WIXLIB

Relationship13. Consider your current working relationship and your ideal working relationship. If there’s a gap, diagnosewhy it exists.14. What can you can do in your next meeting(s) to address that gap?Communication15. What questions can you ask to gather more information (for example, about their Interests) that would behelpful?16. What information do you plan to share with them and how?MERCY CORPSPLAYBOOK: Negotiating for Humanitarian Access A9

Consider the following general Do’s and Don’ts for your humanitarianaccess negotiations:Do the followingDon’t do the followingDo cultivate relationships and invest time withstakeholders by demonstrating respect to those inpower, sharing useful information, showing familiarfaces and consistent faces (sending same peopleinstead of rotating), and leveraging local contacts andnetworksDon’t try to go around / above the military to stateauthoritiesDo coordinate with other NGOs to align on anegotiation strategyDon’t try to skirt around official channels by “sweettalking” soldiers at checkpoints on an ad hoc basisDo maintain close coordination, in particular, with ICRCDon’t drive around in flashy 4x4sDo cooperate and share information via third partieslike INSO or local authorities so that key actorsunderstand your mandate and missionDon’t avoid engaging with the military, when itmay be necessary to do so (directly or indirectly) toachieve your objectivesDo provide frequent updates to local governmentofficials, as they’ll be more likely to share informationwith youDon’t attract attention by maintaining a largepresence of expats, especially any nationalities thatare generally unpopularDo use the Stakeholder Mapping Tool to both 1)identify members of your negotiation team andtheir roles, and 2) develop an optimal strategy forinfluencingDon’t rely on the UN to forge a path of access for allhumanitarians, as the UN may rely on armed escorts,even for joint assessmentsDo consider age, ethnicity, religion, sex, and ability—and how those intersectional identities are likely to beperceived by your counterparts—in the make-up ofyour access negotiation teamDon’t assume that cultural norms would preventwomen from being effective humanitariannegotiators. In practice, there is less documentedresistance to the presence of women front-linehumanitarian staff from traditional societies and morefrom institutional staffing biasesDo get multiple armed groups to agree to exactlythe same terms (as a Standard of Legitimacy whennegotiating with Group A, you can reference thatGroup B has agreed to these terms)Don’t disregard traditional and customary normsDon’t show up late to meetings with governmentagencies, even if those meetings are just preliminarydiscussionsDon’t make promises you can’t keepDo ensure that any agreement with armed groups iswell-known within the group, and have staff carry a copyof the agreement with them and the phone number of theperson in authority who made the agreementDo work with a commander who has authority and ispresent in the operational areaMERCY CORPSDon’t assume that appealing to religious beliefs orpolitical views will generate a positive reactionPLAYBOOK: Negotiating for Humanitarian Access A10

Dealing with Hard BargainersLead the Way!The vast majority of negotiators choose their approach to negotiation based on the approach you use. In otherwords, they react to you. You therefore have enormous power to lead the way and establish the method for how you,and they, will negotiate. In instances where you are in the position to do this, take a tough, “on-the-merits” approachto the substance of the negotiation (i.e. use the element of Standards of Legitimacy to explain why your organizationdeserves humanitarian access), while simultaneously building the Relationship with your counterpart by beingtrustworthy, transparent, and reliable.Step Back and Diagnose What is Going OnDo not simply react. Figuratively step out of the negotiation for a moment to assess the dynamics. What “game”are they playing? Are they making threats? Are they demanding Commitments prematurely? Which of the SevenElements are they using (and how), and which are they not using? Whenever a negotiation seems not to be going aswell as you’d like, stop. Before reacting, try to understand the source and the nature of the problem. Then considerpossible approaches to bring the negotiation back on track.Make a Decision - Tolerate the Tactics or Change the DynamicAsk yourself if you want to play their game or change it. If you think you may simply need to go along with themfor a while—to get their attention, to call their bluff, show them how unhelpful their tactics are, or meet their interestin negotiating that way—go ahead and do so. Just keep in mind that once you have achieved your objective(e.g.,getting their attention), you may then want to change the dynamics.Stakeholder Mapping for Multi-PartyNegotiationsHumanitarian access negotiations are complexand involve many actors. Gaining the buyin of the greatest number of stakeholdersmaximizes the likelihood that theimplementation of negotiated agreementswill be successful. However, consulting withevery person affected by a negotiation canbecome an interminable process. StakeholderMapping is a preparation tool you canuse at the start of your humanitarian accessnegotiations to analyze relationships andthen determine how best to invest your limitedtime with stakeholders in what sequence.By mapping your sphere of influence andanalyzing the relationships that exist, youcan determine the optimal sequence ofconversations to maximize the likelihoodof getting approval for access.MERCY CORPSSTAKEHOLDER MAPPINGGOVERNMENT AGENCYMERCY CORPSARMED GROUPTankoDanfari–Victor? Peter–Michael–Rose Isaac Us Ezekiel JosephDeferential relationships in which one person defers to another, typically because of hierarchy and/ordeep subject matter expertise.Influential relationships (e.g., with colleagues and peers) in which each party can shape the other'sopinions, beliefs, and perspectives.Antagonistic relationships characterized by mutual mistrust and suspicionPLAYBOOK: Negotiating for Humanitarian Access A11

Here are the steps:1. Identify the stakeholders. Write the names of all key stakeholders within your team and within each entitywith which you are negotiating. Consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of asking national or partnerstaff to try to help advance negotiations with armed groups by leveraging personal contacts. Decide on anapproach and roles of each negotiation team member, and communicate them broadly so that the entire teamis aligned. Remember to identify who within the counterpart entity could veto or derail a decision and whosesupport will be essential for implementation.2. Assess where power resides. Draw circles that correspond to the level of power or authority possessed byeach actor. Consider those with informal power (based on expertise, experience, reputation, etc.). For yourteam, identify which staff are best positioned to influence your counterparts. Consider their identity, their hometown / village, their experience, their skills, etc.3. Analyze support and opposition. Use a sign if an actor is in favor of your proposal related to access. Usea – sign if they are opposed. means they are on the fence. ? indicates that you don’t know where they stand.To understand stakeholders’ actual or likely opposition, consider the consequences the proposal would createfor them.4. Analyze relationships among stakeholders. Draw lines between the parties to indicate relationship patternsof Deference, Influence, and Antagonism.AA Deference, marked by a one-way solid green arrow, describes a relationship pattern where Party Awill almost certainly do what Party B does, or at least do what Party B advises, asks or directs Party A todo. In these cases, Party A defers to Party B’s opinion or interest. There are many sources of deference,including power and authority, personal respect or admiration, mentorship, sponsorship, political power,strength, institutional seniority, expertise, status, reputation, etc. Ask the question: “Who, if anyone, defersto whom?”AA Influence, marked by a two-way dotted blue arrow, is a relationship pattern where Party A is likelyto follow Party B’s lead, or is likely to do what Party B advises, asks or directs Party A to do. There aremany sources of influence, such as trust in judgment, good intentions, a successful track record, or sharedinterests. Patterns of influence can be identified on your map by posing the question: “Who, if anyone,can help secure agreement with others?”AA Antagonism, marked by a two-way solid red arrow, is a relationship pattern where Party A will not followParty B’s lead, or is likely to refuse what Party B advises, asks or directs Party A to do. There are manysources of antagonism, including mistrust of judgment, an unsuccessful track record, or conflicting interests.A question that can be asked to identify patterns of antagonism among the mapped players is: “Whoseagreement, if anyone’s, would prevent or preclude agreement with others?” Patterns of antagonism canalso be tied to tensions that exist between parties. Identify these tensions and their relative strength asthese could impact how parties interact with each other.Consider the specific context as you analyze the relationship patterns.5. Develop an influence strategy. Implement a sequence of negotiations that helps you improve your influenceand achieve your negotiation goals. Avoid blindsiding or working around someone who should be consulted.Use the following criteria to set up your strategy for achieving buy-in:MERCY CORPSPLAYBOOK: Negotiating for Humanitarian Access A12

EfficiencyAA Look at the patterns of influence and deference to determine whose buy-in would lead many others tofollow suit.AA Identify a sequence of conversations that would create the most buy-in in the least amount of time and effort.AA Be conscious of whether the influential parties are supporters.AA Consider the most antagonistic relationships and how you can mitigate their impact on the negotiation.PredispositionAA Determine who will most likely support or hinder your negotiation plan.AA Consider how these actors will impact otherparties’ decisions (e.g., an actor to whichmany defer who is antagonistic to your planwill cause an obstacle to overcome). In this case,consider other actors who can influence them.AA Based on the three relationship types,consider how different actors will react to thenegotiations and create a plan to mitigatenegative relationships.AccessibilityAA Identify whom you can realistically engagewith to build support for the negotiation.Note that while there may be an idealsequence of conversations, it may not befeasible due to political or relationshipbarriers. Brainstorm ways to circumventa situation like this by leveraging otherrelationships with influential stakeholders.CONSIDERING GENDER:Sex refers to the biological differences betweenmen and women. Gender is a social constructionthat differentiates the distinct experiences of men,women, boys, and girls. Taking a gender perspectivemeans asking how situations will differently affectmen, women, boys and girls.In situations of humanitarian crisis and armedconflict, it is sometimes assumed that men areprimarily combatants and women are primarilyvictims or peacebuilders. This generalizationoverlooks that women often support armed conflict(e.g., combatants, cooks, informants, spies) andthat men are often the targets of sexual violence.Avoid making such generalizations when mappingstakeholders and determining your influencestrategy to ensure you’re engaging with the rightpeople for the right purposes.Dynamic #1:Government Officials Demand Information on HumanitarianAssistance as a Prerequisite for AccessSummary of tactic: State officials and/or bureaucrats sometimes deny authorization of assistance thatdoes not adhere strictly to their specifications. For example, an INGO might be required to re-register whena government revokes registrations, citing the need for tighter control and coordination of humanitarianresponse within its jurisdiction. In these instances, officials may be motivated by a desire to maintain controlor gain support within the local area by influencing your agency’s projects. They may also be acting outof frustration because of a lack of understanding of INGO projects or a belief that INGOs haven’t fulfilledMERCY CORPSPLAYBOOK: Negotiating for Humanitarian Access A13

their commitments. The challenges of negotiating for access in this context include gaining access to the rightofficials, building support for access within a bureaucracy, and persuading actors to give up control.I. Key Negotiation CounterpartsAA Senior officials (e.g., Vice Prime Minister in charge of coordinating humanitarian response)AA National ministries (e.g., Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs)AA Crisis or Disaster Management Authorities (e.g., Provincial Disaster Management Authorities)AA Officials from National Intelligence Services or policeAA Mayors and local government officialsII. What your Counterparts Might SayIII. Analyzing these Tactics with the SevenElements of Negotiation“ You must share with us the details of yourbeneficiaries, your plans, and align themwith our priorities.”This is a statement about what you must or must not do.They are therefore using Commitment to try to dictatethe outcome by making demands without sharing whythey are making them. We have to infer that they wantto maintain control, exercise their authority, and obtainrecognition of their legitimacy.“ Any organization operating in the country must Here the government attempts to use Legitimacy byfollow regulations outlined by the government.” citing “regulations” and its “right to know” about youractivities and spending. However, the government“ The government has a right to know what youdoesn’t share any objective criteria, so it is using oneare doing and how you are spending funds.”sided Legitimacy that may not be persuasive to you.“ We are trying to get an idea of who is doing whatand we must coordinate humanitarian activities.”“ Before we grant access, we want to ensureactivities do not compromise or threatenthe state.”“ We are concerned about the safety andsecurity of local populations; your presencecould affect that.”These statements reveal that the officials are concernedabout coordination of humanitarian efforts and thesafety and security of the state and local populations.This is a rare use of Interests in this context. Herethey are sharing why they are concerned about yourpresence. Unlike many hard bargainers who lock intopositions (i.e. Commitments) and make threats if youdon’t comply (i.e. Alternatives), here the governmentis rather open about why they are restricting access toterritory unless their demands are met.IV. Understanding the Tactic: Why might your Counterparts be Doing This?AA They may want to take credit for assistance provided by NGOs (which is easier to do if they havemore control over NGO activities) and use it to their advantage in gaining community support andwinning elections.AA They may fear that NGOs support groups that are opposed to the government.MERCY CORPSPLAYBOOK: Negotiating for Humanitarian Access A14

AA They may have a genuine concern with program quality because they realize they have little idea aboutwho is doing what and where.AA They may have issues with your approach to implementation/coordination (i.e., working too closely attown level rather than central government). Your assistance may focus on work with refugees, whereas thegovernment may prioritize host community support instead.AA They may want to increase their control over an area over which they do not currently have control (i.e.,formerly dominated by insurgents).AA Government staff turnover may be so high that the decision-makers are always changing.AA They may assume that you are not familiar with government regulations and need to educate you.V. Guidance on Responding to the Tactic: What to Do and Say1. Share your Interests and ask about theirs to better understand the government’s desire for regulation anddetailed information.AA State clearly that your primary interest is accessing those in need, not accessing territory.AA Say, “Responding efficiently to this emergency is our highest priority. How would information about ourplans and beneficiaries be helpful?”AA Say, “Help me better understand your concerns about compromising or threatening the state.”AA Ask, “What are your goals when it comes to coordinating humanitarian activities?”2. Move the conversation to Options that would satisfy your Interests as much as possible while satisfying theirsenough so that they want to say Yes.AA Ask a question that could bridge your and their Interests: “How can we work together so that you havethe information you need to promote effective coordination and we are able to move quickly to assistpeople desperately in need?”AA Share some of your Options and ask for theirs, making clear that you’re brainstorming before deciding:Say, “Let’s brainstorm for a couple minutes before deciding what makes sense. I could imagine variousideas for how we might move forward. One option could be for us to provide the requested informationas soon as the humanitarian crisis begins to ebb. Another option could be for a member of your team toaccompany us on an upcoming trip to the field. What other ideas do you have?”3. U se Standards of Legitimacy such as past successes and international humanitarian law (IHL) as a “sword” tosupport your argument:AA Refer to your track record and mission of providing life-saving assisting to vulnerable populations.AA In instances where you’re asked to re-register, share the rationale (and any documentation) for why yourregistration was approved initially.AA If governmenta

the 1979 publication of the bestselling Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, written by Professor Roger Fisher, who founded the Conflict Management Group (CMG) that Mercy Corps merged with in 2004. The Boston-based consulting firm Vantage Partners, like CMG a spin-off of the Harvard Negotiation