F  i  n  d  i  n  g 

t  h  e    C  o  m  m  o  n    G  r  o  u  n  d

Community Conflicts Over Agriculture, Land Use, and Natural Resources

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension

■

any Pennsylvania communities are struggling with conflicts over agriculture, land use, and other natural resource issues. Much of the population growth occurring in the Commonwealth is in agricultural areas; eight of Pennsylvania’s 10 most productive farming counties are also among the fastest growing counties of Pennsylvania. New residents help revive and sustain communities, but their values and expectations may change the communities and cause conflict with traditional residents.

and values. Communities’ usual methods of deciding how to resolve agricultural, land use, or environmental concerns can produce unsatisfactory results if emotions or the stakes involved are high. Some “quick fix” solutions may only temporarily silence one side’s concerns without really addressing or resolving the underlying issues involved. In cases when ordinances are entirely relied upon to solve the issue, community harmony may be difficult to rebuild. Regulatory approaches can produce winners and losers; the losers may be unhappy. The “solution” may last only as long as the current local officials remain in office. If the conflict gets tied up in civil litigation, it is possible for no one to win because of mounting legal costs. Communities also lose control of the decision-making process with civil litigation, because it removes responsibility for making the decision to someone outside the community.

Farming also is undergoing economic and technological changes that are leading to larger, more specialized farms. In some cases, farmers have to expand to be profitable, which provides economic benefits to the community, but also exacerbates the potential for conflict with nonfarming neighbors. For example, increased numbers of chickens, cows, or hogs on a farm produce greater amounts of manure, increasing the potential for manure runoff into streams or odor complaints from neighbors.

These conflicts, however, need not divide the community. With open communication between all the concerned groups, and a willingness to creatively look at the problem, often an alternative solution that helps everyone can be found. This document is intended to introduce a method of finding these “common ground” solutions in the midst of conflict. The Collaborative Conflict Resolution method is particularly appropriate for conflicts over agriculture, land uses, and natural resources.

The conflicts that can arise between farmers and nonfarming neighbors can be especially unsettling because they can divide a community. Homeowners typically want to preserve their right to live and relax unbothered in their own homes. Farmers typically want to preserve their right to use their land in an unfettered way and earn a living. Both sets of rights appear incompatible, and people often assume that only one group’s interests will be served in settling the dispute. Emotions can run high because of the high stakes involved and due to misinformation and misunderstandings about each other’s actions, beliefs,

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

3

A Collaborative Approach to Resolving Conflicts A collaborative approach to resolving conflicts over agriculture, land use, and the environment can be beneficial to the community, because it recognizes the two major dimensions of the community conflict, and explicitly brings people together to find a mutually agreeable solution instead of merely deciding who wins. By bringing people together, this approach can produce a more acceptable and longer lasting solution that will leave the community stronger than before the conflict arose. Dimensions of Community Conflict Most community conflicts involve conflict over both (1) what is occurring (i.e., “is it a problem, and do we need to worry about it?”—also known as the “problem definition”); and (2) what should be done to solve it. When people argue about an issue, both of these dimensions are often intermingled or go unstated. It is important to deal with each separately, however. Without reaching agreement on what the problem is, finding agreement on a solution is premature and difficult. In addition, how the issue is defined often affects the kind of solutions considered. Another complication is that both the problem definition and the solution have “fact” and “value” dimensions. People may disagree about what is actually occurring (i.e., “the odors are coming from the Smith farm”) or about the possible implications of proposed solutions (i.e., “if farmers are prevented from spreading manure on weekends, they will go out of business”). People’s values also may differ concerning whether what is happening is good or bad (i.e., “I like that smell... that’s what farms smell like”) or whether proposed solutions are attractive or not (i.e., “farmers shouldn’t have to change what they do. If people choose to live in the country, they have to learn to live with farm odors”). Resolving community conflicts often means determining which dimensions both parties agree on, and which dimensions the parties disagree on. For example, (1) people may disagree about what is actu-

ally occurring (i.e., about the facts of the problem definition); (2) people may agree on some of the facts, yet disagree about whether what is occurring is good or bad (i.e., they may disagree about the “values” used to interpret the agreed-upon facts); (3) people may agree on some facts, agree on their goodness or badness, and yet disagree about whether a proposed solution would really solve the problem; (4) people may agree on some facts, their goodness or badness, and that a proposed solution would solve the problem, but yet disagree on whether that proposed solution is the best solution for that problem. Clarifying what the various parties can and cannot agree upon is important because it ensures that discussions focus appropriately, and because it makes clear which kinds of information, dialogue, and listening will be necessary to resolve the conflict. Separating the “facts” from the “values” involved with the issue in conflict is an important part of resolving a conflict. It helps people understand the values and interests underlying others’ stated positions, and thus creates opportunity for developing solutions that satisfy all parties’ concerns. Disagreements about facts often can be resolved by seeking objective information from technical experts, who can explain the biological, physical, or other processes involved. Such experts are also extremely helpful in developing a list of potential solutions because they will know what is technically possible. Open sharing of information between the people involved in a conflict, in a respectful environment, can also help resolve fact-based disagreements. People often perceive issues from different perspectives, each with an element of truth. They each see and understand only a few components of the issue’s complexities and implications. When these varied perspectives are shared, however, everyone can get a better and more accurate understanding of what is occurring and why. This kind of sharing also is beneficial because it helps lay the groundwork of trust and respect necessary for the collaborative conflict resolution process to work. Disagreements about values can be more difficult to resolve, because people’s dif-

ferent values mean that individuals can legitimately disagree about whether something is a problem, and if so, what should be done to solve it. Directly acknowledging the various value interpretations of an issue helps the parties in conflict understand that their concerns are being taken seriously in the conflict resolution process, and helps move the process along. Therefore, it is important to have various groups with a stake or interest in a public issue work together to define and discuss the issue from different perspectives, and to work towards finding mutually acceptable solutions to the conflict. Having deeply divided groups at the beginning may make the process more difficult initially, but it also makes the solution stronger and more acceptable to all in the end. Examining the “facts” and “values” of the issue in conflict also helps the community understand who can help them reach a solution, and at which points such assistance would be useful. Technical experts, for example, such as soil scientists, entomologists, hydrologists, and economists, can help answer factual questions about the issue (i.e., “what kind of pesticides will kill the flies” or “how much will it cost farmers to implement such a regulation?”). Few technical experts (with the exception of ethicists and clergy) have formal expertise in making value judgments; most of their formal training is about facts (i.e., “what influences how surface water percolates through the soil,” or “what is the appropriate statistical method of estimating agricultural production costs”), not values. Some may try to use their own values to say what people in the conflict should do, but such prescriptive advice should be treated with caution. The values of the people involved in the conflict are more appropriate for deciding what should be done; the people involved, after all, will be the ones who have to implement and live with the solution. Bring People Together to Develop a Mutual Solution The Collaborative Conflict Resolution approach is based on bringing all the affected parties together to talk about the conflict and to develop a mutually acceptable solution. Finding such a solution can be

more time consuming than simply having a solution imposed by someone else (such as a state regulatory agency or court) or relying upon local political power to make the decision, but because the solutions come out of the community they generally enjoy stronger support and acceptance by everyone. It can help all sides involved in the community’s conflict to feel that their concerns are being heard, and helps move these groups beyond conflict towards mutual understanding and coexistence. The approach can help build or strengthen relationships in the community instead of dividing people.

What Is the Collaborative Conflict Resolution Approach? The Collaborative Conflict Resolution approach is a flexible method of conflict resolution, tailored to the specific needs of individual communities. The approach has two main components: (1) a set of general principles that underlie the solution-seeking and all contact between participants; and (2) the specific process participants work through to resolve the conflict. Principles The general principles underlying the Collaborative Conflict Resolution approach include: Good Communication Understanding each other is vitally important to finding solutions to the conflict. Understanding is gained through informational presentations and dialogue, both of which require good listening skills and a willingness to be open to other people and ideas. Good listening skills are probably the most fundamental and important part of the collaborative conflict resolution process. ■

■ Inclusive,

Not Exclusive Process For controversial issues, different points of view and interests exist. Helping only a single person or group decide their position on an issue is unlikely to move things closer to a long-term workable solution. What is needed is to actively bring the diverse viewpoints of the community into

some type of interaction that can lead to new understandings and new solutions that are acceptable to most groups. ■ Mutual

Respect for All Everyone has some element of validity in their concern or position on an issue. It is vitally important that people recognize that is all right for people to disagree, and to seek to understand others’ perspectives. Name-calling, not paying attention, leaving meetings early, and other belittling of another’s perspective or the group process is not helpful.

■ Focus

on Interests, Not Positions Moving discussions beyond “what” people want (their position) to “why” they want it (their interest) is crucial in attempting to find solutions acceptable to all participants involved in a conflict.

Shared Goals Participants’ shared interests or compatible goals can provide the basis for mutual learning and collaborative problem-solving. ■

■ Consensus-Building

Mutually acceptable solutions are worth seeking. When everyone involved in the conflict agrees on the solution, implementing and sustaining that solution will be much easier and more effective. Consensus can be developed in even the most difficult conflicts by first seeking common interests across peoples’ different viewpoints, and building the solution upon those commonalities. Process The specific process used to work through the conflict will depend upon the situation and needs of the community, and the desires of the people involved with the conflict. It typically involves meetings and communication between the stakeholders to the conflict, working through three phases. These include (1) pre-negotiation, during which it is decided which individuals and groups need to be involved in the process, what the ground rules will be, and what other important background details will be necessary for the negotiations to occur; (2) negotiation, during which people work together to create, choose, and document solutions; and (3) implementation, when the negotiated agreement

is adopted, implemented, evaluated, and possibly re-negotiated if it is not working as expected. Within each phase, the parties work through several steps or activities as they try to build consensus for a final agreement. The steps are not mandatory, however; the collaborative conflict resolution process must remain flexible to be adapted quickly to a particular situation. The specific steps involved in each phase include: Pre-negotiation Phase

1. Getting Started Someone has to raise the possibility of Collaborative Conflict Resolution and initiate the collaborative conflict resolution process. If no stakeholder is willing to approach the others to suggest that they attempt to reach agreement, a trusted outsider (“convener”) might be able to make this suggestion. 2. Involve All the Stakeholders If the solution is to be acceptable to all, it is important that everyone be involved from the start. This includes encouraging participation from those whose stake might not be readily apparent at first glance. 3. Establish Ground Rules and Set the Agenda Before people can start working on solving the problem, they should agree upon ground rules for communicating, decisionmaking, and organizing the process. They also need to agree on objectives for the process and the agenda for addressing the issues. The procedural agreements lay the groundwork for achieving fairness for all parties. 4. Define the Problem How we define the problem often affects the number and type of solutions. It is important at this stage to clarify the problem from each party’s point of view and to legitimize all perceptions, understanding that each definition of the problem could be correct and that each definition of the problem might yield different possible solutions. Having good listening skills and leaving enough time for everyone to be heard is essential at this stage. If any of the

participants believes that his or her point of view is not being treated as legitimate, the process is likely to break down. 5. Joint Fact-Finding The parties must agree on what technical background information is pertinent to the dispute, what is known and not known about the technical issues, and on the methods to be used for generating answers to relevant technical questions. It is important to identify what is known about why the problem exists and how different parties are affected. This step often involves the parties completing the following tasks: determining what information they have regarding the issue; identifying the portion of the information that is accepted as accurate by all the parties; and determining what additional information, if any, they need to negotiate effectively. Negotiation Phase

6. Develop Criteria To invent options for mutual gain, the parties must clearly state their interests to each other. Rather than asserting positions, (i.e., what they want as a solution) people seeking a resolution to the conflict need to be able to discuss their interests (i.e., the reasons, needs, concerns, values, and motivations underlying their positions). Finding solutions that satisfy one another’s interests should be the common goal of the parties’ conflict resolution efforts. All should consent to use the agreed-upon interests as performance criteria in developing and judging alternative solutions. 7. Generate Alternatives After the fact-finding has been done, and everyone’s interests have been stated, the parties can agree to a period of “inventing without deciding.” Brainstorming can be used to produce as many ideas as possible for solving the problem. It is important that all parties be able to suggest ideas and solutions. During this stage, all must agree that they will not judge ideas or hold someone to any of the options. Creativity, not commitment, is encouraged at this time.

8. Evaluate Alternatives and Create Agreements Once the parties feel they have invented enough options, they must decide which ones to include in a proposed agreement. To do this, they might develop joint criteria for ranking the ideas, make trades across different issues, and/or combine different options to form “packages” of agreements. The key is that the major interests or needs have been satisfied. 9. Bind the Parties to Their Agreements An important part of creating an effective agreement to resolve the dispute is developing provisions to ensure that the parties will honor the terms of that agreement. Every party must be assured that the others will carry out their parts. Parties must discuss and agree upon methods for making such assurances tangible. 10. Produce a Written Agreement The parties should document areas of agreement to ensure a common understanding of their accord, and to make certain that the terms can be remembered and communicated effectively. This step is crucial because it ensures that the parties will not leave the negotiations with different interpretations of the agreement. 11. Ratification The parties involved in the negotiations must get support for the agreement from the groups that have a role to play in carrying out the agreement. These groups should have been identified at the outset of the process and been involved directly or through adequate representation during the previous steps. Implementation Phase

12. Do It Individuals and groups implement the solution that was decided through the collaborative conflict resolution process and outlined in the written agreement. 13. Monitor the Implementation The parties must determine how they will keep track of the success of their solution. They must agree to standards for measuring compliance and a schedule for carrying out the monitoring process. Subcommittees can be charged with responsibility for monitoring and calling the parties back together if troubleshooting becomes

necessary.

Table 1. The Collaborative Conflict Resolution Process Pre-negotiation Phase 1. Getting Started 2. Involve All the Stakeholders 3. Establish Ground Rules and Set the Agenda 4. Define the Problem 5. Joint Fact-Finding Negotiation Phase 6. Develop Criteria 7. Generate Alternatives 8. Evaluate Alternatives and Create Agreements 9. Bind the Parties to Their Agreements 10. Produce a Written Agreement 11. Ratification Implementation Phase 12. Do It 13. Monitor Implementation

Additional Resources Carpenter, Susan L. and Kennedy, W.J.D. Managing Public Disputes. Jossey-Bass, 1992. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Houghton-Mifflin, 1981. Gray, Barbara. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass, 1989. Public Issues Education: Increasing Competence in Resolving Public Issues. Dale, D.D. and Hahn, A.J. (eds). Public Issues Education Materials Task Force of the National Public Policy Education Committee and PLC and PODC subcommittees of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Extension, 1994. Ury, William. Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way From Confrontation to Cooperation. Bantam Books, 1993.

Penn State Cooperative Extension’s Role in Conflict Resolution Penn State Cooperative Extension can play a variety of roles in helping you solve community conflicts over agriculture, land uses, or natural resources, depending upon your community’s needs. These potential roles include: Technical Expert/Information Provider Many extension agents have specialized expertise in agricultural production, farm management, or agricultural marketing, and can offer information to farmers and other community members about the biology, technology, or economics of agriculture. This expertise can be of great use during the information-gathering and choice stages of conflict resolution, while trying to learn more objective information about the “facts” of the problem. Cooperative extension also can serve as a technical adviser to farmers or other individuals trying to solve a problem, providing information about the facts and trade-offs involved in choosing a solution and about how to manage the conflict resolution process (such as the document you are reading now). Promoter of Conflict Resolution When individual actions by themselves are not taking care of the problem and emotions about the conflict are rising, Penn State can promote conflict resolution techniques that will help the community address the conflict.

The cooperative extension agent can help bring the different parties together initially to talk about the problem and begin working together to solve it, and help identify a trained facilitator or community mediator to work with the group. Facilitator When the affected parties initially start meeting together to work on resolving the conflict, Penn State Cooperative Extension can be a facilitator of the group process. This includes organizing and running the initial meetings, and helping the group progress through the conflict resolution stages. Mediator Sometimes an outside mediator is necessary to help move the collaborative process along, particularly if the process remains too emotional. It may be appropriate for some extension agents or specialists to play the role of the mediator, depending upon their skills and availability. Regardless of cooperative extension’s role in helping resolve the conflict in your community, Penn State Cooperative Extension is committed to supporting mutually acceptable solutions for the betterment of the people and communities involved.

Prepared by Timothy W. Kelsey, associate professor of agricultural economics, and Charles W. Abdalla, associate professor of agricultural economics. The collaborative conflict resolution process segments of this publication were adapted from Public Issues Education: Increasing Competence in Resolving Public Issues. Dale, D.D. and Hahn, A.J. (eds). Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research, extension, and resident education programs are funded in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Cooperative Extension is implied.

This publication is available in alternative media on request. The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits discrimination and harassment against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901; Tel 814-865-4700/ V, 814-863-1150/TTY. Produced by Ag Communications and Marketing © The Pennsylvania State University 1997 Web code # XA0026

10/10pdf