Intervention in Environmental Disputes: How can we tell if it works?

1. Intervention in Environmental Disputes:How can we tell if it works? Sanda Kaufman Levin College of Urban Affairs Cleveland State University October 1998 26th SPIDR Conference Portland 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

2. Evaluating intervention • Is it necessary? • In each case, to learn about the past • In classes of cases, to learn for the future • Is it possible? • In each case, very likely • In classes of cases, probable, but challenging • Across cases, difficult, and benefits of generalization unclear 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

3. Challenge #1: variety • 3 examples of environmental conflict: • 6 mediated cases of regulatory noncompliance in Ohio (1995) • a facilitated process of ranking environmental priorities in Northeast Ohio (1994-96) • a negotiated watershed management plan for a Cleveland brook (ongoing) 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

4. Mediating regulatory noncompliance • Pilot project of the Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution & Conflict Management to explore the potential of mediation • Similar to mediation of landlord-tenant disputes: in terms of • timing (when already in court) • issues for negotiation (compliance plan and fines) • small number of parties (EPA, Attorney General, infractor) • Evaluation can include: • parties’ satisfaction • costs of process compared to court procedure (all known) • implementation • long-term relations among parties 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

5. Facilitating the setting of priorities • 2-year project of Case Western Reserve University’s Center for the Environment • Process similar to other priority setting projects in the country • timing (by initiative) • issues (science and values) • large number of parties (5 counties represented, 4 added) • Evaluation can include: • parties’ satisfaction • costs of process (no terms of comparison except with other priority projects) • impact (short- and long-term) 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

6. Negotiating a watershed management plan • Ongoing project about Doan Brook’s management • Process emerging from the interaction of key parties • timing (by initiative) • issues (science and values) • large number of parties (several jurisdictions, Sewer District, Nature Center, interest groups) • several types of intervention • Evaluation can include: • parties’ satisfaction • costs of process (no terms of comparison) • implementation • impact (short- and long-term) 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

7. Some key dimensions • Issues -- are they comparable? • siting, non-compliance, regulations and standards, priorities, conservation, sprawl, resource management, justice issues, etc. • Types of parties • Level of participation of parties: • direct (noncompliance cases) • by representative (priorities project) • absent (some parties in Doan Brook) • Scale (geographic, $, etc.): • can vary vastly among contexts, hampering comparisons 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

8. Some key dimensions(cont.) • Public interest: • how defined, by whom • how important (some agreements can be good by all other measures, but detrimental to the environment) • Horizon for implementation and consequences • the longer, the more difficult to track and attribute to the intervention • Memory: first round differs from subsequent rounds • events leave learning/relationships legacies that affect the next round • Intervenor: always desirable? • is there excellent intervention with poor outcomes? 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

9. What to do? • Intervention in environmental disputes can be viewed very broadly (mediation, facilitation, surveys, focus groups, etc.) • Generalization across contexts may not be meaningful • Shared dimensions and measures have to be identified • First step is widely accessible documentation 26th SPIDR Conference Portland

10. 26th SPIDR Conference Portland