ALTERNATE TECHNIQUES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION: A PRACTICAL PRIMER ON HOW TO DO THEM

• Jurisdiction: United States

Resolution and Avoidance of Disputes
(Mar 1984)
CHAPTER 6A
ALTERNATE TECHNIQUES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION: A PRACTICAL PRIMER ON HOW TO DO THEM
Glenn Paulson
National Audubon Society
New York, New York

Good afternoon. Even with that fine, accurate introduction by our Chairman, I am not sure if my bona fides are fully established with this particular group. Let me add one more bit of intormation to justify why someone from the National Audubon Society is with you today.

Our largest wildlife sanctuary, known as the Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary, is in southwestern Louisiana. For well over a decade, we have had natural gas production there; only a few weeks ago, our first crude oil well came in. In short, Audubon fools around in the oil patch, just like many of you and your clients.

I'm pleased to be here—standing behind a podium and speaking to a group of lawyers—rather than sitting on a witness stand and being crossexamined by a group of lawyers. The attention to alternatives to litigation has grown fast in recent years. In the papers from the 1981 Institute on Administrative Law and Procedure, the potential role of negotiations in leading to a settlement was mentioned only once, in an excellent paper by Warren titled, "The Defense of Hazardous Waste Enforcement Actions."

I have been asked to give you some very practical suggestions and clues on the factors that need to be considered in carrying out a successful dispute resolution effort, or in effect, to give a basic primer on the ABC's of how to do it.

In reflecting on my own experiences and reviewing some of the literature, I was struck at how often words starting with the letter C crop up in this field. Therefore that notion, a somewhat arbitrary one I admit, provides the thread for my remarks.

There are several components needed to mount a policy dialogue or other similar effort that has at least a fighting chance to be successful.

First, of course, you need a Conflict. We all know that.

But second, it has to be Complex. Simple conflicts can generally be solved in more usual ways. The complexity can be of several types—from factual, technical or legal complexities, all the way to clashes of values. In fact, I think one of the great strengths of the type of processes and approaches being discussed at this Institute—and an aspect that makes it stimulating to participate in them—is that it allows the simultaneous consideration of all facets of a complex issue. This is in...