Consensus 101

1
Chesapeake Watershed ForumOverview of the
Collaborative Process Friendraising 101Frank
Dukes, Ph.D.Institute for Environmental
NegotiationUniversity of Virginia
2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
Goals of the Workshop

• You will learn
• Concerns and benefits of collaborative processes
• Matching authentic decision processes to the
  circumstance
• Evaluating the likelihood of success
• Principles and processes for collaborative
  decision making

5
Concerns about Collaboration

• Public land collaboratives favor only local
  representation
• Officials avoid controversy by delegating
  decisions
• Agency authority and laws weakened or bypassed by
  ad hoc power
• Collaboration offers equal validity to competing
  values
• An ideology of harmony is compelling within the
  community
• Convening agencies, facilitators try to satisfy
  those in power
• Decisions only legitimate when acceptable to
  all parties
• Collaboration requires time otherwise needed
• Public participation procedures may be abandoned

6
The Promise of Collaboration

• Bridging differences
• Leveraging resources
• Fostering citizenship
• Providing positive public relationships
• Promoting mutual education
• Saving time and money
• Building environmental, social and economic gains

7
Lessons from Collaborative Forums

• They serve to break the ice, to develop a
  capacity for talk where quite literally none
  existed before.
• In situations where much is at stake and stark
  differences exist, it is virtually impossible for
  productive dialogue to occur without some
  independent forum and facilitation. Once the ice
  is broken, it stays broken.

8
Lessons from Collaborative Forums

• They allow for new learning.
• Direct, face-to-face discussions do not always
  reach agreement, but they invariably result in
  new, more accurate understandings.

9
Lessons from Collaborative Forums

• They weaken the extreme and empower the
  reasonable.
• When all communication is conducted through
  filters of media and third-party reports, all
  that can come through is what is shouted the
  loudest, excites the greatest reaction, and is
  most inflammatory and newsworthy. By showcasing
  voices and ideas that have not had currency, and
  by modeling processes of respectful, candid and
  productive dialogue, the extremes tend to stand
  out as extreme and the reasonable as worthy of
  consideration.

10
Lessons from Collaborative Forums

• They create recognition of common values, goals
  and concerns, resulting in empathy and
  relationships of trust and integrity.
• Former opponents learn that they do share many
  values these can include hard work, community
  involvement, personal and social responsibility,
  and a concern for youth and community economic,
  physical and mental health.

11
Lessons from Collaborative Forums

• They allow for productive action even in
  circumstances where some differences continue.
• Because parties realize that they can talk to
  each other with civility, they can work together
  when appropriate on certain issues while opposing
  each other on other issues.

12
Lessons from Collaborative Forums

• Areas of joint interest continue to be discovered
  as discussion proceeds.
• If trust can be developed that parties will not
  abuse the demonstrations of candor and honesty,
  dialogue will continue to be productive

13
(No Transcript)
14
Core Values of Participation

• The International Association for Public
  Participation -
• Seven Core values
• People should have a say in decisions about
  actions which affect their lives
• Public participation includes the promise that
  the publics contribution will influence the
  decision
• The public participation process communicates the
  interests and meets the process needs of all
  participants
• The public participation process seeks out and
  facilitates the involvement of those potentially
  affected
• The public participation process involves
  participants in defining how they participate
• The public participation process communicates to
  participants how their input was, or was not,
  utilized
• The public participation process provides
  participants with the information needed to
  participate in a meaningful way

15
The Menu of Collaborative Processes from
lesser interaction to greater interaction

• Issue Scoping
• Public Meetings
• Public Workshops
• Community Dialogues
• Collaborative Problem-Solving
• Collaborative Governance

16
A Menu of Collaborative Processes
17
A Menu of Collaborative Processes
Increasing Involvement
18
Public Meetings The PBJs... Lowest Cost/ Time

• Provide citizens with information/ education
• Identify citizen concerns
• No option generation, no joint decision-making
• Strategies for Increasing Engagement
  Legitimacy
• shared meeting planning
• small group discussions
• facilitated Q/A
• surveys

19
Public Meetings The PBJs... Lowest Cost/ Time

• Examples of enhanced public meeting
• Biosolids land application
• Pre-meeting open house for information discussion
• Facilitated panel of experts
• Citizen questions written on cards and
  organized by theme
• Facilitated Q/A

20
Public WorkshopsThe Box Lunches...Mid-level
Cost/Time

• Provide citizens with information/ education
• Interaction in small groups
• Focus on generating ideas and solutions
  for specific issues and problems
• Strategies for Increasing Engagement
  Legitimacy
• involve citizens in planning the workshop and
  post-workshop task forces
• written surveys pre-workshop, during workshop, or
  after
• educational multi-media presentations and small
  group discussions

21
Public WorkshopsThe Box Lunches...Mid-level
Cost/Time

• Example of enhanced workshop
• Nelson County Watershed Forum
• To identify watershed issues, goals and
  strategies
• Stakeholder steering committee
• 2 consecutive days
• Educational component
• Small group discussions
• Active followup

22
DialoguesThe Box Lunches...Mid-level Cost/Time

• Focus on understanding, not debate
• Provide balanced information
• Need trusted convener and facilitator(s)
• Ground rules promote civil discussion
• Recognizes that differences do not have to
  mean enmity
• Builds/ restores relationships

23
Community DialoguesThe Box Lunches...Mid-level

• Example of Community-based dialogue
• Fluvanna Public Conversations
• Siting of Circuit Court Required public
  referendum
• Series of 4 open meetings
• Facilitated presentations followed by Q/A
• All perspectives given opportunity for
  presentations arranged by facilitator to ensure
  balance in any one meeting

24
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• Hears concerns, identifies issues and shared
  values
• Builds understanding, respect, and trust
• Seeks mutual gains win-win-win
• Develops shared decision-making
• Builds commitment to implementation

25
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• Different Forms / Names for Collaborative
  Problem-Solving
• Facilitation
• Training
• Mediation
• Consensus Building
• Community Collaboratives
• Watershed Planning Forums
• Policy Roundtables Dialogues
• Citizen Task Forces (Advisory)
• Steering Committees

26
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• The Accordion Approach
• A collaborative leadership group
• Outreach to community at key points
• Example Fairfax County Watershed Planning

27
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• The Virginia Solutions Process
• Appointed Trusted Convener
• Declaration of Cooperation
• 3-5 meetings
• Example Loudoun County Strategic Watershed
  Management Solutions (SWMS)

28
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• Example of Consensus Building
• Money Point Revitalization Task Force (Elizabeth
  River)
• Contamination in water and on land
• 50-member representative group
• 6 meetings
• Work group sessions
• Recommendations endorsed by consensus

29
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• Lessons learned from a participant, in no
  particular order
• 1. The fact that the meetings were fun -
  drawings, little prizes, take homes, food.....
  helped me keep wanting to come in face of busy
  schedule.
• 2. The facilitation provided atmosphere were
  everyone could speak, nothing was looked at like
  a dumb idea or issue. Also, everyone was allowed
  to bring out their issues of particular
  importance and even if it didn't relate to other
  issues that was ok and it was remembered and
  considered.
• 3. I was glad we were able to get community
  members to come as well. I applaud the extra
  effort - door knocking, dinner.. to pull the
  community in. Without the complete range of
  stakeholders, you never know if your consensus is
  really consensus.
• 4. Decisions were reached - we got a vision
  statement, a cleanup design..... Things were not
  just discussed endlessly with no conclusion.

30
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• Lessons learned from a participant, in no
  particular order
• 5. As a "non-local" with no direct regulatory
  responsibility, I was still made to feel
  important.
• 6. Use of break out groups allowed more people to
  have detailed discussion/interactions (helped
  understand others issues) and narrow down what
  where key issues.
• 8. I'm not quite sure how, but you instilled a
  sense of ownership. The historical
  information/context was interesting.
• 9. Having some sort of "product" at each meeting
  - a final vision statement, conceptual drawings
  of green ways...... helped me see that we are
  making consistent significant progress -
  important to keep group as priority to everyone
• 10. The facilitation team was big enough to run
  the meetings smoothly, capture notes, handle
  logistics.... important for professionals to see
  that they are at a professionally run meeting

31
(No Transcript)
32
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• Strategies for Increasing Engagement
  Legitimacy
• Facilitated public meetings
• Stakeholder focus groups
• Surveys/ questionnaires - at meetings, mailed,
  online
• Telephone or Face-Face Interviews

33
CollaborativeProblem Solving The 3-Course
Meals Quality, Time, Cost

• Strategies for Public Outreach
• Newsletters, Email lists
• Videos
• Bill stuffers
• Websites
• News releases, press conferences, PSAs
• Child care
• Meetings/materials in different languages

34
CollaborativeGovernance The Restaurant
Institutionalizing Collaboration

• Provides continuing structured forum for
  multi-party decision-making
• Operates over an extended period of time
• Institutionalizes relationships
• Makes decisions
• Implements decisions

35
CollaborativeGovernance The Restaurant
Institutionalizing Collaboration

• Types of collaborative governance institutions
• Regional Commissions
• Multi-Agency, Multi-Locality Programs
• Planning District Commissions
• Regional Authorities

36
CollaborativeGovernance The Restaurant
Institutionalizing Collaboration

• Examples of collaborative governance
  institutions
• Chesapeake Bay Program
• Waste Solutions Forum
• Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority

37
Necessary Conditions for Success

• Clear purpose, goals.
• A well-defined purpose that is real, practical
  and shared
• Clear structure and process.
• Well-defined decision rules and process rules
• Supported and developed by convener and
  participants
• Sufficient resources to conduct the process.
• Funding for skilled facilitators, assessments and
  outreach
• Funding to support consistent staff participation
• Inclusion and effective representation.
• Representatives of all relevant and different
  interests
• Collaboration capacity among staff and
  participants.
• Training in communication, outreach, leadership,
  collaborative problem solving skills

38
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• I. Conceiving
• II. Conducting
• III. Completing

39
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• I. Conceiving the need and the process
• Assessment
• are the issues ripe? are the people ready?
• Design
• what kind of process will help people achieve the
  desired outcomes?
• Convening
• establishing a clear purpose, joint agendas,
  goals, ground rules, logistics

40
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• II Conducting the process
• Creating joint expectations
• Articulating the issues
• Mutual education
• Creating joint criteria
• Creating options
• Evaluating options
• Reality testing
• Preliminary decision-making
• Considering implementation

41
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• III. Completing the process
• Determining when and how to end
• Making the agreement legitimate and effective
• Getting approvals/ ratification
• Evaluation of the process and outcomes
• Monitoring implementation

42
Chesapeake Watershed ForumBenchmarks for a
Successful Collaborative Process How to Design
One that Works!Frank Dukes, Ph.D.Institute for
Environmental NegotiationUniversity of Virginia
43
Goals of the Workshop

• You will learn
• Principles of negotiation
• Building agreement about how to work together
• Principles of consensus decision making
• Dealing with difficult situations
• Agreement implementation and evaluation

44
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• I. Conceiving
• II. Conducting
• III. Completing

45
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• I. Conceiving the need and the process
• Assessment
• are the issues ripe? are the people ready?
• Design
• what kind of process will help people achieve the
  desired outcomes?
• Convening
• establishing a clear purpose, joint agendas,
  goals, ground rules, logistics

46
Necessary Conditions for Success

• Clear purpose, goals.
• A well-defined purpose that is real, practical
  and shared
• Clear structure and process.
• Well-defined decision rules and process rules
• Supported and developed by convener and
  participants
• Sufficient resources to conduct the process.
• Funding for skilled facilitators, assessments and
  outreach
• Funding to support consistent staff participation
• Inclusion and effective representation.
• Representatives of all relevant and different
  interests
• Collaboration capacity among staff and
  participants.
• Training in communication, outreach, leadership,
  collaborative problem solving skills

47
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• II Conducting the process
• Creating joint expectations
• Articulating the issues
• Mutual education
• Creating joint criteria
• Creating options
• Evaluating options
• Reality testing
• Preliminary decision-making
• Considering implementation

48
Key Behavior for Success

• Early involvement and sufficient time.
• High-quality knowledge, monitoring and evaluation
  capacity.
• Use of expert knowledge and local knowledge
• Monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of the
  process
• Cultured conflict.
• Follow principles of civil discourse while
  encouraging challenges to assumptions
• Participants listen, take others perspectives
  seriously, and address participant concerns
• Sustained dialogue.
• Seek consensus only after exploring the issues
  and interests
• Distinguish between positions or demands and
  underlying needs and interests

49
The Need for RepresentationEquality,
Credibility and Power

• Legitimacy
• Equity
• Diversity of interest
• Accountability
• Group dynamics

50
Collaborative Group Roles

• A Full or Voting Member
• A Resource member
• A Convenor who brings the group together and may
  be responsible for implementing decision
• An Alternate member
• A Facilitator advocates for a fair and effective
  process, but takes no stand on final decisions
• An Observer from a constituency who wants to
  monitor the process

51
Sample Representation and Roles

• Category Hypothetical Organization Role
• Environmental American Wildlife Club (national)
  Representative
• County Conservation Society (local)
  Representative
• Friends of the Forests (regional)
  Representative
• Trail/Routes Users Friendly Local Riders
  Club Representative
• Regional OHV Users Advocates Representative
• Hikers Club Representative
• Bikers Club Representative
• Horse Riders Club Representative
• Community/Neighbors Citizens for Good
  Government Representative
• Any County Civic Organization Representative
• Economic Chamber of Commerce Representative
• Any County OHV Sales Representative
• Outfitter Sales Guides Representative
• Government Responsible Agency Convenor
• Other Agencies Resource
• Research University Resource
• Facilitator We Build Consensus,
  Inc. Facilitator

52
Duties of Convening Agency Representatives

• Set purpose and directions
• Ensure laws, regulations and policies are
  followed
• Help parties bring best science and technical
  information to bear
• Work to create open, inclusive, accessible,
  principled process
• Make authentic efforts to further public
  involvement beyond any single group

53
Advice for Collaborative Group Participants

• Be prepared for a lengthy, unfamiliar process
• Take time to invest in ground rules
• Make sure your concerns and ideas are understood
• Listen, and fully understand, the views of others
• Prepare between meetings with allies
• Report discussion progress to your organizations
• Okay to explore other options for achieving goals

54
Decision Making by Consensus

• A common definition of consensus is
• A decision that has been developed in ways that
  seek to meet the needs and interests of all the
  groups members.
• One common standard for consensus
• Everyone can live with the final agreements
  without compromising fundamental issues
• Individual portions of the agreement may be less
  than ideal for some members, but the overall
  package is worthy of support
• Individuals will work to support the full
  agreement and not just the parts they like the
  best

55
Advantages of Consensus-Based Decision Making

• Engages participants to help implement decisions
• Helps bring parties to the table
• Members work to satisfy all participants needs
• New ideas are given real consideration
• A norm or responsibility for the group may be
  enhanced
• Decisions with broad-based support are more
  likely to be implemented

56
Disadvantages of Consensus-Based Decision Making

• They may require significant commitment of time
  and energy
• Inexperienced participants may be at a
  disadvantage
• Decision-making may be much slower
• Peer pressure can develop
• A small minority may block decisions that
  otherwise have significant support

57
Alternative Options for Decision-Making

• Persuasion in order to block a decision
  discussed extensively, one member must persuade
  another to join in a dissent
• Super-majority some predetermined figure (60,
  70 or 80) to make decisions
• Categorical Majority require a majority within
  each category (environmental, government, local
  community, business) and agreement of all such
  groups to move forward
• Circumstantial Voting allow voting for certain
  measures that are less significant and require
  consensus on others
• Level of Agreement Consensus allow consensus
  recommendations to be broken down by level of
  agreement

58
Dealing with Pressures for Consensus

• Provide a clear explanation of your concerns
• Recall the initial protocols and ground rules
• Dont be obstinate (unwilling to listen), but
  offer principled opposition (explain why you will
  not compromise fundamental values and goals)
• Talk with the sponsor facilitator or mediator in
  private
• If necessary, resign from the group

59
Preparing for and Transforming Conflict
Establish Shared Expectations

• Establish the need
• Educate and inspire
• Begin with a vision
• Promote full participation
• Be accountable
• Evaluate and revise

60
Preparing for and Transforming Conflict
Reaching for Higher Ground

• To develop a group Covenant, shared aspirations
  and groundrules
• When we operate at our worst, we (look like...
  feel... sound like...)
• When we operate at our best, I (see feel...
  hear...)...
• When I envision how we should best work together,
  my highest aspirations are that we
• In order to make these aspirations come alive,
  the principles and behaviors (groundrules) we
  must follow are

61
Key Elements of Principled Negotiation

• Pursue Interests Avoid getting stuck on stated
  positions, demands, or premature solutions.
  Explore underlying interests of each party.
  Dont assume each partys interests are
  understood.
• Separate People from the Problem Acknowledge
  the feelings first, then focus on the issues. Be
  soft on people and hard on the problems.
• Invent Options Separate decision-making from
  idea generation.
• Develop Objective Criteria Pursue agreement
  about principles, procedures, and standards, then
  seek solutions that meet those criteria.
• Encourage Involvement Inclusiveness is a matter
  of fairness and practicality.

62
Effective Behavior in Collaborative Groups

• Avoid
• Labeling, name calling, blanket generalizations
• Postponement or conflict avoidance Lets just
  avoid it I dont want to get into a fight.
• Tit for tat You lied first, Im going to do the
  same.
• Compromise for the sake of getting along
• Work For
• Positive confrontation Lets address this
  behavior right away.
• Building positive, enforceable ground rules that
  reflect your values and principles
• Consistent, principled support for your interests

63
Strategies for Handling Intense Emotions

• Healthy expressions of emotion are okay - An
  opportunity to vent may be appropriate and
  necessary.
• Allow silence - Dont rush to fill an empty
  space. People may benefit from a time of
  silence, to regain composure, to collect
  thoughts.
• Acknowledge the emotion - A simple statement such
  as this is hard for you affirms that the
  feeling is understood and accepted.
• Remind people of their agreement to follow the
  ground rules - Sometimes a firm reminder about
  behavior may be both necessary and effective.
• Avoid responding in kind - Put downs and other
  inflammatory language can harm discussion.
• Call a time out to allow for emotions to cool
  down

64
3 Phases of Collaborative Problem-Solving

• III. Completing the process
• Determining when and how to end
• Making the agreement legitimate and effective
• Getting approvals/ ratification
• Evaluation of the process and outcomes
• Monitoring implementation

65
Knowing When to End,Making Legitimate
Agreements,and Evaluating the Effort
66
Continuation or WithdrawalAsking the Right
Questions

• Dont
• Leave a group without informing all participants
  of your intentions and reasons
• Ignore the public perception of your withdrawal
• Do
• Carefully consider the ramifications of a
  withdrawal
• Inform other participants in writing of your
  reasons
• Anticipate and address the public perceptions of
  your withdrawal in the news media and elsewhere

• Milestones reached? Data developed and shared?
  Issues understood? Agreements reached and/or
  productive relationships built?
• Are sufficient numbers of the right people at
  the table to make this worthwhile?
• Is my time being used wisely?
• Are discussions proceeding in good faith if
  not, have I tried to recall parties to principled
  behavior?
• Would my withdrawal be considered bad faith or
  provide undesired consequences?

67
AgreementsMaking them Legitimate and Effective

• Key considerations for agreement-seeking
  processes
• Any agreement must be legitimate
• Any agreement must be able to be implemented
  fully
• The agreement must be able to be monitored to
  ensure that results are what were intended

68
Coming to AgreementsDimensions of Legitimacy

• The extent that an agreement is based on good
  science
• The extent that the process is viewed as fair, by
  participants in the collaborative process and
  others as well
• The extent that the agreement addresses all
  parties concerns and interests
• The extent that provisions exist for implementing
  and monitoring the agreement

69
A Checklist for Agreements

• Conduct reality testing with all parties
• Is this doable?
• What is the likelihood of continued funding?
• Are there new funding sources required for this
  initiative?
• Who will be responsible for securing funding?
• Ratification and Implementation
• Who else needs to approve this?
• Who will contact them?
• Is there a plan for implementation?
• Whose signatures are needed on any documents?
• Follow-up, monitoring, and evaluation
• What responsibilities remain?
• How will parties continue to stay in touch?
• What provisions exist for revisiting a
  problematic implementation plan?

70
Ideas for Ensuring Accountability

• Make agreement language clear and explicit
• Think through what if contingencies
• Consider support from an organization not
  directly involved in the issues for monitoring
  and evaluation
• Consider building into the agreement a clear
  process for revision and modification
• Plan a follow-up session

71
Defining Success through Evaluation

• In process outcomes, such as inclusiveness,
  access to high quality information, or
  receptivity to new ideas
• In qualities of agreements, such as breadth of
  support and implementation of decisions, or in
  creative solutions
• In on-the-ground outcomes, whether environmental
  (i.e., healthier forests, more fish, cleaner
  water), economic (i.e., jobs saved or added), or
  social (i.e., improved health and safety,
  improved recreation)

72
When is a Third Party Needed?

• When the parties distrust one another
• When a lead agency (e.g. local government) or the
  person convening the discussion is not perceived
  as being impartial
• When the sponsor wants to participate as a party
• When confidentiality may be important and parties
  may need to be able to entrust the facilitator
  with confidential information
• When everybody at the table has a stake in the
  outcome and needs an opportunity to advocate for
  particular interests
• When the issues are complex and a systematic
  process is needed for discussion

73
Roles Responsibilities of a Facilitator/Mediator

• Assess the situation
• Design the process
• Manage relationships and communication
• Train participants in consensus skills
• Facilitate meetings, prepare for meetings, keep
  summaries
• Fact finding
• Mediate specific issues, including private
  caucuses to clarify interests and positions
• Monitor implementation and revision of agreement

74
When is a Third Party NOT Needed?

• When trust levels are high
• When the impact of the decision is relatively
  minor
• When an executive decision must be made
  immediately
• Other?

75
Thanks for your attention -- Phew!