$0.00 – $6.00
Tod Loofbourrow, Lawrence Susskind, Denise Madigan and Wendy Rundle
Seven-party, multi-issue, scoreable negotiation among regulatory, environmental, tribal, local government, and industry representatives to choose criteria for selecting a low-level radioactive waste disposal site
The state is required by federal law to site a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility within a year. The State Regulatory Agency responsible for siting the facility must develop a set of criteria. This agency is empowered to decide the criteria on its own, but would prefer to have these negotiated by parties specifically concerned about this issue of low-level radioactive waste. Seven stakeholder groups have an interest in the negotiation. If at least five of the seven agree to a set of ten siting criteria, these criteria will be adopted by the State Agency. In the absence of an agreement, the State will promulgate its own criteria. The seven parties include: a State Management Authority responsible for operating the facility; the Indian Tribal Council; a moderate environmental coalition; a more radical coalition of environmental and anti-nuclear activists; the Municipal and County Governments' Association; the Radioactive Waste Generators' Association; and the Governor's Blue-Ribbon Panel of Science and Economic Advisors.
The exercise is best played with 7 people (1 per role), although 14 people (2 per role) works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions.
Estimated Time Requirements:
Exercise instructions require at least 30 minutes to read. The negotiation requries at least 1-1/2 hours; more time is preferable. At least 30 minutes should be set aside for the debrief.
- Benefits of a simultaneous iteration: When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The players can explore how and why different negotiating strategies lead to different outcomes. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (7-way) agreement.
- Pre-negotiation analysis: The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. This game using stylized 'points' to indicate how desirable a particular option is.
- Coalitions: This simulation provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies. Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions; especially blocking coalitions.
- Disclosure issues: Parties that reveal their true interests may or may not do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one's interests are illustrated in this negotiation.
- Pareto-curve: Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements can be examined as illustrated by the scores.
- Internal vs. External dynamics: When 14 players play the game (2 per role), they have an opportunity to explore the sepcial difficulties of simultaneous "internal" and "external" negotiations.
- Importance of neutrals: The need for a neutral "process manager" of some sort is illustrated as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.
- Impact of Caucusing: The advantages and disadvantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucusing; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.
- Science-intensive issues: The special qualities of environmental disputes are evident particularly the importance of scientific and ideological considerations.
For all parties:
- General Information
Confidential instructions for the
- Governor's Blue Ribbon Committee
- Environmental Coalition
- Public Management Authority
- Association of Radwaste Generators
- Green Wave
- State Association of Municipal and County Governments Federated Indian Tribal Council
- All of the above
- Detailed Teaching Notes
Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Environmental disputes; Facility siting; Group process; Information exchange; Issue control; Joint gains; Linkage; Low level radioactive waste; Managing uncertainty; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Multi-party negotiation; Native American negotiation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Preparation; Pressure tactics; Regulated policy negotiation; Reservation price; Science-intensive policy disputes; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis
Managing Groundwater beneath the Pablo-Burford Border
Puerto Mauricio's Development Conflict
Residential Development in Tienhuizen
Radwaste I Attributes
|Time required:||2-3 hours|
|Number of participants:||7|
|Neutral third party present:||None|
|Teaching notes available:||Yes|
|Non-English version available:||Italian|