|
SCENARIO:
Lake Wasota is one of the largest and most beautiful lakes in the country. Over the last twenty years, it has been the site of a bitter dispute over fishing rights. The dispute revolves around the Chippewa Indians (who were granted an unlimited right to fish by a treaty) and commercial fishermen. The conflict was exacerbated by the commercial fishermen's use of new trap net technology, which has increased their catch substantially. To make matters worse, sports fishers began to fish in the lake in record numbers. Although the competition between the commercial fishermen and the Indians concerns millfish, sports fishermen are involved because trap netting also catches blue trout. The state interceded in the dispute by initiating a series of licensing regulations. The Indians, together with the U.S. Government, then sued the State of Wasota. The court, with assistance of a Special Master, brought the parties together to negotiate a temporary settlement in the shadow of an imminent court ruling on fishing rights in the lake. The parties, including the Wendana Bay Indian Tribe, the Momata Falls Indian Band, the U.S. Government, the State Natural Resources Authority, the Commercial Fishermen's Association, and the Recreation and Conservation Association are now gathering to review the original agreement and determine whether it should be ratified for another ten years. The parties must reach a decision before the original agreement expires. Although the court hopes for a total consensus, it will accept an agreement reached between the four principal parties. If such an agreement is not reached, the court will make the final decision.
MAJOR LESSONS:
Litigation may limit the kinds of issues one can consider in a case, and the kinds of trades the parties can devise.
When an impasse seems inevitable, adding new issues or dividing issues into component parts may open up bargaining room.
Inventing options before committing to them is critical to achieving mutually beneficial outcomes. Unfettered "brainstorming" often yields creative and surprising solutions.
"Packaging" options often helps to promote agreement. Focusing on options one at a time may lead to deadlocks on each item.
The legitimacy of arguments (and agreements) is enhanced if supported by objective and respected sources of data.
It almost always pays to maintain cordial working relations with adversaries, even in the face of substantial disagreement. Energy should be focused on solving the problem, not on "beating" the other side.
Especially in public sector disputes, the broader the consensus (the more parties on board), the more secure the final agreement. A court ruling on only a narrow aspect of the dispute may not put to rest the larger dispute.
MECHANICS:
The game works well with either 6 players (one per role) or 12 players (2 per role). The complexity of the game necessitates a game manager who periodically tallies the votes and is available to answer questions. Comparative analysis can be conducted when multiple sets of the game are played simultaneously. In addition, inter-party caucusing may occur.
Estimated Time Requirements:
40 mins: read materials
150 mins: negotiation
60 mins: debrief
Total: 250 mins
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
This exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
General Information:
Maps
Glossary of Terms
Summary of 1985 Agreement
Memoranda from the Special Master
Role specific:
Summary Report of the Joint Science Committee to
The Tribes and Government
State Authority and Associations
Confidential Instructions for the
Wendana Bay Indian Tribe
Momota Falls Indian Band
U.S. Government
State Natural Resources Authority
Commercial Fishers Association
Recreation & Conservation Association
Supplementary Instructions for each of the above.
Teacher's package (126 pages total):
All of the above
Game Manager Instructions
Debriefing Information
KEYWORDS/THEMES: BATNA; Bluffing; Brainstorming; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Constituents; Environmental dispute resolution; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Managing uncertainty; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Multi-party negotiation; Negotiation with indigenous peoles; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Packaging; Pareto optimization; Partisan perceptions; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Regulation; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis
|
