Negotiation Simulation: The Northern Gateway Pipeline SCENARIO: In December 2013, the Joint

Negotiation Simulation: The Northern Gateway Pipeline
SCENARIO:
In December 2013, the Joint Review Panel (JRP) for the Northern Gateway Pipeline (NGP) was tasked with preparing a recommendation to the National Energy Board (NEB) on whether to approve the construction of one of Canada’s most divisive pipeline projects. While considered critical to the economic growth of Canada’s oil industry, support for the pipeline is divided due to the disproportionate environmental, social, and economic risks and benefits associated with the project.
This six-party, multi-issue, scorable negotiation simulation requires students to adopt the position of regulatory, civilian, and industry representatives to jointly identify considerations and achieve consensus on the construction of a pipeline that is in the best interest of all Canadians. The purpose of the negotiation is to apply the pedagogy of active learning through a collective action problem. Undergraduate and graduate students alike will learn that competing perspectives and trade-offs occur in any decision involving a collective action problem, which can lead to agreements but also to failure.
Enbridge Inc.
The Government of Canada (Natural Resources Canada)
The Government of British Columbia
Forest Ethics
Unifor National
The Yinka Dene First Nation
The process involves two stages. First, each stakeholder will develop a brief that provide background on their position towards the NGP. Each stakeholder will present the findings of their brief to the class (check syllabus for dates. Links for presentations will be made available, but there is no requirement to attend).
GENERAL GUIDELINES:
Support your analysis with evidence and examples
Use searches of media, scholarly literature, “grey” literature, and more.
You will need to rely on intervenor/comments/government submissions by your stakeholder available here: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/620327
Document your sources using in-text citations and a reference list
Use the OWL’s APA reference style: owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
On citing Canadian government documents see www.lib.sfu.ca/help/writing/gov-docs-apa.
Excellent writing is expected
Use full sentences, not bullet points
An introduction and conclusion are not needed, but ensure there is coherency within paragraphs as well as transitions between paragraphs
Be aware of the audience you are writing for. Often for experts you can assume a certain level of expertise, and do not need to state obvious points, i.e. that climate change is a significant global threat.
Carefully edit the brief for sentence-level details (concision, grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.).
Use headings to guide the reader
Submission Instructions for Stakeholder Brief and Presentation
Length: 2-3 pages single-spaced, plus a reference list (only for stakeholder brief)
Label each file submitted as “Stakeholder name_last_name_last_name.docx”, “Stakeholder name-last_name_last_name.ppt”.
Upload your paper (one per group) to the appropriate LEARN dropbox by class time.
Remember to keep all your research and writing notes (you may need to return to this work, for example if I have questions about sources)
STAKEHOLDER BRIEF (20%):
This brief will inform the presentation you make to class and guide your strategy for the negotiation. The presentation an opportunity for formally introduce your stakeholder and its interests for a successful agreement on the pipeline. The brief should be formatted using the following framework, content and instructions.
Background information (~250 words)
Describe what type of group it is, its origins, members, mandate, and the broad scope of its focus/work.
Describe the specific strategies your stakeholder has used to advance its interests in the past (e.g. protest, stakeholder engagement, media).
Stakeholder position on the Northern Gateway Pipeline (500-750 words):
Describe and justify your stakeholder’s position on the NGP pipeline.
Break down this policy position into three interests. Remember, your position is what you decided on, whereas interests describe why you took that position. These interests should be simple and explainable in one sentence but justified based on background research on the existing Joint Review Panel (JRP) recommendations and positions the stakeholder has advocated in the past. To guide your thinking on interest development, consider analyzing your stakeholder’s organizational and institutional fields. Once you’ve established an interest, explain whether the existing JRP agreement supports that interest, or needs reform. Be specific by identifying characteristics of the agreement as outlined in the JRP documents.
To inform your selection of interests, rely on primary documents identified in the stakeholder identification sheet (provided on LEARN) and the JRP website which includes many documents that represent the interests of your stakeholder. If you cannot find your stakeholder in the JRP database, refer to similar stakeholders (e.g. for Unifor – identify other trade unions participating).
For example, for Enbridge:
Secure a social license for the NGP and future pipelines by expanding the constituency of support for Canada’s oil sands.
Explanation of why Enbridge supports this interest.
The existing JRP agreement is sufficient for meeting this interest, but Enbridge recommends the following changes . .
Negotiation Strategy (250-500 words)***
Describe how you plan on advancing your interests in the negotiation by:
Identifying the stakeholders who are allies that you will seek to form a coalition with to advance your interests. Describe each stakeholder and how their interests align with yours.
Identify the stakeholders you believe are adversaries and why their interests do not align with yours.
Develop a the “Best Available Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” (BATNA) by describing whether and how you are willing to compromise on any of your interests. Articulate how your BATNA expands your potential coalition beyond your allies.
***In the presentation described below, do not reveal any information on your negotiation strategy***
GROUP PRESENTATIONS (10%):
Each group will complete a 5-7 minute presentation on the findings from its brief on each stakeholder. Each group will record their presentation and submit it to the dropbox.
The presentation provides an opportunity to:
Introduce and provide background on your stakeholder to the other participants of the negotiation.
Represent the group’s position on the pipeline debate by detailing how your stakeholder views the problem.
The presentation should outline your interests for the pipeline including criteria of the JRP agreement you support, contest or would like to see reformed. Feel free to present on powerpoint.
During presentations by other stakeholders, it is important that your group gains awareness of both allies and adversaries to inform your negotiation strategy. This can help identify potential coalitions, but also areas of potential compromise. For example, some groups may wish to see criteria that means little from the perspective of your objectives, but you could support in exchange for support for one of your criteria.