Susdale Exercise. Askrigg group. The Askrigg Sheepshagger

  1. Compare contrast, & give opinions on the different bids produced by the different community groups.

    2. Similarities.

    The five village/area groups listed in the chart made their proposals, which too a degree were coincident. It was generally agreed that the constraint on success of individual bids was finance, not necessarily desirability.

    We can see from fig 1 how that of the 28 schemes originally outlined, half of them did not make it through to the presentation bid stage. In retrospect it seems that the price of these unsuccessful schemes may have been prohibitive (e.g., Speed reduction at £225,000), or they may have not presented an acceptable level of sustainability (Air ambulance).

    There was reluctance within at least two other groups to neglect bids from the farmers. In our own group the farmers were successful having one bid accepted, but only after considerable debate. It seems there is empathy towards the farming community which, despite their individual bids not being successful, led to groups re-appraising their value.

    A trend might be indicated in the success of the environment group in having a total of eleven nominations, and the single nominations for the Visitors and Park authority.

    Differences.

    Assuming that the success of bids is distributed normally (approximately) we would expect each bid to have at least one or two nominations. We can see that this is far from the case, showing a great deal of ‘consensus’ even among the separate groups.

    Even where there were differences, our group discussions indicated that they were small (Askrigg's strongest failing arguments were in favour of the cycle way, which three other groups voted for).

    Opinions on Bids.

    Appersett: Strong on environment apart from the business park (This does not mean sustainable industry should not be encouraged).

    Hawes: Produce marketing and barn restorations seem to indicate this group wished to preserve the farm landscape

    Gayle/Hardraw/Askrigg: Mixed bag, ceding to the business lobby, farmers and ramblers. Despite the some concessions to the environmentalists, sustainability does not seem top of these groups’ agenda.

     

    Group

    Bid

    No.

    (£K)

    A'sett

    Hawes

    Gayle

    Hardraw

    Askrigg

    Ramblers

    Cycle Trail

    1

    105

    x

    x

    x

    Ramblers

    Mountain Bike Trails

    2

    85

    Friends of

    Bunk barn conversion

    3

    189

    x

    x

    Community

    Low cost housing

    4

    18

    x

    x

    x

    x

    Business

    Business park

    5

    18

    x

    x

    x

    Friends of

    Weight limits

    6

    74

    Community

    Dry stone wall training

    7

    146

    Authority

    Field barn renovation

    8

    139

    x

    Business

    Railway restoration

    9

    100

    x

    x

    x

    x

    Business

    Redmire station

    10

    100

    x

    x

    Friends of

    Speed reduction

    11

    225

    Community

    Air Ambulance

    12

    250

    Community

    Crafts training

    13

    27

    x

    x

    Environment

    Hill farm funding

    14

    45

    x

    x

    Environment

    Eco Funding

    15

    45

    x

    x

    x

    Farmers

    Forestry training

    16

    265

    Authority

    Survey farm income

    17

    45

    Business

    Phone mast

    18

    109

    Environment

    Otters

    19

    50

    x

    Environment

    Kites

    20

    150

    Farmers

    Marketing agency

    21

    150

    x

    x

    Business

    Quarries

    22

    100

    Farmers

    Abattoir

    23

    150

    Environment

    Education

    24

    25

    x

    x

    x

    x

    x

    Ramblers

    Access

    25

    25

    Visitor group

    Picnic Areas

    26

    150

    x

    Visitor group

    Toilets

    27

    150

    Visitor group

    Fast Food

    28

    30

    Chart. Successful bids (shaded) and proposing villages (x)

  2. Critically discuss what aspects of the decision making process help and hinder the creation of consensus?

    3. There are many aspects of the decision making process that can lead to successful creation of consensus of opinion. The most important feature of consensus is the ability to compromise. Without compromise, consensus cannot be reached. A successful and speedy process is usually the result of an efficient debate, structured in such a way that all parties are able to air their views and gain equal (or proportional) representation.

    Consensus is easier to reach when there are definite aims and objectives; they are necessary to drive a process to a conclusion. It is helpful if there is a leader, or chair to the negotiations. Somebody needs to take control and organise the process on a personal scale. It is more likely to create maximum mutual benefits if parties are willing to compromise, instead of standing firm i.e.; they approach any negotiations with an open mind.

    The decision making process is hindered when sides express individual reservations to a path forward (as will almost always happen), yet consider the issue narrowly, refusing to consider the overall potential of a proposal, even in a slightly different form. Instead as a principle, they stubbornly consider a proposals sole impact upon themselves and their individual group. In addition, time is always crucial. It is unusual for decision-making get- togethers to not have any time constraints. This can affect the creation of consensus, because under time pressures hasty compromise may be reached.

    Consensus is never easy to reach as it requires compromise, and naturally each faction will be seeking the best deal possible. Yet as has been indicated, there are variables which can influence how smoothly the decision-making process runs.

  3. Discuss how, in a real life situation, might the processes and outcomes of the Susdale exercise be further enhanced or compromised?

The Susdale exercise was inherently artificial, like playing poker with no money. Every group had people who represented different interests. They wanted different outcomes from the meeting. Each Interest group had equal weighting; this was the biggest flaw. In real life, some groups have more power than others. For example in a real life committee farmers associations would have significantly more power than ramblers. A major reason for this is money; it is highly likely that the farming interest group are willing to devote more of their time, effort and hard cash to developments in their area. Frequently, ramblers/visitors are too disorganised, or the developments do not affect their livelihood enough to care. Rambling is a leisure activity, ramblers tend not to be local and therefore, undesirable side effects of projects do not affect them to the same extent that it does to residents.

In real life, friendships and allegiances would play a much larger role. The SFA and the SCF might have a long term alliance, for instance because they are both local established groups who share many goals; especially when it comes to preserving the local community. For instance ramblers may be perceived to erode soil, destroying fields, and crops; whilst these same ramblers could make a local feel like a stranger in his own village. Also a landowner with political influence could prevent a proposal being realised if it runs against his interests.

Public opinion could play a part, especially if it is heightened by media interest, such as the hysteria over the foot and mouth epidemic over the last few months. If a group has the support of the media, it significantly increases its ‘weight'.

Overall, consensus is a tool for decision-making in an ideal world, where people are altruistic, and do not have personal and/or hidden agendas.