1. Involving stake holders in sustainable land management - who, how and why? Dr Alister Scott University of Wales Aberystwyth

2. Brief Why involve? Who do we involve? How do we engage ? How do we ensure that benefits accrue? A cautionary tale

3. Preliminary Lessons Do not annoy my mother! Research your community Engage with all stakeholders/individuals with dialogue/feedback Communicate your needs from the outset Promote trust and mutual respect Inadequate consultation is worse than none

4. Academic discourse : Theory vs Practice (Shepherd, 1998; MacDonald, 2001; Scott et al., 2004) Techniques vs Policy (Scott and Bullen 2004; Fines, 1968; Lee 1990) Government vs Governance (Woods et al., 2003) Expert vs Public (Nicholls and Sclater, 1993; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982 vs Penning Rowsell 1974; Burgess 1996 ) Consensus vs Conflict (European Landscapes Conference, 2003 )

5. The WHY Because you have to vs wanting to do it Current international/national policy climate Community led projects create ownership and additionality. Stakeholders have expertise and enthusiasm Partnership promotes mutual understanding between agencies and public

6. The WHO Stakeholders are not homogenous Major elite (The powerful agencies ) Minor elite (The NGOs usual suspects 1) Individuals (The usual suspects 2) The “other” (Excluded /unheard voices)

7. The HOW http://www.irs.aber.ac.uk/als/netpage/lectures/ruralcommunitiesohp.html Village Appraisals. Village Appraisals Parish Maps Focus groups Visioning Participatory Appraisal Planning for Real Forums/Fora Citizen Juries Search conferences Delphi technique Village Design Statements BUT:

8. Pre-requisites : Barriers to Participation Consultation overload/fatigue Lack of resources for participation. Suspicion and distrust of consultation Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Lack of knowledge about issue(s) Complexity of issue(s) Lack of knowledge of available options Lack of knowledge of available options Media hijacking/abuse of issues

9. The HOW 3D matrix model Information Dispersal Decisions already taken Discussions Initial scoping Information Gathered from Agency agendas Surveys/Qaires Reactive responses Interaction Open dialogue Working groups Written consultation WHO IS INVOLVED Major Elite Minor Elite Public WHO PROVIDES INFORMATION Major Elite Minor Elite Public WHO IS INCLUDED IN POLICY Major Elite Minor elite Public

10. Information dispersal Decisions already taken Ongoing discussions Initial scoping Major Elite Minor Elite Public What type of information Who receives it

11. Information gathered from: Agency agendas Surveys/Qaires Complaints Major Elite Minor Elite Public Who is providing information? What information is collected?

12. Interaction Written consultation Working groups Partnership/Open dialogue Major elite Minor elite Public Nature of interaction Who is included/excluded

13. Ceredigion Unitary Development Plan (Top Down)

14. Top down multistage process Geared to objections

15. Local Agenda 21(Bottom up) Concerned individuals form Ceredigion LA21 group Participation strategy - visioning exercise Establishment of working parties Consensus reports REVIEW: BOTTOM UP meets TOP DOWN Formation of Ymlaen Ceredigion Partnership structure Develop sustainability strategy and directory New grants/new initiatives

16. Tarka: Top down meets bottom up? Local Authority lead in partnership (TDAP) Promote area under the SD/tarka theme AONB) Information and discussion campaign Tarka image : recreation/tourism as a gateway for rural development Platform for Sustainable Development New ventures and innovation

17. Discussion TOP DOWN: Limits the ability of SOME stakeholders to influence initial thinking and removes sense of ownership. CONFLICT/EXCLUSION BOTTOM UP: Can be reliant on key individuals who pursue own interests with strong sense of ownership CONSENSUS/EXCLUSION INTEGRATED : Professionals shape a joined up approach at the conceptual stage; INCLUSION/OWNERSHIP

18. Themes for reflection Consultation vs participation Short term box ticking vs long term process Facilitation vs imposition Partnership vs competition Integration vs specialisation Inclusion vs exclusion Conflict vs consensus

19. Concluding thought There are many routes to the summit of Snowdon.