-
GUEST EDITORIAL
A note of hope for resolving environmental conflict There is nothing extraordinary in the controversial nature of environmental issues. Environmental disputes are in the headlines every day. What is new is the demonstration that many of these issues can be resolved by the parties involved with the assistance of a mediator. Since 1974, mediators have been involved in at least 165 environmental controversies-some large, some small. The diversity of the issues resolved is remarkable, and overall the success rate is high, with agreement in 78% of the cases documented. Results in many cases have been dramatic: In one instance, 31 diverse interests in Colorado agreed to principles that will guide major water projects over the next several decades. Representatives of pesticide manufacturers, church groups holding stock in pesticide companies, and environmental groups agreed to methods that would reduce the misuse of pesticides in developing countries. Mediation and other consensus-building processes show considerable promise for resolving environmental disputes. But those affected by environmental controversies care about more than just reaching an agreement. They want agreements that satisfy their interests and their sense of the public interest. They also care about the process-whether it is fair and efficient. And, to the degree that they have a continuing relationship, they care about their ability to solve future problems with one another. Mediation offers an opportunity to achieve these goals, but the path may not be easy. Conflict often makes people uncomfortable. This may explain current enthusiasm for the word nonadversarial in characterizing mediation. But it is acknowledging and learning how to deal with difference-not avoiding them-that are the real value of mediation. The success of the process suggests that parties, although remaining adversaries, can be challenged to invent more creative solutions to problems as they attempt to persuade each other to agree. For mediation to succeed, attention must be given to the assumptions on which the process is based-in particular, how the issues are defined and how well all parties are represented. In this country, the concept of mediation has been shaped largely by the resolution of labor-management disputes. Environmental disputes
differ from labor disputes, however, in at least two significant ways. First, labor-management negotiations are set by law, and certain issues, such as the right of workers to organize and to strike, are not negotiable. Because mediation of environmental disputes has proceeded on a caseby-case basis, similar assumptions about what is negotiable may be unclear or still in dispute. Unless all parties look carefully at the assumptions, the way issues are defined may not be in their best interests. Second, choices made by those involved in resolving environmental disputes are likely to have important consequences affecting the interests of many hard-torepresent parties. In labor-management disputes, the rules of the game and who gets to play are clear. In resolving environmental disputes, it may be much more difficult to identify the participants. The choice of participants can significantly affect the outcome of mediation. What satisfies one set of parties may not protect the interests of others who do not take part directly. Thus, before taking part in mediation, the parties must ask whether the process involves all those affected and whether it allows for public review and comment. Efforts are now under way to incorporate mediation more systematically into public decision making through court-linked programs, mediation services offered by public agencies, and new state or federal laws and administrative procedures. If these new opportunities are to work in the best interests of all concerned, as much attention must be paid to the assumptions governing negotiations as to the settlement of individual cases.
0013936)(185/09140~1$01.50/0 0 1985 American Chemical Society
I
c;lril Bingham is a senior associate at the Conservation Foundntion, a nonprofit environmental research group in Washington. D. C. She is the author of the forthcoming book. "Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decode of Experience." which will be published by thefoundorion this spring. Envimn. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 19. NO. 4. 1985. 291
