collaborative principles to resolve policy issues key ingredients and considerations
DESCRIPTION
Collaborative Principles to Resolve Policy Issues Key Ingredients and Considerations. Jonathan Brock William D. Ruckelshaus Center Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington. Why Collaborative Principles?. Allows influence on a situation you can’t control - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Collaborative Principles to Collaborative Principles to Resolve Policy IssuesResolve Policy Issues
Key Ingredients and ConsiderationsKey Ingredients and Considerations
Jonathan BrockWilliam D. Ruckelshaus Center
Daniel J. Evans School of Public AffairsUniversity of Washington
Why Collaborative Principles?Why Collaborative Principles? Allows influence on a situation you can’t control Formal route won’t achieve exploration, resolution Combination of perspectives can generate solutions
that you wouldn’t think of on your own Parties take greater responsibility for the outcome More likely to obtain a sustainable outcome Develops relationships helpful in implementation and
for future conflicts ADR process can be shaped to fit the specific issues,
parties and context
When to Mediate or NegotiateWhen to Mediate or Negotiate When issue is too important to stand consequences
of decision you actually have the power to make! When a decision or position could put the
situation out of your constructive influence When you don’t have power to impose a solution When you have power, but consequence too risky When one or more key parties seem entrenched When your alternatives are worse than negotiation
*Lessons of Key NW Conflicts*Lessons of Key NW Conflicts Beginning/structuring
– Importance of initial sponsorship, gov’t connection– Trust in process, conveners– Careful front-end and ongoing effective staff work– Presence of principals for decision; engagement of staff
Important features– Agreed upon use of data for decisions, later actions– Open to local knowledge; flexible for special conditions– Lesser financed groups can participate
Provisions for implementation– Continuity from negotiation to implementation – Accepted channels for implementation; new structures for priority setting,
coordination, focus, sponsorship Key success, progress often follows major tension
*Locally Based Decision Forums*Locally Based Decision Forums
Place-based groups with representation appropriate to resolving likely issues– NW Straits– Nisqually River Council
Issues & solutions from local joint committee Connected to local, state, sometimes federal authorities via
sponsorship needed for issues Often causes compliance, problem solving, data collection
not possible through traditional regulatory and administrative procedure
Often government provides staff support role!
*Collaborative Principles Apply to *Collaborative Principles Apply to Regulatory & Advocacy Work Regulatory & Advocacy Work
Gives enforcement & policy staff expanded tools for addressing compliance issues– Resolving disputes among or within groups– Developing policies that recognize power– Voluntary compliance often more sustainable
Can resolve issues on the groundCan produce more realistic, accepted policy
What are the key ingredients?What are the key ingredients?
Finding the source of the conflictWho are the parties?What are their interests?What’s their power to influence outcome?What’s their BATNA?Knowing that the most important factors are
often away from the table
Assessing the sourceAssessing the sourceWhat has to be resolved to end the conflict?
– What, if resolved or removed, would end conflict and obviate need for conflict process?
– Often, critical questions are not evident– Formal conflict may be over an EIS or quota, but
the real source of the conflict may be fear of losing some important right or access; or losing an irreplaceable or meaningful resource
– Finding the real source of the conflict is essential so that the right issues get attention, and needed parties are present and engaged.
Who are the parties?Who are the parties? Source of conflict determines who to engage Three kinds of parties
– Direct--must be at the table– Indirect--consulted, may have to approve, comment – Interested--need to be informed
Anyone necessary for implementation or who can undo an agreement must be involved at a level that will allow them to accept the outcome
Otherwise, they may work against resolution, or important input may be lacking
What are the interests of each party?What are the interests of each party?Interests are different than positions
– Position is an end point; hard to negotiate over– Positions lack context; interfere w/solutions– Interests are concerns or needs that must be addressed to
resolve conflict. Once identified, can be explored, in open, creative ways.
– Interest-based negotiation is among the most successful for policy and environmental disputes, and also in labor and commercial.
Positions may be incompatible; non-competing interests can form agreement.
What is the power of each party to What is the power of each party to influence the outcome?influence the outcome?
Thus, to know how to arrange a negotiation, assess the relative power of key parties – to each other– to this conflict (power is conflict-specific)
Examples of power– Legal standing– Access to media, direct action– Personal stature, knowledge, respect– Personal contacts among parties, outside
Real power is exercised away from table
What is the power of each party to What is the power of each party to influence the outcome?influence the outcome?
Mediation forum must equalize the power of the parties within the forum
Can pool power for joint gainsConsensus rule equalizes power; Not votesIf not satisfied w/participation parties may
use power away from tableGround rules to cover use of external power
What is their BATNA?What is their BATNA?
“Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement”Not, “what’s my final position”, but “what
could I actually achieve on my own?”As long as the process offers more than the
BATNA, parties will normally stay engaged
Features of Successful Features of Successful Collaborative ProcessesCollaborative Processes
Cormick’s Principles Strengths / Risks
Purpose-driven A reason to be there, clear goal
Inclusive Constituents with “significant interest” involved
Voluntary Constituents willing to come to the table
Self-Design No preconceived ideas / solutions
Flexibility Able to adapt process to meet needs
Equal opportunity All involved parties have equivalent access
Respect for Diverse Interests
Lots of listening
Accountability Representatives are accountable
Time Limits Deadlines, assessment points
Implementation Must have reasonable guarantees, recourse re: implementation
Building an AgreementBuilding an Agreement Choosing an acceptable convener Convening the parties
– Determining representation– Ensuring true representation
Developing ground rules– To equalize the power– To create certainty– Set deadlines– Preserve rights– Creates the first agreement among the parties
Building an Agreement 2Building an Agreement 2Create safe forumStart with areas of agreementConstructively explore interestsRole of the convener
– Jointly selected– Works ahead of meetings– Gets to know the parties– Gets to know the issues– Build trust with and among parties– Set plan and agendas; get agreement on agenda– Prepare parties for each meeting
Building an Agreement 3Building an Agreement 3
Exploring issues jointly, e.g.– Joint data collection– Joint exploration– Jointly specify assumptions of any studies– Use joint committees
Use only agreed upon expertsNeutral staff crucial to large, ongoing issue
Some Dynamics Some Dynamics Deadlines matter, create movement Best offers often in worst language, so
– Listen for the whole presentation– Respond to the offer, not the insult
Help representatives be effective Progress begets trust, begets progress Settlement aided by making problem bigger Settlement requires giving, not hoarding, info
– others must know what you want (interests)– you must know what they want (interests)– But be cautious how you reveal your interests
Agreement won’t resolve underlying differences
Getting ClosureGetting Closure
Hardest conflicts often within groups, not among May require different public than private positions Strike when hot: No buyers remorse, sellers regret Capture agreement in writing Don’t let anyone “get theirs first.” Even the
agreement must recognize the mistrust
Drawbacks, Cautions, Oppy’sDrawbacks, Cautions, Oppy’s Not always cheaper Not always faster Can be especially difficult for some groups to
keep people and resources tied up May cause criticism from own constituency Often estranges members from their groups Ongoing forums like NW Straits, NRC overcome
many, not all of the drawbacks Systems or ongoing forums are insufficiently
utilized
A Few More Observations A Few More Observations Collaborative approach not always best Note importance of power in creating opp’y Recognize limits of legal compulsion; power of voluntary
action– Opp’y for enforcement via voluntary, peer action– More can be done when people are not forced, and when the
response respects their circumstances Needs to go from informal to structured Scale and breadth must reflect scale of issues, influence
and authority Note informal spin-offs that help future problems Trust is a result, not an ingredient
Why choose collaborative Why choose collaborative principles for problem-principles for problem-
solving? solving? When faced with a choice between two
evils
Try the one you haven’t tried…