565
helpful in addressing local to global disputes. Such mechanisms have been written
about in numerous scholarly articles with country or region-specific details. On the
global level, the traditional South African dispute resolution mechanism of “indaba” was successfully used to bring more than 200 countries together during the
Paris Climate negotiations in 2015.
The indaba process involves breaking a large group of people into smaller groups,
allowing participants to rotate during discussions to ensure all voices are heard
evenly. In most cases, a facilitator is active in overseeing the dialogue. Each participant is given an opportunity to answer a question presented to the group without
interruption. The caveat is that participants must answer stating personal positions,
adhering to certain thresholds that shouldn’t be crossed. In addition, each participant must provide a solution to the problem that can be accepted by the group. After
all group members speak, the large group may reconvene and consider the offered
solution as part of a potential compromise (Rocket 2016). Decision-making power
is limited to a few leaders who consider the groups’ recommendations together.
In the case of the Paris discussions, a number of breakthroughs occurred in short
order, sometimes as short as thirty (30) minutes. Notably, the inclusion of all countries—each given an opportunity to share their perspective—helped break down
barriers between smaller nations and world powers.
Ultimately, the indaba discussions reduced about nine hundred (900) points of
down to roughly three hundred (300). Agreements on some issues could not be
solved, as the subject of climate mitigation among sovereigns is a thorny issue by
itself (Felix 2015). However, global diplomats welcomed the “participatory, yet
fair” method which offered a helpful tool for complex issues encompassing a wide
range of sectors. Although the targets set during these discussions are far from met
and some parties like the USA have threatened to withdraw, these agreements set
the stage for remarkable progress on global issues. More on international agreements is explored in Sect. 20.3.8 below.
20.3.2 Negotiation
Another key tool for addressing potential conflicts is negotiation, which is simply
“the back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and
the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed”
(Fisher and Ury 1981). In their seminal work on negotiation, Getting to Yes, Fisher
and Ury discuss the difference between positions and interests: “Your position is
something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.”
In the food, energy, water nexus, people will often start a conversation by stating
their position: I want to build a dam. I don’t want you to irrigate. You have to provide energy for my project. One way to open up a conversation and start to understand better what is happening is through better understanding the interests at play:
why does someone want to build a dam? Why should someone stop irrigating? What
20 Managing Human Conflicts
helpful in addressing local to global disputes. Such mechanisms have been written
about in numerous scholarly articles with country or region-specific details. On the
global level, the traditional South African dispute resolution mechanism of “indaba” was successfully used to bring more than 200 countries together during the
Paris Climate negotiations in 2015.
The indaba process involves breaking a large group of people into smaller groups,
allowing participants to rotate during discussions to ensure all voices are heard
evenly. In most cases, a facilitator is active in overseeing the dialogue. Each participant is given an opportunity to answer a question presented to the group without
interruption. The caveat is that participants must answer stating personal positions,
adhering to certain thresholds that shouldn’t be crossed. In addition, each participant must provide a solution to the problem that can be accepted by the group. After
all group members speak, the large group may reconvene and consider the offered
solution as part of a potential compromise (Rocket 2016). Decision-making power
is limited to a few leaders who consider the groups’ recommendations together.
In the case of the Paris discussions, a number of breakthroughs occurred in short
order, sometimes as short as thirty (30) minutes. Notably, the inclusion of all countries—each given an opportunity to share their perspective—helped break down
barriers between smaller nations and world powers.
Ultimately, the indaba discussions reduced about nine hundred (900) points of
down to roughly three hundred (300). Agreements on some issues could not be
solved, as the subject of climate mitigation among sovereigns is a thorny issue by
itself (Felix 2015). However, global diplomats welcomed the “participatory, yet
fair” method which offered a helpful tool for complex issues encompassing a wide
range of sectors. Although the targets set during these discussions are far from met
and some parties like the USA have threatened to withdraw, these agreements set
the stage for remarkable progress on global issues. More on international agreements is explored in Sect. 20.3.8 below.
20.3.2 Negotiation
Another key tool for addressing potential conflicts is negotiation, which is simply
“the back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and
the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed”
(Fisher and Ury 1981). In their seminal work on negotiation, Getting to Yes, Fisher
and Ury discuss the difference between positions and interests: “Your position is
something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.”
In the food, energy, water nexus, people will often start a conversation by stating
their position: I want to build a dam. I don’t want you to irrigate. You have to provide energy for my project. One way to open up a conversation and start to understand better what is happening is through better understanding the interests at play:
why does someone want to build a dam? Why should someone stop irrigating? What
20 Managing Human Conflicts