Roles in Environmental Conflict Resolution William E. Hall - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Roles in Environmental Conflict Resolution William E. Hall Innovations in Student Leadership Conference February 20, 2010

• According to Dukes (2004), ECR is an umbrella

term for a range of processes

• Characteristics:

– Direct, face-to-face discussions – Deliberation intended to enhance mutual education and understanding – Inclusion of multiple sectors representing diverse and

• ften conflicting perspectives

– Consensus or some variation other than unilateral decision making as the basis for agreements – May or may not have a third party – Environmental issues at stake

What is ECR?

Roles

• Actors who impact the process of

environmental negotiation

• The utility of particular roles is context

dependent – different roles are relevant depending on the circumstances

Roles in ECR*

Party Party Researcher

Advocate Neutral Third Party Advocate

Other

*Adapted from Laue, 1987

Curle’s Progression of Conflict

Literature on Roles in ECR

• Parties
• Government Entities
• Neutral Third Parties – Mediators and

Facilitators

    

ECR ¡deemed ¡appropriate ¡ Appropriate ¡ par/es ¡engaged ¡ Agreement ¡is ¡ reached ¡ Willingness ¡to ¡ collaborate ¡ Case ¡ Context ¡ Par/es ¡have ¡/me, ¡skills ¡ and ¡resources ¡to ¡engage ¡ Par/cipants ¡ effec/vely ¡engaged ¡ Agreement ¡is ¡of ¡ ¡ high ¡quality ¡ Number ¡of ¡ par/cipants ¡ Degree ¡of ¡ case ¡difficulty ¡ Appropriate ¡mediator ¡/ ¡ Skills ¡and ¡prac/ces ¡add ¡ value ¡ Working ¡rela/onships ¡ improve ¡ Relevant ¡high ¡quality ¡ trusted ¡informa/on ¡ integrated ¡

Source: Emerson, Orr, Keyes, and McKnight (2009)

ECR Evaluation Framework

Turning Points Framework*

Type: Procedural and/or Substantive

More or Less Abrupt

Direction: Toward or Away From Agreement

PRECIPITANT TURNING POINT CONSEQUENCE

Roles: Party, Advocate, Neutral Third Party, Enforcer, Researcher, and/or Other Type: Procedural and/or Substantive

*adapted from Druckman (2001, 2004) and Laue (1987)

Findings about Roles in ECR

• Internal Roles (parties and advocates) – more

likely to precipitate change than external roles

• External Roles (neutrals, enforcers, researchers,
• ther) – more likely to precipitate movement

toward agreement

• Parties – most frequent precipitant of change
• Neutral third parties – no more likely than
• ther roles to precipitate change

International Environmental Negotiations

• Currently looking at Chasek’s (2001)

work on turning points in United Nations environmental negotiations

• Despite differences in methods, appears

to be some commonality at the beginning and end of the negotiation:

– External roles important at the beginning – Parties (and substantive activities) important at the end

Roles at the Beginning and End of Environmental Negotiation

First Turning Point: Consideration/Beginning of Negotiation Procedural/ External More Abrupt

Procedural/Toward Agreement

Precipitant Turning Point Consequence

Last Turning Point: Final Agreement/End of Negotiation Substantive/ Internal More Abrupt

Substantive/Toward Agreement

Precipitant Turning Point Consequence

Discussion

• What do mediators/facilitators do?

– Important in particular situations (e.g., breaking impasses) or phases (e.g., the beginning)? – Indirect (e.g., coaching) vs. direct assistance? – Not change-related (e.g., setting a climate)?

• Why are external roles so important at

the beginning of an environmental negotiation?

• What are your career options in ECR?

Curle’s Progression of Conflict

References

• Andrew, J. S. (2001). Making or breaking alternative dispute resolution? Factors influencing its success in waste

management conflicts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 23-57.

• Buckle, L. G., & Thomas-Buckle, S. R. (1986). Placing environmental mediation in context: Lessons from ‘failed’
• mediations. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 6(1), 55-70.
• Chasek, P. (1997). A comparative analysis of multilateral environmental negotiations. Group Decision and

Negotiation, 6(5), 437-461.

• Consensus Building Institute. (1999). Study on the mediation of land use disputes. Cambridge, MA: Consensus

Building Institute.

• Curle, A. (1971). Making Peace. London: Tavistock Press
• Druckman, D. (2004). Departures in negotiation: Extensions and new directions. Negotiation Journal, 20(2),

185-204.

• Druckman, D. (2001). Turning points in international negotiation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Conflict

Resolution, 45(4), 519-544.

• Dukes, E. F. (2004). What we understand about environmental conflict resolution: An analysis based on empirical
• research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1-2), 191-220.
• Emerson, K., Orr, P., Keyes, D., and McKnight, K. (2009). Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating

performance outcomes and contributing factors. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27(1), 27-64.

• Laue, J. (1987). The emergence and institutionalization of third party roles in conflict. In D. J. D. Sandole & I.

Sandole-Staroste (Eds.), Conflict management and problem solving: Interpersonal to international applications (pp. 17-29). New York, NY: New York University Press.

• Leach, W. D., & Pelkey, N. W. (2001). Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature.

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(6), 378-385.

• Lederach, J.P. (1998). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute

for Peace.

• Susskind, L. E., & Consensus Building Institute. (1999). Using assisted negotiation to settle land use disputes: A

guidebook for public officials. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.