 |
 |
Article Summary of "Building Trust in an Environmental Conflict" by Public Disputes Network
Citation: "Mediation Defuses Potentially Explosive Situation:Â Old mistrusts wilt in Minnesota as ex-foes reach pact on herbicides." Consensus. Published by the Public Disputes Network. November 1988. No.1. P. 3
This Article Summary written by: Mariya Yevsyukova, Conflict Research Consortium
In 1985 in Minnesota, a conflict arose between environmentalists and the forest
products industry over aerial spraying of herbicides to control the growth of underbrush
competing with pine trees. In 1985, environmentalists asked the Environmental Quality
Board to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. After the Worksheet was prepared,
they found several flaws in it, such as not proving the need for aerial spraying, not
assessing the risks of herbicide use, etc. Environmentalists threatened to take the
Department of Natural Resources to court. As less costly alternative, it was suggested
that the parties try mediation.
The first task for the mediator was to establish the ground rules. The
environmentalists wanted a fast process to be able to continue their battle in the court
if the mediation failed. The Department of Natural Resources wanted to include the forest
products, chemical manufacturing and agricultural industries as parties in the mediation
process. An agreement on procedural issues was finally reached in January 1987: industries
were included and a process duration of 5 months was established.
During the next stage, the parties educated each other about their interests.
Environmentalists were concerned about public health, industry--about "the role
herbicides play in the cycle of cutting and replacing timber land" (p. 3), and the
Department of Natural Resources--about a balanced and diverse use of public forest lands.
In situations of impasse, mediator Leah Patton suggested that the parties shift their
focus to other issues. She held caucuses with the parties, explaining that it was
impossible to achieve what they wanted. When they reached stalemate, the mediator reminded
the parties about the rule of thumb: "When another party can't accept something, then
come up with still another alternative that will fulfill your needs" (p. 3). Another
factor which helped this mediation to end with success was the use of a word processor,
which allowed them to immediately create drafts of the agreement. This way the parties did
not have a chance to say that they could not give their opinions on the proposals until
they would see them in written form. The agreement was reached and mediation helped
potentially violent adversaries to create positive relationships with each other.
|
 |
 |
 |