Solving environmentalconflicts by dialogue

Neighbourhood complaints and conflictsoften occur near sites such as industrialproduction facilities, waste managementsites and quarries because of their emissi-ons or potential dangers including healthrisks. Sites built near inhabited areas or thathave become surrounded by residentialareas are especially affected. Conflicts can

focus on concerns about odours,noise, air pollution, accidents, opera-tion disorders or new permit conditi-ons and procedures.

The participants in the projectdiscussed several case studies andexchanged their experiences of usingvarious dialogue approaches. The dis-cussions covered application fields,essential framework conditions, chan-ces, best-practice proceedings, advan-tages, risks, limits and involvement ofauthorities. The following paragraphs

and the neighbourhoods they affect. Toachieve this different countries have used dialogue in a variety of ways. The projectconcluded unanimously that it is worth-while to look at how we can be more effec-tive and widespread in our use of dialogueprocesses.

The project report and website wwwwww..ggeewweerrbbeeaauuffssiicchhtt..nniieeddeerrssaacchhsseenn..ddee(IMPEL Project) provide more detail on why dialogue works and how it can helpus to achieve the implementation andenforcement of environmental law.

I would like to thank all the parti-cipants in the project, and I wish all those who are interested in dialogue anexciting read and a successful future using dialogue to resolve environmentalconflicts.

HHaannss--HHeeiinnrriicchh SSaannddeerrMMiinniisstteerr ffoorr EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt

ooff LLoowweerr SSaaxxoonnyy

ForewordLadies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased to pre-sent to you the re-commendations ofthe IMPEL networkneighbourhood dialo-gues project. This pro-ject titled »Informalresolution of environ-mental conflicts by

neighbourhood dialogue« involved partici-pants from 17 European countries. It achie-ved an exchange of dialogue experiencesbetween member states.

The project was led and co-ordinatedby the Hannover Department of Labourand Environmental Inspection (StaatlichesGewerbeaufsichtamt) due to our experi-ence of using dialogue to resolve conflictswithin the federal state of Lower Saxony in Germany. Since the mid-nineties we have been using open dialogue processesto the benefit of all parties involved in

environmental issues. Dialogue meansthat environmental conflicts can be solved in a constructive way or avoidedfrom the start. It allows the interests of allparties to be expressed and consideredearly on when making decisions and planning for future investment. It alsoallows us to increase understanding oflegal requirements. Dialogue creates the benefits of co-operation between par-ticipants to achieve reasonable solutionsthat can also achieve additional environ-mental improvements beyond the requi-rements of the law. It also reduces the burden on the regulatory authorities byreducing complaints and legal procee-dings against their decisions.

The project built on our work andunderstanding by discussing and evalua-ting case studies from the 17 memberstates. This showed us that we are allfacing the same challenges. The challengeto deliver the requirements of environ-mental legislation whilst achieving goodrelations with the businesses we regulate

The project30 representatives of 17 IMPEL memberstates participated in the project »Infor-mal resolution of environmental conflictsby neighbourhood dialogue«. Two con-ferences were held in November 2004 andMay/June 2005 in Hannover, Germany.

The focus of the project was on existing sites with neighbourhood com-plaintswhere adialogueprocesswas usedas avoluntaryinstru-ment totry andresolvethe con-flict.

Welcoming neighbours to a dialogue meetingand site visit at Honeywell Specialty ChemicalsSeelze GmbH.

summarise the important aspects andrecommendations about how to implementthe use of dialogue processes successfully.

Neighbours of Volkswagen Nutzfahrzeuge visit the newpaint-spray line, having accompanied its planning.

Dialogues can improve environmentalperformance, reducing nuisance andhealth impacts to acceptable levels forthe neighbourhood by voluntary effortsand communication.

Dialogues allow for direct communi-cation between all parties involved in aconflict. Facilitation and mediation tech-niques support the parties working to-gether, agreeing on facts and understan-ding complex conflict issues. Dialoguepartners learn to accept other partici-pants' views and constraints and to takeresponsibility for handling and solvingthe conflicts. In the long run dialoguesencourage understanding, build confi-dence, create trust and contribute to solving even hardened conflicts.

Dialogues support additional accessto information and participation of thepublic in environmental issues. It there-fore promotes the aims of the Aarhusconvention. This includes the require-ments for access to information, publicparticipation in decision-making andaccess to justice in environmental matters.The Aarhus convention was adopted at the 4thUNECE Conference in 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark, andcame into force on 30th October 2001. By the end of2005 the Aarhus convention had been ratified by 37states and the European Community.

2. Which type of dialogueapproach is suitable?Various types of dialogue processes exist.They can differ in the initiator (e.g. com-pany, authority, courts), the facilitator (re-presentative of the initiator or indepen-dent), the method or by their objectives.Goals may range from exchanging andgathering information, complementingexpert research, discussing future plansand alternative options, to getting the

Legislation sets the framework but alsothe possibilities for discretion and for dialogue. Before initiating a dialogue process the chances and risks should beassessed (see sections 5 and 6).

Dialogues support conflict resolutionbetween companies and neighbours. Theyhave proven to handle and solve certainneighbourhood conflicts more effectivelyand efficiently than a traditional approachof enforcing regulations. It gives authori-ties a systematic and structured approachto manage communication and conflictresolution between neighbours and sites.

Dialogues cannot replace the usual

tasks and responsibilities of inspection au-thorities nor do they substitute the law, butthey can complement them. If there is aneed for immediate action (e.g. to preventsignificant health and environmental risks)or if an important party is refusing to partici-pate in or misusing the dialogue process (e.g.to gain time) a different approach will beneeded. This is when the authority must usetheir traditional instruments to regulate thesite (e.g. supervising measures, legal con-straints or judicial measures).

Dialogues can create win-win situations,e. g. by avoiding the need for a judicial decision where the legal position is unclear.

Dialogues allow discretion to be used toagree on research projects or to developand implement new standards to get moreimprovement than can be required bylegislation.

In particular cases and depending onthe national regulatory systems dialogueresults can also be integrated into the per-mit or fixed on a voluntary basis by privateor public-private contracts to ensure their binding character. If all parties agree on acompromise, this may reduce time, costsand risks for all.

company's feedback on neighbourhoodrecommendations or even negotiating compromises and mediating solutions thatare acceptable to all parties.

»Dialogues« and »Round Tables«(based on facilitation), »Mediation« or»Mediation by expert consultation« charac-terise different approaches. The designshould always be case specific.

Neighbourhood dialogue or mediationapproaches can also be useful preventiveinstruments. Even if the focus of the projectwas on conflict resolution, the participantssaw great potential for dialogue processesto be integrated in legally prescribed instru-ments of information, communication orparticipation e.g. to accompany permitprocedures.

3. Key factors for success andbest-practices of dialogue Before starting a dialogue the initiator orthe facilitator should assess preconditionsand key factors for success.Essential preconditions to a dialogue are:

the willingness to negotiate abouthow to improve environmental qualitythe willingness to cooperate and getinvolved by all dialogue partnerspersonnel and financial resources e.g.for facilitation, expertise

The main results Dialogues and their results have to comply with the law.

NeighbourhoodDialogues in Germany The Department of Labour and Environmental Inspection in Hanno-ver is responsible for several sites,where neighbours complained aboutdifferent environmental nuisances.The residents used administrative and judicial rights to pursue theirinterests and sued the companies andthe inspection authority. Within theseformal procedures many conflictaspects and underlying interestscould not be dealt with. The conflictswere never solved and became neverending stories.

In 1995 Honeywell Specialty Chemicals Seelze initiated the firstneighbourhood dialogue in theregion. The company now invites itsneighbours to discuss environmentaland other issues important to themthree times a year. An external facili-tator prepares and leads the discus-sion. Nowadays the company and itsneighbours handle most of the com-plaints directly. Some of them aredone in combination with modernisa-tion investments, e.g. investments inodour reducing measures were takenvoluntarily. No intervention by theauthority was necessary. Complaintsto the authority decreased nearlytotally.

Today a number of companies inthe region of Hannover have success-fully installed neighbourhood dialo-gues and by doing this they have im-proved their environmental perfor-mance and neighbourhood relations.

1. How dialogues solveneighbourhood conflicts

Honeywell invested in the cover for the settling bassin of the water treatment plant to reduce odouremissions.

Neighbour asking questionsabout environmental andhealth risks.

accepted as common ground rules so thatthe dialogue partnership is binding for allparticipants.

Be clear and open on facts, uncertain-ties, responsibilities, constraints and alter-natives.

Be transparent about proceedingsand involve the public and the mediathrough public meetings and continuousinformation.

Encourage and support agreement onfacts, mutual learning and taking self-responsibility for conflict resolution whereappropriate.

Let hardened conflicts or very conten-tious issues be facilitated or mediated by aneutral third person.

Make sure that results are implemen-ted with respect to the law and ensure orimprove environmental performance.

Mediation in Drog-teropslagen, NL The Environmental Inspecto-rate initiated a dialogue tocheck and discuss health risksof an aluminium companywith the citizens of Drogter-opslagen. They involved repre-sentatives of the citizens witha committee of experts and the

operator and residents with complaints.Inspection authorities representatives oftenact as a facilitator to encourage direct com-munication, to mediate between compa-nies and complainants, to initiate partner-ships or to act as a participant in a dialogueprocess. In all cases, authorities play animportant role within dialogue processes.They contribute to achieving high quality ofdialogues and their outcomes e.g. by asses-sing expert views, giving legal informationto all parties and ensuring that legal andpublic health needs are met.

Sometimes an authority can be percei-ved as having its own interests in the resultof the dialogue process. This is when anexternal facilitator or mediator can makesure that the dialogue process happenssmoothly and role conflicts are avoided.

Successfully working dialogues willreduce the cost including staff time andreputation for authorities in dealing withcomplaints and delivering their work. Forexample, experience has shown that com-plaints will decrease significantly. Thereforeauthorities have an interest in initiatingdialogue approaches.

Trecatti Landfill Site Liaison Group before a site visit.

The Environment Agency of Englandand Wales received up to 100 com-plaints a day about odour nuisancefrom a landfill site. The traditionalapproach since 1996 was monitoringthe site, using scientific data and riskbased analyses, seeking to ensure thesite achieved best-practice and thencommunicating this to the local resi-dents through community represen-tatives and in response to complaints.This approach neither solved the odourproblems nor the conflict.

From July 2002 to November 2003a dialogue process involved up to 150people in six main group meetings. Aworking group of 13 people represen-ting all of the interests developed solu-tions for the issues during 20 sessions.Outcomes were: improved awarenessof the facts and constraints; majorityagreement and acceptance of the site;active site monitoring on air quality,groundwater flows, flies, health im-pacts and complaints received. The lat-ter reduced the complaints and therequest for a Public Inquiry (legal re-view process). Relationships and com-munication were improved – a Site Liai-son group was formed to continue thedialogue and it is still running today.

Key factors for success and best-practiceproceedings are:

Involve and talk to all relevant parties(operator, residents, local interest groups,politicians, police, fire department, inspec-tion and other authorities) to check andanalyse their interests, expectations, wil-lingness to cooperate and constraints.

Evaluate this feedback and the com-municated options for activities to checktime horizons and realistic expectationsabout possible outcomes.

Propose a dialogue process design to help the groups work together on theconflict issues. Check if further expertise is necessary. Develop common dialoguegoals and fairness principles. Let these be

Dialogue facilitation atTrecatti Landfill Site, UK

formulation of theresearch proposal. Theresults were communica-ted in public meetings. Nosignificant links betweencancer occurrence and thecompany's emissions werefound. All parties inclu-ding the representativesof the citizens acceptedthe results.

Neighbours and experts learnabout soil research.

4. Role of the authority:initiator, facilitator or parti-cipant within dialoguesInspection authorities generally take thelead for initiating dialogue between an

BBuuiillddiinngg rreellaattiioonnsshhiippss aanndd ttrruusstt bbyy iinnffoorr--mmaattiioonn sshhaarriinngg aanndd ccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn

Because of the involvement andacceptance of all parties soluti-ons are more robust and moresustainable.Participants get additional accessto information.Companies become more under-standing of neighbourhood con-cerns.Sites become more accepted byneighbours.Good relationships can be builtand trust rises between conflictparties.All parties are aware of and dealwith complaints and conflictsvery early and openly.

IImmpprroovviinngg eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall ppeerrffoorrmmaannccee wwiitthhoouuttjjuuddiicciiaall pprreessssuurree

Environmental performance can increase;e.g. links with scheduled investments or additional discretionary improvement are possible.Results can achieve more than is required by the law.Dialogues support sustainable managementapproaches.Improvements can be based on voluntaryefforts.Companies get a positive image because ofvoluntary improvements without judicial pressure.All parties spend less time on complaints and can avoid judicial confrontations.Permission procedures can be more efficientfor companies and authorities.

5. Advantages of dialoguesDialogues can achieve communication and environmental benefits:

Poland: Agnieszka Tarach, a.tarach@gios.gov.pl Portugal: Isabel Maria Pinto Santana

isantana@ig-amb.ptSlovak Republic: Dr. Anna-Barbora Stykova

stykova@sizp.sk (only 2004)Spain: Maria de Los Angeles (Chiqui) Barreche-

guren/Jesus Angel Ocio,chiqui.barrecheguren@gmail.com,jan-ocio@ej-gv.es

Sweden: Hans Zetterling hans.zetterling@n.lst.se U.K.: Ruth Rush

ruth.rush@environment-agency.gov.uk

Project Team and Editor:Bernhard Klockow/RenéeBergmann/Lars Bobzien/Andreas Aplowski,c/o Department of Labourand Environmental Inspection (Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt), Am Listholze 74,30177 Hannover, Germanywww.gewerbeaufsicht.niedersachsen.de email: lars.bobzien@gaa-h.niedersachsen.de

Participants of the projectAustria: Barbara Pucker barbara.pucker@ktn.gv.atBelgium: Dr. Sc. Robert Baert

robert.baert@lin.vlaanderen.be Bulgaria: Mincho Minchev/Penka Nacheva

riosvzs@stz.bg Cyprus: Costas Hadjipanayiotou

chadjipanayiotou@environment.moa.gov.cy Czech Republic: Eva Roleckova roleckova@cizp.cz Denmark: Lene Thystrup lethkn@tf.kbhamt.dk France: Christian Ron

christian.ron@industrie.gouv.fr Germany: Dr. Franz Graßmann

franz.graszmann@afi-wdf.brandenburg.de,Dr. Gisela Holzgraefegisela.holzgraefe@stua-iz.landsh.de,Nadja Salzborn nadja.salzborn@uba.de,Kristina Rabe kristina.rabe@bmu.bund.de,Dr. Christof Sangenstedtchristof.sangenstedt@bmu.bund.de,Axel Strohbusch axel.strohbusch@senstadt.verwalt-berlin.de,Helga Stulgieshelga.stulgies@stua-kr.nrw.de,Rolf Schmidtrolf.schmidt@mu.niedersachsen.de,Dr. Matthias Weigandmatthias.weigand@stmugv.bayern.de

Ireland: Brendan Wall b.wall@epa.ie Italy: Dr. Giulio Sesana/Dr. Annarosa Scarpelli

g.sesana@arpalombardia.it,ar.scarpelli@arpat.toscana.it

The Netherlands: Gerda de Vriesgerda.devries@minvrom.nl

There are also risks and limits to theimplementation of dialogue processes.

It is not certain that the conflict willbe solved.It is not certain if the cost spent intime and money will be worthwhilee.g. they can exceed the costs of thenormal way of dealing with com-plaints.The time that a dialogue processtakes may be abused by a party e.g.an operator to delay necessary invest-ments in environmental performancetechnology.Parties may refuse to take responsibi-lity for the results.In a dialogue process individuals mayseek agreements that are personallybeneficial. Even if legally acceptablesuch agreements may impact on other people both involved in the dialogue process and outside of it, oraffect environmental quality (e.g.shift of pollution from air emmissionto wastewater).

The conflict analysis assesses these risksbefore starting a dialogue. In some casesthe initiator or the facilitator will intro-duce specific ground rules or elements inthe dialogue process or not recommend a

Two national projects (UK and Germany)have published toolkits to initiate dialo-gues. In France dialogue commissions arelegally supported for specific sites.

»Enterprises and their neighbours:building confidence to solve conflict. 12steps towards a good neighbourhood« ofthe Department of Labour and Environ-mental Inspection, Hannover, LowerSaxony, Germany. Download: www.gewer-beaufsicht.niedersachsen.de

»Building trust with communities.A toolkit for staff« the six step checklistof the Environment Agency of Englandand Wales, Bristol, United Kingdom. Email:ruth.rush@environment-agency.gov.uk

French regulation on the Local Com-mittees for Information cover three areas:nuclear energy sites (CLI), waste manage-ment sites (CLIS) and industrial risk(Seveso II) sites (CLIC). Download of theCLIC decret »Information et concertation

Project consultant:Maren Schüpphaus/Ruth Hammerbacher,hammerbacher, Osnabrück, Germany,ms@hammerbacher.de

Facilitator:Sabine Chmielewski, Honeywell Specialty Chemicals Seelze GmbH, Germany

Production:Maren Schüpphaus (coordinator)/Ruth Rush

Photos:Environment Agency of England and WaleshammerbacherHoneywell Specialty Chemicals Seelze GmbHVROM Inspectie NoordVolkswagen Nutzfahrzeuge

Layout:Helga Kuhn, Zentrum für Umweltkommuni-kation der Deutschen Bundesstiftung Umwelt

6. Assessing uncertainties,risks and limits

Final recommendationsThe participants in the project recom-mend support for the further applicationof dialogue processes as voluntary instru-ments in the implementation and enfor-cement of environmental law. In particu-lar they recommend:

using dialogue as an option withincomplaint proceduresusing dialogue before or parallel to permit procedures (e.g. in accordancewith the IPPC directive)encouraging companies to use the dialogue process as part of operatingtheir site.

7. Further information

du public : Les comités locaux d'information et de concertation CLIC«:www.ecologie.gouv.fr/article.php3?id_article=2396)

dialogue approach to manage the uncer-tainties, risks and limits. If problems occurduring the process the facilitator or theauthority can intervene to try and over-come them. If problems cannot be solvedthen the dialogue process may have to endand traditional regulatory processes used.

A typical neighbourhood dialogue meeting atHoneywell Specialty Chemicals Seelze GmbH