Table of Contents
What is environmental mediation?
Environmental disputes, stemming from conflicting interests in the use and preservation of natural resources, have become increasingly prevalent in today’s complex world. These types of conflict can be exacerbated by political stances and understandings of larger environmental issues such as climate change and global warming.
These disputes often involve diverse stakeholders, including governments, industries, communities, and environmental advocacy groups, each vying for their vision of sustainable development, economic security, environmental impact and natural resources. Given the intricate nature of these conflicts and the potential for far-reaching environmental impacts, there is a growing recognition of the need for effective resolution mechanisms.
The subject of environmental disputes and ecological conflict
Environmental disputes arise from conflicts over the use, management, and protection of natural resources and ecosystems. These disputes often stem from competing interests among different stakeholders, including governments, industries, communities, and environmental organizations. For example, a dispute may emerge when a government permits industrial activities that result in pollution, affecting the health and well-being of nearby communities.
Conflicts can also arise over land use, such as disagreements between developers seeking to build infrastructure and conservationists advocating for the preservation of ecologically sensitive areas. Additionally, issues like water rights, deforestation, and climate change policies can spark disputes as diverse parties with varying interests contend over the sustainable use of resources. The complexity of these disputes is heightened by differing perspectives on environmental impacts, economic priorities, and the overall balance between development and conservation.
Why mediate, as opposed to adjudicate, environmental disputes?
Choosing mediation over adjudication in environmental disputes can offer several advantages, given the unique characteristics of environmental conflicts. A mental calculation must however be undergone to compare the effectiveness of mediation versus litigation however. It is of paramount importance to navigate the boundary of appropriateness when considering mediation in environmental disputes that may seem fitting in terms of restorative justice ideals. Not all environmental disputes are fit for mediation, or can be resolved through a mediator. In all types of disputes, particularly disputes that touch on aspects of human rights, the mediator must duly consider criteria that evaluate the suitability of the particular dispute for mediation. This is of utmost importance when considering the fact that environmental disputes can be characterised by a wide range of inter-relational conflict and varying interests.
The following are factors that may contribute to the appropriateness of mediation in a dispute regarding environmental interests, human rights and living resources:
■ Preservation of Relationships
Mediation: Promotes collaboration and communication between parties. It allows stakeholders to work together to find solutions, fostering a more positive relationship that takes cognisance of the environmental interests of all participants of the mediation. This is especially crucial in environmental disputes where ongoing collaboration may be necessary for long-term sustainability.
Adjudication: Adversarial processes can strain relationships between parties, potentially leading to animosity and hindering future cooperation. This may place a burden on members of the public and corporate structures that seek to maintain a sustainable reputation of environmental support.
■ Flexibility and Creativity in Solutions
Mediation: Provides a flexible and informal process that allows parties to explore a wide range of creative solutions that can address sensitive environmental issues and human rights. This is particularly important in natural resource disputes where unique, context-specific solutions may be required.
Adjudication: Typically involves a judge or arbitrator making a binding decision based on legal principles, which may not always address the nuanced environmental concerns or allow for innovative problem-solving where all parties are heard on an equal footing.
■ Time and Cost Efficiency
Mediation: Generally resolves disputes more quickly and at a lower cost than formal adjudication. This is beneficial for all parties involved, as environmental issues often require urgent resolution to prevent further damage or disruption.
Adjudication: Can be a lengthy and expensive process, involving legal proceedings, expert witnesses, and formal hearings. This also hinders an effective solution to pressing issues that affect the human rights of parties involved.
■ Voluntary Nature and Control
Mediation: Participation is voluntary, and parties have more control over the process. They can choose to participate, and any agreement reached is based on mutual consent. This allows the participants of to negotiate from a more equal plane, which fosters inclusivity to communities that have not been sufficiently participated in environmental problem-solving.
Adjudication: Involves a more formal and potentially forced process. Decisions made by a third party (judge or arbitrator) may not fully align with the preferences or needs of the parties involved.
■ Preservation of Privacy
Mediation: Often conducted in private, allowing parties to discuss sensitive information without public scrutiny. This is especially prevalent in sensitive environmental disputes that affect the inner sanctum of a community or household.
Adjudication: Generally involves a more public process, with court proceedings and decisions accessible to the public.
■ Preservation of Reputation
Mediation: Provides an opportunity for parties to address concerns without the public airing of grievances, potentially preserving the reputation of individuals or organizations.
Adjudication: Involves a more formal legal process, which may expose parties to public scrutiny and potentially damage their reputation. This is seen frequently in uncooperative corporate contexts with regards to green-washing and a lack of sincere social responsibility.
