Collaborative Principles to Resolve Policy Issues Key Ingredients

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? l l l l 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 Negotiate l l l 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 l Beginning/structuring – – l 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 l Provisions for implementation – Continuity from negotiation to implementation – Accepted channels for implementation; new structures for priority setting, coordination, focus, sponsorship l Key success, progress often follows major tension

*Locally Based Decision Forums l Place-based groups with representation appropriate to resolving likely issues – NW Straits – Nisqually River Council Issues & solutions from local joint committee l Connected to local, state, sometimes federal authorities via sponsorship needed for issues l Often causes compliance, problem solving, data collection not possible through traditional regulatory and administrative procedure l Often government provides staff support role! l

*Collaborative Principles Apply to Regulatory & Advocacy Work l 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 l Can resolve issues on the ground l Can produce more realistic, accepted policy

What are the key ingredients? l Finding the source of the conflict l Who are the parties? l What are their interests? l What’s their power to influence outcome? l What’s their BATNA? l Knowing that the most important factors are often away from the table

Assessing the source l What 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? Source of conflict determines who to engage l Three kinds of parties l – 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 l Otherwise, they may work against resolution, or important input may be lacking l

What are the interests of each party? l 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. l Positions may be incompatible; noncompeting interests can form agreement.

What is the power of each party to influence the outcome? l 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) l Examples of power – Legal standing – Access to media, direct action – Personal stature, knowledge, respect – Personal contacts among parties, outside l Real power is exercised away from table

What is the power of each party to influence the outcome? l Mediation forum must equalize the power of the parties within the forum l Can pool power for joint gains l Consensus rule equalizes power; Not votes l If not satisfied w/participation parties may use power away from table l Ground rules to cover use of external power

What is their BATNA? l “Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement” l Not, “what’s my final position”, but “what could I actually achieve on my own? ” l As long as the process offers more than the BATNA, parties will normally stay engaged

Features of Successful Collaborative 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 Agreement Choosing an acceptable convener Convening the parties – Determining representation – Ensuring true representation l Developing ground rules – To equalize the power – To create certainty – Set deadlines – Preserve rights – Creates the first agreement among the parties l l

Building an Agreement 2 l Create safe forum l Start with areas of agreement l Constructively explore interests l Role 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 3 l Exploring issues jointly, e. g. – Joint data collection – Joint exploration – Jointly specify assumptions of any studies – Use joint committees l Use only agreed upon experts l Neutral staff crucial to large, ongoing issue

Some Dynamics l l Deadlines matter, create movement Best offers often in worst language, so – Listen for the whole presentation – Respond to the offer, not the insult l l 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 l Agreement won’t resolve underlying differences

Getting Closure l l l 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’s l l l l 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 l l l 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 l Note informal spin-offs that help future problems l Trust is a result, not an ingredient l l

Why choose collaborative principles for problem-solving? l When l Try faced with a choice between two evils the one you haven’t tried…