$0.00 – $6.00
Tod Loofbourrow, Lawrence Susskind, Denise Madigan and Wendy Rundle
Six-party, multi-issue negotiation among state and local government, enviromental, and industry representatives to select one of three sites for low-level radioactive waste disposal
The state is required by federal law to site a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) facility within a year. The state's Public Management Authority (PMA), responsible for constructing and operating the facility, has identified three candidate sites. One of these sites must be chosen. The PMA is empowered to impose a site selection decision, but would prefer to see the six other stakeholder groups negotiate an agreement on one of the sites. If at least five of the six can reach agreement on a site, that site will be chosen. In the absence of an agreement, the PMA will select a site on its own. The six other stakeholders are: the town of Alford where Site A is located; the town of Bellman where Site B is located; the town of Crandon where Site C is located; a coalition of environmental groups; the Radioactive Waste Generators' Association; and the Governor's representative. The negotiations are divided into two rounds (though the players do not know this at the outset). In Round 1, the parties attempt to negotiate an agreement taking into account only the technical merits of each site. In Round 2, the negotiators are empowered to introduce other considerations, including financial compensation to the host community, legislative and administrative actions to reduce the level of LLW generated in the state, shared management and control of the LLW facility, and litigation assistance to parties involved in other environmental disputes.
- Compensation: The importance of compensation considerations in siting negotiations is illustrated. Benefits need to be created to off-set costs in order to build consensus.
- Benefits of 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 led to different outcomes. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (6-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 an outcome is.
- Pareto-curve:Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior arguments can be examined as illustrated by the scores.
- Importance of neutrals: The need for a neutral "process manager" of some sort is illustrated as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.
- 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.
- Internal vs. External dynamics: When 14 players play the game (2 per role), they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of simultaneous "internal" and "external" negotiations.
The exercise works well with either 6 players (1 per role) or 12 players (2 per role).
Room for 7 or 14 people and break out rooms. Flip charts and markers are advised. A game manager is needed to facilitate process but who takes no part in substantive decision making.
For all parties:
- General Instructions
- Environmental Impact Statement Abstracts
- Urgent Memo
Confidential and Supplementary Instructions for the
- Environmental Coalition
- Association of Radwaste Generators
- Town of Alford
- Town of Bellman
- Town of Crandon
- All of the above
- Solution Set (Includes: Game Manager's Instructions and Debriefing Information)
Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Environmental dispute resolution; Fairness; Facility siting and land use planning; Group process; Information exchange; Issue control; Joint gains; Linkage; low level radioactive waste management; Managing uncertainty; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Multi-party negotiation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Risk aversion; Science-intensive policy diputes; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis
Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona
Hitana Bay Development Simulation
Humboldt – Mediating a Regional Development Dispute
Radwaste II Attributes
|Time required:||3-5 hours|
|Number of participants:||6|
|Neutral third party present:||Mediator|
|Teaching notes available:||Yes|