus building process within a complex policy environment and a complex, multi-levelled governance structure, rather than a single policy or decision making process. More broadly, and a possibly even more difficult challenge, is that a successful consensus building process should be regarded as part of the continued experience of the public and of policy makers, affected by what has gone before and affecting future involvement in decision making processes.

Linkage and integration between consensus building processes and broader policy making structures

7.4 Although these questions of linkage and integration between consensus building processes and the wider policy and decision making structures which they relate to may seem obvious, a recurrent area of weakness in public involvement in general, and of consensus building processes in particular, is the ineffectiveness of such links (e.g. DoE PRP, 1994; Audit Commission, 2000).

7.5 Consensus building processes therefore need both structures which will act as conduits to link their decisions to the policy making process of which they form a component, and to integrate these decisions with work in other policy processes, possibly at different levels. They also require a level of commitment to take those outputs seriously, which is the question of 'what 'level' is the consensus building process going to have?' in Arnstein's sense (Arnstein, 1969). Is the consensual arena one in which decisions are going to be made, or is it merely consultative?

7.6 These are, once again, partly design issues. As with other aspects of consensus building, these issues of linkage and integration need to be considered and consciously planned for. This is closely connected with the discussions above about 'duration' and 'participants' in the process. Here duration is a critical issue. Above, we set out that consensus building may be attempted in one-off events, extended but time-limited processes, or within a more permanent institutionalised policy making structure. This distinction again becomes important because the more long-lasting and institutionalised the process is, the easier it is to establish formal linkages 'out' to other parts of the policy making process. It should be noted, however, that simply institutionalising a consensus building process does not necessarily institutionalise its linkage.

7.7 The key issue with the participants is that they should be people who in some way can 'carry' their 'communities', those whom they represent in consensus building. This is important if decisions taken in the process are to be translated into action which requires the support or participation of those communities. This clearly involves an agreed commitment over how seriously these decisions will be viewed. As elsewhere in the process, transparency over such questions is important, so that all participants know whether they are engaged in a consultative or decision making process. The Firths Forums provide good examples of agreement over integrated estuary management strategies, where there is a need to ensure that partner organisations are fully signed up to the jointly declared objectives.

7.8 However, this raises a further serious issue, which is that other actors in the policy making process, who may not be directly involved in the consensus building process itself, may have differing views about the status of the process outputs. This can lead to the manipulation of processes to meet other policy actors' agendas (Connelly and Sharp, 2001; Sharp 2000) or to the simple suppression of process outputs, regardless of the intentions of the initiators, designers and participants (Hastings et al, 1996). This may occur where consensus building has been accepted as a valid process at the outset, but its outcomes are set aside when it fails to deliver an 'acceptable' outcome. It may also occur where the process itself fails to secure sufficient organisational commitment at the outset, so it is never seen as the lead mechanism for resolution of issues. This is clearly damaging in terms of building trust between participants, in particular between the public and state agencies. O'Riordan and Ward (1997) describe a collaborative planning process for the management of a Special Protected Area in the Ouse Washes, during which trust was developed, yet:

Nevertheless, the final report was not discussed in the same open manner as was the dialogue leading to its preparation. This led to suspicion…that the NRA [who convened the process] remained keener to conclude their own engineering solutions…than genuinely listen to local (and possibly more expensive) demands. (O'Riordan and Ward, 1997 pp 269-270) .

7.9 Where the issue of how seriously consensus building process outputs should be taken is contested, the degree of democratic legitimacy that a process is seen to have becomes of critical importance (Connelly and Sharp, 2001). Opposition to public involvement processes can effectively take the form of challenging the representativeness of the participants. Consequently it is important for those designing and managing such processes to build their legitimacy, both substantively in terms of ensuring that participants are representative (as far as this is attainable), and also rhetorically in terms of presentation of the process. The aim is then one of establishing a commitment to the process throughout the participating organisations. O'Riordan and Ward continue:

There is a lesson here: participation has to go all the way to the final report…The ultimate test of a participatory exercise is the willingness to share an outcome - in effect to create a more decentralised and pluralistic basis for distributing power. (O'Riordan and Ward , 1997, p 270) .

Locating consensus building in complex policy and governance environments

7.10 A fundamental question in designing for consensus building, identified above, is locating the activity within a highly complex governmental arena. Traditional concepts and models of public involvement are based on binary processes, where a homogeneous 'public' is understood to be engaging with a single state body. This is clearly an inappropriate model for consensus building in the modern world. This is partly because of the recognised complexity of 'the public', comprising many different communities. Individuals are recognised to have interests, and to engage in processes both as individuals, and as members of different groups. It is also partly due to the multiplicity of state and other organisations now involved in governance. There are two dimensions to this. The first is the horizontal dimension, manifested in the fragmentation of governance from a clearly definable state body into a mix of elected and appointed bodies, and increasingly the sharing of governance with the private and voluntary and community sectors (Rhodes, 1997; Wilson and Game, 1998); The second is the vertical dimension of multi level governance. In the case of rural Scotland, agencies at the UK, Scottish, and local government and community levels are relevant, as well as sub-national divisions of agencies which may or may not correspond to local authority boundaries. One of the distinctive opportunities of consensus building, whether broad based or partnership based, is that it has the potential to cut across these various levels and engage stakeholders of different types.

7.11 These issues relating to multi-level governance are too complex to examine in depth here, but revisiting the model from section two, setting out four possible locations of consensus, each of the different stakeholder 'types' can be represented at different governance levels. Thus the possible locations for consensus are greatly multiplied. This again raises difficult questions for the design of consensus building processes. Complex issues need to be negotiated over who has the 'right' to be involved, and what level of influence local communities, say, should have over national policy issues. Here a tension emerges between local identity and democratic 'self-determination' and the need to pursue national (whether Scottish or UK) policies and apply uniform standards.

7.12 A further challenge is the sheer complexity of designing processes through which multi level institutions and communities organised at different scales can be brought together, and of designing linkages, so that outputs are channelled appropriately to communities at different scales and agencies of different types with different jurisdictions. The dimensions of this challenge are touched in the final section, with reference to the specific policy areas of national parks, national forest policy, and community planning.

Working in a Complex policy environment

7.13 In addition to the complexity imposed by the new institutional map of governance, any consensus building process also has to fit into other policy initiatives, which may or may not themselves involve consensus building and/or partnership structures. Increasingly there will be a need to be aware of consensus building processes that may be operating in the same area on different policy issues, possibly with an overlapping set of stakeholders, or of processes operating at different levels with similar goals.

7.14 Thus, for example, rural development in Scotland has been pursued through Local Rural Partnerships. But alongside the work of such partnerships are new processes for community planning, as well as specific area based initiatives and a variety of initiatives and partnerships relating to different funding sources (e.g. Initiative At The Edge, Social Inclusion Partnerships, LEADER) (Louise Brown Research, 2000). Typically, many of these initiatives share at least some objectives, but without clear linkages being established between them:

The Government has emphasised that the principle of social inclusion should also be addressed by other policies and programmes, including LRPs, but it has not suggested how SIPs and other initiatives should work together. (Louise Brown Research, 2000, p. 22) .

7.15 This leads to a number of problems. These include inefficiency, in terms of the duplication of effort, the potential for conflict between initiatives, and particularly the case for community participants in processes, but also for other stakeholders the likelihood of fatigue and alienation from an over-complex and opaque system of governance, leading to withdrawal from the process. This situation is compounded by the dynamic nature of the policy environment, with frequent new initiatives and structural changes.

7.16 In many ways this is not a conducive environment within which to establish consensus building processes, given the importance within them of a certain degree of stability in order to build trust and engage in deliberative planning. In the context of the points above about the importance of linkages from consensus building processes to the rest of the policy making process, the argument for institutionalising consensus building structures is reinforced, otherwise processes are attempting to link into a fluid environment.

The broader policy context

7.17 The policy environment for consensus building also includes other policies which are not directly linked to the process, but which indirectly affect it or are potentially affected by it. This is particularly the case where consensus building processes have the potential to embody or cause shifts in power relationships within governance. Such cases will be of potential interest to actors well beyond the apparent confines of the process, because they appear either as a positive initiative to be supported or as a potential threat to their interests.

7.18 This leads into the issue of the presence of overriding structures. It needs to be recognised that there are limits to what consensus building processes can tackle, because completely disconnected processes may influence them regardless of the intentions of those involved. Other initiatives may take precedence, such as those in pursuit of economic development. This is particularly a challenge to participative initiatives in areas such as sustainable development which challenge current policy trajectories.

7.19 Finally, consensus building processes cannot be seen in isolation from their effects on the relationships between different partners. In may cases the perceived benefits of engaging in consensus building are perceived to relate in part to increasing social capital. However, this implies that consideration should be given to how a given consensus building process fits into both a history of public involvement and into other interactions between partners, and how it contributes to an overall strategy of building social capital. Thus, despite the importance of demonstrating impacts in order to maintain support for a process, the long-term down-stream impacts may be more important than the immediate outputs. Some authors maintain that building social capital is a prerequisite for change, eg through local economic development (Amdam, 2000). This also raises issues for evaluation, because individual processes may decline or collapse but leave a legacy of networks and trust which generate further collective action (see e.g. Illsley and McCarthy, 1998).

Institutional change

7.20 The thrust of this section is the need to see consensus building processes in context. Evidence shows that making consensus building effective relies on embedding it, on institutionalising it. This has an important corollary that the key issues relating to design and linking and integrating consensus building into policy making are not just about good consensus building processes, but also about changing institutions so that they can accommodate consensus building inputs:

The eventual success of [Community Based Natural Resource Management] may depend, however, as much on institution building and organizational reform as on socio-economic development and scientific considerations. (Kellert et al, 2000) .

7.21 This has been found in the context of Community Based Natural Resource Management, but also holds true for any consensus building process that involves a shift towards collaborative working between state and civic society. Little has so far been written about this in the immediate context of UK policy making, but parallel work overseas gives weight to the argument that attempts to involve people and the state jointly in development will remain marginalised unless ways are found of institutionalising participatory and collaborative processes (Chambers, 1984; Blackburn, 1998; Thompson, 1998). This finding is supported by work on learning organisations in the private sector (in particular that of Charles Handy).

7.22 It is important to note that this is not just about embedding consensus building within institutional structures, but about addressing cultural issues, which will be embodied in both formal and informal structures, and in processes throughout organisations. These cultural issues can pose barriers to the acceptance of collaborative ways of working, in particular creating resistances to sharing power, and allowing the public to have real influence in decision making. Cultural barriers in particular relate to professionalism, and to the inertia associated in particular with large organisations with established routines.

SUMMARY

7.23 In this chapter we have discussed the effectiveness of consensus building processes in the context of broader planning and policy making frameworks. We have argued that a key test of the value of a consensus building process is whether the 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 raises difficult challenges for both of these forms of linkage. Finally we argued that a means of overcoming many potential barriers is to embed consensus building within institutional structures. In table 7 these issues are organised into key questions relating to linkage, impact, barriers and broader outcomes.

Table 7. Consensus building processes - external issues

¹ This is a difficult criterion to evaluate until the full process of decision making through to, and including, implementation (e.g. siting of required facilities) is complete. A general weakness in analysis of consensus building is that researchers seldom extend their attention downstream to the implementation phase once decisions have been taken, and so the question of cost-effectiveness is overlooked.

« Previous | Contents | Next »