Mediation: a sellout for conservation advocates, or a bargain. [Advantages as compared with litigation]
The author, an environmental lawyer for the National Wildlife Federation, has found litigation the most costly and time consuming, and the least satisfactory way to solve environmental conflicts. After several experiences in litigation, the author turned to mediation in an endangered species case in South Carolina. It worked. The author concludes that mediation is a viable, and often preferable, option in environmental problem solving. The criteria one should look at in deciding whether a dispute lends itself to mediation are five-fold: (1) are the parties on each side sane.; (2) are the decisional persons identified, and can you get them to the negotiating table.; (3) is the dispute one that centers primarily on facts rather than philosophies or values.; (4) is there some balance of power.; and (5) does each side have an incentive to avoid the courthouse. The reasons more disputes are not mediated, and too many end up in litigation, is because of the lack of an institutionalized forum (other than court) for resolving disputes. Government, foundation, and perhaps private industry money should be made available to establish formalized national, or at least regional, mechanisms for resolving environmental disputes.
- Research Organization:
- Natural Resource Clinic, Boulder, CO
- OSTI ID:
- 6701329
- Journal Information:
- Environ. Prof.; (United States), Journal Name: Environ. Prof.; (United States) Vol. 2:1; ISSN EPROD
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Mediating environmental enforcement disputes: How well does it work?
Alternative dispute resolution in electricity: Just do it!