What is a Consensus Process?

A consensus process is an effort in which government agencies and other affected parties seek to reach agreement on a course of action to address an issue or set of related issues. For example, task forces may use consensus to develop recommendations. Stakeholder groups convened by an agency may use consensus to develop legislative recommendations on regulations, or intra-government work groups involving multiple agencies may use consensus to reach agreement.

In a consensus process, representatives of all the necessary interests with a stake in an issue work together to find a mutually acceptable solution. Each process differs because in each case the parties design it to fit their circumstances. However, successful consensus processes follow several guiding principles:

Consensus decision-making -- participants make decisions by agreement rather than by majority vote.

Inclusiveness -- All necessary interests are represented or, at a minimum, approve of the discussions.

Accountability --Participants usually represent stakeholder groups or interests. They are accountable both to their constituents and to the process.

Facilitation -- An impartial facilitator accountable to all participants manages the process, ensures that ground rules are followed, and helps maintain a productive climate for communication and problem solving.

Flexibility -- Participants design a process and address the issues in a manner they determine most suitable to the situation.

Shared control -- Participants share responsibility for setting the ground rules for a process and for creating outcomes.

Commitment to implementation -- The sponsor and all stakeholder groups commit to carrying out their agreement.

Stages of a Consensus Process

A consensus process moves through three stages, each with its own set of activities.

Before -- Assess whether or not to initiate a consensus process and how to bring diverse interests to the table, then work with the facilitator to plan and organize the process, and write ground rules.

During -- Engage in the problem-solving discussions: exchange information, frame issues, conduct the discussions, generate and evaluate options, develop mutually acceptable solutions, and secure the endorsement of all constituents and authorized decision makers.

After -- Implement the agreement: formalize the decision, carry it out, and monitor the results.

How consensus processes differ from consultation

The most significant differences between consultation and consensus processes are how decisions are made and what happens to the product of the discussions. In a consensus process, the parties share decision making about both process and outcome. By contrast, in a consultative process the sponsoring agency decides whether to initiate a process and how it will be organized. In a consensus process, the product of the discussion gets translated into official decisions, while in a consultative process the agency formulates the decisions. In both approaches, the agency retains final decision making authority, but in a consensus process the agency puts the product of a consensus process out for official review as the proposed decision. In consultation, the agency receives input from the participants, and then staff members formulate the proposed decisions.

Sometimes because of legal requirements, sponsoring agencies refer to a process as "consultative" or "advisory", even when the intent is to agree with stakeholders on an outcome. Federal agencies that sponsor regulatory negotiations must charter the process as an advisory committee under the provisions of the federal Advisory Communications Act. A legislature or administrative policy making body that authorizes a consensus process may designate the group as advisory in order to make it clear that the formal decision will still be made by government officials.

Again, the most important distinctions among these processes are how decisions are made and what happens to the outcome. If a sponsoring agency treats the committee's final agreement as advice and picks and chooses parts to include in the official decision, the process is consultative. If it participates along with other parties in formulating the agreement, then accepts it as a package consisting of trade-off's that cannot be detached (and is committed to implementing the package), then the process is consensual. According to the authors of Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future, who first pointed out this distinction, "Consultation is designed to inform decision makers who will ultimately make the decision. Consensus involves the participants as decision makers... . In a consensus process, the participants must address and persuade one another and find solutions acceptable to all."

Definition of consensus

A practical definition for consensus in the public policy setting is:

• the parties have reached a meeting of the minds sufficient to make a decision and carry it out;
• no one who could block or obstruct the decision or its implementation will exercise that power;
• everyone needed to support the decision and put it into effect will do so.

This definition does not mean unanimity of thought or abandonment of values. Indeed, one of the characteristics of a well constructed agreement is that it represents diverse values and interests. Given the mixture of issues and values in public conflict, the resulting agreement often is a package with varying levels of enthusiasm and support for different components, but on balance one that each party or stakeholder can accept.

In a consensus process, the parties or stakeholders must define consensus for themselves and include their definition in the ground rules. Most definitions imply acceptance, an acknowledgment that things can move forward, that people support a decision, or at least can live with it. Even if only most participants like the decision, at least all of them are willing to accept it.

Why use consensus and not majority vote?

Because stakeholders and government officials together are the decision makers in a consensus process, participants must try to educate and persuade one another about their needs and interests. They also must listen carefully to determine how the solution can meet the needs of the other parties. Majority voting induces a different kind of interaction than does consensus decision making. When participants know they can revert to a majority vote if they cannot agree, they may focus more on building coalitions for such a possibility rather than trying to meet all the parties' needs.