Kristin by Civic Exchange

Public Dialogue in Practice Case Studies in Hong Kong Kristi Winges, Wellesley College Intern, Civic Exchange Summer 2002

Introduction In today’s knowledge-based, high-tech, multi-cultural society, there has been a growing need to increase the quality and quantity of our interpersonal dialogue. This is an age when telecommunication is rapidly improving the ways that we can correspond with each other and access information. However, even in these times, people often feel separated from society and public affairs. In order to boost public participation and develop stronger connections between people, government, community organizations, and businesses, we first need to improve our understanding and use of communication skills. There are problems with communication. People function differently and have different ideas and values. Working with other individuals and groups often leads to problems. These problems, however, do not have to be debilitating. Conflict does not have to be wrong, a sign of failure, or destructive. 1 Conflict is capable of bringing about changes that can strengthen relationships between parties that disagree. Indeed, conflict can even be constructive by providing an opportunity for transformation. 2 The Public Dialogue Consortium, an organization that aims to improve communication skills, writes: “We believe that how people communicate determines the kind of world in which they live. If they communicate in hostile, polarized, problem-centered ways, they make a world of destructive conflict. If they communicate in a collaborative and constructive fashion, they make a world in which problems can be solved creatively, differences can be explored appreciatively, and better futures can be constructed for the entire community.”3 In recent years, there has been a definite increase in the awareness of the ways to improve communication. A wide variety of literature and published studies about the psychology of communication and how people can improve communication is available. 4 This growing base of knowledge can and should be drawn upon. This knowledge can be applied to common business and government practices in the form of dialogue processes. In order to further human understanding and transform conflict5 into a working, constructive force, we can develop strategies to improve communication and discourse. Every situation is different, and all problems or issues cannot be faced in the same way. In order 1

Kraybill, R. with Evans, R. and Evans A. (2001), Peace Skills: Manual for Community Mediators, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. 2 Ibid 3 Public Dialogue Consortium (2001), “What We Do,” < www.publicdialogue.org >, August 2002. 4 Loh, C. (2002), An Introduction to Sustainability Tools: Using effective public dialogue to improve government-civil sector relations, Hong Kong: Civic Exchange, www.civic-exchange.org. 5 See fn 1.

to be able to design ways to deal with whatever may come up, we must better acquaint ourselves with different skills or tools for furthering successful communication. This paper aims to examine several of the public dialogue methodologies that have been used in Hong Kong. We can use these to show some of the issues that come up in communication processes, as well as isolate some tips that can help dialogue succeed. Public Dialogue What is “Public Dialogue”? This term refers to communication within a collective. “Public Dialogue Processes” are community discussions on public or political affairs.6 In other words, public dialogue is a result of the idea that public issues can be addressed through collective deliberation by the entire community. These discussions are by definition multi-stakeholder processes. This means that they involve people from different sides of the issue with different perspectives, experiences and interests. In a knowledge -based society, collaboration is essential to the success of any venture, whether in the public or private sector. These processes can lead us to better human understanding. We can put groups of people in a room together and say: “talk to each other,” but how will that happen if they do not know how to do it? By becoming aware of these processes, we open our minds to ways of approaching problems. Difficult situations can become less daunting if we know that we can talk through them, and we have an idea as to how to go about this discussion. Complicating Factors In public dialogue, the freedom to speak is joined by the responsibility to listen and the right to be heard.7 In order to succeed, public dialogue processes must first overcome some significant hurdles. Effective communication between people and groups functions on some basic assumptions. Participants should exhibit trust, tolerance, cooperation, and competency. That is, trusting the process of communication, tolerating views other than the ones you hold, cooperating with people on all sides of the issue at hand with the view of achieving greater understanding, and competency in the information surrounding the issue. Values One key issue that must be faced is that different people and organizations function on different value systems. As we grow up, we learn and adopt principles that become part of who we are and how we live. These values can be deeply entrenched in the issues at hand. What must be understood from the beginning is that the point of meeting with another group is not to completely change the other party’s belief system, but to come to some understanding with them. Perhaps it is instinctive to use a meeting as a forum for debating conflicting values, but this can quickly become a heated argument that has no solution. All too often, meetings become sensitive situations where everyone is trying to get his or her say in, and no one is really listening to the other side. Take, for example, the following scenario: when meeting, a member of one group, 6

See fn 4. Spano, S. (2001), Public Dialogue and Participatory Democracy: The Cupertino Community Project, New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc. 7

Group A, becomes frustrated, and says something that attacks the values of Group B. A member of Group B then, in turn, becomes overtly defensive, putting up walls. In order to cooperate and avoid this attack-defense paradigm, it must be understood from the beginning that the process is not intended as a forum for debate but rather as a way to develop a relationship to better the community. That is not to say there is no room for debate. However, the emphasis here is on holding dialogue in order to reach a higher understanding of each other’s views and positions. Trust Particularly because public dialogue processes are relatively new, trust-building is incredibly important. Looking at the example again: if Group B has long ignored the concerns of Group A, how can Group A have faith in the sincerity of the meetings? How can they begin to trust Group B? Can Group B ever view Group A as a partne r? These questions are perhaps only answerable on a case-by-case basis. It may be generally true that forming trust between groups is sometimes just not possible. However, even in cases where groups may never fully trust each other, it is still feasible and important to continue with dialogue processes. It is critical that both groups put their faith in the process. Sustainability Tools Public dialogue processes involve the application of what Civic Exchange has termed “Sustainability Tools.”8 These tools are designed to make society aware of ways to increase the quality and quantity of dialogue between individuals, teams, groups, and the community at large. They are branded as Sustainability Tools because Civic Exchange believes that giving coherence to various dialogue and self-organization methods – many of which are already used worldwide – will make people aware of the relevance of these methods. Indeed, Civic Exchange argues that they are essential in sustaining an active and rich civic life. 9 A report on Sustainability Tools published by Civic Exchange in March 2002 describes some tools that can be used in public dialogue situations, including: sending clear messages, active listening, facilitation, mediation, and others. This paper aims to look at situations where the ideas in this paper are being used, see how they work, and give further suggestions to improve communication. There is no one set of tools or one foolproof set of guidelines that can be followed to execute open public dialogue. In truth, there are MANY methods that can be used to help people to deliberate collaboratively, and many different skills, tools, and ideas that can be used to design these different methods. There are some frameworks that will work better than others in different situations, and in some cases a strict framework may not work at all. Every situation will inevitably be different, and each may need to use a different methodology. What is important to reme mber is that there are skills and ideas that can improve dialogue, and they can be used in a multitude of ways to empower people to come together and work effectively.

See Loh, C. (2002), An Introduction to Sustainability Tools: Using effective public dialogue to improve government-civil sector relations. 9 See fn 4.

The Processes in Practice What happens when these processes are used? In order to bring these practices into everyday life, the first step is being aware of what they are and how they can be useful. These meeting processes are relatively new in Hong Kong, but they are increasingly used in consultations between the government and private sector. For example, extensive public consultation was carried out in conjunction with the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategyâ&#x20AC;? project being executed by the Planning Department. For more information about this project, visit http://www.info.gov.hk/hk2030/. Although this was an important development, in the view of Civic Exchange, the process could have been even better if the consultation gatherings were designed using various Sustainability Tools to enhance participation. This paper looks at two different situations where Sustainability Tools methodologies were used to carry out multi-stakeholder dialogues. By looking at different processes, we can better understand how public dialogue works. We can see ways that implementing these Sustainability Tools can be successful. Note: This paper focuses on the methodologies for dialogue used at the meetings, not the subject matter of the workshops themselves, thus names and other specifics have been removed.

Case Study: Joint venture meets with area stakeholders June 2002 Background Two companies entered into a joint venture (JV) to build a plant. As part of the JVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preliminary work, it hired a consulting firm to carry out an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) that aimed to evaluate the physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic effects of the plant during all stages of the project. The ESIA also considered possible controls and impactreducing measures. The JV asked Civic Exchange to organize and facilitate a meeting to consult with stakeholders and get feedback on the ESIA report. Civic Exchange identified a wider group of stakeholders than the JV originally envisaged. Civic Exchange then invited stakeholders to a one-day consultation with representatives from the JV, the consultant firm who did the ESIA and various other experts. The stakeholder participants came from a wide variety of backgrounds and included scientists, ecologists, planners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as government representatives. 52 people attended the meeting, with the following breakdown in numbers: 8 5 12 15 7

JV representatives JV consultants and experts Academics NGO representatives Civic Exchange consultants.

Meeting Organization Civic Exchange saw its role as that of workshop organizer and neutral facilitator. It had several discussions with JV representatives on designing the workshop to ensure that participants were able to articulate their concerns and ask questions for clarification. Preparation Civic Exchange identified a wide group of stakeholders to invite to the workshop. When the invitation was sent out, participants were asked to read the JV ESIA report from a designated website prior to attending the workshop. Participants were also encouraged to ask questions so that factual information could be dealt with ahead of time, leaving more time for discussion. The participants sent in many questions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly those with a more technical background. Through that process, it became clear that the stakeholders were concerned with several key issues and Civic Exchange designed the workshop according to their responses. Important aspects of the workshop design included: -

Flexibility: the schedule of the workshop was designed to leave time for last minute changes and issues that may have not been accounted for in the original planning. Neutrality: facilitators of the groups needed to maintain neutrality during the workshop in order to best serve all stakeholders. Timing : the aim was to discuss all issues identified by the stakeholders within a day; thus the workshop had to be intense and effective.

Workshop schedule Introduction- Civic Exchange

Presentation: Consultant Presentation: JV

Fishbowl Session

AIR

BIODIVERSITY

SOCIAL

Summary Presentations

Lunch Break

AIR

BIODIVERSITY

Summary Presentations

Concluding Remarks: JV

SOCIAL

The Meeting At the start of the day, participants were seated in a large U shape. The head of the team of consultants and a member of the JV each gave informational presentations about the project. A Civic Exchange facilitator then led a fishbowl session during which members of the consulting team discussed the issues that they considered most pressing to help focus dialogue. The original plan was for the JV presentation to be very short but on the day, the presentation was considerably longer than expected and did not have a sharp focus. The attention of many of the participants was lost. Observation 1: The skill to present issues in a succinct manner helps to hold the audienceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attention and gives clear focus. The participants then broke into sub-groups dealing with air, biodiversity, and social issues based on individual areas of interest. The groups were each led by a Civic Exchange facilitator and translation was provided where necessary. Members of the JV and the consultants also joined the three groups. Points raised during the discussion were noted on flipcharts. Civic Exchange recorders kept detailed notes of the discussion in all three sessions. Observation 2: (a) Asking for feedback on the ESIA ahead of time provided valuable informatio n on how to enhance group deliberation; and (b) Splitting up a large group into smaller groups for intensive discussion is an effective way to enhance participation since people often feel more comfortable speaking in a smaller group. At the start of these sessions, the facilitator asked each participant to write down two of his/her most important questions. These questions were then posted to ensure that participant concerns were addressed at some point during the day. Observation 3: Soliciting and posting stakeholder questions worked well, as people were able to articulate their primary concerns upfront. The discussions then focused on those concerns. The JV and the consultants were invited to address the issues raised by consultants. Tension arose when participants indicated that they felt their questions were not being answered or when members of the JV suggested that certain questions had already been answered in the ESIA. Observation 4: The ability to demonstrate that stakeholder concerns are being heard and addressed is critical to building trust. Learning how to listen actively so that the question is fully appreciated can help enormously in giving an appropriate response. For example, tension arose in the air group when a stakeholder asked about the quantities and types of emissions from the plant. The consultants were not able to answer the question, as they did not have the relevant information with them. The participants felt that the consultants and JV engineers should have already known the answer to the questions or brought the relevant information with them. There was a sense among some participants that the JV was deliberately withholding information. This distrust towards the JV extended to distrust of the process and Civic Exc hange.

Observation 5: Participants with expertise asked probing questions that could not be deflected. The ability to provide appropriate answers was critical to gaining trust. Another major issue was the timeline for the project. The key question was why the consultation was taking place at such a late stage. It became apparent that although this issue was very important to many of the stakeholders at the workshop (particularly the NGOs), it was not seen as a major issue by the JV, who stated that they had made initial contact with the NGOs a year previously. This issue was raised in all three subgroups but addressed in an authoritative way in only one of the subgroups. This made it difficult to alleviate distrust in the other two groups throughout the day, even though participants in the first group appeared satisfied with the explanation provided by JV representatives. JV representatives in the other two groups gave contradictory explanations, which was probably due to the fact that they did not have an adequate understanding of the process themselves. The final consensus on the timeline issue was an explanation that contradicted the explanations given during the workshop. The JV was clearly not prepared to respond to this concern. At the end of the morning and afternoon sessions, the three groups reported to the plenary. It was requested that a spokesperson for the participants of each group give a summary of the key issues discussed. These were intended as quick wrap-ups although some were quite extensive. Observation 6: The ability to provide a short, succinct summary of a discussion is an important skill and can help bring clarity to a larger discussion. The ability to produce a verbal précis requires careful listening and comprehension skills throughout the discussion. It also requires discernment and judgement in identifying the key issues to be highlighted. In one presentation, a participant expressed concern about the overall tone of the meeting. The participant acknowledged that the JV had met with a few NGO groups the previous year but stated that those meetings had not been productive or sincere, although the JV did not seem to be fully aware of these concerns. The participant expressed deep distrust towards the JV and demanded that the JV do more to rebuild trust. That incident illustrates the difficulty of putting aside past occurrences. Civic Exchange was not aware of the past history and thus was unable to design the process to deal with the timeline issue at the outset. Observation 7: Participants coming to the workshop with negative memories of part interactions affected the process. It is important for meeting organizers to have a strong understanding of existing relationships and previous consultations. Furthermore, another participant asked that the workshop record should note that the organization the participant represented did not feel that it had been adequately consulted and did not regard the workshop as a consultation. The participant felt that the organizatio n would otherwise be considered by the JV to have been consulted and agreed to the project. This is another good example of some of the inherent difficulties in these processes. Observation 8: It would have been useful to have started off the workshop with a discussion about what “consultation” meant and how the JV would regard the workshop in view of the distrust expressed by some NGOs. Some groups may feel that collaborating with groups that hold different and potentially conflicting purposes and values may weaken their own stance. On the other hand, groups who

initiate dialogue, such as the JV, may feel that some people will disagree with them no matter what they do. It is important to remember that dialogue does not produce winners and losers. Coming together allows groups to hear all viewpoints and gather collective knowledge. Building trust takes time and sustained dialogue processes are required to enable people with conflicting views to start collaborating. Observation 9: It is important for everyone, including the dialogue sponsor (in this case, the JV) to understand that a meeting/consultation can improve dialogue without resulting in agreement. Not arriving at a consensus among all parties is not a sign that the process has failed. It could be regarded as the first step in a longer-term dialogue. The Next Step It is clear that workshops like this one are only a step in the dialogue process. By itself, this workshop was useful as an initial step to create on-going dialogue. A succe ssful relationship simply cannot be built in a day. The question is: what happens after the meeting? How can the process continue? Firstly, the JV must respond to the immediate concerns of the participants. Those questions to which answers were not readily available should be addressed within a very short period of time in order to demonstrate sincerity and commitment. Secondly, all participants must have a chance to view and comment on a record of the workshop. Civic Exchangeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibilities included write-up of the workshop within four weeks. A draft was sent to the JV and their consultants and all the participants for feedback. The final record of the workshop is expected to become a part of the ESIA report. This process of sending out the draft for comments was designed to enable the continued involvement of participants in the process. After receiving and integrating feedback, the formal responsibilities of Civic Exchange will end and the JV will take up direct contact with the participants. It will be important to foster the relationships established at this meeting. Down the line, interested participants could meet again with the JV to discuss the project further. Future meetings would allow stakeholders to respond to the finalized ESIA and remain in dialogue with the JV during the construction and operation of the plant. Conclusions Overall, the meeting was an excellent example of how businesses or government can engage stakeholders. They can respond to concerns as well as draw upon the wide breadth of knowledge that stakeholders can provide. The problems that were faced in this meeting are a good illustration of how some of the intrinsic difficulties in communication can affect dialogue processes . By continuing these processes, we can work through differences and build working relationships that are useful and beneficial to all parties.

Case Study: Transport Development in the NW New Territories July 2002 Background The meeting was intended to discuss issues surrounding transport development in the North-West New Territories (NWNT) in conjunction with a report to be published this summer by Civic Exchange and transportation consultants. The Quicksilver Group, which specializes in facilitation, helped to design and run the workshop. Over 65 people from varying backgrounds attended. Who is Quicksilver? “The Quicksilver System is the total integration of highly practical business concepts, models, tools and skills. This synthesis gives leaders and their teams the ability to work more effectively. It results in bottom-line performance and results far above prevailing norms… By unlocking previously untapped intelligence within each individual, rapidly building group intelligence in leadership teams, and applying this process to the entire organization, we transform companies by transforming their people.”10 Quicksilver used a simple methodology based on research and knowledge of the way humans think. Much can be learned by examining its methodologies and the thinking behind them. Quicksilver relies on a number of sustainability tools that can be used in a variety of situations. The Meeting The most obvious feature of the Quicksilver process is that it is a knowledge-based group experience. Everyone was treated as an equal at the meeting. There were few presentations and participants sat at tables of eight to ten people. Colored pens and large sheets of paper were readily accessible and a big white board with paper pads was used to record comments and ideas. Observation 1: (a) Methodologies can be designed to minimize feelings of “Us vs. Them” and foster trust, and (b) the setup of the room contributes greatly to the tone of the meeting. In this case, the arrangement of the tables created a creative and productive atmosphere. Individual thoughts were compiled and organized over and over throughout the day. Cliff Shaffran of Quicksilver noted that the participants do all the work. The facilitators are present only to provide direction. Ideas were solicited from each person at the meeting, and these ideas were discussed first in small groups and then in the plenary group. Those that were identified as the most important concerns or most common concerns were recorded and displayed on a projector.

The Quicksilver Group (2002), “The Quicksilver System,” <www.qsilvertlc.com/qssystem.html>, July 2002.

Workshop objectives were identified at the beginning of the day. Each person attending the workshop was expected to spend a few minutes writing down his or her own objectives. Every table then discussed these objectives and recorded the objectives they considered to be most important on the big sheets of paper next to their tables. After this was completed, each group presented the top objectives to the plenary group. These were recorded in a map form. Quicksilver uses Mindmapping, which is a non-traditional way to present information. According to Quicksilver, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The mind is an image processor, not a word processor.â&#x20AC;? This first map is shown in the example below: Figure 1: The first map of the workshop

Objectives

Develop process

The way ahead Innovative ideas

Different solutions

Exchange ideas

Obtain consensus

Facilitation From each other

Challenge assumptions Learn

Strategy process

The next discussion addressed the key issues facing transportation infrastructure in the NWNT. The process of recording, organizing, and sharing ideas used earlier was used to create a second map. The resulting image is shown below as an example of a more complex map.

Figure 2: The second map of the workshop

Key issues - Transportation infrastructure NWNT People

HK/PRD Coordination

Identify needs

Goods

Transport efficiency Issues

Local interest Population growth

Implementation

Economic benefits

Demand/ Supply relationship

Eg. Toll vs no toll X- boundary

Public Policy

Population Process

Tourism

North / South / West

Government role Availability of investment/ financial viability

Magmatic train to China

Logistic parks

Public process

Logistics

Mainland

Public finances

Cost efficiency

Achieving synergy PRD

/ Budget Effect on property price

Macau

Connectivity between different transport modes Frontier / Metro area / Property price

Physical constraints

Construction

Linkage/

Schools Housing

coordination

Sustainable

With existing TIP Network

Population/ People

NWNT

Coordinated transport

Rail

Railways Coordination

Tourism

River

Infrastructure

Goods Tourist coach

Shipping

Container ports

Employment

Economy / Social

Air

Roads

Air

New towns

Planning/ land use

Sustainable ?

Airports

Mismatch

Open storage

Economy

Road

Bus

Job opportunities

Goods vehicle Private

Hong Kong's future role

Programming

Conflict resolution Resource allocation

Route 10

Road/ Rail

Competition and vested interests

Road network

SWC Service supplied Wetlands

Not long-term

Sustainable ?

Wildlife

Development plan

Urban / Population

Conservation

Energy Ecological sensitive areas

Capacity Energy

DBL

Ports

Utilization

Environment

Containers

Latest technology Internal TMR Modes of transport Rail vs road

External

Traffic congestion

Pollution

Logistics

Mai Po

Landscape

Impact

Noise Air

Topography Lack of choice

Transport Close container ports

A transportation consultant who had assisted Civic Exchange with research on this project then gave a short presentation to introduce some of the key issues. Participants were asked to write down one question for the consultant. The consultants were given some time to consider the questions while the workshop moved on. The consultant responded to specific questions at a later stage after looking through the questions. Observation 2: The consultant answered the questions that the participants wanted him to address rather than making a speech, which would have not been the case in more conventional gatherings. As the consultant was addressing issues of interest to the audience, the level of attention was high. This question and answer format eliminated attacking questions and cynicism about the process. While the consultant was preparing his answers, Quicksilver asked participants to think about what you can and cannot do with chopsticks. It became clear that this was an exercise in creativity as there are many potential uses for chopsticks. Observation 3: Games and activities can energize dialogue. Participants responded well to this activity. It was also an effective way to demonstrate how one can break out of conventional thinking and what it felt like to do so.

Participants were then asked to identify themselves according to their respective constituencies: “Government,” “Transport Operators,” “Consultants,” “NGOs/Community,” or “Others.” Participants were asked to sit with other members of these groups and identify the key issues facing the group in terms of transportation development in the New Territories. These issues were collected and mapped. While this could have become a separating/alienating, opposingcamp activity, the methodology avoided that completely. Instead, the activity pinpointed some key concerns, and allowed people to voice their views without fear of being attacked. No one contributed an opinion that would have sparked an argument, but participants were free to state whatever they felt. Every viewpoint was accepted with the same gravity and level of respect. Observation 4: Even when separating people into interest-based groups, it is possible to maintain equality and cooperation amongst participants. This was achieved in part because the separation was introduced as a break-off activity in a meeting where the group process was already well established. After lunch, everyone switched tables again. Participants received Mindmaps of the morning discussion and started another activity. People identified their thinking preferences according to a Herrmann International model by trading colored cards. The Herrmann model classifies thinking as left brain or right brain and intellectual or emotional. Each person ended up with a color – red, yellow, blue, or green – which linked with a particular thinking preference: empathize, synergize, analyze, or organize. After a brief presentation on how the brain works and what these preferences can mean, participants were asked to pose the questions that would be asked by people with these different thinking preferences. Observation 5: Activities that may seem to detract from the process can actually do much to further it. This activity really got people thinking, and while it took time out of discussing transportation issues, it was applied directly to the day’s conversations. People were able to look at transportation issues from another perspective without jeopardizing any other agendas that they may have held. The next step was to look at possible answers to these questions. To tackle this, the workshop was given two extreme alternative strategies in the form of a dialogue between a Civic Exchange member and the transportation consultant. Participants mapped what they were saying, and afterwards, the strengths and weaknesses of each argument were discussed. Their views were recorded in another map. This worked well as a way to discuss strategies. Instead of having one or two traditional presentations on possible solutions to transportation problems, the participants were given a hypothetical debate that helped to crystallize issues. Observation 6: A mock-debate was a different way to look at ideas, and it kept participants involved and interested. They were able to see different sides of an issue clearly and think about them objectively. Following this, the participants were given the opportunity to offer their own ideas of what key infrastructure and service initiatives could be taken and by whom. After a period of individual reflection and table discussion, participants were invited to share their views. This was an interesting activity, as it was the first time during the workshop that individual ideas were shared with the whole group. Some people took this opportunity to make a statement to the whole group, but the discussion still kept moving. Observation 7: A strong facilitator can keep people from giving long speeches without rudely cutting them off.

After a short break, everyone wrote down five key messages that should be included in the report to be published. Every table then submitted five, listed in number of priority. These were compiled in a final map. The exercise gave participants the opportunity to offer input on the report and influence the final product. The last maps were passed out and participants could see everything that had been accomplished and discussed throughout the day. Observation 8: Quick or instant feedback is incredibly rewarding, both for participant and meeting organizers. At the conclusion of the meeting, Quicksilver stressed that everyone had worked extremely quickly, efficiently, and effectively throughout the day. The authors of the report made a few remarks about the report and invited people to email in furt her ideas. Conclusions Civic Exchange emailed participants asking them what they thought of the dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s events. The response was almost entirely positive. People appreciated the uniqueness of the workshop, as well as the amount of material that was discussed. The workshop was also referred to as fun and diverse. It is clear that having an innovative, fresh process sparks interest and energy among participants. One dissenting opinion was that there had not been enough time for discussion and hearing other peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experiences. It is definitely true that the Quicksilver process moves fast, and the group moves from topic to topic quickly. Once issues concerning one topic had been mapped, that map was set aside and another discussion was started. While this may prevent a more in-depth discussion, it does mean that many issues can be covered in one workshop. Had the workshop been extended by another day, it would have been possible to have more in-depth discussion. However, the aim of the workshop was to give participants a sense of the complexity of the subject rather than discuss all issues in detail. One clear benefit of this approach is that people facilitated each other and did not argue about their individual points of view. Despite the fact tha t participants came from different backgrounds and organizations, the level of trust was fairly high. Everyone seemed to leave individual agendas behind and focus on collective ideas. The meeting was both productive and friendly, and is another example of how public dialogue processes can succeed. Civic Exchange published its report on 22 August 2002.

Overall Conclusions These two gatherings were incredibly different, but both succeeded in terms of their purpose. In the first meeting, stakeholders were able to share concerns about plans for a large-scale plant and receive responses to those concerns. They were given the opportunity to voice their opinions about the project and have an effect on an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. In the second meeting, stakeholders were able to pool their knowledge and share both concerns about and possible solutions to transportation problems. Different methodologies were used to achieve these purposes and different tools were employed. The meetings are both excellent examples of the use of sustainability tools. In these challenging times, looking at processes for dialogue can be helpful, even empowering. In understanding that these processes are important, we place value on the discourse that we hold with others. This serves to strengthen our ties with other members of society. By making these processes a part of the way we do business, work with the government, and function as individuals, we are essentially improving the ways that we communicate with other human beings. The more aware we are of different ways to improve dialogue, the more likely we will be to use what we know to design processes for ourselves. Whether we are holding a business meeting or talking with members of our communities, it is empowering to educate ourselves about methodologies for better communication. In this way, we can equip ourselves with tools for success.

Acknowledgements Many thanks to Christine Loh, Lisa Hopkinson, Kylie Uebergang, Julia Gilkes, Elizabeth Hutton, Yan Yan Yip, and The Quicksilver Group.