Regardless of the endeavor – mining, oil and gas, water, housing, roads, lumbering – you most likely cannot get past “go” until all real and perceived stakeholders are happy. A company may have acquired all the requisite permits, licenses, and bonds, but the local municipal or county regulator bolstered by not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) minions can cause interminable and costly delays. One of the cards a company can play is the alternative dispute resolution card, preferably viewed as collaborative problem-solving (CPS). The most applicable of these tools are facilitated collaborative processes and mediation.

The ‘why’

Before talking about collaborative processes, it is helpful to understand why we consider using these processes. There has always been a gap between science and the public perception of risks and hazards. As a result, what we normally see when we attempt to have a community meeting is anger and conflict. Anger is a normal human emotion that can vary from mild irritation to violent rage. Anger is considered a secondary emotion because something usually precedes anger. It may be called a trigger, such as fear or fear connected with need. Psychologists tell us that anger, being an emotion, is something we can control.

The ‘what’

Conflict, often confused with anger, is something altogether different. Conflict, as defined in the book “Interpersonal Conflict” by W.W. Wilmot and J.L. Hocker, is “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.” There are a few operative words in this definition: “interdependent,” “perceive,” and “incompatible.” Unless there is a dependency between two or more parties, there really is not a conflict per se. It may seem a matter of semantics as to how these confrontations are labeled, but theoretically a company is not in conflict but simply in disagreement as to how something is done or not. (The word conflict is used here to denote any differences between parties.) We often hear that perception is reality. This is nowhere more true than in situations where a risk or hazard is perceived to exist in association with some activity. All the scientific data and professional opinions will not change people’s perception. As a result, what is perceived is often the root of conflict.

Incompatibility also is at the root of many conflicts. Petroleum is needed in the products desired by most people. How that petroleum gets to be incorporated in those products is incompatible with those desires.

The cause

Another aspect that needs some clarification is the question of what causes conflict. Theories abound as to the causes of conflict. I attribute two interrelated factors: cultural differences and generational differences. Cultural differences are more prevalent than we often acknowledge. In areas of the US where oil and gas are known to exist but have yet to be developed, there are a number of cultural differences. Historically, the land may have been used for ranching and is now surrounded or partially owned by city dwellers that recently purchased their piece of paradise.

Generational differences occur within all of these cultural pots. Demographers break us down by generations into traditionalists, baby boomers, Generation Xers, millenials, etc. These generational differences mixed with the cultural differences further feed the conflict cauldron. In the article “Ground Water Recharge and Chemical Contaminants: Challenges in Communicating the Connections and Collisions of Two Disparate Worlds,” published in Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Christian Daughton, a research physical scientist with the US Environmental Protection Agency, said, “Communities with a high social/cultural diversity face the greatest challenges in agreeing on what constitutes hazard.”

The solution

So what is the solution to initiating and sustaining a project with minimal conflict? The answer is to initiate a collaborative process early on. Most folks do not care what a company is about until they feel they have been heard.

The processes

Facilitated collaborative process sessions enable companies to identify and deal with NIMBYs and other concerned citizens early in their planning. They are processes that enable all stakeholders to vent and have a part in the project.

These sessions enable the project proponent to know what issues may become roadblocks that can be prepared for in advance. Most roadblock issues are unanticipated.

Facilitated processes are conducted by a third-party neutral or neutrals depending upon the needs of issues being addressed. Facilitated processes are collaborative processes that allow stakeholders and others with an interest to be involved in the process, with commitment and support from all involved. Facilitated processes are generally used when major projects are being planned that require buy-in by a number of different governmental agencies across jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. In the mix are the general public and the many special interests groups. Three facilitated processes are briefly described here as examples of what can be employed: CPS, shared vision planning (SVP), and future search conference (FSC).

CPS was promoted by the National Policy Consensus Center at a colloquium in 2002 specifically to address watershed management issues. The center said that there are some 3,000 multistakeholder watershed groups in the US. There are numerous reasons to consider using CPS. These include reduction in costs, building goodwill, time, and establishment of future working relationships.

SVP is perhaps one of the more involved collaborative processes. It is noteworthy in that it was implemented within the Niger River basin of Africa. A vision for sustainable management was able to be realized among nine countries within the basin. The geographic, geologic, topographic, climatic, and political differences could not be more complex.

FSC is a planning process as well as a problem-solving process. It is a collaborative planning method that takes a “whole system” approach and requires the input of all to make change happen. There is most definitely a need for commitment upon the part of stakeholders to achieve measureable goals. The objective of FSC is to assist diverse groups of stakeholders to find common ground.

It must be emphasized that in all the various processes for problem-solving, the facilitator’s role is primarily to keep the group whole and working together. The facilitator is not a decision-maker. Individuals or groups in conflict typically come to mediation or a facilitated meeting primarily to check where their adversary is coming from and to prepare their positions. Facilitators must keep parties on task, not to fix problems but to create a safe environment where all can realize their differences and still integrate their capabilities for a common purpose.

Mediation is a process often incorporated in agreements made as a result of one of the facilitated processes. It allows disputing entities a means to resolve their concerns in a safe and controlled environment. Conflict is inevitable; litigation is not. The high costs and delays of litigation and resulting costs and delays to a project can be avoided by engaging in mediated settlements. These can be as binding as a litigated settlement and are often transforming in regard to the subsequent working relationships. The time and costs associated with using these tools will be considerably less than the unanticipated costs of delays. As an old commercial said, “Pay now or pay later.”

A longer version of this article originally ran in The Professional Geologist and has been reprinted with permission from the author.