Building Your  Campaign & Negotiation Guide

Building Your Negotiation Support Network

Individual community members are usually at a power and information disadvantage relative to the private company or developer and their resources. Having a dedicated network of mission-aligned people and organizations can help bring a better balance. Think broadly and creatively about the steps that can be taken to counter this imbalance and bring forth a better community outcome. In pulling the network together, also consider how it can be financially sustained for the extended negotiation period.

Collective Power 

While each negotiation is different, there are eight key roles you will want to fill within your Negotiation Support Network before moving into negotiations. The same individual or group of individuals can play some of these roles. These eight roles are:

• Facilitator,

• Communications Team,

• Decision-makers,

• Technical Advisory Group,

• Research Team,

• Lead negotiators,

• Legal representation,

• Community and Tribal nations.

Below is additional information about the different roles in the Negotiation Support Network. Based on your resources, some individuals or a small group may need to undertake multiple roles.  

Description of key roles in a Negotiation Support Network

• Facilitator: Building and maintaining an effective CBA Support Team requires ongoing engagement, capacity-building, coordination, flexibility, and organization. Having a designated facilitator or a group of people to provide facilitation is essential. The facilitator(s) will help the various teams contribute meaningfully to and remain committed to the negotiation strategy.

• Communications Team: What happens in the meeting is only part of the equation. Keeping community members updated is crucial to maintaining their engagement. A dedicated communications team and strategy will save time and ensure your organization can set the narrative. The team can also help advance negotiations by drafting multiple options for explaining concerns or opposition, proposing models for presenting survey data or other qualitative/quantitative data, and assisting when formal documentation of issues or activities is needed.

• Decision-makers: Decision-makers and lead negotiators do not need to be the same people. In fact, having one or more of the final decision-makers negotiating can lead to, or at least present the appearance of, a power imbalance. Discussions with community members, other partners, and funders should include how decisions will be made and specifically how the final sign-off will be conducted. There are multiple ways of making decisions. For example, you could have the full coalition vote on all CBA provisions initially and use a smaller decision-making body with representatives from coalition members for more narrow strategy calls. While there should be time for the overall CBA to be brought back for a complete and thoughtful review, the lead negotiators will need to make many intermediate decisions based on information and parameters determined by the decision-making process before negotiations begin and modified throughout the process, as appropriate.

• Technical Advisory Group: The Technical Advisory Group is comprised of experts with special expertise in key areas impacted by the project or legal or strategy expertise. The group’s structure is flexible. For example, it may be paid or unpaid, meet as a group, or be available for individual consultations, and some may be familiar with the local area. In contrast, others may have relevant expertise from another region or nation. Being accessible for consultation is also a key consideration. For mining projects, it may be helpful to consult the database of independent mining experts provided by FAIME.

• Research team: The Research Team is comprised of dedicated staff who may be from a local or sister EJ group, national or international foundations, volunteers, and members of coalition organizations. While not everyone on the Research Team needs to be local, having some local capacity is essential. The Research Team will work with and support other teams in the negotiation network, including the Technical Advisory Group, the Communications Team, and the Negotiation Team.  

• Lead negotiators: Lead negotiators should be carefully selected based on their general competency in relevant topics, ability to read the room and adapt strategies, and skills in clear and effective communications. In addition to negotiating directly with project sponsors, lead negotiators are responsible for keeping the negotiation team and coalition partners informed and updated. They must actively listen to feedback and determine how that information can be used to successfully conclude the negotiations.

• Above all, the lead negotiators must have the community’s trust. Negotiations can take many months, and there may be times when negotiations stall, a compromise is considered that doesn’t align with the coalition’s predetermined goals, or a strong public stand is made to motivate project sponsors to agree to better terms. Trust in the lead negotiators, the goals of the negotiations, and the process by which the negotiation takes place are foundational. 

• Legal representation: A CBA is a legally binding contract. There is no substitute for the assistance of a licensed legal professional who is authorized to conduct business in the state where the project is located. The attorney(s) will work collaboratively with the lead negotiators and decision-makers, as well as the other teams, throughout the strategy, negotiation, and implementation stages of the CBA. See Section 4 for tips on finding legal representation.

• Communities, Tribal nations and other partners: Early and ongoing communications and engagement with the local communities, Tribal nations, and other partners are essential. Community members and Tribes represent the public face of the negotiation process, because they are the individuals with the most at stake. They can uplift key issues, help maintain momentum, and create public pressure that can be leveraged to secure important community benefits.  

In some fenceline communities, there are elected officials or government functionaries who have previously demonstrated their allyship. Consider whether and how they may play a role in your Negotiation Support Network.

Ongoing Information Flow to Community Members

Ongoing communication with the community will not happen without intention. Effective communications strategies foster a sense of connection, trust, and involvement among partners, which can sustain the coalition throughout the negotiation and implementation stages.

During the negotiation phase, the communications strategy should be a core component of the community engagement plan. Consider a strategy that:

1. addresses internal, external, and negotiation-specific needs;

2. provides for community access to data on project impacts;

3. includes tactics for incorporating feedback from communities and Tribes effectively; 

4. specifies how often and what type of information will be exchanged with community members and broader coalitions.

Principles of Strategic Communication

In her book Writing for Strategic Communication Industries, Jasmine Roberts identifies 5 fundamental principles of strategic communications, which will help transition the communications strategy into an effective component of the negotiating strategy.

They are:

1. Intentional message design, 

2. The correct platform,

3. Calculated timing,

4. Audience selection and analysis,

5. Desired impact. 

Developing Your Negotiation Policy Framework, Backstops, and Decision Trees

Negotiations on the individual components of the CBA will likely take weeks to months or, in some cases, years. Throughout these potentially protracted discussions, your list of ground-truthed community needs, priorities, and guiding principles will serve as your negotiation’s North Star. For example, experienced negotiators for the developer may offer alternatives that your coalition of supporters and Negotiation Team had not previously considered. While these alternatives may sometimes deliver the desired outcomes, at other times, they aim to test the capacity and endurance of the coalition or Negotiating Team. Counterproposals may also be designed to take up time, create confusion, or otherwise derail the conversation.  

Good pre-negotiation preparations can help you discern actual proposals from distractions, as will having a diverse and deep bench of skilled players on your Negotiation Team. Our toolkit also provides several key resources (already discussed in Section 2) to fill out your negotiation prep package:

• Research and Data on the Project and the Community (Worksheet 2B and Worksheet 2D);

• An Evaluation to Gauge Capacity to Engage and Monitor Proposals (Worksheet 3A);

• A List of Minimal and Optimal Target Benefits (Worksheet 4C);

• A Power Map that Aligns with the Key Inflection Points of the Project (Worksheets 2C and 2E);

• Guidance on Strategic Negotiation Plan that Ties the Pieces Together (Worksheet 4A).

To be prepared, your negotiation plan should include: 

• the identification of go- and no-go issues;

• a process for bringing new and revised proposals back for community consideration;

• Clear guidance on how your group will make decisions, who decision markers must be consulted before making decisions, and what information negotiators will share. The negotiation plan should consider the need for timely responses, the confidentiality of certain information, and the capacity of community groups to keep coalition members updated.

For a more comprehensive look at key features of the negotiation strategy, we have developed Worksheet 4D—Checklist for Preparing for CBA Negotiations, which provides a summary list of information you may need and situations to consider before the initial negotiations.    

Life Cycle of a Project and Opportunities to Engage

CBA negotiations may occur at any stage of the five phases in the mining and extraction life cycle, including exploration and prospecting, development and mine design, construction, extraction and production, and closure and reclamation. Energy infrastructure may have a slightly different set of phases with a distinctive rhythm of activity—for example, solar projects may have more labor-intensive construction and more passive operations during power generation over time. Life cycle assessments have become increasingly sophisticated in the field of industrial ecology for quantifying direct and indirect environmental and social impacts, such as energy consumption, carbon intensity, and water footprint. For the purposes of this toolkit, the following life cycle examples are not exhaustive, but they are meant to provide a foundation for community coalitions seeking to engage and intervene at different moments in a project’s timeline.

Begin your strategy development process by asking: What are the intervention points or pivotal events at the current stage of project development? These inflection points serve as effective pressure points that can be leveraged when initiating, negotiating, and concluding a CBA. 

Community Intervention Points 

It is imperative to understand where communities have leverage at various stages of resource development and government permitting in order to avoid community participation and CBA negotiations being treated merely as a way to keep potential opposition out of the regulatory approval process. By approaching research and engagement as nodes along a continuum, community members and advocates may leverage high-risk inflection points.

.➥Exploration. Although the community could successfully dissuade developers at this early stage, it can be hard for the public to even learn about a project at this stage or uncover information about the company’s intentions. Nonetheless, information may be obtained through alerts on mining cadastre repositories, freedom of information to access exploration licenses, or grassroots community networks reporting visits by geologists. If there are serious concerns about unmitigable impacts, community organizers and advocates could encourage governments to declare a no-mining zone or a ban at the regional or national level.

.➥Permitting. This is a high leverage point because the company has not yet invested a lot of physical resources into developing the site and can still decide to walk away, but is motivated to make a deal to avoid risks of permits being withheld on account of community resistance. Community organizers and advocates have consistently stressed that communities can participate more in the CBA process by initiating the process early and maximizing leverage with information before projects are permitted and companies have the upper hand. 

.➥Development. Communities may have less leverage to stop the project once construction has begun, but they may find the company highly motivated to appease resistance because of the larger scale of resources already invested into the project. At this point, a project remains financially vulnerable with investors committed. Any delays due to litigation or direct actions may have significant impacts on economic viability.

.➥Operation. Once operation is underway, community and labor coalitions may still organize for collective bargaining agreements and CBAs. Workers have power to withhold labor and strike, and communities can cut off the flow of goods with road blockades and other direct actions. Communities may have more leverage if there are plans for mergers or acquisitions, changes in local subcontractors, or expansion of the project that require further permitting.

.➥Decommissioning. The closure of a facility may seem like an unlikely place for effective intervention. However, if the owner of the company has other locations and/or lines of business, they may be particularly vulnerable and open to negotiations due to pending final inspections, WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) notices, and the need to finance other projects. The company may also be vulnerable because they may not have met prior pre-extraction commitments and do not have the promise of future jobs to keep politicians silent.

The Five Lifecycle Phases of a Project

Below is a more detailed breakdown of the five life cycle phases of a project, drawing primarily from extractive industries. We include a short description of each phase and identification of government approvals and regulated activities where a CBA can be used as leverage. These government-related activities include but are not limited to environmental assessments, construction permitting, the use and storage of hazardous materials, engineering, and site rehabilitation and mitigation. 

Exploration

During the initial exploration stage, geologists and other professionals are brought in to assess the key characteristics of the land and identify potential mineral deposits using technologies such as geological surveys, sampling, geochemical analysis, and preliminary drilling. Another component of this first phase is identifying points of conflict, environmental concerns, sites of significance, and regulations related to the land. This is a key point for the inclusion of data-sharing provisions in the CBA.

It may be helpful to have a well-documented and publicly available list of geological and environmental conditions that impact public health in the region. This list may consist of both artificial and naturally occurring toxic elements in groundwater; exposure to airborne dust from certain rock types; earthquake-induced landslides and liquefaction; flooding related to geological features; radon from specific geological formations; and hazardous materials such as lead, arsenic, or asbestos in the soil. The company may be seeking investors at this stage, which presents an opportunity for leverage if community resistance or flaws in the plan become apparent.

Risk-Reward Calculations: A growing number of investors are using ESG criteria in their evaluation of prospective investments in asset-intensive and extractive industries. Establishing and maintaining operations in regions with strong community opposition or likely adverse socioeconomic effects increases project risk and long-term profitability. This risk-reward analysis may be particularly sensitive during the exploration stage when moving forward requires substantial injections of cash and engagement with regulatory agencies.

Abandoned Projects: There is an inherent risk associated with advancing the project during the exploration stage. When negotiating a CBA during this early phase, community coalitions should develop ideas for agreement provisions that address what should happen if the project is abandoned as well as leverage their potential role in future project development, especially within the permit approval process.  

 Permitting

During this phase in the life cycle, project sponsors evaluate various mining, extraction, generation, and manufacturing technology options, ultimately leading to choosing an option, designing infrastructure, and obtaining necessary permits. Key activities in deciding to move forward are based on cost modeling and feasibility studies intended to de-risk the project and set the stage for securing financing. Community coalitions will want to ensure and/or ask questions about the social performance metrics and the environmental and safety risks that underpin this work. This is a key point for the inclusion of data-sharing provisions in the CBA.

It is common for community coalitions to begin engaging at this phase because the filing for local permits alerts people to the possibility of development activities. To prepare for this dynamic, community groups can use national databases such as this Environmental Protection Agency database to identify areas of possible development and begin to organize. 

Some states are adopting CBA requirements for accessing funding or receiving approvals, which is pushing for earlier negotiation timelines. In California, for example, the Department of Toxic Substance Control is preparing a CBA Policy Framework “to further improve the quality of life in the most vulnerable communities impacted by contaminated sites overseen by DTSC,” and the California Energy Commission offers a streamlined permitting process for solar and wind developers who meet its Opt-in Certification criteria, including having a legally binding, enforceable agreement that benefits a coalition of one or more community-based organizations. California Native American Tribes with cultural or historical connections to project site locations are invited for consultation. Project applicants also must pay prevailing wages or have a project labor agreement in place. 

Development

The construction phase has many variables in terms of timeline, including the type of energy transition business activity and the project size. Funding sources; permit conditions; and access to materials, equipment, and workforce can significantly impact the project. Construction activities include site preparation, upgrades, connections to infrastructure, and the construction of major facilities.

The commencement of construction is a highly visible event, and even minor timing delays can incur significant costs. 

The construction phase often requires the highest number of workers. It is essential that wage levels and new jobs related to construction are not conflated with long-term local employment gains in the region. Construction workers may not live in the region, and construction materials may come from national and international suppliers, bypassing local business options. A CBA can ensure maximum benefits to the community during this phase by prioritizing local workers and vendors and ensuring that workforce training aligns with construction needs and time frames.

During this public and vulnerable stage of project development, engaging the community is crucial for the project sponsor. Effective engagement can help identify potential issues, demonstrate regulatory compliance, and reduce community opposition. This phase represents the final step before construction funding transitions to longer-term operational financing. Financiers of long-term debt are often more risk-averse than those of construction capital, making it another vulnerable area for developers and project sponsors.

Operation

For most projects, the operation phase is the longest in the life cycle. Active mining and extraction operations include activities like drilling, excavating, hauling, crushing, grinding, and refining for sale. Community leverage is more limited at this stage.

Planning and responding to extreme weather and disasters, such as wildfires or floods, can be disruptive to mining and extraction operations. According to Mining Review Africa, mining operations are highly exposed to natural disasters. These events commonly damage infrastructure and lead to resource shortages, necessitating strategic preparedness to mitigate and recover from them. Mining and extraction operations have emergency preparedness and response plans, which are often submitted to government officials. Even if governments do not approve the plans, there is heightened sensitivity to responsible company behavior and the potential risks to community members.

Decommissioning

The final stage in the life cycle is decommissioning the site and restoring the land to a usable state. This phase should also include actions and agreements to help manage the facility’s long-term environmental impacts.

Community coalitions should watch for the announcement of downsizing, closing, and the windup to final inspections. The company may face liability for legally required cleanup.

While mines and energy infrastructure facilities are usually capable of operating for decades, the longevity of the site or facilities depends on their scale, quality, and market value. However, changes in technology require manufacturers to continue to make significant reinvestments within much shorter time frames. Facilities may also be closed permanently or intermittently due to maintenance or market-related issues unrelated to the product. 

Many government regulatory bodies require a mine/extraction site rehabilitation plan that addresses such things as: 

1. remediating the contaminated area, including hazardous waste and groundwater quality;

2. reclaiming the terrain, landscaping, and replacement of topsoil to make the land usable again;

3. restoring the ecosystem disturbed by the mine or extraction facility.

However, these plans are often inadequately funded and have few provisions for testing and final signoff by third parties. Additionally, not all manufacturing processes have similar requirements. Ensuring public health and safety, as well as minimizing environmental impacts, are good starting points for gathering community input and engaging with government agencies on the potential closure of a manufacturing, power-generation facility, or mining operation.

Negotiation Strategies, Timelines, and Other Considerations

CBA negotiations will require multiple approaches based on the particular issue or provision being negotiated, the people in the room, and the importance of the issue to the community. During negotiations, you may need to concede on a low-priority issue to gain an advantage on a higher-priority issue.​​ In developing strategy scenarios, run through how you could use two or more of these to your advantage.

Negotiation Styles, Use Several

Potential Outcomes

While conditions change, entering the negotiation process with a prioritized list of possible outcomes can help focus early discussions and keep all parties at the table. In scenario planning, Worksheet 4C—Defining and Prioritizing Community Benefits, which is introduced in Section 4, will be an important resource.In addition to the specific benefits conveyed in the agreement, the CBA can also be used to make an official record of other documents, such as memorandums of understanding, letters of support for federal funding, concerns or opposition, ongoing discussion, survey data or other qualitative/quantitative data, or formal documentation for how the outcomes of engagement will be implemented throughout the life cycle of a project.

Meeting Design

It is crucial to design meetings that align with your strengths and achieve the desired outcomes.  

• Consider whether holding the kickoff meeting as part of a larger conference would demonstrate strength and highlight community engagement or whether a roundtable with additional partners would help counter strong negative feelings among specific participants.  

• Would a 3- to 6-person negotiation team or a 2-person delegation best suit the exchange?  

• How will agendas be set, and who will be responsible for keeping and sharing notes?  

• Should a third-party facilitator be used, or will a rotating chair lead the meetings?

Open vs. Closed-Door Negotiations 

You may choose to demand that negotiation sessions be open to allow attendance beyond the negotiating team—typically to members of the coalition who are parties to the agreement as well as to the public or the press.

• Pros of open negotiations: Opening up attendance enhances the transparency and accountability of the corporation to the community and of the Community Negotiation Team to its coalition so that there are fewer backdoor concessions or pressures. High attendance can also demonstrate coalition power throughout the campaign, especially at high-pressure junctures.

• Cons of open negotiations: Negotiation over the process may have to precede negotiation over the content of the agreement itself. Developers may use this to stall talks and drive a wedge in the coalition. Opening bargaining sessions to members of the public who disagree with the negotiating team can also reveal community tensions or weaknesses, as can a failure to demonstrate consistent coalition turnout. Company representatives may also be hesitant to speak openly.

Beware of Mitigation Disguised as Benefits

Existing law in the US generally requires projects seeking government approval to mitigate environmental and, to a lesser degree, social and economic impacts. While the levels of mitigation differ, most renewable energy-related projects will require permits, licenses, and ongoing adherence to standards. Fenceline community members need to be cautious when negotiating a CBA, ensuring that the proposed and negotiated provisions add value to their community that would not have occurred otherwise. Project sponsors will be quick to agree to actions they would already have to do. When developing your research and overall strategy, be sure to separate out: (1) baseline-necessary mitigations, which should be the company’s responsibility, to reduce or neutralize a project’s impacts on water supply, air quality, traffic, infrastructure maintenance, or other community resources, and (2) community benefits, compensating and enhancing the community above and beyond baseline mitigations. Failing to do so can result in a watered-down CBA that fails to protect communities from harm or contribute to overall community benefit.

Spotlight On the Relationship of the CBA and the Environmental Assessment

As noted above, negotiating the CBA in advance of the environmental impact assessment is considered optimal. However, timing is only one consideration.  

A successful CBA can be an essential risk-reduction tool for the project sponsor during the environmental impact assessment period or when obtaining project approvals. With pending deadlines, community coalitions may obtain key commitments that would otherwise be impossible.  

However, tight timelines associated with the environmental analysis may also put difficult time pressures on community coalitions, which project sponsors would capitalize upon. For example, a project developer could use the inability of a community coalition to respond to the company’s offer in a timely manner as “evidence” of its lack of sincere engagement in responding to questions about community engagement in a public meeting on the environmental assessment.  

This is where your analysis of the key intervention points in each stage of the process is essential. Community coalitions must enter the process with a clear strategy and the capacity to navigate both processes effectively. Too much attention on the negotiation could result in missed opportunities to raise issues and prepare documentation for the government-led environmental review process. In addition, if baseline mitigations set by state/federal environmental impact assessments or permits do not satisfy the community’s needs or concerns, the CBA could provide a parallel process for addressing remaining issues. A few critical tasks to consider when needing to develop and implement overlapping or intersecting negotiation and permitting strategies:

• Educate community members on the challenges, timelines, and tasks ahead.

• Work collaboratively with the negotiation network to identify specific objectives for both processes.

• Determine how information will flow through the negotiation network in support of both processes.

• Identify policy and provisional overlaps and possible trade-offs.

• Identify resources needed for both processes, including those that can be shared.

• Based on objectives, resources, and capacity, develop or refine your strategy.

Another level of your strategy will also need to address which phases of the project you need to include in the best environmental management practices. Worksheet 4B can help you to align your desired benefits with the different phases in the project’s life cycle and use the permitting mitigation discussions to leverage potential benefits in the CBA negotiations, including built-in government oversight of metrics.

Strategies for When Community Engagement / Protest / Resistance Helps to Advance the Negotiations

Certain factors can increase the likelihood of land defense or protest against a project, such as the exclusion of communities from decision-making, repression of dissent, violation of legal rights, and the intersection of environmental harms with sacred sites. Each of these factors increases the likelihood of community members engaging in contentious direct actions.

For corporations and governments, community opposition is often a cost to be reduced and a risk to be mitigated or managed—whether through direct action or litigation. However, these tactics are vital tools for accountability and may ensure the best outcomes for communities, landscapes, and ecosystems. In fact, in many cases where rights-based protections or formal avenues of participation are lacking, they are the only means for communities to relay their grievances.

A Continuum of Conflict

Across different communities facing new development projects, there is a continuum of resistance that ranges from outright opposition to negotiation. Some community groups reject a development project in its entirety, while others are not opposed to a mine or development per se but take issue with specific aspects—whether economic, environmental, cultural, or some combination of issues. 

In the case of a community group outright opposing a project, the group may demand that the government not grant, or rescind, the company’s concession and/or permits. The group may engage in protest, direct action, and litigation. This more oppositional form of protest is increasingly common in recent years and is also especially common in Latin America. In some cases, it can lead to greater leverage for concurrent or future negotiation efforts.

In the case of a community group with concerns about particular aspects of a project, the group may try to engage the company in negotiations to demand guarantees around community priorities, such as local hiring, organized labor employment opportunities, a cut of royalties, a different project design to reduce impacts on the water system or sacred sites, or a more robust monitoring system. 

From the Streets to the Negotiation Table

The two community orientations of opposition and negotiation are not mutually exclusive. In some cases, residents may favor total rejection and employ direct actions, such as road blockades and occupying the project site. In contrast, others prioritize getting the best possible settlement with a powerful company. They also blend over time: It is not unusual for organized community groups to reject a project in its current form and pivot to negotiation if either the project moves forward despite the groups’ opposition or the groups sense an opening with more sympathetic government officials. But be wary: Corporations may also co-opt social movements and silence resistance by supporting counter-protests in the name of security, sustainability, and corporate social responsibility.

Lessons for Direct Action Protest as a CBA Strategy

Communities get better outcomes when they:

1. Organize and mobilize as early as possible in the process.

2. Identify their sources of strategic leverage.

3. Use a range of pressure tactics simultaneously.

4. Engage in popular education on the project and its impacts.

5. Count on the support of allied organizations as well as aligned political leaders.

6. Identify openings in the political opportunity structure.

7. Face weak or fragmented elites. 

Whether their goal is to stop the mine or secure more jobs, protect the water system, or increase local revenues, these are the tried-and-true methods of social movements that build community power.

From the Negotiation Table to the Streets and Back Again

The opposite order can also occur. Community groups may start with an attempt at negotiation but then lose the trust that corporate and/or government interlocutors are bargaining in good faith. For example, community groups may be excluded from important meetings; find deliberations to be superficial; or learn something new about environmental impacts, promised economic benefits, the history of the corporation’s prior behavior, or corporate lobbying that raises their eyebrows. Community organizations may abandon negotiations and engage in more extreme tactics to put renewed pressure on company representatives or government officials. At that point, they may also seek to widen their coalition, reaching out to environmental advocacy groups or transnational networks to amplify their campaign against the project.

Evidence suggests that in battles over extraction and energy development, organized resistance can shift from opposition to negotiation to opposition and back again. Sometimes, the process stretches over so many years that investors lose interest, effectively stalling the project until a new firm expresses interest.

CBAs that emerge from these processes of struggle and empowerment may be more robust, including in their enforcement, compared to agreements driven by corporations whose primary goals are to stamp out concerns or impress investors and government officials. CBAs that spring from collective action still have pitfalls if trust is broken or becomes harder to establish, but grassroots organizing is critical for marginalized communities to shape and even transform the deeply imbalanced power relations in energy, extractive, and manufacturing sectors.

Action Items

Engage with your coalition to build an effective negotiation support network. If additional fundraising is needed to support that network, determine the next steps to funding your plan.

Complete Worksheet 4D—Negotiations Preparation Checklist, revising and adapting it to best suit your project.

Based on your list of priority CBA objectives, your CBA team, and the project developer’s negotiation team, identify which negotiation strategies would work best on which issues. 

Based on the project’s life cycles, identify the intervention points and pivotal events that your group can leverage to create the best environment for a successful negotiation. Use Worksheet 4B—Environmental Management Options by Project Phase to consider environmental mitigation for each phase of a project.