Managing Conflict and Building Consensus For Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

DRAFT
Managing Conflict and Building Consensus

for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods
Strategies, Principles, Tools and

Training Materials
February 1999
Prepared by Michael Warner
United Kingdom Foundation Overseas· Development Institute

for the-South Pacific PortlandHou.se
4a N'ewmills Road Stag Place
Dalkeithj Mi dlothian
1 London SWlE SOP
Scotland EH22 lDU
3.5 Revised Consensus-Building Plan ..................................................................... 71
3.5.1 Outputs of Participatory Conflict Analysis ................................................. 71
3.5.2 Differences in Conflict Analysis ................................................................. 71
3.6 Capacity Building ............................................................................................... 72

3.6.1 Priorities for Managing Conflicts Among Community Groups .................... 73
3.6.2 Priorities for Managing Conflicts between Community Groups and
External Actors ............................................................................................. 74
3.7 Consensual Negotiation ...................................................................................... 74

3.7.1 Direct Consensual Negotiations ................................................................ 75
3.7 .2 Facilitated Consensual Negotiations ......................................................... 75
3.7.3 Process of Consensual Negotiation ............................................................ 77
3.7.4 Ethics and Function of Facilitation ........................................................... 79
3.7.5 Workshop.Design and Methods .................................................................. 82
3.7.6 Managing Difficult People ........................................................................ 85
3.7.7 Tools for Finding 'Common Interests' ...................................................... 87
3.7.8 Tools for Widening and Prioritising Options ........................................... 90
3.7.9 Tools for Reaching Agreement ................................................................. 94
Annex A
Briefing Notes for Exercise 9a and 9b
Annex B
Example of Systematic 'Re-Framing' in Complex Conflict Situations
Annex C
Briefing Notes for the Coralbay Coastal Resource Management Project
Annex D
Briefing Notes for the Tukubu Conservation Area
Annex E
Sources of Information
Abbreviations
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
BATNA Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CR Conflict Resolution
DFID Department for International Development
FPCD Foundation for People and Community Development
FSP Foundation for the People of the South Pacific
ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

Conflict Management is about building capacities to cope with a
changing world. At the local level, it is about strengthening
individuals, groups and institutions to be able to manage the stresses
associated with contested processes of participation, local economic
grievances and hostilities in a way that reduces conflict as a
constraint to sustainable rural livelihoods, and where practicable,
turns it into a positive social force.
Consensus-Building is one strategy for managing conflict. In

contrast to strategies based on avoidance, force or compromise,
consensus-building seeks to facilitate agreement between individuals,
groups or institutions based on 'mutual gains'. By slowly broadening
people's understanding of their own and others' interests needs, and
encouraging them to think outside often entrenched and emotional
positions, 'win-win' outcomes become entirely plausible.
The role of consensus-building in sustainable livelihoods is not

limited to conflict management. It has a critical part to play in
exploiting opportunities to protect and enhance social and human
capital, and can provide the skills needed to re-negotiate the ways in
which external actors contribute to transforming livelihood assets
into beneficial outcomes.
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction of Original and Adapted Material

Requires Written Permission
Acknowledgements
The origins of this Manual lie in a programme of conflict management implemented

across a range of community-based natural resource projects in Fiji and Papua New
Guinea. This programme is on-going and is managed by the United Kingdom
Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific (UKFSP) through its South Pacific
affiliates in the Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea. Funding for the work is granted
from the Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department of the Department for
International Development (DFID).
The Overseas Development Institute has been involved in preparing guidelines to

facilitate the above programme, culminating in "A Manual on Alternative Conflict
Management for Community-Based Natural Resource Projects in the South Pacific:
Context, Principles. Tools and Training Materials. Significant contributions to this
manual were made by Dr Philip Scott Jones of the Centre for Rural Development
Training, University of Wolverhampton, and field staff from the Foundation for the
People of the South Pacific in Fiji (FSP-Fiji), the Foundation for People and Community
Development in Papua New Guinea (FPCD), and the PEACE Foundation Melanesia,
also in Papua New Guinea, in particular: Roshni Chand and Koto Simion ofFSP-Fiji,
Katherine Yuave ofFPCD and Pat Howley of the PEACE Foundation.
The following manual builds on the earlier version. It has been re-orientated to address
the emerging concept of sustainable rnral livelihoods (see Introduction). The approach
assumes that the principles and tools of conflict management and consensus-building can
contribute to achieving sustainable rnral livelihoods. Manual has drawn upon a wide
range of field experiences and published and unpublished material. The main sources of
information are given in Annex E. The two most dominant are:
• Environment Council (1994) Professional Training for Facilitators and Mediators:

Course Handbook, London: Environment Council; and
• International Alert (1996) Resource Pack, London: International Alert

2. Principles of Consensus-Building .................................................................
25
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 25
2.2 Accommodate Cultural Differences .................................................................... 27
2.3 Acknowledge Perceptions .................................................................................... 29
2.4 Ensure Good Communications .......................................................................... .30
2.5 Create a Level Playing Field ................................................................. .............. .30
2.6 Build and Maintain Rapport.. ............................................................................ .31
2.7 Focus on Satisfying Underlying Needs .............................................................. .32
2.8 Widen the Options ........................................................................................ ........ 33

2.8.1 Creativity ..................................................................................................... 34
2.8.2 Lateral Thinking ·····································································:···················· 35
2.9 Clarifying Motivations and Options .............................................................. .....37

2.9.1 Clarifying Underlying Motivations ............................................................. 37
2.9.2 Clarifying Options ....................................................................................... 38
2.10 Achieve Mutual Gains ............................................................. ......................... 38
2.11 Test the Agreement for Feasibility .................................................................. 39
3. Process of Consensus-Building .......................................................................

.41
3.1 Building Blocks ........................ ........................................................................... 41
3.2 Office-Based Conflict Analysis ..................................................... .................... .43

3.2. l Initial Conflict Mapping ............................................................. ., ............... 44
3.2.2 Spatial Conflict Mapping ............................................................................ 45
3.2.3 Prioritisation of Conflicts ............................................................................ 45
3.2.4 Extended Stakeholder Identification ........................................................... 50
3.2.5 Underlying Motivations .............................................................................. 52
3.3 Provisional Consensus-Building Plan ............................................................... 56

3.3.1 Example - Tourist Guest-house ................................................................... 56
3.4 Participatory Conflict Analysis .......................................................................... .59

3.4.1 The 'No Conflict Management' Option ...................................................... 59
3.4.2 Initial Participatory Conflict Analysis ........................................................ 59
3 .4.3 Clarification ................................................................................................. 61
3.4.4 Building on Customary, Institutional and Legal Approaches to Conflict
Managment ................................................................................................ 65
Introduction
Overseas Development Institute

Who is the Manual for?
The Manual will be of practical use to CBOs, NGOs and advisors in donor agencies
working on rural livelihoods, as well as those government departments and private
companies wishing to undertake processes of stakeholder negotiation over the
management of initiatives in rural areas.
The Manual is designed to be relevant to most types of rural livelihood projects and
interventions. This includes:
• projects and interventions managed by community groups, such as participatory

forestry projects, community-based coastal resource management, integrated
conservation and development projects, community water supply and sanitation
infrastructure, community-based revolving credit schemes; and
• projects and interventions in which resources and capital assets are owned by
community groups but managed by external public or private organisations, such as
private logging companies, medium scale mining companies, commercial agriculture
enterprises, water and electricity utilities, tourism operators, micro finance NGOs, or
commercial CBOs etc.
Context of Manual
The overall context for the Manual needs to be understood. Its goal is to promote public
involvement in sustainable development. Its purpose is to give practical guidance on the
role of conflict management and consensus-building in achieving sustainable rural
livelihoods.
Public Involvement in Sustainable Development
The last fifteen years has seen increasing interest in the role of citizen participation in
community development projects as a route to greater project sustainability. As Redclift
( I 992) argues, "..if people are not brought into focus through sustainable development,
becoming both architects and engineers of the concept, then it will never be achieved
anyway, since they are unlikely to take responsibility for something they do not 'own'
themselves".
The Manual aims to provide guidance on how to establish and manage a process of
stakeholder negotiation in the context of rural livelihoods such that the concept of
sustainability-through-participation is operationalised in practice.
11
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods
"Around 70% of the world's poor live in rural areas. Though urban
poverty is rising, the correlation between poverty and remoteness
from urban centres is strong in most countries and s expected to
remain so until at least the second decade of the next century. Clearly
therefore the International Target of halving the number of people
living in extreme poverty by 2015 will be achievable only if the
problem of rural poverty is confronted head-on" (Carney, 1999).
Livelihoods Framework
A sustainable rural livelihoods approach is about removing constraints and exploiting

opportunities to realise positive livelihood outcomes. It aims to both protect and build
material and social assets, and strengthen the capabilities of individuals, groups and
institutions to cope with vulnerability and transform assets into benefits. "A livelihood
is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain
or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining
the natural resource base" (Carney (1999), adapted from Chambers and Conway).
The aim of a 'livelihoods' approach is to reorientate development thinking in a manner

which places people within the context of their wider environment. Achieving
sustainable livelihoods includes consideration of the effects of 'external' structures
(levels of government, private sector etc.) and processes (policies, institutions, law etc.)
on the way in which livelihood assets are accessed and capabilities employed. It also
involves an understanding of the impact on livelihoods of external events and trends
(economic, climatic, natural environment, violent conflict etc.). Lastly, it takes account
of the relative livelihood significance of 'internal' access to, and ownership of, different
forms of capital assets (financial, social, human, natural and physical), as well as how
these assets are, or are not, transformed by internal and external structures and processes
into viable livelihood strategies.
The framework below has been developed to help understand livelihoods. By

simplifying the complexity oflivelihoods it seeks to facilitate identification of desirable
and feasible interventions. The approach aims to avoid the weaknesses of past
'integrated rural development' approaches based on unmanageable integrated
programmes. Though desirable, these programmes were not always technically or
financially feasible, and often failed to see macro level political and institutional factors
as major constraints.
lll
Figure A Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
Key
H = Human Capital S= Social Capital
N = Natural Capital P = Physical Capital
F = Financial Capital
I LIVELIHOOD ASSETS!
TRANSFORMING LIVELIHOOD
STRUCTURES & /;/ OUTCOMES
VULNERABILITY
~ H ~ ~
1-P_R_O_C_E_S_S_E_S_--,1
CONTEXT • More income
'--I
©
STRUCTURES ~---~ • Increased
•SHOCKS S N : Influence, , Levels of LIVELIHOOD well-being
•TRENDS : & access : government STRATEGIES • Reduced
\-------' •Private •laws vulnerability
•SEASONALITY
p F ¢:::r sector • Policies
• Improved food
~
• Culture security
• Institutions •More
sustainable use
PROCESSES of NR base
Camey, 1999
Links to Strategic Planning
The livelihoods framework bears close similarities to models of organisational strategic

planning adapted for rural community development (see for example, Warner and
Robb, 1996). Central to any model of strategic organisational planning is:
• the problem of a complex human environment; and
• some form of internal/external SWOT analysis.
The proposed livelihoods framework explicitly recognises that issues of poverty and
sustainable livelihoods are indeed complex and human focused. The framework also
proposes the identification of projects and interventions through analysis of:
• internal strengths and weaknesses (for example of people's capital assets and
capacities);
• internal opportunities (for building capital assets and strengthening local

capacities),
• external opportunities (for re-negotiating transformational structures and

processes), and
• external threats (trends and shocks).
Note that together weaknesses and threats can be construed of as 'constraints'.
IV
Role of Conflict Management and Consensus-Building in Sustainable
Rural Livelihoods
Operationalising the concept of sustainable rural livelihoods will likely require a range
of conflict management and consensus-building skills, both to exploit opportunities and
overcome constraints. Applications are likely to include:
• exploiting opportunities:
• protecting and building all five types of capital assets, particularly social and
human;
• re-negotiating the role of government and private structures in transforming
livelihood assets into benefits; and
• reducing constraints:
• managing contested processes of stakeholder participation within civil
society, and between civil society and external actors; and
• preventing, coping and recovering from violent conflict.
These are discussed separately below.
Protecting and Building Capital Assets
In themselves, conflict management and consensus-building skills are a form of human

capital. Skills that enable local leaders to negotiate with public water authorities or
private logging companies, for example, are empowering in their own right. But conflict
management and consensus-building skills provide far more than this. They offer a
rapid and cost effective means to protect and enhance social capital 1• Moreover, it is
human and social capital which together provide the capacity for protecting and
enhancing physical, financial and natural assets.
For example, productive common property resources (CPR) require robust CPR (ie
social) organisations, and robust CPR organisations will not emerge without human
skills that enable participants to agree constitutional rules with the formal (or informal)
regulating authorities, rules of competition and resource management, and access to
alternative income opportunities for those excluded. Neither will roads (physical
capital) or credit (financial capital) be accessible without the capacity to negotiate access
to transportation services or to affordable terms ofloan repayments (cash, in-kind or
otherwise).
A consensus-building approach to conflict management has a particular role to play in

protecting and enhancing social and human capital, both within rural populations and
between community groups and external actors. Given that jealousies, tensions, disputes
and violence can undermine co-ordination and co-operation between parties at both the
micro-micro and macro-micro levels, it is tenable that conflict management capacities
1
Social capital can be defined as "features of social organisation, such as networks, norms and trust,
that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit". It is argued that "working together is
easier in a community blessed with a substantial stock of social capital" and that social capital provides
the basis for effective government and economic development (Putman, 1993).
V
(in particular skills to build consensus between parties) are a means to protect and build
this co-ordination and co-operation.
Table A below show some of the ways in which a consensus approach to conflict
management can contribute to building different types of social and human capital.
Table A Role Consensus-Building in Strengthening the Social and Human Capital

Component of Livelihoods - Examples from Fiji and Papua New Guinea
Form of social/human capital Examples
Family and kinship Mediation of family disputes such as domestic violence, drunkenness and
connections attempted rape by a local NGO
Horizontal social networks, Training of village chiefs and Mataqali (land owner) heads in facilitation skills for
'associational life', networks of use in building consensus between stakeholders over 'rules' for harvesting forest
civic engagement resources, profit distribution and project membership.
NGO based brokering in a conservation and livelihood project over multiple land
claims. Disputing parties agreed to proportional access to future revenue streams
(eg from logging, oil palm, or tourists) as an alternative to the delineation ofland
ownership boundaries.
Horizontal trust, norms and Third-party facilitation by an NGO in the above project over tourist revenue
rules 'independent' oflinkages distribution. Agreement based on separating out responsibilities for different
between civil society service activities. No 'new' associations were created, but horizontal social capital
organisations was built in that the parties accepted mutually beneficial arrangements for engaging
with tourists.
In a community forestry project, strengthening of customary approaches to

dispute resolution to increase the representation of disenfranchised groups ( eg
those without forest resources) in formulating the rules for:
• resource access, such that, for example, they receive revenues for allowing
their land to be crossed; or
• project participation, such as involvement in wood processing or marketing
activities.
Re-Negotiating the Transformational Role of External Actors
The new livelihoods approach attempts to separate the ubiquitous link between 'rural'
and 'agriculture', and to widen the scope for rnral development to other sectors - health,
education, training, infrastrncture, financial services etc. This will likely involve new
associations between external strnctures and process (ministries, local authorities,
policies, laws, cultures and policy, private companies and non-target local stakeholders),
and the intended project beneficiaries
Recent thinking on social capital argues that such vertical macro-micro associations are
a prerequisite to strong horizontal associations in civil society, in that they facilitate
effective local representation, participation and institutional accountability (Harriss and
de Renzio, 1998). However, emerging evidence (for example, from the
aforementioned Conflict Management programme in Fiji and Papua New Guinea, see
Acknowledgernents) suggests that the importance of macro level social capital in
constrncting a stronger civil society may be overstated and that a focus on civil society
may be as misplaced current thinking would suggest..
Vl
This is because many of today's disputes, tensions and even some violent conflict are
underpinned as much by localised competition over power, resource distribution and
access to limited economic opportunities, as by structural injustices. The continuing
violence in South Africa could, for example, be attributed in part to the replacement of
political injustice of a structural nature with highly visible local economic inequalities.
Thus it is not always necessary to address structural injustices in society in order to
strengthen civil society and through this help build social and other capital assets.
Processes of consensus-building which look for creative and lateral solutions can help to
build co-operation and co-ordination and reduce tensions within civil society without the
assistance of government institutions and without necessarily having to resolve the
structural 'root' causes of conflict (see examples in above Table).
In addition, the local level application of consensus-building skills to resolve cross-

cultural and macro-micro level conflicts can actually contribute to stronger co-ordination
and co-operation between civil society and macro institutions (private companies,
central and local government, and statutory institutions). Table B below shows how
consensus-building skills can help re-negotiate the role of macro level institutions in
transforming livelihood assets into sustainable benefits. Examples are given for those
types of social capital which involve the macro level
Table B Use of Consensus-Building in Re-Negotiating the

Transformational Role of Macro-level Institutions in Rural
Livelihoods - Examples from Fiji and Papua New Guinea
Form of social capital Examples
cross-sectoral (vertical) Training CBOs and NGOs to be able to better negotiate with private companies,
linkages, eg partnerships for example:
between private sector, • removing the threat of large-scale clear felling by a private oil palm company in
government agencies and civil a parks and people project;
society • replacing landowner roadblocks with revenue sharing arrangements between
private logging companies and local land owners; and
• agreeing profit distribution and tourist trail routes between community leaders
and tour operators.
Employing 'third-party' facilitation skills to formulate rules for project

participation, for example, the formulation of an MoU in a coral aquaculture
project setting out the expected benefits and responsibilities of each party, and of
individual 'deeds of agreement' between each participating household and the
project sponsor.
macro level social capital Strengthening of formal institutional processes of conflict management such that they
(those constitutions. are better able mediate disputes, for example, the training oflocal land mediators and
regulations, laws, statutory village magistrates, and officers from Government Lands Department- with the aim
1ns11tut1onsand policies which in both cases being to facilitate the resolution of land ownership disputes.
define the 'formal'
relationships between state and Training in consensual negotiation and mediation skills for staff from the
civil society) Departments of Environment and Lands Department to:
• help reduce delays in the approval of infrastructure projects, and
• to bring the process of land claim arbitration closer to the local level.
Vll
Managing Contested Processes of Participation
A 'livelihoods' approach provides the basis for identifying desirable and feasible
projects and interventions to reduce rural poverty. However, a focus on reducing
poverty raises the possibility of new tensions between project beneficiaries and excluded
groups. It is by no means certain that promoting enterprises that make poorer groups
economically more secure will reduce rather than increase inter-group tensions.
Livelihood strategies which depend for their success upon those excluded from
immediate benefits - for example middle-men who 'own' access to transportation - are
vulnerable to these tensions.
The concept of civil society as a 'contested' space runs counter to the earlier notion of
civil society as a single entity, with the different organisations working towards common
objectives of democratic governance. This point is forcibly put by Mcllwaine (1998) in
the context of El Salvador. Her argument is that: " ..civil society and the social relations
that underpin it are not, by their nature, inherently democratic or participatory. Not does
strengthening civil society organisations automatically engender democratisation ..
Indeed, it may actually undermine it" (p656).
Conflict management offers a set of principles and tools for managing the evolution of
civil society organisations and groups and for defusing conflict between various parties
and individuals. In the first instance these skills can be used to strengthen customary
approaches to conflict resolution within and between community groups. Where
customary approaches are demonstrably failing, they offer a way to develop new hybrid
(customary/modem) approaches to managing conflict. Box A below gives an example
of a process of conflict management in a livelihood context. The case involves a
process of third-party facilitated negotiation transformed a dispute between two
community based organisations into a force for promoting more sustainable rural
livelihood strategies.
Preventing, Coping and Recovering from Violent Conflict
In the period 1996/97, PIOOM recorded twenty high-intensity conflicts (wars with more
than 1000 deaths) (for example, Algeria, Bosnia, the Great Lakes) and over 100 lower
intensity conflicts resulting in up to 1000 deaths (eg Sri Lanka, Northern Uganda,
Eastern Turkey) (PIOOM, 1997). Many of these latter conflicts are long term,
subsiding and escalating over time so that sporadic violence and the threat of violence
become the accepted social norm (World Disasters Report, 1998). Whilst at the tum of
the century 90% of war casualties were military, nowadays over 95% are civilian. As
well as death and injury, the civilian impacts of conflict include displacement, hunger
and disease.
Sustaining livelihoods in conflict-prone areas will require capabilities to cope with the
threat and reality of violence, and to contribute to recovery and post-conflict
reconstruction. Conflict management and consensus-building skills can play a part in
this. However this Manual is NOT designed for situations of 'open' armed conflict 2 •
2
For this the reader is directed to the Resource Pack for Conflict Transformation published by
International Alert ( 1996) as a starting point.
Vlll
The principles and tools discussed in the following sections are more applicable to
situations of post-conflict reconstruction - especially where this involves civil society
and local capacities - and to the prevention of 'latent' conflict from emerging into
violence.
Box A The Role of Conflict Management in Resolving Contested Processes of

Project Participation
An Example from the Lakekamu Basin futegrated

Conservation and Development Project, Papua New Guinea
The Conflict
In 1997, with financial and technical assistance from the Foundation for People and Community
Development (FPCD), community groups living within the Kakoro region of the proposed Lakekamu
Basin conservation area constructed a tourist guest-house. As tourists and scientists began to arrive a
dispute broke out between two local women's groups over the distribution of profits from the provision
of cooking and cleaning services to the guest house. The influx of tourists soon ceased, along with the
flow of income into the community. The dispute caused FPCD to consider withdrawing from the
project. Furthermore, an evaluation report by the project sponsors cited the dispute as evidence that the
Lakekamu initiative - of which the guest house was a part- was unlikely to be cost-effective and that
considerations were being given to withdrawing funding.
Conflict management - the process
Using simple office-based analytical tools, staff from FPCD mapped out the causes of the dispute, the
stakeholders involved, each stakeholder's immediate concerns and their underlying motivations. The
information was then verified with the stakeholders. This month long process also served to build the
degree of trust necessary for FPCD to act as a facilitator in settling the dispute. Following a series of
separate focus group discussions, a joint meeting was held at which a settlement was negotiated. The
format of the final negotiations was designed to be familiar to the participants in terms of its location,
eligibility to contribute, style of dialogue and type of decision-making.
Conflict management - the settlement
By creating awareness of their own and each others' underlying motivations, focusing discussion on
areas of common interest, and soliciting fresh ideas, FPCD was able to facilitate a settlement. The
process revealed that both sides shared a strong desire to see the dispute resolved such that tourists would
return and income would once again flow to individuals and the community. It also became clear that
the parties' true motivations had less to do with access to profits from the guesthouse per se, and more
with being involved 'in some way' in earning income from the presence of the tourists. Through free
and open discussion, and with FPCD clarifying the economic and technical viability of the various ideas,
it was agreed that one of the groups - the Community Women's Group - would voluntarily leave the
guest house services to the other - the Guest House Women's Group. In return the former group would
provide portaging services for the guest house, and make and sell handicrafts. This group would also
assume responsibility for collecting and selling Kunai grasses to help construct a proposed FPCD field
staff accommodation unit, and develop a small kerosene-trading business from earlier guest house
profits. Finally, the group were granted sole responsibility for providing cooking and cleaning services to
the field staff accommodation once completed. The overall settlement was tested for its social
acceptability with the men and leaders of the community. Six weeks later field observations suggest that
the settlement is holding.
IX
In addition to violent conflict, many other countries and regions are in a state of 'latent'
conflict. Armed conflicts may be subsiding (Bougainville, Mozambique, Guatemala,
Palestine), or showing the first signs of re-emerging (for example, Angola, Eritrea). Or,
various structural injustices (such as land ownership, access to the media etc.), or local
economic grievances (such as competition over access to limited income-earning
opportunities), are raising tensions to levels which present a risk of violence. Latent
conflict can also exist in a regional context. For example, some relatively stable
countries are threatened by violent conflict in neighbouring countries, and, of growing
importance in the future, many economically-significant but overexploited natural
resources (such as river basins) lie in transboundary zones between countries.
Because of the way they are designed, introduced or managed, projects in areas oflatent
conflict sometimes provoke or awaken disputes. In turn these disputes sometimes feed
on existing political or economic tensions and escalate into hostilities and violence.
Where this occurs the project's external social or political environment may be harmed
without the project itself being undermined. However, in other circumstances these
external consequences can rebound negatively on the project. Such negative impacts
have included threats to staff, project delays, office relocation, adverse media campaign,
loss of access to previous beneficiaries, and additional project and legal costs.
A number ofDFID rural development projects have incorporated conflict management

and consensus-building principles in order both reduce the vulnerability oflivelihoods to
the negative effects of conflict, and to exploit opportunities for a project to contribute to
wider processes of conflict prevention or post-conflict peace-building. Table C
provides some examples of the role of conflict management and consensus-building in
reducing livelihood vulnerability and exploiting opportunities in conflict-prone areas.
Project Cycle Management

In promoting livelihood sustainability the manual presents two broad strategies
applicable at different stages in the project cycle:
• managing 'live' conflicts; and

• improving project planning
Managing 'Live' Conflicts
The first strategy is to manage disputes and conflicts as and when they unexpectedly
arise within the implementation of livelihood projects. At one extreme this may involve
·resolving' the conflict altogether, i.e. not only managing the immediate cause of the
dispute but also removing all underlying contributing factors. Given that sometimes
these ·contributing factors' will be structural and operate at the national or regional level
(e.g. land tenure legislation, economic policy, political expediency etc), it is likely that
many 'live' conflicts will only be able to be 'managed' and not fully 'resolved'.
X
OHrscas Development Institute
Table C The Role of Conflict Management and Consensus-Building in Reducing
Livelihood Vulnerability and Exploiting Opportunities in Conflict-
Prone Areas
Types of Conflict Situations
Conllict/Pcacc Latent Conflict/ Threat of Violence/ Open Conflict/ Fragile Periods/

Themes Submerged Tensions Rising Tensions Violent Conflict Post Conflict Rehabilitation
and Reconstruction
Political • promote legitimate • promote conflict resolution • support mediation • contribute to re-
proccss<:sand representative authorities 'entrepreneurs' and efforts between warring establishment of rule oflaw
strw.:turcs • promote participatory advocates parties • strengthen legitimate
dt:vdopment • support legitimate • contribute to representative authority
• promote competency, representative authorities maintaining lines of • contribute to legitimate
transparency and • contribute to community- communications political re-integration
accountability in public based mediation efforts between protagonists • provide catalyst for civic
institutions and local and civil population forums to discuss unresolved
organisations • capitalise on '\vindows' structural 'roots' of conflict
• advocacy of opportunity for peace- • facilitate government
building endorsement of local peace-
• facilitate co-ordiantion building efforts
between security,
diplomacy humanitarian
aid and development
organisations
Economic trends, • improve access to and • design low profile • focus on meeting immediate
structures. management of natural interventions and avoid needs but with a view
activities and resources for poor and conspicuous assets towards development
processes disadvantaged objectives
• promote economic balance • contribute economic
and fair competition between incentives to the
civil society organisations 'mainstreaming' of
settlements
• promote immediate and
visible economic benefits
• rehabilitate financial
institutions
Social processes, • promote accountable and • contribute to the creation of • contribute to 'second- • contribute to reconciliation
111.SlllUl!OOS, etlective formal law and 'sate spaces' for non- tracking' mediation processes
behaviour, order confrontational land non- processes • contribute to building local
values and • support capacity building political dialogue across constituents for peace
relationships which leaves a legacy of social divides • strengthen conflict
social adaptability to rising • promote communications management mechanisms
tensions and a changing between potentially proved to have been effective
society conflicting • promote conflict
• build and strengthen societal • promote shared management mechanisms
networks. both horizontal understanding of each parties which rapidly defuse re-
and vertical underlying fears and emerging violence or
• build capacity for civil motivations tensions
society to mange its O\v11 • promote selt:.help and self • provide incentives which
internal competitive management in crisis- contribute to effectiveness of
tendencies threatened populations settlements
• provide facilitation and • promote awareness about
dispute resolution services conflict, its causes, impacts,
prevention and escalation.
• promote networks of
conciliation services at all
levels
• strengthen trouble shooting
and negotiation capabilities
of civil society
• promote a culture of dispute
resolution and conflict
management within civil
society
(compiled from: Lederach, 1994; Bush, 1998; DFID, 1998; O'Reilly,

1998; and Good.hand and Hulme, 1998; OECD, 1998)
XI
In the context oflivelihood projects the objectives of conflict management are thus four
fold:
• to prevent existing conflicts from escalating
• to prevent latent conflicts from re-emerging;
• where possible, to transform conflict into a force for positive social change; and
• to manage structural conflicts such that they no longer interfere with the efficient
implementation of the project or intervention.
This emphasis on conflict 'management' rather than conflict 'resolution' is what

underpins the term conflict management. In the context oflivelihood projects, the task
of trne conflict 'resolution' may often be best left to other areas of development and
peace-building, namely: policy reform, structural adjustment, institutional capacity
building, democratisation, and international conventions and protocols. However, as
indicated earlier, where a project or intervention can contribute to these wider peace-
building processes such opportunities should be exploited.
Improving Project Planning
The second strategy is for development agencies and intermediaries to build conflict
prevention measures into the design of their livelihood projects 'before' they are
implemented. This approach is analogous to the process of Environmental Impact
Assessment where effects (in this case 'conflicts') are first predicted, and the project
design and then strengthened to mitigate the most significant threats.
Structure of Manual
The Manual is divided into three Parts. Part 1 places the process of consensus-building
within the context of the different strategies for managing conflict. Part 2 describes the
core principles of consensus-building. Part 3 relates these principles to the detailed
process of consensus-building. Throughout the Manual exercises are presented which
can be used to gain experience and/or train others. Part 3 includes a series of 'tools'
relevant to different stages in the process of consensus-building. Where applicable
these tools are illustrated by case-studies.
Xll
Part 1
Conflict Management

1. Conflict Management
1.1. What is Conflict?
Conflict is a very fluid, mobile, ambiguous word. It can mean different things to
different people. For example, it can refer to:
• a debate or contest;
• a disagreement, argument, dispute or quarrel;
• a strnggle, battle or confrontation; or
• a state of unrest, instability, turmoil or chaos.
Conflict is also generic. In other words, the characteristics of conflicts are present within
the full spectrnm of social interactions and behaviour. Some of these are given in Box
1.1.
Box 1.1 Spectrum of Social Interactions Relevant to Conflict
• conflicts within an individual;

• conflicts between husband and wife;
• conflicts within the household;
• conflicts between extended family groups;
• conflicts among community groups (councils, associations, co-operatives, landowners, resource
users etc);
• conflicts between community groups and external organisations (NGOs, government agencies
and commercial companies)
• conflicts between different ethnic groups;
• conflicts between political parties; and
• conflicts between countries and groups of countries.
The word 'conflict' usually has negative connotations. We tend to think of it as the
opposite of co-operation, harmony and peace. It is most commonly associated with
'violence' or the 'threat of violence'. Such a narrow view of conflict is unhelpful.
Instead, conflict needs to be thought of as an expression of a changing society. Nowhere
perhaps is society changing more rapidly than in certain rural areas of developing
countries. The introduction of new technologies, commercialisation of common property
resources, privatisation of public services, growing consumerism, and new government
policy for community-based natural resource management, all exert pressure on
individuals and community groups to adapt. Conflict is therefore not something that can
be avoided or suppressed. It needs to be acknowledged, managed and transformed into a
force for positive social change.

1.1.1. Conflict and Rural Livelihood Projects
Training Exercise 1
Around the developing world disputes and
conflicts have arisen within a variety of rural 'Levels' of Conflict
livelihood projects and interventions. Such projects
fall into three broad categories: Objective
1. projects where capital assets utilised are owned To explore similarities in the
characteristics of conflict at
and managed by individuals or groups within different levels in society
rural community settings, including:
• smallholder agriculture;
• eco-forestry projects, for example those
1. each participant describes an
designed around portable sawmills and example of a conflict for one of
involving community forest management the levels of social interaction in
and timber processing of indigenous and/or Box 1.1. Ask the participant to
plantation forests; highlight the key characteristics
of both the conflict and the way
• coastal resource management projects
it is usually managed
involving management of fish stocks, coral
extraction, acquaculture etc by community 2. facilitate a group discussion of
groups; the similarities between the
• integrated conservation and development conflicts in terms of their key
characteristics
projects (ICDPs), with community groups
providing research and tourism
accommodation, guides, crafts and other services, often in co-ordination with
tour-operators;
• eco-tourism projects where these are unrelated to ICDPs;
• community-based wildlife management;
• community-based credit schemes.
2. projects where the assets are owned by individuals or community groups but managed
by external individuals, eg other community groups, or public or private
organisations. In these projects certain benefits such as employment or revenues
accruing to the owners. Such projects include:
• logging and timber processing;
• some agriculture projects;
• commercial silviculture; and
• small and medium scale extractive industries.
3. projects where the assets utilised are not owned but merely managed by individuals or
community groups. Ownership may reside in other community groups, or external
public or private organisations. Livelihood projects aimed at reducing poverty will
often exhibit these characteristics.
Overseas Development Institute 2

Livelihood projects may be initiated either by some external government or non-
governmental agency, or by individuals or community groups themselves. This manual
is relevant to both forms of initiation and not just externally initiated projects.
Within livelihood projects, different types of conflicts can occur, both among community
groups, and between communities and external organisations. The effects of conflicts
range from reducing the overall effectiveness and sustainability of asset management, to
the complete collapse of projects and withdrawal oflocal participation and outside
assistance. In some cases these non-violent conflicts can and have escalated into physical
violence.
Box I. I. I outlines some of the disputes and conflicts common to different types of
livelihood projects.
Box 1.1.1 Common Conflicts and Disputes affecting Livelihood Projects

Land Disputes
1. disputes over land ownership of project sites;

2. disputes over land boundaries between different land owning groups;
3. land ownership disputes ignited by the speculation activities of commercial companies;
4. disputes over access rights for project-related participants (land owners and/or resource users) across
non-project land units;
5. disputes over renewal arrangements for leased land.
Income Disputes
6. income generation expectations not realised;

7. disputes over the unfair distribution of work and profits from community-based enterprises;
8. disputes generated by jealousy related to growing wealth disparities;
Cultural and Relationship Conflicts
9. lack of co-operation between different community groups;

10. cultural conflicts between community groups and 'outsiders';
11. project management disputes between community groups and 'outside' project-sponsors;
12. disputes arising from political interference (national, provincial or local);
13. latent family and relationship disputes;
14. disputes arising from the different expectations of community groups (e.g. project landowners) and the
aspirations of commercial companies;
Resource-Related Disputes
15. introduction of new resource management technologies ( e.g. motorised vehicles, guns, sawmills, fishing
nets etc.) which give rise to unsustainable competition for finite natural resources (e.g. wildlife, fish
stocks, timber, non-timber forest products etc.);
l 6. environmental impacts generated by one group of resource users adversely affecting another group
(impacts arising either from community groups or commercial companies);
17. disputes arising from unplanned exploitation of resources arising from the use of project-related access
roads;
18. disputes due to projects being skewed towards those land owning groups who own resources ofa higher
quality.

1.2. Types of Conflicts
Conflict can be divided into two principle types: those caused directly by the introduction
of new developmental (or environmental) pressures, and those structural injustices that
often lie dormant but which can be 're-awakened' as an indirect consequence of new
development pressures.
1.2.1. Developmental Pressures
The combination of demographic changes and the limits to sustainability of renewable

natural resources (forests, water bodies, grazing areas, marine resources, wildlife and
agricultural land) are often cited as the underlying cause of conflict over natural resources
both among community groups, and between community groups and outside public and
private organisations. However, the cause of these problems is complicated by the
presence of an increasingly complex and rapidly changing economic environment. The
range of developmental pressures currently and potentially confronting rural communities
is wide. New technologies, new government policies for community management of
natural resources, increasing local economic aspirations, the shift towards private welfare
provision, and declining terms of trade are just some of the problems. Box 1.2.1 provides
an inventory of common developmental pressures affecting the sustainability of rural
livelihood projects.
1.2.2. Structural Conflicts
Although the link between the more common developmental pressures (such as
commercialisation of common property resources) and the degradation ofrenewable
natural resources is well documented, these pressures may be only a part of the
explanation. Increased competition and conflict over community-based natural resources
are often underpinned by deeper lying, 'structural' conflicts. These include, for example,
the inequalities inherent in legal definitions of land ownership, local and regional
economic and political inequalities, and ethnic and cultural differences.
Many of these factors lie dormant until 're-awakened' by the onset of a particular set of
developmental pressures. The following is an example:
A land title dispute between two community groups arises because of

some economic value being placed on an area of communal forest
previously used only for subsistence. For six months the two groups
compete with each other over the resource, both extracting at
unsustainable rates. After six months one of the groups decides to
turn to the legal system to solve the dispute. This act re-awakens what
before the commercialisation of the resource had not been seen as a
significant problem - namely the ambiguous land tenure system. The
system - a remnant from the colonial days - takes no account of the

Box 1.2.1 Common Developmental Pressures Affecting the Sustainability
of Community-based Natural Resources
• the introduction of productivity enhancing technologies (e.g. synthetic fertilisers, agricultural

mechanisation, permanent irrigation, joint management regimes etc.) which if poorly
managed can place a strain on the regeneration capacity of renewable natural resources;
• growing awareness within rural communities that commercial value can be attributed to
common property resources (land, minerals, forests, fish and wildlife) and that these benefits
can be accessed through the exertion of 'private' property rights, and/or captured by elites;
• increasing importance of the cash economy to rural people and rising local aspirations for
consumer products;
• lack of incentive for resource users (community groups and 'outside' organisations) to avoid
giving rise to environmental and social impacts which adversely affect unintended third
parties;
• declining government public expenditure on essential rural services, e.g. health, education,
water and electricity supplies, transportation etc.;
• introduction of public conservation policies, e.g. wildlife protection legislation;
• introduction of government policies for autonomy to communities to manage state-owned

natural resources;
• continuing rural to urban migration reducing the available labour for resource management;
and
• changes in rural employment activities arising from the arrival of rural-based industries, e.g.
crop processing, manufacturing, extractive industries, oil and gas, construction projects etc.
• conflicts arising from poor enforcement of natural resource management regulations,

including:
• regulatory agencies lacking resources to enforce environmental protection regulations
contained in licenses, permits etc;
• large companies avoiding compliance and sanctions by threatening to withdraw their
investment or by manipulating 'the system' including the courts;
• a general lack of understanding of environmental laws and regulations on the part of
industries, governmental agencies and the general population;
• non-compliance arising from unrealistic requirements for pollution control technology
and poor implementation of environmental impact mitigation plans; and
• failure of the courts to enforce regulations because of prolonged legal processes, with
the outcome often unsupported by one or more parties.
• perverse incentive structures promoted by conventional CBA .

strength of historic claims to land. This structural conflict is re-
awakened when the local court affords legal ownership of a large
portion of the communal forest area to one of the two groups. The
decision incites the other group to concentrate its activities within the
remaining area of communal land, thereby degrading the forest at still
higher rates and at the same time preventing other community groups
from exercising their usufntct rights.
The events in this example are demonstrated schematically in Figure 1.2.2. Table 1.2.2
lists some strnctural conflicts relevant to sustainable rnral livelihoods and which when re-
awakened can contribute to more rapid degradation of natural resources.
Figure 1.2.2 Schematic Representation of the Contribution of Demographic

Change, Developmental Pressures and Structural Conflicts to
Resource Degradation
point at which the natural resource base becomes degraded
t----····---------✓---..-------,----------.--
demographic change combines with
t
increasing competition
new developmental pressures
\
over natural resources new developmental
pressures 're-awaken'
structural conflicts
\ demographic change leads to greater

competition over natural resources
time
In general then, unsustainable management of community-based natural resources may be

only partly related to either the finite nature of the resources in question, or the
emergence of new and unmanageable commercial pressures. Resource degradation may
have just as much to do with the way in which population and development pressures re-
awaken dormant strnctural inequalities and ethnic differences. Thus, disputes and
conflicts over community-based natural resources need to be seen in the context of a
complex web of sensitive natural environments, new developmental pressures, structural
economic and legal inequalities, personal and ethnic differences, and the multiple
interests of different individuals, groups and organisations from both inside and outside
rnral communities. It is this high level of complexity that has caused conventional
'adversarial' forms of negotiation to fail in the management of conflict, and generated
interest in the practices of consensus-building.

Table 1.2.2 Types of 'Structural' Conflicts Relevant to Rural Livelihoods
Type Kev Characteristics Examples
Social unequal, unjust or • different levels of education or

unrepresentative social income which mean that some parties
structures have a lower capacity to enter into
stakeholder negotiations or access
legal proceedings;
• insecure land leases which result in

renewable natural resources being
exploited rather than harvested.
Legal legal systems with inherent • legal systems which recognise only
bias towards certain 'named' landowners, and not all
stakeholders resource users.
Economic economic (or political) • economic and political power of

power inherently bias commercial companies;
towards certain stakeholders
• governrnent policies and permitting
arrangements for extractive industries
which ignore customary 'norms' for
land and resource ownership.
Cultural Different parties with • different values for land held by

different deep-seated human indigenous peoples and migrant
values that define their settlers;
identify
• racial, religious, tribal, ethnic or
linguistic differences and prejudices,
often exploited by ethnic elates and
'political entrepreneurs';
• different parties holding strong

negative emotional views ( often
stereotypical) of the other parties.

1.3. Conflict Escalation
Conflicts are best thought of as dynamic,

interactive social processes rather than single, Training Exercise 2
self-contained events. No two conflicts are
identical, but the way in which conflicts emerge Conflict Escalation
and subside (i.e. move from positions of
Objective
stability to instability, and back to stability) are
often similar. At any one point in time a To develop an understanding of the key
conflict can be identified as existing at one of a characteristics of conflict at different points
number of stages of transformation. in its escalation and submergence
Progression between these stages is not
necessarily one-directional, but can move
backwards and forwards, sometimes stagnating 1. divide the participants into small groups,
at one point for a considerable time. preferably comprising people from the
same organisation (and if possible from
the same development project or
Figure 1.3a below shows the stages of conflict programme)
escalation and some of the key characteristics of
each. There are different ways in which 2. one party from each group identifies a
conflicts are managed at each stage. When project in which there is currently a
conflicts are in the form of disputes or non- dispute or conflict relating to the
management of community-based
violent confrontation, conflict management natural resources.
strategies are likely to be designed to prevent an
escalation towards violence. As conflicts 3. the group identifies which characteristics
become more confrontational, conflict of conflict escalation most accurately
management tends to split into two distinct reflect the current status of the identified
conflict or dispute. Do this by circling
strategies. One strategy is to direct efforts the relevant bullet points on Figure
towards reducing any further escalation. The 1.3a)
other is to undertake preparations to mitigate
the effects of the conflict should it transform 4. ask a representative from each group to
explain in plenary: (a) what the conflict
into violence. Figure 1.3b identifies some of
is about, (b) its characteristics, and (c)
the options available to the conflicting parties, whereabouts on Figure 1.3a the conflict
governments, NGOs and donor to manage most logically rests (if necessary this
conflict at different stages of its escalation. may be represented as a short line rather
than a dot).

Figure 1.3a Characteristics of Conflict Escalation
violence
structural
developmental injustices
pressure\ escalation
/ non-violent
confrontation
disputes
ft fr
ft
• violence begins with sporadic
fr
isolated acts of aggression
towards individuals and/or
• sections of population
sabotage to property
mobilised on behalf of "the
cause"
• attacks become co-ordinated
• previously established
• tensions, jealousy channels of communication • customary, institutional and
within communities shut down legal approaches • blame for violence always
demonstrably fail to control attributed to the "other side"
apparent
disputes
• people begin to talk only to
• sense of deadlock develops
• increasing scarcity of those with who they agree
common property • open expressions of
resources hostility and anger
• lines of separation develop,
. ie "us versus them"

. everyday conversations
~veryday conversations
include raising of
complaints
. issues move from the
specific (an activity) to the
include demands and threats
general (the project) • negative language of

general population mirrors
• customary or legal
that of political leaders
mechanisms of conflict • political leaders emerge
management activated
and succeed in • 'structural' conflicts surface • conflicting parties 'ratchet-
suppressing or up' their demands and
resolving disputes extend their goals
• everyday conversations
include "taking sides"
• new groups arise and add
new issues
• individual economic and/or
political force used to push
through personal demands • conflicting parties draw in
allies from outside
immediate population
• conflicting parties lose
confidence in recourse to
customary approaches of
conflict management, and
tum to 'outside'
institutional or legal
mechanisms
adapted from International Alert (I 996); and Praxis ( I 988)

Figure 1.3b Conflict Management Options
overt
violence
escalation
towards
violence
non-violent
confrontation
disputes
ft conflict prevention
conflict mediation, preparedness
and mitigation
• provision of humanitarian
• shuttle diplomacy relief
between conflicting
• strengthening of 'outside' parties • management of refugee
institutional and legal movements
• building conflict prevention • impartial third-party
approaches to conflict
strategies into project mediation
planning
management • "second-tracking" (e.g .
parallel negotiation with
• constructing new • political, social and/or civil society)
• strengthening or customary 'independent' economic 'structural'
approaches to conflict adjustment (to remove
management at the
community-based
underlying causes of
• demobilisation of armed
systems of conflict groups
community level conflict)
management
• targeted livelihood projects
• social and economic
• legal assistance to • development of rehabilitation of displaced
(health, education, resource oppressed parties monitoring systems to people and refugees
management etc.) give early warning of
violence escalation
• enforcement of human
• demonstrations and rights
• targeted environmental boycotts by oppressed
management and • establishment of
parties
rehabilitation projects contingency plans
• arbitration;
• promotion of stakeholder
negotiation and dialogue
• partial third-party
mediation
• training of community
leaders in facilitation and
• other non-violent direct
mediation skills
action
• strengthening of civil
• improve credibility of
society
mile of law
• poverty alleviation
programmes
• promotion of human rights

and good governance
(h crsca; Development Institute 10

1.4. Conflict Management Strategies
There is no perfect process for managing the vulnerability of livelihoods. The overall
strategy adopted for each intervention or project needs to be that which is 'most
practicable' given the available resources and capabilities of the implementing
individuals, groups or agencies, and due consideration to issues of safety and the
availability of viable risk management options.
Figure I .4 below summarises the different strategies that can be adopted by a conflicting
party. In this diagram the approaches differ depending upon the extent to which:
• the party values the maintenance of good relations with other parties; and
• the importance the party places on achieving its own goals.
Each approach is discussed briefly below.
Figure 1.4 Conflict Management Strategies
High
i
Importance of
Accommodation Consensus
Relationship Compromise/
Trade-offs
Withdrawal Force
~
Low Importance of
Low achieving Goal ► High

1.4.1. Force
Conflict is managed through 'force' where one party has the means and inclination to win
regardless of whether the other party loses, and whether or not the process of winning
causes damage to one's personal or professional relationships. Not all parties will be able
to use force. It will largely depend upon the power that one party holds relative to
another. Some of the more obvious uses of force include the following:
• physical violence;
• threat of physical violence;
• exertion of economic dominance, e.g. 'buying-out' opponents;
• corruption of government officials;
• black-mail.
In some cases recourse to the legal system is also a form of 'force' in that one party can
use their superior resources to 'buy' better advice or raise the stakes (for example, by
taking a lost case to an appeal court).
Some less obvious but often no less powerful forms of 'force' include:
• adversarial (i.e. uncompromising) negotiation tactics;

• political expediency;
• manipulation of the electoral system;
• use of the mass media to rally public support;
• public protest;
• 'witch hunts';
• slander; and
• threat of withdrawal.
1.4.2. Withdrawal
'Withdrawal' is an approach to conflict management suited to those parties whose desire

to avoid confrontation outweighs the goals they are trying to achieve. The power of
'withdrawal' should not be underestimated, not least since it can be used as a threat to
force reluctant and sometimes more powerful parties to negotiate in a more consensus
fashion. Types of withdrawal include:
• avoidance;
• opting out of a project or a negotiation process;
• deployment of delaying tactics;
• postponing a decision;
• temporary boycott; and
• strikes.

1.4.3. Accommodation
There are occasions when one party in a conflict situation values a strong and continuing
relationship with one or more of the other parties above the attainment of its own specific
goals. In these cases a party may elect to 'accommodate' the other parties' goals,
conceding to all or most of their demands. Although such outcomes may look as though
they have been the result of 'force', the difference is that, rather than losing outright, the
accommodating party perceives itself to have gained by way of securing good relations,
accompanied perhaps by an element of 'good will' and the option to achieve some greater
goal at a future date.
1.4.4. Compromise
'Compromise' is often confused with 'consensus'. To 'compromise' in a negotiation

may sound positive, but it means that at least one of the parties perceives that it has had to
forgo something. In the planning of community-based natural resource projects
compromise and in particular the notion of 'trade-offs' is now prevalent, spurred on by
knowledge of the 'tragedy of the commons' and the need to make rational resource
allocation decisions. For example, Stakeholder Analysis - an analytical tool often used to
help design community projects - requires planners to analyse the distributional impact of
a project between the various stakeholder groups. The process identifies where the
objectives of the different stakeholders are contradictory and where they share elements
in common. From this an optimal 'trade-off is constructed comprising the minimum
'win-lose' outcome.
Within the framework of rural livelihoods, many of the objectives forwarded by the
different stakeholder groups appear conflicting (for example, the use of the same resource
by poorer groups for fodder, and wealthier groups for commercial exploitation). Thus it
is not uncommon for the outcome to require various sacrifices and opportunity costs
forgone. The project is then re-designed to promote this minimum 'win-lose' scenario.
This may include a bias towards maximising benefits for the poor and disenfranchised,
but recognises the political limitations ofrestticting the activities of the more powerful
stakeholder groups.
1.4.5. Consensus
Although processes of consensus-building sometimes conclude with elements of

'compromise' contained within the final agreement, there are some key differences
between the two approaches. For example, consensus-building explicitly sets out to
avoid 'trade-offs' altogether, seeking to achieve a 'win-win' outcome. In contrast, a
compromise approach seeks to minimise what are considered to be inevitable 'trade-offs'.
These differences are demonstrated in Figure 1.4.5.

Figure 1.4.5 'Comprise' vs 'Consensus' Approach to Conflict Management
..L
Compromise Consensus
expected benefits prior to
contlict management process
perceived benefits after conflict

management process
Limitations of Compromise
In both the planning of livelihood projects to 'prevent' conflict, and in the resolution of
'live' conflicts during project implementation, a 'compromise' approach to conflict
management is limited by a number of factors:
• stakeholder groups are identified in relation to 'project benefits' rather than 'conflict
management';
• stakeholders objectives are viewed as fixed;
• objectives for resource use are often generalised leading to overstating of the spatial,
temporal and quantitative nature of potential conflicts;
• the search for mutually beneficial solutions is constrained by viewing the strategic
components of the project design as fixed;
• an emphasis on analysis rather than negotiation limits the possibilities for creative and
imaginative solutions; and
• a lack of consideration of intangible and perceived gains.
These limitations are discussed in tum below.
Narrow Stakeholder Identification
In the 'compromise' approach to conflict management the parameters for stakeholder

analysis are often defined in relation to project benefits rather than the objective of
preventing or resolving conflicts. This is demonstrated by the two most common
parameters employed to grade different stakeholder groups in the process of Stakeholder
Analysis, namely:

• importance - the extent to which a stakeholder group is an intended project
beneficiary; and
• influence - the extent to which a stakeholder group has the power or resources to
support or undermine the objectives of the project.
Though useful in determining the 'best fit' solution to conflict prevention/resolution

within the confines of the existing project design, only considering these two parameters
may limit the possibilities for a more consensual outcome. Other parameters for
identifying and grading stakeholders include:
• unintended third-parties - those uninfluential stakeholders who might be inadvertently

affected by the project positively or negatively, and
• assistance - those organisations or agencies (public or private) who might be able to

provide assistance in the form of compensation or who can contribute new and
creative solutions.
The compromise approach is limited because it is governed by the objective of

maximising project benefits. If this is replaced by the more overarching objective of
managing conflict, then a far broader range of stakeholder parameters comes into play.
Some of these parameters will indeed be about maximising benefits, but others will be
about preventing conflicts arising in the future and others about finding creative and new
ways to protect project benefits in the long terms.
Fixed Objectives
Viewing the initial objectives of the different stakeholder groups as immovable can
become a barrier to the search for 'win-win' outcomes to conflict prevention/ resolution.
A 'compromise' approach to conflict management such as Stakeholder Analysis tends to
define the stakeholders' initial objectives and then work within these in order to find the
'best fit' solution. In contrast, a 'consensus' approach dedicates time to investigating the
underlying social and economic 'needs' which are motivating the stakeholder groups
towards these initial objectives. Through this investigation it is hoped that any
conflicting objectives can be re-defined in terms of people's underlying needs. The
approach assumes that different stakeholders will find that they have more underlying
needs in common than they did initial objectives. This widening of the area of the
'common ground' provides greater scope for finding 'win-win' solutions. Because
negotiations are going on at this deeper level and not at the level of the initial objectives,
the approach also assumes that where underlying needs are found to be in conflict, there
will be more room for finding solutions that do not impinge on the exclusive underlying
needs of others. An example of the importance of exploring underlying needs rather than
initial objectives is given in Box 1.5.5

Defining Resource Use Box 1.5.5
Example of the Importance of Exploring

As well as re-defining the initial objectives Underlying Needs rather than Immediate
of the stakeholder groups, a 'consensus' Objectives
approach to conflict management tries to
avoid broad generalisations in the parties' Two community groups are involved in a land
ownership dispute. The initial objectives of each
descriptions of the conflict and its prevention is for their group to be declared the sole owner of
or resolution. Because resource conflicts the disputed area.
often involve the same general area of land,
or species of flora or fauna, it is not A 'compromise' approach to resolving this dispute
uncommon for the issues to be exaggerated. would assume that these initial objectives are
fixed. Working within these objectives a solution
It is sometimes assumed for example that if would be sought that allowed each party to meet
two different parties use the same resource in some of its expectations. For example, a
the same area then this is an unsustainable compromise agreement might be reached
situation involving incompatible involving a 'trade-off' over the area of land to
which each group lay claim. A map might be
wants/desires/needs. What is missing from
drawn up, with each party achieving part of its
these assumptions is any detailed analysis of objectives.
the precise needs of the different parties in
terms of 'where', 'when' and in what A 'consensus' approach would be different. Early
'quantities' the resource is needed, and effort would be invested in exploring whether the
initial objectives of the stakeholders (the demand
exactly how it is intended to be processed.
for sole land ownership) were underpinned by
Being specific about these factors often some deeper-seated need or goal that might enable
release space for use of the resource or its negotiations to move away from the immediate
processing to be shared in some mutually conflict and onto a topic of common ground. For
compatible way. example, the investigation might find that the true
motivating factor of both parties was a need to be
eligible to receive revenues from an expected
Strategic Constraints conversion of the land to plantation agriculture.
Such information would allow the negotiations to
'Compromise' approaches to conflict centre not on land ownership but on the common
prevention and resolution such as desire for access to future revenues. In this
scenario the solution might be to postpone the
Stakeholder Analysis operate principally land ownership issue indefinitely and agree
within the confines of the strategic elements instead on some mutually acceptable division of
of a project. These include the location, future revenue streams.
type, scale and rate of project
implementation. Thus many of the parameters of the analysis are already set at the time
of the study, with little flexibility to look outside these strategic components.
Analysis vs Negotiation
A key difference between a 'compromise' approach such as Stakeholder Analysis and a

'consensus' approach lies in the degree of negotiation that takes place. Stakeholder
Analysis, for example, is primarily about analysing a situation (sometimes based on
participatory infom1ation gathering), and then selling the 'best fit' to the stakeholder
groups concerned.

'Consensus' approaches are less about analysis and more about consultation and
negotiation. They are essentially about capitalising on the empowerment and creativity
that comes from different stakeholders' understanding each others' underlying
motivations. Furthermore, concentrating on negotiation rather than analysis means that
the distributional impacts of solutions to conflict management are defined and perceived
by the participating stakeholders and not the analyst, lending them greater realism and
incorporating externalities which it might be impossible to accommodate without such
high levels of participation.
Perceived Mutual Gains
Following on from the above, 'compromise' approaches often fail to fully explore the
intangible benefits and losses that different stakeholders perceive will accrue to them
given different solutions to conflict prevention or resolution. Conventional Cost-Benefit
Analysis (CBA) is one example. In CBA monetary values are attributed to the different
impacts of solutions to conflict management, with the results used to identify overall
winners and losers. Design changes are then recommended to minimise the losses and/or
to enhance benefits.
However, it is possible to employ CBA more creatively. Community participatory

techniques can be used to identify the widest possible range of tangible and intangible
distributional impacts (ie the positive and negative effects on social and environmental
capital). Environmental valuation techniques can then be used to attach monetary values
to the intangible items. Through adding the tangible and tangible costs, and incorporating
weightings to address issues of inequity, overall losses can be minimised. The intention is
that the losses of individual stakeholder groups are reduced to the point where all parties
perceive themselves to have gained without the need for compromise. Without the
identification and monetarisation of intangible impacts, the range of options for
constructing a solution will be severely restricted. In such cases it is likely that the
degree of sacrifice and compromise required will preclude a 'win-win' outcome.
1.5. Choosing the Most Practicable Strategy
Although consensual negotiations often lead to mutually acceptable and therefore more
sustainable outcomes, such an approach may not always be possible. Even where it is
possible, it may not be effective on its own, but require support either concurrently or
sequentially from one or more other types of conflict management. The process of
determining what Most Practicable Strategy to adopt in order to address a particular
conflict (whether it should involve consensual negotiation) will need to take account of a
range of factors. Some of these factors are given in Box 1.5 below. Figure 1.5 is
designed to assist in constructing this strategy.
Where the time and resources of the conflict management co-ordinating agency
(community group, NGO, government department or private company) are constrained,
and the contributing 'structural' conflicts (such as land ownership and/or ethnic dispute)

insurmountable within the current political climate, the Most Practicable Strategy is more
likely to seek only to 'manage' the dispute, i.e. prevent it from escalating or adversely
affecting the project in question.
Box 1.5 Factors to Consider in Choosing the Most Practicable

Strate · · ··
• the time and resources available to those parties interested in co-ordinating the process
of conflict management;
• the extent to which 'structural' conflicts are:

• likely to magnify the immediate dispute, and
• able to be resolved or managed;
• the power of the different parties to force through their agenda;
• the strength of feeling between the conflicting parties:

• towards each other, and
• towards achieving their own goals
• the importance of building or maintaining good relationships between the parties;
• the consequences if the conflict continues, such as its escalation towards violence;
• the urgency of the need to manage or resolve the conflict;
• the effectiveness of the existing customary, institutional and legal approaches to conflict
management;
• those components within the existing customary, institutional or legal approaches that
could be readily strengthened using one or more conventional approaches to conflict
management (force, withdrawal, compromise, accommodation); and
• those components within the customary, institutional or legal approaches that could be
best be strengthened using consensus-building skills.
• if consensus-building approaches are to be used, the principal BA TNA 1
1
BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (i.e. the 'fall-back' position if consensual
negotiation is not effective)

Figure 1.5 Options for Constructing a Most Practicable Strategy for Managing
Conflict
Specific Strategies Strategic Options
• adversarial 'uncompromising' negotiation

Force • legal channels
• electoral system
► • use of mass media to rally public support;
• public protest
• threat of withdrawal
• lobbying
• avoidance
Withdrawal • opting out
• deployment of delaying tactics
.,...-----1►
• --
◄--- • postponement of decision
• temporary boycott
• strikes
Accommodation • relationship dominates

• 'goodwill' nurtured
----1►
•~
Compromise
_ __,◄
•
•
trade-off
arbitration
• direct consensual
Consensus negotiation (no facilitator)
• third-party facilitated
◄ negotiation
(hnscas Development Institute 19

1.6. What is Consensus-Building?
1.6.1. Definition
Consensus-Building is about facilitating individuals, groups and organisations to adapt to

a changing world. The process is a response to the inequalities of confrontational forms
of negotiation. It seeks to build the capacity of people to talk with each other, either
directly or indirectly, to find a way forward based on consensus and which generates
mutual gains for all parties with the minimum of compromise and trade-off. Other
processes of negotiation based on the same principles of mutual gain include alternative
conflict management, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), consensus-building, conflict
resolution (CR) and conflict transformation.
1.6.2. Relevance to Livelihood Projects (see also Introduction)
Conflicts between stakeholder groups involved in livelihood projects can be a barrier to

project equity, efficiency and sustainability. In addition, poorly designed project
interventions or community-initiated projects can introduce new conflicts and/or
exacerbate dormant structural disputes. Conversely, projects and interventions which
pro-actively consider the risks posed by conflict can help to reduce existing disputes,
prevent new disputes arising, and provide mechanisms for the crisis management of
conflicts during implementation.
It is the presence of multiple stakeholders and complex causes of conflict associated

livelihood projects that has lead to the failure of conventional adversarial forms of
conflict management, and generated interest in the practices of consensus-building. For
livelihood projects, consensus-building is about reaching agreement between all
stakeholder groups relevant to the sustainability of the chosen livelihoods intervention.
This may include: community groups (various individuals, informal groups, formal
committees, land owners, common resource users etc.), NGOs, private companies
(product and service providers, trade unions, political parties, local and central
government agencies.
1.6.3. Relevance to Peace Building
Consensus-building techniques have developed over the past decade as a means to

address violent and non-violent conflicts alike. This has created some confusion. For
example, in the case of competition over access to finite renewable natural resources in a
livelihoods context, the term 'conflict' refers more to disputes and disagreements
between, say, a leasee and land owner. In contrast, in the case of trying to build peace
the term 'conflict' refers principally to situations of war, overt violence and macro
political instability. In this Manual the application of consensus-building is targeted
more towards the management of non-violent disputes and disagreements, in particular

those arising in the management of community-based natural resources and other
livelihood projects. The ideas and examples presented here do play a role in peace
building, but this is limited to 'conflict prevention' in situations of latent conflict, and
rehabilitation and reconciliation in situations of post-conflict reconstruction. Figure 1.6.3
shows some of the roles of consensus-building (as described in this Manual) to the
management of violent conflict (see shaded areas)
Figure 1.6.3 Role of Consensus-Building in Managing Violent Conflict
CONFLICT PREVENTION CONFLICT MITIGATION PEACE-BUILDING
latent conflict, open suffering, war or fragile peace, post-conflict

rising tensions overt violence rehabilitation and re-
construction
• mediation of disputes
among community groups, • provision of • infrastructure
and between community humanitarian relief reconstruction at the
groups and outside parties community level
• management of refugee
movements
• consensus-building with • community based social
stakeholders over the and economic
• third-party mediation of rehabilitation projects
design of livelihood violent conflicts among
projects community groups, and
between community • structural and legal
• local capacity building in groups and c'l-iers reform
conflict management skills
• multi-tracking • processes of re-
negotiations conciliation
1.6.4. Goal of Consensus-Building
The goal of consensus-building is to generate agreements and outcomes that are

acceptable to all conflicting parties without the need to compromise. In essence it is
about achieving a 'win-win· solution such that each participant is able to describe the
outcome as one in which "I am happy and you are happy" . This contrasts with
adversarial approaches to conflict management, such as those common in judicial
systems, where one party tends to 'win 'and the other 'lose'; or negotiations where the
outcome involves compromise or trade-offs, with all sides trying to optimise their 'losses'
The cartoon over the page illustrates this latter point beautifully!

WlfH tv\~GREI\TSLOGAN A SOL\D Wttl\T S\{O\JLDOf COUR5£, I 11-\\t-\\( l'll. I'll DRAW 'SOM£ Wtla.\iO\J
''IE
Al's\D'/0\JR GREfi.JARTWORK, FautWATION WESPENO TEO\N\Cf\L \3lCW,t \1 Ml G\-\ STf\RSTO SW:W-tGOT Tfl..LE.t-ff
TI\\S TR/1.FFICSAF{;T'{ OF ANATOM\CAL 11\£.PR\-ZE. SK\ll ~LOt-\E..lf>..'tlBREAKtRSPfl..lt--lf>.!ll)
HIJMAKUKE O\Jlc,
\)OS1ER IS fl.. S\-\OO·IN STVD'i I'S MON£'(O\'\? \'5l'-\1£\'\O\.lGH.ANDCOMIC S\JHtRl~G. Tl-lEWORLD
FOR \='\RS, PR\7.E .' ESSEI'{n fl-l f,, PICf\JR'j; BOOKS. \S 'lO\JR
FoR WE NIT05 Dt.PTI\ O'l'S\£R.
ART\'ST. OF fEEL\N.G.
,.
,i- ..
~ -...., ~
~ l«1®\
1\~ERE.' ) HE.'/,T\-tfl..fS WHAT?.'I 8\\1 \T Wt-S O", All RIG\-\,, A GOOt> COt-i\\'ROM\5£
.' TERRIFIC.'W~t.N
FIN\S\-lED D\OA\.L™E MY GRE~T BE 5£.L\:=\'SI-\
.' M~O.
LEi\'lE"St.'lE.R'{~Ot;)'{
'«£. YUN.PRST ORAWH'lG ! \DEA..'
PR\7.E l'U. G\\J\:.
I YOU51-to\)L
D Wtll SPLIT \
"{O\)2'5"/. Df T\-U:. GIT 2S1/.! G0-40,
Wlt-\N\l'lGS.
~
At first sight the likelihood of achieving a 'win-win' outcome from a conflict situation
can seem wholly improbable. The conflicting parties have often entrenched positions, are
hostile towards one-another, and view the other party's demands as totally unacceptable
and often diametrically opposed to their own. However, human nature is such that these
conflict situations carry with them a high degree of 'perception' rather than 'fact'. What
consensus-building seeks to do is to transform these perceptions by steering the
conflicting parties:
• away from negotiating over their immediate demands, towards addressing the
'underlying needs' that are the true motivating factors behind people's decisions;
• away from thinking about only one solution, towards considering the widest
possible and most creative range of 'options' for meeting the people's underlying
needs;and
• away from personalised and often exaggerated demands, towards clarity and
precision in describing both people's 'underlying needs' and the range of
proposed 'options'.
1.6.5. Effectiveness of Consensus-building
Consensus-building approaches are more effective in addressing some types of conflicts

than others. For example, its effectiveness in resolving underlying structural and identify
conflicts is probably less than for conflicts over declining availability of natural
resources. This is shown in broad terms in Figure 1. 6.5. How the process of consensus-
building might be adapted to address each type of conflict is described in Table 1.6.5.
1.6.6. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
Assuming the chosen 'most practicable strategy' for conflict management contains some
process of consensual negotiation, before entering the process it is important for each
party (community group, NGO, private company or government agency) to understand
their Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). In other words, what will
each party do if the attempt at consensus breaks down. For example, could the party tum
to the legal system; use economic or political force to achieve what they want; withdraw
from the project all together etc; or will each party choose to concede some of their goals
by compromising. Or, further still, will the parties elect to accommodate the other
parties' goals without compromise because of some deeper desire to maintain good
relations. In short, no party should enter into a negotiation, mediation or other process of
consensus-building without having weighed up the consequences if the process fails to
reach agreement.

Figure 1.6.5 Effectiveness of Consensus-Building Approaches for Different Types
of Conflict
less
effective structural
different
inequalities
identities
different
values
more
effective
conflicting
unsustainable demands
resource use
1.6.7. Consensus-Building Back in Context
The key lesson from Part 1 of this Manual is that consensus-building should not be
applied as a panacea. It should only be used if it forms part of the most practicable
overall strategy. Earlier, Box 1.5 and Figure 1.5 outlined the range of factors and options
that should be considered in constructing this overall strategy.
Part 2 of this Manual sets out the core 'principles' of consensus-building. The detailed
'process' is described in Part 3. Both Parts 2 and 3 will be useful to those who have
decided that part of the most practicable strategy for managing a live or potential conflict
situation is the tactic of consensual ''win-win'' negotiation.

Table 1.6.5 Adaptation of Consensus-building to Address Different Underlying
Causes of Conflict
Underlying Cause of Adaptations to Process of Consensus-building to Promote

Conflict Effectiveness
Conflicting demands Most demands are negotiable in that the underlying need that is driving
the demand can be satisfied in more ways than the initial ideas suggested
by the individual or group. A process of consensus-building should:
identify a wide range of options for meeting the parties' underlying needs;
make use of objective criteria to evaluate the merits of different options;
and formulate integrative solutions.
Unsustainable Where competition is leading to resource degradation, the process of

resource use consensus-building should encourage conflicting parties to explore new,
more sustainable technological options, including improvements in
training and skills and appropriate technologies that increase productivity.
Pressure can be applied to look creatively for solutions by citing the
common underlying need of the conflicting parties, i.e. to sustain and
improve the resource base.
Conflicting 'values' Different human 'values' are often considered non-negotiable, however it
may be possible to find common underlying needs or an overriding mutual
goal that steers formulation of an agreement away from the need to
resolve different values.
Different identities In managing conflicts linked to differences in ethnic identities, the process
of consensus-building should place a strong emphasis on procedural
ground-rules during negotiations. In addition, conflicting parties are
encouraged to be specific in their negative perceptions of each other (i.e.
not to make generalisations), and to recall times when different ethnic
groups have lived without conflict. The aim is to maximise the
opportunities for building positive perceptions and solutions.
Strnctural inequalities Where structural inequalities underlie or enflame a conflict situation, the
process should target disenfranchised parties with specific assistance in
building an understanding of their and the other parties' perceptions of the
conflict. For structural inequalities that are 'moveable', the aim is to
transform conflict into a mutual force for social change, such that
resolutions are sustainable in the long run. 'Public pressure' and the
involvement of women can also be used to keep the parties at the
negotiating table. This approach is best used in conjunction with national
level projects and events.
(Adapted from McDonald, 1994; DFID, 1997; More, 1986)
Ovei-seas Development Institute 25

Part 2
Principles of Consensus-Building

2. Principles of Consensus-Building
2.1 Introduction
Consensus-building is a process. It may be rapid, for example when used to crisis-

manage a minor dispute, or it may span many months, involving the building of rapport,
consultations at both government and community levels, various types of community
participatory analysis, the strengthening of customary approaches to conflict
management, and the training of community leaders in modem facilitation and
negotiation skills. The various stages in the process of consensus-building are discussed
in Part 3.
Underpinning the process of consensus-building are a number of principles. Each

principle is discussed individually below. A summary is presented in Figure 2.1. In
practice the principles may overlap and different degrees of emphasis will need to be
placed on different principles at different stage in the process. How this works in practice
will depend on the type of conflict, the way in which it has been decided that consensual
negotiations should take place, and the skills and experience of those engaged in and/or
facilitating the process.
Figure 2.1 Principles of Consensus-building
accommodate
cultural
difference acknowledge
perceptions
I
test agreement
for feasibility ensure good
~
communications
achieve
mutual gains
clarify /
--- Principles of
consensus-
building
/
create a level-
playing field
for
negotiations
motivations /
and options
build and
widen the maintain
options rapport
focus on satisfying
underlying
motivations
26
2.2 Accommodate Cultural Differences
Understanding cultural differences between conflicting parties is a prime factor in

working out how best to manage different conflict situations. Differences in the
expectations and attitude of each party, both towards the actual conflict and towards its
effective management, may act not only as a barrier to consensual negotiations, but also
lead to profound misunderstanding and even conflict escalation.
With regard to attitudes towards conflict, in the highlands of Papua New Guinea for
example, some local groups view violence not as something to be resolved but as a means
of conflict resolution itself. Similarly, with regard to how different parties define a
successful outcome to managing conflict, some groups place greater importance on verbal
agreements, whilst others, such as some commercial companies, respect only legally
binding written agreements. There cases in the Fiji Islands, for example, where
commercial logging companies have reached what indigenous Fijian groups thought were
satisfactory agreements over the distribution of profits from forestry operations, only to
find that the verbal nature of the agreement was not the 'culturally acceptable' way that
logging companies did business.
Box 2.2 identifies some of the characteristics of culture that often differ for different types
of conflicting parties (indigenous groups, immigrant settlers, government agencies,
commercial companies, donor agencies etc.).
Box 2.2 Common Conflict-Related Cultural Differences
• Attitude to conflict - the attitude of each party towards the issue of conflict ( dispute or violence) in
general, e.g. positive, something to be avoided etc.
• Communication Style - the way in which each party communicates information and ideas, and the
potential this holds for misunderstandings between parties.
• Willingness to Disclose - how comfortable each party is in stating objectives, discussing emotions,
acknowledging fears, needing to 'save face' etc.
• Method of Reasoning - the basis upon which each party solves problems, e.g. quantitative information,
qualitative information, personal experience, examples, case-studies, theories, proven principles,
reciprocity, 'pay-back', opinion of leader (elected, elders etc.).
• Decision-making - how each party reaches a collective decision, e.g. voting, consensus, autocratic.
• Acceptable Outcomes - what form an agreement has to take for it to be acceptable to each party, e.g.
legal judgment, verbal agreement, written contract, approval of a particular individual or institution etc.
27
The issue of cultural difference becomes critical in
conflict situations where the-conventional mechanisms Training Exercise 3
of conflict management have broken down. Ineffective
conventional mechanisms might include cases where Cultural Differences
indigenous customary approaches no longer have the
respect and confidence of the village youth; legal Objective
systems that are unable to be accessed by one or more
parties; or institutionalised forms of conflict To understand how cultural
differences between the key
management such as arbitration that have been
stakeholder groups can affect a
politically manipulated. In these cases there may be process of consensual negotiations.
justification for looking to some form of systematic
consensus-building. In introducing this new approach
a key decision will be whether to build this onto the
1. with the participants working
existing conventional mechanisms or to establish new individually, for one known
independent mechanisms. conflict situation identify two or
three of the key stakeholder
One factor in this decision will be the degree of cultural groups.
diversity there is between the different stakeholder
2. Map the cultural differences of
groups involved in the conflict. By cultural diversity is each stakeholder group against
meant the diversity with which the different conflicting the criteria in Box 2.2.
parties view conflict and conflict management.
Applying the criteria in Box 2.2 against all the main 3. in plenary discuss whether the
stakeholder groups will give some indication of the extent to which the differences
identified might obstruct a
degree of cultural diversity. From this analysis two process of consensual negotiation,
general 'rules' can be applied as follows: and if so how these differences
might be accommodated.
• where cultural diversity is low the emphasis should
lie first with strengthening the relevant conventional
mechanisms, be they customary, institutional or
legal;
• where cultural diversity is high, the emphasis 'might' lie with developing
'independent' approaches to conflict management, but as far as practicable,
approaches which contain elements 'familiar' to all parties (such as a third-party
impartial facilitator, and/or agreements based on consensus).
Note that high levels of cultural diversity can derive from many sources, including:
diverse ethnic cultures (such as in the highland regions of PNG); diverse social status
(such as within mixed caste communities in southern India); and diverse livelihood
strategies (such as between the 'gift' economies of the rural poor and the 'market'
economies of the wealthier poor and commercial companies).
28
2. 3 Acknowledge Perceptions
Acknowledging and gaining an understanding of the 'perceptions' of the different

stakeholder groups is important for knowing where to begin a process of consensual
negotiation, either as one of the conflicting parties or as a mediator. In normal life, and in
conflict situations in particular, perceptions rather than objective facts may be driving
people's decision-making. Unlike normal life however, in a conflict situation it is critical
not to begin by challenging a party's perceptions, but to start by appreciating that these
perceptions are very real in that they are the cause of real, often physical, effects.
Moreover, conflicts tend to carry strong emotions. As such it is unlikely that argument
will have much luck in changing the initial perception, especially if it has been
strengthened and validated by a wider group.
One of the principles of consensus-building is to understand and acknowledge each

stakeholder's perceptions of the causes and significance of a conflict 'without prejudice'.
By understand is meant 'comprehend' rather than 'agree'. The maxim that 'knowledge is
power' captures the importance of understanding perceptions; for in the case of conflict, a
party's 'power' depends on its ability to put itself in another party's shoes" (Fisher,
1994).
A word of warning. It is tempting to learn about peoples perceptions of a conflict

situation through facilitating 'storytelling'. In fact storytelling - about the causes and
current feelings about a conflict situation - is seen by some conflict management
practitioners as a vital component of consensus-building. But there are no panaceas here.
There will be times when storytelling is necessary, such as in some processes of post-
conflict reconciliation (South Africa's truth and re-conciliation commission is an
example). However, there may be times when storytelling serves only to reinforce an
adversarial positions. As Fisher (1994) argues, "the more a position is worked out in
detail and the more often it is repeated, the more committed to it a party becomes.
Focusing on the other side's position is likely to structure a situation as a contest of will
in which an objective becomes not to budge" (p35).
A second dimension to the issue of 'perceptions' is to avoid an arrogance that says that "if
they knew what we /mow then they would not be demanding these things". This attitude
is often prevalent in the attitude of 'outsiders' to community development (NGOs,
commercial companies and government agencies) and is based on perceived superiority
in technology and knowledge. This outsider's perception can be dangerous because it
often ignores some very valid reasons why community groups are behaving the way they
are. Techniques for analysing and working with indigenous technical knowledge and
community perspectives are covered extensively in the various literature on 'community
participation' and 'participatory analysis'.
---------------------------------
2.4 Ensure Good Communications
Training Exercise 4
As a co-ordinator, facilitator or participant it is Listening Skills
essential to develop and maintain good
Objective
communications between all those involved in a
process of consensual negotiation. Part of this To develop better listening skills.
communication will be to convey the perceptions Tasks
of one party to another in a way that is faithful to
that party. 1. divide the participants into pairs
2. one party in each pair is asked to

Good communications is also about having good speak to the other about an issue on
'personal skills'. Minor personal skills include: which they are 'passionate'
• the ability to listen (see Exercise 4); 3. the listening party is instructed to sit
opposite the speaking party but act
• positive body language; disinterested and refrain from
• punctuality; and making any comment
• honesty.
4. the speaker is allowed to talk for one
minute, no more (this information
More practiced personal skills include: should be kept secret from the
participants)
• recognising different patterns of behaviour in
oneself and others (see Exercise 5); and 5. once the minute is up, the speaker is
asked to repeat the same speech but
• employing appropriate assertiveness. this time the listening party must use
all his/her communication skills,
such as eye contact, body language,
2.5 Create a Level Playing Field nodding agreement, asking
questions, seeking clarifications etc.
As the WorldBank Participation Sourcebook 6. the exercise is then repeated by

(1996) states, one of the factors in 'genuine swapping the speaking and listening
collaborative negotiations' is that all parties enter roles around and changing the topic
into the process 'on a level playing field'. That is
to say, each party has an equal capacity to
understand the dynamics of the conflict; to explain their perception of the conflict of the
other parties; to understand the perception of the conflict of the other parties; and to take
part constructively in consensual negotiations. Therefore, those co-ordinating or
facilitating a process of consensual negotiation may need to dedicate specific time and
resources to raising the negotiation capacity of the most disenfranchised parties. At the
community level the use of participatory techniques such as PRA can play a significant
role in ensuring that the process of conflict analysis build the negotiating capacity of
community groups.
30
Other techniques for creating a level
playing-field include training of Training Exercise 5
community representatives in negotiation
skills, and awareness raising of Building Trust
government agencies and commercial
companies of the value of consensus for Objective
improving the long-term sustainability of
To learn about developing trust so that stakeholder
projects. groups can exchange and share their ideas
2.6 Build and Maintain Rapport

1. Explain the diagram below to the participants
( diagram adapted from the 'Johari Window').
Whether as a negotiating party, or a
facilitator of a negotiation process, 1. Common lmowledge 2. Blind lmowledge
building good relations with the different The things that we !mow The things that we do not
about ourselves that the llmow about ourselves that
stakeholder groups is essential. It is not other stakeholders also other stakeholder do
by coincidence that commercial know about us !mow
companies tend to hire pleasant and
approachable staff to manage their public 3. Secret knowledge 4. Missing lmowledge
Things that we !mow The things that we do not
relations activities. However, about ourselves but !Knowabout ourselves and
approachability is but one ingredient of would not like other other stakeholders
stakeholders to !mow do not !mow either
building good rapport. Other ingredients
include:
2. divide participants into small groups
• listening;
• finding common points of interest; 3. one member of the group describe to the others a
• developing tmst; past conflict situation with which he/she is
• using local and/or appropriate familiar (this could be a domestic disagreement;
work-related dispute; conflict within a
language; development project etc.)
• sharing experiences;
• acknowledging different values; and 4. group assumes the role of one of the
stakeholders in the conflict
• treating others with respect.
5. assuming that the conflict has just come to light,
Note that building good rapport can the group writes down three items for each of the
quickly tum into friendships, and from four 'windows' in the diagram.
there into favoritism, or the perception of
6. the group identifies ways in which items falling
favoritism. Perceived favoritism can within windows 2, 3 and 4 could be shifted to
generate jealousy and mistmst and window 1.
subsequently undermine a process of
consensual negotiation. For all those 7. in plenary session, group presents back findings
parties involved in a process of and lessons learned
consensual negotiation (and in particular
for facilitators and mediators who wish to
remain impartial), as far as possible
building good rapport should be kept
professional and non-personal.
31
2. 7 Focus on Satisfying Underlying Motivations
Probably the most fundamental principle of any process of consensual negotiation is to

investigate the underlying motivations (deeper interests, social and cultural values, ethnic
identify, basic welfare and livelihood needs, 'face-saving', social inclusion, moral justice,
access to income, loss of power etc.) that lie beneath an individual's or party's more
immediate positions and demands. If as a facilitator or participating stakeholder you can
determine what motivates and drives different stakeholders 'deep down', it is often
possible to satisfy these underlying motivations in a creative way that reduces or resolves
the conflict. This is because for every underlying motivation there usually exists a range
of possible options with which it can be satisfied, and not only the one first articulated
and argued for. The problem is that it is usually these first articulations that define a
conflict situation in its initial phases. The guiding principle for consensual negotiation is
therefore to draw the conflicting parties away from these immediate demands towards a
broader discussion about how to meet the different parties' underlying motivations.
In a conflict situation, two types of underlying motivations are usually present:
• 'common' underlying motivations - This is where two or more of the conflicting

parties share the same motivation. For example, a dispute between different
community groups over the use of communal forest resources might be underlayed by
various 'common' needs such as: to sustain the forest resource base into the future;
increase social status; generate income to pay for essential social services such as
water and education etc. Finding 'common' underlying motivations is one way in
which a facilitator can go about developing a set of common principles from which to
being a process of principled negotiation.
• 'specific' underlying motivations - Although the literature on consensual negotiation

continuously points towards the importance of identifying 'common' underlying
motivations, the reality of many conflict situations is that different stakeholder groups
often have very different - very 'specific' - underlying motivation. It is true that
sometimes these 'specific' motivations will be incompatible with each other.
However, it is also possible to find solutions which meet these needs in ways that do
not impinge on either (a) the acknowledged 'common' motivations or (b) other
stakeholders' 'specific' (idiosyncratic) motivations. It is important therefore not to
sideline 'specific' underlying motivations but to search for creative solutions to satisfy
them. It is also important to realised that principled negotiation strategies (those
based on meeting 'common' underlying motivations) will only be effective if there are
either only a very few 'specific' underlying motivations, or if these specific
motivations are explicitly addressed.
In general it is easier to begin the search for solutions by starting with 'common'
underlying motivations. This approach helps to maintain momentum towards consensus
(it also carries with it the possible benefit of inadvertently addressing some of the parties'
'specific' underlying motivations, thereby avoiding the need to confront the issues
directly). Once some common ground has been found, for example through
32
brainstorming a range of options for meeting 'common' underlying motivations, work
can begin on resolving the outstanding 'specific' motivations. Figure 2. 7 seeks to
represent the potential value of concentrating negotiations on underlying motivations
rather than immediate demands.
Figure 2.7 Satisfying Underlying Motivations
conflicting parties
I \
IMMEDIATE DEMANDS
'common'
underlying
motivations
UNDERLYING MOTIVATIONS
'specific'
underlying
motivations
2.8 Widen the Options
Too many individuals and groups, whether from rural communities, government
departments or the private sector, enter into negotiations with only one demand or
solution in mind. That is, they have identified the 'position' they wish to take rather than
the underlying motivations that they wish to have satisfied. This can quickly lead to an
impasse. As Fisher (1994) argues:
Consensus-building ... "is a paradigm shift away from a conception of conflict

and negotiation that stresses static substantive solutions and towards an
approach that stresses the power of process. Rarely is a conflict intractable
simply because no one has a good idea of how things ought to be .... .In most
cases the difficulty lies not in a lack of potential substantive options but in a
failure to design, negotiate and pursue a process that moves us forward from
where we are now to where we would like to be" (p5).
A process of consensual negotiation advocates pursuing mutually acceptable "win-win"

outcome by encouraging the conflicting parties to analyse their underlying motivations
and creatively develop a wide range of options for satisfying them. Widening the range
of options can begin by 'brainstorming' with individual parties, and then developed
further by drawing on the collective creativity of all the conflicting parties together.
Widening the options, or 'brainstorming', is the second fundamental principle of
33
consensus-building (identifying underlying motivations being the first). The principle
introduces negotiation skills usually absent from adversarial approaches to conflict
management, namely: creativity and lateral thinking.
2.8.1 Creativity
In conflict situations the different stakeholders often get stuck, unable to move forward.
Creative thinking provides opportunities to get things moving again. The problems arise
because the parties:
• do not know what it is that they
want;
• believe that the only solutions are Training Exercise 6
those currently in front of them;
and/or Conventional Patterns
• do not realise the possible long-
Objective
term negative consequences of
achieving their demand. To demonstrate the importance of thinking outside of
conventional patterns
Part of the reason why people get stuck
is because they organise their thinking
processes into patterns which limit the draw a 3 x 3 matrix of nine dots, as so:
range of actions that can be taken (see
Exercises 6 and 7). Conventional
Benefit-Cost-Analysis (BCA) is an
• • •
example of this. The art of creative
thinking is to move outside of these
• • •
restrictive patterns. • •
'Brainstorming' is a common term 1. instruct participants: without taking their pen off the
used to explain a basket of methods page, to draw no more than 4 straight lines in such a
way that each dot is passed through by one of those
designed to generate a wide range of lines.
options. All the methods share the
same basic objective of encouraging 2. compare the answers to solution below:
creativity. Brainstorming is governed
by some simple but important 'rules',
as follows:
1. participants begin by brainstorming

individually; then move to working
in small groups; finally the ideas are
amalgamated in plenary and a
3. discuss with participants whether there is a way
discussion held to see if it is which all the dots could be joined with one single
possible to be even more creative straight line? (answer: fold paper until all dots are
and widen the options yet further; positioned one above each other, then push pen
through the dots and paper)
34
2. when time is up, the options are brought together and any duplicates deleted
3. at no time is criticism of someone's ideas allowed by others - all ideas are valid;
4. 'brainstorming' should be time-bound to encourage spontaneity and creativity, and yet

should remain flexible enough to accommodate situations where new ideas are still
flowing;
5. at this stage ideas should be kept simple, written in no more than three words (the
detail can come later);
6. the options should be written large enough for
all participants to see. This is critical since
creativity is inspired by seeing the ideas of Training Exercise 8
others. For example use marker-pens on "Post-
its" or flip-chart paper. Enable the participants Lateral Thinking
to see the ideas of other as and when they are
generated. Objective
To learn how to structure questions to

assist lateral thinking
2.8.2 Lateral Thinking
Edward De Bono has put forward a number of 1. divide participants into pairs
techniques to help people structure their thinking
processes. He called this lateral thinking and his 2. ask one of the pair to select a conflict
Six Thinking Hats is one example. Each hat situation that he/she is knowledgeable
represents a different way in which a topic could about
be discussed, as follows. 3. the other party then selects a 'hat'
(other than 'blue') and within that
White Hat mode put questions to the other
White suggests paper. The white hat concerns participant. These questions should
information. When we consciously put on the explore the 'underlying motivations'
which are driving one of the
white hat we ask ourselves questions like: "What stakeholders in the conflict
infom1ation do we have?"; "What information do
we need?"; "What questions should we be 4. after ten minutes the questioner
asking?". The white hat draws our attention to chooses a different 'hat' and carries on
questioning. If time allows, the
what we know and what we do not know.
questioner continues working through
the different 'hats'
Green Hat
Green suggests energy and life. The green hat is 5. end the exercise with the 'blue' hat,
for creativity and new ideas. When we wear our which is about reflection and planning
a way forward
green hat we try to be as creative as we can.
6. in plenary discuss the results and the
Grey Hat relative utility of the different 'hats'.
Grey suggests authority and judgement. The grey Which mode worked best and why?
hat is for caution. When we adopt the grey hat we
35
Ovcn,cas Development Institute
evaluate ideas to look for the
weaknesses, limitations and Training Exercises 9a and 9b
dangers.
Clarification - I'
Yellow Hat
Yellow suggests sunshine and Objective
optimism. The yellow hat
To learn some of the clarification skills of consensual
stimulates us to look for the negotiation
positive aspects of the matter in
hand. When we are wearing the
yellow hat we explore the
1. divide the participants into pairs
benefits and advantages of an
idea. 2. allocate one member of each pair one of the two
characters in the Briefing Notes in Annex Aa (Exercise
Red Hat 9a)
Red suggests fire and warmth.
3. instruct the participants to role-play the negotiation
The red hat is to do with process outlined in the Briefing Notes. Do not allow
feelings, intuition and emotions. the participants to see each other's Briefmg Notes. The
When we chose to put on the red objective is to arrive at a consensus, i.e. a 'win-win'
hat we take an opportunity to outcome. The outcome should be recorded by one of
explore our feelings about the the pair
matter. 4. in plenary, the participants report back the different
outcomes of the various negotiations.
Blue Hat
Blue suggests water and 5. discuss the different types of outcomes, for example:
those that focused on the number of oranges and/or the
reflection. The blue hat is for
price to be paid vs those that realised that that one party
managing the whole thinking wanted to use the 'husk', whilst the other only the
process by reflecting on where 'pulp'
we are, where we want to be and
what we need to do next. When 6. discuss the relevance of the way in which questions
were asked during the negotiations, and the importance
we chose the blue hat we are of clarifying the other side's underlying motivations 'in
signalling a period of review and detail'.
summary.
7. run through steps 2 to 5 again using the second set of
Of course, it is not necessary to Briefing Notes in Annex Ab (Exercise 9b).
have to talk about coloured hats
8. this time emphasise to the participants the importance
to think in a particular way. The of (a) exploring the underlying motivations of each
'hats' need only suggest a other, (b) identifying both the 'common' and 'specific'
particular type of approach to a needs (see Section 2. 7); and (c) using clarification
negotiation and a way to questions to create room for finding a 'win-win'
solution (After the negotiations, explain that one party
formulate the right questions
wanted only to explore the lower reaches of the reserve
(see Exercise 8). whilst the other wanted to protect the upper reaches).
36
2.9 Clarifying Motivations and Options
Section 1. 7.5 identified the importance of transforming conflict situations from matters of
perception and exaggeration into matters of fact. This is part of the overall concept of
're-framing' - common language to mediators and facilitators 1• Processes of consensual
negotiation are helped by encouraging the conflicting parties to be specific about the
conflict, in particular about each parties' underlying motivations and the options
proposed for its management. Note that such clarification can only take place once
sufficient rapport has been built and the parties' perceptions have been acknowledged
without prejudice.
2.9.1 Clarifying Underlying Motivations
The first attempt to clarifying underlying motivations may be more safely undertaken by
consulting with each stakeholder group independent of the others, rather than in a
workshop setting or in plenary. Permission may then be asked to allow these underlying
motivations to be explained to the other parties. If time is short, and rapport between the
parties particularly good, it may be possible to conduct these sessions with the
participants together.
In exploring underlying motivations, some of the common clarification questions include:
• "very briefly, what is the problem here?" (ask the participant/s to be brief to prevent
them from focusing on the negative perception of the conflict, and enflaming the other
participants)
Digging a little deeper:
• "why is it a problem?"
If the underlying motivations are still elusive, try:
• again "why is 'this· a problem", or

• what exactly is behind this concern?"
then:
• "do you think this fundamental problem is shared by any of the other stakeholder
groups?"
1
Other aspects of ·re-framing' include: each party understanding each others' perception of the dispute,
their personal history of how the dispute came about, and their underlying needs and fears, as well as
realising that there may be more than one way to resolve the dispute than that first articulated.
37
Now try to clarify the detail: ask, for example:
• ''where exactly (in terms of geography) is this motivation is manifest?";

• "who and/or how many people are involved?"
• "what is the timing (urgent, within six months, before a critical date etc.)"
• "what are the principles involved in meeting the motivation?"
• "are there any assumptions or risks inherent?"
2.9.2 Clarifying Options
A similar approach is taken to clarifying promising options. Once the brainstorming of

options has been completed, and the most promising options taken forward, these
priorities should be clarified spatially, temporally and quantitatively in order to lend them
credibility and prevent false expectations arising later.
2.10 Achieve Mutual Gains
The purpose of exploring the underlying motivations of the different stakeholders and
then widening the options that might satisfy these needs, is to enable a consensus to be
reached in which each stakeholder perceives to have benefited. This 'perceived mutual
gain' outcome is the goal of consensus-building. It is what sets consensus-building apart
as a negotiation strategy based on compromise, trade-off, accommodation, force or
withdrawal.
The approach is possible because consensual negotiation is about explicitly increasing the
basis upon which individuals and groups reach decisions. It is about seeking to change
the mies of the game in ways previously unimagined by the negotiating parties. In rural
livelihood terms this may mean discussing new technologies, redefining resource access
arrangements (eg extending the length of land leases), changing attitudes and levels of
tolerance to alien behaviour and cultures, and enabling individuals and government
officials to 'save face'. Above all it is about finding solutions which overtake the
immediate concerns leaving them redundant. In essence, the aim of any process of
consensual negotiation is to ensure that when the time comes to reach a settlement, the
size of the available 'pie' is substantially larger than when it started out (see Figure 2. I 0).
The approach is possible because in a conflict situation the basis for agreement is
severely constrained by emotive and personalised demands. This limits options and
stifles creativity. First building the trust of the conflicting parties, then drawing out their
true motivations and interests, clarifying these factors to remove exaggerations and
modify false perceptions, and then brainstorming to generate the widest and most creative
possible range of solutions, provides a pathway to achieve mutual gains.
Therefore, contradictory as it may seem, it is precisely because individuals and people are
in conflict that a 'win-win' outcome is possible. The greater the conflict the more
entrenched are peoples' positions and thus, potentially the more scope there is to widen
the basis for reaching an agreement. It is by slowly broadening people's understanding of
38
their own and other's demands, and encouraging them to think outside their entrenched
and emotional positions, that 'win-win' outcomes are entirely plausible.
Figure 2.10 Concept of Achieving Mutual Gains
initial available
gains
adversarialnegotiati1/ ~nsensual negotiation
"win-lose" "win-win"
2.11 Test the Agreement for Feasibility
Amidst the enthusiasm surrounding the final stages of a process of consensual negotiation
it is easy to omit to test the feasibility of the agreement. Some of the feasibility issues
will, or should have been, addressed by the various previous clarification activities.
However the final agreement will need to be tested again before it can be finally
accepted.
Some of the factors to consider when testing for feasibility are as follows:
• the expectations which each party has of the agreement are realistic;
• the technical feasibility of the options has been considered;
• adequate finance are to be made available;
• the time-table is feasible;
39
• consideration has been given to delivering rapid gains and/or 'milestones' such that
momentum for longer term changes is maintained;
• those stakeholder representatives who accept the agreement have the support of the
remainder of their supporters and the wider constituents;
• the agreement is politically viable;
• the agreement is socially desirable and environmentally sustainable; and
• mechanisms are in place to ensure that each party maintains its side of the agreement.
----------------------------------
Part 3
Process of Consensus-building

3. Process of Consensus-building
3.1 Building Blocks
Once it has been established that a component of the Most Practicable Strategy for
conflict management is to enter into a process of consensus-building (see Section 1.5), the
parties (and/or facilitator/mediator) must decide on the detail of how this process will be
undertaken. The process will be different in every case. It will also evolve and change
over time. There are, however, certain components or 'building blocks' that tend to
comprise all processes of consensus-building. This is so whether the goal is to manage
'live' conflicts arising within existing projects, or to integrate conflict prevention
strategies into a project design. The key building blocks of consensus-building are shown
in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 'Building Blocks' in the Process of Consensus-building
70%
Conflict Analysis .Consensus-Buil~ing Plan.
~/ 30%
__ ,--/_ ....
Conflict ..~···
/
Capacity Building I .Consensu,al ~egotiati()n I
The linkages between the components are not linear; that is to say the process does not
happen in strict sequential steps. For example, there are aspects of Conflict Analysis
which seek to identify the underlying motivations of the different stakeholder groups.
Such analysis may be undertaken both at the outset of the process, as an office-based
study, and/or as one of the initial exercises in an actual process of consensual negotiation.
Similarly, Capacity Building - such as strengthening the analytical skills of the most
disenfranchised stakeholder groups - may be integral to participatory analysis and/or may

be enhanced later through a programme of dedicated training in consensual negotiation
skills.
These inconsistencies acknowledged, there is also a generalised sequence recognisable in

processes of consensus-building. For example it is usual, and safest, to analyse a conflict
situation before engaging people in consensual negotiations, and before deciding what
capacity building may be needed to enable the negotiations to be effective. It is also
common for Conflict Analysis to be undertaken in two stages. First, to analyse the
conflict 'in the office' on the basis of existing or readily accessed information 1• Second,
to analyse the conflict in participation with the relevant stakeholder groups 2 • These two
activities will need to continue iteratively until a Consensus-Building Plan can be agreed
with the parties as to the way that the conflict will be managed. This process will
sometimes include some form of Capacity Building (e.g. mutual understanding of each
parties' objectives, training in negotiation skills, awareness raising of the long-term
benefits of consensus etc.).
With all three activities complete, a process of Consensual Negotiation can be begun in
the certainty that all possible avenues have been visited to:
• maximise the potential for a 'win-win' outcome, and

• minimise the possibility of inadvertently fuelling the conflict.
Consensual Negotiations can take a number of forms, including: direct 'face-to-face'

discussions between stakeholder groups, third-party facilitation by an impartial mediator,
or third-party facilitation by one of the stakeholder groups.
What is important to convey is the necessity of undertaking Conflict Analysis,

Consensus-Building Plan and Capacity Building before entering Consensual
Negotiations. Figure 3.1 suggests that 70% of time and effort should be invested into
these three activities, relative to 30% for the Consensual Negotiation phase. These
figures are indicative only. What is critical is that those involved in, or co-ordinating, a
process of consensus-building do not rush into negotiations.
The following sections desc1ibe a variety of tools and techniques for undertaking each of
these four activities. The tools are divided into those for:
• office-based Conflict Analysis

• provisional Consensus-Building Plan
• participatory Conflict Analysis
• revisions to Consensus-Building Plan
• Capacity Building
• Consensual Negotiations
1
••• and from this to prepare a provisional Consensus-Building Plan outlining the Most Practicable Strategy
of conflict management to be adopted, what steps to take next and what Capacity Building to undertake.
" ...and to use this participatory analysis to revise the Consensus-Building Plan.

• the geographical distribution of known or predicted conflicts or disputes;
• (where relevant) the temporal distribution of conflicts or disputes, eg seasonal,

proximity to local or national elections, etc;
• prioritisation of the conflict/sin terms of the urgency and significance of:

• the need to prevent, manage, resolve, transform the conflict/s; and
• the likelihood of the conflict/s undermining the goal and purpose of the project;
• for the prioritised conflict/s, the key stakeholder groups and their prospective
representatives;
• initial estimation of the immediate 'positions' and 'demands' of the different

stakeholder groups, and also their underlying motivating 'values', 'interests', 'needs'
and 'concerns';
• initial identification of the way in which the project might appear to oppose these
'positions' and underlying 'motivations'
• initial identification of conflict management opportunities, including:
• areas of 'common ground' between the stakeholders, eg present or past local

institutions, common customary approaches to dispute management, common
values, motivations, interests, needs or concerns;
• cases where the underlying motivations of particular stakeholder groups might be

able to be met without this impinging upon the underlying interests of other
stakeholders' underlying interests, ie mutually exclusive gains
• cases where certain stakeholders might accept compromise or trade-off;
• cases where the project is willing to concede certain objectives in return for
maintaining good relations with certain stakeholders;
• cases where some type of force or threat of force might be used on the part of the
project to achieve its objectives or mitigate its risks.
A series of tools for achieving some of these outputs are discussed below.
3.2.1 Initial Conflict Mapping
Where a conflict situation comes to the attention of an NGO, or government or private

organisation, it is often the case that the problem is more complex than the single conflict
which is the immediate cause of the concern. There may be other disputes or conflicts
going on which are being generated by the initial conflict or that are causal to it. In

addition, these causal conflicts themselves maybe the result of structural conflicts
recently re-awakened by development pressures umelated to the immediate problem. In
short, the complexity of the immediate conflict situation needs to be analysed. It is
possible that the immediate conflict is the only one which needs to be managed.
However, it is also quite possible that trying to manage one single dispute will be oflittle
effect because it is intertwined with wider problems.
Initial conflict mapping is essentially a tool based on the use of Venn diagrams. These
are constructed to build a picture of how an initial conflict interacts with other conflict
and potential conflict situations within a project. The example in Figure 3.2.1 is drawn
from an Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) in an upland major
watershed in Papua New Guinea. The size of the circles represents the relative magnitude
of each conflict to the others. The degree of interdependency of the conflicts is
represented by the extent to which the circles overlap. Where the conflict is one that is
'predicted' rather than being 'live', this is shown by a dotted line 3 • In this example, the
overall perspective taken in preparing the diagram is that of an NGO involved in the
ICDP. As such, the magnitudes of the different conflicts tend to reflect the degree to
which the dispute will adversely affect the NGO's objectives for the project.
3.2.2 Spatial Conflict Mapping
In accordance with the 'clarifying' principle described in Section 2.9, it is important to try
to provide some detail to the spatial distribution of the initial conflict mapping exercise.
Community-based natural resource projects in particular lend themselves to geographic
scrntiny. At this early stage of the Conflict Analysis it usually suffices to develop a
sketch map of the area concerned, and to try to demarcate the areas affected by each type
of conflict. Such sketch-maps will be relevant to both projects exhibiting 'live' conflicts,
and projects in their planning phase. In each case the office-based sketch map will need
to be revised on the basis of consultation with the affected stakeholders (see participatory
Conflict Analysis, Section 3.4).
The example given in Figure 3.2.2 is taken from a community-based Eco-Forestry project
in Fiji. The project involved forest management by land-owning groups using portable
sawmills, timber processing and product marketing. In this example the project was in its
late planning stages. The list of conflicts mapped were those 'predicted' to occur by the
NGO sponsor within the context of the current project design.
3.2.3 Prioritisation of Conflicts
Whether analysing a 'live' conflict situation or predicting conflicts during project

planning, it will be necessary to focus a process of consensus-building onto those
conflicts that are most 'urgent' and most 'significant'.
3
For projects in their planning phase the same exercise would draw a distinction between current conflicts
( ie those occurring before the onset of the project) and conflicts predicted to occur or be exacerbated as a
result of the project.

Where relevant, training exercises have
been included in the text and case-studies
from Fiji, Bolivia and Papua New Guinea Training Exercise 10
used as illustrations. In addition,
distinctions are drawn between use of the Initial Conflict Mapping
tools for managing 'live' conflicts, and
Objective
their application to the design of conflict
prevention strategies during the planning of To build an understanding of how conflicts
rural livelihood projects. overlap and inter-relate.
3.2 Office-Based Conflict Analysis

1. divide the participants into small groups
Office-based Conflict Analysis is the 2. ask one member of each group to choose a
research and analysis phase of the process community-based natural resource project
of consensus-building. It involves within which conflict has become an issue
( only one of the group need know about the
mapping the conflict (or the potential project, the others can ask him/her questions
conflicts) based on information already about it)
available or which can be readily gathered.
Outputs of this phase include: 3. list the different conflicts going on in this
project at a particular point in time
• initial mapping of the known or 4. identify conflicts that may arise in the future,
predicted conflict or disputes, including for example that have a history of emerging
their type, scale and any cause or effect from time to time; that are known to be
interrelations; dormant; that are to do with structural
inequalities in society; and/or that are likely to
result from the introduction of new economic
• the historical context of the conflict/s pressures
including:
• the past and predicted escalation of 5. draw these conflicts as circles, with the size
representative of the scale of the conflict.
the conflict/s;
Overlap the circles where the conflicts inter-
• the underlying structural causes; relate. Use dotted circles to denote future
• the relative contributions of conflicts
structural causes vs development
pressures;
• past efforts at conflict management; and
• why these efforts were less than fully effective;
• any peace-building initiatives in the country or region currently on-going or planned,

both those utilising local capacities and those seeking to address structural issues;
• for projects currently affected by 'live' conflict: the impacts of the conflict on the
project schedule, activities, outputs, assets, staff time, beneficiaries, etc;
• the coherence of other country and regional interventions in relation to possible

adverse effects on the goal, purpose and assumptions of the project;

4
Figure 3.2.1 Example of Initial Conflict Mapping
1) Political
interference
4) Oil palm vs
conservation
goals 6) Lack of Co-
5) Land operation between
ownership community groups
disputes
8) Mining VS
conservation
goals
in
PntPrnri<:::PC::
"Numbers in circles correspond to Table 3.2.3

Figure 3.2.2 Example of Spatial Conflict Mapping (Community Eco-Forestry
Project, Fiji)
Land owning units Potential Conflicts and Disputes
0 participating in project
1. disputes over boundary demarcation
2. disputes over distribution of income and profits
3. disputes over access rights across none-project
C> Land owning units not land units

participating in project 4. conflicts/disputes caused by reduced quality of
fish stocks due to siltation
5. disputes over use of fishing sites by newcomers
creek/river arising from construction of logging access roads
- - main road
6. disputes over distribution of income and profits
arising from unequal quality of forest resource
between different participating land owning units
7. family disputes
··········· access road 8. disputes between landowners arising from
'approaches' of commercial logging companies

Urgent conflicts are those that need to be addressed within Training Exercise
a certain timeframe. For example, resolving local disputes
over which community groups should be allocated technical
11
training may be critical to meeting a condition of the project Spatial Conflict
donor that all training be completed prior to the release of a Mapping
grant.
Objective
Significant conflicts are those that if they are not resolved
will have a significant effect on the objectives of the To build an understanding of
how conflicts are
project. For example, conflicts over the use of logging geographically arranged
access roads (such as the construction of road blocks) may
physically prevent a project from progressing to the next
stage. Other conflicts may undermine the livelihood
sustainability goals of the project. An example might be 1. preparea base sketch-map
for the projectused as the
where a sub-group of project participants decide to 'sell- basis for Exercise 10.
out' and allow unsustainable commercial harvesting.
2. taking the conflicts
In the context of externally-supported community-based identified in Exercise 10,
natural resource projects, most conflicts tend to share some mark these on the sketch
map
aspects of both 'urgency' and 'significance'. Analysis of
conflicts will need to identify the urgency and significance 3. identify areas where there
of conflicts in relation to each other. The analysis will also is uncertain or missing
need to identify whether the conflict is making a positive information
contribution to the project (such as those likely to be
resolved by customary conflict resolution practices) and
therefore should be left alone. Table 3.2.3 shows the prioritisation exercise undertaken
for the aforementioned Integrated Conservation and Development Project in Papua New
Guinea. The conflicts identified as priorities are shown in bold. Note that these are not
necessarily the conflicts that show the highest degree of urgency or significance. As with
any 'scoring and ranking' exercise, the process of undertaking the exercise is more
important than the scoring or ranking itself. A skilled social analyst will stand back from
a completed exercise and deliberate on the totality of the experience before gauging the
areas of priority.

Table 3.2.3 Example of a Conflict Prioritisation Exercise (Integrated
Conservation and Development Project, Papua New Guinea
Conflict Urgent·. . ••.··Significant.

1. Political Influence
• local level. ..................................................................... . *
• provincial level. ............................................................. . * **
• national. ........................................................................ . * ***
2. Unequal distribution of donated goods ............................................ . *** *
3. Individual requests for finance and material goods from NGO ..... . *** **
4. Oil palm vs conservation goals ............................................

. *** ***
5. Land ownership disputes

** ***
• research station .......................................................... .
**
• Eco-tourism project land ................................................. .
*
• Tekadu Guest-house ........................................................ .
6. Lack of cooperation between community groups

• in community work ......................................................... . *** ***
• in project related activities ....................................... . *** **
7. Individual family disputes ............................................................. . * ***
8. Mining vs conservation goals ........................................................ . * **
9. Unfair involvement in enterprises ................................................. . ** ***
10. Unfair distribution of profit and work
• Kokoro Guest house .................................................. . *** **
• Ivirnka Guest house ......................................................... . *** ***
• Tekadu Guest house ........................................................ . * **
• Okavai Guest house ........................................................ . ***
• Butterfly farming ............................................................. . *
11. Frustration of NGO project officer ............................................... .
12. Changing cultural practices ........................................................... . * ***
13. Downstream pollution ................................................................... . * **
14. Disregard for local culture by visitors ............................................ .. ***
15. Low wages for labour .................................................................... . *** **
16. Govt. maintenance of airstrip .......................................................... . *** *

3.2.4 Extended Stakeholder Identification Training Exercise 12
Effective consensus-building depends upon Prioritising Conflicts
engaging all the different stakeholder groups
relevant to a conflict (or potential conflict) Objective
situation in a process of consensual negotiation.
To prioritise conflicts in order to begin to
Accurately identifying who these stakeholders are develop a plan for consensual negotiation
is therefore important. At the office-based analysis
stage it may not be possible to identify all the
relevant stakeholder groups. Many of these groups
will not emerge until later consultation in the field. 1. In the same groups as used for
Exercises 10 and 11, and for the same
However, it is beneficial to make an intelligent project, the participants should develop
start on stakeholder identification at an early stage a matrix similar to the example in
for the following reasons: Table 3.2.3.
2. Instruct the participants to clarify

• forward planning - to provide information within their group what is meant by
with which to plan who to talk to, and in what 'urgent' and 'significant' conflicts, and
sequence, when the analysis phase moves from then complete the matrix. (For projects
the office to the field. The rationale here is: in their planning phases most conflicts
will only require analysis of
'significance')
• to avoid enflaming the dispute, for
example by failing to recognise cultural 3. Once the matrix is complete, instruct
protocol, or appearing to show the participants to take a short break,
preference for one particular stakeholder then return to agree the priority areas
for a process of consensual negotiation
group or individual; and
4. The participants present and justify
• to optimise the participatory analysis their priority areas in plenary
activities within time and budget
constraints.
• stakeholder groups and representatives - to

begin to think about whether there are naturally coalescing stakeholder groups, and
who the legitimate representatives of these groups might be;
• difficult people - to identify known 'difficult' individuals and groups and the types of
assistance they will need in order to bring them into a process of consensual
negotiation;
• positive influence - to begin to build a picture of those individuals, organisations and

agencies who, though not directly involved in the dispute or conflict, might be able to
provide assistance in its management or resolution.

• negative influence - likewise, to identify those Training Exercise 13
individuals, organisations and agencies not directly
Stakeholder Identification
involved in the dispute, but who possess power and
influence that will undermine a consensus position Objective
agreed by the main conflicting parties.
To begin to identify the stakeholder
Office-based stakeholder identification should begin groups relevant to a process of
consensual negotiation
with the conflict/s assigned the highest priority. In the
first instance the process of identification should take the
form of a brainstorming exercise. As such the 'rules' for
brainstorming given in Section 2.8.1. should apply. The 1. divide the participant into small
groups
activity of 'brainstorming' the different stakeholder
groups will need to be conducted for each of the 2. one member of the group selects a
following stakeholder categories: project with which to undertake the
stakeholder identification exercise
• those stakeholder groups causing the conflict (i.e. (this can be the same project as in
Exercise 12, or a different project
who is being 'blamed' for the problem); but one which exhibits either 'live'
or predicted conflicts)
• those stakeholder groups affected by the conflict
(these may or may not be the same as above, and may 3. select one 'urgent' and/or
'significant' conflict relevant to the
be positively or negatively, and directly or indirectly, project (only one of the group need
impacted); know about the conflict, the others
can ask questions about it)
• those stakeholder groups that can help to manage or
resolve the conflict (e.g. by contributing new ideas or 4. instruct the participants to
'brainstorm' the different
financial assistance); and stakeholder groups relevant to the
conflict using the proforma in Table
• those stakeholder groups who might (for reasons of 3.2.4. Ensure that the 'rules' of
jealousy, economics, status, political economy etc.) brainstorming are applied (see
Section 2.8.2)
try to undermine the process of conflict management.
5. those stakeholder groups that are the
Table 3.2.4 provides a proforma for compiling the results same but have been described using
of an initial 'brainstorming' exercise on stakeholder different language should be
identification. amalgamated
6. a final version of the Proforma

In some cases the particular character or demands of an should be agreed between the
individual may mean that a single person or family will participants
need to be considered as a stakeholder group in their
own right. However, human nature is such that it will 7. instruct the participants to identify
those stakeholder representatives
usually be possible to find groupings of like-minded most relevant to undertaking initial
people, who, when sufficient rapport has been built, will consultations in the field
accept a single 'representative' to speak for them.
8. finally, instruct the participants to
identify any 'difficult people', and
Be careful not to confuse 'individual stakeholders' with that stakeholder group to which they
'difficult people'. Individual stakeholders have a unique most readily belong
and legitimate stake in a conflict. 'Difficult people' are

those who share the same demands as other stakeholder groups, but who for reasons of
personality or power have a voice of their own. The task will be to find a way to bring
these 'difficult people' under the same grouping as those with whom they share a similar
stake.
Table 3.2.4 Proforma for Compiling the Results of Stakeholder Identification
Causin! /Blamed Affected Help Undermine

stakeholder representative stakeholder representative Stakeholder representative Stakeholder representat
);TOUD group group group ive
I. I. I. I.
2. 2. 2. 2.
3. 3. 3.
4. 4.
3.2.5 Underlying Motivations
Stakeholder identification is part of a wider process of Stakeholder Analysis. There are

numerous guidelines on different aspects of Stakeholder Analysis, covering such issues
as: importance, power, influence, objectives, motivations, underlying needs and fears,
goals, 'trade-offs', distributional impacts, equity, political feasibility, compensation,
mitigation etc. Depending upon the type of conflict, all or some of these issues may be
relevant to preparing for a process of consensual negotiation. However, central to all
types of consensual negotiation is analysis of the deeper-seated motivations which are
driving the different stakeholder groups. When discussing these motivating factors, it is
useful to distinguish between two types, as follows:
• underlying 'needs' - human values and interests, for example: income generation,
children's education, family welfare, social status; respect; and
• underlying 'fears' - human concerns, for example: loss of 'face' or status; threat of
violence; loss of land or investments; loss of employment; lost opportunity etc.
As discussed in Section 2. 7, it will often be possible to divide both needs and fears into
two categories:
• those 'common' to two or more stakeholder groups; and
• those 'specific' to only one stakeholder group.
Two examples of an office-based analysis of the 'need?' and 'fears' of conflicting

stakeholder groups are given below in Figure 3.2.5a and 3.2.5b. The first example
concerns stakeholder groups involved in a conflict between local fishermen and
commercial fishing boats over the harvesting of coastal fish stocks. The second example

Training Exercise 14
'Needs and Fears'
Objective
To construct a provisional picture of the underlying 'needs' and 'fears' which are motivating
the different stakeholder groups within a conflict situation
I. instruct the participants to maintain the same groups and to work with the same conflict
situation used to identify stakeholder groups in Exercise 13
2. as a group identify the immediate demands of the different stakeholder groups.

Encourage the participants to write these as "quotations" when possible, e.g. "We want to
be able to fish whenever we want"; "We do not want the NGO involved anymore" etc.
3. agree among the group what the motivating 'needs' and 'fears' are behind these demands
4. construct a 'needs' and 'fears' diagram as in Figure 3.2.5b.
5. indicate on the diagram any 'common' underlying needs and fears
6. discuss the results in plenary
Figure 3.2.Sa Example of a Needs and Fears Analysis for a Conflict over
Coastal Fish Stocks
Local Fishermen Commercial Fishing Boats
Fears: size of catch declining; may be forced to Fears: stocks running out; boats damaged by
practice agriculture when not experienced local fishermen
Needs: cash income for school fees; cash for Needs: repay loans on fishing boats;
consumables; employment security ...-- ~ employment security
unsustainable
Village Leaders
( competition over
coastal fishing )
NGO
Fears: status undermined; increased youth crime Fears: conflict over fishing undermines other
in village
.......
---community projects
Needs: youth to be employed; elders to be Needs: needs to find new community
looked after in old age development projects to fund.

Figure 3.2.Sb Example of a Needs and Fears Analysis for a Conflict between
Oil Palm and Conservation Objectives
Local NGO
Needs: meet conservation

objectives; enterprise/ community Donor
development objectives
Fears: loss of reputation; failure Needs: test hypothesis of enterprise-
Oil Palm Consultants of!CDP based conservation; conservation of
bio-diversity
Nt't'ds: income: fame Fears: !CDP not successful; grants not
Ft•ars: lose contract: lose used effectively; no monitoring
landowners support information
International Conservation NGO

Oil Palm Company
Needs: viable research station;
fame; access to grants
Needs: return on
Fears: Joss relationship with Local
investment; maximise
NGO
protit; settlement
Fears: no resettlement;
no in\'CStn1ent
1st Ethnic Group
Needs: hunting grounds; areas for

gardening; income; continued use of
Oil Palm financiers gold panning sites; education; better
health
Needs: return on investment Fears: loss of land ownership
Fears: loss of opportunity
Oil Palm
vs
Oil Palm Trade Association
Conservation 2nd Ethnic Group
Needs: income; land ownership claim

:'\ecds: tax income: land for
expansion: increased
production; localise
/ settled; education; better health
Fears: loss of land ownership; miss
out on greater income benefits;
positions aggressiveness of Kovios people
/
Third Ethnic Group
Department of Lands Needs: income; hunting grounds;

education; better health
Needs: acquire land Fears: loss of image/self-esteem; loss
of hunting lands; health effects of
for State
I pollution on fishing and drinking; loss

of profit from fishing
Department of the Environment 4th Ethnic Group
Needs: promote conservation; Needs: income (eg

overseas enforcement of researchers/tourists); hunting grounds
government conservation policy Fears: no opportunity for income;
Fears: loss ofbio-diversity Kovios people involved in 'deal'

follows on from Table 3.2.3 in which priority was given to analysing the potential
conflict between an Oil Palm company and the bio-diversity conservation objectives of a
local NGO. Figure 3.2.5c is an extract of a similar exercise undertaken for a 'parks &
people' project in Bolivia. Here the information on underlying motivations is put along-
side the estimated 'positions' of the stakeholders.
Figure 3.2.Sc Example of Underlying Motivations Plotted Against Immediate

Positions - ICDP, Bolivia
Stakeholder group positions Underlying motivations
urban logging interests in • oppose Reserve and new Forestry • maintain access to forest resources
local town legislation • protect capital investments in Jogging
• ambivalent attitude towards NGO related • more powerful logging interests mobilise
to NGO's involvement in bringing legal political support from motersierristas
cases against logging companies • manipulation of indigenous groups inside
• supports indigenous Indian status of Reserve to grant short-term logging
Reserve agreements under indigenous arrangements
municipal authorities • favourable • individuals involved in logging

• desire direct financial support from NGO • seek full logging royalties from Forestry
• feel excluded from management of Department
Reserve • fear of loosing tax revenues from logging
• hostility to forestry legislation inside Reserve
• opportunity for individuals to make private
logging agreements inside Reserve with
indigenous groups under indigenous
arrangements
corregidores of local • favourable • uphold government policy (represents central

districts government in project area)
Civic Committee of local • ambivalent towards NGO • maintain status within community
town • consider themselves to be excluded • protect local resources
Inter-Institutional • CIR only recently formed but favourable • CIR strongly promoted by union movement
Committees of local districts • CIY in opposition to NGO • CIV strongly influenced by another NGO
Vice Ministry for Forests, • supports further NGO/Reserve separation • amendments to chain-saw provisions in
Natural Resources and • consider NGO to be insensitive Forestry law 'non- negotiable'
Environment • avoidance of political partisanship at local
level
• attract donor funds
• upholding of conservation, bio-diversity and
'public interest works' legislation over-and-
above indigenous NR use rights inside Reserve
• maintain departmental interests
C,insc:rvatton Department • favourable • awaiting new conservation regulations

• shares concern over need for further • attract donor funding
separation of NGO/Reserve • upholding of conservation legislation over-
and-above indigenous NR use rights
• maintain departmental interests
Forest Department • favourable • enforcement of new forestry laws on

• desires technical assistance chainsawing
• retain maximum tax revenues from logging
Vice Ministry for • favours technical support to assist • seeks to uphold indigenous rights over NR use
Indigenous Affairs indigenous administration and inside Reserve
management of Reserve • demobilisation of indigenous groups
• support for NGO ambivalent

3.3 Provisional Consensus-Building Plan
The results of an office-based Conflict Analysis should

be used to prepare a provisional Consensus-Building
Plan. A Consensus-Building Plan outlines how the Provisional Consensus-
conflict situation is to be managed. It can comprise any Building Plan
item considered necessary to achieve a successful
process of consensual negotiation. Common elements Objective
are listed below in Box 3.3 under the following headings:
To practice designing a provisional
process of analysis, capacity building
• most practicable strategy; and consensual negotiation that will
• office-based conflict analysis continued; steer management of a process of
• participatory conflict analysis; consensus building.
• capacity building; and
• consensual negotiations.
I . instruct the participants to maintain
the same groups and to work with
3.3.1 Example - Tourist Guest-house the same conflict situation used to
identify stakeholder groups in
Exercise 13
An example of a provisional Consensus-Building Plan is
given in Box 3.3.1 below. The example is taken from 2. each group to prepare a provisional
one of the urgent conflicts identified in the office-based Consensus-Building Plan under the
headings given in Section 3.3, and
Conflict Analysis for the Integrated Conservation and
covering the items outlined in Box
Development Project in Papua New Guinea (see item JO, 3.3.
Table 3.2.3). The conflict concerns the unfair
distribution of profit and workload from a tourist guest 3. the Consensus-Building Plans to be
house constructed in a conservation area. The presented back in plenary
stakeholders in the conflict are: 4. discussion of the exercise in
• the owners of the guest house; plenary should focus on:
• a women's group involved in cooking and cleaning in - the feasibility of the Most
the guest house; and Practicable Strategy;
- whether the design for beginning
• various community groups jealous at not being participatory Conflict Analysis is
included in the enterprise. likely to be effective (rather than
Note that the example given is a only a 'provisional' enflame the conflict situation);
plan. It is intended that the design should be revised and
- the importance of remaining
after completion of the 'field-based' participatory
flexible with regard to Capacity
Conflict Analysis. Building and Consensual
Negotiations
Overseas Development I nstitutc 56

Box 3.3 Common Elements in a Consensus-Buildin2 Plan
Most Practicable Strategy
• a combination of one, some, or all of the following types of conflict management: force, withdrawal,
compromise, accommodation, consensus;
• consideration of available time, resources, urgency, consequences etc. (see Box 1.6);
• if some form of consensual negotiation is to be adopted, the BATNA that will be employed if consensus is
not possible.
Office-Based Conflict Analysis (continued)
• further analysis required; and

• new research required
Participatory Conflict Analysis
• a plan outlining how to verify the office-based identification of stakeholder groups and representatives;
• a plan outlining how to verify the office-based analysis of stakeholder groups' underlying motivations;
• a programme of initial consultation (including how to avoid enflaming the conflict and being perceived as
bias; how to build rapport such that questions about underlying under motivations will be able to be
discussed etc.);
• a plan outlining how to solicit the key elements of the current customary (and ifrelevant institutional and
legal) approaches to conflict management for either:
• the most urgent and/or significant conflict/sunder analysis (for projects exhibiting 'live' conflicts)
• the range of current and predicted conflicts (for projects in their planning phase)
Capacity Building
• internal skills training for the co-ordinating agency (NGO, government department etc.):
• enhanced personal communication skills;
• participatory analysis skills (e.g. PRA);
• mediation and facilitation skills etc.
• provisional ideas for capacity building of conflicting stakeholders (for discussion by co-
ordinators/facilitators in 'field' as and when appropriate). Options include:
• training in personal communication skills;
• training of stakeholders in direct consensual negotiation skills;
• training of community leaders in third-party negotiation skills; and
• training of ·outsiders' in third-party facilitation skills.
• Targeting of disenfranchised stakeholders in order to create a 'level playing field' for subsequent
negotiations. For example, how to use the forthcomingparticipat01y Conflict Analysis to build local
understanding of the conflict, in particular how to 'clarify' motivations.
Consensual Negotiations
• Very provisional ideas for the intended process of consensual negotiation, including ( if appropriate):
• whether to promote direct ('face-to-face') negotiation between the conflicting parties, or to use a
'third-party' facilitator;
• whether this facilitator should be from 'inside' or 'outside' the community, and whether 'impartial'
or ·partial'; and
• the timing, duration, location, format and general methods of the negotiation process.

Box 3.3.1 Example of a Provisional Consensus-Building Plan
Consensus;. Building Plan (provisional)
Most Practicable Strategy of Conflict Management
• the Most Practicable Strategy is to employ a process of consensual negotiation, combined with the
development of alternative and additional community-based enterprises;
• the general approach to the consensual negotiation will be to build the facilitation and negotiation
capacity of the whole community rather than targeting just the immediate conflicting parties;
• the intention is to avoid use of an 'outside' facilitator;
• the cultural diversity of conflicting parties may be too great to be able to build these facilitation and
<.:onsensualnegotiation skills onto existing customary/traditional approaches, suggesting that some
sort of independent mechanism of conflict management is needed; and
• the BA TNA for the process is to comprise a 'threat of withdrawal' (by the co-ordinating NGO),
which will be executed if required.
Further office-based Conflict Analysis
• to be revisited after the participatory Conflict Analysis (see below)
Participatory Conflict Analysis
WHAT HOW
• verify full range of stakeholder groups and • use of focus groups based on stratified
their initial legitimate representatives sampling through wealth ranking
• then: verify underlying fears and needs of • consultation with representative sub-groups
stakeholder groups taken from each stakeholder group
• consult on idea of building community skills • informal discussions - consult with a wider
in consensual negotiation (facilitation and range of people than simply the current
negotiation), and the benefits that this might 'opinion formers' in the conflict
bring for conflict management
• identify community training needs • informal discussions followed by more formal

meetings based on stakeholder groupings

Consensual Negotiation (provisional recommendation)
• informal discussions to introduce idea of communities managing their own conflicts through
consensual negotiation;
• delivery of community training in communication skills, direct negotiation and/or

facilitation/mediation; and
• community groups to manage Guest House disputes themselves (perhaps with incentive of
expanded or further enterprises)
3.4 Participatory Conflict Analysis
3.4.1 The 'No Conflict Management' Option
The office-based Conflict Analysis can be thought of as the first step in a "Needs
Assessment" of the conflict situation. One option at this stage will be to leave the
conflict situation as it is, i.e. to do nothing. There are at least two reasons why this
decision might be taken. The first is that the existing approaches to managing conflict
(the customary, institutional and legal) are assumed to be effective and should be left to
take place naturally.
The second is that leaving the conflict alone will bring benefits to the parties that
outweigh any negative effects that the conflict might be exhibiting or exhibit in the
future. For example, the conflict may encourage the various parties to form a new
institution or mechanism which will solve both the immediate conflict and future
(previously unmanageable) disputes. Alternatively, the conflict may help to publicise
certain social or political injustices which with the intervention of conflict management
would be perpetuated. As indicated, for both the proposed co-ordinator or facilitator of a
process of conflict management, and the conflicting parties themselves, the key criterion
for deciding if a conflict should be managed will be whether the benefits of management
outweigh the benefits of leaving things as they are.
3.4.2 Initial Participatory Conflict Analysis
Assuming that the office-based Conflict Analysis does not recommend the status quo, but
identifies an Most Practicable Strategy that includes some form of consensual
negotiation, the findings of the analysis will need to be tested in the 'field'. At the same
time it will be necessary to begin to build rapport with the different stakeholder groups.
The act of setting aside time to think about a provisional Consensus-Building Plan should
have encouraged a degree of sensitivity in the order and manner in which different people
and groups are spoken to during this early participatory Conflict Analysis. For example,
OHrseas Development Institute 59

with indigenous community groups it is often wise to avoid the temptation to rush to
speak to the supposed stakeholder representatives. These people may not yet see
themselves as leaders, and/or their treatment as such may cause resentment within the
traditional social hierarchy. It is far safer to begin consultation with the conventional
customary leaders, and then to work outwards from there. Note that the overriding
objective in participatory Conflict Analysis is to generate a level of trust sufficient to
allow discussions on the conflict to be held with different stakeholder groups without
enflaming the situation. Box 3.4.2 outlines some of the common steps involved in
participatory Conflict Analysis.
Box 3.4.2 Basic Steps in participatory Conflict Analysis
1. Build rapport;
2. Verify the stakeholder groups and group representatives;
3. Verify their underlying motivations, 'needs' and 'fears';
4. Consult on the Most Practicable Strategy for conflict management (this should include the
'no-conflict management option');
5. Clarify the conflict/s in terms of geography, timing, quantification, affected people etc.;
6. If consensual negotiation is to form part of the Most Practicable Strategy, model the existing
customary, institutional and legal approaches to conflict management relevant to the conflict
situation/s:
7. Consult on whether to try to build a process of consensual negotiation onto the existing
customary, institutional or legal approaches, or to manage the conflict/s through some
independent system; and
8. Consult on the capacity building options available to support the proposed consensual
negotiations.

3.4.3 Clarification
Training Exercisel 6
Clarifying Underlying Motivations
Clarification - II
Clarification has been discussed as one Objective
of the principles of consensus-building
(see Section 2.9). A part of the role To develop skills in clarifying the underlying motivations of
of clarifying is to explain in more conflicting parties
detail the deeper motivating 'needs'
and 'fears' that are driving individuals
and groups. Questions that can assist 1. in plenary, ask the participants to collectively identify a
in this task are given in Section 2.9.1. conflict situation from the past that all are aware of and
In the first instance these will help to which it is safe to discuss as a training exercise (for example:
an international disagreement; familiar community project
verify the results of the office-based that generated conflict etc.)
'needs' and 'fears' exercises already
completed. Note that the success of 2. divide the participants into pairs
these types of questions will depend to
3. invite half of all pairs to be facilitators
a large degree on the level of rapport
and trust built up with the stakeholder 4. for the remaining pairs, assign each a role as one of the
groups. Even when these deeper stakeholder groups in the conflict situation (e.g. government
motivations are finally revealed, it may ministry, donor agency, community group etc.)
take yet more time and rapport
5. instruct the facilitating pairs to develop a set of semi-
building before these stakeholders feel structured questions aimed at unearthing the underlying
comfortable with such information motivations, needs and fears of the conflicting stakeholder
being shared with other parties. groups (examples are given in Section 2.9.1)
In essence, the point in time at which 6. instruct each stakeholder pair to adopt their specific role and
agree (a) their immediate positions concerning the conflict
underlying motivations are clarified situation and (b) their underlying motivations (i.e. the
and the findings conveyed to the other motivating goals, values, needs and fears driving their
stakeholder groups will be a matter of immediate positions)
judgement. It may take place at the
same time as the verification of 7. assign each facilitating pair to one of the stakeholder pairs.
The facilitating pair then spends 30 minutes trying to
stakeholder groups; after completion develop an understanding of the underlying motivations of
of capacity building; or during multi- the stakeholder pair
stakeholder workshops. Regardless of
this timing issue, clarifying conflicts in 8. instruct the facilitating pair to take things slowly, i.e. to first
build some rapport, but refrain from lingering on the
terms of underlying motivations is
stakeholder's immediate positions
essential to an effective process of
consensual negotiation. This is the 9. each pair presents back its findings in plenary
case whether seeking to analyse 'live'
conflicts or when predicting and 10. select one of the facilitation pairs to cluster the areas of
'common' underlying motivations and to isolate the different
analyse the range of conflicts that may 'specific' underlying motivations
affect a project in during the planning
phase.

Spatial and Temporal Clarification
Section 2.9 discussed the importance of asking stakeholders to be specific in describing

their underlying motivations. In conflict situations in particular there is a tendency to
generalise and sometimes exaggerate these motivations, particularly in terms of
geography (i.e. where something is located); time (when it is needed); and quantification
(the cost, amount or volume needed). In the context of community-based natural
resource projects in particular the spatial and temporal nature of resource use can be
critical.
Figures 3.4.3a, 3.4.3b and 3.4.3c show the use of

community-participatory techniques (in this case Training Exercise 17
transect walks, sketch-mapping, seasonal calendars
and a simplified Conflict Analysis Framework) to Clarification - III
help 're-frame' a conflict situation between a
Objective
logging company and a community-based
women's group. The exercises were held To develop skills in employing
separately with both sets of stakeholders. community-participatory methods for the
purpose of clarifying the livelihood needs
of different community stakeholders
Prior to clarification, the women's group defined
their underlying motivation as being to gather
fruits and fuel-wood from the whole area east of
the main road. They also considered that the river 1. divide the participants into small
needed to be cleared of pollution along its entire groups. The members of each group
must all share a common understanding
length. Taking transect walks with the women's of one particular rural community
group and building up a sketch-map enabled the
true geographic extent of the needs of group to be 2. over a two day period the participants
revealed (see Figure 3.4.3a). work through different community-
participatory methods (see literature on
PRA).
Similarly, prior to consultations with the logging
company, the company stated that they required 3. on completion of each method, each
logging rights all year-round, and that the women's group presents their findings in plenary
group should not enter the concession area at and discuss the relevance of the method
to the following:
anytime. Using participatory techniques a
- the building of rapport with the
seasonal calendar (see Figure 3.4.3b) was conflicting stakeholder groups
compiled independently with both groups. The - creation of a 'level playing-field' for
exercise found that each group's need was for - subsequent consensual negotiations
access during certain specific 'windows' within the - the sharing of information between
the conflicting stakeholder groups
year, and that the conflict of interest overlapped for - clarifying exaggerated needs
a maximum period of two months. - identifying 'common' and 'specific'
underlying needs
Lastly, clarifying the women's group's needs for
fuel-wood, fruits and drinking water enabled the
negative effects of logging operations on these
livelihood activities accurately described (see Figure 3.4.3c).

Figure 3.4.3a Example of Clarification Using a Composite Map
area where certain

women identify landowners are selling
precise site of logging rights to
drinking-water commercial company
pollution caused
by logging
company
river
')l
principal areas for

fruit and fuel-wood
collection by ·-;,,
women's group
Figure 3.4.3b Example of Clarification Using a Seasonal Calendar
• logging company seasonal requirements for

harvesting ( __ )
• women's group seasonal requirement for
fruits and fuel-wood ( --------)
J F M A M J J A s 0 N D J

Figure 3.4.3c Example of Clarification Using the 'Conflict Analysis
Framework'
Overall livelihood Specific resources Magnitude of Importance of

activities affected by affected conflict* Conflict**
conflict
Women's Group
• collection of non- mopane fuelwood 25% H
timber forest
products marula fruit 50% L
• collection of
drinking water village standpipe 50% M
Logging Company etc. etc. etc.
* 25% indication of the perceived 'magnitude' of conflict in terms of the quantitative

reduction in availability of the resource to the stakeholder group
** L indication of the perceived 'importance' of the resource in terms of extent to

which it plays a role in sustaining livelihood security or protecting human
welfare (High (H), Moderate (M), Low (L).
Clarification in Complex Situations
In those circumstances where the range of conflicts is wide and the interplay between the
stakeholder groups more complicated a more systematic approach to spatial and temporal
clarifying may need to be employed. Such complexity commonly exists in area-wide
rural livelihood projects, such as coastal zone management or protected areas
management planning. An example of managing this type of complexity is given in
Annex B. The example is based on an analysis of current and expected conflicts between
community stakeholder groups and the government conservation authorities over the
management of resources in a wildlife management area in Zambia.
Clarification Using Community Video
The role of video is another consideration. In both simple and complex conflicts over the
use of community-based natural resources, preparation of short video films by the
different stakeholder groups can be a powerful medium to focus stakeholders on the true
parameters of their perceived conflict. Community video can also help inform other
parties of the community's views, in particular their needs and fears, and their ideas for
solutions. Experience has shown that video can be useful not only in clarifying conflicts
between community groups and external organisations, but also among different
community groups.

3.4.4 Building on Customary, Institutional and Legal Approaches to Conflict
Management
Customary Approaches
Within the context of managing conflicts which affect rural livelihood projects, the
existing customary approaches of community leaders and groups can be, and often are
dfective. Many of these are based on consensus and arbitration methods and primarily
target family, labour and civil disputes, with environmental disputes the new growth area.
Examples include: the Barangay Justice System in the Philippines; Sri Lanka's village
level mediation panels; the Lok Adalats (People's Courts) in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh,
India; and the taha system of the Maoris, New Zealand.
Overwhelming Conflict
The problem with customary forms of conflict management comes when new
development pressures generate (or 're-awaken') conflicts which overwhelm the
capability of these mechanisms to cope. In such situations the conflicting parties may
well be creative enough to modify their customary approaches or develop new institutions
or mechanisms in order to manage these potentially overwhelming conflicts. However,
there are many cases where this is not possible (or at least not possible within the time
scale of the natural resource project in question). It is for these cases that this Manual has
been developed, namely: for conflicts which overwhelm both the immediate and adaptive
capability of community groups to manage conflict.
Cultural Scenarios
How to employ consensus-building techniques to help manage these overwhelming

conflicts depends to a large degree on the 'cultural diversity' of the different stakeholder
groups involved. In the South Pacific two broad scenarios can be identified, as follows:
• cultural uniformity - where the different stakeholder groups (who may or may not be
from different cultures) view conflict and its management in a way that is uniform;
and
• cultural diversity - where the different stakeholder groups have different and/or
mutually incompatible ways of viewing and managing conflict.
These two scenarios are discussed individually below.
Cultural Uniformity
Cultural uniformity is discussed below in the context of the involvement of indigenous

Fijian groups in community forestry projects. In indigenous Fijian villages it is common
for minor forestry management disputes (for example the distribution of profits within
individual land owning groups) to be successfully resolved through customary means (for
example though facilitation of a consensus by the Mateqali Head). In those cases where

this customary approach is ineffective, or where the conflict involves a wider range of
stakeholder groups (such as a conflict over the boundary demarcation between two land
owning groups), it is not uncommon for the affected parties to seek an 'institutional'
resolution. This might be the intervention of an appropriate government agency, such as
the Native Lands Trust Board, or recourse to the legal system.
There are certain types of conflicts which overwhelm not only the existing customary,
institutional and legal approaches, but also the capability of the parties to adapt these
existing approaches or to develop new conflict management institutions. Such conflicts
can include:
• disputes over the degree of project participation afforded to different land owning
groups;
• disputes between project participants and non-project participants; and
• the effects of 'off-site' environmental impacts arising from various project-related
forest management activities.
It is for these 'overwhelming' conflicts that consensus-building techniques may provide

assistance, either in strengthening the existing customary, institutional or legal
approaches, or in offering an independent alternative. Deciding which of these two broad
types of assistance to provide will depend in part upon the extent of cultural diversity
present. For conflicts arising between different Fijian indigenous community groups the
degree of cultural diversity can be considered as 'low'. This is because most community
groups share a common cultural view of conflict and the way its should be managed or
resolved. Such cultural uniformity suggests that consideration of consensus-building
should begin by looking at how the techniques might be employed to strengthen the
capacity of the existing approaches - starting with customary approaches, and moving on
to institutional and legal where relevant. Options for strengthening these approaches are
listed in Box 3.5.
Cultural Diversity
A characteristic of community-based natural resource projects in Papua New Guinea is

the cultural diversity of the participating community groups. Where two or more
different ethnic groups are involved in a project it is not uncommon for disputes to arise
over land ownership and work/profit distribution. In these cases (particularly those
relating to land ownership claims) the conflicting land owning groups are increasingly
turning to 'outside' institutions for resolution of the dispute. For example, a Land
Mediator may be invited to hear arguments over the historical legitimacy of the disputing
parties. If the mediator is unable to find a resolution, one or more of the conflicting
parties may decide take refuge in the legal system, turning to the Magistrate of the local
court to pass judgement.
The problem with the use of these 'institutional' and 'legal' approaches to conflict
management is that the solution is often either too expensive, too prolonged, and/or
viewed by one or more of the parties as biased. As with the Fijian examples, there are
therefore certain development pressures which simply overwhelm the capability of the

current customary, institutional or
legal approaches to manage Training Exercise 18
conflicts related to community-
based natural resource projects. Modelling Existing Approaches
In contrast to Fiji, for conflicts
arising between different Objective
indigenous community groups in
Papua New Guinea the degree of To assess whether to strengthen the existing approaches to
cultural diversity can be conflict management (customary, institutional and legal), or to
develop an 'independent-but-familiar' system of conflict
considered as 'high'. That is to management.
say the different ethnic groups
have a cultural view of conflict
and its management that is at
variance with each other. For 1. divide the participants into small groups (around five). All
members of the groups should be familiar with one
example, the languages of the particular conflict situation associated with the use of
conflicting parties are often community-based natural resources
different, and the range of possible
mediators or arbitrators invariably 2. each group to collectively complete Table 2.2 for the key
wide. These differences suggest stakeholder groups relevant to the conflict situation
that consensus-building 3. each member of the group then takes one of the stakeholder
techniques may have a greater role groups and completes the proforma in Figure 3.4.Ja. This
to play within some independent is done first for that customary approach that the
system of conflict management, stakeholder group would tum to first to resolve the conflict
in question (on the proforma, circle the relevant alternative
rather than in strengthening the
for each of the six key components of conflict
existing customary, institutional management).
or legal approaches. Although
independent, any new system 4. each member then repeats the exercise for the approach to
should be designed as far as conflict management that the stakeholder group would
resort to if the first approach was ineffective (this might be
practicable to achieve two aims: a different customary approach, or an institutional or legal
• be viewed by all parties as approach)
impartial; and
• contain elements familiar to 5. together the group then identifies any key differences
between the various models of the customary, institutional
each party. and legal approaches relevant to the different stakeholder
groups. The group then reaches a decision whether to try
It may be possible for example to to:
build the notion of a third-party
impartial facilitator into the new - build on the existing approaches - in which case where
would the existing approaches be strengthened and
system. This is because, how)?; or
regardless of ethnic group most
customary approaches within the - to develop an independent system of conflict
indigenous clans of Papua New management
Guinea have some third-party
- in which case what elements of this new system could be
facilitator or mediator central to made 'familiar' to each of the stakeholder groups?
the process of conflict
management.

Modelling Customary, Institutional and Legal Approaches
In recommending the use of consensus-building it is assumed that for each conflict

situation under consideration prior participatory Conflict Analysis has been conducted.
This analysis will need to demonstrate that the current customary, institutional and legal
approaches are ineffective on their own in resolving the conflict, and that within the time
period required for management of the conflict, the current existing approaches are
unable to be adapted successfully and new institutions or mechanisms unable to be
developed.
Where these weaknesses are identified, the next step is to begin to explore whether the
existing approaches to conflict management can be strengthened. Figure 3.4.4a is
designed to enable a rapid modelling of these existing approaches. As an example, Table
3.4.4 shows how the results of this modelling might be used to identify weaknesses in the
effectiveness of customary approaches; the alternatives currently available; and the
effectiveness of these alternatives. From this analysis it should be possible to identify
which components of the customary and/or institutional and legal approaches to
strengthen, or whether to adopt an independent system of conflict management. Figure
3.4.4b shows how the results of the modelling exercises might be used to inform this
decision.
Figure 3.4.4a Consideration of Existing Approaches in Managing

Overwhelming Conflicts in Rural Livelihood Projects
HIGH
I
Cultural
diversity of
independent-but-
familiar alternative
no intervention
conflicting
parties
no intervention
strengthen existing
approaches
LOW
LOW HIGH
►
Effectiveness of
existing approaches

Figure 3.4.4b Proforma for Rapid Modelling of Customary Approaches to
Conflict Management in Rural Livelihood Projects
!direct 'person-to-
jperson' insider
l'
type. of. I legal representative . preferred status of
impartial
___.,outsider
negotiation~ facilitator/s
government
\ / representative
partial --...........
j3;·d party facilitationfi, _.. respected community
'--..
outsider
members insider
L"""7'"
I ~cooodl ofeldm
individual negotiations with conflicting parties
hereditary
leaders
t elected leaders .--------,
self imposed leaders scheduling individual negotiations followed by joint negotiations

format
joint negotiations involving all conflicting parties
prioritised
by status all eligible consensus arbitration
panel of peers
one person at a time
judgement
!eligibility!
/ _.,,,:,, overlapping speakers .-----------"\
i:_________
process il verbal
t i~s-tr_u_c_tu-re-,,l
third-party
process of
dialogue
.............. multiple small discussions
I __,,!! decision !
verification
\ direct and confrontational

~------,
reaching
agreement
format i
I "'-
t ~
'--..
legally
binding
\VTitten e.g.
\
indirect and unconfrontational, eg exchange Memorandum of
talking through proposed solutions of gifts Understanding
(MOU)
!enforcement!
none ~legal enforcement
/ observers
MOU enforceable
participation of ~ advisors
peer/social
pressure
constitutional
fines and
under contract law
parties not involved punishments
---.. process
in the conflict
~ recorders
implementation monitors
\ implementation evaluators

Table 3.4.4 Example of Modelling Existing Approaches to Conflict Management -
the case of a land boundary dispute (Fiji)
Potential Conflict
NGO-sponsored communitv-based eco-forestrv proiect, Fiii - the process of project planning identifies
potential disputes between community groups over the demarcation of boundaries between land owning
units. Custommy and institutional approaches are commonly used and are often effective. The occasions
when such disputes are resolved through the Courts is extremely rare, therefore legal approaches have
been omitted from the analysis.
Key components of customary approach institutional approach suggested

existing approaches to (expected effectiveness 50%) (expected effectiveness 20%) strengthening of
conflict management existing approaches
if ineffective then
type of negotiation direct 'person-to-person' 3rd party facilitation by no intervention

negotiations between Provincial
'Mataqali Heads' of land Commissioner for
owning units Native Land Trust Board
(NLTB)
perceived status of no facilitation outside impartial no intervention

facilitator
meeting format consultation of consultation of no intervention

respective land owners respective land owners
followed by joint followed by joint
meeting of 'Mataqali meeting of 'Mataqali
Heads' Heads', chaired by
NL TB Commissioner
process of dialogue all eligible; one person all eligible; one person 'Mataqali Heads' and
at a time; at a time; Provincial
unconfrontational unconfrontational Commissioner trained in
facilitation skills
reaching agreement by consensus; verbally by judgement against pre-existing demarcation

binding; no enforcement pre-existing maps; maps deposited with
legally binding and area Chief and
enforceable under law understood by 'Mataqali
Heads'
participation of parties area Chief as observer area Chief as observer Addition of NGO
not involved in the and advisor and advisor project-sponsor as
conflict observer

3.5 Revised Consensus-Building Plan
3.5.1 Outputs of Participatory Conflict Analysis
The participatory Conflict Analysis phase of the process should have:
• built rapport between the conflicting parties and between these parties and the
facilitator if one is to be used;
• led to agreement on an Most Practicable Strategy for managing the current conflict
(and/or for managing future conflicts);
• clarified the key stakeholder groups and their representatives;
• clarified the conflict into:
• the underlying motivations (including 'needs' and 'fears') of the different
stakeholder groups; and
• their spatial, temporal extent and any relevant quantification;
• determined whether to strengthen the existing customary, institutional and/or legal
approaches, or to develop a new independent system of conflict management; and
• consulted on the available options for capacity building.
On the basis of these finding the provisional Consensus-Building Plan will need to be
revised. In particular, it should now be possible to plan for a programme of capacity
building and to develop in more detail plans for a process of consensual Negotiation.
3.5.2 Differences in Conflict Analysis
There are some key differences in the way in which office based and participatory
conflict analysis is undertaken for 'live' conflicts afflicting projects midstream, as against
projects in their planning phases. These differences are summarised below in Table
3.5.2.

Table 3.5.2 Differences in Conflict Analysis Between 'Live' conflicts and 'New'
Projects
Process phase 'live' conflicts/disputes 'new' projects
Office-based The prioritisation of' live' conflicts primarily see*

analysis takes place in the office and is about singling
out those conflicts that are the 'triggers' for
other conflicts, as well as those that are
'urgent' (in terms of 'timing') and
'significant' (in relation to achieving project
objectives)
For 'live' conflicts, deciding how to begin a Deciding how to approach stakeholders in
dialogue with the conflicting parties is new projects need only be informed by a
informed primarily by a detailed office-based 'rapid' office-based stakeholder analysis - one
stakeholder analysis and identification of designed to identify who should be
common ground between the different approached to evaluate the effectiveness of
parties' underlying interests, needs and fears existing customary, institutional and legal
approaches.
Participatory *The prioritisation of potential conflicts

analysis in new projects takes place through the
direct participation of the stakeholders,
and is about identifying which conflicts
are unlikely to be resolved through the
existing customary, institutional or legal
processes.
Modelling 'failed' customary, institutional Modelling of customary, institutional or legal

or legal approaches to conflict management is approaches to conflict management is
undertaken to identify whether their undertaken to identify whether they are likely
strengthening might be an effective pathway to fail, and if so, how they might be
to conflict management strengthened.
A detailed stakeholder analysis (including

identification of any common underlying
interests, fears and needs) need only be
undertaken for those conflicts which are
unlikely to be managed by the existing
approaches. The analysis is used to identify
who to consult about ways to strengthen the
potentially ineffective existing approaches.
3. 6 Capacity Building
Consideration of 'cultural diversity' gives an indication of whether to construct a new

independent system of conflict management, or whether to build on the existing
customary, institutional or legal approaches. Once this decision has been taken there are
various capacity building options available. Some of these are identified in Box 3.6,
divided in those relevant to independent systems, and those relevant to strengthening
existing approaches. Note that all capacity building should have been completed before
entering into (or facilitating) a process of consensual negotiation.

Box 3.6 Capacity Building Options for Consensual Negotiation
Options for building capacity of existing approaches Options for building capacity for an
to conflict management independent approach based on modern
techniques
Strengthening customary approaches • train all those community groups involved

in the conflict ( or the representatives
• strengthen those community groups involved in thereof) to be able enter into direct 'face-to-
customary approaches, both in personal face' consensual negotiations (include both
communication and consensual negotiation skills; personal communication and negotiation
skills);
• strengthen those community leaders involved in
customary approaches to be able to mediate/facilitate • train the most independent community
conflict both: leaders to be able to mediate/facilitate
• among community groups; and conflict both:
• between community groups and outside • among community groups; and
organisations • between community groups and
outside organisations
Strengthening institutional approaches
• train outside agencies to be able to offer
• train outside agencies currently involved in mediate/facilitate conflict services to
institutional forms of conflict management to be able manage conflicts both:
to better mediate/facilitate conflict both: • among community groups; and
• among community groups; and • between community groups and
• between community groups and outside outside organisations
organisations
• combine existing different customary or
Strengthening legal approaches
institutional approaches to develop an
'integrated' model of community-based
• train legal representatives in facilitation/mediation
conflict management
skills for achieving 'win-win' settlements, thereby
avoiding court proceedings (e.g. training for local
Land Mediators); and
• train legal representatives in how to interpret court

decisions into 'win-win' judgements (e.g. training
for Local Magistrates)
3.6.1 Priorities for Managing Conflicts Among Community Groups
With regard to preventing or managing conflicts among community groups, there should
be a presumption in favour of the following hierarchy of priorities. Attention should be
focused first on the possibility of strengthening the direct (consensual) negotiation skills
of the stakeholders involved in the conflict. Where this approach is unlikely to be
effective, consideration should then be given to training community leaders in the basic
skills of 'third-party' facilitated negotiation. Only where this second approach is unlikely
to work should consideration be given to training or using some 'outside' agency
(government or non-government) to offer assistance as an 'outside' third party facilitator.
A sound case will need to be made if it is intended to deviate from this hierarchy.

3.6.2 Priorities for Managing Conflicts between Community Groups and External
Actors
Likewise to prevent or manage conflicts between community groups and outside

government, non-governmental or private organisations, the presumption should be in
favour of the following hierarchy of priorities. Attention should be focused first on the
possibility of training community leaders in the basic skills of consensual negotiation.
The aim is to enable these individuals to be able to negotiate directly with outside
organisations. Only where this approach is unlikely to be effective should consideration
be given to training or using some other outside agency to offer assistance in the
negotiations as a third-party facilitator or mediator.
3. 7 Consensual Negotiation
Referring back to Figure 3.2, a process of consensual negotiation should not be entered
into until all other activities are as complete as is practicable. Consensual negotiations
themselves will involve the following broad activities 5 :
i. each stakeholder group to develop an understanding of the other groups' underlying
motivations;
2. the widest possible range of options generated for satisfying these motivations;
3. options prioritised and combined to deliver perceived mutual gains for all parties;
4. consensus reached over the final agreement; and
5. satisfaction that implementation of the agreement is feasible.
The overall process that binds these activities can vary. Some of the more common
processes of consensual negotiation are indicated in Box 3. 7 below.
Box 3.7 Common Processes of Consensual Ne2otiation

• direct 'face-to-face' negotiation - No facilitator. One or more of the conflicting stakeholder groups
understands the principles and practices of consensus-building, and has undertaken the necessary
Conflict Analysis.
• partial facilitation (brokering) - One of the stakeholder groups facilitates a process of consensual
negotiation between itself and the other parties. This group may be perceived as being partial to one
cause or another, but nethertheless is acceptable as a facilitator (for example, because the they hold the
power to withdraw project funding). Options for managing the process include:
• rotational 'one-on-one' facilitation with the facilitator negotiating with each stakeholder
representative (or group or sub-groups members) in turn;
• a workshop environment where all stakeholder representatives negotiate together under
guidance of the facilitator;
• some combination of the above two options.
• Impartial third-party facilitator - The conflicting stakeholder groups agree to allow a third party to
facilitate a process of consensual negotiation. The facilitator is perceived as being impartial and may
known (ie an 'insider') or not known ('outsider') to the parties. The same options for managing the
process apply as above.
5
Some of these may have already been undertaken during the participatory Conflict Analysis
O, crseas Development Institute 74

3.7.1 Direct Consensual Negotiations
Application of the principles of consensus-building does not necessarily require a third-

party facilitator, or for all parties to understand the principles of consensual negotiation.
Even if only one of the conflicting parities understands these principles it may be possible
for that group to enter into a process of consensual negotiation that explores underlying
motivations, widens the options and delivers a 'win-win' outcome. Both Exercise 9a
and 9b can be used to demonstrate this one-track approach.
Note that in the context of sustainable rural livelihoods, direct 'face-to-face' consensual
negotiations can take place both:
• among different community groups; and

0 between project beneficiaries and external community groups, government, non-
governmental and/or private organisations;
and may involve:
• all members of each stakeholder group;

• sub-groups of a wider stakeholder groups; and/or
• representatives of each stakeholder group or sub-group.
3.7.2 Facilitated Consensual Negotiations
In a process of facilitated consensual negotiation it is by no means certain that the

facilitator will be an 'outsider' and impartial. Nor is it certain that a workshop
environment will be used with representatives of the stakeholder groups brought together
to negotiate an agreement. This is a North American model, and is the form of
consensual negotiation commonly adopted in the resolution of disputes over
environmental resources.
In the context of rural livelihood project in developing countries, the 'cultural diversity'
of the different parties may make it impossible to constructively manage such a
workshop, not least because of the different languages involved. In addition, the mistrust
of 'outsiders' by community groups, and the legacy of imposed interventions, may mean
that 'outside' third-party facilitation of a dispute will be ineffective, and that someone
familiar to the parties will be needed.
These potential constraints emphasise the importance of using participatory Conflict

Analysis to design an appropriate process of consensual negotiation.

Note that as with direct consensual
negotiations, third-party facilitation Training Exercise 19
can take place both:
Facilitated Consensual Negotiation
• among different community groups; 2 day Simulation Exercise
and
• between project beneficiaries and Objective
external community groups, To develop workshop skills in facilitation and mediation,
government, non-governmental and to practice bringing conflicting parties to a consensus
and/or private organisations;
and can involve facilitation/mediation

1. participants are given the General Briefing Notes, and
with either: the Brief for one stakeholder representative, for either of
• all members of each stakeholder the two following 'role-play' simulation exercises:
group; - Coralbay Coastal Resource Management Project
(Annex C), or
• sub-groups of the wider - Tukubu Conservation Area (Annex D)
stakeholder groups; and/or
• representatives of each stakeholder 2. over a two day period various sessions are designed and
group or sub-group. implemented by facilitators (two for each session). The
sessions build up into a process that takes the
participants through the three following phases of
Furthermore, third-party facilitation consensual negotiation:
may involve meetings with all - finding common interests
stakeholder groups (or their sub- - widening and prioritising options
groups or representatives) together, or - reaching agreement
may only involve one stakeholder
3. participants should read all of Section 3. 7 thoroughly
holder group or representative at a before embarking on the simulation
time. Most likely is some combination
of both these approaches. 4. each session should be divided into the following five
Lastly, as indicated in Box 3. 7, sub-sessions:
- trainer explains the aims of the session and the tool to
facilitation does not always have to be be used;
by a third party. One of the - participants are divided into pairs, and each pair asked
stakeholder groups can offer to act as to design how the session will be played out (e.g.
'broker' if it can gain acceptance for whether to work in plenary or small groups; how the
this role from the other parties. The tool will be adapted to conflict situation; who will be
the 'intervener' and who the 'recorder' and whether
problem here is that this party may these facilitation roles will be swapped around etc;
find difficulty obtaining the necessary - one of the pairs is then asked to facilitate the session;
permission. One option to address all other pairs go into their 'roles';
this is to accord different types of - the session is facilitated;
facilitation to the different stages of - once the sessions are completed, everyone comes out
of 'role' and in plenary the trainer draws out the lessons
the overall process. An example learned - always starting with "things the facilitators
might be to employ an independent did welI"; followed by "things the facilitators could
(impartially perceived) agency to have done better".
undertake the participatory Conflict
Analysis activities (e.g. an uninvolved
NGO or government agency),
subsequently replaced by one of the

stakeholder groups (e.g. the project-sponsor) who takes up the role of a 'broker' and
guides the process of consensual negotiation.
3.7 .3 Process of Consensual Negotiation
The process of consensual negotiation, whether direct or facilitated, can be crudely

divided into three key phases:
1. finding common interests;

2. widening and prioritising options; and
3. reaching agreement.
Phase I -Common Interests
Much of the analysis of a conflict situation should have already taken place prior to a
process of negotiation being entered into. The first phase of the negotiations will
therefore be to take this analysis forward, for example by sharing the results with the
other parties and developing a common understanding of the dynamics of the conflict.
The overall aim of the process at this early stage is to find points of' common interests'
between the conflicting parties This could include:
• common underlying motivations;

• a common understanding of each others 'specific' underlying motivations;
• common perceptions of the conflict, for example the dangers of its escalation; and
• agreement by the parties on the agenda, ground rules etc.
Some of the tools that can be used to build towards 'common interests' are as follows:
• warm up;
• agenda building;
• metaplan of underlying motivations; and
• objective verifiable indicators.
These tools are discussed in Section 3. 7. 7.
Phase 2 - Widening and Prioritising Options
The second broad phase of the process is about identifying the widest possible range of
options, and then narrowing these down to those that are most promising. The overall
approach is based upon certain assumptions, as follows:
• that the conflict situation has caused an entrenchment of the different parties demands
and objectives, encouraging them to look only at a very narrow set of options;
• that together the stakeholder groups possess a great deal of creativity and that this can
be unleashed to transfom1 a conflict situation into a positive force for change;

• that different parties often share certain underlying motivations in common; and
• that it is often possible to find solutions to each parties' 'specific' underlying

motivations that do not impinge upon the motivations of others.
Section 3. 7.8 discusses some of the tools available for developing a range of options and
for focusing these down towards those most promising. These include:
• brainstorming techniques;
• SWOT analysis; and
• ends-means analysis.
Phase 3 - Reaching Agreement
The third broad phase is where the skill of the negotiator, broker, facilitator or mediator is
most critical. Essentially it is about bringing together the most promising options into an
agreement which delivers a 'win-win' outcome. Note that the final agreement may need
to encompass a wide range of amendments and conditions, i.e. items needed by one party
or other in order for them to accept the outcome.
Important early stages of this phase are the identification of 'uncertainties' and
'assumptions' pertaining to each promising option. These might include a lack of data,
the risks of adverse side-effects, and assumptions about the magnitude of benefits. Thus
at this stage various scientific and economic studies may be required to fill in data gaps,
reduce risks and verify assumptions. Studies may include evaluations of different options
or scenarios within one option (e.g. sensitivity analysis); clarifying certain options in
terms of location, timing, quantity and quality; and/or exploring the technical, economic,
social or environmental feasibility of new ideas. It is at this stage, for example, that
Benefit-Cost-Analysis might be employed to calculate exactly who gains and who loses
from a particular option. For the losers a way will need to be found to transform this
result into a 'win-win' outcome, for example, by offering compensation in a form that is
perceived by the stakeholder group as contributing to the satisfaction of their underlying
motivations.
With these uncertainties, risks and assumptions reduced to acceptable levels, the
promising options are then brought together into an overall agreement. Note that the
agreement itself may include requirements for testing options, reducing uncertainties and
proving assumptions, with particular decisions linked to particular outcomes.
It is also important for the agreement to be 'reality tested', i.e. tested for its technical,
political and economic feasibility, and to decide on the roles, responsibilities and
monitoring arrangements that will be required.
The last stage is to seek commitment from the constituents of all the stakeholder groups.
For more prolonged processes of consensual negotiation, such commitment may need to
be sought on a continuous basis. What should be avoided is a process of consensus-

building which fails to carry with it commitment from those members of the stakeholder
groups not directly involved in the negotiations.
Common tools used in Phase 3 include:

• analysis of uncertainty;
• common grounding matrix;
• reality testing; and
• commitment package.
These are discussed in Section 3. 7.9.
3.7.4 Ethics and Function of Facilitation
"Facilitation is a process in which a person who is acceptable to all members of a group,

substantively neutral, and has no decision-making authority, intervenes to help a group
improve the way it identifies and solves problems" (Schwarz, M., 1994).
Conflicts and disputes over access to rural livelihood assets rarely involve only two
stakeholder groups. As the number of stakeholders increases the capacity for the dispute
to be managed through direct 'face-to-face' consensual negotiations becomes more
difficult. It is likely that conflicts involving multiple stakeholders will require some sort
of facilitator or broker.
The power of a facilitator is great. A facilitator:
• controls the flow and pace of questions brought before the group;
• sets the tone for discussions; and
• helps the group focus on important items and get the work done.
To establish authority the facilitator should always:
• introduce him/herself explaining how he/she came to be in this role;

• define his/her functions;
• define the key roles of others ( e.g. recorder, monitor, 'base-groups', 'working-groups'
etc.);
• define/review the agenda and workplan;
• review priorities; and
• develop the 'ground rules' by which the workshop will be facilitated.
Listed in Box 3. 7.4 are the specific ethics and functions of a facilitator. These functions
can change over the course of a negotiation. For example, in a prolonged workshop
setting, where there are two facilitators the functions of intervener and recorder are likely
to alternate between the two people.

Box 3.7.4 Ethics and Functions of a Facilitator
Ethics Functions
• Explain what you are doing at each stage ; intervener - this is the function most usually
associated with a facilitator. It involves
• Demystify the techniques you use; guiding the process by encouraging the
participants to do the work. Specific activities
• keep your ego out of the process so that the include: directing questions to persons or
participants can develop their own dialogue and people who will move the process forward;
agreement; providing a role model for 'good listening'
and clarifying; reflecting back to the
• facilitate, don't manipulate; participants difficult questions; relating what
they say to their underlying motivations; and
• never ask someone to repeat or give details of their watching out for distorted information and
demands and immediate positions - ask instead 'why' meaningless generalisations
they have these demands, and from there develop an
understanding of their underlying motivations 6 ; designer - this is the function of planning each
session in the process and preparing ideas and
• avoid becoming an advocate for any particular materials Designing may involve re-
outcome; presenting the information recorded during the
previous session, for example, clustering
• avoid becoming an ally of any individual or sub- options or presenting draft agreements more
coherently. Designing requires attention to the
group;
pace of the process, the dynamics of the
participants, the time available, the objectives
• avoid the temptation to become a psychotherapist -
that need to be met, and the tools to be used.
you have no authority to give individuals advice or
guidance;
recorder - this is the function of publicly
capturing discussions: of meetings with
• if it becomes apparent that you have a view (i.e. that
individuals; the outcome of small group
you become partial rather than impartial), ask the
discussions; and the progress and outputs of
group to judge if you should continue in your role,
multi-stakeholder workshops. Recording is
and if so how to manage this change;
usually done whilst the sessions are taking
place. As far as possible the way that the
• avoid jargon, technical terms and references which information is recorded should be consistent
provoke expressions of surprise or disagreement; with the intention, language and individual
words of the participant/s, such that they feel
• help the participants to slow down so as lo avoid ownership of what is being summarised.
facilitating unfeasible and unworkable agreements -
control the 'pace' of the process; don't rush to an supporter - this functions includes: informing
agreement; and people of the arrangements for each session
and making sure everybody can attend;
• learn to recognise the times when some degree of translating or organising translators;
fudging may be essential if there is to be progress, e.g. organising venue arrangements; catering and
an agreement which incorporates conditions for transport; registering participants; writing up
additional technical studies and which are required to etc.
show a particular outcome for the agreement to be
valid
(adapted from IUCN, 1995)
6
Asking 'why' is considered by some facilitators as a sign of immaturity. They would argue that soliciting
underlying motivations is more subtle and protracted, involving mush story-telling and dependent upon a
high degree of trust and rapport.

3.7.5 Workshop Design and Methods
Workshops (both those that are part of a process of consensual negotiation and those
convened for capacity building such as training) are common. Workshops may be held
with groups of individuals from a single stakeholder group, or take the form of multi-
stakeholder workshops designed, for example, to reach a provisional agreement. Getting
the workshop design right and choosing the right methods are important and will need to
take account of these factors as well as the phase that the process is at. For example, a
different design will be required for developing common interests, or widening options,
or reaching agreement; and will be different again if all three phases are to be collapsed
into one workshop. Note that a workshop may be either a one-off activity, lasting a few
hours and reconvened periodically over time; or be continuous over a number of days,
weeks or months.
Box 3. 7.5a provides a checklist to help design an effective workshop. Common

workshop methods are summarised in Box 3. 7.5b. Note that changing between different
methods adds variety to a workshop, alters the pace and allows more mixing between the
participants. However, certain workshop methods are more suitable for particular types
of workshop activities. For example, when 'brainstorming' options use of small break-
out groups may be more effective; but when prioritising these options, a plenary where all
the participants are together is often preferable.

Box 3.7.5a Basics of Workshop Design
I . each party individually or all parties together? - for example, in the early stages of conflict management, workshops are
often held with individual conflicting parties separately, with a third-party facilitator 'shuttling' between each party over
time. Here the role of the facilitator is to make sure that all parties understand their own and each other's perception of the
conflict. 'Participatory conflict analysis' can be viewed as part of these initial workshops. Such workshops should:
• build a core of agreement between the conflicting parties about what can be negotiated
• make explicit any shared perceptions, motivations, needs and values
• agree how the process is to be managed and identify the broad workshop methods likely to be employed; and
• what will happen when the conflicting parties first meet
2. a single one-off workshop?, or the first (or part) of a series or programme?
3. the objective of the workshop'? - for example, is it to introduce ideas of conflict escalation and management; or to begin
to look for common interests between different options; or to review the effectiveness of the implementation of agreements
etc.
4. which stakeholder groups? - for example, one group at a time ( e.g. as part of a 'shuttle' to begin to expose conflicting
parties to the other sides demands and underlying motivations), or all together (e.g. when the level of mutual understanding
enables the sides to meet without violence).
5. which representatives? - should the representatives be chosen by the stakeholder group, or selected by a third-party.
6. how the representatives will keep their group informed and supportive of the process? - for example, should options
developed at the workshop be voted on by the wider group; and/or could 'observers' from each stakeholder group attend
the workshop to monitor and report back.
7. group management? - for larger and longer processes of conflict management, specialised sub-groups may need to be
formed with their distinctive roles and responsibilities defined. Sub-groups might include a core group (of key stakeholder
representatives with whom the overall process is conducted); within this core group a number of smaller base groups
(which meet regularly within the workshop settings and which provide an opportunity for participants to share and discuss
their thoughts and feelings privately); one or more working groups (which may be permanent or temporary and which are
charged with looking at particular issues, such as the technical verification of different options); a steering committee (to
oversee changes in a process of consensual negotiation and to track progress); a decision-making forum (which may or may
not be the same as the 'core' group); and an implementation group (to verify implementation and adherence to agreements)
8. who to facilitate/mediate? - considerations will need to include: who is available; how they are perceived by the
participants (e.g. their class, religion, gender, outsider/insider appropriateness etc); the workshop location; the different
'cultural' characteristics of the stakeholder groups).
9. where, when and for how long the workshop will be held? - such that people will be able to attend, and that the setting
is conducive to collaborative negotiation (for example, an outside third-party facilitated workshop within a village and in
full view of other community members may give the negative impression of the community leaders' authority being
undermined)
I 0. which language and how best to use translators? - the problems of translation (slowing down workshops and changing
the workshop dynamics) can sometimes be turned into a positive force, for example, by using it to reduce the risk of
arguments between conflicting parties, and by encouraging small break-out groups to work in their local languages and
then report back through a translator.
11. record and monitoring'? - for example, two facilitators might take it in turns to facilitate and record, or there might be one
permanent recorder and one permanent facilitator. Also, how will brainstorming and decision-making be re-presented
back to the participants at the beginning of each new session, for example, in the form of flip charts, hand outs,
photographic record etc.
12.other resources required? - for example, flip charts, slide projectors, video, overhead projectors, tape-recorders etc.)

Box 3.7.Sb Workshop Methods
Plenary sessions gather all participants together. They are used at the beginning and end of workshops
and at significant points in the middle, and work best when introducing ideas, reviewing progress, or more
specifically, prioritising options and demonstrating common ground across a whole group. If used too
much, plenaries can make a workshop monotonous, and may encourage one or two people to dominate the
available time.
Presentations are a good way of building the participants' understanding of the overall process and the
role of the facilitator. For example, where each stakeholder group takes turns to present the findings of a
session on 'brainstorming' options this can instil awareness of the need to consider others' perspectives and
to adapt options accordingly. However, care will need to be taken in deciding if enough goodwill has
developed between the parties for such presentations to be effective.
Mini-lectures may be useful in getting across condensed information in a short space of time. It is more
beneficial if, soon after the lecture, the participants begin to apply the theory to their own experiences.
The mini-lecture may also provide a format for participants to present their perceptions of the conflict to
others.
Small groups of four or more participants encourage intensive creative study of one subject, where ideas
can be expressed, discussed and developed quite freely. A limited time, with a specific focus on one or two
issues may work best. Often one is asked to act as a time-keeper and the other a recorder to report back in
plenary. To prevent creativity being stifled it is often best to keep separate those individuals who are less
able to work together.
Pairs encourage new and closer relationships to be formed, and are suitable for sharing personal
information and feelings. Facilitators often use pairs early in a workshop so that all participants feel they
have related more closely to one other person, which tends to build confidence
Triangles are used in Sessions where a third-person acts as an observer of the other two, and then the roles
alternated so that each of the three people plays observer. This introduces the mode of neutral observer and
gives participants experience in watching what it is that causes tension between parties.
Role playing can assist the working of triangles, by asking participants to act out conflict situations.
Usually these situations are different to those that the process of conflict management is actually about.
Role-playing needs to be handled sensitively and time allocated to bringing people out of their roles.
Visualising is a workshop method of a different sort. Facilitators often find ways of visualising the
concepts~ processes and options that are being discussed, for example as flcv1 diagrams, maps, cluster
diagrams etc. The process of selecting the type of diagram and its development should be participative,
with each participant reflecting on his or her own beliefs and values.
Physical Session, songs, dances and games may be appropriate in certain circumstances, and will be
influenced by the culture and cultural mix of the participants.

3.7.6 Managing Difficult People
Knowing how to deal with 'difficult' people is
principally a matter of experience and personal skill. Managing Difficult People
However, there are some lessons that can be learned
to help stakeholders and facilitators understand the Objective
nature of the person's problem, and to work out a way To explore ways to manage difficult people in
to move things forward (Ury, 1991). a workshop setting
The most important management strategy is to try to

determine what makes a particular participant refuse
This exercise can only be attempted either
to cooperate. Behind the 'difficult' behaviour after the simulation exercise has been
(cynicist, bully, victim, show-off etc.) often lies completed, or when it is sufficiently advanced.
anger, hostility, fear and mistrust. Furthermore, the
participant may 'dig-in' and attack the facilitator, not 1. divide the participants into small groups.
Ask each group to identify which of the
because he or she is unreasonable but because he/she
actors in the simulation exercise is ( or
knows no other way to negotiate. In his/her view, the might in the near future) present
only alternative is to 'give in' - and he/she does not difficulties for an effective process of
want to do that. consensual negotiation
2. identify what type of people are these

Frustrated and angered by this behaviour you as the through reference to the diagram in Figure
facilitator may feel like striking back. Unfortunately, 3.7.6
this will probably provoke the situation even further.
Or you may feel like just giving in, wishing to get 3. how might their behaviour be channelled
them off your back. Thus, the problem you are up such they become more co-operative and
constructive to the overall process of
against is not only the participants behaviour, but also negotiation?
your own reaction.
4. how would you as negotiators or
Box 3. 7.6. provides an outline strategy for managing facilitators need to manage your own
difficult people. Ways of diffusing difficult people behaviour and reaction in order to achieve
this co-operation
within a workshop are given in Figure 3. 7.6.

Box 3.7.6 A Strate2:v for Managing Difficult People
I. don't react - control your own behaviour; wait; regain your mental balance; and clarify
in your mind what it is you ultimately want to achieve.
2. disarm the participant - next you need to help the difficult person regain his or her
own mental balance. You need to defuse his/her negative emotions (defensiveness, fear,
annoyance, suspicion, and hostility). Note that these emotions may have already been
defused by the participant's initial outburst, and thus the matter is effectively over. If
this is so, don't react and re-ignite the problem. However, if the hostility seems likely
to continue, you need to try to break through his/her resistance and get him/her to
listen. For example, apologise for any misunderstanding; agree to consider the
demands and arrange a time for this to take place etc.
3. change the game - once you have created a favourable negotiating climate you need to
get the participant to stop bargaining over demands and start exploring ways to meet
both sides' underlying motivations. Thus, engage the participant in problem solving,
recognising that your needs as a facilitator are now part of the process of consensual
negotiation. For example, ask the rest of the group for time away from the workshop to
develop these ideas; and/or consider allocating him/her one of the facilitation support
roles suggested in the diagram in Figure I.
4. make it easy to say yes - work to try to overcome his/her scepticism and guide him/her
to a mutually satisfactory agreement. Begin by identifying solutions to which it is easy
for both sides to agree. It may be important here to help him/her save face (i.e. to
"build golden bridges for the enemy to retreat over';.
5. make it hard to say no - the participant may still believe that he/she can prevail
through superior power. In these cases you need to enhance your own negotiating
power and use it to bring him/her into collaborative negotiations - but do this without
making an enemy who resists even more. For example, you may need to return to the
'ground rules' and ask the whole group for these to be strengthened; re-state our own
objectives for the workshop; and/or discuss the implications for all concerned if a
consensual negotiated agreement fails to materialise.
(adapted from Ury, 1991)

Figure 3.7.6 Managing Difficult People By Providing Workshop-Support Roles
reactive behaviour proactive behaviour
cynic/critic bully/aggressive
monitor/evaluator leader of Sessions
r-----------1 workshop 1-----------....ii
roles
advisor performer/recorder
victim/hurt show-off/
over-talkative
3.7.7 Tools for Finding 'Common Interests'
Box 3.7.7a Warm Up
'Warm-up' Sessions aim to introduce people to each other in a way that leads them to develop some
relationship and hopefully some immediate common interests, however tentative. They are also designed
to make the parties appreciate the need to work slowly, and provide a low risk opportunity to meet others
and feel safe among them.
Common tools include:

• Round-table inh·oductions by each participant
• Round-table introductions by the participant's neighbour following a ten minute 'one-to-one'
investigation.
• Group brainstorming of workshop expectations (e.g. using Metaplan)
In a highly hostile environment, or in one where a high level of formality is usually observed, 'warm-ups'
must be designed with care. If they encourage the participants to be too intimate people will resist them.
The critical criterion in deciding whether to use a warm-up is whether it will work. If in doubt, don't.
(Environment Council, 1994)

Box 3.7.7b Agenda Building
If is often beneficial to have the group create the workshop agenda, or at least have an input to
amending and approving that already prepared. The idea is to give the participants a strong feeling of
involvement from the outset. The overall aim is to generate a list of what the group feels ought to be
done, and then to analyse it using two criteria:
• Urgency - i.e. that an opportunity will be missed if the item is not discussed soon; and
• Significance - i.e. the overall impact of the item on the management of conflict.
The intention here is to avoid the 'urgent' items leading to those that are most 'significant' being left
out of the process.
The facilitator/mediator can start off with one or two items previously agreed with the stakeholder
representatives (such as agreeing that each party presents the findings of the participatory conflict
analysis). Specific attention should be paid to 'timing', i.e. that items do not get included with which
it is impossible to manage with the time available. The facilitator/mediator should try to integrate the
items mentioned into the overall "three-phase" strategy that is likely to govern the workshop process,
i.e. conflict analysis; widening options; and reaching agreement. Note that these three phases may not
need to be described as such to the participants, at least not at the outset.
Box 3.7.7c Ground Rules
'Ground rules' are what the group needs in order to function well. They comprise the basic
expectations of individual and group conduct appropriate to what is trying to be achieved. In setting
these rules the facilitator may list their favourite ground rules and invite discussion and acceptance of
them. More preferable is where the facilitator invites suggestions from the participants. This
encourages the group to think about the importance of conduct and collectively create its own rules to
live by for the duration of the workshop. Some common ground rules are given below.
• Allowing each person to participate fully

• Listening to each person without interrupting or disrespect
• Freedom to suggest ideas and express feelings without ridicule
• all ideas accepted are valid 'options', and each to be recorded to the satisfaction of the initiator
• confidentiality, such as agreeing not to report to the whole group on sensitive issues that were
discussed in pairs or small groups
• proposed agenda and timetable discussed and agreed
• overall 'worst alternative to a negotiated agreement' (WA TNA) recognised by the group (e.g.
escalation of the conflict towards violence)
• a general commitment to find ways of working together to avoid the WA TNA
• acceptance of the role of the facilitator
• freedom to ask for 'time-out'
• punctuality
• all decisions, settlements and agreements to be reached through mutual consensus, not voting
• agreement on hierarchy of punishments if rules not adhered to, e.g. displeasure of the wider group,
temporary suspension

Box 3.7.7d Meta Plan
Meta Plan is an approach to displaying the results of the brainstorming of ideas "as it happens". The
technique is normally used in small groups (i.e. fewer than 15). It involves the use of sticky paper or cards
which are written on by the participants and grouped together in 'clusters of commonality' for all to see.
Four or five stickers/cards are given to each participant and each asked to 'brainstorm' an issue (these
could be agenda items, participants' underlying needs and/or fears, options for resolution, objective criteria
etc.). Those issues that are the same or similar are clustered together, whilst those that are very different
are placed furthest apart. It is important to stress that this is not 'voting', but a way of identifying areas
where the participants share things in common. Once the stickers/cards are clustered together the facilitator
asks the participants if any of their cards should be moved to a different position. Depending upon the
number of participants, it may be possible for the facilitator to stand back and let the participants develop
the Meta Plan themselves. As a facilitator or mediator, the point to remember about the Meta Plan is to
use it to demonstrate to the participants those areas of common interest.
Metaplan is often used to identify common interests in:

• workshop expectations
• workshop ground rules
• underlying motivations, needs and fears
" options
(adapted from Environment Council, 1995)
Box 3.7.7e Obiective Verifiable Indicators
Given the cultural diversity of stakeholders involved in conflicts over community-based natural resource
management (different values, language, wealth, status, decision-making etc.), it is difficult to find
common indicators that could be used to evaluate the mutual acceptability of promising options. There are
two options for dealing with this situation.
• Grand indicators - this is the process of identifying very broad goals for which one or more
'objectively verifiable indicators' can be found. For example, that the option will reduce tension as
measured by no further sabotage to property.
• Individual acceptable indicators - this is where those parties with the most different cultural ethos
agree to set their own OVIs but to choose those that are acceptable to the other parties.
The aims of setting OVIs are twofold:
• to provide a 'bench-mark' against which modifications to options and/or their synthesis into agreements
can be measured to ensure that the overall objectives of conflict management are achieved; and
• to provide a means of monitoring the effectiveness of agreements over time that provide a rationale for
bringing parties back into negotiation where agreement fails to live up to expectations.

3.7.8 Tools for Widening and Prioritising Options
Box 3.7.Sa Brainstorming
The more potential solutions there are on the table, the easier it is to find one or more which will work.
While an adversarial approach to negotiation encourages parties to demand a single pre-determined
solution, a process of consensual negotiation seeks to generate as many options as possible in a way that
increases the very basis on which an agreement is developed.
Brainstorming in small groups - the key 'rules' for brainstorming are as follows (see also Section 2.8.J):
• Participants begin by brainstorming individually; then move to working in small groups; finally the
ideas are amalgamated in plenary and a discussion held to see if it is possible to widen the ideas yet
further;
• the activity should be time-bound to encourage creativity, and yet should remain flexible enough to
accommodate situations where new ideas are still flowing;
• ideas should be kept simple, written in no more than three words (the detail can come later);
• the ideas should be written large enough for all participants to see. This is critical since creativity is
inspired by the ideas of others.
• When time is up, the options are brought together and duplicates deleted;
• at no time is criticism of someone's ideas allowed by others - all ideas are valid;
• options in common should be clustered, such as those which address the same specific problem, or
share the same level of uncertainty or impact in common;
Carousel - this technique is useful for brainstorming on a number of different topics at the same time.
The technique also uses small groups, but rotates these groups around a number of topic-specific 'sites'.
As the groups rotate, each group reviews the results of the other groups' work, and then adds their own
ideas. Either a facilitator or one member of each group remains at each site to explain the thinking behind
the ideas and to cluster options suggestions that are similar. The time period of each 'visit' should be
constrained, however, more time will be required for the first group at each site since ideas sometimes take
a while to get flowing.
One benefit of arriving at options through 'brainstorming' is that when the parties all perceive that every
possible options has been identified, this list will encourage people to be realistic about what can be
achieved since there will be no where else to tum but the options before them.

Box 3.7.Sb SWOT Analysis
'SWOT' is an acronym for §.trengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. The analysis is carried out
on any situation, but usually on a policy, strategy or plan, or the lack of one. It may be carried out:
• at the beginning of a project, when it will be about the current situation and developing a common view
of the problem or conflict; or
• it may be carried out to evaluate the likely effectiveness of a proposal or option, and is about
developing monitoring arrangements and cementing an emerging agreement.
The analysis aims to investigate the problem or proposal from both the inside and outside perspectives and
is conducted in two rounds:
1. identification of the 'internal' strengths, weaknesses, and the external 'opportunities' and 'threats' -
often using brainstorming techniques; and
2. identification of ways to avoid or reduce the negative aspects (e.g. the weaknesses and threats) and to
build on the positive aspects (strengths and opportunities).
(hcr,ca, Development Institute 91

Box 3.7.Sc Ends-Means Anal sis
'Ends-Means' analysis is a way to identify options for reaching a desired end 'goal'.
The analysis starts with identification of a desirable end state of affairs, i.e. a 'goal' ( e.g. a secure cash
income). This could be, for example, some underlying need or value common to one, some or all the
parties. The question is then posed:
"If this is the end goal, what are the means of achieving it?"
Discussion then follows in the form of brainstorming to identify a range of options.
income
diversification
MEANS urban waged secure cash ENDS

labour i-----+lincome
agricultural
training
When the brainstorming begins to slow down (i.e. all options arc identified), ask:
"Now, if this original goal is thought of as a 'means' and not an 'end' point, what is the new 'goal' that is
trying to be achieved:
MEANS new END
secure cash
----+!income
payment of
school fees
When the discussion slows down the focus returns to identifying the means to achieve this new 'end'.
new MEANS
payment of
loan from i------Pischool fees
credit Union
lease of land
ada ted form Environment Council, 1994

Box 3.7.Sd Prioritisin2 Options
Prioritising the most promising options can be achieved in a number of ways, for example:
• PNI - once all the options are collected in, either within their stakeholder groups or in small
cross-stakeholder groups, the participants are asked to decide whether they see the option as a
Positive, Negative, or just Interesting. If agreement cannot be reached, the option is put into
Interesting. The aim is to identify options where there is common ground, either Positive or
Negative. The Positive ones can be taken forward, the Negative ones rejected or modified
• traffic lights - similar to PNI, except that rather than small groups reaching consensus, each
individual is encouraged to identify the option that they see as positive, negative, or undecided.
Coloured stickers are given out (no limit on the number of stickers) - red for negative (i.e.
STOP), green for positive (i.e. GO) and amber/orange for undecided. The technique is useful
when it is too early in the process, or the level of hostility too high, for small groups to be able
to reach a consensus.
• limited voting - the participants place stickers against their three (or some other limited number)
of favoured options. With this tool the facilitator must explain to the parties that this is not
normal voting (i.e. it is not about majority rule), but simply a way of finding those options where
some of the parties share a positive interest.
• direct ranking - ranking the options on the basis of the results of the above limited voting.
• pros and cons - each option is analysed in terms of its advantages (pros) and disadvantages
(cons). These qualifications can be listed in two columns against each option and is best done
on an individual basis, with no direct criticism allowed of each person's suggestions
• pair-wise ranking, small groups rank the options by: ( 1) comparing them against each other in
'pairs', (2) using this process to develop a set of evaluation 'criteria', (3) judging each option
against the criteria, (4) sitting back and looking for options that 'stand out'.

3.7.9 Tools for Reaching Agreement
Box 3.7.9a Analysis of Uncertainty
Uncertainty is always a key element in complex conflict situations. Analysing uncertainty in relation to
options is therefore an important step in building towards an agreement. If uncertainties are not discussed
and understood then this can weaken agreements and bring the process of conflict management into
disrepute. Uncertainties can be divided into four types:
• uncertainties over detail - the timing, place, scale and type of action being promoted by the option;
• uncertainty over effect - what is precise magnitude and significance of the beneficial effects of the
option;
• uncertainties over negative impact - what else is going on that may be negatively affected by the
option; and ·
• uncertainties over required support - what needs to be put in place for the option to be effective.
Once the uncertainty has been classified into one or more of the above, it can be analysed against two key
criteria, as follows:
• reducibility - the amount of effort (time or money) necessary to reduce the uncertainty (e.g. through
studies, public participation, risk analysis, impact prediction etc.)
• relevance - the extent to which an uncertainty makes it difficult for parties to support an option. Some
uncertainties will be fundamental to this support, whilst others will be negligible.
In narrowing further the promising options, the task is to look for uncertainties that are both relevant and
readily reduced. The figure below can be used to decide whether the uncertainty is manageable and
therefore the option can be taken forward.
easily less easily

reduced reduced
more relevant
REDUCE IT
1
less relevant LOW PRIORITY IGNORE IT

Box 3.7.9b Common Grounding Matrix
This technique is used to get acceptance on those options that have proven to be most promising. It involves
(a) amending options so that they receive mutual acceptance from all parties, and/or (b) bringing together
different options into a single 'package'. The Common Grounding Matrix is probably the most important
tool for a workshop approach to conflict management, since it is the focal point for developing a lasting
agreement.
The matrix requires the parties to say whether they can accept the refined options before them as stated, or
whether acceptance requires modifications to the options as currently stated. For each option the parties have
three choices:
• A - accepted (the option is acceptable as currently stated)

• R - rejected (the option is unacceptable and cannot be overcome through amendments)
• C - conditional (the option can be accepted but only if it is amended in a particular way)
The parties are first asked to assign only A (acceptance) and R (rejection). The output of these choices is
displayed on a matrix. Initial 'common ground' is easily identified as being where all parties choose the
same option or all choose to reject the same option. The focus then moves to building common ground
where there is least difference, for example, where only one party has rejected the option. The party is then
asked:
"how would this option be amended to make it acceptable to you"
Frequently the changes needed are quite minor, such as requests for changes in wording or a named agency
or individual to verify the option's implementation. Other times the changes are significant such that they
may affect the acceptability of the option to one of the other parties. Examples might include requesting that
the option be piloted over a defined time period or in a specific location, or asking for some form of
compensation or mitigation to be granted. In these cases the amended option may need further to counter
these changes. The conditions associated with all changes are recorded and the option shifted from a
position of rejection (R) to on one of conditional acceptance (Ac).
decision area options stakeholder groups taken

A B C D forward
i A A R-+ Ac A
1 R R R
11 R
.. .... . ······················---···· ·················--· ··············--------------
.........
i A A A A
2 11 R A A A
lll A R-+Ac R-+Ac A
······ ··················
....... ···········•·········. ·······························-------------
3
R R A R
Where options appear to need complete restructuring, the facilitator can break up the plenary session into
sub-groups. The sub-groups are charged with revising the difficult options in a form that actively seeks
mutual acceptance from all parties. The options are then placed back in to the domain of the whole
workshop and the matrix Session continued.

Box 3.7.9c - Reality Testing
The effective implementation of those options where mutual acceptance has been
reached needs to be tested. Some of the criteria for this 'reality' testing are listed
below. Some of the more rapid testing can be carried out within the period of the
workshop. The results are then presented to the participants and any changes to the
options and their conditions made accordingly. Where testing involves more time these
activities may need to be built into the overall agreement. For example the agreement
may be implemented as pilot study, with the outcome presented back to the participants
at a later date.
Criteria for Reality Testing:
• whether the expectations that each party has of the agreement can be fulfilled;
• whether the options are technically feasible;
• whether there is adequate finance or funding available;
• whether the proposed 'time-to-benefit' is feasible;
• whether consideration has been given to rapid gains and/or 'milestones' to support
momentum for longer term changes is maintained;
• whether the agreement reached by the stakeholder representatives is supported by

the representative's supporters;
• whether the agreement is politically viable; and
• whether the agreement includes mechanisms to ensure that each party maintains its
side of the agreement, e.g. independent monitoring, verification etc.

Box 3.7.9d- Commitment Packa e
A 'commitment package' is one way to present the agreement. Its strength lies in making the following
specific:
• the actions (i.e. the accepted options) that are to be implemented immediately;
• those that need further exploration before being implemented;
• who is responsible for what;
• when it is to be achieved.
A proforma for a 'commitment package' is given below.
COMMITMENT
PACKAGE
action exploration responsibility delivery date

Exercise 9a - Orange Negotiations
Briefing Notes for Simon West
Your name is Simon West, you are a biologist/environmental chemist and you work for a
multi-national chemical company.
Your latest success has been the discovery of a chemical foam which when sprayed onto
spillages not only neutralises the toxins but also facilitates the cleaning up process
afterwards. In recent trials it demonstrated enormous potential against a whole range of
toxic by-products including dioxins and the diabolically dangerous
polytetrahydroxyphenols.
It has recently come to light that an enormous quantity of the latter substances have been
accumulated in the former Soviet Union as part of their chemical warfare programmes.
Your firm has been contacted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has requested that
you mass produce the new foam to place at the disposal of the Russian Government.
They have secretly revealed that a storage facility is in immediate danger of releasing
large quantities of the poison into the environment, threatening the lives of hundreds of
thousands of the inhabitants of the city of Novo Sibirsk and the important Taiga National
Park which was recently designated a site of world heritage by the United Nations. The
assessment is that you have less than one month to get the foam on site.
Curiously enough the chemical foam is produced by a combination of natural and

synthetic products, the main natural ingredient of which is found in the skin of oranges,
but only that of the old variety SUNNY which is still grown in small quantities in rural
parts of Sicily.
Your firm has invested large sums in the development and patenting of this foam, which
takes only four days to produce. Now you and your firm are about to reap the rewards of
your hard work and dedication. You are standing at the threshold of a golden future as
the firm's leading scientist and you are looking forward to being acclaimed as a hero by
the Russian people.
After some considerable trouble you have found an importer, Mr Corleone, who has
cornered the market and has a supply of 4,000 SUNNY oranges for sale at an exorbitant
but affordable price of £12,000. You need only 3,000 to ensure a sufficient supply of the
foam for the current crisis.
Unfortunately when you contact Mr Corleone he informs you that a Dr Jack Smith is also
interested in purchasing the oranges for his firm, Drugintemat Ltd, who are competitors
of your firm and with whom you have clashed in the past. There was even one matter
over a disputed patent that led to a long and bitterly fought court case which cost your
firm a lot of money.

Exercise 9a - Orange Negotiations
Briefing Notes for Jack Smith
Your name is Jack Smith, you are a biologist/pharmacologist and you work for a multi-
national drugs company. Your latest success has been the discovery of a drug which
when injected gives protection against Rozenella, a new disease which is extremely
dangerous for women in the later stages of pregnancy and which invariably causes brain
damage to the unborn child.
Unfortunately the disease is on the increase and an epidemic is forecast for this winter in
the South of the country. The Minister of Health has requested that your firm mass
produces the drug in order to combat this outbreak. It is quite clear that without it many
hundreds of women will die and thousands of infants will be born with defects.
Curiously enough, the drug is produced by a combination of natural products, the main
ingredient of which is found in the juice of oranges, but only that of the old variety
SUNNY which is still grown in small quantities in rural parts of Sicily.
Your firm has invested large sums in the development of this drug, which takes four
months to produce. Now you and your firm are about to reap the rewards of your hard
work and dedication. You are standing at the threshold of a golden future as the firm's
leading scientist and you are looking forward to being a National celebrity.
After some considerable trouble you have found an importer, Mr Corleone, who has
cornered the market and has a supply of 4,000 SUNNY oranges for sale at an exorbitant
but affordable price of £12,000. You need only 3,000 to ensure a sufficient supply of the
drug for the current campaign.
Unfortunately when you contact Mr Corleone he informs you that a Mr Simon West is
also interested in purchasing the oranges for his firm, Envirochem Ltd, who are
competitors of your firm and with whom you have clashed in the past. There was even
one matter over a disputed patent that led to a long and bitterly fought court case which
cost your firm a lot of money.
Your managing director has given you carte blanche to negotiate a deal with Mr West,
and Mr Corleone has indicated that he is happy to go along with any agreement your two
firms care to make, as long as he gets his money. You have £25,000 which you could use
to buy the oranges that you need.
One week ago Mr West sent you an invitation to meet at this office to sort things out, and
today is the day!

Exercise 9b - Mining and the Wildlife Reserve
Briefing Notes for Mr Brown of Enterprise Associates
In a hidden valley high in the tropical forests of the French protectorate of Papa Noveau
lies the newly gazzetted 240 km 2 "Flora Wildlife Reserve". Management of the reserve is
the sole responsibility the Department of the Environment. Very recently a domestic
mining company - Enterprise Associates - has begun to show interest in the possibility of
mining valuable minerals within the reserve. As we speak, a representative of Enterprise
Associates is on his way to visit the Department of the Environment to discuss the matter.
You are Mr Brown - representative of the Enterprise Associates and their principal
public relations officer. You have a pleasant manner and are someone people generally
like the first time they meet you. You have come to visit Dr Green of the Department of
the Environment to seek permission for your company to explore for minerals within the
"Flora Wildlife Reserve". Your company's satellite imagery (remote sensing) data tells
you that rich deposits of minerals are likely to be found in the lowland alluvial
floodplains of reserve. At this point in time you are only asking permission to explore the
mining 'potential' of the area. There is no decision as yet to actually mine the minerals.
You are well aware that Dr Green will be reluctant to allow you permission to explore for
minerals. However, you think that you might work around this by offering to grant his
department a one-off payment. You have up to Kl 00,000 to use for this purpose, but you
know that your boss would like you to keep the amount as low as possible.

Exercise 9b - Mining and the Wildlife Reserve
Briefing Notes for Dr Green of the Department of the Environment
In a hidden valley high in the tropical forests of the French protectorate of Papa Noveau
lies the newly gazzetted 240 km 2 "Flora Wildlife Reserve". Management of the reserve is
the sole responsibility the Department of the Environment. Very recently a domestic
mining company - Enterprise Associates - has begun to show interest in the possibility of
mining valuable minerals within the reserve. As we speak, a representative of Enterprise
Associates is on his way to visit the Department of the Environment to discuss the matter.
You are Dr Green - Director of the Department for Environment. Ultimately all
decisions regarding conservation within the country rest with you. You are particularly
happy that the reserve has been gazetted since the upper reaches of the watershed within
the reserve are home to the habitat of the very rare One Footed Blue Parrot. There are
however no other species of particular rarity or importance within the reserve.
You have been told that Mr Brown has come to visit you about mining for minerals in the
reserve. You are extremely unhappy about this. You therefore have very little interest in
talking to him, except that you are aware that he may be about to offer your department
some sort of financial 'incentive'. This 'incentive' is most definitely of interest to you
since your department's budget is soon to be drastically cut. Without a rapid injection of
around KI00,000 it will be impossible for your department to manage those upland
habitats within the reserve which are so critical to the longterm protection of the One
Footed Blue Parrot.

PLA Notes
Notes on Participatory Learning and Action
(Formerly RRA Notes)
T1I .... • p 011cy

rar1,1c1pa1.,1on, 1•
.....
and Institutionalisation
Number27
October 1996
IIED
INTERNATIONAL
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAMME
INSTITUTE-FOR
ENVIRONMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT
PLA Notes 27 _______________ _
-----------------October1996
10
(
\.
Linking PRA to policy:

the Conflict Analysis Framework
M. Warner, C. Robb, A. Mackay, and M. Brocklesby
• Introduction 3. the logistical, cultural and political

difficulties of physically bringing local
This article outlines a new technique which we people round the policy formulation table.
hope contributes .to a "basket" of approaches
designed to link PRA to policy. The technique A · means is therefore needed to: faithfully
is the Conflict Analysis Framework. It was represent the views of local people within the
piloted with communities in two Game policy formulation process and provide some
Management Areas in Zambia in December immediate and tangible benefits to the
1995 1• The PRA team comprised experienced community participants. The Conflict Analysis
facilitators, and extension workers from the Framework seeks to meet these objectives.
government wildlife authority and an NGO
(WWF-BWP). This article describes the
technique and some of the lessons learned from • The Conflict Analysis Framework
the case-studies.
The Conflict Analysis Framework aims to
An important issue is how to meaningfully link promote a systematic and participatory analysis
the information gained through participatory of the use of resources by local people. The
analysis with local people, \\;th the actual results are summarised in a matrix (Table 1).
process of policy fonnulation. Three problems The principles lying behind the analysis, and
stand out: the design of the summary matrix, are based on
ideas drav.n from conflict resolution and
1. the danger of local values and perceptions environmental impact assessment.
becoming distorted when PRA facilitators
"interpret" the information for policy- The tool was developed to aid sustainable
makers; resource management in protected areas.
2. the lack of residual benefit for the However, it holds potential to help link PRA to
participating commumt1es, i.e. PRA policy formulation wherever the policy in
delivering "information extraction" rather question aims to address issues of conflict over
than direct benefits to local people in the finite resources. Thus it might equally apply to
form of problem solving or empowerment~ new policy on the use of infrastructure (e.g.
transport, electricity etc.) or to improving
1
access to education and health services.
The pilots were undertaken at the invitation of the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Zambia County
Office, the WWF Bangweulu Wetlands Project (BWP)
in north-east Zambia and the Zambian National Parlcs Goal
and Wildlife Service. The technique was developed to
facilitate community involvement in the formulation of The Conflict Analysis Framework was used for
resource policies and related management plans for
policy formulation for protected areas. The
Grune Management Areas (GMAs) across Zambia.
GMAs are areas that support natural resources overall goal was to devise a means to
important to both wildlife conservation and the summarise the conflicts that local people
livelihoods of local people.
42
PLA Notes 27 _______________ _
-------------------:October 1996
perceive to exist between their use of natural include contaminated drinking water or local
resources (wildlife, fish, water, timber, fertile labour shortages.
land, fuelwood etc.) and the use of these
resources by other external stakeholders (e.g. The importance of analysing "concerns" is to
government conservation authorities, tourist provide the policy formulation process with
and safari operators, forestry and water additional options. In its simplest terms, this
resource departments, district council etc.). takes the form of introducing additional
bargaining chips to the policy formulation
Table 1 shows an extract from one of the process.
summary matrices generated in the Zambia
pilot studies. The exploded cell demonstrates For example, a programme of well construction
the importance of providing a full, and where could be initiated in return for local people
possible quantified, explanation of the conflict restraining from wildlife hunting. However,
or concern (see below). experience has shown that such unrelated
arrangements are invariably unsustainable. It
The first column in the matrix summarises the is better practice to develop implementation
principal livelihood activities of local people. programmes that are clearly associated with the
The second, those natural resources important proposed policy. An example would be
to each activity. PRA techniques useful in creating an administrative structure to deliver a
completing this analysis include historical policy of wildlife protection, based on safari
profiles, time trends, transects, resource village hunting revenues being paid directly into the
maps, institutional Venn diagrams, daily hands of those attracted to poaching (e.g. the
routine and seasonal calendars. Information Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE programme).
about the timing, location and users of
resources are documented separately.
Prioritising
To bring the community perspectives alongside
those of external stakeholders, it is necessary to The final column of the matrix prioritises the
precede the PRA fieldwork with an early and community's resource conflicts and concerns.
separate institutional stakeholder assessment. Drawing on the discipline of environmental
This is the idea of combining PRA (essentially impact assessment, each conflict/concern is
an assessment internal to a community) with an divided into its "magnitude" and "importance".
external assessment of the conservation, The "magnitude" of the conflict is a percentage
economic and political forces acting upon the figure in the top-left of the end cells, e.g. 50%
resource base of local people (see Warner 1995 (see Table l). Working with major users of the
in PU Notes 23). Where external conflicts resource, the aim is to reflect the proportion of
concern resources that are also the root of a resource or service that is collectively
community perceived conflicts, the issue 1s perceived to be lost or absent as a result of the
entered into the matrix in the third column. conflict. For example, if, on average, 50% of
farmers' maize crops are lost to elephant,
bushpig or buffalo trampling each year, then
Conflicts and concerns the magnitude of the conflict is 50%.
Conflict resolution emphasises the need to find If there is no direct conflict, but instead the
"common ground" to build consensus between community perceive a development "concern"
stakeholders. Thus, the forth column in the (such as poor firewood supplies in the wet
matrix records not only community-perceived season), it is still possible to identify the
conflicts, but also "concerns". "Concerns" are associated % magnitude of the problem. For
resource issues of importance to local people, example, taking the dry season fuelwood
but which are not the cause of direct conflict supply as the norm, it might be estimated by
with external stakeholders. Examples might those regularly involved in collecting firewood
that only two thirds of domestic fuel needs are
43
PLA Notes 27 ________________ _
-----------------_October1996
met in the wet season from December to April. L indicates resources of low importance
( Thus the magnitude of this concern entered in to sustaining livelihood security or
the matrix would be 33%. A full explanation protecting human welfare.
of the seasonality and nature of the concern
would also be documented. These definitions are intentionally open ended.
This leaves room for the primary stakeholders
The % figures simply indicate the scale of the (or community as a whole) to determine what
conflict or concern. However, to arrive at the the criteria for importance should be. PRA
figure, it is necessary to explore the impact of techniques useful for prioritising conflicts and
the problem on the lives of those affected by it. gauging "importance" include: pairwise
On its own, the single % figure is a clear and comparisons, direct matrix ranking and cluster
simple way of raising the awareness of external ranking. As with the "magnitude" figures, the
stakeholders as to the impact of the "importance" classifications are indicative only.
community's existing resource conflicts. Associated with each classification,
explanatory documentation is provided. This
The heterogeneity of any community means details the types of resources affected, their
that different groups of local people are likely location, the periods of their collection or use,
to be involved in the utilisation of different issues of uncertainty and risk and the rational
natural resources. However, for ease of behind the magnitude and importance
interpretation the summary matrix gives only classifications (see Table I).
the primary community stakeholders - those
directly dependent upon a particular resource in
terms of either employment, gender, wealth etc. Resolutions
Other cases may require different divisions or
levels of disaggregation. The Conflict Analysis Framework is not a tool
for policy formulation. It is a means to bring
The second means by which a resource the community perspective into a wider process
conflict/concern is described is to identify its of consensus-building between all stakeholders
"importance" to these primary stakeholders likely to be affected by, or influential in, the
(bottom-right of the end cells, see Table I). policy. However. it can be used to encourage
This figure is required because the magnitude local people to investigate options for resolving
of a conflict does not necessarilv reflect its their perceived resource conflicts.
significance. For example, the hungry season
may coincide with the onset of the wet season The idea is that these options can then be used
(e.g. before the maize crop can be harvested). as starting points for \..,.ider negotiations over
Elephant trampling of the annual cassava crops policy. The Conflict Analysis Framework
at this time may be considered highly categories conflict resolutions into one of three
important, even though the crop loss, in terms types. These are indicated in the middle of the
of annual yield may be small, e.g. I 0%. end cells (see Table l) as follO\s,,·s:
The "importance" of resource conflicts and Ri policy resolutions able to be

concerns to the primary community implemented internal to the affected
stakeholders is represented in the matrix as: stakeholder group and which are
readily available. affordable and
H indicates resources of high importance socially acceptable:
to sustaining livelihood security or
protecting human welfare; Re policy resolutions requiring external
financial or technical assistance:
M indicates resources of moderate
importance to sustaining livelihood Rp prohibitive policy resolutions (due to
security or protecting human welfare: financial_ social or environmental cost).
44
PLANotes 27 __________________ _
-------------------~October 1996
(
Table 1. Extract from a Summary Matrix
Community Community Conservation Community Primary resource stakeholders

activities resources conflicts perceived
conflicts/concerns Men Women
Shifting Land with Elephant habitat Distance/time 25% 25%
Cultivation adequate loss Rp Rp
regrowth M M
Logs for charcoal Elephant habitat Loss of regenerative 50% 50%
loss potential of forest Rp Rp
H H
Cassava crop Elephant habitat Crop damage 40% 40%
loss (elephants) Re Re
L L
Fishing Fish stocks Loss of food Progressively 50% 50%
sources for reduced catches and Ri Ri
endangered bird size of fish M M
species
Hunting Buffalo and other Declining "game" Hunting restrictions 80% -
game species populations Re* -
M -
Firewood Time/Labour Biodiversity and Not availability - 50%
Collection elephant habitat during wet season - Re
loss - H
~
Pemzanent Fertiliser Late delivery 40%
agriculture (I month) Re -
H
* see Table 2
-----
Supporting Documentation
;_,;.--
Community
Activity
Community Resource Conflict/Resolution
\
Permanent Fertiliser - according to .Hagnitude - Land holders are dependent upon the delivery of fertilisers by
Agriculture the elders in the outside agencies, and over the last few years the lack of status of the village has
village, in the mid meant that fertilisers arrive late (average delay I month). This has lead to a
1960s cheap Sjlllhetic decline in the yields produced and a corresponding reduction in the cash earned
fertilisers were from maize sales. Participants suggested that the late arrival of fertilisers leads
introduced to aid the to a 40% reduction in maize yields which more than wipes out their profit
cultivation of maize. margins. In addition, fertiliser costs have risen steadily, which when combined
This led to a switch \vith the reduced yields, has lead to an increasing number of villagers talcing on
away from organic debt.
(grasses and manure)
fertilisers, resulting in Importance - As the primary source of cash income, the late arrival and
a gro'wing dependency increasing price of fertilisers for maize is of critical importance. Given that
upon s}nthetics. maize production (and to a certain ex-tent household income expenditure) is the
preserve of men in the village, the critical importance of this concern is
perceived less by the women and waged labourers of the village. The concern of
the former is more 'with food security, and therefore cassava.
Resolution - It is perceived that it would be difficult to return to organic

fertilisation given that a financially supported transition period of 3 to 4 years
would be needed to overcome the decrease in natural soil fertility that has now
arisen. However, where this is possible, it would remove the dependency and
increasing debt burden of those villagers relying on imported fertilisers (Re).
45
_________________ PLA Notes 27 ________________ _
October 1996
• Community Action Proposals to be implemented without the need for wider

stakeholder agreement, or for substantial
The Conflict Analysis Framework supports the financial or technical assistance.
development of community action proposals
(CAPs). These provide an incentive for local CAPs address the problem of policy-based
people to participate in the policy fonnulation PRAs raising false short-term expectations by
process. They also build trust between limiting themselves to information extraction.
communities and the external stakeholders, Table 2 is an example of a CAP. Shading is
CAPs are project or action outlines that seek to used in the summary matrix in Table 1 to
bring rapid and tangible benefits to the highlight those resolutions taken forward by the
participating communities. They are intended participants as CAPs in Zambia.
Table 2. Example of a community action proposal {CAP)
Buffalo Habitat Enhancement Scheme

WHAT The granting, by the Ministry of Tourism, of a "special licence• for the communitv to hunt buffalo
( quota of 50 per annum) within local area, in return for enhancing buffalo wildlif~ habitats through
forage planting and refraining from further forest encroachment
WHY In medium term (3 to 5 years) will increase population of buffalo in the protected area as well as
enhancing habitats for other species
WHO Village Wildlife Management Sub-Authority to co-ordinate team of conservation workers from
(implements) · community
WHO All households who consume bush meat, and in the longer-tenn the whole village through increased
(benefits) safari hunting revenues re-distributed to communities
WHERE Forest encroachment halted to south of village in areas of buffalo and other wildlife migratory
routes. Also forage planting along migratory routes, and along river bank where buffalo and other
wildlife congregate during dry season
WHEN Maximum efforts to prevent forest encroachment targeted in October/November. Forage planting
concentrated in December to deliver habitat and food refuges in dry season
HOW Village conservation teams to be provided with seeds and tools for forage planting, and village
scouts hired in October/November to monitor for forest encroachment
COST USS 10,000 per annum
TIME TO 1. Special license for village buffalo quota delivers bush meat to village (for consumption or sale)
BENEms within six months of application.
2. Increases in buffalo and other wildlife populations from habitat improvements expected to give
rise to increases in safari hunting revenues in years 3-5.
3. Payment of village scouts in October/November provides benefits to certain villagers.
• The Zambian context 2. to determine the range of appropriate PRA

techniques for this purpose:
It was not the explicit intention of the Conflict 3. to expose the Zambian National Parks and
Analysis Framework to influence policy Wildlife Service (NPWS) and WWF to the
formulation (although the results are currently possibilities of acting as facilitators to
being used to support funding applications for resolve conflicts between local livelihoods
future community/wildlife programmes by and conservation.
WWF-BMP). The Conflict Analysis
Framework was piloted: The findings of the pilot studies were
distributed to the participating communities,
1. to test the concept of a framework NPWS and WWF. In addition, the report was
methodology for linking PRA to policy sent to all relevant development agencies (e.g.
formulation in the field of parks and people; district council, forestry and agriculture
departments, USAID, other NGOs) who might
46
PLANotes 27 _______________ _
------------------:October1996
wish to review their regional policies or lend Thirdly, the matrix is intended to be simple and
their support to implement the specific yet meaningful. In order to achieve this a
resolutions forwarded by the communities. trade-off needs to be made between promoting
meaning (by disaggregating each community
At the time of writing, NPWS are awaiting into all stakeholder groups) and promoting
confirmation from USAID of funding for a simplicity, by limiting the disaggregation to the
programme of GMA management planning major social divisions, e.g. gender, wealth,
across Zambia. If granted, there is every education.
possibility that the Conflict Resolution
Framework will play a role in strengthening the Fourthly, we feel that the introduction of a
participation process. more systematic approach to PRA (by drawing
on conflict resolution and environmental impact
assessment techniques), improves the quality of
• Lessons learned the information generated. The matrix enables
the relative importance of different conflicts to
Some of the key lessons learned from the pilots be made explicit.
are as follows. First, before its application,
screening criteria should be employed to Outsider interpretation of local perspectives is
determine the feasibility of applying the a problem that currently faces efforts to link
technique. Most of these criteria would apply PRA to policy. It is important that facilitators
to all uses of PRA for policy formulation, and faithfully represent iocal perspectives in both
include: the summary matrix and background
documentation.
• adequacy in skill and expenence of PRA
facilitators 2 The Conflict Analysis Framework is part of a
• a pre-arranged process whereby the results of wider participatory framework methodology
the PRA rapidly feed into policy called the Framework for Consensus
formulation; Participation in Protected Areas (FCPPA).
• political willingness for policy to be This broader methodology builds the Conflict
influenced by the local level; Analysis Framework into a comprehensive
• a capability for external stakeholders to process of strategic resource management
negotiate collaboratively; planning for protected areas.
• adequacy of human and financial resources
for the CAPs to be implemented. • Dr. Michael Warner (lecturer in
environmental planning}, Caroline Robb
Secondly, the Conflict Analysis Framework (consultant with the World Bank, Poverty and
highlights the debate over the extent to which Social PoOcy Deparbnent); Angus Mackay
(consultant with Environmental Resources
PRA should exclusively promote "indigenous Management); and Mary-Ann · Brocklesby
knowledge", or alternatively encourage the (technical officer with Overseas Development
transfer of "outsiders" knowledge to local Administration).
people. When introducing the resource
conflicts perceived by external stakeholders to Correspondence should be sent to •Or;
the community, care needs to be taken not to Warner, The Bartlett School of Planning,
unduly influence the goal of presenting the University College London,22 Gordon Street.
London WC1H OQB. FuH versions of the
local perspective.
Conflict Analysis Framework and the FPPAP
are also available from 1his address. ·
2
Fact·1·1tators may be the conservation authorities. If
antagonism with local people is too great, other
facilitators, viewed by local people as independent. may
be used in collaboration with conservation authorities.
To raise awareness and build trust, it is important that
the facilitation team should include conservation
authorities, if possible.
47
• Putman, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
• Resolve Inc (1994) The Role of Consensus-building in Community Forestry,

Washington DC: Resolve/F AO
• Responding to Conflict (1996) Regional Training Workshop in Nukualofa, Tonga,

UK, Birmingham: Responding to Conflict
• Roberts, R. (1996) Public Involvement: From Consultation to Participation, Chapter

10 in: Vanclay, F. and Bronstein, D. (Ed) Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment. Chichester: Wiley
• Ury, W (1991) Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, London: Century
Business
• Warner, M. and Jones, P. (1998) Assessing the Need for Managing Conflicts in
Community-Based Natural Resource Projects, ODI Natural Resources Perspective
Paper, 35, London: Overseas Development Institute.
• Warner, M. and Robb, C (1996) Strategic Development Planning at the Project Level:
A Modification to Participatory Planning, Community Development Journal, 31(4)

Annexe
Briefing Notes for the Coralbay Coastal

Community Resource Management Project

General Briefing Notes
Coralbay Coastal Community Resource Management Project
The Project
On the small island of Atol in the Indian Ocean, a local NGO - the Social Concern Agency (SCA) - has
been funded by the Swedish aid agency to provide environmental management skills and opportunities to
communities in the coastal district of Coralbay. The issues to be addressed by the two-year programme
relate to coastal resource management, and are likely to include forestry management, fish stock
rehabilitation, livestock husbandry, coral acquaculture, and mangrove protection. Coralbay district has its
main centre at Cook town, which in turn has good transport links to the island's main commercial centre at
Atol city. Income for the people living in the rural area comes from logging, fishing and dairy cattle.
Because of its close proximity to Atol city, the natural resources of the district (forests, various non-timber
forest products, fish, coral, shells and grazing lands) have been exploited by government agencies and
private companies with little return to the land owners or those who use the resource at the local level. The
project aims to put the management of these resources into the hands of the traditional land owners and
resource users, and through this to build employment opportunities, promote sustainable natural resource
management, and add value to the use of resources prior to their export from the district.
The Conflict
The district of Coralbay comprises five dispersed settlements and Cook town (population 2,500). The
settlements are scattered along the coast around Coralbay. The bay is a shallow, coral-rich body of water,
fringed by mangroves three years ago. A total fishing ban was placed on the bay by the area Chief under
guidance from the Fisheries Department. The ban lasted one year. Since then fish species that have been
absent for many years began to be observed. The total ban has now been lifted for all but the breeding
season (October to February), however only nets of a specific hole size are allowed on the bay to give the
re-emerging fish stocks a chance to reach adulthood. Fish wardens, people appointed from these
settlements are authorised to police the waters for illegal fishing and undersized nets. Conflict has arisen
between those community groups who want to fish during the breeding season and use smaller sized nets,
and those who wish to respect the restrictions. Other conflicts have arisen as certain individuals have been
found to be using undersized nets. Two fishermen have been attacked by a mob for fishing at night during
the breeding season, and a number of boats have been damaged. The situation is in danger of escalation,
not least because there are land disputes outstanding which until the recent troubles had lain dormant.
Stakeholder Groups
An initial analysis of the conflict by SCA identified six key parties with which it might be possible to
negotiate to end the violence and prevent its escalation.
• Coralbay Fishing Association

• Coralbay District Council
• Area Chief and sub-chiefs
• Fisheries Department
• Fish wardens
• SCA

General Briefing Notes (continued)
Other parties who were considered potentially important to the management of the conflict (i.e. in
providing opportunities or blocking any proposals), included: landowners; council of elders; Women's
Association; Forestry Department. These parties will not be part of the initial collaborative negotiation, but
may be called upon as and when needed.
Existing Approaches
Representatives of those members of the Fishing Association who are in favour of the continuing
restrictions have been to the Chief to ask him to solve the difficulties and stop the violence. His response
is that the cash incentives of fishing during the breeding season are insurmountable since no other cash
income opportunities are available at this time. On approaching the District Council, the Association was
advised to try to bring those breaking the ban infront of the local magistrate, however, this was seen as too
divisive and would probably cause further bad feeling. Under normal circumstances such conflicts would
be resolved through the Chief convening a meeting of the council of elders drawn from the five
settlements, and this group reaching a consensus as to how to break the deadlock. The council are
generally viewed by Lheconflicting parties as impariial, and consensus reached in three steps: an initial
meeting where the elders speak to each group separately and encourage the parties to be 'reasonable' in
their demands; a second meeting where each side puts its case and ideas for resolution; and a final meeting
where elders make their deliberation. Agreements reached over the last few years have usually been
documented.
Consensus-Building Plan
SCA have already analysed the conflict in a participatory way with each of the stakeholder groups, with an
emphasis on enabling each party to identifying their underlying motivations (needs, fears etc.)'. Each party
has agreed to send representatives along to a two day workshop. The workshop is to be facilitated by two
staff from SCA, both viewed by the communities as outside and impartial. At this point in time, it is not
considered necessary to train community leaders in facilitation and mediation skills. If the workshop
proves successful, then it will be used as a spring-board for demonstrating the benefits of a programme of
community training in conflict management that could be implemented at a later date. In an effort to create
a level playing field for negotiation, the two-day workshop will begin with each party presenting its
understanding of the conflict. However, there are additional issues that are likely only to come to light
during the two-days (see individual briefings).
1. IMPORTANT - Periodically throughout the two day role-play, the participants should be encouraged to
mingle with each other within their roles (eg over coffee) in order to share each others' underlying
motivations, needs and fears - thus recreating the level of knowledge that would have been known as a
result of the earlier participatory analysis.

Brief for representatives of the Coral bay Fishing Association
Background
Coralbay is a coastal area of about five square miles and subject to declining fish stocks.
Over the last twenty years, fishermen have experienced reduced catch volumes, a loss of
species diversity, a reduction in the average size of fish per catch, and a reported slowing
of the growth rate of individual fish. The Coralbay Fishing Association was registered
five years ago to co-ordinate fishing in and around Coralbay to try to turn around this
decline. The onset of the total fishing ban three years ago loosened the friendship and
mutual co-operation between the members. Although the total ban was lifted two years
ago, kept in place has been a ban on fishing in the main breeding season (from October to
February). In addition, net sizes have been limited to a minimum of 100mm.
No member in the Association admits to breaking the breeding season ban or net size
restrictions, but at least a third of the members are involved in one or other of these
activities. Frustrated by the those breaking the ban, a minority of members have been
responsible for acts of aggression towards those who are flouting the restrictions, and
have sought to damage a number of fishing boats.
Role Playing
Chairman of the Association (Mr Rich) - well educated, generally supports the fishing
restrictions, and wishes to see stocks returned to their historically high levels. As well as
his two sons continuing to fish for the family (outside of the breeding season), he has a
secure year-round income from dairy farming interests. He is not really concerned one
way or the other about resolving the conflict, except that he rather enjoys his privileged
position in the community and would not like to see this undermined by escalating
violence.
Association secretary (Mr Poor) - spokesman for those disillusioned members of the
Association who wish to see the continuing restrictions lifted. Mr Poor will not admit
that he himself has ever broken the ban or net size restrictions, or is involved in violence
or damage to boats, but he does "fully understand and emphasise" the motives of those
who do. Like many of those breaking the restrictions, he has a family to feed, clothe and
send to school, and has no alternative secure income available during the period of the
fishing ban from October to February. He also knows nothing of the SCA's Coralbay
coastal resource management project.

Brief for representatives of the Cora/bay District Council
Background
The District Council comprises elected members from each of the five settlements along
the coast, as well as three representatives from Cook town. The council is the main local
institution involved with the SCA in planning the Coralbay Coastal Resource
Management.
The council members are aware that their positions are due for re-election soon. Each is
therefore keen to demonstrate active support for those likely to vote for them. About
half of the area's eligible voters are in favour of the continuing restrictions, and half are
against.
Role Playing
Chairman of the Council (Mrs Left) - has a strong constituency with the poor of the
coastal settlements. As such she is a vocal advocate of the need to reduce the allowable
fish net sizes so that smaller sized fish can be caught, thereby boosting fish sales and
local incomes. However, she recognises that the restrictions currently have the support of
the Department of Fisheries and therefore are unlikely to be changed. She calculates that
if she can secure 'alternative' income earning opportunities for the poor in her
constituency to cover the period October to February (i.e. when the ban is still in place),
then she may be able to hold on to her position on the council. Hence she is currently
working closely with the SCA to see if they can help.
Other leading voice on the council (Mr Right) - is hoping to be re-elected by being seen
to support the fishing restrictions currently in place. His real motivation for this is that if
he can show that over the next two years his support for the restrictions helped regenerate
fish stocks in the bay, then when the next election comes around in two years time he will
emerge as "the one who saved the bay" and be elected to the position of Chairman. In the
mean time, he will not support any arrangement that he thinks will mean that he is voted
out of the council in the elections next month.

Brief for representatives of the Area Chief and Sub-Chiefs
Background
The Area Chief and the sub-chiefs have seen their traditional authority eroded over the
last few years, as those with cash (such as Mr Rich) become perceived as more important
and influential. However, the Chief still commands a great deal ofrespect, especially
from the poorer families in the district.
Role Playing
The Area Chief (Chief Honcho) has agreed to represent the sub-chiefs at the two day
workshop. Though he would never say so in public, he does not object to his people
fishing during the breeding period, and has been known to accept small gifts for his silent
support of these actions.
The reason he is attending the workshop is because he believes that it might offer a way
for him and the sub-chiefs to enhance their declining importance. In particular, he
expects to secure a good deal for the poorer families of the district, and thereby sow
indebtedness amongst these people that who raise his status. The Chief is not corrupt by
nature. He is driven by a desire to bring back some of the traditional values and respect
that he and his forefathers once enjoyed. Enhancing his wealth through the receiving of
gifts or owing of favours is the only way that he can see of achieving this. If questioned
on the subject ofreceiving gifts he will however strongly deny the acquisition.

Brief for representatives of the Fisheries Department
Background
The Fisheries Department is responsible for the fish stock surveys and quantitative
analysis that led to the decision to lift the total fish ban two years ago, but to retain limits
on net size and a ban from October to February during breeding. The period October to
February was chosen because this is the breeding period of the Bubble fish - that species
most in need of rejuvenation in the bay. However, there are other fish (particularly Tuna,
which can be caught with 500mm nets) that are present in sufficient numbers to be
harvested all year round if the overall volume of 'take' is kept low.
Role Playing
Field Officer (Mrs Calculus) - visits Coralbay every week to find out from the Chief and
the Fish Wardens how the restrictions are working and to collect survey data. She is
concerned to see the restrictions working properly, but is ultimately interested only in the
numbers of Bubble fish, since this is the species most in need ofrejuvenation. If she
fails to bring about a measurable increase in the population of Bubble fish by the year
end, she is unlikely to receive promotion within the Department.

Brief for representatives of the Fish Wardens
Background
There are six fish wardens employed by the Department of Fisheries, each paid a small
wage to ensure that no one fishes during the period October to February. Three of these
six are retained year-round to ensure that net sizes meet the restrictions laid down when
the total fish ban was lifted. The wardens all come from the poorer households in the
district, and are all fishermen themselves. Rumour has it that the reason why some of the
members of the Coralbay Fishing Association are breaking the restrictions in one way or
another is because some of the Wardens are doing the same.
Role Playing
Spokesmen for the Fish Wardens (Mr Baton) - is content that he and his wardens are
doing everything in their power to enforce the restrictions. He is, however, upset that the
amount of money they are paid is so small, and that the work takes him away from his
family for such long periods of time. He will fiercely defend himself and his wardens
against any charges of colluding with other fishermen to break the restrictions, although
he is secretly suspicious that two of his men may be doing just that. The reason why he
and the other wardens took the job is for the status that it gives them in their settlements,
as well as the cash that it brings during the period October to February when other
sources of cash are not available. If some way could be found to increase the pay of the
wardens, he feels sure that any collusion between the wardens and the fishermen would
cease.

Brief for representatives the Social Concern Agency (SCA)
Background
SCA is a long-standing and well respected NGO. It is staffed by local people and funded
from both domestic and international donors. SCA has a good track record in the
implementation of community-based natural resource management projects, particularly
in the forestry, fishing and livestock sectors. The NGO also manages a number of
community health care projects, including a fully funded construction programme of
small health clinics. The latter programme has yet to reach the Coralbay area.
The Coastal Resource Management Project is intended to return the Coralbay natural
environment around - from one where resources are continuously degrading, to one where
their utilisation is sustainable. At the same time the intention is to economically 'up-lift'
the poorest households around the bay by, for example, encouraging the processing of
timber, non-timber forest products, fish and milk products prior to their distribution to
Cook town and beyond. The project is designed to be 'process-led'. That is to say,
although the overall objectives of the project are defined, the pathways to achieving them
will be determined as the project progresses. There is therefore a considerable degree of
flexibility in the way in which the funds of the project can be allocated.
Role Playing
The Project Manager (Miss Care) - is a dedicated individual, highly educated and
energetic. This is her first appointment as a project manager and she is fearful that the
project might not be successful. As such she dearly wishes to see the current fishing
conflict resolved, not least because it is preventing her building rapport with the
fishermen which she needs to be able to begin the project.
Her style of management is one of actively encouraging individuals and groups to come
up with their own ideas. As such she will give due consideration to all ideas for the
rehabilitation and management of the various natural resource sectors which fall under
the objectives of the project. Funds can be arranged to be released quickly, but only if
these are to be used for investment purposes, e.g. in equipment or as loans. Her budget
cannot be used for wages. In addition, she also has developed a good working
relationship with the project manger of SCA's Health Clinic programme and has had
some success in placing Coralbay as next on the list for a community health clinic.

General Briefing Notes
Tukubu Conservation Area

The Conflict
In a remote comer of Pigeon Island in the South Pacific, "Agricultural Enterprise Limited" (AEL) wishes
to establish a 5,000 ha rubber plantation by clear-felling an area of tropical lowland forest. The site
selected falls within the boundaries of the Tukubu Conservation Area - a 250krn2 river basin 'proposed' as
a legally recognised protected area by the government's Department of Environment. The plantation site
covers approximately half of the lowland flood-plain of the Tukubu river basin. Although the full bio-
diversity value of the Tukubu Conservation Area is not yet known, it is expected that the majority of the
area's critical habitats will fall within this same lowland zone (see map). In particular, bird surveys
conducted by Dr Strangelove in the 1950's suggests that as much as 20 of the world's 43 species of
endangered 'Birds of Paradise' are to be found within this one lowland forest. As a direct result of hearing
about the AEL proposals, the land upon which the rubber plantation is to be established is now the subject
of a dispute between two indigenous clans (the Tukubu-west people and Tukubu-east people). After many
months of consultation and negotiation between all parties, a local NGO skilled in conflict management -
the Agency for People and the Environment (APE) - has been jointly invited by the Department of
Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture to determine whether it is feasible to prepare a Resource
Management Plan for the Tukubu Conservation Area. Development of the Plan is to be the subject of a
two day facilitated workshop.
Stakeholder Groups
An initial analysis of the conflict by APE identified six key stakeholder groups. These groups need to be
involved in preparation of the Resource Management Plan ifit is to have any chance of being effective and
sustainable. APE has already undertaken five months of office-based conflict analysis, participatory
conflict analysis and community training with the Tukubu communities, consultation with all other
stakeholder representatives, and awareness raising through the local media 7. It has now been agreed that
everything is in place for the workshop to be held to develop the Resource Management Plan. Prior
approval has been give by each of the six stakeholder groups for named individuals to represent their
interests at the workshop. Drawing on recent training in negotiation skills, the two land owning groups
involved have each been able to form a common position on their land claims. Each group has delegated
two representatives to attend the workshop. The list of stakeholder groups and their workshop
representatives are as follows:
• Agricultural Enterprise Limited • Ministry of Agriculture
• Mr Bruce Outback (Director) • Mr Walter Palmer (First Secretary to a Junior
• Dr Kafa Mubi (Technical Minister)
Specialist) • Mr Stanley Busse (Technical advisor)
• Tukubuwest Landowners Association • Department of the Environment
• Mrs Elizebeth Araho (Chairman) • Mr Tori Kanion (Deputy Director)
• Mr Pahai Maboroga (Secretary) • Dr Simon Fawn (Conservation Specialist)
• Tukubueast Landowners Association • Delegation of the European Union
• Mr Sirigi Mano (Chairman) • Mrs Simone Blanch (Assistant to Head of
• Ms Ira Wagara (Secretary) Delegation)
• Dr Luigi Dolomite (Natural Resource
advisor)
7
I. IMPORT ANT- Periodically throughout the two day role-play, the participants should be encouraged to mingle
with each other within their roles (eg over coffee) in order to share each others' underlying motivations, needs and
fears - thus recreating the level of knowledge that would have been known from the earlier participatory analysis.

Brief for representatives of Agricultural Enterprise Limited (AEL)
Mr Bruce Outback (Director)

Dr Kafa Mubi (Technical Specialist)
Your company has recently completed a survey to identify the suitability of land across
Pigeon Island for establishing plantations of "rubber" trees. A 5,000 ha site within the
Tukubu Conservation Area came was identified by the survey as 'the highest quality land
available'. Close to this site were identified three alternative sites of slightly lower
quality. All three alternatives lie outside the Tukubu Conservation Area, and each is
predicted to return a 15% net annual profit over 20 years. In contrast, the Tukubu
Conservation Area site is expected to return a more healthy 30% profit per year.
Although you would like to establish the whole 5,000 hectare, you could still make 30%
profit on anything over 2,500 ha. Below 2,500 ha and the profit margin would slip to
25%.
AEL' s survey only considered bio-physical data and did not take account of social or
environmental factors. It is for this reason that your company has decided to attend the
workshop. You are interested in seeing whether there are social and environmental
problems in the Tukubu Conservation Area that indicate that you should move your
investment to one of the three alternative sites. However, you maintain the hope that the
proposed Resource Management Plan for the Tukubu Conservation Area will enable you
to establish the plantation in this area. You therefore intend to keep your knowledge of
the alternative sites quiet unless the need arises.
The process of managing rubber plantations requires labour in the form of"rubber
tappers". This is a semi-skilled job and you hope to be able to train local people and
employ them to do this work on the plantation. You see the offer of 'employment' to the
local population as your most effective incentive for their co-operation and acceptance of
the plantation.
You are not expecting such "rural" people to argue for a percentage share in the profits of
the enterprise. However, if this matter is raised, you intend to do your best to push the
discussion away from profit-sharing and towards the offer of employment.

Brief for representatives ofTukubu-west Landowners Association
Mrs Elizebeth Araho (Chairman)

Mr Pahai Maboroga (Secretary)
The Tukubu-west Landowners Association have recently taken legal advice from an
independent land mediator from outside the province on their land ownership claim in the
Tukubu Conservation Area. The advice suggests that the Tukubu-west people have a
stronger claim to the area proposed by AEL for the rubber plantation than the people of
Tukubu-east. The Association has also decided that, in line with what has been taking
place in other areas of the country, they want to strike a deal with AEL to lease their land
for a 5% share of the rubber profits. The members intend to hold out for both the full
land claim and 5% share of profits. However, if the pressure becomes too great they are
willing to give a little on both counts. This is because some of the Association members
are related by marriage to the Tukubu-east people and do not want to cause unnecessary
conflict by keeping the Tukubu-east Landowners Association out of the profit sharing
altogether. The Association will however 'fight to the end' to stop the Tukubu-east
people from claiming that they own the land belonging to the Tukubu-west people.
The Association's interest in AEL is not only about cash. The Tukubu-west people
desperately want to be able to earn a sustainable income with which to support their
families. As a community they also need education and better health services. A share of
the profits from the AEL rubber plantation offers the best opportunity they have yet seen
for these services to be become a reality.
Field staff from the Department of the Environment have recently been in the region
raising awareness over the advantages and disadvantages of AEL's proposal. As a result
the Association has noted concern among its members that although the land will only be
'leased' to AEL, the intended clear-felling means that their hunting lands will be lost for
ever. In addition the Department tells them that they will no longer be able to collect
fruits, wild crops, medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products. It has further
come to their attention that the pesticides to be used on the plantation may mean lead to
problems with fishing stocks in the rivers adjacent to the plantation.

Brief for representatives of Tukubu-east Landowners Association

Mr Sirigi Mano (Chairman)
Ms Ira Wagara (Secretary)
The Tukubu-east Landowners Association have heard about the proposed AEL rubber
plantation and are keen to receive a share of the profits by leasing AEL their land.
Although the Tukubu-east people have historical evidence supporting their claim to the
land upon which the proposed plantation is to be established, they are aware that the
claim of the Tukubu-west people is far stronger. Despite this, they are still expecting to
gain some share of the rubber profits. Their hope is for a cut of around 5% of the profits
per year.
The Association's interest in AEL is not all about cash. The Tukubu-east people
desperately want to be able to earn a sustainable income with which to be able to support
their families. As a community they also need education and better health services. A
share of the profits from the AEL rubber plantation offers the best opportunity they have
seen yet for these services to become a reality.
Field Staff from the Department of the Environment have recently been in the region
raising awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of AEL's proposal. As a result,
the Association has noted a concern that although the land will only be 'leased' to AEL,
the intended clear-felling means that their hunting lands will be lost for ever. In addition,
they are told that they will no longer be able to collect fruits, wild crops, medicinal plants
and other non-timber forest products. The Field Staff have also pointed out that the land
may be unusable for agriculture when it is returned to the landowners in 20 years time.

Brief for representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture
Mr Walter Palmer (First Secretary to a Junior Minister)

Mr Stanley Busse (Technical advisor)
The Ministry is keen to see the development of rubber as an export crop. The world price
for rubber has remained consistently high and is predicted to do so for the foreseeable
future. In particular, the climate of Pigeon Island makes it ideal for the establishment of
rubber, the highest yields for which come from plantations established on lowland flood-
plains.
Two years ago the Ministry held secret talks with Expat Industries Incorporated (EII).
This joint public/private venture (which operates under the name of "Agrex Holdings
Limited") has secured borrowings ofK25 million, half in the form of a loan, halfraised
through a share flotation. This capital is to be used to construct a rubber processing and
refining plant at Port Idyllic on the island's remote south coast. To repay the loan and
return dividends to the share holders, "Agrex" will need a substantial supply ofraw
rubber.
Construction of the plant is ahead of schedule. The Ministry, as the main investor, is
keen have meet its target of 75,000 ha of viable rubber plantations across Pigeon Island
within the next two years. This is the land area needed for the plant to return a profit.
The AEL proposal in the Tukubu Conservation Area is important to the Ministry since of
late the target of 75,000 ha has seemed unlikely to be met in time.

Brief for representatives of the Department of the Environment
Mr Tori Kanion (Deputy Director)

Dr Simon Fawn (Conservation Specialist)
The Department of the Environment has proposed the Tukubu Conservation Area as a
"Wildlife Preserve", thereby affording it legal protection under government legislation.
The legislation states that clearfelling in "Wildlife Preserves" is strictly prohibited. The
only protected areas legislation that allows for clear-felling is where the area is designated
as a "Nature Reserve". In these cases a Resource Management Plan must be drawn up
detailing the zones to be targeted for clear-felling, and outlining how the funds so
generated would be used to promote nature conservation within the Reserve.
When asked to defend the Department's desire for the Tukubu Conservation Area to be
designated a "Wildlife Preserve", their staff proudly point to the country's National
Environmental Management Action Plan (NEMAP), prepared by the Department after
Pigeon Island signed the Bio-Diversity Convention in Rio in 1992. The key passage of
text usually cited is as follows:
"lowland rain-forest constitutes our country's greatest wealth and yet is under the greatest threats. It is
probably the most valuable long-term natural asset the country possesses. Research has shown that
hunting for food for the protein it provides, and harvesting wild plants, brings immesurablely more value to
the local community than selling off the logging rights or converting the forest to cash crops" (Pigeon
Island NEMAP, 1993, page 87).
As well as being home to a number of rare species of 'Birds of Paradise', it is known that
the type of lowland tropical forest present in the Tukubu Conservation Area is likely to
host many plants of medicinal value. As such the Department is currently engaged in a
programme to survey the commercial value of medicinal plants in the Tukubu
Conservation Area. It has begun the survey by focusing on the same area proposed by
AEL for the rubber plantation.

Brief for representatives of the Delegation of the European Community
Mrs Simone Blanch (Assistant to Head of Delegation)

Dr Luigi Dolomite (Natural Resource advisor)
The EU Delegation has a K60 million, five year, development co-operation agreement
with the Government of Pigeon Island. These funds are to be spent on an agreed
programme of projects primarily in the construction, agriculture and mining sectors.
Most recently the EU has provided financial assistance from the fund to develop the
export potential of Pigeon Island for processed agriculture products. For example, the
EU has loaned the Ministry of Agriculture KS million for the construction of a rubber
processing and refining plant at Port Idyllic. It is expecting a return on its investment.
There is little flexibility for the EU to be able to shift funds in the development co-
operation agreement from the pre-established programmes. However, the EU Delegation
in Pigeon Island has an in-country "Small-Scale Project Initiative" budget line available
to support local community development projects up to a maximum ofKS0,000 per
project per year.
The Delegation is staffed by a team of rather inexperienced professionals, the majority of

whom are trained as economists. The only exception is the Natural Resource Advisor
who at 30 has just completed a PhD on Birds of Paradise in the rainforests of Bolivia.
The role of Mrs Simone Blanch (Assistant to the Head of the Delegation) is to ensure that
the development co-operation agreement is implemented as intended and one time, and to
demonstrate that monies have been successfully allocated from the "Small-Scale Project
Initiative". If she achieves these goals her chances of returning to Brussels to a more
senior position (and a second house in the Loire Valley) is greatly increased.

AnnexE
Sources of Information

• Bush, K. (1996) Good Practices for the Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment
(PC/A) of Development Projects, a discussion paper prepared for CIDA for the OECD
DAC Task Force on Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation, Paris: OECD.
• Bush, K. (1998) A Measure of Peace: Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment of

Development Projects in Conflict Zones, Working Paper,1, Canada, Ottawa: The
Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative, IDRC
• Camey, D. (1999) Approaches to Sustainable Livelihood for the Rural Poor, ODI
Poverty Briefing, 2, London: Overseas Development Institute
• Chupp, M. ( 1991) When Mediation is Not Enough, MCS Conciliation Quarterly
• Conroy, C. Rai, A., Singh, N. and Chan M-K (1998) Conflicts Affecting Participatory
Forest Management: Some Experiences from Orissa. (Revised version of a paper
presented at the Workshop on Participatory Natural Resource Management in
Developing Countries: Mansfield College, Oxford, 6-7 April, 1998.)
• Craig G., Hall, N. and Mayo, M. (1998) Editorial Introduction: Managing Conflict
through Community Development, Community Development Journal, 33,2 pp77-79
• Department for International Development (1997) Conflict Reduction Through British

Co-operation, London: DFID
• DFID (1997) Conflict Reduction Through British Co-operation: A Briefing for

Agencies Seeking Support for Conflict Reduction Activities, London: Conflict Policy
Unit, DFID
• Environment Council (1994) Professional Trainingfor Facilitators and Mediators:

Course Handbook, London: Environment Council
• Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981) Getting to Yes, Houghton-Mifflin
• Goodhand, J. and Hulme, D. (1997) NGOs and Complex Political Emergencies,

Working Paper, 1, Manchester, University of Manchester and INTRAC
• Harris, J. and de Renzio, P (1997) "Missing Link or Analytically Missing? The

Concept of Social Capital, in Harriss, J. (1997) Policy Arena: Social Capital,
unpublished., London: Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics
• Hobley, M. and Shah, K. (1996) What Makes a Local Organisation Robust? Evidence
from India and Nepal, Natural Resource Perspectives, 11, London: Overseas
Development Institute

• ICIMOD (1996) Seminar on Conflict Resolution in Natural Resources, Kathmandu:
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
• International Alert (1996) Resource Pack, London: International Alert
• International Union for Conservation and Nature (1995) Reaching Agreement:

Conflict Resolution Training for the IUCN, Geneva: IUCN
• Lederach, J.P. (19xx) The Mediator's Cultural Assumptions, MCS Conciliation

Quarterly
• Lederach, J.P. (1994) Building Peace, Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided

Societies, Tokyo: UN University
• McDonald, J. (1994) The Application of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques

to Environmental Planning Disputes, Environmental Liability, 134-146
• Mcilwaine, C. (1998) Contesting Civil Society: Reflections from El Salvador, Third

World Quarterly, 9(4)
• Melanesian PEACE Foundation (1996) Facilitation, Project Planning, Negotiation,

Mediation, Papua New Guinea (1996).
• Moore, C (1996) The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict,
Jossey-Bass
• Moore, C. and Santosa, A. (1995) Developing Appropriate Environmental Conflict

Management Procedures in Indonesia: Integrating Traditional and New Approaches,
Cultural Survival International, Fall, 23-29.
• Ndelu, T. (1998) Conflict Management and Peace Building through Community

Development, Community Development Journal, 33,2 pp 109-116
• O'Reilly (1988) The Contribution of Community Development to Peace-Building:

World Vision's Area Development Programmes, London: World Vision
• OECD (1998) Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation on the Threshold of

the 21st Century, Development Cooperation Guidelines Series. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Development and Cooperation.
• Praxis Inc. ( 1990) Public Involvernent and Community Relations in Integrated

Resource Planning. Prepared for Resource Planning Branch, Alberta Forestry Lands
and Wildlife, Vol II

• Putman, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
• Resolve Inc (1994) The Role of Consensus-building in Community Forestry,

Washington DC: Resolve/FAQ
• Responding to Conflict (1996) Regional Training Workshop in Nukualofa, Tonga,

UK, Birmingham: Responding to Conflict
• Roberts, R. (1996)Public Involvement: From Consultation to Participation, Chapter

10 in: Vanclay, F. and Bronstein, D. (Ed) Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment. Chichester: Wiley
• Ury, W (1991) Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, London: Century
Business
• Warner, M. and Jones, P. (1998) Assessing the Need for Managing Conflicts in
Community-Based Natural Resource Projects, ODI Natural Resources Perspective
Paper, 35, London: Overseas Development Institute.
• Warner, M. and Robb, C (1996) Strategic Development Planning at the Project Level:
A Modification to Participatory Planning, Community Development Journal, 31(4)

Managing Conflict and Building Consensus For Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Conflict and Building Consensus For Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRAFT

Managing Conflict and Building Consensus

Strategies, Principles, Tools and

Prepared by Michael Warner

United Kingdom Foundation Overseas· Development Institute

3.6 Capacity Building ............................................................................................... 72

3.7 Consensual Negotiation ...................................................................................... 74

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

BATNA Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

DFID Department for International Development

FPCD Foundation for People and Community Development

FSP Foundation for the People of the South Pacific

ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project

NGO Non-governmental Organisation

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

Consensus-Building is one strategy for managing conflict. In

The role of consensus-building in sustainable livelihoods is not

Reproduction of Original and Adapted Material

The origins of this Manual lie in a programme of conflict management implemented

The Overseas Development Institute has been involved in preparing guidelines to

• Environment Council (1994) Professional Training for Facilitators and Mediators:

• International Alert (1996) Resource Pack, London: International Alert

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 25

2.2 Accommodate Cultural Differences .................................................................... 27

2.3 Acknowledge Perceptions .................................................................................... 29

2.4 Ensure Good Communications .......................................................................... .30

2.5 Create a Level Playing Field ................................................................. .............. .30

2.6 Build and Maintain Rapport.. ............................................................................ .31

2.7 Focus on Satisfying Underlying Needs .............................................................. .32

2.8 Widen the Options ........................................................................................ ........ 33

2.9 Clarifying Motivations and Options .............................................................. .....37

2.10 Achieve Mutual Gains ............................................................. ......................... 38

2.11 Test the Agreement for Feasibility .................................................................. 39

3. Process of Consensus-Building .......................................................................

3.1 Building Blocks ........................ ........................................................................... 41

3.2 Office-Based Conflict Analysis ..................................................... .................... .43

3.3 Provisional Consensus-Building Plan ............................................................... 56

3.4 Participatory Conflict Analysis .......................................................................... .59

Overseas Development Institute

• projects and interventions managed by community groups, such as participatory

Public Involvement in Sustainable Development

A sustainable rural livelihoods approach is about removing constraints and exploiting

The aim of a 'livelihoods' approach is to reorientate development thinking in a manner

The framework below has been developed to help understand livelihoods. By

Links to Strategic Planning

The livelihoods framework bears close similarities to models of organisational strategic

• the problem of a complex human environment; and

• some form of internal/external SWOT analysis.

• internal opportunities (for building capital assets and strengthening local

• external opportunities (for re-negotiating transformational structures and

• external threats (trends and shocks).

Note that together weaknesses and threats can be construed of as 'constraints'.

These are discussed separately below.

Protecting and Building Capital Assets

In themselves, conflict management and consensus-building skills are a form of human

A consensus-building approach to conflict management has a particular role to play in

Table A Role Consensus-Building in Strengthening the Social and Human Capital

Form of social/human capital Examples

In a community forestry project, strengthening of customary approaches to

Re-Negotiating the Transformational Role of External Actors

In addition, the local level application of consensus-building skills to resolve cross-

Table B Use of Consensus-Building in Re-Negotiating the