RESOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES - A FRAMEWORK INCORPORATING DECISION-ANALYSIS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION TECHNIQUES

Resolution of public policy disputes can be enhanced both by qualitati ve techniques for conflict resolution and by quantitative analyses of decisions under uncertainty. We interweave the two methodologies into a framework that helps communicate and analyze existing alternatives, generate new alternatives and forge consensus plans. Decision analysis provides: (1) techniques for eliciting subjective inputs from the dis puting parties; (2) a structure for clarifying and communicating all f acets of the decision environment; and (3) a common decision rule (suc h as maximizing expected utility). Sensitivity analysis of the decisio n problem serves the consensus process by directing conflict resolutio n procedures to those aspects of the problem offering the best potenti al for reaching overall agreement, whether through persuasion and comp romise or through gathering and incorporating additional information. The communication tools of conflict resolution enhance the decision an alysis by promoting creative thinking, ensuring that the formal analys is captures the underlying interests of the parties involved, and faci litating systematic development of new alternatives based on those und erlying interests. We illustrate the framework by analyzing an environ mental dispute in Zaire over the best policy for management of an enda ngered species. Using inputs that are hypothetical, but typical of act ual party positions, we analyze the dispute between captive breeding a dvocates and the government of Zaire over management of the northern w hite rhino. The framework transforms unfocused party gridlock over two original policy options into a focused discussion on a few key inputs . We employ the decision-making procedure to develop several new alter natives: (1) a distributive bargaining compromise between the original positions; (2) a contingency plan that exploits the parties' differen t beliefs about the likelihood of future events; and (3) a synthesis t hat takes advantage of differences in institutional objectives and cap abilities to dovetail different preferences and create joint gains.