Managing environmental conflict by applying common sense

Abstract

Our society has b e c o m e conscious of the risks and costs of not dealing effectively with c o m p l e x public disputes, but we have not adopted n e w methods for reaching solutions. Some of these disputes are so c o n v o l u t e d -the storage of hazardous waste, for e x a m p l e --t h a t m a n y officials avoid dealing with them. In some cases parties go to court or argue adversarial positions before regulatory bodies. They turn their interests over to lawyers or g o v e r n m e n t administrators, who, whatever their professional competence m a y be, have no direct stake in the outcome. The courts are overw h e l m e d with an ever-increasing load of cases, m a n y of which are so complex and technical that judgments based on points of law only exacerbate the problems.Frustrations over the consequences of delay, the failure to involve the public effectively, and the uncertainty and cost of litigation has led individuals and organizations around the country to explore better ways of dealing with conflict. For over a decade, ACCORD has been in the business of designing and applying alternative procedures to resolve large-scale public disputes and environmental controversies. We have adapted to our w o r k lessons learned in international peacemaking, c o m m u n i t y dispute settlement, and interpersonal conflict resolution. Problems we have dealt with range from municipal water supply to air quality standards, land acquisition, forest access, coal leasing, and urban development. All of these controversies are as m u c h social and economic as they are "environmental." Our intervention activities m a y take anywhere from a few days to several years depending on the nature of the conflict and the n u m b e r of parties. We have w o r k e d with all levels of government, private industry, and public-interest groups.Individuals w h o get caught up in conflict fall prey to an apparently universal p h e n o m e n o n : as the conflict progresses, they b e c o m e less capable of using c o m m o n sense. This paper will examine seven principles which, in our experience, are c o m m o n l y violated by well-intentioned managers of c o m p l e x issues. While our illustrations are drawn from our experiences with natural resources, the principles are applicable to other fields of dispute resolution activities. We provide an example of what happens w h e n a principle is ignored and describe at least one alternative procedure.

Orchestrating Ecosystem Management: Challenges and Lessons from Sequoia National Forest

“…One study concluded that the "general" public held more moderate views than representatives from either natural resource agencies or interest groups (Knopp & Caldbeck 1990), and another found that participants who did not identify with a specific interest group were both more moderate and had a more realistic impression of agency biases than those who did (Lyden et al 1990). Research in conflict resolution (Carpenter & Kennedy 1985;Fisher et al 1991) indicates that identifying interests (rather than positions) and enhanced self-awareness can facilitate creative problem solving. Acknowledgment of personal value systems couched in institutional or organizational agendas will improve mutual understanding, increase trust, and facilitate a more veracious process.…”

The Shetland way: Morality in a resource regime

“…The establishment of trust is the first condition of managing environmental conflicts (Carpenter & Kennedy, 1985;Rabe, 1991). The rules and roles of a regime provide structures capable of resolving problems of resource provision and allocation, but without trust, the same frameworks are potential social traps.…”

Research Report: Control, Communication, and Power: A Study of the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution of Enforcement Actions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“…One of the guiding ideas of ADR is that the participants should have control over designing the outcomes. Some advocate control over the specific mechanics of a mediation as well as subsequent decision making (Folberg 1988); others define control as extending merely to the process of decision making (Carpenter and Kennedy 1985). In the EPA enforcement attorneys' responses to questions about their views of the mediation processes, there is a very close association between the attorneys' sense of "loss of control" over the process and the outcomes, and the failure of the mediation to reach an agreement.…”

“…Similarly, Katz and Lawyer (1983) focus on the importance of communication in resolving conflicts. Carpenter and Kennedy (1985) identify "establishing regular and predictable communication" as a key element in their conflict resolution design.…”