CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Three aces of crisis management

When I had to work in the one crisis conflict, I searched three actors assure can ensure the solution of the crisis. To those I will call "the aces of crisis management". These are the mediators, the conciliators and the negotiators.

The conflict is not solved only and exclusively at a dialogue table, many of the agreements reached have been built and agreed before the official act of a dialogue table, or the interview with an authority.

If a crisis has been reached, it is because of the distance from the positions, to the point that violence reigns. For a community can be block roads, or a union carries out an indefinite strike, the distance of the ideas at stake is such that the parties cannot reach an agreement.

In these situations what social actors want the most is to talk to the highest authorities, when the problem is not with whom they talk, but to build the solutions. In my opinion a high authority should participate in the dialogue when there is already a solution, that is, to put the cherry on the cake.

That is why, before exposing the highest authorities to debates, one must find a strategy that has these three aces.

The first ace, the mediators. The conflict is strong because of its organization, which is the result of the communion of its leaders. But, if you want get off the problem of lack of agreements, need talk with leaders in the climate of trust. However, in a crisis communication is short and ineffective because there is distrust. It is at that moment when one seeks the support of other internal or external leaders, who have ancestry in the leadership, for to help us understand the situation and to be heard, even individually. This will open the door to face to face dialogues.

The second ace, the conciliators. We cannot use a face to face dialogue to negotiate and reach agreement, such a thing would imply passing over the leaders of the community (bypassing) and could increase the confrontation. If we talk to groups, factions or leaders is for to searching for reconcilable positions and reconcile them, and for that we need conciliators, people who will not negotiate, but to propose, and design ideas that both parties can accept, and to make possible to the proposals. In a face to face dialogue you have to be creative and know the solutions technically. The best conciliators are professionals or mid-level officials who know the area and the activity, and much better if they are local authorities. It has happened to me that very complicated proposals have been included in the requests that could be easily solved in another way. That is why in some development tables, there would be "thematic groups", due to the need to give content to the agreed solutions.

The third ace, the negotiators. In a crisis there are up to four types of agreement; the pre-agreements, the partial agreements, the provisional agreements and the definitive agreements.

1. The pre-agreements are non-formalized agreements that have been reached by negotiating off-table with the main leaders based on points that were reconciled in face to face dialogues.

2. The partial agreements are those that are formally reached in a thematic group or a general meeting, which solve a part of the problems. Especially in thematic group. For example; in a basin where there are coffee, cocoa, livestock and wood producers' organizations, it is likely that partial agreements will be necessary. Because the needs for infrastructure, financing, markets and technical assistance are different. And it is better to discuss the solutions separately.

3. Provisional agreements are those with which the measures of force are lifted under the promise that some point will be seen later.

4. Definitive agreements are those that solve the problem.

Each of these types of agreement requires a negotiator type:

1. A pre-agreement needs a negotiator that builds trust with the leaders. An official even of medium level, competent to assume the solution.

2. A partial agreement is reached with a technical negotiator or the competent authority.

3. Provisional or definitive agreements need negotiators with political authority.

I will give you an example. Years ago, I advised one Agriculture Public Institution. This project had a conflict over the demand for a forestry project, where no progress had been made in developing the studies. So the conflict was going into crisis and the communication between institution and community leaders had been lost. To find the solution I was supported by a lay professional who worked with the Catholic Church, he helped me get closer to the leaders, because he had ancestry. And a engineer forester, that he was able to convince to the population as well as the technicians of the Ministry of Agriculture, of how this project should be developed. This forester acted as a mediator bringing the community's vision about of a forestry project closer to that of the State. Thanks to that, as a negotiator, I was able to achieve previous agreements, with which the execution of the project began.