looking to the future: conflict avoidance and resolution in nafta’s agricultural trade linda m....
Post on 21-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
Looking to the Future: Conflict Avoidance and Resolution in NAFTA’s Agricultural Trade
Linda M. Young
Trade Research Center
Montana State University–Bozeman
Purpose of Talk
• Delineate elements of conflict resolution• Outline current dispute processes
– conflict avoidance
– conflict management
– dispute resolution
• Evaluate current dispute mechanisms – in terms of model processes
• Make a few suggestions- this research is preliminary
Positional Bargaining
• Involves alternative solutions to an issue that meet the need of one party
• Negotiators present their initial solutions• Series of incremental concessions• Arrive at a compromise• Assumes:
– fixed sum resources-one more the other less
– relationships not a high priority
Positional Bargaining
• Disadvantages:– shortchanges exploration of alternatives
– leads to adversarial relationships
• Advantages:– does not require trust
– useful in division of fixed sum resources
Positional Bargaining
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
KEYAcceptableNegotiating Range = Acceptable Options for Party A
Acceptable Options for Party B
Par
ty A
’s B
ott
om
Lin
e
Par
ty B
’s B
ott
om
Lin
e
Par
ty B
’s T
arg
et
Par
ty A
’s T
arg
et
Interest Based Bargaining
• Focuses on satisfying as many needs as possible• Explores disputants interests underlying positions• Resources not regarded fixed (when possible)
• Cooperative problem-solving approach• May uncover divergent values-may take time• May produce outcomes with unexpected benefits• Strengthens relationships
Triangle of Satisfaction
• Substantive• Procedural• Psychological
Proc
edur
al
PsychologicalInterests
Substantive
Triangle of Satisfaction• Substantive
– access to markets
– trade rules, import levels
– economic conditions
• Procedural: mechanics of dispute resolution– appropriate structure, agreement on the process?
– settlement congruent with existing obligations?
• Psychological – disputants included; fair process
– address issues of stereotype and bias
Dispute Avoidance
• Needs to happen:– Correct identification of interests
• Actually occurring:– Regulatory harmonization
Identification of Interests
• Competitive interests– “one party swims, the other sinks”
• Cooperative interests: linked goals, interdependence– “everyone sinks or swims together”
• Cooperative but separate
Cooperative Interests :Beef Industries
• Assumes free trade-that is what there is!• Increase in demand
– domestic and export
– caveat
• Decrease in transactions costs for cattle over the border– transportation costs
– efficient plant utilization
– increased competition in some locations
Beef Industry Interests (con’t)
• Cooperative but separate– i.e.: meat inspection and food safety regulations
• must be addressed by national governments
• Competitive– demand linked to quality attributes determined by
location
Obstacles to Interdependence
• Market as synonymous with the nationstate• Deeply rooted historical concept• Trade barriers isolated the market
– some policy imposed
– others natural trade barriers
• Nationstate basis of trade law and agreements• No longer true-for a variety of reasons
New Industry Groups!
• Industry groups on the basis of cooperative interests
• Suggests a trinational group• National commodity groups-competitive and
separate interests• It’s a hard road-groups perceptions change slowly
Dispute Avoidance
• NAFTA committees– Standard Related Measures
– Working Group on Pesticides
• Industry-led– Northwest Pilot Project
• Fruit and Vegetable DRC– address discrepancies in commercial dispute resolution
Regulatory harmonization
What is being achieved?
• Substantive: change the basis of identity– removes issues– regulations spanning 3 countries– facilitates trade– increased commercial ties
• Psychological– committee work stress on going relationships– opportunity to become educated about other’s interests– create on going ties– address issues of stereotypes and bias
What is being achieved? (con’t)
• Procedural– some cases - participants design process
– some cases - consultative
– work within existing obligations
Dispute Resolution: USITC/ITA
• USITC/ITA processes– strive to be predictable, rule based and fair
– consistent over time and industries
• Substantive:– fail to separate positions/interests (sometimes)
• misattributed conflict
– address dumping and subsidization; but
– unhelpful in investigating or solving other issues
• might be poor economic conditions
Dispute Resolution (con’t)• Psychological
– process may be captured
– often not fair - ie: dumping definition
– does not address issues of stereotypes
– likely to harm relationships; halt other progress
• Procedural– structure only sometimes appropriate
– not designed by stakeholders
• Government consultations as another mechanism
Dispute Avoidance
• accurate identification of interests• recognition of interdependence
– in many cases
• joint industry government processes
Dispute Management
• fragmentation of issue into small pieces– addresses small pieces
• recognize areas of agreement• acknowledgement of multitude of principles• address data problems
– jointly designing processes for data collection– clarify areas of disagreement– identify criteria for assessment
• creation of spheres of influence