Review of Dublin Airport Stakeholders Forum

1. Review of Dublin Airport Stakeholders Forum • International Context • Dynamics of Cross-Sectoral Partnership • Objectives of DASF • Match with Actual Activities • Key Issue: Influence on Decisions? • Value Gained to Date • Quality of Dialogue • Process & Structures Issues • Key Conclusions & Questions

2. International Context • Rise of network society – from monolithic territorial hierarchies • Drivers of change: ICT, de-regulation, globalisation • Hub airports: • Increasingly important economic drivers • Pressures on local environment • Multilateral agreements on sustainable development strategies: • Relationship with users • Economic impact on region • Environment & quality of life • Dublin Airport now in next division after main hubs

3. Cross-Sectoral Partnership • Key principles for success: • Recognition of interdependence • Recognition of need to share benefits • Pragmatic problem-solving • Understanding of key mechanisms • Benchmark and monitor progress • Proliferation of overlapping Partnership bodies • Effectiveness in achieving real change a major challenge • Evolution from: • Bargaining between rival monolithic groups, to • Networks, information, co-ordination, “policy entrepreneurship”

4. Primary Research • Interviews: • Chair, Secretary, nine Forum members, covering all sectors • Written survey • Sent to all members • Responses from 16 members, of whom nine had not been interviewed

5. Objectives of DASF • Consensus on objectives relatively weak, eg • Community reps not necessarily interested in economic impact • Business groups not necessarily interested in impact on community • Airport users not necessarily interested in external impact • Interconnection between these issues not clear • Not clear that Forum will address all issues • Direct implications for participation

6. Reasons to Participate Value Added of DASF Main Focus to date Info FCC Influence FCC Stakeholder understanding Economic Info Airport Community Environment Influence airport Comparison of Total Responses

7. Match with Actual Activities • Agreement that information about the airport has been a major focus • Everyone agrees that impact on the community has been a major focus – except community reps! • Biggest perceived gaps between reasons for participation and actual activities: • Influencing actual decisions on the airport • Economic impact of the airport • Impact on the wider environment & national policy

8. Influence on Decisions? • Touches on rise of network society, evolution in partnership • Forum cannot undermine DAA managerial authority • However, middle ground could be found between: • Determining decisions, and • Having no impact on decisions • Lack of perceived impact: • most consistent complaint • except from decision-makers • Seek clarity on: • scope for the Forum to influence decisions • which type of input is most likely to carry weight

9. Value Gained to Date • Most positive: • opportunity to make a case • understand others’ perspectives • Least positive: • opportunity to influence decisions • Value to date seen as moderate to low • Most optimistic/satisfied: DAA and Fingal County Council • Least optimistic/satisfied: community reps, business groups • Similar fora have sometimes taken years to establish credibility

10. Quality of Dialogue • Biggest issue across the board • Perception of “dialogue of the deaf” • Parties present own point of view • not necessarily open to others • No sense that positions have moved any closer • Unnevennes of expertise, access to expertise • Mistrust of analysis and facts as presented • Lack of experience in negotiations, making compromises • Reluctance by community groups to present own position • Forum only space for discussing impact on individuals’ houses in St. Margarets • Is it appropriate for that purpose?

11. Process & Structures Issues • Mechanics mostly satisfactory • Chairing seen by most as fair; minority of criticisms • Communications, documentation seen as good • Presentation quality good (can be over-technical) • Agenda-setting seen as fair and responsive • Could plan work programme for period ahead • Format of meetings fine • Could have periodic awayday sessions to think ahead • Scope for sub-groups • concern not to let them take on own authority • Most have issues about composition • EPA, IAA should be involved • Reduce/increase numbers in specific sectors

12. Rating of DASF Operational Aspects TOTAL Airport Mgmt Airport Users Business Community Local Authority Public Rep Dialogue Agendas Format of Follow-up to Membership Presentations Time & Venue Communications

13. Key Conclusions • Moderate to low value perceived by most participants • Lack of consensus on Forum objectives • Lack of influence on decisions a key problem for most • Perceived unnevenness of expertise exacerbating “dialogue of the deaf” • “Mechanics” – i.e. administration, chairing, format of meetings, presentation quality generally seen as satisfactory • Real issue for Forum is its purpose & standing

14. The Key Question • People will join a forum to make friends and influence people – if the issues are relevant, but: • To what extent are they open to being influenced themselves? • What might they do to convince others that they are open?

15. Key Questions • Is purpose of Forum to focus on, eg: • Communication between Airport and local communities • Specific tasks, eg monitoring planning permission terms • Taking strategic view of airport’s development • In what ways, if any - and under what conditions - might Forum deliberations influence actual decisions (by DAA or FCC)? • Should Forum operate in purely ad hoc way or plan in a structured way to address a range of issues? • How much use should be made of sub-groups? • On which issues of conducting business is it necessary to reach agreement between parties? • Eg standing orders, conduct of debate, independence of expertise • What objectives should the Forum set out to achieve, and what means are required to achieve them? • Eg funding research, expertise