March 31, 2001
Contact:
Donald D.Nelson, Ph.D.
509/335-2922 (o)
509/335-1082 (fax)
nelsond@wsu.edu
Bob Chadwick, Consensus Associates
Mike Lunn, Sustainable Solutions
The Initial Workshop and Projected Future Activities and Impact
Anticipated Outcomes
Background and Project Justification
Associated Outcomes
Best Possible Outcomes for "Creating a Sustainable Future for Fish, Water and People"
Overcoming the Barriers, Achieving the Best Possible Outcomes
Examples of Issues/Projects for Participants
Methods
Evaluation
Budget Summary
Qualifications of Principals
Failure is unacceptable. Current practices are failing. We must find a new approach. This one works!Having experienced a 30-year career of traditional federal decision making processes and billions of dollars used unsuccessfully in efforts to restore the fishery, it is clear we must build trusting relationships between stakeholders before we can build abiding solutions.
"You can't build enduring solutions without enduring, positive and trusting relationships. This process taught me how to help build such relationships in my region."
Patricia Tawney, Tribal Liasion
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland OR
The Workshops for Sustainability/Consensus Institute series include two 3-day sessions and two 4-day sessions with practicums in-between plus a 1-day graduation session for a total of 15 -days over five sessions. Through the use of practicums, conflict resolution teams from each Workshop will work on resolving conflicts between sessions. All participants are required to participate in practicums following each workshop session. The conflicts will be real ones identified by the participants. Consensus practicums are planned events, or activities, that are designed to require the use of the beliefs, behaviors and capacity building skills learned during the Workshops on Sustainability. It is expected that the practicums will begin with simple activities and move toward the more complex as the workshop series progresses.
The learning modules covered in the Workshops for Sustainability/Consensus Institute sessions include: (1) process introduction, (2) managing change, (3) managing scarcity conflicts, (4) managing stereotypes, (5) managing diversity, (6) managing power, (7) managing relationships, (8) managing participatory democracy, (9) managing interviews, and (10) reaching consensus.
Other models, frameworks and processes will be provided as optional approaches to help communities develop and implement their strategies to achieve their shared vision. These would include traditional approaches, holistic decision-making, Covey leadership training, Enterprise Facilitation and The Natural Step program.
The outcome of this training will be to create a network of people who can effectively deal with complex natural resource and people issues that cross state lines and other political boundaries. Ecosystems do not respect these artificial and arbitrary political boundaries.
Through the multiplier effect of this "train-the-trainer" projects' approach, the potential number of people that the Workshops for Sustainability can impact is significant. Each session will host up to 60 participants in this Workshop series. Each participant will be responsible for four project-oriented practicums (i.e., one between each of the first four sessions) during the course of the Workshops. This results in 240 potential projects that can be worked on. If there are an average of 15 people in each of these 240 projects, this produces 3,600 people who are positively affected through their improved capacity to solve problems. The multiplier effect now takes place. If each one of these 3,600 people uses the consensus process on only one project with 10 people per project, that increases the number of people affected to 36,000. This multiplier effect has been well documented from the results of other Institutes conducted by Bob Chadwick over the past 13 years.
Session I of the Workshops for Sustainability--Creating a Sustainable Future for Fish, Water and People--reinforced my strong belief that consensus building is the right tool, a very powerful tool, for the resolution of natural resource conflicts. The Consensus Associates approach to consensus building brings wisdom and simplicity to this process that is easy to learn and to teach to bring capacity building to the communities in conflict. With these skills communities can solve their own problems.Tom Wawro, Bureau of Land Management, Portland OR
Measurable results from this proposed project will be evidenced by an increase in collaborative efforts, improved relationships, communication and coordination and a decrease in the incidence of conflict and litigation. Graduates of the Workshops for Sustainability will function as consensus building/holistic decision-making teams that will work with the local constituencies to resolve conflicts, facilitate meetings and train others in the consensus building and holistic decision-making processes.
I have attended many different training sessions and other processes dealing with consensus and the salmon issue. This is the only training I have had which has given me the tools to bring groups to consensus. All other training only discusses the value of it. I have always felt that the consensus approach is the only way to save the Columbia ecosystem and the species that rely on it.Brian E. Lipscomb, Manager, Fish Wildlife and Recreation Division, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo MT
Non-point sources of pollution are creating water pollution problems for all species, not just fish. The number of water bodies not meeting water quality standards under the CWA continues to increase. Water quantity issues also play an important role in water quality, habitat and quality of life.
These are very complex issues that involve many variables and diverse groups of people. There are no simple solutions. One fact is clear--more money and more science alone will not solve the problems. People have caused these problems and these problems are going to have to be solved by people working together. We have a tremendous amount of knowledge and technology available. However, no one has all the answers. The challenge is how do we get everybody to come to the table, share our collective wisdom, recognize what we don't know and make decisions that will produce sustainable results? Traditional approaches have not been successful in dealing with the complex issues involving complex, adaptive living systems. The Workshops for Sustainability provide a new approach to resolving these issues, and do so in a way that strengthens the human and social capital within our communities.
The Consensus Associates workshop provided me with new understanding to bring together my community in conflict about creating a future for fish, water and people. Indeed it is the only approach that will work to solve this problem.Linda Gray, OSU Extension Service, Washington Co. OR
The PNW/RWR meetings produced substantive suggestions to promote watershed health and also demonstrated a consensus building strategy developed by the facilitator, Bob Chadwick of Consensus Associates. The following are some of the participant recommendations to the Regional Watershed Coordinating Team (targeted to Washington, Oregon and Idaho) that came out of the PNW/RWR meetings:
My job for the next four years entails bringing local, state and federal governments together with local residents (a group of approx. 45) to develop a sustainable long-range watershed plan. Many feel it's an impossible task. However, now after attending and learning the practical uses of the consensus process, I am really excited that we will be successful AND develop the plan under/by consensus.Linda Kiefer, Watershed Coordinator, Stevens Co. Conservation District, Colville WA
An important feature of this evaluation design is to enable participants to monitor their individual and collective progress toward the goal of the project, particularly since the project emphasizes personal capacity building for collaboration. This participatory approach to evaluation will yield high quality data and offer participants another laboratory to practice holistic decision-making, specifically its plan-monitor-control-replan feedback loop. Partial quantitative monitoring results from the first module of Workshops for Sustainability are shown below, excerpted from the draft report by Jim Long:
During the course of the participatory workshop, Mike Lunn asked members to align themselves physically along a 14-point continuum in response to three questions. Point number 1 represented not at all confident; 10 was confident in confronting conflict; 14 was confident also in helping others learn to confront conflict in their environments. Following is the mean value for each question.Q1 At the end of the 15 day series of workshops, how do I want to feel about confronting unresolved conflict? Mean: 12 (n= 47)
Q2 Before this session, how did I feel about confronting unresolved conflict in my environment? Mean: 8.2 (n=47)
Q3 At the end of this first workshop, how do I feel about confronting unresolved conflict? Mean: 10.9 (n=40) (asked at close of workshop)
The group's mean confidence score increased from 8.2 to 10.9, a 2.7-point gain. The group indicated that it wants to gain further confidence, from 10.9 to at least 12.
Four important features of this assessment are: 1) the criterion upon which the questions were derived came from the group itself, the group's Best Possible Outcomes, i.e., to gain confidence in confronting unresolved conflict in our own environments; 2) defining Best Possible Outcomes of the Institute was a distinct activity of the workshop; 3) the physical activity of placing oneself along a continuum represented an alternative to a paper-and-pencil rating as on a Likert scale; and 4) the public display of the group's distribution along the scale offered immediate feedback to the group and staff about the group's starting point, its aspiration and, by the end of the first workshop, the measurable progress toward a Best Possible Outcome that the group attributed to the workshop itself.
Jim Long, NUView Evaluation and Learning, draft results
| Activity | Total Cost | Available | Requested |
| Workshops for Sustainability Attachment #1 | $120,000 | $34,000 | $86,000 |
| Sub-total | $86,000 | ||
| Watershed council facilitation Attachment #2 | 22,465 | 0 | 21,465 |
| Sub-total | $21,465 | ||
| Additional capacity building training options that could be offered upon request: | |||
| Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Restoration (3 days with 20 participants) Attachment #3 | 7,500 | 0 | 7,500 |
| Holistic Management Overview (3 days with 20 participants) Attachment #4 | 6,817 | 0 | 6,817 |
| Holistic Financial Planning (3 days with 20 participants) Attachment #5 | 6,817 | 0 | 6,817 |
| The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (3 days with 20 participants) Attachment #6 | 7,964 | 0 | 7,964 |
| Enterprise Facilitation (5 days with 12 participants) Attachment #7 | 12,000 | 0 | 12,000 |
| Entrepreneurial Farming (1 day with up to 130 people) Attachment #8 | 6,000 | 0 | 6,000 |
| The Natural Step (1 day with 20 participants) Attachment #9 | 2,374 | 0 | 2,374 |
| Sub-total | $49,472 | ||
| Total amount requested | $156,937 | ||
Don has been the Project Director for two major grant-funded state/regional efforts, the Integrated Farming Systems/Holistic Management Project (1995-1999) and the Consensus Institute Project (1997-1999), for which he secured funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. He is also providing the leadership in the development and implementation of the regional effort called Creating a Sustainable Future for Fish, Water and People. His efforts continue to focus on building capacity and collaborative decision-making in an ever-expanding network of people and organizations that share the vision of creating a sustainable future in the Northwest.
Prior to coming to WSU, Don had 15 years of industry and administrative experience as general manager of livestock operations for a family corporation, an executive with two national commodity/trade associations, Associate Director of a professional ranch management program at a private university and CEO of a branded beef company.
Robert Chadwick of Consensus Associates (Terrebonne, OR) is internationally recognized for his special abilities to bring differing groups together to communicate and develop common solutions. He has pioneered the development of consensus building techniques that foster creative solutions to old conflicts.
With 30 years experience as a professional manager and organizational development consultant in a major Federal agency and 13 years as a private consultant, Bob has accumulated a comprehensive education and experience in managerial and conflict resolution strategies. He has a proven ability to help groups successfully in mission development, organizational change, team building, labor negotiations and conflict resolution.
Bob has worked throughout the United States and internationally on conflicts surrounding technology transfer, scarce resources allocation, education and rapid social and political change. He has facilitated consensus solutions in over 900 situations involving more than 40,000 people. A partial list of the entities he has worked with include the City of Bay City, MI; Rochester Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Fort Collins Colorado Chamber of Commerce; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Nespelem, WA); General Motors (Saginaw, MI); Hewlett Packard (Fort Collins, CO); IBM (Rochester, MN); Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN); Rochester Minnesota City Council; Saginaw Valley State University (Saginaw, MI); US Forest Service (Colville, WA); Washington State University (Pullman, WA); Willamette Industries (Oregon) and Winona State University (Winona, MN).
He creates an environment in which the participants develop a belief that consensus is possible and they are willing to take the risk to make it happen. He has developed skills and techniques that are easily learned and are directly applicable to any management decision or conflict situation. These techniques are applied in a format in which the stakeholders learn how to seek consensus while negotiating and resolving their conflicts.
Mike Lunn of Sustainable Solutions, Prineville, Oregon, is highly experienced in a broad range of environmental issues, and in bringing people together to confront and resolve complex problems. He is associated with the National Riparian Service Team, an interagency team whose mission it is to restore riparian areas across all land ownerships in the United States. He works with that group as a consultant, helping them to bring the social and community aspects of restoration along with their outstanding technical approaches. He also has multiple trips to Mexico, working with communities and agencies to improve riparian areas and in other conservation work. Mike is listed with the Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals, which is sponsored by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
Mike also has outstanding organizational and leadership credentials, having served 32 years in the Forest Service, 12 of which were as Forest Supervisor on the Tongass, Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forests. These experiences provided numerous opportunities to work with and help resolve major environmental issues on a broad front, and also enabled him to demonstrate excellence in management of organizations and people, and working with communities. His leadership and innovation in Labor – Management Relations was recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which awarded his Partnership Council the annual award for outstanding partnership work in USDA in 1997. His expertise in preparing plans and strategies for addressing complex environmental issues, ranging from watershed recovery, mining, fisheries enhancement, ski area development, planning at multiple scales and other activities has been widely recognized.
Charly Boyd
Skamania County Planning Department
PO Box 790
Stevenson, WA 98648
March 20, 2001
Bob Chadwick
Consensus Associates
PO Box 235
Terrebonne, Oregon 97760
Dear Bob:
First, let me thank you for the great training on consensus building. I learned a lot of valuable techniques and philosophies that I have been trying to implement. Most things that I have tried have worked well so far. The learning manual is very helpful as well and is easy to read and understand. I am also very grateful to you for the scholarship that gave me the opportunity to attend the Vancouver workshop. I hope that I will be able to attend the remaining sessions on scholarship as well, since I feel they will be extremely useful to me.
I would like to apply the consensus approach, and have been trying to do so, in my job. I work for the Skamania County Planning Department in Stevenson, Washington and the largest part of my job is to facilitate and coordinate the local Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Planning Unit. This group is made up of 27 different local citizens, interest groups, and agency representatives who have a stake in the way water resources are managed and used in our WRIA, number 29. Our task is to develop a management plan, over a four year time period, that will address water quantity, quality, and fish habitat issues. The plan includes a detailed watershed assessment to determine the current status of our water resources, a plan for managing those resources now and in the future, and recommendations to local and state agencies for specific regulatory actions. The final plan will be given to the local legislative bodies to be adopted as regulations if they choose to do so.
Water and fish, as we saw in the Vancouver session, are topics that generate a lot of controversy and differing opinions on how to manage them. The group that I work with is very diverse and has been struggling with working as a cohesive group. Some members have tried everything to stop the planning from moving forward because they are afraid of being regulated out of business, some have refused to attend meetings regularly because they don't feel the group is willing to work together, and some come to meetings and either don't want to participate or don't feel comfortable doing so.
I became the facilitator/coordinator for this group only a few months ago and have had to try to wrestle with existing conflicts while trying to meet grant deadlines and other expectations. Since I have had no formal facilitation or consensus training I have been struggling to resolve conflicts among individuals and foster a consensus-friendly attitude among the group members.
The monthly planning unit meeting for February was only three days after the Consensus Associates first training session so I immediately tried to apply some of the things I learned. I set up the room with a circle of chairs instead of the U-shaped table design we had been previously using. It was amazing to see the exact reactions on the people's faces that we had discussed in the training. One woman walked in the door, took a look at the circle and walked out again. She came back after about 10 minutes and took a seat. Others looked skeptical at the design and one man stood outside the circle until he felt comfortable moving in. The first thing I did was explain that I had been to some training and that we would be trying out a few of the things I had learned. Then we moved on to a grounding. Everyone got a chance to speak uninterrupted and several people commented afterward on how good it felt to say what they wanted and be listened to, and on how interesting it was to hear everyone's point of view. Also, almost everyone expressed the need to manage our water resources in a better way. This was excellent because everyone felt that they all had something in common. At the next meeting we will be asking for everyone's Best and Worst Possible Outcomes of watershed planning and then we'll move on to identifying Beliefs and Behaviors and Strategies and Actions to achieve our goals.
I am excited to continue my training and learn more consensus building techniques to help the Planning Unit work together to develop a water resource management plan. Since the issues and conflicts will only get more intense as we deal with specific areas of water use such as irrigation and salmon habitat, facilitation training and consensus building techniques will be invaluable to me and the group in the future. Support from Consensus Associates will also prove helpful to me in the form of being available to answer specific questions and give advice on how to deal with certain situations. At this point I don't anticipate needing direct assistance facilitating the group but a person never knows what will happen.
Finally, I will not be able to continue attending the training sessions unless a scholarship is made available to me. My position at the county is funded in part by a Department of Ecology (DOE) grant that must also be used to pay for the expensive watershed assessment and other tasks. DOE has indicated that the bulk of the grant money should be spent on assessment work. The rest of my salary is paid for by the county which has limited funding resources since it is a small, rural county that has been heavily dependent on timber revenues to fund its activities. With the decreased federal and state timber sales and the formation of the National Scenic Area in the gorge, the county does not have the money to pay for expensive employee training, no matter how valuable it would be for job performance. Scholarship support for this program is vital to me, and to several others who I met at the first training session, in order for us to attend. The things that I have learned so far from the Consensus Associates training have helped me immensely. I feel that the rest of the sessions will be equally, if not more, valuable to me. I would encourage anyone with the financial means to support this training because it will not only benefit the people taking the training but those they work with as well. In my case it will benefit the local residents and visitors to our area directly by allowing them to develop and enjoy the benefits of a water resource management plan for their area.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Bob, for offering this training, and to thank any potential financial sponsors for considering funding the continued training. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Charly Boyd
Watershed and Shorelines Planner
Managing Wholes is a project of the Soil Carbon Coalition