Designing effective negotiating teams for environmental disputes: An analysis of three wolf management plans.
Success of a negotiating team in an environmental dispute depends to a large extent on how the team is designed. Who is chosen, how they are chosen, and, moreover, what they are expected to do will have a profound effect on the negotiations. Three team designs for negotiating disputes over wolf mana...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | , |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
1995
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/104556 http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:9527755 |
| Summary: | Success of a negotiating team in an environmental dispute depends to a large extent on how the team is designed. Who is chosen, how they are chosen, and, moreover, what they are expected to do will have a profound effect on the negotiations. Three team designs for negotiating disputes over wolf management in Alaska, British Columbia and the Yukon provide contrasting evidence of the key elements in effective team design. Faced with a complete impasse over the issue, each of the three areas decided to form citizen teams to try to reach a consensus on wolf management. Two of the teams (Alaska and British Columbia) were unable to develop lasting agreements, while the third (the Yukon) produced a plan that has broad support and has been endorsed by the government. Teams are more likely to be effective when given greater authority, when their task is a complete and meaningful whole, and when the ultimate purpose is a meaningful one that all team members view as important. EDS teams are also more likely to succeed when the convening agency sees its role as steward--and the public's role as that of owner--of the resource. Agencies can provide technical support, but it is the team's responsibility, in representing the larger public, to determine the social and ethical priorities. The team then becomes much like a jury brought together to weigh the evidence and make the tough judgment calls. To have lasting impact, teams must also produce a written agreement which includes both a vision of where management should go and a clear road map for how to get there. Finally, politicians and agency administrators must understand the fundamental difference between traditional advisory committees and consensus processes. A consensus agreement is not a smorgasbord from which an agency can pick and choose. It is a house of cards that must either be taken as a package or rearranged with extreme care. Agencies must also be prepared to commit to the process, take an active role in it, and uphold their end of the agreement. If an agency ... |
|---|