AN EXAMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIATION
Environmental mediation is depicted as a process by which representatives from environmental groups and/or government agencies come together with an impartial mediator to negotiate and reach a binding resolution for a specific environmental dispute.[5]
Environmental mediation like all other forms of mediation is facilitated by a neutral third party, known as the mediator, who facilitates a negotiated settlement between two or more conflicting parties[6].
Participation in environmental mediation is entirely voluntary for all involved and parties can choose to withdraw from the process at any time. The resulting agreement is also voluntary, with the parties taking ownership of the mediated agreement.
Environmental mediation also enjoys the advantages of traditional mediation such as speed, cost-effectiveness, party-driven and confidentiality with the existence of traditional disadvantages such as difficulty in enforcement of award and difficulty in reaching an agreement amongst parties that fail to act in good faith or are less desirous of an amicable agreement[7].
Unlike traditional mediation, however, environmental mediation usually involves way more than two parties, lending the conflict resolution process an air of complexity and sensitivity with some conflicts involving ten parties and more[8].
Parties with vested interests also change throughout the development of the conflict and conflict resolution process. The reasonable conclusion is that parties that begin the process differ from the concluding parties because where the issue becomes subject to more public attention, additional parties may come together and express a desire to be included in the ongoing mediation process and more often than not, this is a rule rather than an exception[9].
Similarly, assessments of facts related to the impact of an environmental action are frequently subjects of contention as groups, the general public, and even researchers vary regarding the fundamental effects of the action in question. The default responsibility confirmation falls on the government agency that holds administrative authority over the action[10].
Interestingly, decisions reached through environmental mediation more often than not have irreversible consequences on the environment and the possible implication of these decisions on the environment contribute to the complexity and intensity of the deliberations[11].
The Alaska Interagency Environmental Streamlining, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Collaboration, NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Summit and Scattered Apples Mediation are all examples of the application of Alternative Dispute Resolution for environment conflicts[12].