Question

Explain the bargaining model in resolving environmental conflicts

Answer 1

Environmental conflict resolution works best, , when parties to a dispute recognize that compromise may work better not only for them but for the public as well. It also works best when the costs of mediation are divided among the parties, rather than being the sole responsibility of one. And it works best when the mediator, facilitator, or other third-party convener is recognized by all parties as impartial and independent. “Mediation can help very alienated and polarized parties find common ground rather than demonizing each other,”

On the other hand, conflict resolution is not always the chosen means of resolving environmental, land use, or natural resource issues. Some parties to a dispute may use mediation or negotiations for what Winsor calls “a front” for behind-the-scenes political and legal maneuvering or to win public support for their position. One party may want to set a legal precedent, something a negotiated compromise cannot achieve. In fact, conflict resolution is unlikely to work when one party feels it can win a legal, political, or public relations victory and thus sees no reason to compromise.

Furthermore, negotiating values is more difficult than negotiating interests. “Wolf control of any kind won't satisfy people who believe wolves have a right to be there,” Moreover, negotiation may be difficult if not impossible when one party views the other as the enemy and compromise as a sellout.

It was institutionalized in 1990 when Congress passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution and the Regulatory Negotiation Acts. The two laws were combined in a 1996 reauthorization that required all US government departments and agencies to appoint an alternative dispute resolution official and to adopt policies for implementing the process internally. It was institutionalized in 1990 when Congress passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution and the Regulatory Negotiation Acts. The two laws were combined in a 1996 reauthorization that required all US government departments and agencies to appoint an alternative dispute resolution official and to adopt policies for implementing the process internally.

Take the case of issues surrounding bison and elk herds in northwestern Wyoming. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department were preparing to adopt management plans for the herds in the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, National Elk Refuge, and Bridger–Teton National Forest. Before doing so, the agencies asked the US Institute in 1999 to conduct a situation assessment to help them design ways to involve the public in the planning process. A situation assessment is used to identify solutions to issues without going through formal mediation or negotiation.

Whether and to what extent these kinds of mediations, negotiations, and facilitations help resolve environmental disputes and keep more of them out of the political and court systems remains to be seen.