To facilitate a speedy and cost-effective resolution of disputes.

To impose strict penalties on polluters.

To promote litigation as a means of resolving environmental disputes.

To increase the number of environmental disputes filed in court.

Mediation

Arbitration

Litigation

Conciliation

Speed, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility.

Strict adherence to legal precedents.

The ability to impose heavy fines on polluters.

Increased public awareness of environmental issues.

Polluters, environmental regulators, and affected communities.

Government agencies only.

Environmental activists only.

Corporations only.

To facilitate communication and negotiation between parties.

To impose a binding decision on the parties.

To represent the interests of the polluter.

To represent the interests of the affected community.

To make a binding decision on the dispute.

To facilitate communication and negotiation between parties.

To represent the interests of the polluter.

To represent the interests of the affected community.

Lack of awareness about ADR mechanisms.

Unwillingness of parties to participate in ADR.

Complexity of environmental issues.

All of the above.

By raising awareness about ADR mechanisms.

By making ADR mandatory in certain cases.

By providing training to mediators and arbitrators.

All of the above.

The Bhopal gas tragedy.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The Love Canal toxic waste dump.

None of the above.

ADR is likely to become more widely used as a means of resolving environmental disputes.

ADR is likely to be replaced by litigation as the primary means of resolving environmental disputes.

ADR is likely to remain a niche area of dispute resolution.

It is difficult to predict the future of ADR in environmental disputes.