Some Challenges in Natural Resource Dispute Resolution

(1) The policy and political dynamic is a zero-sum game;

(2) The distribution of benefits and costs is more important than the ratio of total benefits to total costs;

(3) The most politically viable choice spreads benefits to a broad majority with the costs limited to a narrow minority;

(4) Potential losers are more assertive than potential winners and disproportionately considered in decision making;

(5) Advocates may cloak their arguments as science to mask their personal policy preferences;

(6) If something can be accurately measured it is probably not relevant;

(7) Demonizing your opponents may be more effective than rigorous analysis;

(8) Money talks loudly, often without a microphone;

(9) Words matter; arguments over precise definitions are surrogates for debates over values.

(10) Distinguishing long term interests from temporary postures is difficult for everyone.

ADAPTED by Peter Sly, March 16, 2008

FROM: Robert Lackey in Fisheries June 2006, 286-90

Peter W. Sly is the Mellon Fellow in Environment and Justice at Colby College and a specialist in environmental, land, water, and Indian law. He earned his J.D. in 1974 from Yale and his A.B. in 1968 from Stanford. He is a certified Maine Assessor and admitted to practice law in California and Maine. His professional emphasis has been settlement of complex multiparty litigation, and his book, THE RESERVED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT MANUAL is a neutral reference for parties and their attorneys in water adjudications. At Colby College, he has taught courses on conservation easements, water policy, federal Indian law and environmental justice.

His email address is peter_sly@msn.com