Humanitarian Negotiation Process

Humanitarian negotiation models differ all over the world. In the UN-CMCoord training programme, we use the literature of The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD), Getting to Yes from Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, and the Naivasha Grid from the Frontline Negotiators.

An essential part of humanitarian negotiations is the work done before the engagement starts. HD provides a summary of what a successfully negotiated outcome comprises. Getting to Yes includes guidance for preparing an ad-hoc negotiation. Frontline Negotiations developed a detailed framework guiding the negotiator, the support team and the higher authorities in preparing for the activities.

With the emergence of all kinds of non-traditional actors, headquarters-developed models require adaptation at the frontline, be it in conflict or a benign civil-military coordination environment. Also, the digital transition is changing how we communicate and persuade each other.

We need a pragmatic yet principled approach to humanitarian negotiations. Humanitarian, development, peace and security actors must share their joint effort and good negotiation practices.

The negotiating parties must establish trust and respect. Establishing equal conditions without attempting to patronize each other might lead to successful outcomes. The six scientifically researched principles of persuasion (Robert Caldini) might help us to overcome the most difficult stumbling blocks in humanitarian negotiations.

The main purpose of humanitarian negotiation is to produce a successful agreement that meets five criteria/principles

It meets the needs of affected people.
It can be implemented. This means that you only agree on what you can deliver.
It details specific obligations and responsibilities.
It is sustainable. A good agreement lasts over a significant period.
It nurtures the relationship for future negotiations.

Negotiation Framework

Most negotiation frameworks have similar general steps, whether personal negotiations between a humanitarian and arms carrier or legal and political negotiations. Usually, we analyze, strategize, negotiate and follow up. It is important to note that we are not alone in this. Negotiation objectives and corresponding strategies are best developed in collaboration with others in any organization. It is common for staff at headquarters, operational, and the frontline level to formulate the negotiation strategies and negotiate the objectives at their respective levels.

Nivasha Grid - Planning a Negotiation Process

The original Naivasha Grid was presented as an ICRC planning tool for frontline humanitarian negotiation at the first Annual Meeting of Frontline Humanitarian Negotiators in October 2016. The Naivasha Grid framework was further developed and adapted to a multi-agency setting by the CCHN in the following years. It became both an analytical tool to observe and review humanitarian negotiation processes across agencies and contexts and a map to plan the successive tasks, roles, and responsibilities between the frontline negotiator, his/her support team, and the mandator responsible for framing the negotiation exercise in a given mandate.*

The Naivasha Grid confirms the leading role of the frontline negotiator in the negotiation process defined along the Green Pathway. This role is supported in an intermittent manner by the negotiation team which the frontline negotiator is part of, along the Yellow Pathway, implying a critical dialogue between frontline negotiators and field colleagues to consider tactical options based on the interests and motives of counterparts, the specific objectives of the negotiation, the design of scenarios, and the mapping of the networks of influence. The whole negotiation process is framed by the mandator, along the Red Pathway, in terms of strategic objectives and red lines informed by institutional policies. These policies and objectives are assigned by the mandator to the negotiator, generally through the line management within the organization*

* https://frontline-negotiations.org/home/resources/field-manual/digital-field-manual/

All negotiators are familiar with some baseline terminology.

Position: Assertions, demands and offers people make in negotiations.

Interest: What do I really care about? My underlying motivation, wants, concerns, hopes and fears.

Need: What do I really need? Everyone has needs. How can their needs and my needs complement each other?

Lever: The main controls collectively regulating the negotiating process function like mechanical levers.

ZOPA: The zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) describes the overlapping area of common & complementary needs.

Legitimacy: External standards of precedents that might convince one or both of us that a proposed agreement is fair.

BATNA: When considering success, one should always have the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Outcome (BATNA) in mind. If successful options are worse than the BATNA, one should walk away.

Successful Humanitarian Negotiation Agreement

Report abuse