Tools for Justice

1. Evaluation of Microjustice Solutions Tools for Justice Microjustice Toolkit Conference August 24th – 26th 2011 Tucker McCravy tuckerm@corg.org.kh

2. 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

3. History of ADR in Cambodia • Traditional forms of ADR have existed in Cambodian society. • One of these is somroh somruel, with an aimto “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 4th 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. For your valuable time and attention