Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Evaluation of Microjustice Solutions Microjustice Toolkit Conference August 24 th – 26 th 2011 T UCKER M C C RAVY CORG. ORG. KH.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Evaluation of Microjustice Solutions Microjustice Toolkit Conference August 24 th – 26 th 2011 T UCKER M C C RAVY CORG. ORG. KH."— Presentation transcript:

1 Evaluation of Microjustice Solutions Microjustice Toolkit Conference August 24 th – 26 th 2011 T UCKER M C C RAVY CORG. ORG. KH

2 Map of Presentation  IHistory & Overview of Cambodia ADR  IIObjectives of Microjustice Research  IIIPreliminary Findings  IVChallenges, Key Issues  V What is Needed & Next Steps

3 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.

4 History (cont’d)  Village chiefs have long conciliated local disputes (Fabio: 2008), using: authority as leaders influence 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 chiefs Remaining 40% escalate to commune level

5 Advantages of ADR  Advantages of ADR (traditional conciliation) are: effectiveness, accessibility, and cost.  Other reasons: Familiarity of people with process Understanding by local leaders of power relations in village Connection between ADR and spiritual / religious beliefs Encourages ownership of indigenous solutions to conflict

6 Challenges of ADR in Cambodia  Most apparent one is the weakness of ADR in the face of intractable conflicts: Violent domestic cases Serious (capital) criminal offences Large scale land conflict  More clarity is required to define the cases when ADR can (not) be successfully used

7 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.

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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)

12 UNDP – CDRC Mediation Request Form

13 UNDP – CDRC Agreement of Mediation Form

14 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?

15 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.

16 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%)

17 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

18 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.

19 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.

20 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.

21 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 4 th party (MJ Tool 15) is also widely used in the Cambodian context.

22 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)

23 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.

24 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)

25 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

26


Download ppt "Evaluation of Microjustice Solutions Microjustice Toolkit Conference August 24 th – 26 th 2011 T UCKER M C C RAVY CORG. ORG. KH."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google