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.

Abstract

Two decades after pioneering the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, practices, and processes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has emerged as the leader among federal agencies. As such, the EPA provides a useful setting for testing conventional wisdom and theories about alternative dispute resolution. This essay takes data collected as a part of an assessment of the agency's enforcement ADR program and examines how well it reflects or illuminates current theory and conventional wisdom about conflict resolution. In particular, we examine why parties to a dispute choose ADR, and the key elements needed for the successful resolution of environmental conflicts, including the dynamics between the parties at the table and mediator characteristics.Confl ict and crisis are conditions that have pervaded the work of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since this federal agency was founded in 1970. Industry's relentless attacks on "command-and-control"

Environmental conflict resolution by water utilities: Applications and lessons learned

“…Effective engagement includes having the appropriate participants involved from the beginning of the process, the right mediator skills and practices, and relevant, high‐quality information to ensure productive participation (Emerson, 2009). Bourdeaux et al (2001) found that a previous history of poor communication between government and nongovernment stakeholders was often a motivating factor for using ECR processes.…”

Towards a Paradigm of Multiparty Negotiation

“…In reality, the courts often represent a BATNA that consensus builders seek to preempt, or at least decrease its attraction. In any event, consensus building through facilitation and mediation is not the only approach for public dispute management; but it is a primary focus in this domain (Allor 1993;Bourdeaux, O'Leary and Thornburgh 2001;Carnevale and Pegnetter 1985;Dukes 1993;Forester and Stilzel 1989;Gray 1989;Poitras and Bowen 2002;Purdy and Gray 1994;Susskind 2000;Susskind and Cruikshank 1987;Susskind, McKearnan and ThomasLarmer 1999;Susskind and Ozawa 1985).…”