Federal Lands Management I

Jackson County covers 4,000 square miles in the northern Rocky Mountains and is home to about 10,000 people. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management manage more than 70 percent of the land. For more than 100 years, the timber industry and ranchers have relied on federal lands to conduct their businesses. But newcomers to Jackson County and national environmental groups are challenging this relationship, often leading to contentious battles both in and out of the courtroom.

Last month, the Coalition to Preserve the Watershed (CPW) announced its intent to petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Rocky Mountain spotted trout as threatened and/or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Watersheds in Jackson County form the heart of the spotted trout’s fairly limited range. CPW claims that current land-use practices, chiefly cattle grazing and timber harvesting, have severely harmed water quality and habitat integrity.

At the request of a concerned group of citizens in Jackson County, the State Office of Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building asked the identifiable stakeholders, particularly the CPW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to suspend further action for 30 days and allow an impartial facilitator to conduct a situation assessment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would help fund a consensus-seeking process if the situation assessment indicated that the key stakeholders were willing to participate in good faith, and that the process might result in a mutual gain outcome, rather than the all-too-familiar win/lose outcome of the standard contentious ESA listing process.

J. Jones, a well-respected facilitator from the state office, conducted the situation assessment. Based on the results of the situation assessment, Jones has recommended that a core group of representatives from key stakeholder groups convene to design a collaborative process and then negotiate the substantive issues. The first goal of the stakeholder committee is to develop a process for guiding the negotiation. At least five critical issues must be discussed in depth:

 

  • What basic rules of conduct should be employed?
  • Who should be at the table?
  • What is the decision rule for the negotiations?
  • How will scientific and technical disagreements be handled?
  • What is the time frame for the negotiations?

 

Participant materials include:

  • General instructions for all participants

 

Confidential instructions for:

  • The Coalition to Preserve the Watershed, an anti-logging and grazing group, made up of members of several local, state, and regional environmental organizations
  • The Rocky Mountain Forest Association, a coalition of logging associations and wood product mills
  • The Western Stock Growers' Association, an organization representing ranch families, united for the common purpose of protecting and promoting the beef and sheep industries
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency with jurisdiction over threatened and endangered species, on private or public lands
  • The U.S. Forest Service, the federal agency that determines the amount and type of logging allowed, and issues grazing permits for forested land within the watershed
  • The Jackson County Commission, which is responsible for numerous county functions, including promoting the country's economic base: forestry, ranching, and tourism

 

Teacher's package includes:

  • All of the above (no teaching note currently available)

 

Note: This simulation is designed to introduce participants to consensus building process design. It may be used with or without  Federal Lands Management II, in which the participants negotiate the substantive land management issues.

Federal Lands Management II

Jackson County covers 4,000 square miles in the northern Rocky Mountains and is home to about 10,000 people. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management manage more than 70 percent of the land. For more than 100 years, the timber industry and ranchers have relied on federal lands to conduct their businesses. But newcomers to Jackson County and national environmental groups are challenging this relationship, often leading to contentious battles both in and out of the courtroom.

Last month, the Coalition to Preserve the Watershed (CPW) announced its intent to petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Rocky Mountain spotted trout as threatened and/or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Watersheds in Jackson County form the heart of the spotted trout’s fairly limited range. CPW claims that current land-use practices, chiefly cattle grazing and timber harvesting, have severely harmed water quality and habitat integrity.

At the request of a concerned group of citizens in Jackson County, the State Office of Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building asked the identifiable stakeholders, particularly the CPW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to suspend further action for 30 days and allow an impartial facilitator to conduct a situation assessment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would help fund a consensus-seeking process if the situation assessment indicated that the key stakeholders were willing to participate in good faith, and that the process might result in a mutual gain outcome, rather than the all-too-familiar win/lose outcome of the standard contentious ESA listing process.

J. Jones, a well-respected facilitator from the state office, conducted the situation assessment. Based on the results of the situation assessment, Jones has recommended that a core group of representatives from key stakeholder groups convene to design a collaborative process and then negotiate the substantive issues.

This negotiation commences after the stakeholder committee has completed its first task: to develop a process for guiding the negotiation. Now, the committee must turn to its second task: to negotiate the three key issues that may allow the petition to be postponed and an active conservation plan put into place, in lieu of an EPA listing:

  • Federal lands use including the appropriate balance of ranching, forestry, recreation, and conservation;
  • Grazing and timber permit buy-outs and compensation for the ranching and forestry industries; and
  • Structure of the management process that would monitor the implementation of the agreement.

 

Participant materials include:

  • General instructions for all participants

 

Confidential instructions for:

  • The Coalition to Preserve the Watershed, an anti-logging and grazing group, made up of members of several local, state, and regional environmental organizations
  • The Rocky Mountain Forest Association, a coalition of logging associations and wood product mills
  • The Western Stock Growers’ Association, an organization representing ranch families, united for the common purpose of protecting and promoting the beef and sheep industries
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency with jurisdiction over threatened and endangered species, on private or public lands
  • The U.S. Forest Service, the federal agency that determines the amount and type of logging allowed, and issues grazing permits for forested land within the watershed
  • The Jackson County Commission, which is responsible for numerous county functions, including promoting the county’s economic base: forestry, ranching, and tourism

 

Teacher's package includes:

  • All of the above (no teaching note currently available)

NOTE: This simulation may be used with or without Federal Lands Management Part I, which is designed to introduce participants to consensus building process design. If participants play Part I first, they will have developed a set of ground rules and a work plan specific to their group. If not, participants may use the ground rules and work plan provided in Part II, which focuses on the substantive issues of the negotiation.

Finn River Basin

OVERVIEW:

Finn River Basin is a seven-party, seven-person, multi-issue negotiation game involving a dispute over inter-provincial water allocations. It explores issues of prediction and monitoring, water sharing, and the environmental adequacy of water flows. The game introduces a mutual-gains approach (MGA) to negotiation and highlights the benefits of a more collaborative, non-zero- sum approach to managing boundary waters.

SCENARIO:

Concerned about continued drought and the mismanagement of water resources in the Finn River Basin, the Ministerial Council of the Alba national government has convened a meeting of key stakeholders to advise on improved water-management strategies for the Basin. A representative from the Ministerial Council, who has received specific instructions from the national government, will facilitate the meeting. The other stakeholder participants include representatives from each of the four Alban states that share the Finn River Basin—Northland, Eastland, Southland, and Darbin—along with representative from the Ministry of the Environment (a national government agency), and a representative from the Basin Authority (an independent body consisting of politically appointed leaders from each of the four states). If the Ministerial Council representative and at least five of the other stakeholders can reach agreement on a proposed package of actions, the Ministerial Council has agreed to cover the cost of implementation. If at least six of the seven participants cannot reach agreement, it is likely that the Ministerial Council will impose its own Basin-management plan and force the states to pay some or all of the cost of implementation.

The seven parties have been asked to addresses three key issues:

(1) Water prediction and water-use monitoring: who will develop water-availability predictions and who will monitor water withdrawals?

(2) Unused water allocations: what should be done with water allocations that are not used by any given state in any given year?

(3) Environmental flows: should certain amounts of water be allocated to ensure minimum flows during times of drought to protect the environment, and, if so, who should decide what these flows should be and whose shares should be reduced to ensure them?

MATERIALS:

General Instructions (including map)

Confidential Instructions for the Ministerial Council Representative (including facilitation instructions and an agreement reporting form)

Confidential Instructions for the Basin Authority Representative

Confidential Instructions for the Ministry of the Environment Representative

Confidential Instructions for the Northland Representative

Confidential Instructions for the Eastland Representative

Confidential Instructions for Southland Representative

Confidential Instructions for the Darbin Representative

Teacher's Package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

First City Bank and the Press

SCENARIO:

The local newspaper, ‘the Gazette’ has recently published an article about a possible mortgage scam involving the First City Bank (‘the Bank’). The Bank has allegedly offered high interest rate loans in low-income and minority neighborhoods and has forced a high number of foreclosures in these areas. Private mortgage companies have been accused of colluding with contractors, and the city government has been blamed for its lack of regulation of the private lending industry. A meeting has been arranged between representatives of First City Bank, the mayor's office, political leaders of low-income neighborhoods, private mortgage companies, the city wide trade association of contractors and the State Banking Commission to discuss the situation.

 

MECHANICS:

Allow a minimum of 30-45 minutes for preparation. The negotiation itself should last at least 2 hours with an additional 60-90 minutes for discussion and debriefing afterwards.

There is another version of this game used in the angry Public course. This other version focuses on media strategy public relations in crisis situations.

Lawrence Susskind has published ‘Dealing with an Angry Public’ that addresses the major points of this game.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The primary focus of this game is on the formulation of a media/public relations process appropriate to a multi-party public disputes resolution effort.
  • The efforts of a chief elected official to act as consensus-builder can backfire. When and how elected officials should try to play facilitative roles is a sub-theme worth exploring in this case.
  • Coalitions are often formed in multi-party negotiations. This game provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies especially blocking.
  • This exercise provides the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues. Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one's concerns are illustrated in the exercise.
  • The advantages of caucusing can be explored. Some players will invite pre-negotiation caucusing while others will not participate in private caucuses.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions
  • Gazette article
  • Public Relations Strategy

 

Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions to the Representative of the

  • Citywide Trade Association of Contractors
  • First City Bank
  • Mayor
  • Neighborhoods
  • Private Mortgage Companies
  • State Banking Commission

 

Teacher's Package (28 pages total):

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Dealing with an angry public; Delay tactics; Financial analysis; Group process; Information exchange; Joint gains; Media strategy in crisis situations; Multi-party negotiation; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Pressure tactics; Public disputes; Public opinion

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Teflex Products

Dirty Stuff II

Other angry public games

Flooding

SCENARIO:

Evantown Investments is in the final stages of a multi-year planning process for Riverview, a large, riverside mixed-use development. However, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through its Map Modernization program, recently updated Evantown's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and now Riverview falls within the 100-year floodplain (defined as an area that has a 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year). In addition, a study by the local university concludes that altered precipitation patterns brought on by climate change will put more and more properties at risk of flooding in the future. Not only do Evantown's zoning bylaws prohibit development within the 100-year floodplain, the prospect of increasing flood risks poses new questions about safety, liability, property value, appropriate protective measures, and financial responsibility. Should Evantown Investments be allowed to go through with the Riverview development? How and to what extent should Evantown take measures to protect itself against current and projected flood risks? Who is responsible for paying for whatever adaptation measures are used to protect vulnerable areas. And once the Riverview development issue is resolved, should Evantown allow future projects in current and projected floodplains.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • In a changing climate, property values may change depending on the property's location and the relative vulnerability to risk. While the ultimate extent to which vulnerabilities will change cannot be predicted, there is a general trajectory for low-lying areas to become more vulnerable to flooding. Property owners, developers and cities may need to incorporate flexible terms into property agreements to maintain fairness in the system. For example, transfer of development rights, land swaps, and flexible land uses can build more resiliency into the private property market.
  • Whenever possible, it is critical that cities use data to guide adaptation planning, such as FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Climate models are becoming more accurate and can be downscaled to regional levels. For some areas, these models predict more frequent and more intense storms; the resultant flooding events will impact existing and future development.
  • Major infrastructure decisions will be made under uncertainty of future conditions. Taking climate projections into account when designing infrastructure is particularly important because infrastructure investments are usually intended to be in place for several decades. Each city will need to discuss how conservative they wish to be with regard to projected risk. The most successful adaptation planning efforts by cities thus far seem to be those aimed at reducing climate change risks as part of ongoing infrastructure planning, growth management, and capital budgeting activities.
  • Regulations from the state and federal level will impact how local governments respond, and local laws may need to be changed in response. Cities can use changes in federal and state regulations as opportunities to assess existing city regulations, spur conversation and education around climate change adaptation, and create city-specific updates to local codes.
  • Finally, stakeholders will place different priorities on various short- and long-term goals, some of which will conflict. A short-term goal may be real estate development for economic growth, while a long-term goal may be urban growth management to protect valuable natural resources. Conducting role-playing games around issues of climate change adaptation can help to broaden perspectives, facilitate discussion, enhance scenario planning, and work toward "no-regrets" solutions in which all priorities are met.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game is one of an initial set of three games that the MIT Science Impact Collaborative has developed to illustrate the need to consider climate change in existing policy debates such as how to improve the condition of a city's housing stock, rather than only tackling climate change as a separate and comprehensive issue. The other two games written for this series are Heat Island and Water Use.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:

  • Confidential instructions to the player negotiating for:
  • Mayor J. Gray
  • Evantown Investments
  • Alliance for Evantown's Environment and Ecology (AEEE)
  • Builder's Association
  • City of Evantown Planning and Zoning Department
  • Evantown Residents' Association
  • Evantown Affordable Housing Coalition (EAHC)
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Climate change; adaptation; housing; multiparty; public dispute resolution

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Heat Islands

Water Use

Flooding and Climate Change Risks in Northam

Flooding and Climate Change Risks in Northam is a seven-person, multi-issue facilitated negotiation among local government, community, business, environmental, and engineering representatives trying to reach agreement on a strategy for managing climate change risks in a small coastal city.

 

The game focuses on managing increased probability of urban flooding by modifying stormwater regulations. It is one of four exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project.* The Northam game highlights decision-making dilemmas around implementation timelines and the use of scientific models. Financial comparisons are not explicitly listed for each regulatory option, but concerns about spending are embedded in the various stakeholder interests.

 

Scenario:

The 30,000-person coastal city of Northam has a flooding problem. Flooding in the city originates from two sources: 1) stormwater runoff from buildings and roads and 2) overflow from two tidal rivers that run through the heart of the city. In the past few years, flooding from both sources has led to costly damage and loss of business, and the threat of flooding in Northam appears to be getting worse due to climate change. The recent storm is the second “100-year storm” that Northam has experienced in the last five years. Not only have these storms increased the frequency of river flooding, they have also caused sewer collection systems to occasionally overflow on streets and into storm drains.

 

In response to public concern, Northam’s Planning Board decided to approach its Master Plan review process differently than it has in the past. The Planning Director appointed four advisory committees to discuss some of the city’s regulations and services that could be impacted by climate change, and to make recommendations about what Northam should do going forward. One of these advisory committees focuses on subdivision regulations and stormwater management. The advisory committee, which includes city officials and community leaders, has been tasked with generating recommendations about how existing subdivision and stormwater management regulations can be changed to manage flooding risk in Northam now and into the future. The recommendations of the advisory committee are likely to be accepted by the Planning Board.

 

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 climate change projections and subdivision regulations

 

Role-specific

  • Confidential instructions for:
    • Planning Director
    • Public Works Director
    • City Engineer
    • Chamber of Commerce President and Developer
    • Resident
    • Conservation Commission Chair
    • 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

Coastal Flooding in Shoreham: Responding to Climate Change Risks

Flooding in Milton: Collectively Managing Climate Change Risks

 

Flooding in Milton

Flooding in Milton 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 mid-size coastal city.

The game focuses on managing increased probability of river flooding through hard and soft infrastructure solutions, as well as land use planning. . It is one of four exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project.* The Milton game highlights potential financing strategies for various flood risk adaptation options, as well as dilemmas surrounding new commercial and residential development on undeveloped, flood-prone land along rivers.

Scenario:

Milton, a coastal city of 80,000 people, has a flooding problem. Milton recently experienced a major flooding event, during which the Granite River that runs through the city overflowed its banks, destroying or damaging many homes, businesses, and roads. The threat of flooding appears to be getting worse due to two different trends. First, over the last 50 years, as Milton and the surrounding metropolitan region have been developed, hard surfaces like roads and buildings have caused rainwater runoff to flow quickly into swollen creeks and rivers rather than drain into the ground. Second, climate projections indicate that Milton will see more rainfall and more severe storms in the future. Heavy rainfall not only causes the Granite River to flood, but it can also result in sewer collection systems overflowing onto streets and into storm drains, thus polluting Milton’s beaches and fishing waters.

 

In response to public concern, the mayor convened the River Flooding Task Force to generate recommendations about how flood risks in Milton can be managed now and into the future. The Task Force is a small working group of city officials and community leaders. If they can reach agreement on a set of actions to be taken, the mayor will make it his priority during the remainder of his administration to implement the recommendations.

 

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 requirements: 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:
    • Planning Director
    • Public Works Director
    • Executive Director, Community Action Partners
    • President, Chamber of Commerce
    • Chairperson, Geneva Heights Neighborhood Association
    • Executive Director, Alliance for Watershed Health
    • 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

Coastal Flooding in Shoreham: Responding to Climate Change Risks

Franklin Family Foundation and Westbrook Regional School District

SCENARIO:

A recent report has stated that minority groups in the Westbrook Regional School District show a significant disparity in academic performance with regards to their white peers. In response, the Executive Director of the Franklin Family Foundation (a local charitable foundation) and the Superintendent of the District have developed a tutorial program for high school minorities, to be funded be the Foundation. Reaction from the community and the School Board has been mixed. The Foundation Board of Directors and members of the community, headed by members of the school board, are meeting to discuss what should be done to proceed in improving the program. The two groups will first meet separately to determine their collective goals and objectives, and then will meet together to negotiate on the program.

 

MECHANICS:

Ideally, all parties should be given their roles at least a day in advance to prepare.

The simulation takes place in 2 parts. The first part involves the community group and the board members meeting separately for 45 minutes. The second part involves the two groups having a joint meeting for 90 minutes.

There should be 3 rooms available. 2 rooms should be set-up for a 6-person meeting and a one room should be set-up for a 12 person meeting.

 

Time Requirements:

  • At least 30 minutes and preferably 1 day: preparation
  • 45 minutes: separate meetings of the two groups
  • 90 minutes: joint meeting of the two groups
  • At least 45 minutes: debrief
  • Total of at least 210 minutes

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation presents the opportunity to discuss creatively and to address a realistic problem facing many public education systems today.
  • The issues, and the participant's stances on those issues, do not divide neatly. Part of the challenge of this negotiation is figuring out what is important to the individual players. Only once that is clear, can the participants begin to craft a creative solution to which the parties can agree.
  • The internal negotiations within each side can quickly dissolve into interpersonal bickering and posturing.
  • Learning how to work together in the face of past disagreements is key to this negotiation. Separating internal or external negotiations properly is the key to consensus building in multi-party negotiations.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation is part of a series in the Council on Foundations.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General instructions
  • Profile of Westbrook Regional School District
  • Study titled “bridging the gap” on academic performances of ethnic groups
  • Notes on logistics and objectives
  • Worksheet for preparing for negotiations

 

Role Specific:

Foundation Board Members –

  • Ellen Rigby Franklin, Chairman of the Board
  • Thomas F. Leighton, Executive Director
  • Stephen J. Franklin, III, Board Member
  • Nancy Franklin Michaels, Ph.D., Board Member
  • Kevin Macloud, Board Member
  • Dr. Suzanne Lowe, Board Member

 

Community Members –

  • Martin O'Leary, Board President
  • Ruth Simone, Board Member
  • Julia Statner, Superintendent of Schools
  • Kyle Whitberg, President of PTA
  • Lynda Johnson, President of African-American Leaders
  • John Rayburn, President of Westbrook NEA

 

Teacher’s Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Notes on logistics and major lessons

 

KEYWORDS:

Foundations; education reform; community consultation, multi-party negotiation; collaborative problem-solving

Gadgets, Inc.

SCENARIO:

Over the past eight months, Gadgets, Inc. (‘Gadgets’), a metal plating firm, has failed to comply with state regulations on the concentrations of copper and lead in their waste water. Gadgets' required monthly reports to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have been accurate, but the violations were overlooked by DEP for the first five months. When DEP noticed Gadgets' violations three months ago, it demanded immediate compliance and five months worth of fines.

Gadgets officials were surprised and upset. Citing economic hardship, past good faith efforts and its role in the local economy, Gadgets requested a delay in paying the fines while it explored options for rectifying its pollution problem. DEP initially agreed, but has now come under fire from environmental activist.

In the midst of this situation, the Innovative Technology Program (‘ITS’) of DEP has announced a new system for pollution prevention. ITS has been looking for a middle-sized firm to test its new system and DEP has ordered Gadgets to install this new system for further testing. The environmental activists now believe that Gadgets is getting off the hook, and that the system has not been sufficiently tested for use in a working firm.

Following the procedures of DEP's Innovative Technology Program, the Environmental Secretary's Special Assistant has called a meeting of interested parties to discuss four issues: (1) the choice of a pollution prevention technology; (2) a possible DEP subsidy for the installation of the new pollution prevention system at Gadgets; (3) the payment of fines by Gadgets; and (4) the frequency of and responsibility for monitoring of compliance by Gadgets. In addition to the Environmental Secretary's Special Assistant, the meeting will include representatives from Gadgets management, the Gadgets workers' union, two environmental activist groups, and the EPA.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This case provides a useful context for examining the dynamics of regulatory, particular compliance, negotiations. It also for examination of multi-party negotiation dynamics, such as coalition building and blocking, meeting design, and caucusing. Because there is a wide range of possible agreements, it can be interesting to compare agreements (and non-agreements) reached by different groups. The presence of scientific and technical uncertainty raises issues about the value of contingent agreement.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions
  • Schedule of potential fines for Gadgets Inc.

 

Role Specific:

  • Gadgets Inc. Vice President
  • Gadgets Inc. Workers Union President
  • Chief Water Scientist for Newberg Bay
  • Director of Deep Green environmental body
  • Environmental Protection Agency representative
  • Environmental Secretary Special Assistant

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiation; regulatory compliance; science-intensive policy disputes; environmental dispute resolution

Global Management of Organochlorines

Also known as Chlorine Game

SCENARIO:

In light of recent evidence indicating that organochlorine compounds may pose serious risks to human health and the environment, the Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has decided to gather a Working Group composed of representatives from eight countries, as well as four representatives from various relevant non-governmental organizations to produce a draft of an international treaty which would call for a phase out some of the most harmful organochlorines. Such a process entails resolution, at some level, of the scientific issues surrounding the potential dangers of widespread chlorine usage. Some argue that scientific evidence pointing to the dangers of chlorine is inconclusive, while environmental activists cite the issue as urgent. The issues that must be addressed are (i) how quickly and at what cost should organochlorines be phased out; (ii), which parties should bear the cost of the phase out; (iii) how should the Working Group be administrated and (iv) what impact should NGO’s have on the Working Group.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Underscores the relevance of general lessons about the "basic" skills of negotiations as they apply to multi-party, multi-issue negotiation: i.e. active listening, improving one's BATNA, focusing on interests instead of positions, inventing options of mutual gain, etc.
  • Enhances understanding about political dynamics and substantive outcomes likely to merge during an actual negotiation of a global treaty on organochlorines. Provides a means for exploring the technical, political and economic issues likely to be at stake in such a treaty negotiation.
  • Imparts an understanding of the dynamics of international environmental treaty negotiations as they are currently conducted.
  • Identifies who the critical actors in international environmental treaty negotiation are, what kinds of interests they bring to the table, why these interests are often seen to be in conflict, and how they might potentially be reconciled through a process of joint problem-solving.
  • Emphasizes the importance of understanding the interests of internal constituencies and designing negotiation strategies which manage the link between internal and external negotiations. This game also teaches the importance of creating external coalitions without letting internal coalitions crumble.
  • Demonstrates the value of organizing informal dialogue as a precursor to the formal convention-protocol treaty-making process.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a highly intensive exercise with considerable logistical requirements. A room with seating for 13 (or 25 depending on the number of participants) is required. Parties should be able to hear each other and the use of microphones is sometimes necessary. At least one break-out room is suggested. Given the long duration of this exercise, refreshments are also advised. This lengthy, complex case requires several hours of preparation time as well as several hours of negotiation time. Teaching staff are advised to be particularly well versed in these materials before commencing this game. Estimated Time Requirement8 hours spread over 2 days. The game can be played in an alternative short version which takes about 4 hours.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Draft Convention on the Limitation of Chlorine in the Global Environment
  • Memo to Director of the Departmnet of Multinational Trade Issues re UNEP Working Group on Global Management of Organochlorines

 

Role specific individual instructions for:

  • International Council of Scientific Associations (ICSA) Negotiator
  • International Union for the Conservation of the Environment (IUCE) Negotiator (including Proposal to License Substitute Products and Processes to Address the Global Chlorine Problem)
  • Representative from GreenStrategies
  • Chair of United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
  • Representative from Czech Republic
  • Representative from People's Republic of China
  • Representative from Germany (including Chlorine Reduction Proposal from the Federal Republic of Germany)
  • Representative from the United States
  • Representative from Brazil
  • Representative from India
  • Representative from Japan
  • Representative from Norway (including Proposed Treaty Text for Licensing Agreement from Government of Norway)

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Notes

 

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Multiparty negotiation; multi-lateral treaty making; environmental dispute resolution; mediating science-intensive policy disputes

Great Negotiator 2022: Christiana Figueres

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.

PON honored Christiana Figueres as its Great Negotiator in April 2022. This included a public session interview attended by students, faculty, and guests at Harvard Law School, as well as an in-depth private session interview, where Figueres answered questions and offered insights on the negotiation process. Both the public and private video interviews are included in the Great Negotiator 2022: Christiana Figueres video package. Below, check out a preview of the private session interview with Figueres and Professors James Sebenius and Hannah Riley Bowles:

These videos can be paired with the Christiana Figueres and the Collective Approach to Negotiating Climate Action case study, available for purchase separately from the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC).

Harborco

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts and track learning outcomes, the Harborco All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need. The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Harborco. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

SCENARIO:

Harborco is a consortium of development, industrial, and shipping concerns interested in building and operating a deepdraft port. It has already selected a site for the port, but cannot proceed without a license from the Federal Licensing Agency (FLA). The FLA is willing to grant Harborco a license, but only if it secures the support of at least 4 of 5 other parties: the environmental coalition, the federation of labor unions, a consortium of other ports in the region, the Federal Department of Coastal Resources (DCR), and the Governor of the host state. The parties have several issues to negotiate before deciding whether or not to approve the port, including the types of industries that will be be permitted to locate near the port, the extent to which environmental damage be mitigated, the extent to which organized labor will be given preference in hiring during construction and operation of the port, the amount of any federal financial assistance to Harborco, and the amount of any compensation to other ports in the region for potential economic losses?

 

MECHANICS:

This game is best played with 12 people (2 per role) although 6 people also works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions. Game instructions require at least 30 minutes to read; more preparation is helpful. Negotiations require a minimum of 2 hours. However, the more time allowed for negotiation, the better.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (6-way) agreement.
  • Players are exposed to elementary utility analysis in the point scoring scheme. The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. The players can then explore how and why different negotiating strategies led to different outcomes.
  • Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions–especially blocking coalitions. This game provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies.
  • Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all one’s concerns are illustrated in this game.
  • Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements are illustrated by the scores.
  • When 12 players play the game (2 per role) they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of negotiations involving non-monolithic parties.
  • The need for a neutral “process manager” of some sort is also illustrated, as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.
  • The advantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucuses; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions to the Negotiator for:

  • Harborco
  • Other Ports
  • Environmental League
  • Union
  • Federal DCR
  • Governor

 

Teacher’s package (67 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note
  • Game Review Chart

 

Please note that this exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Delay tactics; Information exchange; Joint gains; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

Heat Islands

SCENARIO:

The city of Evantown experienced two deadly heat waves last summer that revealed the extent of climate change in the region and the poor condition of the city’s low-income housing stock. The greatest casualties during the heat wave were among the elderly and the children of low-income families living in aging public and rental housing. Now the new mayor, who won election decrying the previous mayor’s stumbling response to the crisis, has called together a group of stakeholders to decide how the city should undertake a program of housing retrofits to reduce vulnerability to extreme heat. Should the retrofits focus on public housing or low-income rental housing? Should the city government bear all the cost, or should private homeowners and landlords contribute? What scale and pace of response is appropriate given the uncertainty of climate change and the high costs involved in achieving resilience?

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Public policy decisions related to climate change must take into account political, economic, and historical realities. Social and environmental justice issues will certainly arise.
  • Effective debate on climate adaptation will require a reliance on shared data and forecasts, which may be interpreted differently, but which can provide a believable basis for discussion.
  • Agreement depends on finding ways to package multiple issues together so that different groups can secure their highest priorities while relaxing their demands in other areas. Tackling issues separately almost always leads to deadlock.
  • The most feasible adaptation measures are those that meet multiple goals, including objectives that are independent of climate change (and all the uncertainties that come with it). We call these no-regrets actions. They can form the core of a more far-reaching response.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game is one of an initial set of three games that the MIT Science Impact Collaborative has developed to illustrate the need to consider climate change in existing policy debates such as how to improve the condition of a city’s housing stock, rather than only tackling climate change as a separate and comprehensive issue. The other two games written for this series are Water Use and Flooding.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role Specific:

Confidential instructions to the player negotiating for:

  • Mayor J. Gray
  • Director of City Planning Department
  • Director of Public Housing Authority
  • Evantown Homeowners Association
  • Senior Citizens Organization
  • Evantown Environmental and Social Action
  • Construction Industry

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Climate change; adaptation; housing; multiparty negotiating; public dispute resolution;

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Flooding

 

Water Use

Hitana Bay Development Simulation

SCENARIO:

The city of Hitana lies next to Hitana Bay on the Caribbean island of Barhamia. The government of Hitana is currently considering several redevelopment proposals for the region. The Port Authority and major shippers are urging improvements to the deep-water port; the City of Hitana and a private real estate partnership seek to redevelop the warehouse district for business, commercial, and residential use; and the nongovernmental Coalition for Hitana Bay Heritage proposes to take environmental protection measures around Hitana Bay.

The Prime Minister's Office has convened a Task Force that includes representatives of the ten major groups involved in, and potentially affected by, the proposed projects. The ten representatives include the Prime Minister's Special Assistant for Economic Development, the Deputy Minister of Environment for Coastal Zone Management, the Director of the Port Authority of Hitana, the Director of the City of Hitana Planning Offic, the Executive Vice-President of Harborside Properties Group, the Executive Director of the Coalition for Hitana Bay Heritage, the Vice-President for International Trade of the Barhamia Chamber of Commerce, the President of the Port of Hitana Workers Union, the Director of the Hitana Bay Fishermen's Federation, and the International Waters Division Chief of the Global Environment Fund.

This simulation is designed to include pre-meeting caucuses among selected Task Force members, an initial round of Task Force negotiations, and a final round of Task Force negotiations.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Introduces participants to the challenge of integrating economic, environmental, and social goals at the project level
  • Raises questions of whether and how multi-stakeholder representation can work in social and political contexts where pluralistic decisionmaking is not the norm
  • Raises questions about the dynamics of multi-stakeholder representation where some interest group have weaker social organization and political representation than others
  • Illustrates the importance of individual preparation and group process to the outcome of multi-stakeholder negotiations
  • Encourages participants to experiment with "mutual gains" strategies such as distinguishing interests from positions; using joint-fact finding to clarify issues and options; using "what-if" proposals to develop mutually acceptable options; building and broadening coalitions in the search for consensus; and crafting contingent agreements to manage differences in beliefs about the likelihood and impact of various possible outcomes.

 

MECHANICS:

Participants are required to absorb a large amount of technical information in order to play this game. The game itself requires approximately 8 hours to prepare, play, and debrief. It is suggested that the game be run over 2 days.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • very extensive teaching notes
  • debrief notes
  • a spreadsheet (provided electronically) for debriefing
  • in depth confidential instructions for 10 different roles
  • the teaching package contains a total of 131 pages

 

KEYWORDS:

Sustainable development; international negotiation; environmental dispute resolution; consensus building; multi-party negotiation; joint fact finding; corporate assisted negotiation.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Managing Groundwater Beneath the Pablo-Burford Border

Homelessness in Niceville

SCENARIO:

Recent publicity in a prominent national newspaper about the town of Niceville's expanding homeless population, has caused the Ledbetter Foundation to address the issue of homelessness with a one-time grant of $500,000. The simulation explores the role a facilitator can play in this type of community problem-solving effort. The stakeholders represent five different attitudes towards homelessness which are sometimes contrary, yet lend themselves to coalition building. It is up to the foundation representative to reconcile the parties’ philosophical differences to develop a satisfactory “package”. 

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • It is important to distinguish stated positions from underlying interests. In order to reach a successful conclusion each party must prioritize its desired outcomes and be willing to forgo some to achieve others.
  • The facilitator must be able to keep the discussion focused on the "issues" and not allow disagreements among the parties to bog down the group.
  • The group should take advantage of private discussions or caucuses. Though no two groups will agree on everything, coalition building will be helpful in building consensus.
  • All interests should be fully represented in the discussions for as long as possible; however, the game requires only four of the five players (excluding the foundation representative) to reach agreement. It is up to the stakeholder to decide how flexible they will be in light of the fact that they run the risk of being excluded. The group as a whole must determine the advantages and disadvantages of excluding a stakeholder.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General instructions
  • Background information on relevant stakeholders present at the meeting
  • Suggested proposals for grant money
  • Newspaper article on homelessness in Niceville
  • Worksheet for negotiation preparation

 

Role Specific:

  • Homeless shelter operator
  • Director of the Governor's Task Force on Homelessness
  • Representative from the Homeless Union
  • Chair of the Niceville Homeowners Association
  • Chair of the Community Service League

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Notes on logistics, debrief questions and bibliography for further reading.

 

KEYWORDS:

Community foundation; facilitation; philanthropy; social service; homelessness; multiparty negotiation, consensus building

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS

Blueville Health Foundation; Wintertime in Winterville; Franklin Family Foundation; Westbrook Regional School District

How to Handle the Public Health Impacts of Climate Change

SCENARIO:

Mapleton, a city of 100,000, has just completed a Climate Vulnerability Assessment. The assessment shows that extreme heat and possible flooding associated with climate change pose substantial threats to the city. City officials asked an Advisory Group to suggest ways of preparing for possible emergencies and preventing injury and loss of life. The Advisory Group will have to wrestle with different risk management strategies and come to agreement if they want to have an impact.

This is a seven-party role-play simulation involving city officials, university planners, business representatives, and environmentalists trying to figure out how their city should respond to the possible public health impacts of climate change. The exercise introduces a public health orientation that is often lacking from local efforts to figure out how to adapt to climate risks.

Participants must consider the short-term and long-term public health impacts of climate change while assessing the pros can cons of specific (and conflicting) risk management strategies.

RESEARCH:

A recent article published in Nature Climate Change titled Role-play simulations for climate change adaptation education and engagement provides “rigorous empirical evidence” showing how negotiation role-plays like How to Handle the Public Health Impacts of Climate Change can “enhance collaborative capacity,” “foster social learning” and increase the readiness of citizens and professionals to engage in climate change adaptation efforts.

MAJOR LESSONS:

  1. City officials should take public health risks into account when trying to prioritize strategies for climate adaptation.
  2. Local climate change policies need to take account of both short-term and long-term public health risks and benefits.
  3. In managing the public health risks of climate change, who should be responsible and who should bear the costs – residents, private sector, local government, state government, or the federal government?
  4. Climate vulnerability assessments can be used to educate residents about localized risks and vulnerable populations. They are only useful, though, if they stimulate discussion about actions that can and should be taken.
  5. Climate adaptation policies can provide co-benefits. That is, actions like building green infrastructure can reduce public health risks while simultaneously achieving environmental protection goals.
  6. Local climate adaptation efforts should take account of the need for local governments to work together during emergencies and deal with public health risks through joint action.
  7. It is hard to bring together representatives of numerous groups to engage in joint problem solving or collaborative risk management. Professional (neutral) facilitation can make the task much easier.
  8. Infrastructure investments will continue to affect communities long after they are made.
    Building in flexibility and committing to ongoing monitoring of shifting circumstances can make it easier to adjust and adapt.
  9. Stakeholders have competing interests and values that shape their views on proposed climate risk management policies. Groups can find solutions that meet their conflicting interests, but only if they listen carefully to each other’s concerns and construct “packages” that seek to meet multiple interests simultaneously.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

    • General Instructions

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions for:

  • City Manager
  • Director of Public Housing
  • Director of Public Health
  • Executive Director, Neighbors for a Green Mapleton (NGM)
  • Long-Range Planner for Mapleton University
  • President, Mapleton Chamber of Commerce
  • Facilitator

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

MECHANICS:

This game requires seven players – one representing each of six stakeholder groups, plus a facilitator. Multiple groups of seven can play the game simultaneously.

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Public Health Enhanced Package click here.