SECTION 3
Process map for consensual negotiations

Section 3 explains the role of the third party in the process of consensual negotiations, subdivided into ten steps. The four major milestones in the process are then explained in more detail, the steps and activities outlined and good practices presented. The process map and the ten steps are not a rigid blueprint. The actual process may not be linear, but iterative, moving forwards and backwards. This requires flexible handling of the steps depending on how the process develops.

This section illustrates the process for managing conflict. Its objectives are to:

• reflect on the role of a third party in conflict management;

• outline a simplified process model for ACM to provide guidance for anybody assuming the role of a third party.

3.1 The role of a third party in consensual negotiations

Parties in dispute often need the support of a third party in facilitating the conflict management process when they have become so caught up in their differences that they are no longer able to find constructive ways forward (Ropers, 1995).

A third party is a person or group of people who assists individuals and groups to negotiate and successfully reach agreement. The third party is generally referred to as the facilitator or mediator. Facilitator is a more general term, which can be applied to anybody who guides group processes (discussions, meetings, workshops). A mediator is specialized in conflict management processes, and mediator is therefore the preferred term used in this manual.

In order to be effective at guiding negotiations, the conflict parties must be at the centre of the mediator's concerns. This requires attention to rapport and communications, as well as strong "people skills".

In addition, the process is the means - the vehicle - for addressing the content of the negotiation and meeting the stakeholders' objectives. Good relationships among the people and an effective, acceptable process are both needed in order to deal with the content. In Figure 3.1, the process surrounds the people.

Figure 3.1 illustrates the different levels of facilitation/mediation: good relationships among the people and an acceptable process are both needed in order to deal with the content (Section 3.3).

It is important that a mediator simply facilitates the process and does not attempt to direct the parties, who must fashion and "own" the agreements that come out of the negotiation. Conflict stakeholders should be responsible for their own interests, the resolution of the conflict, the solution of the problem and the restoration of relationships.

To assist parties in the process, the mediator may take a variety of roles and functions. These vary considerably, depending on the nature of the conflict and the approachability and nature of the parties involved (Moore, 2003). These roles include:

• the opener of communication channels, who initiates communication if it breaks down or facilitates better communication if the parties are already talking, including clarifying misunderstandings and avoiding polarization and escalation;

• the legitimizer, who helps all parties to recognize that the rights of others are part of the negotiations;

• the process facilitator, who provides procedural assistance to communication, often including formally chairing meetings. When providing procedural assistance, mediators do not involve themselves in the actual issues (the things under dispute) and do not suggest solutions;

• the problem explorer, who enables people in dispute to examine a problem from a variety of viewpoints;

• the agent of balance (or reality), who questions and challenges parties with extreme or unrealistic goals, and through this helps build a reasonable, achievable agreement;

• the networker, who offers procedural assistance and links the conflict parties to outside experts and resources (e.g. technical experts, lawyers, decision-makers) that may enable them to draw up acceptable settlement options.

TRAINER'S NOTE: The responsibility for both designing solutions and reaching agreement remains with the stakeholders involved. A mediator manages the process, but is not involved in the content of the negotiations.

3.1.1 The acceptable mediator

To be acceptable to the negotiating parties, it is important that the mediator is perceived as neutral and has no stake in the conflict. Acceptability does not necessarily mean that the parties welcome the involvement of a mediator, but that they approve the mediator's presence and are willing to consider his/her suggestions on how to approach their differences and seek solutions.

Advantages of a mediator: An imbalance of power among stakeholders is one of the most common reasons that unassisted groups fail to begin negotiation or to produce satisfactory results. Using a third party or mediator can help to overcome such imbalances through unbiased, fair handling of the negotiation processes. The role is similar to that of a referee who enforces the rules and ensures fairness in a sports contest. It can provide confidence to weaker stakeholders. A third party is to some extent able to alter power and social relationships by influencing the understanding or behaviour of individual parties, through providing knowledge or information, or introducing a more effective negotiation process. These sometimes help to equalize power relationships (Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987). However, the extent to which this is possible is the subject of much debate (Sections 3.1.4 and 2.3).

Disadvantages of a mediator: Some groups feel that involving a third party makes the dispute too public, and are hesitant about becoming involved. Powerful stakeholders, in particular, may also strongly resist the intervention of a third party or mediator. Distrust among the parties may be so great that anyone suggested by one party will be regarded by the others as biased. In such cases it may be helpful to have someone whose formal or informal authority and character are unchallenged by any of the parties.

3.1.2 "Insiders" and "outsiders" as mediators

The role of the mediator depends on social-cultural values. In particular, it depends on whether the culture in which the mediator is working tends more towards direct or non-direct dealing. The mediator can be either of the following:

• A trusted leader (non-direct dealing) is likely to be a local. The ability to work with conflicting parties in order effectively to support collaboration requires trust. For many, trust develops only when there is a pre-existing relationship - kinship or family, and positive past interactions. The key point is trust, not neutrality; trust that despite any personal relationship with any of the parties, the mediator will strive to find a way forward that is in the interests of all the parties involved.

• A neutral process manager (direct dealing) is likely to be an outsider. Process managers are trained to provide impartial assistance to conflicting parties in designing their negotiation strategy. Acting as a mediator requires experience and training in conflict management methods, and good communication skills.

Mediators in conflict management should always carefully examine local mediation practices, their effectiveness and how they could be strengthened (Section 4.4). It is important to remember the principle of subsidiarity (Section 2.3.2).

CHECK POINT: In order to assist in negotiations, it helps if the mediator has experience of general facilitation. Facilitation takes place in many different settings (meetings, workshops, etc.).

3.1.3 Entering the conflict scene

There are many ways in which a conflict mediator may assume his/her role in a specific conflict. Mediators often enter the conflict scene as a result of:

• direct invitation by one or more of the conflict parties;
• referrals by secondary stakeholders;
• direct initiation by the mediator;

• appointment by a recognized authority, such as government officials or traditional authorities.

The initial authority and trust that a mediator experiences in the early relationship with the conflict parties depends to a large degree on how the mediator manages his/her role in the first instance. A mediator's past interaction with a party can form the basis for trust or distrust. For example, mediators who are introduced through secondary stakeholders, recognized authorities or their own initiative may provoke substantial resistance from one or several of the conflict parties. There may be suspicions as to why the mediator has assumed this role, what vested interests he/she may have, and what relation he/she may have with the other conflict parties.

3.1.4 How far can a mediator level the playing field?

In order to achieve mutually satisfactory and acceptable decisions from negotiations, all parties must have some means of influencing the others in negotiations. This is a prerequisite for a settlement that recognizes mutual needs and interests. Unless a weaker party has some power or influence, its needs and interests will be recognized only if the stronger party is acting unselfishly or has understood that "for anyone to gain, everyone must gain".

• If the potential power and influence of each party are well developed, fairly balanced and recognized by all parties, the mediator's job will be to assist the parties to use their influence effectively to arrive at mutually satisfactory results.

• If the power and influence of each side is not equal and one party has the ability to impose an unsatisfactory solution on the others, an agreement will not hold over time or will result in renewed conflict. In these cases, the mediator needs to decide whether and how to assist the weaker party and moderate the influence of the stronger one.

If a mediator assists or empowers the weaker party or moderates the stronger one, the mediation role shifts towards advocacy. In direct dealing societies, which emphasize the neutrality and impartiality of the mediator, this advocacy role may undermine the acceptability of the mediator. The stronger party may consider the mediator as partial or non-neutral. In non-direct dealing societies, which focus more on the status of the mediator and the relationships involved, such an advocacy role may be more acceptable, particularly if the mediator is a trusted leader with relevant social status and reputation.

Power inequalities are serious ethical challenges for mediators. Such inequalities commonly occur when local community groups have to negotiate with powerful actors at the national or international level, such as State agencies or multinational companies. There are no easy solutions to these challenges. The fundamental issue for the weaker conflict party is whether it will be better off with a negotiated agreement than without it. In cases where the power imbalance is extreme, negotiations may not be possible if they harm the weaker party, make the conflict worse or make injustices more pronounced. In these circumstances, the fundamental principles of collaborative management and ACM are violated, and consensual negotiations cannot work.

3.1.5 Mediating in a team

It is difficult for one person to manage consensual negotiations because most natural resource conflicts are complex and involve many stakeholders. In addition, some stakeholder groups may consist of many individuals.

In many cases, it will therefore be helpful to build a mediation team. Mediating as a team eases some of the burden for the main mediator, but poses additional requirements for managing roles and responsibilities within the team. These roles and responsibilities need to be clearly defined and distributed before mediators enter a conflict setting.

A mediation team should include at least three members:

• a lead mediator, who guides and manages the process of communication and negotiations;
• an assisting mediator, who may step in when the lead mediator faces trouble;

• a note taker and observer, who document the process and observe the conflict dynamics in meetings. Especially in larger meetings, the observer's role may provide useful feedback when tension occurs within subgroups of participants.

Working in a team requires careful preparation, clear delineation of tasks, and trust among team members. Teams that show signs of internal tensions will almost certainly harm the process and reduce the negotiating parties' confidence in the role and professionalism of the mediation team.

3.2 The ten steps of conflict management

ACM is a complex, iterative process that may suffer drawbacks or experience sudden moves forward. The process can be subdivided into four major "milestones" and ten steps, each with its own specific activities. In this guide, these steps form what is called the "process map". The process map helps mediators in ACM to keep on track and to move the process forward towards successful outcomes.

The process map outlines the important steps in an ACM process.

These ten steps can be subgrouped into four major milestones (A-D).

3.2.1 Milestone A: Entry (Sections 4 and 5)

Before mediators become actively involved with the different conflict parties (stakeholders) in ACM, they need to clarify their role as a third party. This includes a preliminary conflict analysis with detailed clarification of what the conflict is about, and consultation with stakeholders.

Steps 1 to 3 are necessary to complete milestone A.

3.2.2 Milestone B: Broadening stakeholder engagement (Section 6)

When the parties to the conflict have defined their roles and agreed to commission a third party, it is the mediation team's task to guide the different stakeholders' self-reflection and self-discovery. This includes making them aware of their long-term interests, the gains they could obtain from a negotiated solution, and the possible alternatives to a negotiated solution. At the end of this process, stakeholders should willingly agree to meet the other conflict parties for negotiations.

Steps 4 and 5 are necessary to complete milestone B.

Step 4: Broadening stakeholder engagement. In this process, the mediators gradually hand over control and responsibility to the conflict stakeholders. Mediators help the stakeholders to analyse the root causes of the conflict, the different stakeholders involved, and their own positions, strengths, interests and needs.

Step 5: Assessing options. The mediators now help the different stakeholders to generate options for resolving or managing the conflict. The merits of each option are assessed, and the options are prioritized.

3.2.3 Milestone C: Negotiation (Section 7)

At this stage, the mediators bring the conflict stakeholders to the table to negotiate options and possible modes of agreement, as well as the practical measures that could be adopted to implement agreement. Agreements are negotiated on the assumption that they benefit all parties and focus on the interests and underlying needs of the stakeholders.

Steps 6 to 8 are necessary to accomplish milestone C.

3.2.4 Milestone D: Exit (Section 8)

After an agreement has been signed, conflicts may be settled, but not yet resolved. There may be drawbacks when conflict parties do not comply with the agreement, or relations are not restored adequately for collaboration. While a mediation team cannot solve all the problems in a community at one time, it needs to ensure that the different conflict stakeholders are at least willing to comply with the agreement and to act in a collaborative manner with each other.

Steps 9 and 10 are necessary for milestone D:

3.3 Process management

As well as objective facts, conflicts also involve subjective perceptions and interpretations of those facts.

Conflict management is a complex process and mediators' behaviour may give unclear signals to the conflict parties. For example, some stakeholders may perceive the mediators as partial, taking sides or giving one party more opportunities to talk. Mediators therefore need to reflect on their role in the process and with regard to each of the different stakeholders.

Process management involves five main tasks:

• fostering collaboration;
• avoiding further escalation of tensions or conflicts: "do no harm";
• opening space for restoring relations;
• managing information;

• building the capacity of weaker stakeholders to participate and of stronger stakeholders to understand broader issues.

3.3.1 Fostering collaboration

The voluntary participation of all key stakeholders is fundamental to a collaborative approach to managing conflict. One group's decision to negotiate is only effective if the other parties also feel that it is in their best interest to do so. There can be many situations in which people choose not to negotiate, such as when there are strong power differences among stakeholders, outstanding fears, major difficulties in communication, or polarized positions of opposing parties. Fostering collaboration is a fundamental task of the mediator in an ACM process. The following are the main issues to consider when fostering collaboration:

• Broaden stakeholder involvement. There may be many stakeholders who are either affected by the conflict or can influence it. Some of the less visible stakeholders are often overlooked in the initial analysis, and need to be incorporated into the process whenever the need arises or is expressed by a conflict party. If important stakeholders are excluded, they may undermine the implementation of agreements later on, or feel that they have been pushed to one side and marginalized.

• Identify the widest range of possible stakeholder interests. ACM emphasizes the need to identify and focus on stakeholders' underlying long-term interests rather than on inflexible and extreme positions. Identifying the widest range of needs and presenting constructive ways of meeting these through negotiations can be a powerful incentive for engagement.

• Develop positive visions. The desire to reduce conflict and increase peace may in itself be a central but overlooked interest. Stakeholders may be weary of the disruption of daily life that has resulted from the dispute, and want to focus on other activities. Stakeholders may also want to move forward when they consider the impacts of violence, the financial costs of conflict, and the possible damage to their public image or legitimacy. Having confidence that this need will be met can be very persuasive, particularly after a long-term conflict.

• Level the playing field - build the power of less influential stakeholders. When there are minor power differences among the conflict stakeholders, mediators must try to promote negotiations that are fair and equitable for all concerned.

• Build legitimacy. Some parties may refuse to become involved in negotiations because they do not recognize another party or its interests as legitimate. For example, an international conservation organization may seem too remote from the conflict site, or migrants may not have resided in an area long enough. Some groups may accuse others of being too narrow in their interests and failing to consider broader needs or goals. Mediators need to encourage parties to accept the legitimacy of each other's issues, interests and emotions by changing their perceptions about the other parties. This can be accomplished in several ways, depending on what caused the problem with legitimacy. If the unacceptability of a party is due to misperception, there may be ways of clarifying the situation and removing the barrier. If the difficulty to accept the other party results from the procedure by which its representative was selected, that procedure can be explained, or the mediator may assist the parties in developing a procedure that is acceptable to all.

• Ensure that the negotiation process is fair. Some weaker stakeholders avoid engagement in negotiations because they do not trust that the process will be fair. To make the process transparent and open to public scrutiny, mediators can try to involve a trusted observer, obtain agreement on the ground rules and revisit as necessary, or find a third party who is trusted. Mediators can work with the conflict parties to increase confidence, understanding of the negotiation process, awareness of alternatives and preferences, the skills to negotiate, and access to sound information. This can lead to greater capacity and therefore a fair process.

• Build ownership for the process. ACM is a shared learning process. Conflict stakeholders are the people who know the conflict best, and it is from them that a settlement, solution and agreement must arise. Only when stakeholders themselves decide on the way forward will they be willing to sustain an agreement.

3.3.2 Avoiding further escalation of tensions or conflicts: "doing no harm"

Mediators may act with the best of motives and intentions in order to help resolve the conflict. However, there is always the risk of unintended side-effects. Mediators can influence the conflict situation and are influenced by it, often without realizing it. Conflicting parties will carefully study any of the mediators' actions for signs of favouritism towards one side or another. Perceptions, and not necessarily facts, count: "Where you go for lunch will determine which party will perceive you as partial".

A mediator may unintentionally help to:

• reinforce tensions;
• give legitimacy to people who can spoil the process;
• undermine peaceful values;
• promote intolerance;

• add to the influence of the more powerful.

Clearly, such actions undermine not only the negotiation process, but also the mediator's credibility and effectiveness. Mediators must therefore always be aware of the risks, reflect on their own impact, and be prepared to change strategies if negative consequences arise.

Mediators must act and interact in ways that reflect and embody the values and ideals that they work for. They must prove to the conflict parties that they are trustworthy. Conflict stakeholders need to develop confidence in the mediator as a person, in the institution that the mediator represents and in the conflict management process itself.

In order to build a positive interpersonal relationship with the parties, credibility, trust and legitimacy, mediators should respect the following values and principles (Anderson and Olson, 2003):

• Personal honesty: Mediators should always make clear why they are there, what they have to offer, and what they can and cannot do.

• Personal reliability: Mediators have to follow through on what they say. People know that the mediator can be trusted.

• Respect for differences: Mediators need to show respect for differences, and must be willing to work with people with widely divergent positions.

• Honouring local ownership: No one can make peace for anyone else. Mediators need to be modest about their roles; they do not know what is best for others. Solutions have to come from the conflict parties, and mediators can only support the processes.

In every conflict situation, some people are more helpful than others. Despite the conflict, some people maintain good relationships with people "on the other side". These people are the "connectors". However, there are also people who could be referred to as "dividers" or "spoilers" - they spread rumours about the other parties, increase tension, and reinforce existing divisions if negative consequences arise.

Sound conflict analysis (Section 5) is an essential step for mediators to find out who are the dividers and who the connectors. This is important information for the conflict management process because connectors may serve as starting points for conflict management attempts, while dividers can spoil any way forward in solving the conflict. Connectors can also be (Anderson, 1999):

• shared systems and institutions, such as markets where people meet and exchange information and ideas, or infrastructure systems, such as water channels or electricity lines, on which all depend and which are thus often jointly maintained;

• attitudes and actions that illustrate linkages across dividing lines, such as adoption of children across family ties, marriages across divided groups, individuals showing respect for others across the divide;

• past or present common experiences that can be shared, such as a common history of colonialism;

• shared values and interests, such as shared religion or the value placed on children;

• shared symbols and occasions, such as monuments and national holidays.

Mediators need to be aware of these linkages across conflicting parties, and should make them explicit by recognizing and reinforcing them. Good mediation tries to strengthen connectors and promote capacities for peace by providing:

• space where people can engage with those on opposing sides in joint initiatives, explore common values and interests, and encourage the hope for a shared future;

• voice for discussing and sharing common interests, as well as for initiating peaceful steps to decrease tension and the escalation of violent conflicts;

• incentives to encourage exchanges and joint activities among stakeholders in development and collaborative natural resource management.

Spoilers are actors who divide conflict parties. They may come from within local communities or they may be external (secondary) stakeholders in the conflict. When dealing with spoilers, mediators can:

• try to isolate them from the majority of stakeholders who are willing to act constructively, and put pressure on them to comply with an agreement. However, this may not be sustainable, because spoilers may become more confident after the mediator leaves the scene;

• try to incorporate them actively in the process, making them responsible for agreements and thus coopting them into the collaborative process. However, this may slow down or even spoil the whole process;

• ask an influential, trusted leader to persuade or convince the spoiler that it is more acceptable to comply with the conflict management process than to disrupt it.

As this shows, there are no easy solutions for dealing with spoilers. It is important that mediators are aware of the internal dynamics among the different actors in a conflict.

3.3.3 Opening space for restoring relations

One key to restoring relations is building trust. Trust in relations is built gradually over time through a succession of promises and related, sincere actions. A mediator can encourage the conflict parties to make certain moves that increase trust in each other (Moore, 2003). Relations can be restored through:

• performing symbolic actions that demonstrate good faith in bargaining - for example providing for an adversary's physical comfort, meeting at a place or time that is convenient to the other party, etc.;

• making statements that are clear and do not contradict previous statements;

• avoiding promises that are unrealistic or unbelievable, and not making threats.

Mediators on their own can also make specific interventions that will build trust among parties. Examples include creating situations in which the parties must perform a joint task, translating one party's perception into terms that are understandable to the others, identifying commonalities, or rewarding parties for any signals of cooperation and trust. A mediator needs to keep in mind that trust is also culturally defined. In some societies and cultures, verbal or written statements engender trust, while in others certain rituals are expected.

In non-direct dealing cultures (Section 2.4), conflict management is a communal process. Dealing with conflicts always has wider implications for kinship (and spiritual) relations. Community stakeholders in the conflict do not deal with individuals, but with families, communal groups, etc. Restoring relationships and pride is often as important as finding a solution to the actual problem. In such settings, the following assumptions need to be reexamined:

• the principle that people and problems in conflicts should, as far as possible, be kept strictly apart from one another;
• the emphasis on parties openly, but safely, disclosing emotions or exchanging their grievances;
• the stress on the participation of all those involved;
• the importance of controlled use of time;

• the emphasis on statements that are not confusing, but have single, clear meanings.

Keeping or restoring relationships might be the stakeholders' main motivation for resolving the conflict. At least as much attention should be given to restoring relations and keeping face as to solving problems. In addition, voicing grievances openly may lead to conflict escalation rather than mutual understanding.

3.3.4 Managing information

All conflict management processes. i.e. consensual negotiations, are based on information sharing and learning. In the process of sharing information, a party seeks to alter the knowledge, attitudes, preferences and strategies of its opponents.

The availability, management and acceptance of information are significant issues in negotiations. Information plays a pivotal role in defining interests, clarifying shared goals and assessing the feasibility of solutions. Throughout the negotiation process, there must always be space to check for information needs.

Information should be presented in ways that illuminate how it relates to the interests of the parties, and vice versa. At the same time, parties always want to present information in ways that make their own case sympathetic and convincing. Stakeholders must agree on the relevance of their information and decide what is an acceptable balance of information. The mediator can assist the participants' discussions by returning to participatory activities that classify information issues or chart information needs (for example, by using root cause analysis). Other actions include:

• seeking outside/neutral technical expertise;
• making sure that all parties are involved in the identification of information needs;
• working towards active participation by all in the gathering and analysis of information;

• ensuring that information is presented clearly and is easily understood by all groups.

Table 3.1 identifies common problems related to information gathering and analysis, and suggests possible solutions (FAO, 2003).

TABLE 3.1 SOME INFORMATION PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Source: Adapted from PEC, 1999.

3.3.5 Building local capacity for conflict management

As outlined in Section 2, mediators have to remember that some capacity for conflict management will already be in place in most parts of the world. This can be of a formal or an informal type. Most communities have existing institutions and structures that help resolve local conflicts. These can involve people who act traditionally as mediators (religious or political leaders) or arrangements that have been found to regulate local access to and control over resources. To avoid undermining the existing local capacity for conflict management, any intervention should be specifically focused, limited and temporary, and it should aim to build on and strengthen the local capacity that already exists. It is therefore important to assess carefully the local capacity that has already been tried in the past to resolve the conflict (sections 2.3 and 2.4).

In assessing the local capacity, it is useful to consider at which level the particular conflict can be managed successfully. The level at which capacity should be strengthened depends on what the conflict is about (issues) and who is involved (stakeholders).

• Capacity building on the local level may be targeted towards weaker parties who need to be strengthened so that they can take effective part in negotiations. Certain community groups or their representatives need to be trained in direct face-to-face consensual negotiations. This type of capacity building is an integral part of participatory conflict analysis. It is first of all a process of supported self-reflection for improved action. Local stakeholders will gain new awareness and understanding of their goals (including underlying values, norms, fears), their options, their skills, their resources, and their decision-making capacity. They are then enabled to utilize these new insights to engage productively in future negotiations and conflict management processes.

• Independent community leaders need to be trained in mediation and facilitation skills. In most communities there are people who act as mediators to help resolve local conflicts. Such mediators are trusted and respected by individuals and groups owing to their social status, experience or special knowledge. They can be part of the immediate social network, such as a village leader or elder, or independent, such as a religious or political leader who is asked to help mediate rights between two communities.

The capacity of an entrusted, local leader to mediate negotiations needs to be carefully assessed. Local leaders will seldom fulfil all the requirements for an ideal mediator, because of their established relationships with the conflict parties, potential biases or preferences in favour of one or more negotiating parties. However, local leaders will offer unique opportunities for building more sustainable capacity. An outsider should be brought in to act as a mediator only if the use of local leaders seems likely to fail.

• Staff of outside agencies with a mandate to mediate in conflict management processes should be trained in strengthening institutional mechanisms. In many cases, local institutions are in crisis or near collapse as a result of neglect, questions of legitimacy or adverse external interventions. Conflict escalation may indicate that institutional mechanisms are in crisis. It is easy to overlook informal institutional mechanisms, many of which are not highly visible.

Section summary

Section 3 has outlined the process map for ACM. This map consists of four major milestones and ten specific steps. These steps are not a rigid blueprint, but provide guidance to mediators in conflict management. In subsequent sections, the four milestones are defined in greater detail, and specific activities, good practices and pitfalls are discussed.

A mediator is the process manager in ACM. Mediators in conflict management should try to ensure that the conflict stakeholders assume responsibility for their own interests, for successful management of the conflict and for seeking solutions to problems and restoring relationships. The mediator provides procedural assistance to the communication process among the stakeholders.

The process map for ACM involves four milestones and ten steps. The process map helps mediators in ACM to keep on track and to move the process forward towards agreement. As ACM is a complex, iterative process, the process map is not a rigid blueprint, but needs flexible handling, as well as backwards and forwards movement within the process according to the needs of the situation.

Mediators need to clarify their commissions and roles in the specific conflict setting. This includes a preliminary conflict analysis, to make clear what the conflict is about, and consultation with stakeholders.

Mediators guide the different stakeholders in self-reflection and self-discovery. This includes making them aware of their long-term interests, the gains they may obtain from a negotiated solution, and the potential alternatives to a negotiated solution.

Mediators bring the conflict stakeholders to the table to negotiate options and possible modes of conflict settlement through agreement. Agreements are negotiated on the assumption that they bring benefit to all parties and focus on the interests and underlying needs of the stakeholders.

Conflict management is a complex process and mediators' behaviour may give unclear signals to the conflict parties. Conflict mediators therefore need to monitor the process and their own role within it. They need to foster collaboration, avoid doing harm and open up space for restoring relations, manage information and build local capacity for conflict management.