Scottish Government

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE CENTRAL RESEARCH UNIT

Agricultural Policy Co-ordination and Rural Development Research Programme
Research Findings No. 12

Building Consensus for Rural Development and Planning in Scotland: A Review of Best Practice

Dr Tim Richardson and Stephen Connelly, Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield

This document is also available in pdf format (74k)

Main Findings

• Consensus building has become a widely used approach to decision-making in a variety of rural development and planning contexts and its forms can range from broad-based participative arenas to closed partnerships.
• There is an emerging pattern in rural development practice of consensus building taking place between small partnerships, using consultation processes to engage a wider range of interests.
• There is a need for independent or stakeholder based evaluation of consensus building and without this analysis it is not possible to learn lessons from attempts to build consensus around challenging policy issues.
• Further analysis of significant attempts to build consensus is needed, to identify barriers to consensus, and to seek to understand their significance, so that realistic expectations of consensus building in different contexts can be established.

Background

Consensus building is a favoured approach to participation and policy making which fits with current policy and societal attitudes and can offer solutions in complex situations.

The study looked at consensus building approaches in rural development and planning, in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and considers how different approaches may be used in a variety of contexts in rural Scotland.

The Review

The review provides a guide to reflective and critically aware decision making in designing and following through consensus building processes. The report leads the reader through a four stage conceptualisation of consensus building which depends on a number of decision making stages:

• why use consensus building?
• designing a consensus building process.
• consensus building in action - internal issues.
• consensus building in action - contextual issues.

Each stage describes the decisions that need to be made, and highlights the issues that need to be considered in making them. It also identifies practical barriers to the achievement of consensus.

Why use consensus building?

The effectiveness of consensus building is going to be affected by issues such as irreconcilable differences between interests; deep seated conflict; and whether potential participants are likely to accept the approach.

Such 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.

Exploring these issues increases the likelihood that realistic expectations of consensus building in different contexts can be established. Ideal consensus is just that - an ideal - and many so-called consensus building processes fall short in one aspect or another. This may be the result of a lack of inclusivity, a lack of decision-making power, or a failure to use explicit consensus-building methods. Such weaknesses, particularly when left unexamined, leave decision making more open to practices of bargaining, negotiation and coercion, which undermine claims that consensus has been achieved in a particular situation. Consideration of these preliminary issues leads on to more detailed questions relating to the detailed design of consensus building processes.

Designing a consensus building process

The study sets out a helpful list of process design questions which need to be considered in detail if consensus building is to be employed.

The study recommends adoption of an explicit consensus building process, rather than assuming that consensus will emerge from structures such as partnerships, and they set out a step by step process to designing the consensus building process.

At the outset, consensus building covers two very different approaches - conflictual approaches which identify differences and seek to change them, or non-conflictual approaches which seek common ground and build on it. The choice between these approaches affects all other design decisions.

Next are a series of decisions about the major design issues: What structures will be used to facilitate consensus building? Who will be included and excluded? With which participants will consensus actually be sought? In particular, if a fully inclusive process is impossible, then pragmatic and ethical arguments are important (and likely to conflict) in determining whether consensus is attempted within a stakeholder group or partnership, or between agencies. This limitation on the 'location of consensus' also raises the question of how to ensure linkage between those inside and outside the process, in order to ensure representativeness.

Finally, it should be noted that not everything is under the designers' control. Participants will most likely be approaching the process with different goals, and with different levels of willingness to participate. In particular the 'public' and their representatives from the community sector may well be more reluctant than anticipated _ due to fatigue, distrust or simply a perception that engagement in the process is not worthwhile.

Consensus building in action - internal issues

The study focuses on the micropolitics of consensus building, examining how power relations affect the possibility of consensus being reached. The study argues 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. A further set of issues relate to the process itself, including the presence and role of facilitators and stakeholders. In selecting and applying the specific methods used, trade offs have to be made between for example the breadth of participation and depth of consideration of policy issues, affecting the ways that participants engage with each other.

But, the most significant aspect to bear in mind of the micropolitics is that exclusion is in most cases an unavoidable dimension of consensus building practice.

Consensus building in action - external issues

The study also discusses the effectiveness of consensus building processes in the context of broader planning and policy making frameworks. The report argues that a key test of the value of a consensus building process is whether its 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. Finally the authors suggest that a way of overcoming many potential barriers is to embed consensus building within institutional structures.

A checklist for consensus building

The review sets out key questions and principles, which can be used in two ways. Firstly as a decision checklist for policy makers and others considering whether and how to carry out or engage in consensus building. And secondly as a basis for evaluating the quality of a given consensus building process. The study suggests ways of approaching consensus building reflectively. In assessing whether the principles hold true it is possible to acknowledge the many ways in which consensus building is attempted in less than ideal circumstances, and may lead to the conclusion that in certain situations it is not appropriate.

Applications of consensus building

There is no single model of consensus building appropriate for all situations. Consensus building approaches need to be developed specifically for their application, and will be determined by the nature of the issues being addressed, the type of output required, the range and nature of possible stakeholders and the tensions between them, and the different needs for democratic participation, debate and action.

The review makes observations on the application of consensus building within specific policy applications: Community Planning, National Park planning, and National Forest Programmes.

Further Critical Examination

The study identifies a lack of evaluation or critical analysis of consensus building practice in rural Scotland, and recommends more detailed research into the applications of consensus building to Community Planning, the planning and management of the new National Parks, and the implementation of National Forest Programmes.

There is also a more general need to examine how consensus building methods can be linked with decision making, and integrated with other policy processes operating at different levels or focusing on different policy issues. The demands of consensus building suggest that a more integrated approach to participation is explored, which can make the most effective use of its intensive approach where necessary and appropriate, and subject to reasonable rather than ideal expectations.

About the study

This study was undertaken by Dr Tim Richardson and Dr Stephen Connelly of the Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield between January and November 2001. The research was primarily a desk-based review, and was funded by Scottish Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage and The Forestry Commission.