4.1 Understand Your Opportunities to Negotiate
4.2 Identify the Agency's Negotiating Goals
4.3 Choose the Agency's Negotiating Strategy
4.4 Create a Positive Climate for Negotiation
4.5 Improve the Agency's Negotiating Strength
4.6 Turn to Outside Negotiators
All planning for forest use and conservation faces conflicts over "Trees and forests for whom and for what?" (Box 27). These conflicts result from differences in what people want and value, and how they define priorities. Conflict negotiation is when two or more persons with different priorities attempt to reach solutions that will be acceptable to everyone.
A planning team faces several forms of conflict. First are disagreements within the planning team and its advisory committees.. Second are disagreements between the forestry agency and one or more interest groups. Third are disagreements between two or more interest groups external to the agency, but which need to be resolved in order for the planning to move forward.
Depending on how well they are managed, these conflicts can be a productive aspect of the planning. They indicate the existence of multiple viewpoints, and the competition of ideas. But when serious conflicts are not resolved, they can totally destroy the planning process.
In this chapter, a few basic principles of effective negotiation are reviewed. The capacity of an agency to translate these principles into results depends on its commitment and negotiating skills. Like other skills in planning, negotiation needs to be continuously improved through a process of goals, actions, and feedback.
An agency begins by distinguishing conflicts that are negotiable from those that are not. Each individual in a conflict needs a clear view of what it wants, and how this requires the cooperation of another person. Each individual must perceive that negotiation offers a positive gain or reduction of a potential loss. Third, each individual must recognize what the other person's need is, and then be willing to discuss a range of solutions that may satisfy those needs. If one or more of these conditions is not met, there can be no negotiation.
An agency is not in a good position to negotiate without a clear assessment of (1) the conflicting sides to an issue, and (2) the behavioral strategies that people will employ to get their way. It needs to thoroughly research these issues. Moreover, the agency needs to choose the leaders of the planning team and advisory committees for their skills in negotiation. In many practical cases, this should be the primary criterion for their selection. Worksheet 31 helps an agency examine the attitudes and behavior of good negotiators.
|
Box 27. Frequent Conflicts in Strategic Planning for Forests · Land-use competition between forestry, grazing, agriculture, and minerals. · Disagreements over the size, location, and composition of a permanent forest estate. · Conflicts between de jure (legal) and de facto (traditional) tenure in forested regions. · Competition between commercial and subsistence interests in forested regions. · Outdated laws on lands and forests, and conflicts among these laws. · Overlapping concessions on public forest lands. · Impractical laws and regulations for trees and forests on private lands. · Concentration of forest use rights in the hands of politically influential persons. · Forced relocation of communities when forested lands are set aside for national parks, infrastructure projects, and other developments. · Disagreements about use rights for timber, water, game, fuelwood, and other forest resources. · Inadequate consultation with women as forest users at the community level. · Disagreements over planting native vs. exotic tree species. · Disagreements about criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. · Lack of communication between and among interest groups · Disagreements among the national government, external aid agencies, and NGOs on priorities for forest use and conservation. |
Before an agency negotiates either formally or informally, it should try to anticipate the best and worst possible results that could occur. Good negotiators are able to visualize the best possible outcome of a negotiation process, and work hard to achieve it. This is the ideal goal, and the maximum an agency can expect when everything goes well. At the same time, an agency must define the minimum it can accept. This minimum is the "walk away" position of the agency, meaning that it has a better option than to continue the negotiation.
An agency must know its ideal goal, and introduce it early in the negotiation. It also must have a clear idea of its "walk away" position, but it reserves it for later. An agency may have to adjust it frequently, since options tend to appear and disappear with the dynamics of bargaining. Thus a good negotiator knows beforehand which trade-offs he or she is prepared to make. At the same time, a good negotiator decides in advance which principles and points not to concede under any circumstances. Worksheet 32 helps an agency think about the goals, compromises, and alternatives that define the negotiation framework.
Negotiation often occurs without a well-prepared strategy. Instead, most people interact with each other according to personal styles developed in their families, religions, and communities. Thus rather than pursuing a particular type of strategy, many individuals negotiate on the basis of habit, intuition, and stereotypes about other persons.
In comparison, truly effective negotiators apply a variety of negotiating strategies in different situations. With practice, each of these strategies can be learned. The planning team must be able to call upon a variety of negotiating strategies that vary with the different types of conflicts it faces. Three basic strategies are:
1. Cooperative strategy. - This is also called the "soft bargaining" approach. It minimizes the degree of conflict by generating trust and kindness. The agency is looking for common ground and joint interests, and it wants everyone to benefit. The agency compromises, and it expects other people to do the same. The approach is at its best when other individuals similarly cooperate. But it does not work when others regard the agency's "soft" approach as a weakness that they can exploit.2. Competitive strategy. - This is "hard bargaining" in which the agency gives nothing and demands everything. The agency applies pressure to get its way. This approach is important when an agency absolutely must win, even if other persons will lose. The approach works well when an agency faces weak or confused negotiators. It is less appropriate when a long-term relationship has to be maintained, or when the opponents are well prepared.
3. Analytical strategy. - In this approach, negotiation is a problem-solving exercise to create options that benefit everyone. This is sometimes called "interest-based bargaining," or "principled negotiation." The agency tries to: (1) separate the people from the problem; (2) focus on interests, not positions; (3) generate options for mutual gain; and (4) use objective criteria to make decisions.
The negotiator who favors "principled negotiation" does not rely on a forceful personality, or on a position of power in the relationship. Rather, he or she recognizes that everyone has legitimate interests to be satisfied. These interests are met through a search for mutual agreement rather than by application of one-sided force.
Yet this analytical approach also has its limitations. The two or more sides to an argument are not always logical. It can be impossible to avoid taking positions when individuals on the other side of a dispute are being irrational. This is especially true when the conflict is largely about differences in beliefs and values.
A competent negotiator knows what kind of image he or she projects. Good negotiators also recognize and respond to the negotiating styles on the opposite side of an argument. For example, is the conflict with someone who generally needs social approval, and who therefore will favor cooperative negotiation? Or is the conflict with an aggressive personality who enjoys defeating an opponent? Other styles include negotiators who are intuitive, naive, deceptive, hostile, sarcastic, and so on. In each situation, an agency tries to understand its negotiating personality in relation to others. This increases the prospects for the negotiation to succeed.
Box 28 presents the advantages and disadvantages of the different negotiation styles. An agency should review them each time the planning team prepares to interact with people who strongly disagree with it, or with each other.
Especially in the presence of conflicts, the planning team needs a comfortable setting where people can talk openly and productively. The climate for negotiation is determined by both physical and emotional factors. By paying attention to these factors, an agency should be able to influence the quality of the discussion.
The choice of meeting sites is very important. An agency invites planning participants as honored guests, and it helps them feel comfortable in terms of how one dresses, the food and drinks its serves, and the choice of meeting room.
If an agency is making a special effort to have peasants and indigenous people participate in the planning, it may decide not to meet in a government building. Rather, the agency should choose a more neutral place where its guests will feel less intimidated. They may be particularly pleased if the planning team meets them in their own communities. This sends the message, "We care enough to spend the time and money to travel here and talk with you." On the other hand, an agency needs a completely different kind of setting in negotiations with forceful personalities.
In negotiation, the physical climate contributes to the emotional climate. But the emotional climate also depends on the manner in which an agency conducts the discussions. Generally, the leader of the planning team sets the tone for communications. A good discussion leader wants the other side to speak freely and comfortably.
|
Box 28. Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Negotiating Styles | ||
|
STRATEGY |
STRENGTHS |
WEAKNESSES |
|
1. Cooperative |
· People respond positively to others who are friendly and agreeable. |
· Kindness can be perceived as a weakness (i.e., you are "soft" and easy to control). |
|
· You want an agreement that is fair for everybody. |
· Soft bargaining elevates a relationship (it shows that both sides care about each other). |
· If you represent a group, your cooperation with a conflicting interest lessens your credibility with your constituents. |
|
· You trust the other side. |
· The strategy works well for people who know each other, and who share a common picture of issues and choices. |
· In their desire to maintain a relationship, negotiators who use the cooperative approach may give up more than they should. |
|
· You compromise when necessary, and you expect the compromise to be reciprocated. |
|
|
|
2. Competitive |
· "Hard bargaining" may be essential when there is too much at stake to lose. |
· The competitive approach does not work if there is a long-term relationship to protect. |
|
· Your aim is to win, even if it means a fight. |
· People often accept the proposals of a competitive negotiator when they have no good alternatives of their own. |
· Hard bargainers have to maintain force, and this consumes their time and energy. |
|
· You do not trust the other side, and you believe they will take advantage of you at every opportunity. |
· There may not be time or resources to mount a defense against a strong competitor. |
· People avoid hard Bargainers in order to interact with someone else. |
|
· You insist on your position, and you apply as much pressure as necessary to force it through. |
|
· If "soft spots" are exposed in hard bargainers, they lose effectiveness. |
|
3. Analytical |
· This offers advantages for a weak group that confronts a strong opposition (by stressing principles, not power). |
· By refusing to take a position, you may unnecessarily prolong the time to settle a conflict. |
|
· You emphasize objectivity and the use of information. |
· The approach is one of the best means to create "win-win" solutions in a wide variety of conflicts. |
· Analytical methods do not work when the problem is the persons, not the issues. |
|
· You try to persuade the other side by presenting facts, standards, civility, and mutual benefit. |
|
· "Objective standards" usually favor the status quo (i.e., what is, not what should be). |
|
Source: Adapted from R.A. Johnson, 1993, Negotiation Basics, Sage Publications, London, pp. 68-93. | ||
People are quiet and defensive at meetings if their leaders:
· Are preoccupied with maintaining their own control;
· Draw attention to their own self-importance;
· Use manipulation to get their way; and
· Judge each person's ideas against their own opinions about "right" and "wrong" thinking.Conversely, negotiation goes better when participants feel a spontaneous and open environment for discussion. Hence a good negotiation leader has more questions than conclusions, and shows more empathy than superiority. An agency can refer to Worksheet 33 to help determine whether it provides a comfortable negotiating climate.
An agency cannot hope to negotiate a conflict in strategic planning - such as over competing forest uses - without a source of negotiating strength (or "power"). The environmental NGOs, forest industries, and other interest groups give conflicting answers to: "Trees and forests for whom and for what? In strategic planning, the agency is expected to resolve these differences, often through negotiation. But what is its negotiating strength, and how and where does it originate? Can an agency estimate how much negotiating strength it actually has? Specifically:
· Does it have sufficient strength to convince the different interest groups to negotiate (with it, and with each other)?· Does it have sufficient strength to produce an acceptable agreement?
The negotiating strength of the agency relative to the other side has three sources: (1) it applies pressure due to its authority, status, and control.; (2) it has something the other side wants, and they are willing to trade for it; and (3) it is credible because its arguments are legitimate and reasonable.
The first source of an agency's negotiating strength is force, i.e., it is bigger and stronger than the other side. The forestry agency derives its authority from laws and regulations. But in reality, the agency may be small, underfunded, and in other ways poorly positioned to negotiate on the basis of its authority. For example, its use of the law is ineffective without adequate enforcement capacity. Its strength is measured by a large number of sanctions and court judgments favorable to the agency. To date, many countries are unable to obtain this result. Moreover, the application of top-down authority as a source of strength can be inconsistent with the spirit of empowerment, i.e., working through bottom-up incentives.
Hence an agency's second source of negotiating strength is to trade something of value with the other side. What does the other side want that an agency can afford to give? The agency must accurately identify the needs of these individuals, and then convince them that a negotiated solution can meet their needs. The agency's approach is: "Our proposal is in your best interests".
Finally, negotiating strength depends on credibility. An agency is credible if the other side sees it as trustworthy, competent, and dynamic:
1. Trustworthy - Credibility is achieved by making and keeping commitments. A trustworthy agency is known for its integrity. It always fulfills its promises, and it always carries out its threats.2. Competent. - A good negotiator prepares extremely well, and argues from a base of reliable facts and analysis. He or she speaks effectively, portrays confidence, and presents an attractive image. The agency (or person) with a history of negotiation failures - or no history at all - is not credible.
3. Dynamic. - The people who are credible deeply care about their issues. They fight hard for their position because they sincerely believe in it. Their passion signals the other side that they face an opponent who does not easily compromise.
An agency may not be able to call upon all of these strengths. For example, responsible forestry officials often seek a "middle way" on the issues. But the middle way seldom lends itself to passionate expression. Moreover, an agency's past experience in conflict management may be less than ideal. Thirdly, an agency may have a questionable record in delivering on its promises. Each of these can be a problem that lessens the agency's negotiating strength. In many cases, an agency may need to turn to one or more outside negotiators.
In its strategic planning, an agency may need outside assistance to resolve conflicts that it cannot successfully negotiate alone. Similarly, members of the planning team may sharply disagree with each other on points of procedure or substance, and an agency may decide to invite an outside person to break the impasse. The use of such third-party interventions is important in the following situations:
· When the two or more persons in an argument recognize their own inability to reach an agreement;· When one of the disputing persons judges another to be "irrational"; and
· When neutral assistance is needed to add information, conduct technical evaluations, and carry out other problem-solving tasks.
Third-party intervention is especially valuable in conflicts where consequences are serious, positions are rigid, and arguments are personal. It is also valuable where one side has much more power than another, but the agency needs a solution that will be fair to the weaker side. Outside persons may succeed because they have no immediate interest in the outcome. This can be a huge advantage where feelings are intense, and where the conflicting sides are struggling to win at all costs. Depending on the circumstances, an agency calls upon third parties for several different roles (Box 29).
|
Box 29. Outside Negotiators Can Help An Agency in the Following Ways 1. FACT FINDING. This is when an agency asks someone outside the conflict to review the facts and evidence of the situation, and to report his or her observations to the group. 2. CONCILIATION. The third party talks separately with the disputing sides in order to reduce tensions, and to develop a resolution process that will be agreeable to everyone. 3. MEDIATION. The third party participates in the negotiation process, and attempts to help the disputing sides reach an agreement. But he or she has no authority over the decisions that are reached. 4. ARBITRATION. The disputing sides select a third party who reviews the facts and makes a decision. In advance of this decision, the disputing sides agree to abide by it. |
In some cases, an agency is looking for experts to resolve arguments over scientific or technical issues in forest use and conservation. Perhaps just as frequently, an agency is looking for a neutral person who can provide good judgment when a conflict is more about fairness than about forestry. Wisdom comes in both sexes, and in many colors and ages. In all circumstances, an agency needs someone who is widely trusted. This is almost always an individual well-known to the conflicting sides, since there is too much at risk to be entrusted to strangers. Worksheet 34 helps an agency define the characteristics it seeks in third-party negotiators.
