Country:
U.S.A.

Language:
English

- participants represent stakeholder groups or interests, and not simply themselves,
- all necessary interests are represented or at least supportive of the discussions,
-participants share responsibility for both process and outcome,
-an impartial facilitator, accountable to all participants, manages the process, and
-the intent is to make decisions through consensus rather than by voting.

These recommendations are directed primarily towards federal, state, provincial, and territorial government officials to help ensure successful use of collaborative processes for decision-making. They may also be useful to local government, although consideration must be given to how stakeholder-based processes may affect more inclusive citizen participation strategies.

As the use of collaborative approaches for resolving public issues has expanded, so has the terminology for naming and describing them. As a first step in sorting out the terminology, the Committee distinguished agreement-seeking processes from two other primary purposes for discussions between government agencies and the public-information exchange and advice. Given these objectives, the following chart highlights the differences in outcomes that can be expected:

PURPOSE OUTCOMES

1. Information exchange Improved communication and understanding; lists of concerns and/or options; better definitions of problems or issues

2. Feedback/Consultation Opinions or suggestions for action are obtained; plans or drafts are refined

3. Agreement-seeking or Agreements on actions or policies are reached;
decision-making consensus is developed

Only processes in the third category are the subject of this report, but even labels for them abound. Some derive from labor/management bargaining. Others combine words that describe some attribute of collaborative consensus-based public policy processes. The list below gives a sense of the hybrids that may be found.

cooperative decision making collaborative decision making
collaborative agreement-seeking processes environmental conflict resolution
collaborative consensus-based forums consensus-building
consensus-based processes joint decision-making
shared decision-making environmental mediation
negotiated processes multi-party negotiations
mediated negotiation mediated approaches
mediated agreement-seeking processes public policy mediation
policy dialogue joint problem-solving
facilitated consensus forum facilitated joint decision making
collaborative agreement-seeking processes facilitated negotiations
negotiated rulemaking regulatory negotiation

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICE

The recommendations that follow are directed towards overcoming the concerns and problems that have been identified. They propose a set of best practices for use of collaborative decision-making processes.

Recommendation 1: An Agency Should First Consider Whether a Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Approach Is Appropriate

Before a government agency, department, or official decides to sponsor an agreement seeking process, it should consider its objectives and the suitability of the issues and circumstances for negotiation. In particular, before the sponsoring agency convenes a collaborative process, it is essential for the agency to determine internally its willingness to share control over the process and the resolution of the issue.

Recommendation 2: Stakeholders Should Be Supportive of the Process and Willing and Able to Participate

In order for an agreement-seeking process to be credible and legitimate, representatives of all necessary parties-those involved with or affected by the potential outcomes of the process-should agree to participate, or at least not object to the process going forward. If some interests are not sufficiently organized or lack resources and these problems cannot be overcome, the issue should not be addressed through collaborative decision-making.

Recommendation 3: Agency Leaders Should Support the Process and Ensure Sufficient Resources to Convene the Process

Agreement-seeking processes need endorsement and tangible support from actual decision-makers in the sponsoring agency or department with jurisdiction and, in some cases, from the administration or the legislature. The support and often the involvement of leadership is necessary to assure other participants of the commitment of authorized decision makers who will be responsible for implementation. Their support helps sustain the process through difficult periods and enhances the probability of reaching agreements.

Sponsoring agencies also need to ensure that there are sufficient resources to support the process from its initiation through the development of an agreement. As part of the pre-negotiation assessment, sponsors need to determine how they will meet evolving resource needs and provide funds and staff to accomplish the goals of the negotiation.

Recommendation 4: An Assessment Should Precede a Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Process

Before an agency, department, or official initiates an agreement-seeking process, it should assess whether the necessary conditions are present for negotiations to take place. Presence of the factors in recommendations 1-3 are best ascertained as part of a deliberate assessment.

Recommendation 5: Ground Rules Should Be Mutually Agreed Upon by All Participants, and Not Established Solely by the Sponsoring Agency

All participants should be involved in developing and agreeing to any protocols or ground rules for the process. Once ground rules have been mutually agreed upon, the facilitator should see that they are carried out, or point out when they are not being followed and seek to remedy the problems. Any modification to ground rules should be agreed upon by all participants.

Recommendation 6: The Sponsoring Agency Should Ensure the Facilitator's Neutrality and Accountability to all Participants

It is preferable for all parties to share in selection of the facilitator. When that is not possible, the agency or department has a responsibility to ensure that any facilitator it proposes to the participants is impartial and acceptable to all parties. The facilitator should not be asked by the sponsoring agency, or any other participant, to serve as their agent, or to act in any manner inconsistent with being accountable to all participants.

Recommendation 7: The Agency and Participants Should Plan for Implementation of the Agreement from the Beginning of the Process

There are two aspects of implementation: formal enactment and actual implementation. Planning for implementation is integral to the process.

Recommendation 8: Policies Governing These Processes Should Not Be Overly Prescriptive

Policymakers should resist enacting overly prescriptive laws or rules to govern these processes. In contrast to traditional processes, consensus-based processes are effective because of their voluntary, informal and flexible nature.