Alternative dispute resolution and the protection of natural areas in Ontario, Canada

In this paper we ask, Can alternative dispute resolution (ADR) settle land use disputes between developers and interest groups and still produce “environmentally-sound” decisions? We selected six Canadian environmental mediation/negotiation cases in Ontario, where proposed residential developments were perceived to threaten natural areas, and interviewed proponents, intervenors and consultants after ADR resolution. We measured success in protecting ecological integrity at each site through comparison with a hypothetical “perfect” case. Process and outcome criteria tested how each agreement had mitigated damage and maintained or enhanced ecological integrity. Five of six cases successfully met an arbitrary minimum of 50% of both process and outcome criteria. Cases involving the Ontario provincial government were more successful than those with private developers, and environmental groups relying on disinterested environmental principle were more successful than residents’ associations that were hampered by others’ perceptions of “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome. Participation by parties hostile to or unfamiliar with ADR hampered the process, and mediators were not perceived as critical to success. Thus, whether parties can solve environmental problems with ADR depends on their perspectives on environmental disputes, and stakeholders must share information openly and indicate their desire for consensus-based decisions. Finally, stakeholders must have access to current scientific information. Among its limitations, ADR is not guaranteed to resolve a dispute, nor can it succeed without voluntary participation by all parties. Third, ADR is effective only when all stakeholders feel that negotiation is useful. Finally, ADR is a reactionary, piecemeal process, and is therefore inefficient in protecting natural areas in a regional context.