Collaborative governance is based on the premise that people participating in collaborative processes learn from each other and thus build capacity for joint problem solving. While participants of collaborative processes learn to know one another they also learn to trust each other. They learn to see the issue at hand as a complex problem that can be grasped from different angles. They learn to understand the challenges or issues that matter to the other participating organizations in the complex problem. These insights make it possible for the participants to start looking for solutions which bring mutual benefits.

The learning process which participants of collaborative processes go through is hard to share with those who have not been part of the process. A learning process is always emergent and not decided or foreseeable. Its steps as well as outcomes are difficult to articulate, and they may become as a surprise. Therefore, they may be difficult to mobilize within the interest group that has been part of the process through its representative. In addition, learning to understand other stakeholders’ perspectives might not be included in the “assignment or contract” made between the interest group and its representative. On the contrary, the representative’s mission might be solely to deliver the demands of the interest group at the table and bargain to gain a best result serving the interest.

Maintaining the trust from their own organization or group may thus become an issue for the representatives at the negotiation table. When the legitimacy of representatives is reducing and trust in them fades this also disrupts or at least complicates the collaborative process among interest groups. Trust can quickly erode when those at the table are unable to communicate what has been learned and how these learnings benefit the interest group. Particularly, when trust in the other organizations at the table is low, members in the interest organizations may not see the value of negotiated compromises or the need to find a shared solution. As a consequence, nascent agreement and amity may shift the conflict from between the organizations to inside the organizations.

There are two possible outcomes of the misalignment between representatives and the organization they represent:

• The organization rejects the possible solutions and walks away from the table, leaving the conflict to simmer on, possibly with more fire than before. Walking away from the table can hurt the trust that was created during the process and make future attempts to resolve the conflict even more difficult.
• The organization does sign up for the deal, but the organization gets into an internal legitimacy crisis as some members of the organization do not feel heard or even betrayed, believing the organization has not taken care of the issues they were fighting for. Inside an organization, the conflict may be difficult to address and manage, particularly, because the debate does not anymore take place in open but closed fora. If the internal power battle leads to more extreme views taking over within an organization, it becomes ever more difficult to resolve the conflict between organizations.

There are steps that can help to avoid the highly dysfunctional eroding of trust between interest groups and their representatives.

• To prevent internal tensions to distract the whole process, make sure enough resources and tools are available to organizations’ internal communication. Internal communication ensures that everybody understands why there is a collaborative process and what it aims at. In addition, internal communication is essential for the members to reflect collectively on what they want to achieve, and why their goals may need to be renewed and updated during the process as learning takes place. It may also be important to clarify what kind of process the collaborative process is, what this process demands from the organization (e.g., rules and expectations), and the types of outcomes for all parties (including the principle that all will benefit and the idea that a benefit gained by one organization is not necessarily a loss for the others). Furthermore, when there is a lot of distrust and old hurt within the organization towards the other organizations, it is of vital importance to build internal processes that ensure people get heard, get to express their concerns and get the possibility to understand what is done with their concerns. Finally, the representatives of organizations should be actively encouraged to share and communicate the insights gained during the process with the organization members at different steps along the process. Giving a blank check or a very restrictive mission are both dysfunctional. Having clear feedback loops during the process and new agreements on what is aimed at may help the members of the organization stay on track and raise concerns when they arise.
• While each of the organizations need to deal with the existing old hurt and distrust internally, this work also needs support from the other organizations at the table. If all organizations are going through internal struggles which potentially lead to more extreme views taking over, the parties drift further away from each other, with severe effects on their collaboration. Representatives of the organizations need to be encouraged to discuss the internal tensions they face. Having a clear shared approach and agreements that aim to ensure the trust in one another is growing instead diminishing can be helpful. This may include an agreed communication strategy and a process for agreeing on the exact messages to be send out. It may also include designing a broader set of interactions among the organizations to encourage also the members to engage in the collaborative process.

Sanne Bor, Taru Peltola & Outi Ratamäki

Sanne Bor works as Researcher at Hanken School of Economics, for the CORE project, and at LUT University, for the PackageHeroes project. She studies collaboration among organizations.

Taru Peltola is an Associate Professor of social sustainability at the University of Eastern Finland and Finnish Environment Institute. She leads the CORE-project’s case study work package.

Outi Ratamäki works as a senior lecturer at the Law School, University of Eastern Finland. She studies natural resources governance at the crossroads of law. 

The post Shifting lines of battle: How to work out solutions to conflicts that travel between and inside organizations? appeared first on CORE.

The city involved an external facilitator to guide the process, which took a total of 1,5 years from start to finish. The aim of the process was to get different actors together to discuss the issue of use of forest in Jyväskylä and finally based on these discussions arrive to a collective decision about how to use the forest. The collaborative project ended May 2018.

Our task as researchers of the value co-creation team of the CORE project was to see what value this process created for the participants in their collaboration and if the final co-created outcome was valuable for them. Value co-creation, as a concept from marketing, has its origins in the understanding that customers are co-creating the value of a product or a service provided to them by the way the product or service is utilised.

In this particular case, value is not co-created by the customer or the provider, in the traditional sense, but by different stakeholders of a particular issue, the use of forest.

While previous literature has looked at value in the connection of a product or a service, our case looks at value co-creation around the issue of use of forest around Jyväskylä city. 

The values of forest sought by different stakeholders vary. As Pearce and Moran (1994)point out, there is a variety of ways to understand the value of a forest. There can be use-value (both direct and indirect), future value (future direct or non-direct value), and non-use-value (bequest or existence value). While forest use-value for e.g. bird-watchers and mushroom or berry pickers increases when the flora and fauna in a forest are flourishing, the use-value for the forest-harvesters grows with the possibility to efficiently harvest trees that are of the right size and quality.

Those that use the forest for upkeeping their condition, or doing sports, may have even have contradicting requests from a more cleared forest and well taken care of pathways, to more wild nature like and less intervention. Also the aesthetic value of the forest plays a role, for those using it for their walks. While these different values are pursued by different stakeholders, sometimes stakeholders themselves need to deal with conflicting demands from their different roles.

The process of value co-creation, including interaction and integration (Gummesson & Mele, 2010; Pera, Occhiocupo, & Clarke, 2016), is successful when stakeholders are able to find ways to increase the value and minimise the loss of value for the different stakeholders and the whole group. The collaborative project of Jyväskylä Forest Program produced a wealth of results.

Most of the participants of the collaborative effort thought that the process itself was heavy and time consuming. However, they also thought the result and outcome of the co-creation process was very good.

That is to say; the process of value co-creation was not as appreciated as the final outcome of the process. The outcome of the process was taken into the consideration when the city officially decided what to do with the forest.

From this case we can learn that from the point of view of value co-creation even if the process is not as satisfactory it is worth of its pains to get a solution that pleases all the parties involved. Despite the seemingly conflicting value premises of use of forest, the solution can be found in a collaborative and facilitated process and even if the process itself is not as much valued the final outcome is.

Sanne Bor and Pia Polsa

References

Gummesson, E., & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as Value Co-creation Through Network Interaction and Resource Integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4, 181–198.

Pearce, D. W., & Moran, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan.

Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016). Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69, 4033–4041.

Sanne Bor works as Researcher at Hanken School of Economics, on the CORE project, and at LUT University, on the PackageHeroes project. She studies collaboration among organizations, among others from the view of value co-creation, partial organization and accountability.

Pia Polsa works as Associate Professor in Marketing at Hanken School of Economics and leads the CORE project’s value co-creation work package. Her current research interests are value creation in environmental conflicts, poverty alleviation, and marketing in non-profit settings like health care in developing countries.

The post VALUE CO-CREATION FOR THE JYVÄSKYLÄ FOREST PROGRAMME 2030 appeared first on CORE.

When activism is understood as described above – open acts – the relationship between science and activism is rather straightforward: Some scientists are activists. This may be true even if they are not called such or if they do not identify themselves as an activist. The arenas of activism may or may not be intertwined with the research they do.

The demand of having societal impacts by research is getting ever stronger. Ways to have an impact are various, however. Researchers are sometimes involved in creating practical solutions to societal or environmental problems but more often they seek discursive ways of introducing change or having an impact in societal transitions. This includes information and knowledge production, creating arenas for discussion or revealing inequalities.

Expert knowledge is not a “neutral” way to see the world, and research has never been detached from social and political life. There are many choices that affect researchers’ potential for having societal impact, e.g. the choices made in formulating research questions, choosing research methods and arenas for publishing the results.

Researcher-activist faces pros and cons

Being called an activist is not always something the researcher may like or strive for. It may be a negative label which can also be used in attempts to downgrade the expertise of a researcher in conflicting situations. Activism is situated, socially constructed, and not about the message a researcher delivers. It is about the relation between the messenger and the audience.

As an invited speaker in a parliamentary committee a researcher is usually regarded as an expert, but if she enters the arena uninvited she may be labelled as an activist.

Being heavily involved in activism on the field one is doing research, for example, as a community member, has pros and cons. Involvement guarantees, or at least eases, the access to internal information. A researcher as activist can also be a great resource for individuals and communities and essential for empowerment. Moreover, in particular cases, some groups are interested to attract and engage with science and work with allied researchers.

However, for an activist researcher it might be more challenging to maintain objectivity compared to researches with more distant engagement (i.e participatory observations). It might also be that the presence and involvement of an activist researcher might work against the communities. Communities might be heavily criticized for involving an activist or the published research results of an activist researcher might be used against the interests of the community by external parties. Security risks for the community members can be greater, if an activist researcher is involved.

Do no harm!

One important principle in combining science and activism especially when working with vulnerable groups and small communities is a Do no harm -principle. The risks and potentials should be discussed transparently with parties involved and people involved should have a real possibility to use veto rights, if something that the researcher is planning to do, is likely to risk the life, health, ownership or social relations in the community.

In particular with the vulnerable groups it should be ensured that there are no harmful stereotypes or stigmas that the researcher creates or maintains.

Science and activism have to do with power. Activists often fight existing power relations — or are deemed to do so. Activism differs from those attempts to change the society that leave asymmetrical social relations intact, for example, research promoting transitions that strengthen the interest of powerful elites or businesses. Power can be reshaped or renegotiated, with unpredictable and often contradictory outcomes. Power is not legitimated only by hegemonic expert knowledge represented by for example state institutions, corporate interests, or law, because its legitimacy is co-created by communities confronting institutions representing power.

Science is also a powerful tool – how do we use it? To maintain power relations and status quo or to empower transformation? Is passivism a form of activism if it has societal impact? Inaction can maintain status quo and dominant power relations and thus support some views about society and how its problems should be resolved and by whom. Inaction can also actively prevent transformation.

Activism against and for science

The role of science or scientists can take many, also more subtle forms in its relations to activism. While the word activist carries a risk of being questioned as an expert or labelled otherwise negatively, other, more subtle types of active engagement in the society are not identified as activism. If activism is understood more broadly, for example as ‘attendance in or contribution to societal transitions’, the relationship between science and activism becomes more difficult to detect. Although not called as activism, same kind of questions about objectivity or the impact of academic work on communities apply to these forms of academic activism.

Activism against science has posed these questions openly. Examples include the long-tradition of protesting against risky technologies that science helps to develop or advocating against the use of animal experimentations in scientific research. These disputes can take place inside or outside the academia, and they question the hegemony of particular kinds of sciences and scientists determining societal development and practices.

The goals promoted by academic activists, such as climate change policies or ban on neonicotinoids, can also be opposed by powerful lobby groups. They too target the power of science and expertise to formulate societal goals, albeit from a different angle, resisting attempts to change the hegemony of economic interests. On the other hand, there is science activism aiming to improve science itself. Open science activism, for example, aims at giving access to knowledge and expertise to wider groups in the society.

Academics need to reflect on the impacts of their work

The relationship between science and activism can also take the form of scientists helping activists. Scientists can collaborate with activists in various ways: organizing seminars, workshops, help with writing statements, complaints or other reporting, offering microsupport, e.g. tweeting and using other social media. Researchers can also help to reach international visibility, for example to help activists build networks or get support. Researchers can help make activism research-based and activists can utilize scientific practices in their activism. For example, many community science projects aim at evidence-based activism and social transformations to fight environmental impacts.

These questions challenge the understanding of activism and raise discussion about its role in the society. While societies are facing need to respond to global challenges it may not be enough to contribute scientifically to technocratic, top-down driven transition processes where changes take place within existing societal structures and frames. Also more diverse and emergent transformation processes challenging incumbent structures are needed. Academics might have a role in promoting such bottom-up transformation. However, it is also ok to refuse to be an activist. Regardless of the type of societal engagement, academics need to be more open about and ready to reflect on their societal role and the impact of their work on the society.

Outi Ratamäki, Maija Faehnle, Heta Heiskanen, Taru Peltola & Germán A. Quimbayo Ruiz

Photo: Ville Tahvanainen

This blog is based on the discussions during Science and Activism seminar held at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) in January 2019. The seminar was organized by UEF’s LYY Institute and two Strategical Research Council funded research projects CORE and ALL-YOUTH.

Outi Ratamäki works as a senior lecturer at the Law School, University of Eastern Finland. She studies natural resources governance at the crossroads of law and policy.

Maija Faehnle is a senior researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. She is the communication manager of the CORE project and studies aspects of activism, civil society and collaboration especially in urban contexts.  

Heta Heiskanen is a Post-Doc in ALL-YOUTH -project funded by the Strategic Research Council. She has specialized in human rights law and the environment. She has been actively cooperating with NGOs. Currently she is a board member of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.

Taru Peltola works as a Senior Research Scientist at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE and leads the CORE-project’s case study work package.

Germán A. Quimbayo Ruiz is an Ecologist and Geography MSc. Researcher and Ph.D. student in Environmental Policy, Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu. External researcher, Natural Resources Institute Finland, LUKE (Turku). I have worked with environmental state-agencies and social organizations in Colombia.

The post Science, activism and societal impact – diversity of relationships appeared first on CORE.

In October 2018, the start session of the training at the Sofia Cultural Centre in Helsinki brought together 25 officials, chosen among the applicants. They represented different administrative levels and sectors, planning on land use and traffic, environmental issues, forest management and work on civic engagement, among others. The instructors, collaborative governance experts Stephen Greenwood and Turner Odell, came from the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University. The training is free for the participants. It is funded by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland, as part of the CORE project.

The aim of the training is to give the participants capacities to collaborate with multiple actors and plan and lead processes that aim reconciling different goals. The basis is in the model of collaborative governance that has been successfully applied in Oregon since 1990’s. The training also starts the building of a growing community of collaborative governance experts in Finland.

In the beginning of the training, the participants told about cases they were familiar with in which there is or would have been a need for more collaborative practices. The instructors presented two cases of solving a complex problem collaboratively. At the mouth of Columbia River in the U.S., a solution was found for the local erosion problem. In the case of conserving the greater sage-grouse in Western U.S., the conflicting economic and ecological interests were reconciled into a widely accepted action plan.

Referring to the success factors in the two cases, the instructors then introduced principles of collaborative governance and phases of a collaborative process. A third theme to be studied was personal collaboration skills. The learning on the training was supported by worksheets with which the participants applied the presented points and ideas to their own cases and actions.

”This responds exactly to the need that I recognize at least in our work. Our work should be to solve problems together with the others, and here these kinds of collaboration skills are necessary”, states Matti Hovi from Metsähallitus. “We have among others a planning process on management and use of conservation areas, which is participatory in a traditional way, including consultation of stakeholders. But the methods discussed here in this training go far further than that”.

The competence to assess when to use collaborative methods is one of the very basic questions in collaborative governing. “When new things come up, you should take a moment to ponder whether this is an issue requiring collaboration and thereby starting of a collaborative process, or can we just make a quick decision by ourselves”, Matti Hovi continues. “We come across situations in which there are different parties with differing interests and they should be reconciled in a way or another”. The training has given me tools for recognizing such situations”, says Jenni Kuja-Aro from the Environmental Services of the City of Helsinki.

Tytti Viinikainen from the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency found that the training gives useful tools for the officials in her own department. “It was good that the toolbox discussed today was not technical, such as ‘organise groups of 5-6 persons at 18.00”, but about the grounds of interaction: accept the conflicts, and listen more – this is just what our officials need in their diverse processes”. 

Stephen Greenwood was impressed by the diversity of the participants. “I didn’t think that they would come from so many different organisations and across the country.  The potential for influencing a lot of different aspects of Finnish public life is actually quite high.”

”It has been intriguing to note how the issues people are concerned about are just so the same that we are dealing with in the United States”, Greenwood states. How do you get people to collaborate when they don’t want to. How do you proceed, if you’re the one who really wants to convene a process, and you’re not perceived as neutral. How do you do a process when there’s no trust between the parties. All the things that people listed up in the starting discussion.” The contexts are, however, different. “It is interesting to see how these same issues interact in the relatively different Finnish context. They may just have a little bit different flavor”, contemplates Odell.

At best, the training creates the ground for the Finnish culture of collaborative governing, which also includes a common language. “For example when a colleague tells about his or her process, you can ask what were the interests as opposed to the positions”, Greenwood describes. He hopes that after the training the participants can keep in touch with and use each other as peers support when applying the new practices. “Hopefully they really get support”.

The training will last until May 2019. The development of the Finnish community of practice on collaborative governance will continue among others with the establishment of a contact platform and with events sharing insights from the training. In Autumn 2019, the CORE project will organise an open COREvent workshop, as an opportunity for all interested to get familiar with the key messages and ideas from the training. Welcome onboard!  

Photos: Opri-Ilmatar Orenius

The post Collaborative Public Manager training gives officials new tools for collaboration appeared first on CORE.

The course was organized in collaboration with the University of Eastern Finland, the University of Copenhagen, the University of Agder, the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and ALL-YOUTH and CORE research projects. Funding was provided by the Nordic Forestry, Veterinary and Agricultural University Network (NOVA) and the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (SRC).

There are social issues behind every environmental conflict

On the first day, we began the course by discussing the various reasons for conflicts related to natural resources. Utilizing the participants’ long list of real life cases, Irmeli Mustalahti illustrated well how hard it is to classify them under one-dimensional categories. We noted quickly that most of the conflicts had more to do with humans than natural resources. Indeed, behind many environmental problems there are social challenges that need to be addressed.

While it is not easy, one way to categorize conflicts is according to their causes. On the one hand, they can be caused by conflicting interests, information or relationships, which are generally issues that can be negotiated and solved. On the other hand, there can be issues related to values, power and social structures, which may be difficult or almost impossible to solve. Environmental conflicts can also include factors from all the above categories which make them incredibly complex. Moreover, conflicts are not always a bad thing. They can even be seen as necessary and inevitable, bringing light to injustice or other problems, which may eventually lead to a better situation. They can provide an opportunity for reform and triggering coalition building for positive change. Conflicts have a role to play, but the prevention of violence should always be the priority.

During the week, we were asked to think about our own conflict cases through the concepts of dividers and connectors. Dividers are factors that divide the communities or the stakeholders in the case. On the contrary, connectors are factors that can bind the stakeholders together. Both of these can be systems and institutions, attitudes and behaviors, values and interests, and so on. To understand the real dividers and connectors, which may be hiding behind the positions, a stakeholder analysis has a vital role in the beginning of any kind of conflict resolution process. The historical context of the society or the local community usually reveals the different and sometimes numerous causes that have triggered the current conflict.

Building blocks for a successful negotiation

On the second day, we did an exercise which simulated a negotiation between an imaginary energy company and a First Nations band. In our group the negotiation went excellently, and we achieved a mutually beneficial agreement in the end. After listening to other groups’ experiences (negative and positive), I think there were several factors that allowed us to accomplish this.

In the first meeting just among the company (or the band), we had established clear common goals that we would try to achieve. We also discussed issues that could and could not be negotiated and what would be the ultimate limits for us. This made the actual negotiations easier for us – we were clearly on the same page all the time. Second, the parties understood what their priorities were and what the issues were where they had leeway to give in. Neither party was expecting to get everything listed in the papers – we had a certain level of flexibility. Third, we had well matching personalities within the group. I personally think the role of individuals and personalities is underemphasized in the literature, while in real life it plays a critical role. Asking any experienced mediator, they will tell it can make or break the process. Fourth, everyone in the group did great job at listening to the others. Listening to the other groups’ experiences afterwards, this did not seem to be the case for all.

How to deal with emotionally fuming person: 1) Let him talk. 2) Listen what he is really saying. 3) Once he feels he’s being heard, he can process new information again. (Pic: Juha Kotilainen)

Mara Hernández elaborated well how people are unable to listen when they are emotionally fuming. The feeling of not being heard is extremely frustrating and it blocks your ability to process any new information. One way around this is utilizing facilitation methods that ensure people feel heard, which makes them more willing to cooperate again in a more relaxed state. In fact, these methods were used in the Jyväskylä Consensus Building Process which Emma Luoma from Akordi presented in the afternoon (learn more from Luoma, 2018). Akordi is a consult company which specializes in consensus building and collaborative approaches in cases that usually involve reconciliation of multiple interests.

In the discussion after the presentation, there were comments that touched on the practical aspect of this process. As Emma also noted, it included several sessions and was quite time consuming for some of the parties. However, as there is almost no experience of these processes in Finland, it could be argued that with increased capacity, the process could move faster. Nevertheless, it is a valid question: how often is it viable to use this kind of comprehensive approach? Perhaps it must be thought how important the case in question is. If a solution is crucial, there are no shortcuts for consensus. Building relationships, trust and common understanding takes time.

The challenges of fieldwork in a conflict: case study of a fact-finding mission

The intense week was split by an excursion to the nearby lake Koitere in Ilomantsi. The class was divided into four groups who were on a “fact-finding mission” with topics related to conflict of interests in land use. The cases had also some kind of local context and part of the exercise was to gather information from the local representatives in addition to the experts.

Our group’s topic was “multi-purpose forest and overlapping interest”. Our information package called us to question the role of Everyman’s Right in the current situation, where some think it has been abused for commercial activities. It can be argued that this was never the intended purpose of this common law and the topic has sparked discussions about restrictions and land-owners’ right for benefits.

Our group was led to the forest where the assigned expert Hilkka Heinonen (University of Eastern Finland) began telling us about Everyman’s Right and how it has been used in Finland by the entrepreneurs who bring large groups of foreign berry pickers for the season. The dynamic on the spot was that Hilkka, the expert, was telling us about the issue in English while everyone gathered around her. Raija, our local informant, stood on the side and telling from her body language (slightly withdrawn posture, hands behind the back, partly behind tree trunk) was a bit timid about the situation.

Dr. Tero Mustonen explaining how the Koitere area has gone through a significant change, both environmentally and socially. (Photo: Antti Erkkilä)

Few moments later, more experts arrived to the scene and part of the group split to discuss with them. This looked like too much of a classical book example where the locals are forgotten to the side while the “experts” take the center stage (later we learned this had been planned by the organizers). To make the most out of it, we formed another smaller group around Raija, where I felt like we could ask questions in a more intimate atmosphere. It was also noticeable that the language barrier had been somewhat hindering the discussion earlier. She was now elaborating her answers more without the need of translation. The language and the discussion setting matter.

The next observation I wrote down was the impact of the pre-reading material on the discussion and especially on our expectations about the situation. As the topic had been framed as a conflict, we though that there must have been also a local conflict related to the Everyman’s Right. However, as we continued asking questions about any possible issues, it became apparent that Raija did not feel like there were any in the area (from her point of view at least). At one point, I felt like we were almost trying to invent a conflict to satisfy our expectations. The mentioned commercial berry picking was not happening in the area, the big predators were not a problem to her and she did not even have a problem with the forestry activities. On the contrary, judging from her answers, it felt like Everyman’s Right had a more of a binding force to the local community here.

At the end of the day, we reflected the exercise within our group. It was interesting to see how we all focused on different issues. Since much of the English discussion revolved around the berry picking issue, this framed the whole issue for the group. To mention few perspectives: one person was thinking about the possible conflict between different entrepreneurs; second thought that the law is being abused and third thought there is absolutely no issue with commercial berry picking and it should be increased. While the big group size had caused some issues at the initial interviewing situation, it resulted in many different perspectives about the topic.

Learning from our failure

On Thursday, we had another exercise: six-party, multi-stakeholder simulation with a facilitator. This turned out to be much more difficult setting to achieve an agreement compared to the previous situations. Indeed, our group failed to get a proper result, even though in the end, we made some progress. Reflecting on the exercise afterwards, I believe the biggest reason hindering our group was the lack of understanding of the details about the issue we were negotiating about. Most of the time was consumed by questions and clarifications as it was uncertain if the parties were even discussing about the same details. This illustrates well how lack of preparation is one of the major reasons why negotiations end up in a failure.

The second reason was the facilitator’s attempt to move on the negotiated conditions in order, one by one, instead of thinking them as packages. Package approach increases the chances of win-win outcomes and may help to avoid situations where that one item that cannot be resolved blocks the whole process. Indeed, almost no one was willing to give up on any of their demands, causing the negotiations to get stuck in a deadlock. Furthermore, people failed to highlight their priorities and the conditions that were not on top of their agenda.

Collaborative “winning” approach requires: 1) willingess to cooperate, 2) mutual trust, 3) shared understanding about the solution being beneficial for all parties. (Pic: Juha Kotilainen)

Third, the difference between winning and being a winner was well illustrated in the exercise. The “winner” mentality emphasizes the approach where the goal is to gain as much as possible while others gain very little. This approach often ends in a situation where the total pot of benefits remains very small. With the “winning” approach, you are looking for mutual benefits that can be accomplished together. For this to be possible, recognizing which interests are distributive and which ones are integrative is essential.

Finally, in all the exercises it was fascinating to see how the emotions of people can really take over even in this kind of imaginary situations. In some way, people can play their roles even too strongly and achieving a good result may be more difficult than in real life, as Mara Hernández noted. Negotiating without real stakes can be like playing poker with match sticks: people behave differently.

Finding your role in a conflict

In the final day we discussed research ethics and the role of a researcher in a conflict. In the CORE project, we are often conducting action research as a neutral expert in sensitive case contexts. Our work has real consequences and failing to consider the ethical aspects can cause real harm. Questions such as, who benefits from our work and how do we define success, are present in all our cases. I would like to also highlight the idea from Mara’s and Irmeli’s final lectures that in very difficult conflicts, the aim of the mediation process does not have to be a perfect agreement. It may be more realistic and enough to make progress in just one of the following three aspects: substance, procedure or relations. In certain situations that can be a big win already.

In every conflict situation, the skills of the professionals play a key role in choosing the right model of strategy for the case. In the context of strategy, the role of a neutral outsider as the facilitator is an issue that is not well acknowledged in Finland. The state or the local governments often try to facilitate their conflict situations themselves, even though it is clear they are not seen as a neutral party by everyone. For example, the municipality may have an interest in attracting the big investments or businesses for the tax money, but at the same time, other sectors affected by these plans may completely oppose them. Even if the governmental staff working on the case is sincerely neutral, the perceptions of bias or corruption may remain.

To make it more complicated, sometimes it may be difficult to sell the idea of utilizing a third-party to solve a conflict situation, as the authorities may feel like they are admitting their failure in doing so. However, you can look at the issue with a much more positive and realistic lens. Whoever the actor in question, the state, municipality, city, is being very progressive and innovative by utilizing new collaborative approaches to find a sustainable solution. Framing the case in a right manner goes a long way.

In the final reflections about the course, the participants mentioned many of the issues I have highlighted in this blog. However, to be able to take on multifaceted environmental conflicts, you need more than just a list of lessons. In this relatively narrow field, networks and contacts should be cherished as we are constantly building on the experiences of others. Finally, it is clear that the attractiveness of collaborative methods is only going to be growing in the future. Increasingly complex, more challenging and global environmental problems combined with the changing role of the state and civil society will only increase the pressure for more holistic and collaborative approaches.

Juha Kotilainen

Juha Kotilainen is a researcher at the University of Eastern Finland Department of Geographical and Historical Studies. He works in the CORE project team focusing on mechanisms and capacities of collaborative governance.

Read more:

UEF news story about the course, August 2018.

How to win together. Blog by course participant Emma Luoma September 3, 2018.

Luoma, E. (2018). Intressien yhteensovittaminen monenvälisenä neuvotteluprosessina: tarkastelussa Jyväskylän strateginen metsäohjelma. Master’s thesis. University of Tampere.

The post Learning from our Failures and Successes: 30 Lessons about Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution appeared first on CORE.

One of the international teachers of the course, Professor Mara Hernández from the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE, Mexico), finds that peer leaning is an important way of exchanging knowledge and practical experiences of environmental conflict mediation within the diverse group of students. Moreover, it is essential to learn to integrate theory and methodological tools into real conflict situations.

According to Professor Hernández, major environmental conflicts all over the world are often related to the use of regional and local natural resources, such as oil resources in Nigeria, mining in Latin America or access to clean water worldwide.  Although challenges may be regional and conflicts local, similar tools to analyse the context and dynamics of conflict may apply, as well as certain attitudes and behaviours that favour understanding and integrating the diversity of needs and perspectives at play.

The course, entitled Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution: The Crossroads of Forestry, Ecosystem Services and Wildlife, was organised by the School of Forest Sciences of the University of Eastern Finland in collaboration with the Department of Geographical and Historical Studies as well as the ALL-YOUTH and CORE research projects.

Read the whole article at the University of Eastern Finland website.

The post New tools for environmental conflict resolution appeared first on CORE.

The concept of value can be seen in terms of a trade-off between benefits and sacrifices. These benefits and sacrifices can be understood in monetary terms, but also as including non-monetary rewards, such as competence, market position, and social rewards. Non-monetary costs can include, for example, the time, effort, energy, and amount of conflict that has to be engaged in order to obtain the desired end result. In addition, value can be, for example, emotional, environmental or functional.

Essential to the current understanding of value is its subjectivity and the idea of perceived value. The value of something is in the end measured by the eye of the beholder.

For example, a bog that has potential in producing peat can hold very divergent values to different stakeholders. The landowner may regard the bog having emotional value (“my family has taken care of this land for decades”), financial value (the profit gained from harvesting or selling the bog), environmental value (conserving the bog as a nesting area of birds), aesthetic value (the beauty of the bog as it is), etc.

Again, an environmental protection organization may share some of these values, even if they probably emphasise the environmental value of the bog. On the other end, a peat industry company finds the most significant value of the bog to be financial as they endeavour to profit from its peat resources. However, in some cases they may also see PR value by promoting the conservation of some areas instead of harvesting the whole bog for peat. We may also define the birds and other animals that occupy the bog as stakeholders. Their value is existential (survival and prospering).

Taken it a step further we could even say that the bog itself may be a stakeholder in a same way. Other stakeholders in this kind of decision making situation may be, for example, local residents, tourists, political decision makers and society at large. The values of the stakeholders emerge in a situation where fundamental decisions about the use of bog are made, for example, whether the bog should be a conservation area or should it be used for peat production. In such a controversial setting, the stakeholders may be firmly standing in the different ends of the value continuum, thus hoping for dissenting outcomes. So, how can we enable the stakeholders to collaborate in a complex decision making situation in a sustainable way, that is, the stakeholders’ perspectives are equally being taken to consideration and that in the end value is, at some level, created for all?

Instead of being on the opposite sides, the stakeholders should co-create value by interacting with each other in a peer-like, collaborative way to create value for all (Galvano and Dalli 2014).

Value co-creation is dependent on the successfulness of the entire relationship between the stakeholders (see e.g., Lindgreen and Wynstra 2005), and interaction is the key issue in succeeding. Encounters between the stakeholders can be emotion supporting (such as stories and recognition), cognition supporting (such as scripts), and behavior and action supporting (such as trials and know-how communication) (Payne et al. 2008). These encounter types cover rather broadly the key aspects of value creation – symbolic, emotional, functional, and economic (see e.g., Rintamäki et al. 2007).

As in any relationship and interaction the optimal starting point is the willingness to listen and understand what others have to say.  Through open interaction and active support for dialogue we may find out what values different stakeholders appreciate and emphasize, and why. Understanding different stakeholders’ root causes and value drivers may pave the way to mutual understanding and provide a sustainable outcome that creates new value for all.

Vilma Vuori

Photo: Martins Krastins / Pexels.com

References

Lindgreen, A. & Wynstra, F. (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know? Where are we going?. Industrial Marketing Management 34(7), 732-748.

Galvagno, M. & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review, Managing Service Quality 24(6), 643-683.

Payne, A., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1), 83-96.

Rintamäki, T., Kuusela, H. & Mitronen, L. (2007). Identifying competitive customer value propositions in retailing. Managing Service Quality 17(6), 621-634

The post Co-creation of value calls for collaborative interaction appeared first on CORE.