CORD (Tucker McCravy) - Microjustice Workplace

Report
Evaluation of Microjustice Solutions
Microjustice Toolkit Conference
August 24th – 26th 2011
TUCKER MCCRAVY
[email protected]
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 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
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
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
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
 a)
evaluate the:
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 interestbased 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; nonCDRC 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

similar documents