- Current Status:
The government makes participation and partnership one of the conditions attached to funding for renewal projects and will enforce community consultation on local authorities under proposed new legislation. However, practice lags behind policy. There is a lot of variation across the country. In Scotland, there is mostly conventional consultation along the lines of "decide-announce-defend" but there are some interesting "bottom-up" initiatives e.g. community forestry.
- Sectoral Differences:
There is little difference between sectors, with a floor on performance being set by statutory requirements. Customer-focussed organizations in the private sector successfully consult with their customers and allow them to participate. Shell and BP link sustainability and social equity with public participation. The adoption of this ethos in the public sector is patchy but the new government white paper: "Modernising Local Government", will have a substantial impact.
- Differences by Field:
This varies across the country. The Scottish Office has reviewed consultation procedures but largely by involving NGOs and special interests rather than the general public.There are some moves to secure community involvement in the management of public forests, especially after the threat of privatization.
- Trends:
Public participation is certainly increasing in the public sector, as documented in recent research. See the report of the Local Government Research project at www.local.detr.gov.uk/research/particip.htm In Scotland, the government's policy on community planning, constitutional changes and the Scottish Parliament all enhance public participation. However, while there is more conventional consultation, power remains with the executive.
- Techniques:
Citizen juries, focus groups, workshops, customer panels and surveys of residents are in use; public meetings are out of favour, being seen as counter productive. Stakeholder dialogues and consensus building may be a current trend. However, well thought out participation strategies, with a sequence of appropriate techniques, are very rare. See the Public Involvement Programme at www.pip.org.uk for more about techniques.
- Pressures for Economy & Efficiency:
The previously cited Local Government Research project indicates such pressures. The outcome of participation has to be evaluated and justified in respect of the resources dedicated to the task.
- Stakeholders vs. Public:
Stakeholder participation is fashionable but its full implications are not understood; this could become an issue that needs to be dealt with. In local government, the stakeholders are the general public.
- Public Participation vs. ADR, Mediation, etc.:
There is very little ADR in the environmental field and there are few public participation professionals. Planning and management consultants are picking up the terminology but have no clear understanding of what consensus building entails.
- Employment:
Some agency staff are taking training since this is the most cost-effective way of facilitating participation. There are no independent firms in this field.
- Policy vs. Project Focus:
The main focus is on projects, but some policy development occurs through round tables, with or without the use of facilitators. The new legislation will result in policy and program development being based on public participation.
- Comments, Suggestions, etc.:
Some people are actively working towards the institutional establishment of a consensus building - conflict resolving clinic for rural development in Scotland.
