Green Mountain Environmental Resolutions (GMER) was established in 2005 to provide mediation, facilitation, early neutral evaluation and permit consultation services to parties in environmental and land use disputes. GMER also works with governmental agencies, permitting bodies and courts to develop and integrate mediation programs for environmental and land use disputes.
GMER was founded on the premise that all environmental and land use permitting cases need not be adversarial proceedings that end up in costly and protracted litigation. GMER’s experience in consensus building techniques can help you resolve your environmental or land use dispute in a timely and cost-effective manner that satisfies all parties’ interests.
GMER is affiliated with the Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts and the New England Environmental Policy Center in North Ferrisburgh, Vermont.
GMER specializes in environmental and land use mediation. GMER provides two distinct environmental and land use mediation services. First, GMER mediates environmental and land use disputes. Second, GMER designs collaborative decision-making processes, including mediation screening systems for governmental permitting bodies.
GMER has mediated environmental and land use disputes ranging from residential developments to rock quarries. The cases have involved diverse issues such as impacts to visual aesthetics and noise, drinking water, soil erosion, primary agricultural soil, traffic, parking, wildlife habitat, important state resources, historic sites, etc.
GMER follows a multi-step approach to mediation designed to maximize the chances of reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. First, GMER works with the parties to break down the dispute into manageable issues. Then GMER facilitates a discussion on each issue in an effort to get the parties to suggest possible resolutions. Should the parties engage in positional bargaining, GMER utilizes private sessions with parties to help them understand the difference between their position (I am opposed to a development) and their interest (I want peace and quiet).
Once the parties are discussing their true interests, they are engaging in a constructive process towards finding a mutually satisfying resolution. If the parties are unable to reach resolution based on their own ideas, GMER will actively brainstorm with the parties. GMER’s experience in environmental law and mediation often provides a fresh perspective to a dispute that can break a “log jam” and allow parties to understand that their interests can be met in different ways.
If the parties cannot reach agreement because they differ sharply on certain issues, GMER may be able to help the parties reach an agreement because the parties may differ regarding which interests are most important to them. After using private sessions to find out which interests are most important to each party, GMER can facilitate a discussion of “trading” across those issues to create gains for each other.
For example, opponents to a residential development may be willing to trade on a secondary interest of theirs such as the density of the development, in order to achieve a primary interest such as preserving a meadow. Likewise, a developer may be willing to trade a secondary interest such as the size of lots, in order to achieve a primary interest such as selling a certain number of lots.
Finally, if the parties in a mediation are still “stuck,” GMER will utilize its twenty years of environmental law experience to evaluate the parties’ litigation risks. The “weather report” provides parties with additional clarity to compare options discussed in the mediation with their best alternative to a negotiated agreement, including litigation.
GMER designs mediation programs for courts, government agencies, and permitting bodies. A successful mediation program requires selecting the right cases for mediation and matching them with appropriate mediation assistance. GMER is a leader in the field of designing models that screen disputes for their suitability for mediation.
Determining early in the process whether engaging in mediation would be constructive saves limited governmental resources without senselessly overburdening parties. Mediation screening programs are more effective and efficient than mandating mediation in every case because they screen out the cases where there are obstacles to finding a successful resolution through mediation, such as a truly intractable dispute. The models are superior to leaving it up to the parties to request mediation because many parties are reluctant because they believe that expressing an interest in mediation may be perceived by opposing parties as a sign of weakness.
GMER and the New England Environmental Policy Center (NEEPC) were recently awarded a grant by the Windham Foundation to research and develop models to screen Act 250 land use permit applications to target cases that are appropriate for mediation. GMER developed a mediation screening model for the Vermont Natural Resources Board and is now screening all major contested Act 250 permit applications.
GMER designs mediation screening models that are comprehensive and consider all cases as candidates for mediation without adding another level of process that may be overly burdensome to the parties. GMER mediation screening models can utilize existing staff and resources or an external neutral evaluator to perform the mediation screening.
The screening models employ tools such as confidential interviews with the parties to determine where the parties agree and disagree, what issues are priorities for each party, and whether there are any obstacles to using mediation. Based on the interviews, the mediation screener can provide a non-binding assessment on whether a case would benefit from mediation. The parties in consultation with the court or permitting board could then make an informed decision whether to pursue mediation. GMER can tailor a mediation screening system or mediation program for any governmental agency, permitting body or court.
GMER is working with the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) of Cambridge, Massachusetts to create the nation’s first fully integrated, state-wide, multi-level land use mediation program. The program will include mediation screening for local zoning and state-wide land use permit applications, an evaluation program, a mediator referral program, and a best practices in land use mediation course for local, regional, and state officials.
Early neutral evaluation (ENE) aims to provide parties in dispute with an early and frank evaluation by an objective observer or “evaluator” of the merits of a case. It is used when the parties disagree significantly about the value of their cases and are locked in positional bargaining. In positional bargaining, parties focus on a broad position based on perceptions of the value or merit of their case, as opposed to interest-based negotiation in which parties attempt to meet each others’ interests.
Like mediation, the ENE process is voluntary and does not eliminate other dispute resolution options. Regardless whether the ENE results in settlement, the process is confidential. During ENE, the objective Evaluator studies materials provided by the parties, performs independent research into relevant case law as necessary, considers presentations (written and/or oral), and clarifies positions and facts through questions. After gathering all the information needed, the Evaluator then offers an opinion as to the potential outcome of the case. The evaluation made is not binding.
ENE is particularly appropriate when the dispute involves technical or factual issues that lend themselves to expert evaluation, and when the decision-makers of one or more of the parties could be better informed about the real strengths and weaknesses of their cases. Thus, ENE can be helpful in many environmental and land use disputes. ENE can enhance direct communication between the parties about their claims and supporting evidence and provide an assessment of the merits of the case by a neutral expert. In addition, it can provide a “reality check” for clients and lawyers and help to identify and clarify the central issues in dispute.
Like Early Neutral Evaluation, parties in environmental and land use disputes may benefit from GMER’s consultation services to assist parties make better and more informed decisions concerning environmental and land use disputes.
GMER consults with both applicants and opponents to environmental and land use permits. Although applicants can consult with GMER at any time, they may find that it is most efficient to consult with GMER while a project is still in the conceptual design stage. GMER can help applicants plan projects to minimize impacts that lead to costly and protracted litigation.
GMER can develop and execute public outreach strategies for applicants who wish to open a dialogue with members of the surrounding community. This process allows applicants to understand potential opponent’s concerns as early as possible in the application process. GMER can then assess the merits of any possible challenges to the project and work with the project engineers to modify the design if necessary to avoid potentially troublesome permitting issues. This strategy can enable applicants to “put shovels in the ground” as soon as possible rather than be tied up in litigation for years.
Opponents to developments can also utilize GMER’s permit consultation services. Opponents often are faced with a dilemma whether to invest enormous resources and possibly empty their savings account in order to effectively oppose a development. GMER’s assessment of any litigation weaknesses of a permit application may assist opponents in determining whether to litigate, what issues to concentrate on in any litigation, and what would be a reasonable negotiated settlement given the facts and circumstances of the case.
Facilitaters help organizations conduct efficient meetings in order to accomplish their goals. Too often groups lose focus of their goals or head off track on tangents unrelated to their goal. Other times, they waste time arguing over process questions instead of focusing their energy on their substantive goal.
GMER can help groups overcome these obstacles. Meetings with large groups of people can be more effectively run and may reach better results if facilitated by GMER who does not have a stake in the outcome of the discussions.
Facilitation requires two separate skills. First, a facilitator must have strong knowledge and skills regarding group dynamics and processes — these are often referred to as process skills. Second, effective facilitation also involves strong knowledge and skills about the particular topic or content that the group is addressing in order to reach its goals — these are often referred to as content skills. GMER combines strong process skills with strong environmental and land use content skills to enable groups to overcome obstacles and achieve their goals.
GMER can design a process that encourages groups to work together towards accomplishing a common goal. GMER works before the meeting with participants to set an agenda and ground rules. During the meeting, GMER focuses the discussion to accomplish the agenda. GMER works to obtain consensus on as many issues as possible by including all participants in the discussions. GMER documents the results of meetings, prepares reports, makes presentations to management on the outcome, and follows through with any work stemming from the meeting.