The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER FOUR STAGE 1. WHY USE CONSENSUS BUILDING?

4.1 In chapter 3 we reviewed how consensuality has become central to policy discourse, arguing that there now exists a presumption in favour of seeking consensus between an increasingly wide range of participants. However in any given situation it is important to assess whether or not consensus building is likely to be the most appropriate approach to decision making. This chapter helps in carrying out this assessment, by outlining rationales for consensus building, identifying possible applications of consensus building, exploring issues for consideration, and providing decision criteria to assist decisions about where consensus building is or isn't appropriate.

Rationales for consensus building

4.2 Collaborative planning, and specifically consensus building, may reflect a range of rationales (adapted from Healey, 1997). Clarity is important about which rationale(s) actually underpin attempts to build consensus in particular situations, because it shapes later decisions:

• instrumental
  • getting decisions that 'stick', building support for decisions. In particular overcoming known differences over what a decision should be.
  • bringing in more expertise and knowledge - in particular where consensus building involves 'the public', bringing in lay knowledge to complement expert knowledge.
• political and social
  • consensus building as an arena for working through and overcoming ideological and political differences.
  • building social capital - the actual consensus building process develops relations of trust and new network linkages between members of the community, other actors and agencies. (Amdam, 2000).
• normative and ethical -
  • people have a democratic right to be involved in decisions that affect them.

4.3 Any or all of these rationales can be important in a given situation, depending on the context and the goals of the initiator(s) of the process.

4.4 In particular, consensus building can, it is claimed, tackle decision making situations where traditional approaches, top down approaches, and also the new participatory techniques may fail. As discussed above, traditional approaches to public participation are regarded as inappropriate where there is a need to work at deep rooted conflicts or in complex situations. Limited public involvement of this type fails to create the interaction which is needed. Again, where there is a need for ongoing involvement in management, there is a need for approaches which allow time for complex or controversial issues to be worked through, to build the sense of ownership and trust which will engender a commitment to participate over the longer term.

4.5 A basic principle of consensus building, according to O'Riordan and Ward (1997), is that there should be procedural fairness in order for processes to have legitimacy, respect and authenticity (in the sense that everyone's views can be expressed, heard and understood) and transparency. This is particularly the case since the new participative processes and the approaches to complex governance situations often don't have statutory force, so they need to gain their legitimacy in other ways.

4.6 However we also recognise that consensus building is not a panacea (Sidaway, 1998, and Sidaway and Ingram, 2000), and its deployment does not promise automatic success in resolving difficult and complex situations. Thus the first question that should be asked is 'is consensus building appropriate in this situation?' A number of factors which would need to be taken into account are discussed below.

Situations in which consensus building approaches can be used

4.7 Consensus building is generally claimed to offer utility in a wide range of problematic decision making situations. From the literature, two broad categories can be identified, relating to conflict resolution and complex management respectively (Table 2).

4.8 The first category makes use of consensus building as a particular approach to conflict resolution. Sidaway (1998) locates consensus building as a negotiating/mediating voluntary approach to resolving disputes, on a spectrum which includes avoidance, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, litigation and coercion. This category includes single issue cases, such as siting controversies, where there is conflict between those supporting and opposing development, or in cases of policy breakdown:

Over the last 10 -15 years the international political science, public perceptions and risk communication literature have each advocated the need for co-operative resolution of policy and siting conflicts in relation to industrial and infrastructure developments. (Petts, 1995)

4.9 Early experience in consensus building focused on issues of this type:

Consensus-building techniques have been advocated and tested, particularly for siting decisions at the local level in North America (Bacow & Wheeler, 1984, Bingham, 1986, Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987, Renn, 1992, cited in Petts, 1995).

4.10 Experience in Britain remains limited, and consensus building is considered a new practice:

Mediation depends on consensus building principles …[its] use in actually resolving environmental disputes in Britain is still fairly limited, although consensus building principles are being applied to prevent environmental disputes (Sidaway and Ingram, 2000: 212).

4.11 Furthermore, there are weaknesses in the way this has been conceptualised:

However, the political science literature has generally failed to identify the required conditions for co-operative resolution of policy conflict (Quirk, 1989) (cited in Petts, 1995).

4.12 A detailed description of the relatively successful use of consensus building in such a case can be found in Petts (1995). The case concerns the introduction of a consensus building process concerning proposals for the siting a waste management facility, where conventional policy making processes had previously failed, opposition had been created, and a necessary development had been stalled. Such applications may hold promise for similar major development issues in rural Scotland, for example regarding proposals for tourism development in national parks.

4.13 At a different scale, consensus building has been applied where complex environmental and/or social issues are being dealt with, and where many divergent interests are affected by policy decisions. In such cases, there are both democratic grounds and conflict avoidance grounds for explicitly addressing the complexity, and in ensuring that all interests are reflected in the decision making process. Specific applications include many different cases of complex area management planning, and community based natural resource management, as well as community planning.

Table 2. Applications of consensus building.

4.14 It should be noted that these are not hard and fast distinctions. The need for complex area management often arises out of specific problem solving or conflict resolution episodes. Alternatively processes of consensus building can in themselves lead to future conflicts. Using consensus building in a community development programme, for example, may build capacity within a community which can be a precursor for potential conflict with external agencies. So there is a dynamic between these broad applications of consensus building.

Issues for consideration

4.15 Despite the widespread presumption in favour of using consensus building approaches, there are a number of factors which need to be considered before deciding that such an approach is appropriate in a specific situation. These are the presence of conflicting goals, the existence of challenges to the consensual principle, the potential for achieving democratic legitimacy, and the existence of resource constraints.

Conflicting goals

4.16 There are two critical ways in which the presence of conflicting goals acts as a barrier to consensus. The fundamental one is that there fundamental differences may exist between different interests, or the positions of different stakeholders, which cannot be overcome through consensus building. Irretrievable differences of interest may exist, and breakdowns of trust may occur. In certain cases it may simply not be possible to bridge divides. One response to this problem is to try and avoid it altogether, by analysing in advance or anticipating which participants and which issues hold the potential for making sense together, and which are likely to hold intractable positions. The difference is characterised by Sidaway as different beliefs and conflicting interests in his Anatomy of Conflict and Co-operation (Sidaway, 1998).

4.17 The second way in which barriers may result from conflicting goals is where individual participants may be pursuing different kinds of goals from those central to the consensus building process, which may be incompatible. In particular, where the goals of the process are short term and instrumental, the likelihood of conflict with broader objectives of building social capital, or even with the longer term goals of other participants is increased. Such conflicts matter, since typically it is the powerful actors who set and pursue instrumental goals, whilst the weaker parties, often from local communities, often have longer term, more diffuse goals. In such cases the risk is of disillusionment and drop-out, as participants feel the process is being managed to exclude or marginalise their interests (Duffy and Hutchinson, 1997).

4.18 A related, more difficult question concerns whether a consensual approach is likely to lead to better decisions, which are more than straightforward compromise. Do the requirements for consensual processes which inherently avoid conflict in themselves defeat the possibility of really exploring positions of conflict and opposition, so that transformation can take place? In some circumstances adversarial (e.g. quasi-judicial) processes may be more appropriate than attempts to build consensus. Alternatively reliance may be placed on the democratic legitimacy of elected representatives to make decisions between irreconcilable interests.

4.19 Furthermore, consensus building approaches are based on the premise that consensus is possible and that conflicts are resolvable. In practice, however, increases in participation and partnership result in greater potential exposure of conflicts and differences of interest. It is therefore crucial that interfaces between different interests, such as consensus building processes, 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 leads to weaker decision-making, and breakdown of trust.

4.20 There may also be challenges to the idea that consensus building is the appropriate approach from stakeholders whose involvement is crucial to the success of the process. Govan et al (1998) for example suggest that, in the context of national park management, there may be agencies or individuals unwilling to share authority. Important groups may also stay away from consensus building processes, perceiving their positions to be potentially weakened by agreeing to abide by shared outcomes. There may also be individuals or groups who see conflict rather than consensus as a way to further their own interests (e.g. politicians, some businesses, conservationists, developers). There may also be structural factors which mitigate against consensus building processes being effective, including factors relating to land tenure (property rights distribution, legal status and power of owners, motivation and objectives of owners and occupiers), and legal and accounting mechanisms which are not sufficiently flexible for process oriented projects to work.

4.21 A further issue is the possibility of establishing a process which is sufficiently inclusive and open to deliver consensual decisions with the required degree of legitimacy. Specifically there may be issues around the hijacking of fora and processes by the loudest voices (Govan et al, 1998), and the possibility of engaging a sufficiently representative group in a sufficiently interactive way.

4.22 Finally there are resource issues - staff, skills, money and time. All of these may be in short supply, both in the initiating authority and amongst other stakeholders. Govan et al identify the lack of skilled staff as a constraint on engaging the public in national park management, a problem repeatedly echoed by environmental coordinators faced with the community aspects of implementing LA21 (Morris and Hams, 1997 and CAG Consultants, 1998). The need to fit consensus building processes into timescales set by other policy processes also causes problems, since consensus building - in common with certain other processes of public involvement - is often necessarily lengthy where trust has to be established and complex issues explored. Thus:

The whole programme was conducted in too short a time. Ideally it should have commenced at least two and preferably four months earlier. The short timescale affected the extent to which the CAFs felt that they were able to fully address their remit, led to some problems of administration and undoubtedly put pressure on the key officers in terms of workload and their ability to collect information as required. (Petts 1995).

4.23 Similarly in the case of the Stanage Forum, the professional facilitators would have preferred 6 months lead in time to design an appropriate process, but financial restrictions, coupled with the need to generate an output (in this case a management plan) within a set time, precluded this (Richardson forthcoming).

4.24 As well as the resource constraints faced by local authorities and other agencies, there is a specific issue of resourcing the community participants. This issue is often presented as an equal problem for all those concerned, but the resources available to different agencies, organisations, individuals and communities clearly varies greatly. This has been highlighted in the context of urban regeneration, but is equally applicable to other circumstances where it is expected that community and state/private stakeholders will join together on an equal footing (Duncan and Thomas, 2000). This is particularly the case where a number of overlapping participation initiatives all place demands for involvement on the same, often limited, number of community activists (Govan et al, 1998):

Nationally, a growing and often confusing array of government initiatives reflects different national policy objectives. Their application through regeneration programmes often takes little account of local variation and involves high costs in time and resources for local organizations and their staff. (Duncan and Thomas, 2000).

and

Central government and local authorities can take practical steps to enhance the role of community leaders. In particular, regeneration policy could be made more 'community friendly' by reducing the bureaucratic demands of partnership working on individual community leaders. (Purdue et al, 2000).

Summary

4.25 This Chapter has provided assistance for those considering whether or not a consensus building approach might be appropriate in a particular rural development or planning application. A series of key issues have been identified, which inform decisions over whether or not a consensus building approach is likely to be appropriate (Table 3). The first key issue is determining which rationale(s) underpin the consensus building approach. Is consensus building being considered for instrumental reasons, to build support, perhaps in recognition of conflict between different interests, or to broaden the base of knowledge and experience that informs decision making? Or are there political and social reasons for pursuing consensus? Could consensus building be a way of working through ideological and political differences between interests, or a means of establishing social capital? Alternatively, are there normative and ethical reasons for building consensus, in recognition of the rights of communities and other interests to be involved in decisions affecting them? In each case one or more of these rationales may suggest that a consensus building approach could be appropriate.

Table 3. Key questions in determining the appropriateness of a consensus building approach

4.26 Next, a number of varying applications of consensus building were identified, which could be broadly grouped into those seeking to resolve conflicts, and those seeking to manage complex planning and management situations.

4.27 In assessing whether to pursue a consensus building approach, a number of issues are identified for careful consideration. These include the possible presence of irreconcilable differences between interests; stakeholders' commitment to consensus building being based on different rationales; the limits of consensus building approaches in terms of really getting to grips with deep seated conflict; the risk of exacerbating rather than resolving conflict; and the need for acceptance of the approach among potential participants, particularly those regarded as critical to success. These issues need to be carefully negotiated for consensus building to secure legitimacy. The resource implications, both in terms of time and finance are particularly significant for consensus building processes.

4.28 In summary, consensus building is a favoured approach to participation and policy making which fits with current policy and societal attitudes. It offers solutions in a broad range of complex situations. But consensus building is not necessarily always the best approach, and a key question remains: 'is consensus building appropriate here?'. Exploring the issues identified in this chapter increases the likelihood that realistic expectations of consensus building in different contexts can be established. If the answer to this crucial question is perceived to be 'yes', then a subsequent set of major considerations concern which individuals, communities, interests or organisations should be involved; and what kind of consensus building is being sought. These are the subjects of the following chapters.

« Previous | Contents | Next »