Part 1a:
- Who are the main stakeholder groups involved in the negotiation, and what are their primary interests?
- San Diego Zoo Global (SDZG) – primary interest is to secure the pandas on loan to increase attendance and revenue at the zoo, and to support conservation efforts.
- Chinese Wildlife Conservation Association (CWCA) – primary interest is to ensure the safety and well-being of the pandas while on loan, and to maintain positive relations with SDZG.
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – primary interest is to ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing the importation of endangered species, and to protect the welfare of the pandas.
- Animal Protection Organizations (APOs) – primary interest is to ensure the humane treatment and well-being of the pandas during and after their loan period, and to ensure that SDZG is held accountable for their welfare.
- The Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens (CAZG) – primary interest would be to represent and protect the interests of Chinese zoos and promote the conservation of endangered species. They would likely be concerned with the welfare of the pandas during their loan period and ensuring that the loan agreement benefits both SDZG and Chinese zoos. Their bargaining position could be to negotiate for a more favorable loan agreement that includes opportunities for Chinese zoos to participate in conservation efforts and promote Chinese wildlife, as well as to ensure the welfare of the pandas during and after their loan period.
- more Stakeholder Groups:
- Zoological Society of San Diego (ZSSD) – Obtaining pandas to attract visitors and improve revenue, while fulfilling their mission of conservation and education.
- American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) – Ensuring that the pandas are properly cared for and managed in accordance with AAZPA guidelines, and that the program benefits conservation efforts.
- Conservation and Research for Endangered Species (CRES) – Advancing scientific knowledge about pandas and promoting conservation efforts for the species.
- World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – Promoting conservation efforts for pandas and other endangered species and ensuring that the pandas are not exploited for commercial gain.
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) – Ensuring that the trade of pandas is regulated and does not contribute to the decline of the species.
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – Promoting conservation efforts for pandas and other endangered species and providing guidance on the management and conservation of species.
- What are the main agenda items for negotiation? Which items would be the highest priority for each side? What issues will be toughest for Myers to resolve?
The terms and conditions of the loan agreement, including the length of the loan, fees, and responsibilities of each party.
The care and welfare of the pandas during their loan period, including medical care, housing, feeding, and enrichment.
Compliance with laws and regulations governing the importation of endangered species, including those related to animal welfare and conservation.
The involvement of APOs in monitoring the welfare of the pandas during and after their loan period.
The highest priority for SDZG would be to secure the pandas on loan and ensure their well-being, as this would increase attendance and revenue at the zoo and support conservation efforts. The highest priority for CWCA and USFWS would be to ensure the safety and well-being of the pandas and compliance with regulations. The toughest issues for Myers to resolve would likely be related to ensuring the welfare of the pandas during their loan period, as this is a shared interest among all stakeholders but may require significant resources and oversight.
- What is each respective side’s bargaining position? In other words, what are their points of leverage?
The bargaining position of SDZG is that they are willing to pay a high fee and comply with regulations in order to secure the loan of the pandas, which they see as a key opportunity for increasing attendance and revenue at the zoo. SDZG’s leverage is their ability to offer financial compensation and their expertise in caring for and exhibiting animals. The bargaining position of CWCA is that they are willing to loan the pandas to SDZG but only if their safety and well-being can be ensured, and they have leverage in their ability to withhold the pandas if they are not satisfied with the terms of the agreement. USFWS has leverage in their ability to enforce regulations and withhold permits if SDZG and CWCA do not comply with regulations. APOs have leverage in their ability to bring negative publicity and legal action if they feel the welfare of the pandas is not being adequately protected.
- What are viable alternatives to each of these groups’ interests (their BATNA-Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement)? Does each group have a relatively favorable BATNA?
some potential alternatives for each group’s interests could be:
SDZG: They could focus on obtaining other high-profile species to attract visitors and fulfill their conservation mission, or they could explore other partnership opportunities with other zoos or conservation organizations. However, obtaining pandas from another source may not be a feasible alternative since pandas are highly sought after and few zoos have them.
CWCA: They could explore other loan opportunities with other zoos or facilities, or they could focus on promoting and preserving other endangered species that are native to China. However, obtaining the exposure and publicity that comes with loaning pandas may not be possible with other species.
USFWS could deny permits for the importation of the pandas if regulations are not met or could require additional safeguards to ensure the welfare of the pandas.
APOs could engage in public education and advocacy to raise awareness about the welfare of captive animals or could seek to bring legal action against SDZG if they feel the welfare of the pandas is being compromised.
Each group’s BATNA would depend on their specific interests and resources. SDZG may have a less favorable BATNA if they are unable to secure pandas or other high-profile species for loan. CWCA may have a less favorable BATNA if they are unable to find suitable facilities to loan the pandas to. USFWS’s BATNA could be to maintain the status quo and deny the permit, although this would likely not be a desirable outcome for either SDZG or CWCA.
Part 1b:
As a Humble leader, my primary stakeholder group is the CWCA. My communication strategy with them would focus on building a relationship of trust and understanding. I would start by acknowledging their interest in pandas and expressing gratitude for their conservation efforts. Then, I would emphasize the mutual benefit of a successful loan, both for the pandas and for the public. I would listen carefully to their concerns and needs, and work collaboratively to find a solution that meets both of our interests.
To persuade my counterpart in negotiations, I would focus on building a relationship of trust and understanding. I would listen actively to their perspective and show that I understand their interests and concerns. Then, I would emphasize the benefits of a successful loan for both sides, and work collaboratively to find a solution that meets both of our interests. I would also be open to compromise and flexible in my approach.
My counterpart in negotiations may react positively to my Humble approach, appreciating the relationship-building and collaborative nature of the negotiation. They may be more willing to compromise and find a mutually beneficial solution.
The costs of my strategy may be that it takes longer to reach an agreement, as I prioritize building trust and understanding over speed. However, the benefits include a stronger relationship with the CWCA, increased likelihood of future collaborations, and a more successful and sustainable loan.
If the CWCA demanded that San Diego pays for the entire conservation program and has unfettered control over the use of those funds, as Myers, I would need to respond assertively while still being respectful and collaborative. I would explain that this demand does not align with San Diego’s interests and that we need to find a solution that meets both parties’ needs. I would ask questions to better understand their perspective and needs, and try to find common ground for compromise.
My response to the above two questions would not be significantly different from how I would actually respond, as a Humble leader. I would still prioritize building relationships and finding mutually beneficial solutions. However, in the scenario where the CWCA demands unfettered control over funds, I may need to be more assertive and clear in expressing our interests and needs.
