179
orangutans!” It might be difficult for other stakeholders to accommodate the first
claim, but maybe able to deal with the second one. Thus, understanding the interests
behind positional statements can lead stakeholders to a productive negotiation that
could lead to a mutually agreeable solution. This is the first principle of the mutualgains policy formulation.
The second principle is a step ahead from the first principle. Once varying interests of stakeholders are identified, there might be possible trades between these
multiple interests that can bring about benefits to both parties. In the case of orangutans, the developer might be able to try all possible measures to protect the forest
where orangutans live, while the environmental advocate might be willing to concede in the development in the area where no orangutans live. Such trade is impossible if both parties insist on their rights and positional statements. Mutual-gains
approach to policy formulation seeks such trade that brings about benefits to all
stakeholders.
Lastly, any strategy building effort should recognize the bottom line of each
stakeholder. The best alternative to a negotiated agreement, abbreviated as BATNA,
is a condition that each stakeholding party decides to leave a voluntary agreement
and take a unilateral action. Any collaborative strategy for policy formulation should
provide each stakeholder a benefit whose size excels their BATNA. If the strategy is
based on a wide variety of stakeholder interests, it would be able to provide sufficient benefits to each party because cooperative mechanisms embedded in the strategy can produce enough benefit for the stakeholders to share.
When some stakeholders have extreme expectations regarding their BATNA
(e.g., they believe that any form of collaboration with other parties would harm their
political interests), then mutual-gains approach to strategy building might not be
possible to involve such stakeholders. In such cases, other stakeholders should probably give up such fundamentalists after trying to persuade the possible benefit of
collaboration.
11.1.4 Challenges in Mutual-Gains Policy Formulation
While mutual-gains approach is likely to be more stable and efficient in the long
run, compared to the traditional command and control approach, there are many
challenges that the strategists have to be prepared to deal with. The first challenge,
especially in the context of biofuel utilization, is the range of stakeholders that a
strategy has to care about. As mentioned in the previous section, biofuel utilization
strategy at the global, regional/national, and local level has to consider interaction
with other levels of governance. For instance, local deployment strategy still has to
consider the implication of sustainability standards, which is discussed at the global
level, to the strategy. It also has to consider national policy and regulation as well.
Therefore, stakeholder-based approach entails difficulties with defining boundaries around the analysis. In practice, it is likely that there are a practical number of
stakeholder representatives for each project and strategy building effort. The num11 Roadmap for Building Sustainable Strategy Options
orangutans!” It might be difficult for other stakeholders to accommodate the first
claim, but maybe able to deal with the second one. Thus, understanding the interests
behind positional statements can lead stakeholders to a productive negotiation that
could lead to a mutually agreeable solution. This is the first principle of the mutualgains policy formulation.
The second principle is a step ahead from the first principle. Once varying interests of stakeholders are identified, there might be possible trades between these
multiple interests that can bring about benefits to both parties. In the case of orangutans, the developer might be able to try all possible measures to protect the forest
where orangutans live, while the environmental advocate might be willing to concede in the development in the area where no orangutans live. Such trade is impossible if both parties insist on their rights and positional statements. Mutual-gains
approach to policy formulation seeks such trade that brings about benefits to all
stakeholders.
Lastly, any strategy building effort should recognize the bottom line of each
stakeholder. The best alternative to a negotiated agreement, abbreviated as BATNA,
is a condition that each stakeholding party decides to leave a voluntary agreement
and take a unilateral action. Any collaborative strategy for policy formulation should
provide each stakeholder a benefit whose size excels their BATNA. If the strategy is
based on a wide variety of stakeholder interests, it would be able to provide sufficient benefits to each party because cooperative mechanisms embedded in the strategy can produce enough benefit for the stakeholders to share.
When some stakeholders have extreme expectations regarding their BATNA
(e.g., they believe that any form of collaboration with other parties would harm their
political interests), then mutual-gains approach to strategy building might not be
possible to involve such stakeholders. In such cases, other stakeholders should probably give up such fundamentalists after trying to persuade the possible benefit of
collaboration.
11.1.4 Challenges in Mutual-Gains Policy Formulation
While mutual-gains approach is likely to be more stable and efficient in the long
run, compared to the traditional command and control approach, there are many
challenges that the strategists have to be prepared to deal with. The first challenge,
especially in the context of biofuel utilization, is the range of stakeholders that a
strategy has to care about. As mentioned in the previous section, biofuel utilization
strategy at the global, regional/national, and local level has to consider interaction
with other levels of governance. For instance, local deployment strategy still has to
consider the implication of sustainability standards, which is discussed at the global
level, to the strategy. It also has to consider national policy and regulation as well.
Therefore, stakeholder-based approach entails difficulties with defining boundaries around the analysis. In practice, it is likely that there are a practical number of
stakeholder representatives for each project and strategy building effort. The num11 Roadmap for Building Sustainable Strategy Options