573
20.3.5 Mediation
Mediation also relies on the use of a neutral third party—a mediator—to help people have a constructive conversation. However, formal mediation tends to occur
after a conflict has arisen and parties are in a dispute. In the USA, all 50 states have
a mediation privilege that generally protects anything created for the purpose of the
mediation from being introduced into formal court proceedings. The job of a mediator is to work with the parties to design a process, assess the issues in conflict,
clarify the interests and issues, generate and then evaluate options, develop potential
agreements, and work with parties to determine potential implementation steps (see,
e.g., Susskind and Ozawa 1983; Susskind et al. 1999). At the end of the process, it
is ultimately up to the parties involved to decide how and whether to proceed or
reach and implement an agreement, not the mediator.
Both mediation and facilitation rely on a cooperative approach by the neutral
third party to stimulate dialogue and hopefully build productive relationships among
stakeholders. Vital to this process is the identification of issues among parties and
how to address them (Fowler and Shi 2016). One benefit unique to both methods is
the control stakeholders possess over the process and outcome while the third-party
neutral facilitates hopefully more productive engagement and outcomes.
For the food–energy–water nexus, mediation is an essential alternative to the
traditional judicial system where backlogs often occur, and knowledge of environmental matters can be limited. Moreover, mediation allows parties to convene at
times of their choosing and flexibility in which issues to investigate. Mediation
bridges the gap between the complexity of environmental conflicts and the jurisdictional reach of traditional courts. Furthermore, the method provides decisionmaking processes in a participatory format, allowing the mediator to help parties
evaluate the strength and weaknesses of the options. Finally, mediation presents an
opportunity to create “social capital” among participants by working to improve
relationships (Fowler and Shi 2016).
An example of where mediation has made a difference is in the ability to store
then use additional groundwater in the greater Los Angeles area. Two groundwater
basins—the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins—run from the City of Los
Angeles to the City of Long Beach (Fig. 20.10). Subject of much litigation in the
1950s and 1960s due to declining groundwater levels, the parties took themselves to
court and ultimately reached settlements on who could extract how much water and
from where (Witherall and Simes 2014). Elinor Ostrom wrote about this history as
an example of people managing “common pool resources” for themselves (Ostrom
1965). In the early 2000s, parties to these settlements wanted to re-examine who
could store and then use additional groundwater; they hired mediators to help with
this process. After countless discussions and negotiations, the parties agreed on new
governance mechanisms to address groundwater storage and use in these basins;
these were eventually approved by the court in amendments to the original judgments (Sprague 2013).
20 Managing Human Conflicts
20.3.5 Mediation
Mediation also relies on the use of a neutral third party—a mediator—to help people have a constructive conversation. However, formal mediation tends to occur
after a conflict has arisen and parties are in a dispute. In the USA, all 50 states have
a mediation privilege that generally protects anything created for the purpose of the
mediation from being introduced into formal court proceedings. The job of a mediator is to work with the parties to design a process, assess the issues in conflict,
clarify the interests and issues, generate and then evaluate options, develop potential
agreements, and work with parties to determine potential implementation steps (see,
e.g., Susskind and Ozawa 1983; Susskind et al. 1999). At the end of the process, it
is ultimately up to the parties involved to decide how and whether to proceed or
reach and implement an agreement, not the mediator.
Both mediation and facilitation rely on a cooperative approach by the neutral
third party to stimulate dialogue and hopefully build productive relationships among
stakeholders. Vital to this process is the identification of issues among parties and
how to address them (Fowler and Shi 2016). One benefit unique to both methods is
the control stakeholders possess over the process and outcome while the third-party
neutral facilitates hopefully more productive engagement and outcomes.
For the food–energy–water nexus, mediation is an essential alternative to the
traditional judicial system where backlogs often occur, and knowledge of environmental matters can be limited. Moreover, mediation allows parties to convene at
times of their choosing and flexibility in which issues to investigate. Mediation
bridges the gap between the complexity of environmental conflicts and the jurisdictional reach of traditional courts. Furthermore, the method provides decisionmaking processes in a participatory format, allowing the mediator to help parties
evaluate the strength and weaknesses of the options. Finally, mediation presents an
opportunity to create “social capital” among participants by working to improve
relationships (Fowler and Shi 2016).
An example of where mediation has made a difference is in the ability to store
then use additional groundwater in the greater Los Angeles area. Two groundwater
basins—the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins—run from the City of Los
Angeles to the City of Long Beach (Fig. 20.10). Subject of much litigation in the
1950s and 1960s due to declining groundwater levels, the parties took themselves to
court and ultimately reached settlements on who could extract how much water and
from where (Witherall and Simes 2014). Elinor Ostrom wrote about this history as
an example of people managing “common pool resources” for themselves (Ostrom
1965). In the early 2000s, parties to these settlements wanted to re-examine who
could store and then use additional groundwater; they hired mediators to help with
this process. After countless discussions and negotiations, the parties agreed on new
governance mechanisms to address groundwater storage and use in these basins;
these were eventually approved by the court in amendments to the original judgments (Sprague 2013).
20 Managing Human Conflicts