TOOLS FOR JUSTICE

Evaluation of Microjustice Solutions

Microjustice Toolkit ConferenceAugust 24th – 26th 2011

TUCKER MCCRAVYTUCKERM@CORG.ORG.KH

Map of Presentation

I History & Overview of Cambodia ADR

II Objectives of Microjustice Research

III Preliminary Findings IV Challenges, Key Issues V What is Needed & Next Steps

History of ADR in Cambodia Traditional forms of ADR have existed in

Cambodian society. One of these is somroh somruel, with an aim

to “achieve a settlement . . . that makes possible a positive strengthening of the relationship between two parties” (Collins, 1997: 40)

Conflict seen as something that naturally occurs in relationships, and can be productive.

In summary, ADR is not a new concept to Cambodia.

History (cont’d) Village chiefs have long conciliated local

disputes (Fabio: 2008), using:authority as leadersinfluence of religion (Buddhism)cultural traditions of consensus

In 2005, approximately 115,000 conflicts occurred at village level (Fajardo: 2008; Diprose: 2005)

60% resolved by village chiefsRemaining 40% escalate to commune level

Advantages of ADR Advantages of ADR (traditional

conciliation) are: effectiveness, accessibility, and cost.

Other reasons:Familiarity of people with processUnderstanding by local leaders of

power relations in villageConnection between ADR and spiritual /

religious beliefsEncourages ownership of indigenous

solutions to conflict

Challenges of ADR in Cambodia

Most apparent one is the weakness of ADR in the face of intractable conflicts:Violent domestic casesSerious (capital) criminal offencesLarge scale land conflict

More clarity is required to define the cases when ADR can (not) be successfully used

Objective I of MJ Research Develop 2 new tools for microjustice

solutions, introduce them to commune councilors, & evaluate usability

New tools are grounded in principles of non-violent communication & observation that mediators should possess the skills and tools to resolve their own interpersonal conflict in order to be successful and effective mediators for others.

New Tools for Microjustice Understanding and Expressing Anger

–an interpersonal conflict resolution tool that focusses on understanding, expressing, and positive channeling of anger.

Transforming Judgments of Others - an intrapersonal conflict resolution tool that addresses the negative consequences of judgments

Objective II of the MJ Research

To evaluate the:

a) the effectiveness and efficiency of the CDRCs as a justice provider using adapted TISCO methods

b) the effectiveness of 5 CDRC tools for use in justice provision to end users; and

Commune Dispute Resolution Committee (CDRC)

Conflict Dispute Resolution Committee (CDRC) UNDP A2J emphasis on justice for vulnerable groups

Composed of 7 councilors and community members with mandate to resolve local conflicts in the interest of citizens

Received extensive training and support from UNDP, Ministry of Interior

Patterned on a formal approach to interest-based mediation

The 5 tools tested

1) Ground rules – Microjustice Tool 6 2) Conciliation request – form filled by

initiating conflicting party and submitted to CDRC

3) Conciliator request – conflicting parties (in CDRC) are given the right to choose their mediators

4) Active listening (related to MJ Tool 9) 5) Agreement form (Microjustice Tool 19)

UNDP – CDRC

Mediation Request

Form

UNDP – CDRC

Agreement of

Mediation Form

MJ Research Questions

1) CDRC vs. non-CDRC (effectiveness, impact)? Challenges?

2) View of community members (in both communes) on justice provision?

3) Usefulness of the 5 tools? 4) Other tools being used? New tools

needed? 5) 2 newly introduced tools useful?

Research Methodology

Used a combination of methods: focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews and structured interviews

Focussed on 20 communes – 10 CDRC and 10 non-CDRC communes in 2 provinces (areas with different levels of conflict)

Data from approximately 450 commune councilors and community members around Cambodia was gathered.

Types of Conflict Seen

Of 161 respondents in the research survey (Interview Schedule A), 44% of them ranked domestic violence as the most common issue brought to commune councilors

Land conflict (16%) was followed by others such as debt based conflicts, gang fighting, and cursing (40%)

CDRC vs. non-CDRC Findings CDRC more focussed on process; non-

CDRC more focussed on the output CDRC more likely to use active listening

and constructive communication Non-CDRC more likely to use coercion

while CDRC more likely to facilitate CDRC allowed parties to gain ownership of

the process; non-CDRC tended to take more control of it

All Councils (CDRC & non-CDRC)

Most conflicts solved by councilors were rarely brought back to the commune offices for solution again.

The majority of conflicting party respondents were happy and satisfied with the fairness, transparency, and durability of outcomes.

Tool Findings Ground rules –Vast majority of community

members (n=143) thought ground rules were clearly explained, they were able to express their views, and the rules contributed to increased respect and positive outcomes.

Conciliation Request – Large majority of community members felt conciliation request was clearly explained, and led to positive outcomes.

Conciliator Request – Very high percentage of community members (> 95% felt that the mediators they had chosen were trustworthy.

Tool Findings (Cont’d)

Active Listening –Only 32% of community members (n=143) felt that the use of active listening resulted in increased respect for conflicting parties. Only 68% felt that its use led to a more positive outcome.

Agreement Form – 84% of community members in CDCR communes viewed that the solution obtained through the agreement form was fair and equitable.

Other Tools Used

Traditional values and emphasis on social morality were often used as tools in the mediation process (potential new tool to consider)

Stress on the importance of social relationships (Tool 8b) was also found to be useful to mediators.

The 4th party (MJ Tool 15) is also widely used in the Cambodian context.

Challenges Faced with tools Powerful parties disrespect ground rules Some issues are “immediable” Iliteracy in the use of agreement forms and

conciliation requests Lack of conflicting parties’ familiarity with

councilors when they had to choose one Active listening may be unevenly applied, is

time consumptive In terms of agreement, coercion (by

councilors) or unwillingness to compromise (by rich and powerful)

Key Issues GBV is sometimes viewed as an

issue which is justiciable by ADR Confidence and trust in the

conciliators is important for successful resolution

5 tools are clearly helpful for the process of dispute resolution

Mediation vs. Conciliation (different concepts)

Local people are happy if their solution is solved at the commune level.

What is Needed

Training in ADR (great possibility for integration of TISCO tools)

Strengthening capacity of councilors (law, mediation skills), especially non-CDRCs

Mechanisms for setting up conflict monitoring networks (similar to early warning systems)

More tools on interpersonal conflict resolution and communication skills (preliminary results from FGD)

Next Steps Use these findings to inform policy dialogue Integrate TISCO tools into existing curricula for

capacity development in mediation Seek ways to collaborate at grassroots level

with government in microjustice provision Communities of practice for researchers, policy

makers, and mediators on dispute resolution in Cambodia

Continue to document, research, and evaluate what works best in the Cambodian context

For your valuable time and attention