Second, negotiators should attempt to identify the real needs and 

 interests that often underlie stated positions (Fisher and Ury 1981; Bingham 

 1985). This is often more difficult than it sounds, especially in highly 

 competitive negotiations, where the parties tend to take absolute stands and 

 withhold information from one another. Communication is essential for parties 

 desiring to foster cooperative or integrative negotiation settings. The 

 negotiators must often search carefully to identify mutual or complementary 

 interests among the parties, and then communicate a sense of understanding 

 what those needs actually are. Demonstrating a willingness to compromise will 

 also facilitate movement from competitive to noncompetitive bargaining. 



Third, it is extremely important to make certain that the organization in 

 charge of implementing the agreement participates in the process, as well as 

 all of the organizations that will be affected by the outcome (Bingham 1985). 

 Participation produces a feeling of commitment among the parties, and commit- 

 ment, in turn, increases the likelihood of implementation. 



Finally, the use of an objective mediator is strongly recommended. 

 Mediators can facilitate communication among the parties to a conflict and 

 help identify needs and avoid impasse (Bingham 1985; Wilds and Lamb 1985). 

 Although an arbitrating organization--such as the Federal Energy Regulatory 

 Commission — may play this role in some conflicts (Olive and Lamb 1984; Wilds 

 and Lamb 1985), it is usually reluctant to do so in most cases. An objective 

 professional is generally more desirable in this role. Mediation is 

 increasingly recommended as a viable method of conflict resolution in environ- 

 mental disputes (Strauss 1979; Clark and Emrich 1980; Lake 1980; Abrams and 

 Stephen 1986). 



6.5 DEFINING SUCCESS 



The major criterion for evaluating the success of a negotiation is the 

 quality of the solution produced. Does it reflect the real needs and goals of 

 your own organization, both over the short and long term? Does it reflect the 

 needs of the other parties? Have the parties explored all possibi 1 ities--and 

 attempted to generate a win-win solution, in which all parties are satisfied? 

 Was the solution achieved at the lowest possible costs compared to the desir- 

 ability of the outcome? Is it achievable? Are those who participated 

 satisfied with the process used to generate the outcome? And finally, is the 

 solution fair or just? By satisfying these criteria, a negotiation may produce 

 results that are acceptable to all concerned, which, in turn, should lead to a 

 greater sense of commitment to the agreement (Menkel-Meadows 1984). 



The Legal-Institutional Analysis model can help individuals and groups 

 involved in instream flow disputes to move toward an agreement that meets 

 these criteria. This is because it enables users to develop an understanding 

 of the environment in which the conflict will occur, and of the organizations 

 that are to participate. The needs and interests of the parties can thus be 

 identified and predictions about organizational behavior and interaction made. 

 Strategies and tactics are then selected based on this information; potential 

 problems can be identified before they become an entrenched part of the 

 negotiation process, and communication enhanced among the participants. 



77 



