introductionportals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/conflictmg_fisheries... · web viewsolution...

INTRODUCTION

This Course Element constitutes a general introduction to the theory of Conflict Management and its application to fisheries.

Change almost always brings about conflicts between the needs and wishes of different stakeholder groups. Conflict prevention by consensus building and when applicable conflict resolution, are needed to win the support of a maximum of stakeholders. Conflict Management offers approaches that help in preventing or resolving conflicts. It is important to note that conflict management has a cultural dimension as different cultures will have different ways of perceiving, acknowledging and approaching a conflict. In short, conflict management recognises that conflicts are a normal part of life but that well managed they can be an important force for positive change allowing people to fully express their views in a peaceful setting and to learn about each others perception of the same questions. A facilitator may be required to match these different perceptions and to express the perception of the conflict for each group of stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis (e.g. Stakeholder Conflict and Partnership Matrix, Social Mapping) is therefore an important part of the process. Power issues appear when specific groups (e.g. women) have a limited access to resource use or to decision-making.

The primary goal of this course element is to identify different kinds of conflicts and conflict management techniques relevant to the fisheries sector.

Programme

Conflict RecognitionA game will introduce the concept of conflict recognition. The definition and evolution of a conflict will be discussed during a brainstorming session. Concepts will be fixed with the help of summary sheets.

Conflict TypologyThe basic concepts for the understanding of conflict typology will be introduced. Questions regarding a simulated case study will bring about the perception of the various possible types of conflicts. Concepts will be fixed with the help of summary sheets

Conflict Management MethodologyThe basic concepts for conflict management will be introduced. A brainstorming session will bring about the various possible types of methodologies in relation to the types of conflicts. Concepts will be fixed with the help of summary sheets

ConclusionThe group will draw the overall conclusion for the session.

Spliethoff & Staljanssens Conflict Management

CONFLICT RECOGNITION

Game

Brainstorming

Consolidation

Authors define conflicts as a disagreement between two or more parties resulting from an incompatibility of goals, interests, perceptions or values. A conflict essentially results from the division of means (the access to a resource, capital or competence - instrumental conflicts), a divergence of views (the perception of own identity, issues or the environment - social-emotional conflicts) or a divergence of interests (use or conservation of resources - interests conflicts). The conflict emerges from the frustrations of one of the parties blocked in its objectives or feelings. Conflicts are seen as disruptive to the normal way of activities, lengthening the decision-making process because they carry an emotional load that causes lack of commitment, instability and chaos.Conflict management procedures and techniques are more or less structured processes attempting the resolution of anticipated or existing conflicts before reaching the threshold of juridical confrontation by involving all concerned, including if need be, a neutral third party. Conflict management regards conflict as a normal feature of life that also has positive characteristics like stimulating change, activities and group identity or cohesion.

Evolution of a Resource Use ConflictSpecialists traditionally recognise 6 steps in a conflict: Goal definition Competition Entrenching Negotiation Collaboration Mutual benefit

A conflict is a dynamic phenomenon. The conflict may remain latent or dormant for some time as long as the parties are not yet aware of their different goals and of the competition. The problem may then resolve or escalate. With the growing awareness, the erupting conflict will be recognised by all parties who will define their attitude toward the others. Especially In the entrenching stage, groups will see the strengthening of their identity and animosity toward outsiders with an increasing sense of belonging to the rightful group and a biased perception of the others. From polite, the conflict may then become manifest when parties express their antagonisms using various forms of aggression.

The spiral of aggression is commonly described following a sequence:1. competition of arguments to make a point and prove oneself right;2. isolation to make separate plans; loss of sight of the issue with

oversimplification, negative anticipation of the reaction of other parties and moral judgement;

3. personalisation of the conflict, threatening and making strong demands;4. open aggression causing damage and destruction to other parties.


Resource Use Driven Conflict Compete with others for the use of resource Hamper the normal way of other activities Prevent other uses of the resource or area Change the resource so that it is unusable Remove the resource from the environment Alter the environmental quality Increase the impact of natural hazards

Reasons for Conflicts in Resource Use High population concentration in coastal areas increasing the pressure on

fishing grounds Common property resources (issue of access rights and open access to

foreign fleets) Multiple pressures on limited resources (competition between different users) Multiparty dynamics (sectors, groups, organisations) High expected returns, risks, or issues High scientific uncertainty (questionable threshold values and knowledge gap) Offsite impacts (across boundaries)


CONFLICT TYPOLOGY

Basic Concepts

Conflict Analysis (1) Conflict Identification: highlight actual and potential conflicts Conflict Typology: define the conflict type(s) and appropriate resolving

method Stakeholder Analysis: identify all individuals and groups involved Solution Procedure: apply the appropriate steps toward reaching a consensus

Conflict Analysis (2) Issues: suitabilities and constraints of Marine Utilisation Types allow for an

environmental and social assessment Conflicts: the activity requirements make it possible to foresee resource use

competition Stakeholders: the partners are the individuals, sectors, authorities, or

pressure groups Set Up: external conditions defining the boundaries of the conflict are the

legal and institutional structures

Groups of StakeholdersJust to name a few: Government (national, regional, local) Departments (ministry, directorate, agency) Sectors of activity (harvest, use, transform) Interests groups (sector, profession, activist) General Public (anybody who takes interest in the matter)

Stakeholder AnalysisAn important element in the Logical Framework, it groups stakeholders in various aspects based on their possible relationships: Active Group (proponents, authorities) Beneficiaries (local communities) Affected Group (the part of society affected by the implementation, divided

according to feelings between the Potential Supporters and the Potential Opponents)

Pressure Groups (with their own agenda) Winners & Losers

ParticipationVarious levels of participation are recognised based on cultural, societal or political structures: Marginal (no involvement) Informal (possible but not organised and hence ineffective) Motivated (ad hoc consultation) Partial (limited to some phases of the process)


Full (organised within a definite procedure)

Reasons for Participation Failure Cultural (not in the traditions) Ignorance (of the procedures perhaps too complex to understand or follow) Importance (people have in fact other priorities) Immobility, erosion (lack, drop of interest) Scepticism (lack of faith) Conjectural (not qualified, representative and thus not the right people) Structural (no procedure, no forum and thus not the right place)

Case Study

Consolidation

The Circle of ConflictOne approach in conflict identification is known as the circle of conflict. Positioning the problem in the circle helps analysing causes and finding solutions. The five recognised categories of conflicts are described hereunder.

Data Conflicts are caused by lack of information, spreading of inaccurate information or misinformation, different views on what are relevant data, different interpretations of available data, or different assessment procedures. The point is to reach an agreement on which data are important, to agree on data collection procedures, to develop common criteria for data assessment by, for example, relying on third party experts to gain outside opinion or break through bottlenecks and deadlocks.

Needs and Interest Conflicts are due to perceived or actual competition between substantive (e.g. the fishing grounds, the stock), procedural (e.g. incentives, fees or levies) or psychological (e.g. environmental awareness) interests. Possible solutions are reached by focusing on interests instead of on the positions, looking for objective criteria, developing integrative solutions addressing the needs of all parties, searching for ways of expanding options or resources, and by developing trade-offs satisfying interests of different strength, hence, sharing the benefits of the project.

Structural Conflicts proceed from geographic, physical or environmental factors as well as time constraints that hinder co-operation. The lack of appropriate procedures and legislation is here often to blame. But also, from the general set up and role distribution of a situation, from unequal power and authority in the decision-making process, form negative patterns of behaviour and interaction, or from the unequal control, ownership or distribution of resources. Possible solutions comprise the clear definition and acceptance of roles and levels of authority when needed with external mediation or arbitrage, the reallocation of rights and entitlements, the relocation of the negotiation platform at a convenient distance from the field, the establishment of a fair, transparent and acceptable decision-making process. This involves the replacement of negative behaviour and positional attitudes by interest-based persuasive trade-off bargaining negotiation in an appropriate timeframe.


Cultural differences bring about Value Conflicts of various kinds. Next to the economical value of nature, goods and services, there is the difficulty to define criteria for evaluating ideas or behaviour, the variability in ways of life or perception of what is important in frame of the prevailing local ideological or religious context. Values are in fact part of the indigenous knowledge and at the basis of people choices and priorities. Direct attempts to change the values of a group do usually face strong opposition. Challenging values is thus not the appropriate approach but issues should be redefined in other terms than cultural values. Parties should agree to disagree on their own values while looking for a common superior goal they all can share. Ignoring value differences can cause a great deal of trouble.The most useless conflicts probably are those grouped under the name Relationship Conflicts. These involve strong disagreement between deciders on the basis of strong emotions or dislikes, misperceptions or stereotypes, poor communication leading to an accumulation of wrong assumptions, and repetitive negative behaviour. Therefore, appropriate communication channels should be installed, people should learn to control their expression and build positive perception skills in order to develop a positive problem-solving attitude. People with a negative attitude should whenever possible be removed from their position or made harmless. Personality clashes are for example, frequent between the stakeholders and the representatives of the authorities.The distinction between unnecessary and genuine conflicts is quite artificial. The circle of conflict can be used in a participatory manner with all stakeholders. It should be noted that there is a possible overlap between categories and that a given conflict does not necessarily perfectly fit into one single category. Different tools can be used in support of the approach. For example, listing Resources, Constraints, Risks and Investments per stakeholder (Resource and Constraints Analysis) or performing a SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) per activity.To make full use of the population’s indigenous knowledge of traditional practices based on limited use of external inputs, value restoration and consensus building will be the first priority. Good communication and information exchange is here vital. In order to discuss and test possible new conservatory practices, Participatory Technology Development (PTD) could be tried. For the evaluation of the application of new solutions, an integrated approach involving participatory alternative building and comparison is recommended.

Conflict Typology (2)To summarise: Data or Facts: a joint effort in the collection can resolve differences in views,

assessment or interpretation of data Needs or Interests: negotiation is required in case of competition for usage,

resource sharing, or lack of Willingness to Pay (WTP) Values or ideas: by reformulating, intolerance, ethnic or cultural

disagreements that easily mobilise masses can be lifted Relationship: intercede to cope with personal dislike, negative attitude, and

credibility issues

Conflict Typology (3)The opposition between Structural and Conjectural conflicts is often emphasised.


Structural conflicts are seen as a factor of change. They can proceed from various reasons: societal, the structure permits an unequal access to resources or the decision-making procedures are too vague or complex; political, the structure favours indecisiveness.

Conjectural conflicts play a role of early warning, pointing at critical points. Such are, for example, climate change causing a shift in activity or location, a natural hazard or disaster causing an emergency situation or displaced populations, refugees

Conflict Typology (4)Conflict definition is another possible distinction. Well-defined conflicts are prone to analysis and can be resolved by mediation.

There are well-identified actors, clear boundaries and sharp constraints. Ill-defined conflicts must first be structured to make any form of evaluation

possible. These are characterised by unclear actors, objectives or values, overlapping issues, barely quantifiable terms.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Basic Concepts

The type of conflict, the stage of development and the comportment of the conflicting parties will define the approach.

Premises in Conflict Resolution Once again, Conflict is a normal process in society where parties have

different views about an issue (over-fishing). Each party however from its own perspective has a rational and legitimate claim or stake in the issue

Conflict will only be satisfactorily resolved with the participation of all stakeholders

Power imbalance virtually always is part of the issue and introduces a flaw in the negotiation process. This must be taken care of by the mediating party

Opponents are neither monolithic in their views nor uniformly adversarial

Interest-based bargainingStakeholders will want to confront their interests in satisfying their needs. They bargain for a better possibility to achieve their goals. Most often they will express their interests in terms of a single solution (their position) to the problem. In Interest-based Bargaining it is important that all interests be addressed and that stakeholders be stimulated to come up with their views. The facilitator should aim at understanding the emotional dynamics beyond the statements of interests, identifying the values and interest that underlie positions and separating them so as to defuse value conflicts, bringing parties to review the history of the conflict in a neutral setting under a new “positive” light. Through common brainstorming, options and alternatives can be listed regardless of their practical feasibility, and assessment criteria can be discussed that will be agreed upon to evaluate solutions. Starting with higher level general requirements makes a general agreement more likely. The further detailing should justify the legitimacy of the needs of the various groups. The conflict will only be satisfactorily resolved if none of the groups of interests is left out of the process. Moreover, it is vital to avoid focusing on positions, as this could block the


process. Instead, creative solutions can be found when the focus is on identifying and satisfying legitimate needs and interests.

Brainstorming

Consolidation

Conflict Resolution (1)Levels of intervention are classically defined: Consensus Building (Prevention) Relationship Building (Facilitation) Procedural Assistance (Moderation) Substantive Assistance (Mediation) Advisory Assistance (Arbitrage) Binding Assistance (Judgement)

The continuum of conflict management and resolution approachesVarious representations of the Continuum of Conflict Management can be found in literature. One example is given below. From left to right there is a general increase of coercion and likelihood of reaching a win-lose situation. The decision-making is private by the parties or with help of a third party, authoritative under control of a third party often with legal enforcement powers, extralegal when the decision is forced by direct or violent action.

Avoidance

Discussion

Negotiation Mediation AdministrativeDecision

Arbitration JudicialDecision

LegislativeDecision

DirectAction

ViolentAction

Private, by the parties themselves, or

third party Authoritative, by third party

Legal authoritative Extralegal coercive

Conflict Resolution (2) the Choice:A choice must be made regarding methodological aspects: The appropriate Methodology (consensus building, conciliation, negotiation) The Communication mode that can be direct or guided (through a third party)

as well as free or imposed (by a third party) sometimes also called the process.

The level of Interaction by the third party providing guidance (facilitator) or thorough intervention (mediator)

Conflict Resolution (3) the Requirements:Whatever the methodology, to be able to build upon achievements and to tackle future developments, parties must pay attention to ensure appropriate: Documentation (document the applied method(s)) Feedback (compare achievements to expectations to conclude on

effectiveness) Analysis (determine the reasons of success or failure, select an alternative

method if needed)


Conflict Resolution (4) the Techniques:Conflict resolution relies on techniques that facilitate the process: Depersonalisation is needed to go back to facts beyond personal feuds

therefore relying on co-opted representatives Fractionation is an attempt to reach a stepwise resolution component per

component minimising the conflict Relocation does reformulate diverging preoccupations to see where the

possible solutions will meet Elevation of the debate by defining a common “super-ordinate” goal

Conflict Resolution (5) the Tricks of the Trade:Good facilitators know the value of simple tricks that have a major psychological impact: Neutrality, moving to a (nice) neutral meeting place makes things easier Appeasement, by building friendly relationships between people using

icebreakers and social events Language, taking care to rewrite or rephrase positions in other terms that will

be received as “non-offensive”

Care must be taken to avoid communication pitfalls such as the usage of emotional terms (that’s a lousy idea) or absolute statements (this is the only way). Facilitators must make sure they ask open-ended questions and avoid leading questions. The use of clear language understood and accepted by all stakeholders is a prerequisite.


CONCLUSION

Conflict prevention, analysis and resolution apply to fisheries as well as to integrated resource management at large, and to any relationship between communities at various levels. Hence, it should constitute a major priority for all instances involved with our common future and sustainable development.


READER

Conflict Management: an IntroductionA classic book on conflict management (Moore, 1987) opens with:

“All societies, communities, organisations, and interpersonal relationships experience conflict at one time or another in the process of day-to-day interaction. Conflict is not necessarily bad, abnormal, or dysfunctional; it is a fact of life. “ (p. ix).

The problem lies rather in how the conflict is managed. The approach to conflict management that Moore and many others in the field propose, recognises that the parties in a dispute have different and frequently opposing views about the proper solution to a problem, but also acknowledges that each group's views, from its perspective, may be both rational and legitimate. Thus, the goal of people working in conflict management is not to avoid conflict. Rather the focus is on the skills that can help people express their differences and solve their problems. Conflict management is about helping people in conflict to develop an effective process for dealing with their differences.There is an extensive literature on conflict management. A handbook-like reference (Sandole and van der Merwe, 1993) is based on the experience of the staff and participants of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. There is a National Institute in the USA, and a Professional Society, for Dispute Resolution. The large majority of the conflict resolution literature deals with international conflicts, international treaties, and commercial and labour disputes, however. Management of environmental conflicts is a more recent branch of the profession, and often focuses on global or international issues (e.g., Susskind, 1994). There are some authors that focus on environmental issues in public policy (e.g., Gamman, 1994) but on the whole the literature that deals with such issues is scattered over a range of journals, and not easy to find for coastal managers. On the whole, however, conflicts are more described than dealt with in the integrated coastal management literature.Conflict management is often used as the over-arching term for both conflict prevention, or consensus building, approaches together with conflict resolution approaches. The latter group of approaches is also often referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). For some authors ADR is typically linked to the approaches developed in the US, where ADR is relatively common, while to others it is simply synonymous to conflict resolution. Here, a broad definition is used for conflict management, i.e., consensus building and conflict resolution that include the full range of methods and approaches. The generalised reason for attempting a voluntary, collaborative approach is that resolving disputes through the courts is often very costly (because both sides have to hire lawyers and other outside experts) and can lead to very substantive delays. The judicial system is also specialised in finding legal, fair and equitable solutions that fit the legal framework and are well grounded in precedents, where possible, but not necessarily very good in finding creative solutions that best fit the interests of all parties. In other words, the objective for alternative approaches to resolving disputes is that they may be faster, cheaper and more effective than legal procedures. In other situations, where going to court may not be an option, the alternative of not finding a solution at all may also be costly, if only in terms of opportunities lost.The emphasis on the word voluntary – or mutually agreed upon – refers to the fact that conflict management approaches will only work if all parties to the conflict are convinced that they will be – or at least may be – better off by participating than they would otherwise be. That implies that as long as one of the parties feels that it can force its own solution, or could obtain a total victory at acceptable costs through the courts, or would actually benefit from a stalemate (no action), then conflict management approaches are a non-starter. This concept is referred to in conflict management terminology as BATNA, the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. As long as any of the parties in the conflict perceives their BATNA to be superior to participation in a


conflict management approach, then it will refuse to participate in such a process. Any conflict analysis should carefully analyse the parties’ BATNAs. On the other hand, in conflicts where parties in a conflict have fought long and hard, but have reached a stalemate, the time may well be ripe for a more collaborative approach. For successful application of conflict management approaches the parties may well have battled it out, they do not need to be friends, but they do need to be convinced that it is in their own self-interest to participate.It is quite common in the literature to present conflict management techniques on a continuum of increasingly directive initiatives. The continuum moves from an extreme that leaves all initiative and authority with the parties themselves towards increased involvement and eventually interventions by third parties that provide assistance, e.g. Priscoli (1990) and MacNaughton and Brune (1997).

A representation of the continuum is given in Figure 1. The involvement of third party assistance increases from point A to point B. A C B

Consensus building

Relationship building assistance

Procedural assistance

Substantive assistance

Advisory non-binding assistance

Binding assistance

Modified after: Priscoli (1990) and MacNaughton and Brune (1997).Figure 1: Continuum of Conflict Management Approaches.

In point A the parties to the conflict in essence negotiate a resolution to the conflict without assistance, as is the case for a host of everyday conflicts, large and small.In the other extreme, point B, the parties hand over their case to a third party, e.g. a judge, who evaluate the case and makes a decision that is binding to the parties.Between these points there are a range of techniques that generally all have some elements of relationship building, procedural assistance, substantive assistance or advice giving, but with major differences in emphasis.A crucial point in the continuum is indicated as point C (Priscoli, 1996). Going from A to B the parties to the conflict gradually give over the power and authority to settle the conflict to outside parties. Roughly at point C the power to resolve moves into the hands of outside parties. This is crucial because different relationships and communication patterns are established to the right and to the left of point C.To the right of point C, third-party decision making by judges, juries, expert panels or arbiters, the primary communication pattern is between the parties and the third-party decision maker. Each party presents its own case as well as possible and as much as possible to the detriment of the other party. Information is legitimately withheld as much as possible and creative, new win-win solutions are not very likely. It is appropriate that society has decided to resolve some types of conflicts, such as criminal cases, exclusively through approaches that are in point B. For others (e.g. labour and commercial disputes) approaches to the right of point C are a cost-effective alternative to the judicial system. These types of methods, to the right of point C, are less well suited to deal with multiparty, multiple issue conflicts, however.To the left of point C, parties are assisted to communicate directly with each other, jointly diagnose problems, create alternatives, and own agreements.From the above discussion it may appear obvious that procedures to the left of point C should be attractive for coastal management, where conflicts are very often multiparty and multiple issue. An indeed, this is what much of the conflict management literature recommends. The essence of the main groups of approaches is outlined hereafter. Specific techniques are available in each group.


1. Consensus building or conflict prevention. This group of approaches, often linked to participatory planning methods or stakeholder participation, focuses less on the resolution of a specific conflict than on fostering a co-operative (planning) process for complex, multiple issue, multi-user situations. The name, consensus-building, should not be understood to imply that these approaches are only suitable when there are no conflicts of interests among the parties. In fact, these methods often work well, even when the stakeholders disagree strongly with each other. The consensus building methods are appropriate in early – strategic – stages of the planning process, to develop directions or strategies that are supported by a large number of stakeholders.

2. Relationship building. A relatively “light” form of intervention is when outside facilitators arrange some activities to (re-) build a working relationship among the parties, in cases of conflict where this does not exist or has deteriorated during the conflict. This leaves the responsibility for the conflict resolution process, i.e. identification of, and negotiation over, solutions to the parties themselves.

3. Procedural assistance. Facilitators or mediators may also provide procedural assistance to the communication process among the parties in conflict, ranging from joint brainstorming sessions to parlaying information back and forth. When providing procedural assistance the facilitators explicitly do not involve themselves in the substantive issues, however, and do not suggest solutions or negotiating positions. The responsibility both for designing solutions and for finding agreement remains with the parties in conflict.

4. Substantive assistance. Mediators can also involve themselves in the fashioning of the solutions, i.e. provide substantive assistance as well. In this case the parties share with, or turn over to, the mediator the responsibility for identification of the solutions, but maintain direct communication among them and retain the authority to determine what constitutes an agreement.

5. Advisory non-binding assistance. This type of assistance, often arbitration or expert panels, shifts the bulk of the authority over the conflict, i.e. determining a solution and recommending what is “fair”, to the outside experts. The communication pattern is between the arbiter/panel and the parties. Parties retain the power to accept or reject the recommendations.

6. Binding Assistance. Binding assistance, through arbitrage or judging, passes authority over the conflict completely over to the outside party.

Outside experts, as used above, refers to parties not involved in the conflict, that is, it does not refer to “outsiders” such as expatriate experts. Outside, or external, parties should not be stakeholders in a conflict and should be accepted by all sides as sufficiently neutral. In fact, in most cases it would have many advantages if the “outside” facilitator or expert knows the background of the conflict well, if the parties respect that person or institution, knows the culture etc. That is, usually “local” facilitators – if they are sufficiently detached from the conflict to be accepted as neutral – would be more suitable than “expatriate” experts. Situations are also imaginable, of course, where the international outsider may bring either experience form elsewhere, or impartiality to the conflict that makes her or him more acceptable. At the proactive end of the continuum of techniques discussed above, there is the objective of fostering productive communication and collaboration among diverse interests, addressing the underlying causes of conflict prior to the outbreak of serious confrontation. This employs "tools" such as conflict anticipation and collaborative planning (together with the cultivation of alliances and mobilisation of support), in order to effect change at the policy level (also called consensus building techniques). At the reactive end of the continuum are approaches to managing conflict that involve such tools as negotiation, mediation, conciliation where the objective is to address conflict after it has erupted (Anderson et al, 1996). Choosing the correct method and technique through which to address a particular conflict is in it self a strategic choice. Parties to a dispute must first decide whether to seek resolution to a conflict through a non-consensual process or through a more


collaborative means. Once the decision has been made to use alternative conflict management processes, the parties must decide on which specific approach to employ. No single approach is effective in all cases. The circumstances of conflict and therefore the obstacles to agreement vary from one case to another. As discussed above, disputes may involve many or few parties, the problem may be more or less urgent, emotional investment of the stakeholders may vary, the public interest may or may not be at stake, and the factors involved may be well understood or more uncertain. Gaining expertise in conflict management includes learning about the specific advantages and disadvantages of the various strategies, and assessing which one is best in addressing a particular conflict situation (FAO, 1994).It is important to recognise that, although there are considerable differences between the approaches that can be employed, there are also important overlaps. Most approaches will involve some element of relationship building, procedural assistance, and possibly substantive assistance or advice as well. The use of conflict prevention, or consensus building, approaches – on one side of the continuum – does not imply that there have not yet been conflicts between the parties. Similarly, the use of arbitrage – on the other side – does not imply that it will not be more effective if the arbitrator manages to get the parties to co-operate as much as possible. In addition, an important element in all conflict management interventions is that it uses “outside parties” (neutral parties that are not stakeholders in the conflict) to a greater or lesser degree. The outside parties are “people” and much depends on the qualities and experience of these people. That implies that the choice of method will not be independent of the outside party employed.


GLOSSARY

Access to resources. A series of participatory exercises that allows development practitioners to collect information and raises awareness among beneficiaries about the ways in which access to resources varies according to gender and other important social variables. This user-friendly tool draws on the everyday experience of participants and is useful to men, women, trainers, project staff, and field-workers.

Advisory non-binding assistance. This type of assistance, often arbitration or expert panels, shifts the bulk of the authority over the conflict, i.e. determining a solution and recommending what is “fair”, to the outside experts. The communication pattern is between the arbiter/panel and the parties. Parties retain the power to accept or reject the recommendations.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to a variety of collaborative approaches that seek to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of issues in a conflict through a voluntary process. Such approaches were developed as alternatives to adversarial or non-consensual strategies, such as judicial or legal recourse, unilaterally initiated public information campaigns, or partisan political action. All of these latter strategies might also be appropriate and legitimate means of addressing disputes, depending upon the context. Alternative conflict resolution approaches complement these more adversarial strategies, and broaden the range of tools available to communities and interest groups who are involved in conflict (FAO, 1994).

Arbitration: "a process that involves the submission of a dispute to an arbitrator (anyone mutually agreeable to the parties), who renders a (binding or advisory) decision after hearing arguments and reviewing evidence." (NIDR no date)

Binding Assistance. Binding assistance, through arbitrage or judging, passes authority over the conflict completely over to the outside party.

Collaborative Planning: "a process in which parties agree to work together in anticipation of a conflict, and work collaboratively to plan and manage ways to avoid the conflict." (NIDR no date)

Conciliation: "an attempt by a neutral third party to communicate separately with disputing parties, for the purpose of reducing tensions and agreeing on a process for resolving a dispute" (Pendzich et al. 1994:8-9).

Conflict Anticipation: "the identification of disputes at their early stages of development, targeting and educating potential interest groups, and attempting to develop cooperative responses to the future problem, thus avoiding or lowering the destructive effects of conflict." (CDR Associates 1986:3)

Conflict Management is a multidisciplinary field of research and action that seeks to address the question of how people can make better decisions collaboratively. It is an approach that attempts to address the roots of conflicts by building upon shared interests and finding points of agreement that accommodate the respective needs of the various parties involved (Anderson et al, 1996).


Consensus Building or conflict prevention: a process leading to "an agreement (or synthesis) that is reached by identifying the interests of all concerned parties and then building an integrative solution." (CDR Associates 1986:3). This group of approaches, often linked to participatory planning methods or stakeholder participation, focuses less on the resolution of a specific conflict than on fostering a cooperative (planning) process for complex, multi-issue, multi-user situations.

Focus group meetings. Relatively low-cost, semi-structured, small group (four to twelve participants plus a facilitator) consultations used to explore peoples' attitudes, feelings, or preferences, and to build consensus. Focus group work is a compromise between participant observation, which is less controlled, lengthier, and more in-depth, and preset interviews, which are not likely to attend to participants' own concerns.

Mapping. A generic term for gathering in pictorial form baseline data on a variety of indicators. This is an excellent starting point for participatory work because it gets people involved in creating a visual output that can be used immediately to bridge verbal communication gaps and to generate lively discussion. Maps are useful as verification of secondary source information, as training and awareness raising tools, for comparison, and for monitoring of change. Common types of maps include health maps, institutional maps (Venn diagrams), and resource maps.

Mediation: "the use of a neutral third-party in a negotiation process, where a mediator assists those in a conflict situation in reaching their own agreement, but has no power to direct the parties or attempt to resolve the dispute" (Pendzich et al. 1994:8-9).

Needs assessment. A tool that draws out information about people's varied needs, raises participants' awareness of related issues, and provides a framework for prioritizing needs. This sort of tool is an integral part of gender analysis to develop an understanding of the particular needs of both men and women and to do comparative analysis.

Negotiation: "a voluntary process in which parties meet face to face to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of a conflict" (Pendzich et al. 1994:8-9).

Non-Binding Arbitration. Non-Binding arbitrage is finding out what a neutral third party or a fair, impartial person or panel would think of the dispute. The opinion is advisory but normally carries a great deal of weight if the parties have confidence in the arbitrator.

Participation; Development practitioners use a wide variety of different methods, tailored to different tasks and situations, in support of participatory development. Bellow ten methods are introduced that have been used in different development situations to achieve various objectives. These include: workshop-based and community-based methods for collaborative decision making, methods for stakeholder consultation, and methods for incorporating participation and social analysis into project design. Further on, each method is compared and contrasted with the others and their advantages and disadvantages noted to help Task Managers choose those most useful to them. A glossary of available tools,


many of which are components of the methods, follows the summaries. More details on both the methods and the tools can be found in the Participation Sourcebook (World Bank, 1996).

Participant observation is a fieldwork technique used by anthropologists and sociologists to collect qualitative and quantitative data that leads to an in-depth understanding of peoples' practices, motivations, and attitudes. Participant observation entails investigating the project background, studying the general characteristics of a beneficiary population, and living for an extended period among beneficiaries, during which interviews, observations, and analyses are recorded and discussed.

Preference ranking. Also called direct matrix ranking, an exercise during which people identify what they do and do not value about a class of objects (for example, tree species or cooking fuel types). Ranking allows participants to understand the reasons for local preferences and to see how values differ among local groups. Understanding preferences is critical for choosing appropriate and effective interventions.

Partnering. Based on the principle that traditional adversarial relationships can better be replaced through team-building activities by a co-operative approach preventing disputes. The approach requires personal relationships and commitment, common goals and dispute prevention processes. It supposes improved communication and on-time performance.

Procedural assistance. Facilitators or mediators may also provide procedural assistance to the communication process among the parties in conflict, ranging from joint brainstorming sessions to parlaying information back and forth. When providing procedural assistance the facilitators explicitly do not involve themselves in the substantive issues, however, and do not suggest solutions or negotiating positions. The responsibility both for designing solutions and for finding agreement remains with the parties in conflict.

Relationship building. A relatively “light” form of intervention is when outside facilitators arrange some activities to (re-) build a working relationship among the parties, in cases of conflict where this does not exist or has deteriorated during the conflict. This leaves the responsibility for the conflict resolution process to the parties themselves, i.e. identification of and negotiation over solutions.

Role playing. Enables people to creatively remove themselves from their usual roles and perspectives to allow them to understand choices and decisions made by other people with other responsibilities. Ranging from a simple story with only a few characters to an elaborate street theatre production, this tool can be used to acclimatise a research team to a project setting, train trainers, and encourage community discussions about a particular development intervention.

Stakeholders are people who may –directly or indirectly, positively or negatively – affect or be affected by the outcome of projects or programmes. This means that stakeholders are likely to outnumber project users. (p. 5/15, section I, IDB, 1997a).


Substantive assistance. Mediators can also involve themselves in the fashioning of the solutions, i.e. provide substantive assistance as well. In this case the parties share with, or turn over to, the mediator the responsibility for identification of the solutions, but maintain direct communication and retain the authority to determine what constitutes an agreement.

Surveys. A sequence of focused, predetermined questions in a fixed order, often with predetermined, limited options for responses. Surveys can add value when they are used to identify development problems or objectives, narrow the focus or clarify the objectives of a project or policy, plan strategies for implementation, and monitor or evaluate participation. Among the survey instruments used in Bank work are firm surveys, sentinel community surveillance, contingent valuation, and priority surveys.

Village meetings. Multiple use meetings in participatory development, including information sharing and group consultation, consensus building, prioritisation and sequencing of interventions, and collaborative monitoring and evaluation. When multiple tools such as resource mapping, ranking, and focus groups have been used, village meetings are important venues for launching activities, evaluating progress, and gaining feedback on analysis.

Workshops. Structured group meetings at which a variety of key stakeholder groups, whose activities or influence affect a development issue or project, share knowledge and work toward a common vision. With the help of a workshop facilitator, participants undertake a series of activities designed to help them progress toward the development objective (consensus building, information sharing, prioritisation of objectives, team building, and so on). In project as well as policy work, from preplanning to evaluation stages, stakeholder workshops are used to initiate, establish, and sustain collaboration.


More information on conflict management theory can be found in the referenced literature.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. et al. (1996) ADDRESSING NATURAL RESOURCE CONFLICTS THROUGH COMMUNITY FORESTRY: SETTING THE STAGE, E-Conference "Addressing Natural Resource Conflicts through Community Forestry," Forests, Trees, and People Programme, Forestry Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, January-April 1996.

Bidol, Particia, Lisa Bardwell, and Nancy Manring, eds. (1986) Alternative Environmental Conflict Management Approaches: A Citizen's Manual. Ann Arbor, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan.

Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland (1995) Civic Environmentalism, In: Participatory Democracy in America, Cambridge University Press, US.

CDR Associates (1986) Glossary. CDR Associates, Boulder CO, USA.

Crowfoot, James and Julia Wondolleck (1990) Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

Davos, C.A., J.C. Side, P.J.S. Jones, K. Siakavara, F. La Roca, E. Garcia, F. Burone and G. Kerkhove (1997) The Role of Value Conflict Assessment Techniques in the Formulation of Implementable and Effective Coastal Zone Management Policies. A Report to the European Commission (DG XII). Volume 1 - Main Report of the Study. Volume 2 - Appendices: (1) Case Study Reports; (2) The Research Instrument.

Edelman, L., F. Carr & J.L. Creighton (1989) The Mini-Trial. IWR Pamphlet-89-ADR-P-1. Institute of Water Resources, USACE, Ft. Belvoir, VA.

Edelman, L., F. Carr, C. Lancaster & J.L. Creighton (1990) Non-Binding Arbitration. IWR Pamphlet-90-ADR-P-2. Institute of Water Resources, USACE, Ft. Belvoir, VA.

Edelman, L., F. Carr & C. Lancaster (1991) Partnering. IWR Pamphlet-91-ADR-P-4. Institute of Water Resources, USACE, Ft. Belvoir, VA.

FAO (1994) Alternative Conflict Management in Latin American Forest-Based Communities, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/forestry/ftpp/wp/wp1top.htm

Gamman, John (1994) Overcoming Obstacles in Environmental Policymaking: Creating Partnerships through Mediation. SUNY Press.

Fortmann (1992) Social Aspects of Resource Management Systems. In: Integrated Resource Management: Agroforestry for Development. (eds.) C.V. Kidd and D. Pimental. New York. Academic Press.

IDB (1997a) Resource Book on Participation. IDB, Washington D.C.

IDB (1997b) Coastal and Marine Resources Management, Strategy Paper. October 1997. IDB, Washington D.C.

IIED (1997) International Workshop Report, Resource Centres for Participatory Learning and Action (RCPLA) Network, Universidad Nur, Bolivia.


http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/forestry/ftpp/wp/wp1top.htm

Lancaster, C. (1990) ADR Round table. IWR Working Paper 90-ADR-WP-1. Institute of Water Resources, USACE, Ft. Belvoir, VA.

Lederach, J.P. (1992) Enredos, pleitos y problemas. Una guia para ayudar a resolver conflictos. Comite Central Menonita, Guatamala.

Lowry, K. and others (1997) Participating the Public: Group Process, Politics and Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 16:177-187.

MacNaughton, A. L. & G.J. Brune (1997) Mediating Sustainable Development Conflicts in Warm and Humid Petrochemical Zones. Paper presented and the ABA/IBA Conference on Development, the Environment and Dispute Resolution in the Americas: New Directions for the Private Sector. March 5, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Martinez, A.G. (1997) Metodos Alternativos de Manejo de Conflictos. SEMARNAP with UNDP, Mexico D.F.

Moore, C. W. (1987) The Mediation Process, Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, US.

Moore, C. (1991) Mediation. IWR Pamphlet-91-ADR-P-3. Institute of Water Resources, USACE, Ft. Belvoir, VA.

Murillo Ruin, I. and F. Paniagua Alfaro (1997) Panorama para la Resolución Alternativa de Conflictos Ambientales en Centroamérica. CEDARENA, San Jose, Costa Rica

Nickerson, Virginia (1995) Telling Stories: Cross-Generational Community History as a Tool for Natural Resource Managers. Thesis.

NIDR (National Institute for Dispute Resolution, Washington, DC), A Glossary of Dispute Resolution Terms, nd.

Paniagua, F. y R. Borell (1997) Guía Metodológica para el Análisis y el Manejo de los Conflictos (Borrador) CEDARENA/UP San Jose, Costa Rica.

Pendzich, Christine, Garry Thomas and Tim Wohlgenant (1994) The Role of Alternative Conflict Management in Community Forestry, Forests, Trees, and People Programme Phase II Working Paper No. 1, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, September 1994.

Priscoli, J.D. (1996) Conflict Management, Collaboration and Management in International Water Resources Issues. IWR Working Paper 96-ADR-WP-6. Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers, Ft Belvoir, VA.

Priscoli, J.D. (1990) Public Involvement, Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Decision Making. IWR Working Paper 90-ADR-WP-2. Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers, Ft Belvoir, VA.

Rijsberman, F.R. (1996) Feuchtgebietwiederherstellung in der Scheldt-Mündung: Kommunikation unter Landwirten, Umweltschützern und anderen Belteiligten (Wetland Rehabilitation in the Scheldt Estuary: Communication among Farmers, Environmentalists and other Stakeholders). Paper presented at the 2nd Trilateral Conference "Sustainable Agriculture in the Morava and Dyje Floodplains", Stupava, Slovak Republic, May 30-31, 1996.

Robadue, D. D. jr. and Arriaga, L. (1993) Policies and Programmes toward Sustainable Coastal Development in Ecuador’s Special Area Management Zones: Creating


Vision, Consensus and Capacity, In: Coastal Zone ’93, American Society of Civil Engineers, NY, Volume 3, 2668.

Saaty, T. L. and Alexander, J. M. (1989) Conflict Resolution, The Analytic Hierarchy Approach, Praeger, NY.

Sandole D. J. D. and H. van der Merwe (1993) Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice, integration and application, Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.

Schwartz, A. & A. Deruyttere (1996) Community Consultation. Sustainable Development and the Inter-American Development Bank: A Concept Paper. IDB, Washington, D.C.

Sibthorp, M.M., ed. (1977) Oceanic management: Conflicting Uses of the Celtic Sea and Other Western UK Waters. Europa Publications, London.

Susskind, L. (1994) Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating more effective global agreements. Oxford University Press, New York.

Susskind, L. and J. Cruikshank (1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York, Basic Books.

World Bank (1997) The Impact of Environmental Assessment: A review of World Bank experience. World Bank, Washington D.C.

World Bank (1996) Participation Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington.


introductionportals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/conflictmg_fisheries... · web viewsolution...

Documents