Discussion begins with a review of the causes of environmental disputes and their susceptibility to mediation, followed by review of the various criteria by which the success of environmental mediation should be evaluated and the mechanisms by which environmental mediators could be held accountable. In the three cases studied, the mediators played an active role in formulating and negotiating settlements, much more actively than their counterparts in the labor-management field. A partial effort was made in each case to involve representatives of interests that did not request a place at the bargaining table. All three negotiations considered the impacts that proposed agreements might have on parties not present, including future generations. The mediators pushed the key stakeholders to continue bargaining even when agreement seemed out of reach and urged participants to be sensitive to the precedent-setting nature of the agreements under consideration. The institutionalization of guidelines and procedures for holding environmental mediators accountable would best be handled by linking environmental mediation directly to the prosecutorial and judicial branches of Federal and State governments. Also, the development of the public's capacity to participate in environmental mediation should begin in earnest. Efforts to license or credential environmental mediators are not likely to be effective. A total of 128 footnotes are provided.