Conflicts. Mediation and negotiation for conflict resolution

1. Conflicts. Mediation and negotiation for conflict resolution Skryhan Hanna Krasnoyarsk, February, 17 – February, 22, 2014

2. Environmental and resource use conflicts can be identified through • natural scientific and ecological research (pollution and the overuse of resources) and • social scientific research (actors and their values, interests, capacities and resource use practices).

3. Terminology on environmental conflict research (Stepanova, 2013)

4. Term is used differently and overlaps with other terms fight debate Environmental conflict struggle game dispute tragedy issue problem Social dilemma controversy

5. Approaches discussed reveal the complexity and multi-scale quality of conflicts (Stepanova, 2013) • Conventional conflict research – peace, security and order perspectives. Homer-Dixon, Swiss Environmental Conflict (ENCOP) project, Gleditsch • Human and social ecological perspectives of conflict research - access to and consequences of natural resource use. Ostrom, McCay and Jentoft, Oakerson, Folke • Critical environmental conflict research - global systems perspectives. Schnaiberg, Martinez-Alier, Rice

6. Types of environmental conflicts (Karjalainen, Järvikoski, 2010) Conflicts of interests. What is at stake is the distribution of losses and gains. Value conflicts. Value conflicts are disagreements over which values are involved, what values are at stake and which should be given priority.

7. Causes of environmental conflicts (social perspective) • Structural causes of conflict are identified as the underlying preconditions that are conducive to conflict and deeply embedded in political and social institutions. • Proximatecauses are the more immediate causes of conflict, and may be the consequences of structural ones. • Triggersrepresent the most direct cause of overt conflict as they refer to a specific event that initiates a conflict or its escalation. (International Alert, 2005)

8. Consequences of environmental conflicts (social perspective) (Vanclay, 2002) • Conflict may disrupt economic activity. • Conflict may disrupt social activity, people's daily lives can be interrupted and the quality of their living environment (liveability) can be reduced while conflict occurs. • Conflict may harm social relations leading to decreased social cohesion, a weakening of social capital, and reduced resilience. • Conflicts may lead to property damage, thus imposing costs on firms and individuals. • Conflict imposes costs on institutions, increases the workload on institutions, and there is an opportunity cost associated with the loss of staff time while people are deployed on activities to address the conflict. • Eruptions of violence may create risks and actual harm to the physical and mental wellbeing of people including the possibility of death • All these mentioned effects contribute to general feelings of annoyance, unease, uncertainty and fear thus undermining trust in others and society in general.

9. Dynamic of conflict: prisoners’ dilemma (Glasl, 1990)

10. Conflict resolution • formal (judicial) or informal (e.g., mediation), • governmental (e.g., policy programs) or user based (e.g., comanagement), • direct (e.g., negotiations) or indirect (e.g., new technologies), • enforced (e.g., through the special agency, including violence) or voluntary (e.g., deliberation), • knowledge based (e.g., scientific expertise) or culture specific approaches (e.g., traditional local governance institutions as resolution mechanisms), • or combinations of different approaches.

11. Deliberative and participatory approaches (1) normative, democracy-related arguments - local resource users should have a voice in management and policy decisions about the resources and related conflicts, and (2) organizational, efficiency-related arguments- local, user-based conflict resolution is less costly, resolutions can be achieved faster than in court-based legal procedures or through governmental policies.

12. Mediation and negotiation Mediation is a process of negotiation largely behind closed doors where dispute issues are cleared whereas issues of mutual gain may be discussed publicly. (Rauschmayer, Wittmer, 2006) The term ‘environmental mediation’ is used very broadly to encompass all forms of environmental dispute settlement other than litigation (Ross, 2003)

13. Steps of mediation: • Pre-negotiation • Integrative negotiations • Implementation

14. Example: SIA as a tool for mediation and negotiation in conflict resolution (Ross, 2003)

15. Outline of the SIA process

16. The tasks of SIA(adopted from Vanclay and Esteves, 2011) • creating participatory processes and a deliberative space; • gaining a good understanding of the communities and stakeholders likely to be affected; • identifying the needs and aspirations of the various communities; • scoping the key social issues (the significant negative impacts as well as the opportunities for creating benefits); • establishing the significance of the predicted changes, and determining how the various affected groups and communities will likely respond to them; • facilitating an agreement making process between the communities and the proponent.

17. SIA for mediation and negotiation of environmental conflicts • prevent conflict; • identify which situations or behavior promote conflict; • inform negotiations as well as to provide a framework for the future evaluation of the agreement; • monitoring the development of the conflict; • establishment of grievance mechanisms.

18. Lessons from SIA implementation (Vanclay, 2011)

19. Lessons from SIA implementation (Vanclay, 2011) • The ‘community’ is never homogeneous. • The impacts of any planned intervention are always differentially distributed. • The needs of the worst-off members of society must always be considered. • The environmental (biophysical) impacts only occur when the first sod of soil is turned; social impacts occur the moment there is speculation or rumour that something will change.

20. Lessons from SIA implementation (Vanclay, 2011) • Even the act of doing a social or environmental impact assessment can create social impacts. • Often the biggest social impact is the fear and anxiety caused by the project or policy. • Process is everything. • Perception is reality. • A key concept is trust .

21. Lessons from SIA implementation (Vanclay, 2011) • Second and higher order impacts tend to cause more harm than first order impacts. • A good way of thinking about the possible impacts of a project is to conceive of ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ as metaphors for all inflows and outflows of a project. • Almost all projects almost always cause almost all impacts. • A major impact of many projects is the foregone benefits that could have been obtained. Another impact is the failure to deliver on promised benefits.

22. Lessons from SIA implementation (Vanclay, 2011) • Focus on what counts, not on what can be counted. • Labellingthe opposition of local peoples as ‘NIMBY’ (not in my backyard) is not helpful. • One size does not fit all. • You may not be responsible, but you will be held accountable.

23. Thank you for your attention! • Questions?