History and Initial Goals

In 1994, stakeholders in Maine's forests witnessed with interest and dismay the angry and even violent confrontations that were taking place in the Pacific Northwest among loggers, U.S. Forest Service personnel, environmental activists, legislators, local townspeople and others. These conflicts had emerged over plans to protect an endangered species. Although a broad range of ideas were put forward on how to deal with the conflicting interests and values that were being expressed, creative problem-solving became very limited as people with ecological and economic concerns joined sides against each other and engaged in a highly polarized battle.

In an informal discussion, a small and diverse group of stakeholders in Maine’s forests, wondered aloud, "What if we were to bring together a large group of key stakeholders in our forests – people who are not traditional allies - to work collaboratively on issues related to biodiversity, before a similar development in our region polarizes us?" Can we avoid a draining battle if we proactively foster collective learning about biodiversity among those who have different interests in Maine’s forests? Can we move into the future with appreciation of not only our different interests but also our common interests?

During the winter of 1994, that small group began to make plans for a meeting – a single meeting, they hoped, would lead to a series of meetings in which stakeholders could explore ways in which the biodiversity and biological integrity of Maine's forests could be maintained while at the same time preserving jobs, local control and the health of Maine's communities. Acting as an ad-hoc steering committee, this planning group selected a team of meeting designer-facilitators (Maggie Herzig of the Public Conversations Project and Grady McGonagill of McGonagill & Associates) and they sought co-sponsorship for the meeting from the University of Maine College of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture; the Maine Forest Products Council; Maine TREE Foundation; the Natural Resources Council of Maine; and The Nature Conservancy.

In May of 1994 about 100 people responded with interest to an invitation to a two-day meeting; over 80 attended. They gathered in cabins and lodges at Emden Lake to explore the possibility of collaborative work and mutual learning on issues related to Maine’s forest biodiversity. Participants included representatives of industrial and non-industrial forest landowners, environmental groups, academia, agencies of state and federal government, citizen activists, and sportsmen groups. This first meeting did, indeed, lead to a series. Over the next four and a half years, between the May 1994 and January 1999, 70-80 project participants came together for eleven full group retreats (usually two days long) and one public conference. In between these full meetings, many task-oriented committees met to achieve the research, writing, and public education objectives that emerged from the areas of common ground discovered in the full group.

Organizational Structure

Because the MFBP operated on the basis of consensus among
participating stakeholders, it did not have "leadership" in an institutional or formal sense. In fact, such formal organization, including the appointment or election of institutionally sanctioned leaders, was deliberately avoided in an effort not to compromise the dynamics of consensus-based decision making. However, between stakeholder meetings, the business of the MFBP was conducted by a Steering Committee, comprised of 6-8 volunteer stakeholders from each of the major participating sectors. This group’s composition changed over time toward the goals of maintaining continuity and insuring that all participants in the full group would be adequately represented The Steering Committee was supported by a paid project director and a part-time assistant.

Several committees were established to carry out particular tasks, two scientists were hired to conduct studies, and a Scientific Advisory Panel was established to support and oversee various aspects of the project’s work. Maggie Herzig and Grady McGonagill worked with the Steering Committee and staff to design the full group retreats and to facilitate them. Because the retreat designs made frequent use of small group breakout sessions, the project also used the services of six to eight small group facilitators.

Meeting Structure and Process

Overall Design

All full group retreats were designed to accommodate emerging needs and interests. Typically, the first day had a fairly specific agenda involving reports from committees, topical discussions, consensus building exercises and, in two cases, field trips. The evening of the first day usually involved a presentation or presentations, often by respected scientists working in other regions of the country, sometimes by members of the MFBP. The agenda for the second day usually contained some time periods that were only vaguely or tentatively planned. Steering Committee members and facilitators generally worked late into the night after the first day to fill out the agenda for the second day so that it would address the emerging needs and interest of the group. In some cases, the facilitators and Steering Committee sought input from participants at the end of the first day by asking them to fill out cards before retiring for the night, indicating what they would most like the group to address or accomplish before the end of the meeting. At the end of the second day, the full group generally discussed next steps, often responding to a proposal made by the Steering Committee. After such a discussion, a member of the Steering Committee typically reflected back to the full group his or her understanding of the group's decisions and priorities. In this way and others, the process was highly participant-directed. The Steering Committee functioned not as an authoritative group but as a coordinating and planning group charged with creating contexts that would support the full group’s consensus building process and their task-oriented work.

Ground Rules

In order to foster a respectful and constructive atmosphere for discussion of divisive issues, the facilitators began each meeting with a reminder about the ground rules that had been established at the first meeting (and which participants received in writing in the invitation packet for each meeting). They were as follows:

1) Communicate respectfully. Specifically:

a) refrain from interrupting;
b) share airtime;
c) avoid making negative attributions about the beliefs, interests and values of others; and
d) listen actively and check out assumptions you are making about the meanings, beliefs, and interests of others by asking them questions.

2) Speak primarily as an individual, not as a representative of a constituency or organization. This does not exclude speaking with an organizational hat on when an organizational perspective is relevant. Rather, it encourages participants to speak from the full range of their experiences and to ask questions that arise from their genuine curiosity.

3) Respect the right of any participant to "pass," i.e., to decline to answer a question, with no need to explain.

4) If you miss a meeting, maintain your involvement by reading the meeting report and asking any questions you may have. Recognize the work to date.

These ground rules were always accepted by the group, although their recitation at the beginning of meetings was rather boring for people who attended meetings regularly. Grady McGonagill spiced them up at one meeting by adding some ground rules pertaining to body language. When he asked participants to refrain from "pacing and scowling, eye-rolling, and muttering and mumbling" one participant whole-heartedly owned up to being a pacer and scowler (That’s me!). Light-hearted references to this sort of behavior added humor to subsequent acknowledgements of tough moments. Ground rule #4 was especially helpful, given that not everyone could make it to every meeting and providing updates during meeting time would have been a poor use of valuable time.

Structures and Groupings

Given the large size of the group, small group breakout sessions were used regularly. Depending upon the task involved, these groups were sometimes "affinity" groups (e.g. of environmental activists, industrial landowners, scientists, etc.) and sometimes diverse groups. Regardless of the agenda, each participant's name tag had a Roman numeral and a letter on it indicating both kinds of group assignments. (These assignments were made by the staff during the week before the meeting, after receiving RSVPs from confirmed participants). Pre-assigning two sets of groups allowed the facilitators and Steering Committee to call for either type of group without slowing down the process to form an unexpected set.

Consensus Building

In the early phase of the project we erred on the side of informality in the way that we tested consensus in the full group. At the fourth of the eleven retreats, having come to appreciate the confusions and tensions that arose when people had different memories and interpretations of the group's "consensus," we instituted a more formal way of testing consensus. We describe it here because it proved to be a very useful tool for the group.

Whatever goals, objectives premises, activities, etc. the Steering Committee thought might represent consensus (and even some that didn't seem likely to be agreed to, but represented important issues about which it would be helpful to "take a pulse") were put in the form of a proposition. The list of propositions was given to participants and they were asked to individually consider whether they: 1) agreed with the proposition; 2) couldn't agree without getting clarification or asking questions; or 3) disagreed. Respectively, they marked the propositions with "G" for green light, "Y" for yellow light, and "R" for red light.

Participants then met in one of 7-8 small affinity groups, each with 6-10 people, a facilitator, and one participant who volunteered to serve as a recorder. For each proposition, the facilitator learned how each person marked the proposition and what questions and concerns were associated with "yellows" and "reds." The group then discussed the questions and concerns which, in some cases, led people to change yellows to greens and reds to yellows. Before moving to the next proposition, the facilitator assessed again where each participant stood on the proposition under consideration and created out of red, yellow and green stickers a pie-chart sticker (e.g., all green; green with a sliver of yellow; or yellow with a sliver of red). This sticker was put on a newsprint sheet that was pre-formatted with the numbers of all the propositions. The recorder wrote all remaining concerns and questions on a separate newsprint pad.

When all of the small groups returned to the plenary, all seven or eight of the small groups' sticker charts were put on a wall next to each other. This enabled the whole group to scan across the sheets to see which propositions represented full consensus and which did not. The recorder from each group sat near his or her groups' chart, notes in hand. The facilitator of the large group then facilitated reports from the recorders on the questions and concerns that came up related to the propositions that did not pass the consensus test. For example, the facilitator might say, "I see that groups 3, 5 and 7 had some yellow responses on proposition #4 and group 7 also had a sliver of red on proposition #4. Let's hear from the reporters of those three groups about the questions and concerns that came up related to proposition #4." The reporter was equipped with a list that contained a summary of the questions and concerns but in some cases he or she invited the person in the small group who had concerns to speak about the concern. After hearing reports on the questions and concerns associated with each proposition, the facilitator led a brief discussion. In some cases, these discussions led to a minor editorial suggestion that shifted the proposition to complete consensus. In many cases, the new information surfaced by hearing about concerns and questions was incorporated into the agenda of the next session of the meeting. If a proposition did not come close to representing consensus, the objective of achieving consensus on that proposition was sometimes set aside and a follow-up activity or discussion related to that proposition might have been planned for a next meeting.

If a proposition was accepted by the vast majority of the group but full consensus seemed unlikely, the one or two people who were not comfortable with the proposition were asked if they would be willing to summarize their point of disagreement so that it could be put in the report on the meeting as, essentially, a "minority report" on that proposition. The proposition was then presented as representing "qualified," not a "full" consensus. This enabled the group to move forward while also respectfully noting areas of disagreement. It also enabled those who occasionally disagreed to stay involved with the process knowing that their beliefs and commitments were understood, if not always reflected in the groups' work.

Products

Publications

Biological Diversity in Maine: An Assessment of Status and trends in the Terrestrial and Freshwater Landscape, by Susan C. Gawler, Maine Natural Areas Program, John J. Albright, Atlantic Salmon Federation, Peter D. Vickery, Massachusetts Audubon Society, and Frances Smith, Maine Natural Areas Program. Published in April 1996. Available through the Maine Department of Conservation: 207-287-2211

An Ecological Reserves System Inventory: Potential Ecological Reserves on Maine's Existing Public and Private Conservation Lands, by Janet McMahon. Published in July 1998. Available from the Maine State Planning Office: 207-287-3261.

Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: a manual for forest landowners and managers. C. Elliott, editor; Gro Flatebo, Stephen Pelletier, and Carol Foss, authors. Available through the Maine Cooperative Extension Service: 800-287-0274

Initiatives

A pilot project developing a protocol to use U.S. Forest Service Inventory information as a tool for statewide measurement and assessment of trends in biodiversity

A public conference and other outreach activities designed to promote education about and public discussion of biodiversity in Maine's forests

The Forest Ecosystem Information Exchange, a new forum for continuing to meet educational and research objectives related to forest ecosystems

The Aquatics Working Group, a new initiative to use collaborative processes to address fresh water ecosystem issues in Maine.