The Success and Failure of a Consensus-Building Process:
An Evaluation of a Rhode Island Wetlands Policy Dialogue

Xena Huff

This thesis uses GAWS as a case study of consensus building. It evaluates the effectiveness of consensus as a means for ending environmental deadlock, improving relationships among adversaries, and fostering a climate in which cooperation is possible. I describe the negotiation process from the perspective of the participants, highlighting the conditions essential for successful future efforts. I reached my conclusions after attending GAWS meetings for two years and conducting in-depth interviews with participants and interested observers.

Although the General Assembly did amend the Freshwater Wetlands Act, GAWS was not a failure. By consensus, the committee successfully built a stable foundation of decisions that should prove useful to future attempts to settle this and other similar environmental conflicts. Because of the GAWS negotiation process, the wetlands’ conflict is less combative, committee members with opposing perspectives are more congenial with one another, and cooperation is more likely in the future.

Success of this effort rested on the following factors:

• voluntary agreement that consensus was the appropriate strategy
• neutral collaborative location
• neutral and skilled chairperson
• small yet fair representation of the relevant stakeholders
• open meetings
• subcommittees
• public input
• clearly understood ground-rules