ADR strategies have become popular for natural resource disputes in recent years because of their potential, when applied appropriately, to more efficiently, cost-effectively, and cooperatively produce agreements and resolutions that are more enduring and accurate than the traditional, formal systems of redress. The use of conflict prevention or ADR also tends to mend or improve the overall relationship between the parties because the focus is largely on interests and cooperation, while litigation focuses on positions and competition. In addition, the parties craft an agreement or solution themselves, and since parties retain a greater level of control over the outcomes, they are generally more committed to the agreement or outcome than when a judge or hearing officer imposes a solution or when an agency decides on an issue without meaningful public involvement. ADR processes also can allow the parties to develop a more flexible or creative solution than is generally possible in marginal public involvement processes or in court or formal hearings and appeals.  There are specific ADR strategies that can be used to improve understanding and achieve consensus, to build trust, to consult, to prevent conflict, to solve problems, and to manage or resolve disputes.  Any of these strategies might be used to help develop a land use plan, rule, or regulation; issue a license or permit; or analyze and implement a natural resource action.

 

In carrying out its multiple-use mandate in managing federal lands, BLM staff regularly interacts with a wide array of people who have different interests and expectations of land management.  Management decisions need to accommodate competing interests, and disagreements are common among the many publics served by the BLM, sometimes even within the Bureau. The benefits of ADR can apply in all these arenas, assisting in conflict prevention, management, and resolution.

 

As useful as ADR and conflict prevention can be, the BLM recognizes that it is not appropriate for every situation. Disputes over constitutional issues or legal precedent may be best handled in the courts. Politics or external events and constraints beyond the participants’ control may further limit opportunities for ADR and conflict prevention.