Increasing attention to matters of environmental sustainability and protection has opened doors for multiple laws (and lawsuits) regarding the environmental impact of businesses and business dealings.  In many cases, laws are unclear, or change depending on the administration of a city or county.  In other cases, more forceful persuasion is needed to make sure that businesses are operating within the confines and scope of environmental law. 

This is why environmental mediation plays such a large role in dealing with environmental disputes.  Environmental mediation, as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), allows parties involved in an environmental dispute to come together and work through the issues at hand with mediated communication.  In environmental mediation procedures, a non-biased, third-party mediator who is well-versed in matters of environmental law will allow each party the opportunity to state his or her “side” in the dispute, while providing information and evidence to support his or her claims. 

The mediator will then guide each party through a process of dispute resolution in which problems will be restated and reframed to allow each side the opportunity to see where the other is “coming from.”  This form of mediated, honest communication is often just what is needed to clear the air and allow each side to understand why the other is having issues, thus clarifying the dispute. 

The purpose of mediation is to provide parties involved in an environmental dispute the opportunity to hear and be heard.  After channels of communication are opened, the parties are then directed by the mediator to find reasonable solutions to their dispute that will work for both parties involved.  This often involves compromise and reframing of the situation to reach a satisfactory conclusion, but in the process of mediation (unlike litigation and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution like arbitration), the parties in conflict are in control of the situation.  If they want to arrive at a workable solution to solve the dispute, they are given the opportunity to do so.  If they can’t arrive to that solution, they are then directed toward expected outcomes they might receive if they choose to litigate the case.