Charlene Barshefsky – Negotiating a Trade Agreement with China

Charlene Barshefsky (A):

Set between 1994 and 1996, this 16-page factual case study describes the challenges former United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky faced in negotiating a trade agreement with China to improve its domestic intellectual property rights enforcement regime. After briefly describing Barshefsky's past experience and trade negotiations, this case discusses the history of U.S.-China trade relations and analyzes Ambassador Barshefsky's strategy in coalition-building in the United States and abroad toward the goal of achieving a sustainable deal. As a result of her work in this context, Ambassador Barshefsky received the 2001 Program on Negotiation "Great Negotiator" Award.

 

Charlene Barshefsky (B):

Also set between 1994 and 1996, this 17-page factual case study details former United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky's strategic and tactical approach to surmounting the barriers laid out in the (A) case.

Both Charlene Barshefsky (A) and Charlene Barshefsky (B) are designed to help students examine complex negotiation and coalition building strategies in an international context. They explore national/ cultural negotiating styles, barriers to doing a deal amidst splintered commercial and political interests, and innovative approaches to surmounting those barriers. The two case studies are related, but may either be used together or separately.

Chemco, Inc.

SCENARIO:

ChemCo, Inc is a manufacturing firm located in Shelton, a small working-class town. ChemCo employs 3000 of Shelton's population of 20,000. ChemCo is currently negotiating with the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to devise an acceptable strategy to monitor air emissions from its generator. If ChemCo is forced to cut jobs as a result of stringent environmental regulations, there will be a devastating impact on Shelton. On the other hand, the Agency feels that ChemCo is the primary contributor to air pollution within the area and needs to be monitored effectively. Representatives from the DEP and ChemCo must negotiate a mutually agreeable standard for monitoring air emissions.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise illustrates how negotiations can be used to resolve conflicts among scientists when scientific data are in dispute.
  • When the same negotiation is conducted by multiple groups, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The recommendations offered by each group may differ widely and in some cases there may be no agreement reached in the time allowed.
  • The scientific data available in the case (and in the world) are incomplete and inconclusive on the points at issue. The exercise motivates discussion of how decisions should be made given limited information.
  • The exercise provides a context in which the formation of coalitions of "joint interest" groups can dramatically affect the negotiated outcome.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game can be run simultaneously with multiple groups of 6.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role Specific:

  • Group Confidential Instructions for ChemCo representatives
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo CEO
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo Environmental Engineer
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo Public Relations manager
  • Group Confidential Instructions for DEP representatives
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Air Quality Chief
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Environmental Engineer
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Public Affairs Manager

 

KEYWORDS:

Regulatory negotiation, agency discretion; environmental dispute resolution; science-intensive policy disputes; public relations

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Dioxin: Waste to Energy Game

Dirty Stuff

Teflex

The Carson Extension

Chestnut Drive

SCENARIO:

Four weeks ago, Bunyon Brothers Construction Company began work on a 77-unit condominium complex at the end of a quiet, wooded, dead-end street named Chestnut Drive. The residents of Chestnut Drive were surprised and angered by this development, but, after some inquiry, concluded that there was little that could be done. Now, however, the construction process has once again brought their tempers to a boil. The neighbors' complaints include: the excessive noise from blasting, dangerously speeding trucks, the lack of a fence around the project area, foul language and habits among the construction workers, and damage to windows and at least one foundation allegedly caused by the blasting. They have elected a six-member negotiating committee consisting of a retired executive, a lawyer, a cab driver, a dentist, a small businessman, and a carpenter. The lawyer has set up a meeting of the community group with the Bunyon Brothers General Counsel. This exercise revolves around the neighbors commit- tee's preparation meeting.

NOTE: This exercise is an intra-team negotiation and is one of the two sides that makes up the exercise Chestnut Village (the other side is the exercise The Bunyon Brothers).

 

MECHANICS:

After individual preparation, groups of (roughly) six neighbors meet for about 90-105 minutes preparing to negotiate with Mr. Murphy of the Bunyon Brothers Company. A message is delivered to the lawyer 10 minutes into the session informing him that a newspaper reporter would like a statement. The group must choose whether or not to spend time on this, and if so, how much. A break after 45 minutes for a presentation on meeting design and group process is often effective. By that point, participants are familiar with the problem and interested in any insights that might be helpful in their remaining preparation time. At the end of the preparation period, groups traditionally have 20-minute negotiating sessions with Mr. Murphy or a management team from the Bunyon Brothers Company, often played by the instructor(s) demonstrating various negotiation styles. The negotiating sessions can be run serially, with one group picking up where the last left off, or consecutively, in either case with the rest of the class observing and thinking how they would proceed differently. An alternative to the instructor demonstration is to have groups of prepared neighbors negotiate with representatives of the Bunyon Brothers Company who have prepared Case No. 10004.0, The Bunyon Brothers.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case focuses on two major themes. The first is preparation. What is your BATNA? What is theirs? What are their major interests likely to be? What are ours? What does their choice look like now? How, realistically, could we change it? What can they actually do? What can we do? How do we make it as easy as possible for them to do what we want, and hard for them to do otherwise? How do we best communicate all this? What yesable propositions do we have for them? Should we consult before deciding?
  • The second theme is meeting design and group process. How do six people work together to prepare for a negotiation? Set an agenda? Set strict time limits? Use a flipchart and a recorder? A facilitator? Separate inventing from deciding? And how do they work together in the ultimate meeting? How do they avoid divide and conquer tactics or distractions that keep them from focusing on any one point? How do they get commitment?
  • Another important theme is the problem of representing a constituency without firm authority. Can the negotiators really commit their neighbors? How should the Bunyon Brothers deal with that? Can either party really agree to what the other one wants?
  • The case also raises the question of relationship and reputation. Both sides have important long-term interests.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Cab Driver
  • Carpenter
  • Retired Executive
  • Shopkeeper
  • Dentist
  • Lawyer
  • Telephone Message to Lawyer

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Commitment; Communication; public vs. private; Compliance; Constituents; Crisis decision- making; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Education, as a means; Emotions; Force; Group-think; Group process; Media; Meeting design; Preparation; Public opinion; Threats; Yesable propositions

Christiana Figueres and the Collaborative Approach to Negotiating Climate Action

The Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School periodically presents the Great Negotiator Award to an individual whose lifetime achievements in the field of negotiation and dispute resolution have had a significant and lasting impact. In 2022, PON selected Christiana Figueres as the recipient of its Great Negotiator Award.

As UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres was tasked with a seemingly insurmountable challenge of putting together an impactful, global climate agreement to save the planet. Coming out the dramatic failure of the Copenhagen summit, many believed that such an agreement was not possible. However, with persistent optimism and careful, targeted interventions aimed at building momentum, in 2015 the Paris Agreement was unanimously adopted by the 196 participating nations and set forth a new framework for international climate agreements.

Figueres had to personally undergo a transformation to let go of her identity as a Costa Rican diplomat so she could approach the negotiations from a global perspective and meet each participating nation from their perspective. The negotiation process itself was not just the two-week conference in Paris but instead was a years-long series of actions taken by Figueres and others to help enhance the probability of a successful outcome at the negotiating table. These actions included things like discussions with private industry groups, repeated talks with the Saudi government, and Operation Groundswell, in which a small team of strategic influencers worked with partners behind the scenes to build support for an ambitious outcome. By bringing different coalitions of countries and non-state actors together to lead the way, a more expansive agreement became possible.

Major lessons of this case study include:

  • Coalition and spoiler management in complex international treaty negotiations
  • Principal-agent dynamics
  • Active listening and difficult conversations
  • Building momentum for an agreement
  • Power dynamics in negotiation
  • Deal implementation and sustainability

This case can be paired with the Great Negotiator 2022: Christiana Figueres videos, available for purchase separately from the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC).

Coastal Flooding and Climate-Related Risks in Launton

Coastal Flooding and Climate-Related Risks in Launton is a seven-person, multi-issue facilitated negotiation among local government, community, business, and environmental representatives trying to reach agreement on a strategy for managing climate change risks in a small, beachfront community.

 

The game focuses on managing increased risk of coastal flooding and storm damage through construction of flood protection infrastructure, imposition of flood-proofing requirements, and land use planning. It is one of four exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project.* The Launton game highlights possible solutions for protecting future and existing commercial and residential development, and provides detailed tables and descriptive figures that explain the economic, political, social, and environmental impacts of each option.

 

Scenario:

The small coastal town of Launton has experienced increasingly intense storms over the past decade, resulting in significant damage to homes, businesses, beaches, and other coastal assets. Climate projections indicate that sea level rise and increasingly extreme storms in the future will lead to even worse coastal flooding and storm-related damage. This is particularly worrisome given that Launton relies heavily on coastal properties and amenities for it tax base and tourism-based economy. To address the increasing risk, town officials have decided to incorporate climate change adaptation into Launton’s Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for next year. The Town Manager has convened a task force to consider climate change projections and recommend ways of reducing the risk of coastal flooding and storm damage to existing and future development. The task force’s recommendations are likely to be incorporated into Launton’s Master Plan update.

 

 

Major lessons

  • Climate change adaptation poses difficult planning choices, but there are actions cities and towns can take now to protect themselves that will be beneficial regardless of how severe climate change risks turn out to be.
  • Development, conservation, and infrastructure investments decisions made today will continue to affect communities far into the future. Short-term actions that do not take long-term climate change risks into account could prove extremely costly in the long run.
  • A community-wide approach to managing the collective risks associated with climate change can create opportunities to address other issues while reducing vulnerability and enhancing community resilience.
  • Communities must assess their vulnerabilities and decide which adaptation strategies are most appropriate.
  • Stakeholders may have conflicting interests that shape their views about which public policy choices make the most sense. By working collaboratively and taking science into account, communities can find creative solutions that meet the interests of diverse stakeholders.
  • At-risk towns and cities will have to consider how the financial responsibility for reducing climate risks will be distributed and whose responsibility it is to implement adaptation measures.

 

Mechanics:

This exercise requires seven roles: six stakeholders and one facilitator. Multiple groups of seven can play at the same time. Where there are uneven multiples of seven, players may be doubled up in certain roles.

 

Total time requirement: 2 – 3 hrs

Preparation: 30 minutes

Negotiation: 60 – 75 minutes

Debriefing: minimum of 30 minutes, during which players can reflect on the game experience and how it relates to real life situations

 

Teaching Materials:

For all parties:

  • General instructions, including a climate change risks assessment memo and floodplain map

 

Role-specific

  • Confidential instructions for:
    • Facilitator
    • Town Manager
    • Town Council Representative
    • Emergency Management Director
    • Executive Director of the Great Coast Regional Land Trust
    • Executive Director of the Launton Chamber of Commerce
    • Chairperson of the Brewer’s Cove Neighbors Association

 

Teacher’s Package

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Notes

 

* The other three exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project include:

Coastal Flooding in Shoreham: Responding to Climate Change Risks

Flooding and Climate Change Risks in Northam

Flooding in Milton: Collectively Managing Climate Change Risks

Coastal Flooding in Shoreham

Coastal Flooding in Shoreham: Responding to Climate Change Risks is a seven-person, multi-issue facilitated negotiation among local government, community, business, and environmental representatives trying to reach agreement on a strategy for managing climate change risks in a medium-sized coastal community.

 

The game focuses on the difficulties of minimizing coastal flooding and storm damage through flood protection infrastructure, flood-proofing requirements, and land use planning. It is one of four exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project.* The Shoreham game highlights the fiscal realities of climate adaptation, addressing important questions about how public money should be spent on risk management efforts, especially in the face of scientific climate change projections that involve a measure of uncertainty.

 

Scenario:

Residents of Shoreham, a 65,000-person coastal town, have grown increasingly concerned about the number of “freak” storms that have hit their town and region. Big rainstorms, snowstorms, and hurricanes have led to severe flooding, which is particularly problematic given the number of people and businesses that are concentrated along the waterfront, where the flooding is worst. Shoreham recently experienced a major flooding event, which generated a lot of media attention highlighting the potential for climate change increasing Shoreham’s flooding risk. The storm and related media coverage prompted residents to demand that their town do something to provide protection from the long-term effects of sea level rise and increased storm intensity.

 

In response to these public concerns, the Town Manager commissioned a climate change risk assessment and convened a small working group called the Coastal Flooding Task Force to figure out how to reduce the town’s long-term vulnerability. The job of the Task Force is to come up with a fiscally responsible and environmentally sound proposal. Three approaches to reducing flood risk are under consideration: flood protection infrastructure, flood-proofing, and land use management.

 

Major lessons

  • Climate change adaptation poses difficult planning choices, but there are actions cities and towns can take now to protect themselves that will be beneficial regardless of how severe climate change risks turn out to be.
  • Development, conservation, and infrastructure investments decisions made today will continue to affect communities far into the future. Short-term actions that do not take long-term climate change risks into account could prove extremely costly in the long run.
  • A community-wide approach to managing the collective risks associated with climate change can create opportunities to address other issues while reducing vulnerability and enhancing community resilience.
  • Communities must assess their vulnerabilities and decide which adaptation strategies are most appropriate.
  • Stakeholders may have conflicting interests that shape their views about which public policy choices make the most sense. By working collaboratively and taking science into account, communities can find creative solutions that meet the interests of diverse stakeholders.
  • At-risk towns and cities will have to consider how the financial responsibility for reducing climate risks will be distributed and whose responsibility it is to implement adaptation measures.

 

Mechanics:

This exercise requires seven roles: six stakeholders and one facilitator. Multiple groups of seven can play at the same time. Where there are uneven multiples of seven, players may be doubled up in certain roles.

 

Total time requirement: 2 – 3 hrs

Preparation: 30 minutes

Negotiation: 60 – 75 minutes

Debriefing: minimum of 30 minutes, during which players can reflect on the game experience and how it relates to real life situations

 

Teaching Materials:

For all parties:

  • General instructions, including a climate change risk assessment memo and floodplain map

 

Role-specific

  • Confidential instructions for:
    • Assistant Town Manager
    • Town Planner
    • Director of the Association to Preserve Shoreham County
    • Director of the Shoreham Chamber of Commerce
    • Owner of Shoreham Realty
    • President of the Shoreham Shores Civic Association
    • Facilitator

 

Teacher’s Package

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Notes

 

* The other three exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project include:

Coastal Flooding and Climate-Related Risks in Launton

Flooding and Climate Change Risks in Northam

Flooding in Milton: Collectively Managing Climate Change Risks

Computer Waste Policy Simulation

SCENARIO:

This simulation takes place in the European Union in the near future. The EU has prohibited the disposal of personal computers in landfills. It has also required that individual countries develop ‘producer-responsibility’ policies for electronic waste management. Several European and North American countries have already implemented such policies.

The development of a producer responsibility policy is a high priority for Sweland, a country that wants to join the fictional European Trade Area. The deadline for the formal application to join the ETA is only three months away, and Sweland must come up with a sustainable electronic waste policy by then.

Sweland has several major regional and national stakeholder groups that might be affected by a change in electronic waste policy. Sweland's Environment Ministry has called a "Round Table" meeting of ten such stakeholder representatives.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This policy is going to be scrutinized by the other countries that Sweland is trying to impress. How does that change the decisions?
  • How useful are caucuses in this type of negotiation?
  • What lessons does this exercise suggest about policy development?
  • What lessons does this exercise suggest about the interaction of economic and environmental interests?

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation is not intended to be an accurate reflection of the current status of these issues within the European Union. The debrief of this simulation may include a discussion of the reality.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all Parties:

  • General instructions
  • Country overview of Sweland
  • Brief on waste management of Sweland
  • Brief on jurisdictional issues of Sweland
  • Brief on financial position of Sweland
  • Brief on waste collection of Sweland
  • Brief on waste disposal of Sweland
  • Draft relevant law of Sweland

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • the Chief Administrator to the Ministry for the Environment (Chair)
  • the Director of Finance
  • the Director of Commercial Affairs
  • the Minister of Industry of Western Province
  • the Minister of Commerce Northern Province
  • the Minister of Trade Southern Province
  • the Executive Director of the Electronics Industry Council
  • the Director for the Environment and Product Quality of Big Corp
  • the Computer Retailers Association
  • the Earth Consumer Movement NGO

 

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiation; national policy dialogue; industrial policy; sustainable development

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Hitana Bay Development Simulation

Managing Ground-water beneath the Pablo-Burford Border

National Energy Policy Game

Contract Negotiations in the Building Trades

SCENARIO:

Three coalitions representing building contractors, building trade unions, and users of contract services are about to begin contract negotiations. Prior to the full negotiation session, each coalition will meet to discuss internal differences. Each of the three coalitions has three members representing a different internal group. They will focus on wage increases, health benefits, and double-breasting (contractors using non-union workers through subsidiary contractors). These have been outlined in the Proposed Framework for the New Building Trades Contract distributed by the staff of the Builders Association (a member of the building contractor's coalition). In addition, a number of other issues will need to be worked out. These derive mostly from prior relationships and skewed perceptions. A threat of a strike exists, which would disadvantage all three groups. Their objective is to reach an agreement that all parties can accept.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The differences in the way the players value issues open the door for trading. The parties will have to decide what they are willing to trade and what their BATNA's are. This game provides the opportunity not only for trading across issues, but also within issues.
  • The two-tier negotiation suggests a double meaning of "success." Parties must make both substantive and procedural decisions. If the coalitions do not embark upon the main negotiation with a united front; the meaning of "success" could easily become very individualistic.
  • The process of creating and claiming value in this game is quite explicit. Although there are only three main issues, the parties may add more or less importance to each by "reading in" certain assumptions about past or future relations.
  • This is a good exercise for people in actual contract negotiations, especially those facing multi-trade bargaining problems.
  • The important role that external parties can play is illustrated by the use of the media in this case. Parties must strategically manage external relationships in order to have the desired effect on the negotiation.
  • This game allows the players to explore the influence of threats and promises on the behavior of other parties. These must be handled carefully to have the intended effect.

 

MECHANICS:

This game works best with nine players (one per role). A game manager is needed to answer questions and collect written versions of each coalition's negotiation objectives following preliminary one-hour (at minimum) meetings. The ensuing negotiations should run about two hours. More time is preferable. Debriefings take approximately one and one-half hours.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Proposed Framework for the New Building Trades Contract

 

Role-Specific:

Confidential Advice to the:

  • Builders Association
  • Technical Association
  • Basic Contractors
  • Woodworkers Union
  • Welders Union
  • Electronics Union
  • Amalgamated Refineries
  • Metropolitan Power Corporation
  • Regional Hospital Association

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teacher's notes

 

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Agenda control; Anchoring; Apologies; Assumptions; BATNA; Bi-level negotiations; Bluffing; Caucusing; Collaborative problem-solving; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Cost-benefit analysis; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Drafting; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Group process; Interest analysis; Interests, quantifying; Joint game; Labor Issues; Labor Relations; Legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Negotiating entry; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Preparation; Pressure tactics; Public opinion; Recurring negotiations; Reservation price; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Separating the people from the problem; Threats; Time constraints; Trading, issues; Trust

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Collective Bargaining at Central Division

Deliberative Democracy Meets Dispute Resolution

The Workshop on Deliberative Democracy and Dispute Resolution, sponsored by the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, was a two-day conference held on June 24 – 25, 2005 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The event brought together 30 individuals who share a common interest in civic engagement, but represent two distinct fields that approach the project very differently. One group included public dispute resolution professionals; the other, political theorists and innovative practitioners of deliberative democracy. The differences between the fields were revealed as participants engaged in four panel discussions regarding hypothetical scenarios depicting difficult moments in democratic practice. Participants shared their opinion on how to approach the problems in the scenario, and discussion ensued.

This video attempts to capture the most interesting moments of dialogue from the workshop in order to illustrate the overlaps and divisions of opinion both between and within the respective fields.

 

DVD Scenes:

Introduction [14:17]

 

Scenario 1: Municipal Decision-Making

  • Exchange 1: Supplementing representative democracy [9:07]
  • Exchange 2: Consensus, common interest, stakeholders vs. the public [10:34]
  • Exchange 3: The role of the media in deliberative processes [2:56]
  • Exchange 4: Visioning [5:22]
  • Exchange 5: Participant control over process design [1:46]

 

Scenario 2: Metropolitan Policy-Making

  • Exchange 1: Process questions: role of the mediator, ideal processes, including underrepresented groups [22:09]
  • Exchange 2: Rights and Rights-based politics [4:48]
  • Exchange 3: Deliberation for the sake of learning rather than policymaking [5:07]

 

Scenario 3: National-level Consensus Building [3:11]

  • Exchange 1: Who should be involved? [9:05]
  • Exchange 2: Scientific or technical knowledge in deliberative processes [7:24]
  • Exchange 3: EIA and minimum requirements for deliberative democracy [11:51]
  • Exchange 4: Dispute Resolution biases [3:16]

 

Scenario 4: Implementation of Informally Negotiated Agreements [2:20]

  • Exchange 1: Legitimacy in the process [9:38]
  • Exchange 2: Dispute resolution processes should be long and recursive [9:22]
  • Exchange 3: How can I apply deliberative democracy to dispute resolution [5:41]

 

Closing Comments [4:56]

Designing an Integrated Account System

Scenario: This is a four party, multi-issue, team decision involving the development of a new account system. The HR representative serves as facilitator. The exercise examines ways that a fifth party, the facilitator, assists the process of consensus building in a tense conflict situation. Key lessons include:

  • Gathering information about interests and options.
  • Packaging agreements across interests that are valued differently.
  • Managing a process of agreement through coalition building.
  • Practicing the functions and responsibilities of human resource facilitators.

 

Development Dispute at Menehune Bay

SCENARIO:

The Queen Malia Estate has entered into an agreement with the Elima Iki Development Company (EIDC) for the leasing of 500 acres of land around Menehune Bay in Hawaii. EIDC is planning a world-class resort for the site – including eight hotels, two golf courses, recreational clubs, and private condominium units. The project has support from the business and construction community on the island but faces opposition from environmental groups and local residents. The Mayor has remained fairly noncommittal about the project, and feels that a number of questions must be answered before he can decide on the proposal. He has invited designated representatives from the six groups most interested in the project to serve on a Special Advisory Committee, indicating that if five of the six groups can reach an agreement, he will go along with their recommendations.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Successful facilitation of mediation of land use disputes involves attention to procedural concerns. The role of the neutral in establishing procedural guidelines should be clearly understood by all parties before substantive negotiation begins.
  • It is difficult to ensure that all participants in a complex negotiation have a chance to be heard, and that the ideas expressed accumulate in a constructive fashion. One of the primary tasks of the facilitator or mediator is to ensure that an acceptable record of all discussions is kept.
  • The facilitator or mediator is responsible for making sure that the group arrives at final decisions that resolve the issues at hand. It is often as difficult to get a group of disputants to agree on a process for deciding as it is to reach an agreement.
  • Inventing new options is critical to finding a workable agreement in a complex public dispute. The line between facilitation and mediation begins to blur as the neutral facilitator takes a more active role in the invention of new options.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Available on its own or as part of the Resolving Public Disputes package

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • A Brief History on the Proposed Project
  • Map 1: Estate Lands
  • Map 2: The proposed Site

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for Representatives of the following groups:
  • Construction Now Hawaii
  • Development Information Association
  • Elima Iki Development Company
  • Hawaii's Friends of the Environment
  • Menehune Bay Users Association

 

Teacher's Package (31 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Teaching notes

 

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiations; mediating land use disputes; aboriginal rights; environmental dispute resolution; mediation

 

THEMES:

Agenda control; Coalitions; Consensus building; Ethics, Integrative bargaining; Objective criteria

 

MECHANICS:

This simulation requires seven players — representatives of each of the six major interests plus a facilitator. The players should be given 30-40 minutes to read the game, and 90 minutes to negotiate. The debriefing takes at least one hour.

Dioxin – Waste to Energy Game

SCENARIO:

With landfills rapidly filling, the City of Lockford is attempting to solve its garbage problem by incinerating its trash in waste-to-energy plants. Protests from environmental and community groups over dioxin-related health risks posed by these facilities has escalated into a public fight between scientists representing the City Department of Sanitation and environmentalists. In an attempt to understand and resolve this highly scientific and technical problem, the "City Fathers," via a local scientific academy, have called together the two main protagonists in the fight along with other experts and interested parties. Based on the recommendations of this group, the City will announce its future garbage disposal strategy. A press conference has been called at the end of the meeting, and if the scientists cannot reach an understanding, they face a complete loss of credibility and the wrath of an outraged public. The parties include: The City Department of Sanitation, a waste-to-energy expert, a combustion physicist, an epidemiologist; a scientist from the community; and a national environmentalist group.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise illustrates how negotiations can be used to resolve conflicts between scientists and technically sophisticated parties when scientific data are in dispute.
  • When the same negotiation is conducted by multiple groups, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The recommendations offered by each group may differ widely and in some cases there may be no agreement reached in the time allowed.
  • The scientific data available in the case (and in the world) is incomplete and inconclusive to the points at issue. The exercise motivates discussion of how decisions should be made given limited information.
  • The exercise provides a context in which the formation of coalitions or "joint interest" groups can dramatically affect the negotiated outcome.

 

MECHANICS:

The exercise is best run with 6 people, although 12 people (2 per party) works well. The instructions require a one to three hours to read and prepare prior to the negotiation. They contain a good deal of scientific information which should be analyzed prior to the beginning of the negotiations. Actual negotiations require 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hours.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Press Releases
  • Four Appendices and Charts

 

Role specific

Confidential Instructions to

  • Epidemiologist from the State DEP
  • Lockford Academy of Science Combustion Physicist
  • Lockford Concerned Citizens' Chemist
  • Waste-to-Energy Expert
  • Executive Director of the Lockford Board of Directors
  • Deputy Director of the City DOS

 

Teacher's package (87 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Logistics Notes
  • FAQ notes
  • Debrief notes
  • Notes on the role of experts

 

KEYWORDS:

Managing risk and uncertainty in science – intensive public policy disputes; environmental disputes

 

THEMES:

Agenda control; BATNA; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Credibility; Decision analysis; Group process; Information exchange; Issue control; Legitimacy; Media; Mediation; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Risk perception; Time constraints

DirtyStuff I

SCENARIO:

Exposure to "Dirty Stuff" in the industrial workplace is an issue of major concern to three coalitions representing environmental organizations, industry groups, and labor unions. During past hearings the divergence in their views has become public knowledge. Congress has responded by passing a law requiring The Agency to take action. The Agency, called in a consultant to interview leaders of the concerned coalitions, and draft a proposed agreement. The coalitions and Agency leaders are about to meet to review the draft. The parties will discuss the acceptable levels of risk, the quality of cleaning techniques, and monitoring and evaluation of the cleaning procedures. A neutral party has been asked to help facilitate the meeting

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This is a four-party multi-issue facilitated negotiation simulation involving the drafting of a proposed environmental regulation. It emphasizes the use of active facilitation and examines the issues encountered by neutrals when their role is not well understood by the principal parties.
  • The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements, the usefulness of generating options should emerge.
  • It is interesting to observe and discuss the role of the facilitator. The facilitator's instructions are rather vague; therefore, the role may develop into either a mediator's role; a process manager's role; or the parties may choose not to have the facilitator take part in the negotiations at all.
  • The usefulness of a Single Negotiating Text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences, and help parties structure packages of trade-offs more creatively.
  • The design of the meeting is created by the players. How the discussions are initiated and what process is chosen to redraft the agreement is up to the parties. They can either set a cooperative or a competitive tone.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is written to include five roles; however, more than one player may be assigned to any role. Reading in preparation for the role play takes 10-15 minutes. Parties having the same roles caucus to strategize prior to beginning the actual negotiation (approximately 20 minutes). Review of the draft should run for 60-90 minutes. Debriefing requires at least 45 minutes to compare and discuss the outcomes. A table for 5 is recommended. Private breakout rooms are useful but not critical to this simulation.

NOTE: The game manager should meet briefly with the facilitators before the negotiation to make sure they understand their responsibilities.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Draft of the Proposed Rule
  • Fact about DirtyStuff Cleanup Technologies

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Advice to:
  • Agency Negotiator
  • Environmental Coalition Negotiator
  • Industry Negotiator
  • Labor Negotiator
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS

Negotiated rule-making; simple text negotiation; facilitation; science-intensive policy disputes; using contingent agreements to cope with scientific uncertainty

 

THEMES:

Agenda control; Assisted v. Non-assisted negotiations; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Constituents; Creativity; Decision analysis; Distributional dispute; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Issue control; Joint gains; legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Mediation, entry; Meeting design; Objective criteria; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Yesable propositions

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

  • Dirty Stuff II
  • Dioxin – Waste to Energy
  • Teflex Products
  • The Carson Extension

DirtyStuff II

SCENARIO:

Dirty Stuff is an industrial by-product of a large number of industrial processes that has recently found to have harmful health side-effects. A first meeting was convened at which a representative from environmental organizations, labor unions, industry groups, community groups and consumer groups would attend in order to discuss how Dirty Stuff is to be regulated. This meeting ended abruptly and in a highly emotional and hostile fashion – a fact which has become reported in the press. A second meeting has been convened and the various factions have agreed to enlist the help of a facilitator. The goal of the upcoming second meeting is to revise the proposed rule regarding the production and use of Dirty Stuff. This will be published in The Federal Register.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise illustrates how an angry party can alter the tone or balance of a multiparty negotiation or create difficulties for a facilitator.
  • With such a wide range of possible agreements, the comparison of several groups' outcomes can demonstrate the usefulness of generating options. Some groups, however, might not reach agreement.
  • The facilitator may be asked to mediate or alternatively may simply act as a meeting manager and stay out of the negotiations, depending on how the parties act.
  • Caucusing can lead to the formation of blocking coalitions. The effect of caucusing on the prospects of reaching agreements can be compared across groups.
  • The usefulness of a single negotiating text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences and help parties structure packages or trade-offs more creatively.
  • Contingent agreements may hold the key to dealing with technical uncertainty.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is written to include six roles, however, more than one person may be assigned to any role. Players have 45 minutes to prepare, including time for caucusing between parties with the same role. Actual negotiations should take less than 90 minutes. Debriefing will require at least 45 minutes to compare and discuss outcomes.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Draft of the Proposed Rule
  • Article from newspaper
  • Fact about DirtyStuff Cleanup technologies

 

Role specific:

Confidential Advice to

  • Agency Negotiator
  • Consumer Negotiator
  • Environmental Coalition Negotiator
  • Industry Negotiator
  • Labor Negotiator
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

THEMES:

Agenda control; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Creativity; Decision analysis; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Joint gains; Meaning of "success"; Mediation; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Yesable propositions

 

KEYWORDS:

Negotiated rule-making; simple text negotiation; facilitation; science-intensive policy disputes; using contingent agreements to cope with scientific uncertainty

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Dirty Stuff I

Dioxin – Waste to Energy

Teflex Products

The Carson Extension

East Falls Brownfields

SCENARIO:

East Falls Brownfields is a nonscorable facilitated negotiation among six planners, regulators, and community activists regarding the cleanup and redevelopment of environmentally contaminated property.

The negotiation takes place in East Falls, an old industrial city with a shrinking population and tax base. The Monroe Industries site, an abandoned 15-acre parcel of land contaminated with machine oils, solvents, asbestos, and heavy metals, is a potential danger to the neighborhood. In addition, the condition of the property is discouraging investment in the neighborhood. Residents are very concerned about environmental health threats. The city has brought in an outside developer who is willing to consider redeveloping the site if this can be made financially viable.

The city, the developer, two citizens' groups, an environmental health expert, and a representative from the local business community have gathered to try to agree on a redevelopment plan for the property. Everyone believes that redeveloping the property would be a good idea, but there is no agreement on the specifics of the plan. The parties are trying to reach consensus on what will be built on the property, what type of environmental remediation will occur, how much public assistance will be provided to the developer, and to what extent the developer and the citizens groups will cooperate as the project moves forward.

 

TEACHING POINTS:

  • Redeveloping brownfields typically requires a negotiation among many different stakeholders.
  • The mutual gains approach to negotiation that stresses ‘all-gain’ solutions, rather than win-lose solutions, is likely to be the most effective way to handle brownfields negotiations.
  • Through a process of joint problem solving, it is possible to balance the competing interests of contending stakeholders.
  • Good information is crucial to making intelligent trade-offs in the course of negotiating brownfields redevelopment plans.
  • Trade-offs between cost and risk, as well as between risk and benefit, can be handled most effectively in a consensus-building fashion.
  • Successful consensus building requires the right kind of forum, with the right kind of ground rules, designed jointly by all stakeholders.
  • One of the reasons that brownfields redevelopment negotiations are often difficult is that values, not just interests, are at stake.
  • Community involvement in brownfields redevelopment produces a better ‘product’ with few delays.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

General Instructions for all parties:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • President of LandCycle Inc., potential developer of the Monroe Industries site
  • City Planning Director
  • Vice President of East Falls Bank & Trust and Vice Chair of the Chamber of Commerce
  • Director of Citizens for Justice in East Falls (CJEF)
  • Director of East Falls Economic Future (EFEF)
  • Professor of Environmental Health at East Falls Community College, and Technical Advisor to the Task Force
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching notes

Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding Water Shutoffs in Older American Cities

Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding Water Shutoffs in Older American Cities is a six party, multi-issue negotiation involving environmental, political, economic and social interest groups, in a shrinking American city, where the water infrastructure is in desperate need of repair. This role-play simulation illustrates the ethical, financial and logistical challenges involved in trying to balance the need to maintain economically viable water services with the need to ensure that even the most vulnerable urban populations have access to clean water. It is intended for use by students, residents, community advocates, and teachers to draw attention to the ethical dilemmas surrounding water provision in many cities in the United States.

Central City is an industrial city in decline on the East Coast of the United States. Although, for many decades, it was a thriving metropolis, the shrinking of the manufacturing sector over the past several decades has led to substantial decline. Indeed, the impact of deindustrialization has been staggering. The city has lost more than 75,000 manufacturing jobs over the past four decades. Wages have gone down noticeably since the late 1980s for almost every category of worker, but especially for those in the bottom half of all earners. Nearly 35% of the city’s population now lives below the poverty line. Central City’s water and sanitation infrastructure was built in the late 1880s. As the city grew, its infrastructure expanded accordingly. However, due to the economic downturn, the city has been unable to afford much-needed improvements in the aging water infrastructure for many years.

Five years ago, in an effort to curb its growing deficit, the Central City Water and Sewerage Department (CWSD) began disconnecting households that had fallen behind in their bill payments. When that didn’t reduce the deficit, the utility steadily increased its water rates. Its goal is to operate with a balanced budget each year.

Two weeks ago, The Central Tribune published a piece reporting that CWSD was about to send out notices of water shutoffs to another 16,000 households. Water shutoffs have become an extremely divisive issue in Central City. Last year’s number of shutoffs was the highest to date. This recent announcement sent another shock wave through the city. A week after the article was published, a coalition of faith-based groups and activists organized a rally outside City Hall to express their outrage. An estimated 3,000 people showed up. In response, the recently elected City Council issued a statement indicating that they would look into other ways of meeting everyone’s concerns.

A few days ago, the CWSD invited key stakeholders to a meeting to discuss water issues, especially the question of shutoffs. The agency is hoping that the key elements of a new plan will emerge from this meeting. The City Council has indicated that it is eager to hear the recommendations of this group.

Materials for this simulation include:

  • Teaching Notes
  • Confidential Instructions for the Central Water and Sewer Department Representative,
  • Confidential Instructions for the Rights Now! Representative,
  • Confidential Instructions for the Broadway Development Company Representative,
  • Confidential Instructions for the Interfaith Alliance Representative,
  • Confidential Instructions for the Greening Central Representative,
  • Confidential Instructions for the Mayor of Central City