Conflicts over coastal protection in a National Park: Mediation and negotiated law making

In this case study, a conflict resolution procedure with the support of a mediator is reported. The conflicting interests were those of coastal protection 1 1 In accordance with the terminology applied in European Communities’ documents ( Council, 1985, 1997, 2002; Commission, 2000) documents the term “coastal protection” is used here, rather then “coastal defence”. Although both terms are used quite frequently and almost synonymously in the technical literature to comprise measures to prevent coastal areas from flooding and erosion, “coastal protection” might include a bit more explicitly also flexible responses which are designed to work with natural processes rather than against them. As the European Commission points out in its Communication of September 27, 2000 (COM (2000) 547) coastal erosion is “often exacerbated by inappropriate human infrastructure, including that intended for ‘coastal defence’…..”. on the one hand and those of nature conservation on the other hand. Provoked by a major political conflict over a project of dyke reinforcement, the state Minister convened a group of stakeholders to develop proposals for better interaction and management of coastal protection issues. Appreciating the successful results, the Minister then mandated the group to develop a recommendation for legislation. This paper illustrates the issues at stake, the value conflict shaping the stakeholders’ positions, the setting of the mediation group and the way to proceed improving the relationships between the actors and successfully building consensus recommendations. The process to overcome impasse by mediation exemplarily is reported in some more detail for the law making objective.