1. Maa-78.3360 Maankäytön suunnittelun erikoistyö (2014) - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Jonna Kangasoja Aalto University 7.5. and 12.5.2014

2. Background: conflict research Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

3. The background – environmental conflict resolution in the US Research visit to Boston 2012-2013 Working at CBI, getting to know their work & people, interviewing practitioners Studying (public policy) mediation at Harvard PON and MIT w/Larry Susskind Ongoing work on the mechanisms of environmental dispute resolution in the US and possible lessons for Finland. Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

4. Conflict is a messy knot In conflicts, parties interrupt, disturb or obstruct each others’ actions toward their goals Interdependence – the knot will not open by pulling harder Interpretations of the situation are an essential element of conflict Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

5. Cyclical character of conflict 1. Causes of Conflict 2. Visible phase of conflict 3. Consequences of conflict Goal incompatibility Conflict communication; expressions hostility Escalation / resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

6. Escalation vs. de-escalation 7th and 12th May 2014

7. Options in conflict? Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

8. Three basic reactions in conflict Voice: Interaction Loyalty: silent approval Exit: retreat Fight Freeze Flight Hirschmann, A. O. (1972). Exit Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard University Press. Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

9. Traditional vs. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) TraditionalCollaborative OutcomeDeclared winners and losers; Loss of trust ”Mutual gains” (win-win), enhanced trust ´Style of interactionIndirect (e.g. formal statements in a legal setting) Direct: face-to-face meetings Decision processUniversal – same rules for all problems Tailor-made, ad hoc rules suited to the setting & problem CostsInitially low, higher in the long run Initially high, lower in the long run RepresentationSame set of representatives (e.g. political bodies) Ad hoc; chosen specifically for the process and problem at hand Susskind, Lawrence & Cruikshank, Jeffrey (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books, New York. 7th and 12th May 2014

10. Why is mediated negotiation not practiced for solving public problems in Finland? ”Neutrals act as surrogates for trust” (Peter Adler) Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

11. Cultural / institutional differences between Finland and the United States Finland More trust in government Public policy strong on ”public interest” More homogeneity, more collectivist culture Consensual politics Nordic legal culture of social protection ”Low context” – less need or appreciation for process & communication skills United States Low trust on government Private (”special”) interests infiltrate public policy Highly fragmented society, individualism Divisive politics Common law tradition and legal culture of litigation High context: need for communication between groups Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

12. The roots behind Consensus Building… A tradition of negotiation and mediation theory and practice Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

13. Two persons want the same orange – how to solve the conflict? Position: ”I want the orange” Interest: Thirsty for orange juice Interest: Need to garnish a dessert dish Position: ”I want the orange” COMPROMISE Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

14. PROBLEM Positional Bargaining: Which Game Should You Play? SOLUTION Change the Game — Negotiate on the Merits SOFT Participants are friends. The goal is agreement HARD Participants are adversaries. The goal is victory. PRINCIPLED Participants are problem-solvers. The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably. The idea of principled negotiation in Getting to Yes Naive idea of Consensus Mature idea of Consensus Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

15. Informal problem-solving Negotiation Facilitation Conciliation Mediation - assisted negotiation Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

16. What is mediation? A voluntary and guided process in which a skilled mediator helps the parties to negotiate the settlement of a dispute. The process is not binding unless or until the parties reach agreement. A facilitative process in which a mediator works with parties (one on one and with all together) to find solutions to underlying concerns. Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

17. What is facilitation? Process of designing and running a successful multiparty process Including: – Creation of goals – Ground rules – Agendas – Management of meetings, information, agreements In order for constructive face to face dialogue and resolution of issues to be possible – Preceded by individual meetings with parties –  Which is preceded by situation assessment Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

18. Mediator/Facilitator Someone who helps a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to plan to achieve them without taking a particular position during the process or discussion Facilitator/mediator must be conceived neutral by the parties Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

19. We accept an adversarial approach to decisionmaking when facilitated joint problem- solving would produce results that are – fairer in the eyes of the parties – more efficient from the standpoint of an independent analyst – more stable as defined by the terms of the agreement,and – wiser, in retrospect, according to the parties and independent analysts. The adversarial format drives out joint problem- solving. It also inhibits value creation, the invention of options, trades, or packages […] across interests to produce good outcomes for all sides The adversarial problem Susskind, L. (2009) Deliberative Democracy and Dispute Resolution. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 24 (3): 1-12 7th and 12th May 2014

20. Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Moderator vs. Mediator Stating arguments (moderator) vs. mediated action (mediator) Moderating arguments neutrally falls short of mediating practically crafted agreements about WHAT TO DO The mediator encourages participants to "make a proposal that would satisfy you"  turns the conversation into future rather than concentrating on present disputes Mediators aim to get as much knowledge to front as possible Even when there are deep value differences there can be practical agreements made of the common interest Mediation is especially needed when participants have radically different values!! John Forester, lecture RECONSTRUCTING COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING TKK, Otaniemi, 18.6.2004. 7th and 12th May 2014

21. Mediation “A process in with one or two neutral mediators help people in a dispute communicate with one another, understand each other, and if possible reach agreements that satisfy the parties needs.” Mediation focuses more on the underlying interests of the parties than on their legal rights – Interest-based approach “helps people reach their own agreements, rebuild relationships and if possible generate lasting solutions to their disputes.” Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

22. Flexibility Mediation can address a wider range of issues When helpful also engage other stakeholders Mediation can help parties addressing a range of related issues that may go beyond the problems enumerated in a specific instance Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

23. Exploring the space of Assisted/ Mediated negotiation Public Policy Mediation, a.k.a Collaboration (collaborative natural resource management, collaborative science… ), a.k.a Consensus Building Shared ideas – voluntary processes – negotiation (not deliberation, dialogue, discussion) – Facilitated / mediated by neutral third party – Addressing multi-party public problems – involvement of both public and private parties Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

24. One variant: Public Policy Mediation An interactive process, designed to reach an actionable and sustainable agreement to achieve a common public goal, that is rooted in a careful exploration and weighing of interests and options, which emanate from the perspectives and knowledge bases of a diverse set of individuals and organizations. Susan Podziba: Introduction to Environmental and Public Policy Mediation. Workshop at the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Helsinki University of Technology, 1-2 December 2004 Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

25. The Mediated Negotiation Process convenor assessor stakeholders assessment report Assess the Potential Design & Decide on Process Clarify Facts & Options Seek Joint Gains Implement, Adapt & Learn Reach Agreement Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

26. Stakeholder assessment A good stakeholder assessment shapes the problem solving process – Define the issues to be addressed – Determine the representativeness of the stakeholders – Clarify how the parties may be represented – Identify additional parties – Clarify procedural challenges – Determine suitability of problem-solving and propose process design Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

27. Conducting a stakeholder assessment Choose an assessor – Credibility and competence Establish limits of confidentiality Conduct interviews: – Protocol – Number of interviews – Additional stakeholders Summarize information & offer recommendations  decision to proceed with mediation/not to proceed Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014

28. The promise of mediated negotiation "mediated negotiation is attractive because it […] allows for more direct involvement of those most affected by decisions than do most administrative and legislative processes; produces results more rapidly and at lower cost than do courts; and is flexible and therefore more adaptable to the specific needs of the parties in a given situation.” Susskind, Lawrence & Ozawa, Connie (1983). Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: Mediator Accountability and the Public Interest Problem. American Behavioral Scientist 27: 2, 255-279. Jonna Kangasoja Maa-78.3360 - Aalto Course on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 7th and 12th May 2014