178
els and hope to have it implemented by powerful leaders and government agencies
in the current environment of politics.
11.1.2 An Alternative: Mutual-Gains Approach
While different alternatives to command and control approach have been discussed
in the field of environmental policy, authors here focus on the mutual-gains approach.
The basic premise of the approach is to foster voluntary agreement among stakeholders. As we see in the command and control approach, if each stakeholder tries
to “win” an argument over its adversaries, then there won’t be any cooperation
among them. When everyone tries to “win” and expects others to “lose” (so-called
“win-lose” situations), the result is often a “lose-lose” situation in which all stakeholders fare less than they could have achieved because they cannot create values
through cooperation.
In order to achieve so-called “win-win” outcomes, each party must be willing to
cooperate with other parties to create values by exploring the areas that it can contribute to the other side. Toward this goal, different stakeholders, including the government, industry, and NGOs, have to negotiate on the equal footings. Government
agencies are not endowed with the lightening rod any more.
In the context of biofuel utilization strategy, contributors to this volume have
identified a wide variety of stakeholders. While government agencies are one of the
key actors, there are many others who have the significant power in the course of the
implementation of biofuel utilization even in the developing nations. Therefore, an
alternative approach to strategy building that seeks voluntary agreements among the
stakeholders is likely to produce more effective strategies than other approaches that
seek a realization of an ideal world through command and control and political
struggles.
11.1.3 Practice of Mutual-Gains Policy Formulation
There have been a few practical advices regarding how stakeholders can find mutually beneficial agreements that they can live with. The first principle is to focus on
interests, not positions (Fisher and Ury 1987). Stakeholders in biofuel utilization
will unavoidably make positional statements in the course of strategy building, particularly if they are in a bad relationship in which each of them seeks a “win-lose”
outcome. In many cases, however, such positional statements are exaggerated and a
manifestation of their ideals that they hope to achieve. On the other hand, they have
specific interests in the issue and hope to improve the situation. Interests are possible answers to “Why do you want the conditions that you made in the statement?”
For instance, an environmental advocate might say, “No tree shall be cut!” If s/he is
asked for why, s/he might say, “I’m concerned about the life of pristine
M. Matsuura and H. Shiroyama
els and hope to have it implemented by powerful leaders and government agencies
in the current environment of politics.
11.1.2 An Alternative: Mutual-Gains Approach
While different alternatives to command and control approach have been discussed
in the field of environmental policy, authors here focus on the mutual-gains approach.
The basic premise of the approach is to foster voluntary agreement among stakeholders. As we see in the command and control approach, if each stakeholder tries
to “win” an argument over its adversaries, then there won’t be any cooperation
among them. When everyone tries to “win” and expects others to “lose” (so-called
“win-lose” situations), the result is often a “lose-lose” situation in which all stakeholders fare less than they could have achieved because they cannot create values
through cooperation.
In order to achieve so-called “win-win” outcomes, each party must be willing to
cooperate with other parties to create values by exploring the areas that it can contribute to the other side. Toward this goal, different stakeholders, including the government, industry, and NGOs, have to negotiate on the equal footings. Government
agencies are not endowed with the lightening rod any more.
In the context of biofuel utilization strategy, contributors to this volume have
identified a wide variety of stakeholders. While government agencies are one of the
key actors, there are many others who have the significant power in the course of the
implementation of biofuel utilization even in the developing nations. Therefore, an
alternative approach to strategy building that seeks voluntary agreements among the
stakeholders is likely to produce more effective strategies than other approaches that
seek a realization of an ideal world through command and control and political
struggles.
11.1.3 Practice of Mutual-Gains Policy Formulation
There have been a few practical advices regarding how stakeholders can find mutually beneficial agreements that they can live with. The first principle is to focus on
interests, not positions (Fisher and Ury 1987). Stakeholders in biofuel utilization
will unavoidably make positional statements in the course of strategy building, particularly if they are in a bad relationship in which each of them seeks a “win-lose”
outcome. In many cases, however, such positional statements are exaggerated and a
manifestation of their ideals that they hope to achieve. On the other hand, they have
specific interests in the issue and hope to improve the situation. Interests are possible answers to “Why do you want the conditions that you made in the statement?”
For instance, an environmental advocate might say, “No tree shall be cut!” If s/he is
asked for why, s/he might say, “I’m concerned about the life of pristine
M. Matsuura and H. Shiroyama