Concertation: between dream and reality
By Sophie Hamel-Dufour
Sophie Hamel-Dufour, an advisor on participation and participative management with the Protected Areas Unit of the Ecological Heritage and Parks Branch at the Quebec Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP), asked participants to reflect on concertation by drawing on their experience from the scenario workshop held in the morning. This reflection mixed theory and practice not only to offer a distant understanding of participation, but also out of concern to provide tools for action.
The five realities of concertation
Public concertation is viewed as a democratic ideal enriched by the opportunity offered to those who wish to contribute to the collective future. Five realities can therefore arise in a situation involving concertation.
They are:
- The sharing of power;
- The expectation of equity and external influences;
- The clash of visions and values;
- The pressure of consensus and the legitimacy of divergence;
- A concerted effort to reach a decision.
It takes a multifaceted vision to talk about the St. Lawrence, one that takes into account the quality of its water, the state of its banks, marine traffic and the facilities dotting its shores to accommodate this burgeoning economic activity. It is also impossible to refer to the St. Lawrence without mentioning its shoreline populations or worrying about the diversity of its fauna and flora, from surface to riverbed. Lastly, it means thinking about the future, while bearing in mind current transformations; in fact, to speak of the St. Lawrence is to speak of its history, its prehistory.
The St. Lawrence therefore has it all: economy, politics, history, biology, physics and chemistry, engineering, culture, art, landscape and identity. It is the convergence of these visions of the River that the scenario attempted to elicit.
The sharing of power
This refers not to decision-making power, but rather the power of influence, the power of action, the power of knowledge.
A regional round table (RRT), as defined in the IMSL, opens up the dialogue to a greater number of people on sometimes delicate issues. Opening dialogue means accepting the fact that our expertise can be challenged and enhanced through discussion. It also means sharing the power of influence. The extent of this influence varies greatly depending on the contexts and willingness of the people and organizations in attendance.
Moreover, although local and traditional knowledge are recognized today, their legitimacy must nonetheless often be reaffirmed throughout participatory processes.
The expectation of equity and external influences
One of the values often expected from participatory processes is equity for each participant. Fair rules of procedure can be adopted in an RRT's work by, for instance, giving everyone a chance to speak. However, even with equity as the central focus, concertation does not eliminate the inequality of resources, means, knowledge and skills among the players involved. The key in an environment of concertation is remembering to give everyone the best conditions for debating and speaking their mind.
Discussions and decisions arising from an RRT are not self-contained. There are many external influences acting on them. These include formal meetings, boards of directors, called meetings such as a business lunch, or chance encounters by the water cooler. All these gatherings are examples of influences that may or may not affect the concertation process. They are sometimes necessary to provide input for the thought process.
The space and weight they are given, or not given, in relation to the positions being defended and supported vary with context. The scope may also change over time, particularly when it involves changing contexts such as the economy, unlike a regulatory change that imposes set obligations. These external influences make it difficult to foresee the outcomes of concertation. This unpredictability sometimes adds to the discomfort or low expectations that people have towards a participatory process.
The clash of visions and values
Economic, political, historical, biological, physical and chemical, engineering, cultural and artistic outlooks may be combined, if only because we have more than just one role to play in society—we are both parents and children, art lovers, sports and outdoor enthusiasts, vacationers—in addition to the role bestowed on us by our job. All these roles shape our perceptions, our values and our views of the world that surrounds us. The RRTs are special places where the expertise of civil society meshes with that of scientists and where the public administration of the St. Lawrence intertwines with private use, for the business community and citizens alike. This gathering, particularly in a context of concertation with co-construction as the objective, inevitably involves tensions, the extent of which depends on the context.
The IMSL appears to be conducive to bringing tensions to the surface, in the sense that the culture of results-based management, which goes very much hand-in-hand with the management of public and private affairs, leaves little room for integrated management perceptions and values because they are difficult to quantify. Yet, values underlie many of the decisions we make.
The pressure of consensus and the legitimacy of divergence
RRTs must sometimes deal with issues that are more difficult to tackle and likely to create more tension. Avoiding an issue does not remove it from the regional context; it may even turn into a source of external influence and affect the capacity to implement the integrated management plan that was developed.
It is up to each table to determine what strategy to take based on the circumstances, particularly when it comes to more delicate issues. It takes times to agree on a position, since understanding, discussing, analyzing, re-discussing and assessing the issues does not happen in the blink of an eye. More complex issues demand, expect and require thought; this is why multiple consensuses will be discussed here. The plurality of consensuses, as opposed to unanimity or single consensus, allows for the expression of minority positions and legitimizes disagreement and divergence.
A concerted effort to reach a decision
The decisions RRTs must make have to do with the development of a regional integrated management plan and its implementation. We sometimes question our real contribution to the decision-making process, our input not always going without saying.
Deciding means choosing or favouring one option over another. The act of choosing inevitably causes some frustration for those players whose position is not selected. Sometimes we wonder about our specific contribution to decision-making. Making a decision generally involves a sequence of decisions. We can use a water-related metaphor to refer to this as a decision wave. It is the scope of requirements or responsibilities that fall to each organization or player concerned in the implementation of the Regional Integrated Management Plan. Moreover, this accumulation of decisions uses resources and budgets and entails environmental, social and economic repercussions.
Although it is difficult to anticipate requirements, responsibilities, specific budgets and environmental, social and economic repercussions when targeting issues and to determine where the content of the Regional Integrated Management Plan should stop, this is nonetheless the multifaceted reality of the plan's implementation. Thus, the anticipated scope of each choice should also guide the decision.
Three things to remember:
- Doing it together: The diversity of results and their unpredictability seem to indicate that we should let ourselves be swept away by the complexity of the issues raised. It is probably by looking at the whole picture that plans like integrated management plans find a stronger foothold in regional realities.
- Time: Time to take the time in the time allotted. Concertation aims to create a common sense. The creation of a common sense brings people to accept that their way to view and understand the River may be enriched by the ways others see and understand it. Concertation often makes us change our mind, makes us question ourselves. It demands time because it is reflective work.
- Deciding for the best: Weigh general interest measures that may be contradictory and choose what is acceptable. Taking cues from Jean-Eudes Beuret's work in La conduite de la concertation : pour la gestion de l’environnement et le partage des ressources[concertation behaviour: for environmental management and resource sharing], we could say that RRTs define both what is acceptable and what is desirable for the integrated and concerted management of the St. Lawrence.