BLM

What BLM, Communities, and the Public Need to Know for

Successful Negotiations Involving Public Lands and Resources

Bureau of Land Management Natural Resources Guide on

Negotiation Strategies
The Caribou Bluff cabin in

BLM’s White Mountains National

Recreation Area in Alaska.

Cover photos: Members of the Central California Resource Advisory Council serve as a bridge

between local publics and the BLM to enhance management of the public lands.

Everyone engages in some form of negotiation every day,

but different approaches can yield different results. 
i

Acknowledgments

We thank the Interior Dispute Resolution Council of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, including all the bureaus of the 

Department; Ed Roberson, BLM Assistant Director, Renewable 

Resources and Planning; and Bud Cribley, Deputy Assistant 

Director, Renewable Resources and Planning; as well as Tom 

Dyer in his previous capacity as Deputy Assistant Director, 

Renewable Resources and Planning for their guidance and 

support. Also, we appreciate the review by the other BLM natural 

resources directorates and the natural resources divisions and 

programs in the Washington Office and the States.

Washington Office Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement 

and Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program staff: 

Paul Politzer, Bureau Dispute Resolution Manager, National 

Ombudsman, and Head, ADR Program; Matt Magee, Dispute 

Resolution Specialist; and Adam Eckman in his previous position 

as Legal Intern. 

Review and Comments: BLM’s ADR Advisory Council (ADR 

Manager-Advisors and Natural Resources ADR Advisors in each 

State and Center and in the Washington Office).

Oil rig in Colorado.
Negotiation is one out of many available processes

for the prevention, management, mitigation or

resolution of conflict. 

The Boise foothills in Idaho.
iii

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Preparing for Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 Determining the issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 Identifying the stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Defining the shape of the negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 Identifying boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 Identifying decision-makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 Assessing BATNAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Situation Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Approaches to Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Conventional approaches to negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Interest-based negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Negotiation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 Beginning the process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Interest identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 Option generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Evaluating the options and building agreement . . . . . 12

Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Vermillion Cliffs National 

Monument in Arizona.
Blackfoot River in Montana.

Negotiation can produce agreements

and resolutions efficiently, cost-effectively,

and cooperatively. 
1

Introduction

Overview

This guide provides information on the negotiation process and 

outlines strategies both for getting to negotiated agreements 

and for getting the most out of those agreements on natural 

resources issues in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM or 

Bureau). Everyone engages in some form of negotiation every 

day, but different approaches can yield different results. Using 

steps and strategies specifically designed for natural resources 

negotiations, the Bureau and members of the public directly 

affected by BLM decisions (stakeholders) can achieve improved 

relationships, more consistent on-the-ground implementation, 

significant savings of time and public dollars, and conservation 

and protection of natural resources. Further tips and strategies 

are featured in the shaded blue boxes.

Collaborative stakeholder engagement and 

appropriate dispute resolution

Negotiation is one out of many available processes for the 

prevention, management, mitigation or resolution of conflict. The 

terms collaborative stakeholder engagement and appropriate 

dispute resolution (ADR) refer to a broad spectrum of “upstream” 

and “downstream” processes for preventing or resolving disputes 

outside the conventional arenas of administrative adjudication 

(protests and appeals), litigation, or legislation. In some cases, 

there may be overlap in both purpose and practice among the 

various processes. However, upstream collaborative stakeholder 

engagement processes are generally designed to prevent conflict 

from arising while downstream ADR processes involve managing 

and resolving an existing dispute, often with the assistance of a 

third-party neutral. (Please see the graphic at the back of this 

guide. The continuum depicted sets out parameters for upstream 

and downstream processes from conflict prevention through 

conflict management and resolution.) For more information 

on, and strategies for, these processes in the BLM, see the 

BLM Natural Resources Policy for Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement and ADR, available online at www.blm.gov/adr.

The acronym “ADR” traditionally has been used to represent 

“alternative dispute resolution.” The substitution of “appropriate” 

in more recent scholarly literature addresses various differences 

in connotation and, in the BLM, reflects Bureau involvement 

in a broader spectrum of conflict resolution processes than 

is included in the traditional understanding of “alternative 

dispute resolution.” The broader term “appropriate dispute 

resolution” includes the traditional “alternative dispute resolution” 

processes, but also other approaches such as strategies 

relating to litigation.

Negotiation

Negotiation is a downstream ADR process in which two or more 

parties talk with each other to resolve a dispute. Negotiating is 

a practice that people engage in routinely by taking a position, 

making an argument for the position, and then making a 

concession and/or trying to convince the other party to make a 

concession. Moving beyond positions in order to understand 

the underlying interests can make negotiation more effective in 

any context. While “assisted negotiation” involves the use of 

a third-party neutral to help facilitate or manage process and 

communication, most negotiations are “unassisted” and the 

procedures are managed by the parties themselves.

Negotiation can produce agreements and resolutions efficiently, 

cost-effectively, and cooperatively. Agreements reached can be 

more creative, sustainable, and satisfactory to the parties than 

those imposed through the conventional methods of conflict 

resolution. Negotiation also can serve to mend or improve 

the overall relationship between parties when the focus is on 

identification of interests and common goals and on cooperation. 

Protests, appeals, and litigation focus on positions and win/

lose outcomes. When parties craft a solution themselves, as 

they do in negotiation, they are generally more committed to the 

agreement than when a judge or agency imposes a solution. 

Additionally, addressing conflict through negotiation often can 

resolve issues associated with protests, appeals, and litigation.

When does the BLM use negotiation?

Bureau policy is to seek to use collaborative stakeholder 

engagement and ADR processes as standard operating practice 

for natural resources projects, plans, and decision-making 

Field trip in Colorado. except under unusual conditions. Negotiation is a widely-used 
2

Introduction ❚ Negotiation Strategies

downstream process as it is often the least formal option for 

managing or resolving an existing dispute and therefore allows 

the most flexibility and creativity in an agreement. The BLM 

generally can engage in negotiation at any time during an 

administrative procedure/appeal. Negotiating through these 

stages is encouraged and supported by the BLM in appropriate 

cases. There are unusual conditions as well as some legal 

or regulatory constraints under which negotiation may not be 

appropriate, such as when constrained by law, regulation, or 

other mandates or when a decision in a conventional forum is 

important to establish new, or reaffirm existing, precedent.

The BLM often engages in either assisted or unassisted 

negotiations with stakeholders. Such negotiations are conducted 

at the Bureau’s initiative, in response to a request from the 

appellant, or in response to the Interior Board of Land Appeals 

(IBLA or Board), the Hearings Division, or the Courts. In the case 

of orders issued by the IBLA, appeals are screened by the Board 

for potential opportunities for negotiation prior to commencing 

the adjudicatory process. For more information on the IBLA ADR 

Case Referral Program, see Managing ADR in the BLM: Cases 

before the IBLA available at www.blm.gov/adr. 

Negotiation and the other upstream and downstream processes 

are used across the Bureau throughout natural resources 

and land use planning programs and the National Landscape 

Conservation System (as well as in contracting and acquisition 

and internally in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and 

employee relations). Involving and engaging the public in 

projects and plans across the range of BLM programs enhances 

Bureau effectiveness and improves the quality of decisions. 

Collaboration with other agencies, with Tribal, state, and local 

governments, and with the communities the BLM serves allows 

for shared skills, resources, and information and increases 

government transparency. Providing analysis of conflict 

prevention and dispute resolution involving the BLM (including 

litigation and other conventional dispute resolution processes), 

as well as overall coordination within the Bureau, allows the BLM 

to adapt to new information, conditions and direction, and helps 

to prevent future disputes and reduce future litigation.

The Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement 

and ADR Program

The Bureau’s Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR 

Program (ADR Program) in the Washington Office provides 

national policy development, oversight, and field support for 

conflict prevention and dispute resolution activities in the 

BLM, as well as trends analysis for protests, appeals, and 

litigation. In addition, the ADR Program provides BLM’s National 

Ombudsman, Mediation, Facilitation and Conflict Coaching 

services. 

The ADR Program serves the States and Centers through the 

Bureau ADR Advisory Council, which consists of ADR Advisors 

designated by the States, and includes: ADR Manager-Advisors 

(from State leadership and management teams), Natural 

Resources ADR Advisors (focusing on BLM’s mission programs), 

and CORE PLUS ADR Advisors (focusing on internal EEO and 

employee relations). The council members act as points of 

contact and resources for their State or Center, assist with and 

champion collaborative stakeholder engagement and ADR in 

their State or Center, and provide input on policy development for 

the national ADR Program.

More information on negotiation or other processes, as well 

as opportunities to build advanced skills and techniques, may 

be found in the Additional Resources section at the end of this 

guide, in various National Training Center and external courses, 

and by contacting the ADR Program in the BLM’s Washington 

Office, Office of the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources 

and Planning (www.blm.gov/adr) or your State’s or Center’s 

ADR Advisors.
3

Before beginning any conflict resolution process, it is important 

to evaluate the situation. The more time invested to understand 

the people, background, procedural constraints, and substance 

of a situation, the greater the likelihood of achieving a successful 

outcome. The negotiation process is often flexible and informal, 

and many negotiations are between few parties and may be less 

complex than large, multi-party negotiations. The depth and 

formality of an evaluation should be appropriate to the complexity 

of the situation, but addressing the following considerations, as 

applicable, will ensure a more productive and satisfying process. 

Additionally, the BLM should consult with the Office of the 

Solicitor as appropriate.

Determining the issues

Identifying the issue or issues involved in a dispute is important 

in determining whether negotiation is appropriate. After 

initially assessing areas of disagreement, BLM managers may 

supplement their understanding of the issues by reviewing any 

history of conflict on the issues, considering expectations of the 

Bureau and stakeholders, and addressing ambiguity regarding 

the issues between potential parties. If the issues have been, 

or are being, litigated or appealed, BLM managers should 

coordinate with the Office of the Solicitor. It is important to 

determine whether any laws, regulations, court orders, or other 

mandates could constrain parties from attempting to resolve the 

issues at an informal level. Additionally, any party may prefer a 

more conventional forum, such as IBLA, for establishing new, 

or reaffirming existing, precedent. When a conflict resolution 

approach is appropriate, a BLM manager should consider 

circumstances such as the number of parties involved, the 

relationship between the parties, and how far the conflict or 

dispute has progressed to determine if a third-party neutral may 

be necessary. These considerations are further addressed 

below.

Preparing for Negotiation

Identifying the stakeholders

When considering potential stakeholders, it is important to 

be as inclusive as possible. While many negotiations in the 

BLM appropriately will involve the Bureau and only one or two 

stakeholders or appellants, the process can be expanded, under 

appropriate circumstances, to consider inclusion of anyone 

interested in, or affected by, an issue, decision, or action, as well 

as anyone needed to implement that decision or action. After 

creating an initial list of stakeholders, it may be helpful to contact 

them and ask who else should be involved. Using contacts 

to broaden the list of potential stakeholders helps ensure that 

interested parties are not excluded from the process. Depending 

on the existing relationships and other factors, unassisted 

negotiations may become unwieldy with larger groups. A 

facilitator may be necessary to maintain a productive process 

and help the group communicate effectively.

Once all stakeholders have been identified, the next step is 

to assess their potential interests and their likely goals in a 

negotiation. In some cases, a stakeholder’s interests may not be 

clearly identified beforehand and can only be discerned during 

the negotiation process.

Work group meeting in Wyoming.

Defining the shape of the negotiation

The next step in a natural resources negotiation is to determine 

the scale and control of the issues. The scale of a negotiation 

refers to the complexity of the matter, including considerations 

such as the physical area at issue, the natural resources 

involved, and any broader implications of the issue to affected 

parties, the BLM, and the public. A broad-scale negotiation may 

need to address different issues than would be the focus of a 

fine-scale process, even among the same stakeholders.

Discussion held in Colorado.
4

Control in a negotiation refers to the balance of power between 

the participants “at the table,” but also to the relationship between 

those people and their larger organizations or constituencies. It 

is important to assess early where decision-making authority 

lies. For example, do the participants in the process have 

the authority to come to an agreement without first going to 

their constituencies or management for approval? (See also 

“Identifying decision-makers” below.)

Identifying boundaries

Rules and regulations beyond the participants’ control can limit 

the scope of a negotiation. Congressional or executive direction, 

as well as judicial and administrative legal precedents, may 

set firm boundaries on what is possible for a BLM manager 

to implement and therefore on which issues the Bureau can 

negotiate. Likewise, Bureau policies and regulations may affect 

the flexibility or priorities of a BLM manager in a negotiation. 

Analysis of these external boundaries should provide an initial 

indication as to the specific issues that can be addressed by 

negotiation and where there is room for compromise. 

It is also important to examine how rules and regulations affect 

other agencies, organizations, and stakeholders. Doing so can 

clarify the roles that other parties, both internal and external to 

the negotiation, are going to play. In addition, it is important to 

look for areas of flexibility in policy, rules, and regulations both 

internally and externally. Some policies may provide flexibility 

with respect to when certain obligations must be carried out or 

which parties must be involved.

Once these boundaries have been identified, their implications 

should be explained to all participants in order to improve 

procedural understanding. Explaining these boundaries is an 

Interview in Montana. Photo by Pamela Jakes.

essential part of bridge-building with the parties involved in order 

to establish and build relationships. 

Identifying decision-makers

In natural resources negotiations, there may be multiple decisionmakers exercising authority on different issues and at different 

stages of the negotiation. It is important to identify and discuss 

these complexities early in a negotiation process in order to 

keep the negotiation process productive. A negotiation is more 

likely to succeed when the participants understand who the 

decision-makers are, the extent of their authority, and the points 

in the process at which decisions will be made. As discussed, 

participants may need constituency or management authorization 

for binding decisions, but a clearly articulated decision-space and 

identified approval process empower the parties to efficiently and 

effectively build a satisfactory resolution. 

The extent of each participant’s decision-making authority 

should be discussed at the outset. This includes explanations 

and analyses of position within agencies, organizations, and 

governmental bodies, and the existence of agency relationships. 

Once the decision-makers and their respective areas of authority 

have been identified, an agenda can be constructed using this 

information to outline decision-making points in the process. If 

appropriate, given the formality or complexity of a negotiation, 

an agenda may be written and distributed, but these procedural 

Meeting of decision-makers in Oregon.

Preparing for Negotiation ❚ Negotiation Strategies
5

points should be understood and agreed to by the parties in any 

negotiation.

Assessing BATNAs

Having identified the parties to a negotiation, the parties’ 

perceived interests, and the methods they are likely to use to 

achieve those interests, the next step is to consider the Bureau’s 

“Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” or BATNA. The 

term BATNA refers to the basic standard that parties should 

consider in determining if an agreement is in their best interest. 

By comparing a proposal to their other options and to the most 

likely outcome of the actions they will take if no agreement is 

reached, parties can determine the value of an agreement. It is 

also important to consider the alternatives open to other parties 

if no agreement is reached and to “reality check” as it is common 

to be overly optimistic about one’s own BATNA. An accurate 

assessment of all parties’ BATNAs can give a better idea of the 

space for agreement.

Situation Assessments

In less complex negotiations, internally evaluating these 

considerations may be sufficient. For larger negotiations or 

Alternatives to a negotiated agreement

Even parties with strong BATNAs have incentives to seek 

agreement through negotiation. As mentioned previously, an 

agreement that meets the needs of all stakeholders will have 

increased support for implementation on the ground and 

improve both relationships and future negotiations. Another 

benefit of negotiating is control. If a party’s BATNA involves 

litigation or an appeal, there is always the possibility they will 

receive a less favorable outcome than expected. Parties 

who are informally negotiating with each other have the 

choice to accept or reject a proposed agreement, instead of 

having a solution imposed upon them. Thus, participants in 

a negotiation retain control over the outcome of the process. 

The certainty of an agreed upon solution may be worth more 

to a participant than potential gains from other alternatives.

Management of the Jupiter

Lighthouse has been a

collaborative effort among 

federal, county, local,

and nongovernmental

partners in Florida.

Negotiation Strategies ❚ Preparing for Negotiation
6

more controversial issues, it may be helpful to address these 

considerations in a formal, written “situation assessment.” This 

can be done by BLM staff, administered in a workshop with the 

other stakeholders, or contracted through a neutral third-party. 

Preparing for Negotiation ❚ Negotiation Strategies

Selecting a mutually agreed upon method can serve to achieve 

buy-in among the parties and give legitimacy to the process. For 

the steps involved in a formal situation assessment, please see 

Situation Assessments available online at www.blm.gov/adr.

Dolly Varden Mountains in Nevada.
7

An essential concept in recognizing different approaches to 

negotiation is the difference between positions and interests. 

“Positions” are actions or solutions that parties set out as “what 

they have to get” from an agreement or from the process. 

Parties’ positions do not necessarily reflect what they need to 

get to make an agreement viable. “Interests” are the underlying 

values, needs, or minimum requirements. Interests may be 

common to all parties, but because positions are more readily 

proffered in a negotiation than interests, dialogue between 

parties often focuses on these preconceived proposals, thus 

making a successful agreement more elusive. When parties 

focus on uncovering and satisfying interests, they are more likely 

to come to an agreement that is acceptable to all involved.

Conventional approaches to negotiation

Two broad categories of commonly used approaches to 

negotiation are “competitive” and “cooperative,” both of which 

tend to focus on positions.

Competitive

Negotiators who use a competitive approach aggressively 

advocate for their position and are disinclined to accept any 

agreement other than that which satisfies their preconceived 

goals. Using this approach, the objective is to “win,” if need be, 

at the expense of other parties. For natural resources issues, 

competitive approaches can lead to intractability as negotiators 

Approaches to Negotiation

Understanding positions vs. interests

The classic example that clarifies the difference between 

positions and interests is the story of two children fighting 

over an orange. Each child’s position is that he should have 

the orange, and a reasonable compromise imposed by their 

mother might be to give each half. However, to uncover 

the children’s interests by focusing on the “why,” the mother 

would learn that the children are making a Mother’s Day 

breakfast, and one child has an interest only in the rind for 

a zest while the other has an interest in the fruit to make 

juice. By splitting the orange a different way, each child can 

achieve his whole objective and satisfy their common goal.

Strategies for negotiating around emotion

Negative emotional responses can derail a productive 

negotiation. It is important for each participant to recognize 

this potential pitfall and work to separate emotions from 

the problem-solving process. When faced with another 

participant’s emotions, it is important to avoid the standard responses of striking back, giving in, or breaking off. 

Recognizing these impulses is the most important aspect of 

preventing them. Refocusing on the process and responding based on interests and objective standards can keep the 

negotiation productive.

focused on winning their positions may miss opportunities for 

discretion, compromise, or common interests, thus unnecessarily 

escalating a dispute to litigation or appeal. 

The competitive approach is also less likely to take into account 

preservation of the relationship between the negotiating parties. 

As such, while competitive negotiators initially may succeed 

in winning their positions, the approach quickly becomes 

less effective in future negotiations with the same parties. In 

managing public lands and resources for multiple-use, the BLM 

often is in a position to negotiate with the same stakeholders 

multiple times in multiple situations. Competitive approaches 

from either the Bureau or stakeholders can create an adversarial 

relationship, thus decreasing the potential for success in future 

negotiations.

Additionally, the competitive approach often stifles the 

productivity of negotiation. By not examining the underlying 

interests of all parties, it is possible to miss potential solutions 

that might have better met the interests of the “winning” party, 

as well as better meeting the interests of the other parties and 

improving relationships. Even where competitive tactics are 

successful, the agreements may not achieve long term buy-in 

from the other parties, thus losing support for implementation on 

the ground.

Cooperative

Another common negotiation style is the cooperative approach, 

which seeks to reach agreement by offering concessions to the 
8

Approaches to Negotiation ❚ Negotiation Strategies

other parties in a negotiation. Cooperative negotiators often 

expect that by offering concessions to the other side, they create 

a moral responsibility for reciprocation. The shortcomings of this 

strategy are evident when one of the negotiating parties does 

not reciprocate concessions and instead takes advantage of a 

generous negotiator. However, even in negotiations where both 

parties are cooperative this approach often does not achieve the 

most beneficial results. The cooperative approach still generally 

focuses on positions. Thus, cooperative negotiators may find 

compromise between preconceived demands but rarely explore 

the potential of new or creative solutions.

Interest-based negotiation

Interest-based negotiation, as the label suggests, focuses 

on interests rather than positions. Various approaches and 

theories of negotiation can be linked to these principles, such 

as “Principled Negotiation” or “Mutual Gains Bargaining.” In 

general, all of these approaches seek to separate the people 

from the problem and to “expand the pie” by looking deeper into 

the underlying needs and interests of the parties. Rather than 

defending a preconceived position, participants in an interestbased negotiation generate options based on the needs of 

the parties involved and then arrive at a solution based on the 

objective standard of how well that solution satisfies those needs. 

This approach creates an atmosphere of mutual problem-solving. 

Instead of working against one another, the parties work together 

against the problem to identify interests and resolve differences.

Emotions often become entangled with the goals and objectives 

of negotiation and can distract participants from a productive 

discussion of underlying merits. By discarding positions and 

focusing instead on interests, negotiators can reduce the 

negative emotions linked with defending positions. Issues 

involving public lands and resources can often polarize the 

stakeholders in a community. Interest-based negotiation allows 

parties to productively discover common interests and focus their 

energies on creating solutions.

While interest-based negotiation can more effectively and efficiently meet the needs of all participants than a competitive 

approach, there are strategies from this more conventional 

style which are useful in achieving beneficial outcomes. One 

of these strategies is “starting high.”

There is a cultural norm for competitive negotiators to overstate positions in order to achieve a result favorable to their 

interests. In a simple sales negotiation, for example, a seller 

may state a high price (e.g., $100), and the buyer counter 

with a low offer ($10). They likely both expect to then bargain to a fair price in the middle (perhaps $50). Given this 

cultural expectation, this strategy actually improves feelings 

on both sides: the high starting price makes the buyer feel 

he achieved a “good deal” and vice versa. A buyer expecting this sort of give and take may actually feel insulted if the 

seller started at her limit. For example, if the seller cannot 

sell the item for less than $40 and begins by asking for $40, 

she cannot play along in the bargaining back and forth, and 

the buyer might feel that there was no compromise from the 

other side, regardless of the final price.

While avoiding any untruthfulness, it is possible in a natural 

resources negotiation to express interests in a range of 

possible alternatives. For example, the temperature of a 

stream might be acceptable for a fish species within a given 

window. Informing other parties of this range allows them 

to know that they achieved a “good deal” (and present that 

achievement to their constituencies) if an agreement allows 

for more of their activity by edging water temperatures up 

from the lowest end of that window while keeping inside the 

acceptable range.

Strategies from competitive bargaining: Starting High
9

Negotiation Strategies ❚ Approaches to Negotiation

Strategies for focusing the negotiation

Asking certain questions can be helpful in shifting from 

conventional negotiation approaches to a more productive 

discussion of interests (e.g., “What is it about _____ that appeals to you?”), values (“Is _____ a high priority for you?”), 

and standards (“If we can accomplish _____ today, would 

you say yes?”). Open-ended questions help to get other 

participants talking and yield more information than pointed 

yes-or-no questions. Asking “why” and “what if” questions 

can often draw out underlying interests and help to steer the 

conversation away from positional bargaining.

A common metaphor for the objective of a negotiation process 

is “the pie.” Negotiators who use a competitive strategy attempt 

to secure as much as possible for themselves, thus leaving less 

for the other parties. Those who use a cooperative strategy 

attempt to share the pie, but still divide a fixed amount. Some 

very simple negotiations may resemble the pie analogy. If no 

Facilitator takes 

notes at a meeting 

in California.

other interests or priorities exist for any of the parties other than 

their own share of a finite resource, then one party getting more 

of that “pie” necessarily results in other parties receiving less. In 

more complex situations – more often encountered in managing 

lands and resources for multiple-use – different parties may have 

different priorities, or differing interests which are not mutually 

exclusive, or undisclosed shared interests which are hidden 

beneath conflicting positions. Interest-based negotiation seeks 

to “expand the pie” by exploring these factors to generate options 

that can satisfy all interests.

Additionally, interest-based negotiation uses objective criteria 

to weigh potential solutions. Instead of measuring success 

based on the degree to which a final agreement resembles a 

preconceived position, success is measured instead on how well 

the resolution is able to meet the interests of all participants. 

This creates outcomes rooted in rationale and fairness.

Strategies from competitive bargaining: 

Diminishing Concessions

Again, given cultural expectations of competitive bargaining, it is sometimes difficult for parties in a negotiation to 

separate statements of honest limits from “krunching.” (A 

“krunch” is the use of a phrase such as “you’ve got to do 

better than that,” commonly employed in negotiations to 

indicate rejection yet solicit another offer). Many negotiators 

actually draw a clearer picture of the other party’s bottom 

line intuitively based on the pattern of concessions. In the 

example of a sales transaction, if the seller starts at $100, 

and then concedes in decreasing amounts ($70, $60, $55, 

$54), the buyer understands that he is getting close to her 

bottom line. The seller krunching “I can’t do a penny under 

$60” is much less likely to be taken seriously.
Anasazi ruins

in New Mexico.

Each negotiation has its own unique procedural elements

to be addressed, but common procedural decisions include

questions of decision-making authority, issues of privacy

or confidentiality, and definitions of agreement. 
11

The Negotiation Process

Negotiations, especially when unassisted by a third-party neutral, 

are less likely to have a set agenda or procedural checklist 

than some of the more formal conflict resolution processes. 

However, all negotiations are much more likely to be successful 

if the process includes the elements of interest identification, 

option generation, evaluation, and agreement building. Because 

most negotiations do not have the assistance of a third-party to 

manage the process or facilitate communication, it is important 

that the parties are equipped to undertake these roles for 

themselves. The typical negotiation involving the BLM and one 

or more appellants usually does not involve a third-party neutral.

Beginning the process

Issues in a negotiation can generally be classified as either 

substantive or procedural. The substantive issues are those 

issues intrinsic to the negotiation. The procedural issues relate 

to the manner in which substantive discussions will be carried 

out. When starting the negotiation process, it is advantageous 

to begin with the procedural issues. Questions of procedure do 

not carry the same emotions which are often associated with 

the substance of a negotiation. Procedural issues also allow 

the parties to begin discussions of what they hope to achieve 

through negotiation without providing an avenue for advocacy of 

their substantive positions.

Negotiation requires several decisions regarding procedure 

which can be made at the outset of negotiation. Each negotiation 

has its own unique procedural elements to be addressed, but 

common procedural decisions include questions of decisionmaking authority, issues of privacy or confidentiality, and 

definitions of agreement. Establishing ground rules also is an 

important step to ensure at the outset of a negotiation.

It is helpful to develop criteria for success early in the process. 

Before identifying interests and generating options, participants 

should discuss what a successful agreement would look like. In 

negotiations involving multiple parties, some agreements could 

be reached by a majority vote, but most are based on consensus, 

requiring all parties to accept (or not object to) the proposed 

solution. Discussing these procedural questions at the beginning 

of the negotiation sets the stage for the rest of the process and 

also can help to avoid unproductive conflict over procedural 

issues later in the process.

Interest identification

As discussed earlier, the most critical aspect of effective 

negotiation is the identification of interests. By focusing on 

the underlying needs of the parties, the process can uncover 

common ground and other paths to a mutually beneficial 

agreement. In addition to identifying and clarifying the interests 

of the BLM, managers and staff involved in negotiations can 

ask certain questions of other participants in order to discover 

and develop a clear picture of all parties’ interests. Clarifying 

participants’ positions can transition to questions focused on the 

reasoning behind those positions. Questions focusing on the 

needs which a position is intended to address help to steer the 

negotiation toward a more productive discussion of underlying 

Active listening

Listening is as critical as speaking for effective communication. Active listening involves complete attention to the 

speaker, but it also involves occasional summaries of what 

was heard to ensure understanding. In any dialogue, it is 

common to focus on formulating a response while someone else is talking, but this tends to perpetuate adversarial 

communication. Through active listening, participants may 

benefit from hearing new ideas or concepts, and misunderstandings can be avoided.

Reframing

It can be helpful to reframe negative statements to make 

them more positive or neutral, providing validation to the 

speaker and clarification of the statement while reducing 

the level of defensiveness. Participants should seek to turn 

demands into interests and complaints into requests without 

changing the facts or minimizing the party’s concern. (“You 

will close the area to OHVs” might be reframed by responding, “I understand that you want to prevent damage to this 

habitat.” “Our input is ignored” might be reframed by asking, 

“How might we better include you in the decision-making 

process?”) 
12

interests. It is also important to lead by example by presenting 

needs and requirements with an open mind for possible 

solutions.

The interest identification process is valuable for finding common 

ground and other opportunities to build agreement. Exploring 

common interests and shared goals is particularly helpful in 

beginning a productive dialogue. Another element to seek early 

in the process is “dovetailing” interests. Parties may be able to 

base an overall agreement on an underlying disagreement about 

priorities, such as where a party highly values a certain outcome 

in an issue that another party views as unimportant. If each party 

gives away something of low priority for themselves in exchange 

for something of high priority (like trading the rind for the fruit in 

the children and the orange example), both sides realize a net 

gain. 

Option generation

After interests have been identified, the participants may begin 

generating options for agreement. Negotiations can become 

derailed by premature judgment of options, as this can stifle 

the creativity required to propose unobvious options which 

might satisfy the interests of all participants. It is important to 

be open to innovative and unexpected proposals and to ask 

others to adopt a similar approach. Setting aside a time for 

“brainstorming” and saving review of the proposals for a later 

point in the negotiation can be helpful in avoiding premature 

judgment.

In brainstorming possible solutions, it should be clear to all 

participants that the options put forth at this time are not binding. 

Criticism and evaluative judgments should be postponed until 

the parties have exhausted their resources for option generation. 

Proposals that may prove ultimately unfeasible still can inspire 

other ideas that will work. Having a broad array of options allows 

the participants to explore innovative solutions.

Evaluating the options and building agreement

After brainstorming, the participants can objectively analyze 

the options which have been proposed. Considering all of the 

ideas generated in the previous step, participants should make 

note of those which are the most promising. Again, objective 

criteria should be used in evaluating potential solutions. Instead 

of judging options against preconceived positions, participants 

should consider how effectively the various options meet the 

interests of all parties and how feasible each would be to 

implement given external boundaries. Using these criteria, 

participants may work to further improve the most promising 

options.

The Negotiation Process ❚ Negotiation Strategies

Suspending judgment

It is often difficult for participants in a negotiation to fully 

embrace a brainstorming session and suspend their reactions to the ideas being proposed. It is sometimes helpful to 

separate the time or place of option generation in order to 

reinforce the procedural separation. If a negotiation is taking 

place over multiple sessions, it may be possible to generate 

options in a different meeting than the evaluation stage, or 

even simply after a short break. It can be helpful to rearrange the physical environment in order to stimulate a more 

productive mental environment. During brainstorming, the 

participants might shift a room so that they are seated sideby-side, “facing the problem,” rather than facing one another 

as adversaries. 

Steens Mountain CMPA in

Oregon. Photo by Jerry Magee.
13

If participants find an overall agreement elusive, they might 

work to build smaller agreements on individual issues. In this 

“building-blocks” approach, each issue is taken separately 

through the negotiation processes above. This allows the 

parties to move forward on the issues where they can reach 

agreement instead of getting bogged down on all the issues 

because of those which are more difficult. The results can then 

be assembled into the structure of a final overall agreement. 

Depending on the issues at hand, as well as the power balance 

among the parties, this method may be adapted to keep 

agreements “tentative” allowing parties to make a final decision 

by focusing on the package of agreements as a whole.

Commitment to an agreement

Since parties in an interest-based negotiation retain control over 

the outcome, they typically develop a sense of ownership of and 

investment in the ideas, options, and agreements generated 

in the process. This generally translates into heightened 

commitment to carry an agreement forward and support its 

implementation. Commitment to an agreement can be further 

strengthened by formalizing it in writing. This ensures that the 

parties have understood each other, gives the participants a 

concrete product to take back to their constituents for review and 

ratification where applicable, and provides a vehicle for carrying 

the agreement through established decision-making channels 

where necessary.

In the larger, multi-party negotiations, the participants at the table 

often represent the interests of larger constituencies. Unless 

empowered to make commitments, these representatives may 

need to take the drafted agreement back to constituents (or 

management) in order to bind that party to the agreement. This 

is a critical juncture, and the outcome may be a function of 

the extent to which their constituents agreed to vest authority 

in their representative to speak on their behalf. Constituent 

representatives also may have to explain how the agreement 

meets the constituents’ interests even if it does not satisfy all 

of their expectations or desires. The participants who write 

the agreement may need to meet again to discuss requested 

revisions. When each participant’s constituents agree to support 

the agreement, the participants or final decision-makers ratify it 

with their signatures.

Implementation of an agreement

Most negotiated agreements will provide for future actions. A 

good agreement will include a schedule for implementation when 

applicable. This schedule should include a clear statement 

of necessary actions, expected results, and contingencies or 

results if commitments are not met. Such a schedule provides a 

mechanism for ensuring that the commitments are binding on all.

Negotiation takes place in a dynamic world. Since circumstances 

change during and after discussions, in many situations it 

is important to monitor outcomes and their implementation. 

Monitoring helps to ensure compliance with the parties’ 

intentions and allows implementation to be measured against 

objective expectations. A good monitoring program also will 

provide a mechanism for modifying or adapting the outcome 

to accommodate new information, shifting conditions, or 

unanticipated needs.

Maintain relationships into the future

Often, participants in a negotiation will convene again in the 

future for either related or unrelated issues. For this reason, it is 

valuable during and after the process to maintain relationships 

with the other parties. Meeting where an action is being 

implemented and/or scheduling follow-up meetings also may 

work well for maintaining positive stakeholder relations.

Negotiation Strategies ❚ The Negotiation Process

Saving face

Negative emotions associated with hurt egos often impede 

negotiations. It is important not only to be respectful of other 

participants in a negotiation, but to maintain an atmosphere 

in which all parties feel their input and interests are valued. 

When a “win” in a negotiation is at the expense of another 

party, that party may “lose face.” This is not only damaging to the relationships and the potential for future agreements, but may impede the ability of the participant to sell 

the agreement to a larger constituency where applicable. 

Participants can help to ensure that all parties “save face” by 

being careful not to dismiss other parties’ interests, offering 

choices instead of ultimatums, and working toward mutual 

satisfaction instead of “victory.”
Commitment to an agreement can be further strengthened

by formalizing it in writing. 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.
15

Additional Resources

The BLM Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement and ADR Program

Assistance with implementation of or participation in a 

negotiation process (or other conflict prevention or conflict 

resolution processes) is available through the Washington 

Office Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate 

Dispute Resolution Program (ADR Program) in the Office of the 

Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning (WO200). Responsibilities of the BLM’s ADR Program include policy 

development, oversight, and Field support, in addition to national 

Ombudsman, Mediation, Facilitation, and Conflict Coaching 

services. To obtain these services or additional information, 

please contact the ADR Program (contact information available 

at www.blm.gov/adr) or contact your State’s or Center’s ADR 

Advisors.

ADR Program Website

Electronic versions of this and other national guidance are 

available from the ADR Program’s website at www.blm.gov/adr. 

The website materials also include additional policy, suggested 

strategies, and best management practices.

Further Reading

There are many books on the negotiation process and on 

strategies for successful negotiations. A keyword search on the 

web will offer an unlimited number of sources and resources. 

The following is an abbreviated list of some of the most relevant 

books for natural resource managers, as well as some of the 

classic texts on interest-based negotiation.

Deborah M. Kolb and Judith Williams, Everyday Negotiation: 

Navigating the Hidden Agendas in Bargaining, JosseyBass, 2003.

Gerard I. Nierenberg, Fundamentals of Negotiating, Perennial 

Library, 1973.

Lawrence Susskind, Paul F. Levy, and Jennifer ThomasLarmer, Negotiating Environmental Agreements: How 

to Avoid Escalating Confrontation, Needless Costs, and 

Unnecessary Litigation, Island Press, 2000.

Matthew McKinney and William Harmon, The Western 

Confluence: A Guide to Governing Natural Resources, 

Island Press, 2004.

Patrick Field and Lawrence Susskind, Dealing with an Angry 

Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes, 

Free Press, 1996.

Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using 

Emotions as You Negotiate, Penguin Books, 2005.

Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating 

Agreement without Giving In, Penguin Books, 1992. 

William Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from 

Confrontation to Cooperation, Bantam Books, 1993.

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail in Wyoming.
16

Additional Resources ❚ Negotiation Strategies

Continuum of Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

for Natural Resources in the Bureau of Land Management

Typical Steps in an ADR Process

1. Preparing and documenting an ADR 

Suitability Determination, including a go/

no-go decision, Conducting Situation 

Assessment as part of the Determination.

2. Where appropriate, developing an ADR

Plan: identifying parties, processes,

strategies, and determining need for a

third-party neutral

3. Convening parties; establishing ground rules

4. Identifying issues: storming and norming

5. Establishing common ground: goals, values

6. Identifying interests vs. positions

7. Building consensus (buy-in)

8. Developing and finalizing an agreement

Common strategies in an ADR Process

• Framing; re-framing

• (Identifying) BATNAs 

• Caucusing; Mutual Gains Bargaining

• Bridging; Blocking; Logrolling

• Decision analysis; Minority reports

Key Components of the Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR Program

BLM Conflict Prevention/Collaborative Stakeholder

Engagement Processes (Upstream)

• Public Outreach (Early Participation in Projects, Plans, and 

Decision-Making): Meetings (one-on-one, groups/stakeholders/

public (scoping, etc.), town halls, workshops, visioning on 

appropriate use of lands and resources, community-based 

collaboratives) Other (internet, print, phone, email)

• BLM/Tribal Communities Early Involvement and Early 

Communication: Based on trust responsibility; to begin prior 

to formal consultation; Government -to-Government 

• Group Interventions

• Cooperating Agency Agreements

• Ombudsman (including Conflict Coaching): the public 

(including communities, stakeholders, appellants, protesters, 

interest groups, American Indians and Alaskan Natives); other 

agencies; employees

BLM Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution 

Processes (Downstream)

• Traditional Dispute Resolution Processes: Assisted or 

unassisted negotiation, mediation, facilitation, conciliation, 

joint fact-finding, negotiated rulemaking

• Other: Settlement judge (Hearings Division); Administrative 

Order (IBLA); Court order; Congressional mandates; 

Administration directives; Litigation prevention

Upstream Processes Downstream Processes

Risk of Protests, Appeals, Litigation

Conflict Prevention/Collaborative Engagement

Conflict Management/Resolution
The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products

does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government.
P-450B

BLM/WO/GI-10/002+1800

October 2009

Bureau of Land Management

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and

Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program

Office of the Assistant Director,

Renewable Resources and Planning (WO-200)

www.blm.gov/adr

Public lands in Oregon and Washington.