- Policy brief sheds light on public awareness on and experience of ADR, specifically Mediation Boards and their role in resolving disputes, preventing conflicts, etc.
Community based alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms play a vital role in resolving disputes and in preventing the escalation of conflicts into overt violence. In Sri Lanka, where social tensions along different fault-lines exist, community based ADR initiatives provide effective pathways to access justice.
Further, in Sri Lanka, such community based ADR mechanisms comprise inter faith committees and multiple types of other initiatives established by civil society organisations (CSOs). In addition, Sri Lanka has a well-established National Mediation Programme operated through more than 300 Community Mediation Boards (CMB) where approximately 8,400 well-trained volunteer mediators deal with roughly 250,000 disputes per year. In this context, a better understanding of the people’s access to and awareness of community based ADR mechanisms, especially CMBs, is required, as a first step towards strengthening access to and raising awareness about such initiatives.
These observations were made in a recent policy brief titled “Strengthening a just alternative” which was based on a report of a knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) survey conducted by the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CPA) on ADR initiatives in Sri Lanka. The study covered six districts of Sri Lanka, i.e. Ampara, Trincomalee, Vavuniya, Mannar, Badulla and Monaragala, while a limited sample from the Colombo District was obtained to provide a comparison, and it targeted 1,712 households of all the main ethnic groups. The policy brief presented findings around three main themes, i.e. what do people know about ADR, what do people think about ADR, and what is people’s experience about ADR.
People’s knowledge about ADR
The policy brief noted that in general, people are aware of who engages in community based ADR initiatives, including CMBs, but know very little about Special Land Mediation Boards. Adding that people’s knowledge on the purpose of CMBs, how they operate, how to access the mediation services, and the composition of the Boards is comparatively low, it was further stated that focused attention is required in order to address this gap in awareness so as to encourage the use of CMBs. With regard to the people who engage in ADR, the policy brief explained: “Most respondents identify Government officials (Police in 69% of the cases and Grama Niladharis [GN] in 61% of the cases) as actors dealing with disputes within their community. A little over a quarter, i.e. 27%, identified CMBs as an ADR actor. Sri Lanka’s Moor community is more familiar with religious leaders as engaging in ADR, compared to other ethnic groups.” It highlighted that basic awareness levels of CMBs were high. While 89% of the respondents had heard of CMBs, respondents from the Colombo District and youth from all districts who had heard of CMBs (only 30% and 60%, respectively) were lower. Knowledge on the specific functions and process of CMBs is relatively low, as per the policy brief, which explained that despite having heard of CMBs, a majority of the respondents were not aware of the details and processes of CMBs. The lowest knowledge levels were in areas such as the issuing of settlement certificates, the time allocated for a dispute during the day, and whether the information presented and discussed in the CMBs can be used in courts. The awareness level of Special Mediation Boards (SMB) was also very low, the policy brief noted.
Adding that ADR and CMBs are seen as important mechanisms to prevent tensions escalating into violence, it was highlighted: “At the community level, in most of the study locations where an ethnically mixed population demography was observed, the tendency for disputes among groups to escalate into violence along racial lines, and the likelihood that such tensions result in communal riots, were highlighted during the survey. In such instances, addressing suspicions and gaining trust among different disputant groups was seen to be critical and ADR mechanisms are believed to play this role.”
Regarding the overall situation, the policy brief read that there is a clear need and opportunity to create change and strengthen ADR while addressing gaps in the system. While 73% of the respondents including more youth had indicated that they would like to learn more about the CMB process, CMBs are perceived as helping maintain social cohesion. However, long-held contentions regarding perceived discrimination on the basis of caste, money, and social status have been cited as reasons that can reduce the effectiveness of CMBs.
People’s attitudes about ADR
As per the policy brief, when questioned as to why people think that specific community based ADR mechanisms are effective, they had provided diverse and actor specific reasons. In terms of CMBs, the reasons that were cited included positively dealing with disputes, resolving issues properly and equitably, and the belief that they could resolve the dispute. Government officials, mainly GNs, and religious leaders are seen to resolve disputes well, given that they are respected by the people. In addition, the Police play a key role in dispute resolution, usually as the first or second point of contact in a complaint process. Hence, while people may still prefer to use the Police for dispute resolution, given the authority and the power that they wield and the perceived ease of access and response times, however, as per the policy brief, distance and language related barriers are making people less inclined to use the Police.
With regard to the responses received on who should be a part of ADR and who should chair ADR, it was explained: “67% of the respondents had stated that there should be an equal representation of men and women in any ADR forum. When it comes to the ideal Chair of an ADR forum, most male respondents had preferred to have a male Chair and among female respondents also, a male Chair was preferred over a female Chair. This confirms previous study findings on women’s role in community mediation in Sri Lanka, which identified the preference for the “older male demographic as the mediator”. However, past studies also indicated a preference for a female mediator, especially when discussing sensitive matters such as a family dispute.”
Discussing the opportunities available for building on the existing strengths of ADR and addressing identified gaps, the policy brief said: “Specific ADR mechanisms are perceived to be effective in resolving certain types of disputes. As such, a closer look at ADR mechanisms by the type of disputes that they resolve is required in order to understand their effectiveness. ADR mechanisms are generally perceived to be cost and time effective in arriving at a settlement. However, special attention must be paid to considerations highlighted with regard to negotiating or mediating legitimate grievances brought by the powerless, poor and vulnerable communities, especially regarding the poor people’s right to access formal judicial processes.”
People’s experience about ADR
The policy brief noted that those who have accessed CMBs were very satisfied with the resolution of their dispute. While 89% of those who had accessed CMBs had stated that they were satisfied with the way that the disputes were resolved, those who had been to a CMB were more likely to go to a CMB again. This underscores the greater potential to create awareness and thereby encourage people to access CMBs. “80% of those who have used CMBs have stated that they are likely to use CMBs again, whereas those who have not used CMBs showed a lower tendency to use CMBs in the future. Those indicating that they are extremely likely to make use of CMBs cited easy access, the cost being low or no costs, the shorter process, the trust in the process and the solutions being effective, as reasons for their preference,” it was explained, adding that the high level of satisfaction with CMBs by those who have used CMBs should be capitalised on.
Conclusions and recommendations
The policy brief concluded: “The presence of ADR mechanisms at the community level help prevent tensions scaling into bigger conflicts or even violence. These efforts contribute towards harmony and overall peace among communities. Knowledge and awareness about ADR in general is influenced by access and proximity. In general, people know of the existence of CMBs, but knowledge on its purpose, how it operates, how to access the CMBs and the composition of CMBs, vary. Knowledge on CMBs was weaker among the younger age cohorts, women and Sri Lankans Tamils and Moors. The level of awareness is high among those who had accessed CMBs to address their disputes or had helped their peers in the process.”
Given the important role that community based ADR, and CMBs in particular, plays in facilitating social cohesion by stemming the escalation of tensions, several recommendations were presented to increase the awards of community level ADR and to increase their effectiveness. It was recommended to design and launch a targeted approach for awareness creation on accessing and the process of ADR in general and CMBs specifically, and also to conduct skills and knowledge improvement sessions for ADR actors, including for religious leaders. In addition, the policy brief recommended sharing research evidence with the relevant authorities of the Police, and that the focus must be placed on the need to work on trust, confidence building, eliminating biases and addressing allegations of corruption.