Before developing a framework for making public decisions using agreement building, it is important to understand the characteristics of the people, procedures, and substance involved in public decision making¹:

• Multiple interest groups and individuals with different values and often, strong ideological bases, are affected or concerned with the outcome of the public decision.
• The impact of the decisions may affect people to varying degrees.
• Multiple jurisdictions or fragmentation of responsibilities are present.
• Participating groups vary in degree of organization and make decisions among themselves in different ways.
• The degree of accountability in making and implementing decisions may vary.
• Organizations and individuals have varying degrees of power to influence or make decisions.
• Technical expertise may vary dramatically.
• New parties may emerge during a conflict.
• The value of long-term relationships may be weighted differently.

Procedures

• There may be no acceptable forum to resolve the disputes that have arisen as a result of the need to make a public decision.
• There may exist multiple competing procedures and mandates.
• Decisions are made, but problems are rarely resolved.
• Multiple opportunities for appeal lead to recurring disputes and the "losers never seem to go away."

• Information is often complex, incomplete, and contradictory.
• Long-term impacts may be uncertain.
• Ecological, social, and economic impacts may be irreversible.
• Interpretations of data may conflict.
• One issue is often connected to other issues.
• The solution to one issue may generate a dispute on another issue.

There are four basic approaches to making public decisions and resolving public disputes.² The first approach is to determine who is more powerful. Power in this sense is simply the force of coercion; that is, the ability to make others do something they may not necessarily want to do.

Environmental and economic politics in the West exhibit many examples of the use of coercion. A great deal of legislation and regulation is coercive, in that both often impose some type of action and associated cost upon others. Other power-based procedures are equally coercive. Civil disobedience, strikes, elections, and citizen initiatives are all examples of ways in which we try to solve problems, keep bad things from happening, or provide for planning by determining who has more people or resources on their side

A second approach to making public decisions is to determine who is right. In this context, we usually rely upon some independent, legitimate, and fair standard (according to the thought of the dominant culture) to determine rights or rightness. Some rights are formalized into law or contract. Others are generally accepted standards of behavior, such as reciprocity, precedent, equality, or seniority. Rights, however, are rarely as clear as they may seem.

Rights procedures, much like power-based procedures, are adversarial in nature and tend to result in winners, losers, and impaired relationships among the parties. In both cases decisions are made, but the underlying problems are rarely resolved and the losers do not go away.

A third approach is to involve the public. Public involvement is often mandated by laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and starts by informing and educating citizens about a proposed decision or action through press releases and public meetings. These tools tend to be unidirectional; that is, they tell citizens what is happening but do not provide an opportunity for citizens to meaningfully participate. They rarely, if ever, allow citizens to provide information or contribute to the education of all affected parties, including government agencies.

Typically public involvement processes follow the trend of the agency deciding, announcing, and defending. Because of the diversity of viewpoints expressed during public processes, government officials typically receive competing ideas on what to do. It is then up to those who have decision-making authority to make the necessary trade-offs among conflicting options and to render a decision. As we all know, citizens tend to challenge both the process and the outcomes of many public involvement processes. Therefore, even though agencies are required by law to make decisions, they often don’t have the ability to make and implement decisions effectively. In other words, they have decision-making authority but lack decision-making power.

Issues that remain unresolved, even though decision-making processes have been implemented, can result in a festering conflict. We often view conflict as bad; something to be avoided. Indeed, conflict often does result in negative outcomes, including:

• damaged or destroyed relationships;
• physical or psychological harm;
• the loss of lives and waste of human and natural resources;
• unresolved problems; and
• the erosion of communities.

However, conflict can also have positive outcomes and can catalyze:

• communication;
• understanding;
• problem solving;
• positive social change; and
• precedents or models of effective problem solving.

To minimize the negative outcomes of conflict and to maximize the positive, it is necessary to explore the sources of conflict and alternative mechanisms for responding to public issues. The gridlock and bitterness that can develop among communities, agencies, and legislatures demonstrate the need for another choice in making public decisions.

Agreement Building gives us another choice. Many have found that not only can these processes work well on their own to resolve conflict or come to a public decision, they also work very well supplementing existing processes. For example:

• Agencies have used collaboration to improve the public involvement processes mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act. They often find that the public and the agencies alike have a clearer picture of the options available as a result of gathering information together.
• Legislatures finally pass bills on issues that have plagued them session after session. By joining with their colleagues across the aisle and seeking participation from concerned citizens and interest groups, they develop legislation that not only passes but also has no opposition because all interests were able to participate in the decision-making process.

In these, and many other examples, those who have the authority to make decisions don’t give up their responsibility. Rather, they use the techniques of collaborative problem solving to do a better job.

Agreement building has long been used to develop public policy and resolve conflicts. Agencies, businesses, interest groups, communities, families, and individuals use cooperative approaches to make decisions every day – whether formal or informal, by choice or out of necessity.

Though the practice of agreement building seems to have philosophical roots in the participatory democracy advocated by, most notably, Thomas Jefferson, its use for public policy in the United States is relatively new. The intentional application of these processes, often assisted by an impartial coordinator (typically referred to as a facilitator or mediator) to a wide range of multi-party, multi-issue disputes and controversies began in the 1970s. At this time, mediators began helping parties settle environmental disputes, usually over site-specific issues but also over land use and the allocation of natural resources.

The use of agreement-building efforts has evolved to include developing policies and strategies for a broad array of issues. From about 40 cases in the 1970s, the number grew to over 400 during the 1980s, and the trend is continuing.³

The profession has continued to develop during the past 20 years. In 1994, an assessment of the state of the profession by leading experts⁴ concluded that:

• There has been a substantial increase in the number and diversity of issues subjected to mediation and other agreement-building processes.
• The number of people and organizations providing facilitation, mediation, and other types of dispute resolution and agreement-building services is growing rapidly.
• Facilitators and mediators have played important roles in a wide range of settings, including legislative and regulatory initiatives, policy formulation, land-use planning, permitting processes, enforcement procedures, strategic planning, visioning exercises, and a wide range of public involvement procedures.
• Negotiation, facilitation, and mediation are being incorporated into the day-to-day operation of the executive and judicial branches through such means as the federal Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, the federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, the legislatively created and funded U.S. Institute for Environmental Dispute Resolution in 1998, and several state dispute-resolution and agreement-building programs.

The theory and research of building agreements and resolving public disputes has also increased, along with the number of courses offered at colleges and universities.⁵

The labels for collaborative and agreement processes abound. The imprecise nature of terms underscores the need for participants in each case to define their process clearly. Regardless of the label, type of public issue being discussed, or venue within which it occurs, the essential activity is the same – people representing different interests trying to find a solution that works for all through negotiation, often assisted by someone acting impartially who coordinates the process.⁶

The ideas and techniques presented here are not designed to make people experts in agreement building. The intent is to present a framework for understanding: (1) where agreement-building processes fit into the menu of arenas for making public decisions; and (2) when it is appropriate to use agreement-building processes.

Collaboration focuses primarily on information sharing and joint fact-finding. There are many different objectives of collaboration including:

• To exchange information, improve communication, and facilitate education among people with diverse viewpoints;
• To identify issues, concerns, and interests;
• To develop options;
• To develop recommendations; and
• To seek agreement.

The core of all collaborative decision-making processes is information sharing. As discussed earlier, many public disputes often revolve around disagreements over data, which can be characterized by:

• lack of information;
• different views about the nature and scope of the problem and what information may be relevant;
• different approaches and criteria for collecting and analyzing data;
• the adequacy of available evidence; and
• competing interpretations of what the data mean.

In adversarial forums, information is power and therefore commonly withheld from competing parties. However, collaborative approaches create an atmosphere where the sharing of information is not only encouraged, but also creates new possibilities for finding common ground. Moreover, in collaborative processes, any effort to suppress information carries with it the possibility of being discovered, resulting in a subsequent loss of credibility. The process of sharing information is one of the most obvious and simple procedures for resolving disputes over data.

Another way to resolve substantive disputes is for the affected interests to jointly frame the questions, specify the method of inquiry, select the researchers, and monitor the work. Since participants have such an integral role in the design of the fact-finding process, they can inject their concerns throughout the process. An impartial third party may be helpful but not necessarily needed for this procedure. If the participants make the decisions regarding the reliability and validity of data collectively and debate the possible alternatives before an analysis is completed, they are less likely to reject the findings that emerge. Their understanding of the technical issues is also likely to improve through such an exercise.

A collaborative effort’s potential for success depends on whether its design corresponds to participants’ expectation. In general, there are two ways to run a collaborative effort. If the dialogue is designed as a citizen-involvement process, the people affected by the policy are consulted, but someone else – and administrator or elected official – decides what the policy shall be. If the dialogue is designed as an effort to seek agreement, the people affected jointly decide what the policy shall be.

In appropriate circumstances both approaches can be effective. But it is crucial that all participants, the facilitator, and sponsoring agency (if there is one) – understand the difference between collaboration used as an opportunity for citizen involvement or whether it is an agreement-building process.

Agreement Building

An agreement-building process allows all people who are affected or concerned with the potential outcomes of a situation to work together toward common understanding and agreement. Agreement-building forums contrast to other processes where decisions are reached through voting (the majority rules) or are made unilaterally by a government entity or judicial body. They can be designed to supplement other forms of public decision making and can be used to develop legislation, administrative rules, community vision statements, land-use management plans, and the like. For instance, county commissioners in the West are finding it more difficult to represent their constituencies, as their communities are becoming more diverse. In response, many have created agreement-building groups to tackle tough issues like land-use planning, public-land policy, and economic development.

There are many forms that a agreement-building forum can take. Each situation, issue, or problem prompts the need for participants to design a process specifically suited to their needs. Defining agreement as simply what it is – agreement of all individuals – is likely to be appropriate in situations where disputes are relatively unstructured and few formal organizations are involved. More complex situations call for a more detailed definition. Still, fairly simple language can serve to provide this definition, such that used by the Beaverhead County Community Forum⁷:

In many respects, the differences between agreement and compromise lie in the attitudes of the negotiators. However, in public decision making processes we also find qualitatively different ways to negotiate in that compromise is position based and agreement is interest based.

Most of the ways that we make public decisions are based on positions and compromise. In other words, we state our position (a qualifying statement of proposed action, such as "No Wolf Reintroduction" or "Pro-Wolf Reintroduction) and then makes concessions on the position because we rarely can get all that we want.

When making public decisions with agreement we clarify interests and values and invent options for mutual gain and mechanisms that insure that everyone’s needs are met. The goal is to not only find common ground, but also a higher ground. This is achieved by having people with many different values, life experiences, ideas, and ways of knowing at the table, cooperatively asking the right questions and trying to come up with some answers.

Practically speaking, this is what we do when making the transition from positional to interest-based negotiations⁸:

• Leave the positions at the door. When they "sneak in" do not respond to positions with counter positions. Instead ask why a position is important to a party and try to identify underlying interests.
• Do not ask for specific solutions early in the process.
• Ask whether the problem has to be solved in a win/lose manner. State that you want to look for a solution that will be advantageous to all parties.
• Conduct trial-and-error hypothesis testing to indirectly identify interests.
• Verbalize and make interests explicit.
• Separate substantive, procedural, and psychological interests contained in a stated position.
• Look for general principles behind positions to which both parties can agree.
• Reframe the problem as a search for means to satisfy interests rather than a way to persuade the other party to agree to a position.
• Reframe the problem to emphasize common interests and the possibility of joint gain.
• Separate the problem from the people involved
• Do not negotiate the use of interest-based negotiation procedures using positional bargaining tactics.

In many respects, the people of Wyoming have substantial experience in agreement building, through seeking mutual agreement on a person-to-person basis. As Gerald Cormick⁹ illustrates:

Though many people have experience with reaching mutual agreement on a person-to-person basis, fewer have had the experience in Wyoming of building agreement on public policy with inclusive representation of all values.

In developing a forum for the settlement of economic or environmental conflicts, (where there is often a wide range of values and levels of power) agreement has important benefits in that it "levels the playing field." For a defined period of time and on the issues that the participants have agreed to address, they engage as equals. In contrast, if the process included taking a vote, the participants would necessarily be concerned about how many participants were on "their side." Experience clearly indicates that where participants in a agreement process have the security that "numbers will not overwhelm them" they are more likely to search for and consider areas of accommodation and innovative solutions. A well-designed agreement process encourages an exchange whereby each of the participants has a concern for and a self-interest in crafting a solution that meets the needs of all interests, rather than merely seeking to gather adherents to their side of the issue.

Building agreement should follow four distinct stages. Successful completion of each stage is a necessary precondition to success in the next stage. Moving from one stage to the next requires agreement of all the participants. These four steps can be applied to any community or public-policy situation where there is a dispute or the potential for a dispute.¹⁰

Step One – Assess the Situation

• Is there a compelling issue that needs to be addressed?
• If the situation continues on its present course, how acceptable is the most likely outcome?
• Do all the affected or concerned people believe they will get more from an agreement process than they would from another method for addressing the situation?
• Are official decision-makers committed to implementing any agreement that may emerge?

Step Two – Design the Forum

• Develop a work plan that defines:

1. The purpose of the forum.
2. The objectives, tasks, and anticipated products.
3. Timelines and deadlines.
4. What information is needed, how should it be collected, and who should assemble such information.

• Develop ground rules that address:

1. What people, organizations, and interests need to be involved and how will they be represented.
2. The definition of agreement and what happens if agreement is not achieved.
3. The responsibilities of the participants to each other.
4. The responsibilities of the participants to their constituencies.
5. The coordination of the process, including the roles and responsibilities of any facilitator or mediator, and who will pay for the costs of procedural assistance.
6. Meeting procedures, such as when, where, and how often meeting will be held.
7. Communication with the media and any outside interests.

Step Three – Craft the Agreement

• Clarify the interests of each party.
• Establish a common understanding of the issues.
• Invent options to accommodate all interests.
• Recognize the need for discussions "away from the table."
• Avoid closure on single-issue agreements and focus on the need for agreement on a "total package."
• Ensure that constituents are kept informed and support emerging agreements.
• Agree on where there are disagreements.
• Ratify agreements with constituents.
• Confirm agreements in writing.

Step Four – Implement the Agreement

• Link informal agreements to formal decision-making processes.
• Clarify who is responsible for what.
• Develop a schedule for implementation and continued commitment to the agreement.
• Jointly monitor implementation.
• Create a context for renegotiations over unforeseen issues and implications.

The strength of an agreement process comes from its flexible, inclusive, voluntary, and participant-driven nature. All parties must be supportive of the process and willing to invest the time necessary to make it work. Experience points to certain characteristics that are fundamental to successfully building agreement. By compiling the practical experience of many participants, theorists, and practitioners, we offer here the Guiding Principles for Successful Agreement Building.¹¹ These guiding principles do not represent a comprehensive "how-to," but rather are intended to build awareness and clarify the best practices.

The first step is to analyze the situation and determine the best approach to address the issue. The objectives of a situation assessment are to first, comprehensively determine what the variety of values and viewpoints are related to a particular issue; and second, develop a common understanding of the substance of the problem, the needs and interests of the parties, and the risks associated with different procedures for resolving the issues. The assessment also sheds light on areas of potential agreement and opportunities to improve the situation or resolve conflicts that might otherwise go unnoticed. Conducting a situation assessment typically involves the use of someone who is impartial to review appropriate documents and interview people representing different viewpoints.

People need a compelling reason to participate. All participants should agree that agreement building is the best way to improve the situation. Everyone should agree on the scope and goals of the work being proposed, as well as the group's level of decision-making authority. Ensure that people's expectations are in line with reality concerning what the process can accomplish.

Involve people affected by the issue and those who are needed to implement the agreement. All those who can affect the outcome or its implementation, or who could be impacted by the outcomes, should be involved from the process design phase. It is imperative that participation not be limited to those who have an immediate financial interest, but rather involve all of those who are concerned. Inclusion of all those interested should take precedence over concerns about group size. Acknowledge and respect the interests and concerns of others. Allow all participants a chance to be heard and to exchange ideas.

Participants should select their own representatives, define the issues, and develop appropriate ground rules. Trust in the process must be built from its inception. If certain people feel excluded from process design, the process will lack major trust and credibility from the outset. Each process should be designed to meet the specific needs of any given situation and should be flexible. Anticipate that everyone will learn more about the issues and other participants' perspectives as the process unfolds.

In situations of high conflict or stakes, a highly-skilled facilitator who is viewed by all interests as fair and competent will greatly improve the chances of success. Choose an impartial facilitator who is credible to all participants and who can ensure that participants share power among themselves during the agreement-building process without relinquishing their decision-making authority. Groups should secure adequate and sustainable funding to support the process. Process costs vary but typically include the services of a facilitator or coordinator, copying and mailing, staff time, travel expenses for participants, technical support, and specific project expenses.

Build a common understanding of the issue by identifying existing sources of information and data. Ensure equal access to relevant information. Agree on the sources of technical support. Gather, analyze, and interpret data by working together so as to gain commitment to the baseline information. Base decisions on reliable, accurate and unbiased information.

Insist on accountability.

Participants are accountable to the process that they created as well as those whom they represent. Keep the public and other decision-makers informed of progress. Act in a trustworthy fashion at all times.

Clarify the participants' commitment to action. Identify roles and responsibilities. Design a monitoring and evaluation strategy.

Though it is impossible to objectively evaluate or provide statistics of those agreement-building processes that are successful (as it is with any public decision-making process), we can describe what constitutes success. To focus our expectations of what a successful agreement-building process is, we offer some benchmarks:

• All concerned were allowed to meaningfully design and participate in the process;
• All values were represented and respected;
• All participants feel they were successful in meeting their basic interests;
• Each participant feels that the others accepted their concerns as legitimate;
• All participants believe that the process was fair, equitable, and all shared the power to make the decisions;
• All participants are committed to implementing the agreements that have been reached;
• The agreements have been ratified by those whom the participants sought to represent and whose support is necessary for implementation;
• The agreements that have been reached can be implemented; they are technically, financially, politically, culturally, socially, and ecologically viable;
• A relationship that can support implementation of the agreements has been established and provisions have been made for maintaining that relationship; and
• The participants would be willing to renegotiate in appropriate circumstances.

The results of agreement-building and dispute resolution processes can be evaluated against three types of criteria:¹²

Was the issue resolved? This is perhaps the first and most basic measure of success. It should be answered from the perspective of all the affected and concerned people and organizations. Was the agreement implemented? A second test of success is the extent to which the participants have supported the agreement through the implementation process. If the parties have voluntarily agreed to a decision, they are more likely to support it through implementation.

How fair was the process? Was the process open to public scrutiny? Were all the groups and individuals that wanted to participate given an adequate chance to do so? Were all the parties given access to the technical information they needed? Was everyone given an opportunity to express his or her views? Were the people involved accountable to the constituencies they represented? Was there a means whereby a due process complaint could be heard during and at the end of the negotiations? Were the gains and losses of various kinds fairly distributed among the parties? How efficient was the process? What were the transaction costs – the time, money, and emotional energy expended – of the agreement-building process compared to other processes that could have been used to address the issue? Was the agreement based on the most relevant information? Did the participants have an opportunity to jointly gather and interpret data and information? How stable is the agreement? An agreement that is perceived as fair, is reached efficiently, and seems technically wise is still unsuccessful if it does not endure. Does the agreement resolve the underlying problem, or is it simply another decision that fails to stick?

The agreement-building process itself may be valuable whether or not an agreement is reached. The process may transform, in any one of a number of ways, the parties, relationships, institutions, and society at large. The participants may feel that the have gained valuable insights about the issues and the perspectives and values of others. Communication channels are often created as a result of such processes, which in turn provide an opportunity for developing and maintaining trust among people with diverse viewpoints.

As agreement building approaches continues to emerge and are shaped by those involved in them, critics of the effort have also emerged. Some claim that these processes simply do not work and are inherently biased. For example, one group interviewed during the assessment maintains that such processes:

Another group claims that agreement-building processes are:

Others refer to World War II experiences and note most dictionaries' second definition of collaborate:

In what must be one of the broadest and most scathing indictments of agreement-based approaches, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has said that:

For those who genuinely feel that their issues will fare better before the courts, the legislature, or some other avenue more familiar to the adversarial processes of governance, the following questions should be considered:¹³

• First, what are the likely costs – the time, money, and emotional energy – in relying on one process relative to another?
• Second, how satisfied are you likely to be with the outcome of a particular process?
• Third, how will the use of one process over another impact their relationships with other affected parties? Do those relationships matter in the long run?
• Finally, what is the chance that the issue will actually be resolved through one process or another?

When properly used in appropriate situations, most people from all points of view realize that collaborative and agreement processes are generally less costly than determining who is right, which in turn is less costly than determining who is more powerful. Agreement is also more effective than traditional public-involvement processes when the goal is to seek agreement on public policy. In many people’s experiences, agreement approaches tend to produce more satisfactory outcomes, reduce costs, build relationships, and minimize recurring disputes.

It is important to note that an agreement-building process is appropriate when all of the participants believe that they are likely to get something through agreement building that they are not likely to obtain from any other arena. Without this conviction, efforts to create agreement are likely to fail, and those who might consider entering into discussions aimed at building agreements would probably be better off relying on the more adversarial venues.

Advantages of Agreement Building ¹⁴

Agreement building gives all people who care about a particular issue, the opportunity to work together toward common understanding. A agreement-based forum allows participants to take this understanding one step forward toward building agreement and making decisions. While agreement building is not always appropriate and is not a cure-all, it can, if designed and coordinated faithfully, be a fair and effective public decision-making process where the best thinking can emerge because all interests, values, and viewpoints are represented and respected.

There are several advantages to using collaborative, agreement-based approaches to making public policy.

• By involving everyone concerned or affected in defining the problems, searching for solutions, and making trade-offs, there is a greater potential to focus on the real interests that are at stake, rather than on divergent opinions and positions. This, in turn, avoids the hardening of positions and desire for retaliation that frequently characterizes more conventional processes.
• By bringing a diversity of knowledge and expertise together to resolve issues there is greater flexibility in designing the terms of agreement, greater control and predictability over the outcomes, and more informed and better solutions. Future modifications of the decision may also be more achievable because the parties are aware of the initial assumptions and the basis for change.
• Collaborative processes can also establish channels of communication and build working relationships among diverse interests. These working relationships, in turn, can help individuals and groups begin to develop a sense of place and belonging to the larger community of which they are a member.
• Finally, agreement-based collaborative processes can improve trust in government by involving the public and stakeholders in decisions, providing proof that their concerns are being addressed. Public agencies, in turn, have the opportunity to educate the parties about the constraints under which they operate and the technical, administrative, and political complexity of collective choice and governance.

These benefits can be realized even when agreement is not reached. Decision-makers will become better informed of the real issues of contention, and the parties will develop a greater understanding and respect for each other’s concerns and values, even if they cannot agree on ultimate solutions.

_________________________________________________________________

Notes:

1. McKinney, Matthew. 1997. Solving Public Issues by Consensus: A Practical Guide to Building Agreement. The Montana Consensus Council, Helena, MT.

2. Based on:

Fisher, R. and W. Ury. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Press;

CDR Associates. 1986. Procedures for Resolving Disputes: A Continuum. Boulder, CO: Unpublished Training Manual; and

McKinney, M.J. 1997. What do we mean by consensus? Some Defining Principles. Chronicle of Community. vol. 1, no. 3. Northern Lights Institute, Missoula, MT.

3. For an history of the first ten years of the profession, see Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes; A Decade of Experience. Conservation Foundation. Also, the organization, RESOLVE is developing a listing of case studies that can be viewed at their web site (www.resolv.org). The Policy Consensus Initiative (PCI) has a listing of state offices of dispute resolution. While all are somewhat different in form and function, most compile case studies of processes within their own state. PCI’s web site is: www.agree.org.

4. RESOLVE and the Institute for Environmental Negotiation. 1994. The Cutting Edge: Environmental Dispute Resolution for the Nineties.

5. For more information see Harmon, W., M. McKinney, and J. A. Burchfield. 1998. Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution Courses in Natural Resources Schools: A Five-year Snapshot of Progress. Montana Consensus Council., Helena, MT.

6. SPIDR (Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution) Environment/Public Disputes Sector Critical Issues Committee. 1997. Best Practices for Government Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Processes. Report and Recommendations of the SPIDR Environment/Public Disputes Sector Critical Issues Committee.

7. Beaverhead County Community Forum. 1995. Groundrules. Dillon, MT. Unpublished document.

8. Adapted from: CDR Associates. 1986. Communication and Decision Making. Boulder, CO: Unpublished Training Manual.

9. Cormick, G. 1991. Crafting the language of consensus. Negotiation Journal 7(4):20-24

10. Definitions were derived from the following sources:

Bacow, Lawrence S., and Wheeler, Michael. 1984. Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum Press.

Carpenter, Susan L., and Kennedy, W.J.D. 1988. Managing Public Disputes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crowfoot, James E., and Wondolleck, Julia M. (eds.) 1990. Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

McKinney, Matthew J. 1997. What do we mean by consensus? Some Defining Principles. Chronicle of Community vol. 1, no. 3. Northern Lights Institute, Missoula, MT.

11. The Guiding Principles were compiled from the following sources:

Paulson, D.D. and K.M. Chamberlain. 1998. Guidelines and Issues to Consider in Planning a Collaborative Process. Final Report to the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming.

Brandenburg, A.M. and K.M. Blatner. August 1998. Moving Beyond Mandated Public Participation: Principles for Building Agreement on Public Land Natural Resource Issues. Paper presented: Rural Sociological Society Annual Conference, Portland, OR.

The Montana Consensus Council. 1998. What is Consensus and the Guiding Principles for Consensus Building.

Wyoming Department of Agriculture. 1997. CRM Guidelines. Wyoming CRM: Enhancing our Environment.

Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution. January 1997. Best Practices for Government Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Processes.

Round Tables on the Environment and Economy in Canada. 1993. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Guiding Principles.

12. For more on evaluating consensus-building processes, see:

Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.

Susskind, L. and J. Cruikshank. 1998. Breaking the Impasse. Basic Books, New York.

13. For more information consult: Cormick, G.W. 1987. Environmental Mediation: The Myth, the Reality, and the Future. In D.J. Brower and D.S. Carol (eds.), Managing Land-use Conflicts. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

14. For further information:

Dukes, E.F. 1996. Resolving Public Conflict: Transforming Community and Governance. New York: St. Martin's Press (Manchester University Press).

Bacow, L.S., and M. Wheeler. 1984. Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum Press.

Carpenter, S.L., and W.J.D. Kennedy. 1988. Managing Public Disputes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crowfoot, J.E., and J.M. Wondolleck (eds.). 1990. Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Moore, C. 1982. Natural Resource Conflict Management. Boulder, CO: ROMCOE.