powerful players in a conflict. Indeed, one study concluded that the key 

 element in many interest group decisions to coalesce with one another was the 

 degree to which one element of political power complemented another; that is, 

 political power — rather than resources or expertise — was the major element of 

 power interest groups involved in water policy formulation in the Southwest 

 considered in making a decision to coalesce with other interest groups involved 

 in the same policy area (Smith 1985). 



Power is the driving force that moves most resource conflicts to resolu- 

 tion. It is the crucial component of organizational ability to either pursue 

 a particular type of outcome or to render a particular kind of decision. Power 

 relationships must be carefully examined throughout the process of analysis 

 and strategy development recommended here. Individual elements of organiza- 

 tional power, however, should also be examined in their own right. Power in 

 instream flow conflicts is postulated to exist in three different categories. 

 For each organization participating in a conflict, the analyst should examine 

 all three categories and attempt to identify the most powerful organizations 

 and likely coalitions in a conflict. When potential brokers or arbitrators 

 appear on the role map, an examination of the statutory and political power 

 they have to decide the outcome is in order; the desire to broker or arbitrate 

 a particular conf 1 ict--alone--i s not enough. As coalitions form or separate, 

 the types and distribution of power among them should be tracked also. Careful 

 analysis of power will not only provide clues regarding which strategies may 

 prove most effective, but will enable an analyst to identify his own organiza- 

 tion's strengths and weaknesses, and provide information about which coalitions 

 to join or avoid. Organizations and coalitions that have a strong and well 

 balanced power structure have a decided advantage in influencing the outcome 

 of a conf 1 ict. 



Many other coalition scenarios are possible. These are just three 

 examples of the types of concerns that an analyst needs to address. The point 

 here is that both the intensity of preference for a particular type of 

 outcome — typically associated with organizational mission or ideology — and 

 power are important elements of coalition formation decisions. An analyst 

 should examine each carefully. This may be done to develop strategies for 

 forming coalitions of one's own — or for bargaining more successfully with the 

 opposing coalitions that emerge. 



6.4 GENERAL STRATEGIES 



Bingham (1985) identified several factors that affect success in mediated 

 environmental negotiations. First, the parties must have some incentive to 

 negotiate and reach an agreement. Two such incentives have already been 

 discussed: the desire to maintain positive working relationships and presence 

 of a deadline. Other possibilities include the need to appease public opinion, 

 avoid the cost accompanying delay or litigation, and the desire to avoid 

 uncertainty. If no such incentives are readily identifiable, it may be 

 necessary to define one and make the participants aware of its existence. Use 

 of the media to promote a particular set of values may be helpful in this 

 regard (Cobb and Elder 1983). 



76 



