June 19-20, 2000, Riverton, Wyoming

The following is a summary of the discussions at the Forum and includes the views of the panelists, facilitators, and participants in the audience. A note on terms and definitions: several words or phrases are used to describe the process when people come together to address problems or issues, such as collaboration, agreement building, or consensus building. Many participants at the Forum were uncomfortable with "collaboration," and the definition of "consensus" varies among people and situations. For this summary, we will use "agreement building" to refer to these processes.

Interest based
Participants need to express themselves in terms of their interests, rather than their positions on an issue. Have participants express their values in relation to a place. Doing so often reveals more common ground than people had realized.

People based
Stakeholders on an issue might include individuals, groups, and agencies; the people who come to the table are what is important. If the right people are there and committed, agreement building has a chance to work.

Voluntary
Agreement building does not work well if any party comes to the table in despair, or with absolute power. These processes work best if started out of opportunity rather than conflict.

Can be designed to fit the situation
When we talk about agreement building we tend to think of it in terms of making compromises and reaching agreement, which relate to our traditional ways of making decisions. However, these approaches don't have to be directed toward these outcomes alone. The goals can be broader and can include engaging and informing the public, clearly stating the problem, listening to each other, hearing concerns early on in the process, brainstorming on creative ways to address the issues, and coordinating various government authorities that might not otherwise be talking to each other. Thus these processes can be catalysts for ideas and can enrich the decision making process.

In general, agreement building works best when the issue does not involve deep differences in philosophy. As noted above, however, the goal of the process might be just to listen to each other and clearly define the problem, which can be of value even if there are philosophical differences. The decision to use an agreement building approach is a group decision. The core values of each participant need to be acknowledged up front and the process planned accordingly. Evaluate what the product will be, and this determines how you use the process. Often these process work best if they arise from the bottom rather than being assigned from the top.

Diversity is critical
All interests must have a seat at the table and each should select their own representatives. The process works best if there is horizontal and vertical diversity. Horizontal diversity means including representatives from a wide range of interests; vertical diversity means that people from several levels of authority in an agency or non-governmental organization are at the table or are committed to support the process.

Listening is critical
Conflict can mean that people stop talking to each other, or it can mean that people have to start working together and listening to each other. To build understanding, each person should be willing to "walk a mile in the shoes" of other people at the table. People need to come to the table ready to engage in honest communication and without hidden agendas.

Trust is critical
The process has to be perceived as fair and balanced or participants will take another approach. Building trust can take a long time, and it is easy to break. Sometimes the reason for mistrust among people goes back to events from a generation or several generations ago, and this has to be recognized and dealt with in current efforts. Also it is important to recognize that our behavior every day is part of trust building; that is, do our actions support trust and respect? If we are honest and level with people in our personal and professional lives, it is easier to build trust and partnerships when we come together to work on issues. Maintaining trust is challenging when there are changes in the people at the table during a process, but this is just a reality that groups have to live with. If a group has matured they will be able to deal with these changes.

Interdependence
Working together involves the relationships among individuals, groups, and agencies. We are not independent. "They" have become "us." Keep in mind that individuals and interest groups don't "go away." That is, you will likely be dealing with the same people on other issues. Partnerships that treat everyone as adults are preferred over the parent/child feeling imparted by the command and control approach to regulations.

Groundrules / Rules of the Game
Everyone needs to understand and agree on groundrules for a process. Scheduling of meetings should be done as a group and all participants need to help develop the agenda. If a facilitator is needed, everyone needs to agree on who that should be.

Consensus vs. voting
The group needs to decide how they will reach decisions, and how to define "consensus" if that is the approach they will use.

 Mutual education
Joint learning is part of building trust and vital for ensuring informed participation.

Participant "owned"
People will support what they helped create. One of the values of agreement building processes is that people are asked to take some responsibility for finding a solution.

• Grassroots focus
• Place based / grounded in local issues and problems
• Individual involvement
• Creativity
• Idea generation: be open to non-traditional, non-majority ideas

• Linkages to national decision making (lobbying, legislation, litigation, rule making / agency policy)
  At the policy level, there are decisions on how to make decisions. Sideboards are set, and people speak more from their positions.
• Representative government
  What happens at the grassroots level doesn't necessarily equate with the political level of operations in Washington, DC, where people are elected or are political appointees.

Selecting participants
Key characteristics of participants that greatly enhance these processes include honesty, patience, integrity, courage, and commitment; and understanding that the process might work but that it does fail sometimes, and that is OK. Each person needs to be responsible for informed participation, in terms of knowing the guidelines for a good process and insisting that those guidelines be followed, willingness to understand others' views, and willingness to learn about the issues. One key question is who represents national interests when the issue involves public lands? Are those views already represented in our Wyoming community? Depth in representation may be needed; that is, more than one person representing an interest group or viewpoint as they may have to take turns attending meetings.

Shared investment of participants
All parties must have something tangible to give or take -- shared risks and shared benefits. The risks that each individual or interest group brings to the table are different. These risks can be viewed in financial terms and in other terms because some people represent values that are difficult to quantify, such as the scientific, cultural or historic value of public lands, and air and water quality. Participants need commitment in terms of attending meetings and participating in good faith.

Establish common vision, goals and objectives
A clear statement of purpose is needed. Keep the scope reasonable. For example, there is no sense in rehashing what Congress has decided by law. The group needs to understand and respect the decision making authority of those present. It is important to get buy in from as high in agencies or organizations as possible.

Develop common understanding of the issues
Define words and how they will be used at the beginning of the process. Activities such as field trips to see the resource help develop common understanding among participants. People at the table need to keep their constituents and higher authorities in their organization informed.

Role of information
Everyone needs to have the same set of information. Good baseline data are needed so that everyone can start from the same place. Good information can be defined as the most recent, objective, peer-reviewed scientific data. Know where you start, and if more data are needed, the group needs to agree on what and how to get it.

Leadership
Agreement building processes are sometimes viewed with skepticism and people are not rewarded for participating. Leadership is needed within communities, agencies, and non-governmental organizations to support participation in these processes. A group itself can show leadership in the way it reaches out to the community. Elected leaders need to participate.

Role of third parties
People or organizations outside of an agreement building group might be needed, often for technical assistance. For example, if information is needed from private land but the landowner does not want agency representatives to do the data collection, a private researcher who is acceptable to the landowner and to the agencies involved could be hired to collect the needed data.

Compared to what?
While it is not suitable for every situation, agreement building is a tool that can be very helpful in addressing many issues. One way to decide whether to initiate an agreement building process or to participate in one is to compare it with the other alternatives for resolving the issue. Do you think your outcome would be better if you took another approach, such as mediation or litigation? If so, you probably won't be interested in joining an agreement building process. Agreement building works best when each party perceives that participating will likely result in their best outcome.

Role of federal agencies
For many issues, federal agencies need to be represented at the table. It is important to know at the start whether someone higher up in the agency can overrule the group's decisions. Some people feel that agencies should not initiate processes, while others feel this would be appropriate if the process is not used as a hammer but rather as an invitation to help solve problems.

Path to implementation / monitoring of outcomes
Agreement building works best if all parties have some responsibility for implementation. The long term solution needs to be survivable and have adequate funding. Monitoring is the key, and it needs to have support and funding.

Resources / funding / time
Financial resources may be needed to insure that cost is not a barrier to participating in a collaborative process; for example, agency or private funding to help cover the travel costs of participants like ranchers or members of non-governmental organizations who have to pay their own way. Resources may also be needed for group operations, such as funding for a facilitator or for technical assistance. Some processes can be fairly open ended in terms of scheduling, but usually reasonable time requirements are needed and these time elements should be continually re-evaluated.

Deadlines and milestones
The size of the group should be kept in mind when setting deadlines, as larger groups may need more time to come to agreement.

Time commitment
Everyone needs to recognize that these processes require participants to commit quite a bit of time. Putting in the time up front can result in fewer time-consuming conflicts down the road. The relationships built during an agreement building process on one issue can carry over into how people deal with other issues.