two party versus multiparty negotiation n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Two-Party versus Multiparty Negotiation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Two-Party versus Multiparty Negotiation

Two-Party versus Multiparty Negotiation

140 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Two-Party versus Multiparty Negotiation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Two-Party versus Multiparty Negotiation Chapter 6

  2. Introduction • Environmental problems often involve multiple parties • Character of multiparty negotiation is different than two party negotiation • Coordination- more people at negotiating table • Protraction- for everyone to be heard more time is needed • Representation- Who will participate? Who is authorized to speak for a particular interest

  3. Introduction • Multiparty disputes expand the choices open to each negotiator • two party dispute = settle or accept the consequence of non-agreement • multiple party dispute = weigh the agreement with all against possible deals with just a few

  4. Introduction • Coalitions may form, disband, realign in attempt for bargaining strength • Complexity of multiparty negotiations may offer richer possibilities of settlement • Each negotiator has own set of priorities which can enrich trade possibilities • Can be bitter fights over distribution of costs or benefits

  5. West Side Highway • West Side Highway I-478 runs along the Hudson river from 72nd street down to the tip of Manhattan in NYC • Was state of the art in 1920’s when built • By the 1960’s was obsolete • Lanes too narrow for modern traffic • Structure was disintegrating

  6. West Side Highway

  7. West Side Highway • In 1971 Urban Development Corporation, a state agency with independent authority carries out study and concludes improvement and alteration of WSH was central to solution of other problems • Mayor John V. Lindsay forms West Side Highway Project to develop highway alternatives

  8. West Side Highway • Project was funded by city, state, and federal appropriations • Had support of Governor Nelson Rockefeller • Steering committee representing 16 city agencies and all the planning boards in affected communities to reach consensus on best alternative

  9. West Side Highway • In 1973 West Side Highway dispute comes to a head when a truck falls through the highway • Ironic because it was a cement truck that was traveling to make repairs on the West Side Highway

  10. West Side Highway • Major section of the road was closed • Detoured traffic increases noise, congestion, and air pollution on alternate routes • Area residents protest

  11. West Side Highway • In spring 1974 West Side Highway Project publishes draft Environmental Impact statement with 5 solutions • Reconstruct the road along its present design • Maintain the road basically as is but with safety modifications • Build an “arterial” road along the riverfront • Build an “inbound” limited access interstate using 90% federal funds

  12. West Side Highway • Build an outboard interstate involving massive landfill along the river using 90% federal funds • Only proposal 5 met the projects previously developed criteria for development • Public hearings failed to develop support for any alternative • Opposition groups form

  13. West Side Highway • Regional Plan Association initiates talks to Break standstill • American Arbitration Association Provides mediator Donald Strauss

  14. West Side Highway • Regional Plan Association took responsibility for selecting participants • Classified groups by constituencies • Business -Professional • Environmental -Civic • Ethnic -Labor

  15. West Side Highway • When a category was underrepresented RPA tried to enlist organizations that could advocate interests of important affected groups • As best as they tried there were still gaps in representation • Although invited labor and ethnic groups failed to participate • Special interest groups were overlooked

  16. West Side Highway • In fall 1974 five day mediation session was held • RPA set the agenda • 38 representatives from 23 organizations were at the first session • West Side Highway Project staff provided technical info

  17. West Side Highway • Participants shared at least one common interest • All sides agreed continued delay was against their interests • Continuing detour traffic nuisance • Construction costs would increase with inflation • Some thought later environmental groups tried to stall for election of sympathetic candidate for Mayor

  18. West Side Highway • Further mediation revealed differences in values and opinions among groups • Priorities • Enhancement of environmental quality or stimulation of economic growth • Impact of alternatives • Would traffic increase or decrease with plan? • Could be argued both ways

  19. West Side Highway • Technical assumptions • Under pressure to meet Federal Air quality standards • How would new traffic patterns affect this? • “clean air doesn’t get us anything” ! • Rebuild or Repair • Became polarizing issue • Political and Economic Issues • Who was going to pay the bill • City wanted federal funding

  20. West Side Highway: The Rest of the Story • In 1978, newly elected Mayor Ed Koch, supports the Westway superhighway and Westway State Park. • In August 1981Army Corps of Engineers were granted a dredging and landfill permit, • President Ronald Reagan joined in his support of Westway, ceremonially cutting an $85 million check to state and city officials. • However, transportation officials and fiscal conservatives at the Federal level joined in a loose alliance with bureaucrats and environmentalists to undermine Westway

  21. West Side Highway: The Rest of the Story • In 1982, Judge Thomas Griesa of U.S. District Court blocked the 1981 landfill permit, citing that the Corps of Engineers failed to assess the impact of the landfill on striped bass in the Hudson River • After three more years of delays and additional study, the Corps determined that at most, one-third of the striped bass in the Hudson would not survive the dredging and construction process

  22. West Side Highway: The Rest of the Story • However, after a 14-year battle, opposition forces finally gained victory. On September 30, 1985, New York City leaders decided to abandon Westway • In September 1986, the highway design firm Vollmer Associates was commissioned to develop alternatives for the West Side Highway Replacement Project. The four new proposals for NY 9A (now the working designation, as the I-478 designation was removed)

  23. West Side Highway Today • The existing West Side Highway, facing north along the Upper West Side. This section of NY 9A (from West 59th Street north to West 72nd Street) leading into the Henry Hudson Parkway is the only existing limited-access portion remaining. (Photo by Parsons-Brinckerhoff.

  24. West Side Highway: The Rest of the Story • Simulation of plan to create underground West Side Highway, along with riverfront park along the Hudson River, near the same location as the photo above. (Photo composite by Parsons-Brinckerhoff.)

  25. Concluding Note Goldbeck frustrated with what he calls “community emotionalism” despite statistical projections that showed neighborhood traffic would decrease opposition to construction continued. Is this really irrational?

  26. Negotiation Participants: Representation • Development conflicts usually see project proponents negotiating with opponents and regulatory officials setting bounds on developer actions • Opponents can be many diverse groups • Often dispute is one (pro) and many (opp)

  27. Negotiation Participants: Representation • Government Regulatory groups in negotiation adds a dimension • May require approval, zoning variances, or other special considerations • When they have discretionary power, Can assist bargainers to reach a settlement

  28. Negotiation Participants: Representation • Participants • Those who have a formal position to affect the plan • Developer, state government, regulators, etc • Individuals and groups affected by negotiations but without official status • Community, regional or special interest groups • Mediator (sometimes) • Facilitates the bargaining process • Does not represent a specific viewpoint

  29. Negotiation Participants: Representation • Negotiation – based review process must include: • Proponent of plan • Representatives of local gov. to review plan • Local officials who may take action to expedite or retard a plan • Technical experts if needed

  30. Negotiation Participants: Representation • Negotiation may provide public participation in review of plan • Sullivan proposes a petition process of determining groups to participate • Limiting participation • Small numbers helps productivity • Large numbers cumbersome • Trust develops better in small numbers • Avoid meeting “gadflies”

  31. Negotiation Participants: Representation • Recognizing groups by petition • Signing qualifying petitions in order to participate • Number of signatures required can determine participants more = less • Petitions are cheap • Political activity

  32. Negotiation Participants: Representation • Choosing representatives of informal groups by petition. • Groups with informal structure make it hard to choose a particular representative • Petition will aid in selection

  33. Snoqualmie Dam Dispute • Snoqualmie River Valley located in western Washington State, 30 miles from Seattle • 1959 a severe spring flood swept away crops and topsoil from lower valley farms and destroyed many homes and businesses • US Army Corp if Engineers propose building a dam

  34. Snoqualmie Dam Dispute • Environmentalists are opposed • Loss of free flowing river • Possible suburban sprawl on floodplain • US Army corps must obtain approval of state governor before building dam • Governor Danial Evens twice vetoed proposed dam but acknowledged need for flood control

  35. Snoqualmie Dam Dispute • McCormick and McCartney of Washington Environmental Mediation Project appointed to mediate the dispute • Identified 10 people to represent general constituencies • Sessions helped participants overcome long held stereotypes of each other • Participants endorsed general statement calling for flood protection and land use control

  36. Snoqualmie Dam Dispute • Agreement provided for • A dam on the north fork of the Snoqualmie instead of the middle fork • A series of levies and set-backs along the middle fork • Land use and zoning restrictions on the downstream farmland • Other measures including the creation of river basin planning council and the purchase of development rights and floodway easements

  37. Multiparty Negotiation and Coalitions • Multiparty negotiations present participants with a overlapping network of possible agreements • Lack of consensus among all the parties does not preclude agreement between some of them (coalitions) • Competition and cooperation among subgroups makes multiparty negotiation more complex than two party negotiation. • Its complexity is found in its bargaining strengths and strategies

  38. Problems of Cost Sharing • Environmental conflicts not only involve sharing benefits but sharing costs • Often parties will jockey to form coalitions to minimize their costs instead of maximizing their benefits • Should design a process that party that draws short straw (treatment plant) receives compensation from fortunate others