Alternative Disute Resolution

8/14/2019 Alternative Disute Resolution

1/156

CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE...promoting the transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes throughout the world.

ALTERNAT IVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONPRACTITIONERS' GUIDE

h


2/156

M h 1998

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

PRACTITIONERS GUIDE

CONTENTS

I. Introduction: Purposes and Use of the Guide 1

II. Key Observations 3

III. What is ADR? 4

IV. What Can ADR Do? 7

V. The Limitations of ADR 21

VI. What Background Conditions Are Important? 24

VII. What Program Design Considerations Are Important? 33

VIII. Conclusion 48

Appendix A -- Taxonomy of ADR Models from the Developed and Developing World


3/156

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

About CMG

Conflict Management Group (CMG) is dedicated to improving the methods of negotiation, conflictresolution, and cooperative decision-making as applied to issues of public concern. Public conflictsand ineffective means for dealing with them lead to wasted resources, social instability, reducedinvestment, chronic underdevelopment, and loss of life. CMG believes that good negotiation, jointproblem-solving, facilitation, and dispute management skills can help those with differing interests,values, and cultures cope more effectively with their differences. CMG is an international non-profit organization. It is engaged in the training of negotiators, consulting, diagnostic research,process design, conflict analysis, facilitation, consensus-building, and mediation. CMG alsofacilitates the building of institutions for the prevention and ongoing management of conflicts.CMG is non-partisan and takes no stand on the substantive issues of a dispute.

About the Authors

Scott BrownSince 1996, Scott Brown has been the Dean of the William Jewett Tucker Foundation, the firstendowed deanship at Dartmouth College. Prior to his appointment as dean, he was the Presidentand Executive Director of Conflict Management Group from 19921996. From 19861992, Mr.Brown was the Associate Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School.Mr. Brown is co-author of Getting Together, Building Relationships While You Negotiate, and

has published more than a dozen articles or book chapters on negotiation and conflict resolution.He was educated at Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School.

Christine Cervenak


4/156


5/156

Part I

Introduction: Purposes and Use of theGuide

During the past decade, USAID hassupported programs throughout the world tofacilitate the development of legal systems andpromote civil society. They seek to stabilizedeveloping societies and facilitate economicdevelopment by strengthening civil structures,improving access to justice, and reforming judicial systems.

USAID's work in promoting the rule of law in developing and transitional societies overthe last decade has led to an interest in the use of alternative dispute resolution, or "ADR."Several reasons underlie this interest. ADR istouted as more efficient and effective than thecourts in providing justice, especially incountries in which the judiciary has lost the trust

and respect of the citizens. Moreover, ADR isseen as a means to increase access to justice forpopulations that cannot or will not use the courtsystem, to address conflicts in culturally

and the conditions under which ADR programscan succeed. It is written to help projectdesigners decide whether and when toimplement ADR programs in the context of ruleof law assistance or other developmentinitiatives. The Guide is also explicit about thelimitations of ADR programs, especially wherethey may be ineffective or evencounterproductive in serving some developmentgoals.

With the caveat that data systematicallyevaluating ADR programs both in the UnitedStates and abroad is hard to find, we believevalid conclusions can be drawn from theevidence we have been able to collect andreview, as well as from CMG's and our advisory

team's experience designing and managing ADRprograms around the world.1 It is important tonote that the primary focus of the Guide (andtherefore of the research) is on the uses of ADR


6/156

This Guide reflects a broad review of

English and Spanish language ADR literaturepertaining to developing world experience.Relevant documents are summarized in theWorking Bibliography, Appendix D. The Guidealso incorporates key observations in the courseof field assessments in Bangladesh, Bolivia,South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Ukraine, which aremore fully described in the case studies, atAppendix B. A more detailed description of our research methodology is contained inAppendix C. A Taxonomy of ADR at AppendixA provides definitions of key terms and aframework for understanding the basic andhybrid ADR systems that have emerged. Thematrix found in Appendix E highlights centralissues relevant to dispute resolution andpotential solutions.

* * *


7/156

Part II

Key Observations

Highlighted below are a number of the key

observations that are explored in greater depth inthis Guide.

n ADR programs cannot be a substitute for aformal judicial system. ADR programs areinstruments for the application of equity, ratherthan the rule of law, and as such cannot beexpected to establish legal precedent orimplement changes in legal and social norms.However, ADR programs can complement andsupport judicial reforms.

n ADR programs can increase access to justicefor social groups that are not adequately or fairlyserved by the judicial systemthey can alsoreduce cost and time to resolve disputes andincrease disputants' satisfaction with outcomes.

n When courts are systematically biasedagainst women, ADR may be able to improvewomen's access to justice, especially whendi i i ti g i t i h t i l l

n

Before developing an ADR program, it iscritical to determine whether ADR is appropriatefor meeting development objectives, or whetherestablishment of rights, strengthening of the ruleof law, and/or creating a more even balance of power among potential users should precede theuse of ADR.

n If ADR is appropriate in principle, programdesigners must assess background conditions toensure that ADR will be feasible in practice.These include political support, institutional andcultural fit, human and financial resources, andpower parity among potential users.

n If ADR appears feasible, program designersshould ensure that the ADR program meets key

preparation criterianeeds assessment andidentification of goals, participatory designprocess, adequate legal foundation, and effectivelocal partner.


8/156

Part III

What Is ADR?

The term "alternative dispute resolution"

or "ADR" is often used to describe a widevariety of dispute resolution mechanisms thatare short of, or alternative to, full-scale courtprocesses. The term can refer to everythingfrom facilitated settlement negotiations in whichdisputants are encouraged to negotiate directlywith each other prior to some other legalprocess, to arbitration systems or minitrials thatlook and feel very much like a courtroomprocess. Processes designed to managecommunity tension or facilitate communitydevelopment issues can also be included withinthe rubric of ADR. ADR systems may begenerally categorized as negotiation,conciliation/mediation, or arbitration systems.

Negotiation systems create a structure to

encourage and facilitate direct negotiationbetween parties to a dispute, without theintervention of a third party. Mediation andconciliation systems are very similar in that theyi j hi d b h di

produces a third party decision that the

disputants must follow even if they disagreewith the result, much like a judicial decision.Non-binding arbitration produces a third partydecision that the parties may reject.

It is also important to distinguishbetween mandatory processes and voluntaryprocesses. Some judicial systems requirelitigants to negotiate, conciliate, mediate, orarbitrate prior to court action. ADR processesmay also be required as part of a priorcontractual agreement between parties. Involuntary processes, submission of a dispute toan ADR process depends entirely on the will of the parties.

These forms of ADR, and a variety of

hybrids, are described in more detail inAppendix A: Taxonomy of ADR Models fromthe Developed and Developing World. TheGuide uses the general term, ADR, when

f i di i h


9/156

A. A Brief History of ADR 2

Dispute resolution outside of courts isnot new; societies world-over have long usednon-judicial, indigenous methods to resolveconflicts. What is new is the extensivepromotion and proliferation of ADR models,wider use of court-connected ADR, and theincreasing use of ADR as a tool to realize goalsbroader than the settlement of specific disputes.

The ADR movement in the UnitedStates was launched in the 1970s, beginning as asocial movement to resolve community-widecivil rights disputes through mediation, and as alegal movement to address increased delay andexpense in litigation arising from an over-crowded court system. Ever since, the legalADR movement in the United States has grownrapidly, and has evolved from experimentationto institutionalization with the support of theAmerican Bar Association, academics, courts,the U.S. Congress and state governments. Forexample, in response to the 1990 Civil JusticeReform Act requiring all U.S. federal districtcourts to develop a plan to reduce cost and delayin civil litigation, most district courts haveauthorized or established some form of ADR.Innovations in ADR models, expansion of government-mandated, court-based ADR in stateand federal systems, and increased interest inADR b di t t h d th U it d St t

community, other ADR advocates saw the use of ADR methods outside the court system as a

means to generate solutions to complexproblems that would better meet the needs of disputants and their communities, reducereliance on the legal system, strengthen localcivic institutions, preserve disputants'relationships, and teach alternatives to violenceor litigation for dispute settlement. In 1976, theSan Francisco Community Boards program wasestablished to further such goals. Thisexperiment has spawned a variety of community-based ADR projects, such as school-based peer mediation programs andneighborhood justice centers.

In the 1980s, demand for ADR in thecommercial sector began to grow as part of aneffort to find more efficient and effective

alternatives to litigation. Since this time, the useof private arbitration, mediation and other formsof ADR in the business setting has risendramatically, accompanied by an explosion inthe number of private firms offering ADRservices.

The move from experimentation toinstitutionalization in the ADR field has alsoaffected U.S. administrative rule-making andfederal litigation practice. Laws now in placeauthorize and encourage agencies to usenegotiation and other forms of ADR in rule-


10/156

experience of many of these countries providesimportant lessons drawn upon in this Guide.

B. The Characteristics of ADRApproaches

Although the characteristics of negotiated settlement, conciliation, mediation,arbitration, and other forms of community justice vary, all share a few common elements of

distinction from the formal judicial structure.These elements permit them to addressdevelopment objectives in a manner differentfrom judicial systems.

1) Informality

Most fundamentally, ADR processes are

less formal than judicial processes. In mostcases, the rules of procedure are flexible,without formal pleadings, extensive writtendocumentation, or rules of evidence. Thisinformality is appealing and important forincreasing access to dispute resolution for partsof the population who may be intimidated by orunable to participate in more formal systems. Itis also important for reducing the delay and costof dispute resolution. Most systems operatewithout formal representation.

justice under the formal legal system, thedrawbacks of an informal approach to justice

may not cause significant concern. Furthermore,the overall system of justice can mitigate theproblems by ensuring that disputants haverecourse to formal legal protections if the resultof the informal system is unfair, and bymonitoring the outcomes of the informal systemto test for consistency and fairness.

3) Direct Participation andCommunication between Disputants

Other characteristics of ADR systemsinclude more direct participation by thedisputants in the process and in designingsettlements, more direct dialogue andopportunity for reconciliation betweendisputants, potentially higher levels of confidentiality since public records are nottypically kept, more flexibility in designingcreative settlements, less power to subpoenainformation, and less direct power of enforcement.

The impact of these characteristics is notclear, even in the United States where ADRsystems have been used and studied moreextensively than in most developing countries.Many argue, however, that compliance andsatisfaction with negotiated and mediated

ttl t d th f t


11/156

Part IV

What Can ADR Do? Goals and PossibleUses of ADR

ADR systems may be designed to meeta wide variety of different goals. Some of thesegoals are directly related to improving theadministration of justice and the settlement of particular disputes. Some, however, are relatedto other development objectives, such as

economic restructuring, or the management of tensions and conflicts in communities. Forinstance, developing an efficient, consensualway to resolve land disputes may be critical toan AID mission not because of its commitmentto strengthening the rule of law, but becauseland disputes threaten the social and economicstability of the country. Likewise, efficientdispute resolution procedures may be critical toeconomic development objectives where courtdelays or corruption inhibit foreign investmentand economic restructuring.

In the context of other developmentobjectives, ADR programs can:

Increase civic engagement and createpublic processes to facilitateeconomic restructuring and other

social change Help reduce the level of tensionand conflict in a community

Manage disputes and conflicts thatmay directly impair developmentinitiatives

Experience suggests that ADR programs

can have a positive impact on each of thesedevelopment objectives, although the extent of the impact is very much dependent on otherconditions within the country and the fit of thed i d i l t ti f th ith


12/156

COMPARING ADR AND C OURT P ROCEDURES :H OW L IKELY ARE T HEY TO ACHIEVE DISPUTANTS ' G OALS ?

Disputant's Goals ADR Procedures Court Procedure

Mediation/ Conciliation

Non-BindingArbitration

BindingArbitration

Adjudication

Minimize Costs 3 2 1 0

Resolve Quickly 2 2 3 0

Maintain Privacy 2 2 2 0

Maintain

Relationships 3 2 1 0

InvolveConstituencies 3 1 1 0

Link Issues 3 1 1 0

Get Neutral Opinion 0 3 3 3

Set Precedent 0 0 1 3


13/156

A. How can ADR help accomplish

rule of law objectives?

1) ADR can support and complementcourt reform .

Use ADR when:

Case backlog impairs courteffectiveness.

Complex procedures impair courteffectiveness.

Illiterate or poor cannot afford thecourts or manage their way withinthem.

Small informal systems can betterreach geographically dispersedpopulation.

Do not use ADR when:

The courts reputation is sufficientlytainted to suggest that independentprograms may enjoy more popularsupport.

ADR programs can support a missionobjective to reform the court system in severalways. ADR can be used by the judiciary to test

Colombia, and Uruguay are evolving as anintegral part of programs for overall courtreform (Blair, et al. 1994; Blair and Hansen1994; see also McHugh 1996).

ADR programs can also be designed todeal with cases that could enter the court systembut may be resolved more efficiently (andperhaps with greater satisfaction) through ADRprocedures. In these cases, ADR programs cancomplement court reform by reducing caseloads.They can also complement court reform byincreasing access to dispute resolution servicesfor disadvantaged groups (e.g., urbanneighborhood and rural centers), providing legaladvice to members of disadvantaged groups onwhether and how to use the court system, and/ordealing with specialized cases that the courts arenot well-equipped to handle (e.g., complexcommercial disputes, labor-managementdisputes).

ADR Center as Dispute ClearinghouseIn Puerto Rico

The San Juan Dispute Resolution Center inPuerto Rico is an interesting model for using anADR service center to increase access to disputeresolution systems by directing disputes toappropriate fora. The Center, which has beenoperating since 1983 acts as a clearinghouse for


14/156

2) ADR can by-pass ineffective ordiscredited courts.

Use ADR when:

Working with or within the existing judicial system is unlikely to beeffective or receive popular support.

Complex or technical disputes can behandled more effectively by

specialized private ADR systems.Do not use ADR when:

Official opposition is sufficientlystrong and controlling to suppresscompeting programs. In these cases,links to the official judicial and legalsystem may be necessary for success.

When the civil court system has somany institutional weaknesses and failures(inadequate resources, corruption, systemic bias)that there is no near-term prospect of successfulcivil court reform, ADR programs may be anappropriate way to provide an alternative forum.

a. Justice for populations not well-served by the courts

In South Africa, India, and Bangladesh,

Some ADR programs function as theprimary institutions for resolving civil disputes,

and have effectively replaced or preemptedcourts. Taiwan and China have the bestexamples of broadly and deeplyinstitutionalized, community-based ADR(Huang 1996; Jandt and Pedersen 1996b). Inboth countries, local government officials andwell-respected citizens act as conciliators,mediators, and arbitrators for the vast majorityof local disputes. Taiwan's ADR system appearsto be growing more popular over time, despitesocial changes that have begun to erodeConfucian norms of deference to local notables.

In China, there are now more than onemillion village-based People's Mediation Courts,which were created by the 1982 constitution.Participation in mediation is voluntary in

principle and disputants can take their cases tocourt if mediation fails. The PMCs handle morethan seven million civil cases each year,including family disputes, inheritance issues,land claims, business disputes, and neighborconflicts. These ADR institutions have evolvednot as attempts to substitute for a failing courtsystem, but rather as an outgrowth of traditional,local institutions that have long functioned asalternatives to the civil courts.

b. Efficient and satisfactoryresolution in highly-technical


15/156

arbitration as the primary mechanisms forresolving labor-management disputes.

c. Ethnically-based, public andfamily disputes

ADR programs may also be moreeffective than the courts for addressingparticular types of disputes, such as ethnicconflicts, public environmental disputes, orfamily disputes. In such cases, specificallydesigned ADR programs may create moreattractive alternatives to the courts even when

the courts are functioning reasonably well.National government agencies may develop

issue-specific ADR systems designed to precedeor parallel formal administrative hearings. Inthe Philippines, the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources has created provincialmulti-stakeholder committees to receive andresolve land claims by indigenous peoples(NRMP 1993). In Malaysia, nationalgovernment officials are being trained by theDepartment of National Affairs to manage inter-ethnic disputes that arise in the course of theirwork (Othman 1996).

ADR Moves From Outside to Inside Government in South Africa

The experience in South Africa indicates that ADR systems may be implemented initially as a substitutefor a poorly functioning formal dispute resolution system, but may later be adopted as part of awidespread reform process. Prior to and during the transition in government, many NGOs, financed by

numerous donors, undertook ADR efforts for a variety of purposes throughout South Africa. One of theearliest and most effective NGOs was the Independent Mediation Service of South Africa (IMSSA),which started in the early 1980's to focus on resolving labor-management disputes.

Later, the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), the Vuleka Trust, theCommunity Law Center, the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre, the Community Dispute Resolution Trust(CDRT), the Institute for Multi-party Democracy (MPD), and the Community Peace Foundation (CPF),among others, implemented a variety of training, mediation, and community reconciliation programs tohelp manage community tension, resolve neighborhood disputes, train community leaders in negotiationand conflict management techniques, and establish neighborhood justice centers.After the peaceful transition of power, the government saw these ADR programs as models for newgovernmental dispute management mechanisms. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and


16/156

3) ADR can increase satisfaction of

disputants with outcomes.

Use ADR when:

High cost, long delay, and limitedaccess undermine satisfaction withexisting judicial processes.

Cultural norms emphasize the

importance of reconciliation andrelationships over "winning" indispute resolution.

Considerations of equity indicate thatcreativity and flexibility are neededto produce outcomes satisfactory tothe parties.

Low rates of compliance with court

judgments (or a high rate of enforcement actions) indicate a needfor systems that maximize thelikelihood of voluntary compliance.

The legal system is not veryresponsive to local conditions orlocal conditions vary.

Do not use ADR when :

Cultural norms suggest a preferencefor formal, deterministic solutions.C l l di i i

confidence that the system is responsive to their

needs. ADR programs can have a positiveinfluence on all of these components of disputant satisfaction.

When evaluations of ADR systems haveincluded an assessment of overall usersatisfaction, the ADR systems have generallycompared favorably to formal legal structures.In Sri Lanka, for example, satisfaction with theMediation Board system is quite high. Inaddition to the accessibility of the system, andthe low cost, disputants indicate that the waythey are treated, the disputants' control of theprocess, and the community-based nature of thesystem are all factors leading to highsatisfaction. Satisfaction is also reflected in thesettlement and compliance rates. Nearly 65% of

all mediated cases are settled, and compliancerates, while not accurately measured, arereported to be quite high. The chairman of oneMediation Board indicated that compliance withdebtor dispute settlements, which constitute alarge proportion of the cases, is nearly 95%.The monthly caseload of the Boards more thandoubled between the first and third years of operation, indicating high satisfaction. (See SriLanka Case Study.)

Likewise, in Bangladesh, almost allusers indicate that they prefer mediation to the


17/156

In the United States, many users of ADR services cite the flexibility and creativity

of the process, and note that the settlements aregenerally better for both parties than decisionsproduced through litigation. This advantage isreflected in the comments of users in Sri Lankaand Bangladesh who note the benefits of a localmediator who understands local conditions,knows the parties, and can help guide asettlement that fits the situation. (See CaseStudies.)

4) ADR programs can increase access to justice for disadvantaged groups.

Use ADR when:

Use of formal court systems requiresresources unavailable to sectors of the population.

Formal court systems are biasedagainst women, minorities, or othergroups.

Illiteracy prevents part of thepopulation from using formal courtsystems.

Distance from the courts impairseffective use for rural populations.

Do not use ADR when :

countries, that issue is addressed separately inpart 6) below.

b. Reducing the formality of thelegal process

Several studies indicate that theformality of court systems intimidates anddiscourages use. In India and Bangladesh, forexample, the court requirement of legalrepresentation is both costly and intimidating forpeople who may not be comfortable interactingwith lawyers from a different caste or class. Inthese and other countries, users of ADRprograms have expressed a preference forsubmitting cases to mediators who are localresidents and understand the local community.In Sri Lanka, users expressed their satisfaction athaving their "stories" heard in an informal

process. All of these factors contribute togreater usage of and preference for informalprocesses. (See Case Studies.)

c. Overcoming the barrier of illiteracy

In some countries, access is effectivelydenied because the formal system requires alevel of literacy that many in the country do nothave. In these countries, the formal legalprocesses are especially intimidating for largenumbers of illiterate citizens. In Bangladesh, the


18/156

d. Serving rural populations:reducing geographic dispersal of

centersAccess may be impaired because the

courts are located far from the homes of thosewho need them. One advantage of ADRprograms is the ability to set them up withrelatively little cost to local communities. Thelok adalat ("people's court") system in Indiasucceeded in reaching a large part of thepopulation because they were located in villages(see Whitson, 1992). Similarly, the MediationBoards in Sri Lanka are distributed throughoutrural villages, as well as larger cities and towns.In China, more than one million People'sMediation Centers are located in villages andserve parts of the population that could noteasily reach existing courts (see Jandt and

Pederson, 1996).e. Counteracting discrimination and

bias in the system

When courts are systematically biasedagainst particular groups, such as minorities orwomen, ADR programs can sometimes helpprovide some measure of justice. InBangladesh, for example, women are oftenpoorly protected by the courts. The MLAAmediation program has recruited women to serveon mediation panels in the village mediation

and do not establish legal precedent. (SeeWhitson, 1992.) Where, as in Bangladesh, the

ADR program design is able to address the issueof bias through recruitment of minoritymediators and thorough training, justice can beimproved for these disadvantaged groups. (SeeBangladesh Case Study.)

f. Public outreach to increaseawareness of ADR

In some situations, the judicial system ornew ADR mechanisms may have changed inways that could increase access, but thedisadvantaged may be unaware of the changesbecause of inadequate public outreach. If one of the goals of the ADR program is to increaseaccess to justice for a particular targetpopulation, the program design must include

adequate means for reaching that population.Stating the goal is not sufficient, and in theabsence of specific design focus, there is a riskthat the system can be co-opted by elites. Forexample, one of the original goals of theColombian Conflict Resolution Project was toprovide low cost services to the disadvantaged.The client base of the Bogota Chamber of Commerce, however, through which much of the program was managed, was comprised of business elites. The program became focusedmore on providing low cost services to smallbusinesses than to poor populations. The


19/156

5) ADR programs can reduce delay in theresolution of disputes.

Use ADR when:

Delays are caused by complex formalprocedures.

Court resources are insufficient tokeep up with case backlog.

Do not use ADR when: Official intervention will impose

complex procedures on ADRprograms.

Delays are endemic in most courtsystems throughout the world and affect anumber of development objectives. In somecases, delays are so extreme that they effectivelydeny justice, particularly to disadvantagedgroups who may not be able to "grease thewheels" of the justice system. In other cases,delays in the resolution of commercial disputesimpair economic development and underminethe efficiency of the economy. Informal disputeresolution (mediation and settlement programs),

or simplified procedures for dispute resolution(arbitration systems), can significantly reducedispute resolution delay, and indirectly reducecourt backlog by redirecting cases that would

Delay Reduction: IMSSA in South Africa

The track record of IMSSA in South Africarepresents some of the best evidence for theability of ADR programs to reduce delay. Mostsimple cases of unfair dismissal or wage claimsrequire only a day of mediation or arbitration,while larger scale or more complex cases mayrequire 2-3 days. The government-runConciliation Boards, Industrial Councils, and

Industrial Courts operated by the apartheidgovernment experienced significant backlogs,with delays of up to five months just to get tothe Industrial Courts and appeals taking severalyears. A labor relations task force establishedby the new South African government in 1995found that the government-run structures werehampered by highly cumbersome and legalisticprocedures loaded with technicalities, along withpoor pay and poor training for mediators andadjudicators.

Conciliation Boards were successful in settlingonly 20% of their cases, and the IndustrialCouncils only 30%. In contrast, IMSSAmediators are successful in resolving roughly80% of their cases. User satisfaction is quitehigh, with repeat users accounting forapproximately 80% of cases. (See South AfricaCase Study.)


20/156

systems have been successful in handling largenumbers of cases quickly and efficiently.However, studies showing that ADR systemsdeal with cases more quickly than the courtsoften do not address systematically the questionof whether cases resolved by ADR are similar toor different from cases resolved by the courts,which could explain some differences in time toresolution.

Experience in the United Statesindicates that ADR can have a significant impacton the time required to reach a resolution. Astudy conducted by the State Justice Institute atthe University of North Carolina compared casesassigned either to a mediated settlementconference (MSC) or directly to the superiorcourt. The MSC program reduced the medianfiling-to-disposition time in similarly contestedcases by about seven weeks, from 407 days to360 days. In addition, participants weresignificantly more satisfied with the process andthe outcomes of the MSC process than they werewith the normal court process. (See Clark, et al.,1995.)

Some studies in the United States,however, indicate that ADR programs attachedto the courts become burdened by the sameadministrative complexities and/or costs as thenormal litigation process. A recent controversialstudy by the RAND Corporation indicates that

6) ADR programs can reduce the cost of resolving disputes.

Use ADR when:

High costs in the courts are driven byformal procedures or the requirementof legal representation.

Court filing costs are high. Court delays impose high costs on

parties.Do not use ADR when:

Official intervention will imposeformal procedures or costs on ADR.

Many ADR programs are designed witha goal of reducing the cost of resolving disputesboth to the disputants and to the disputeresolution system. Whether ADR fulfills thisgoal is still under discussion even in the UnitedStates, where there have been many studies of the issue. Nevertheless, the experience of atleast some of the ADR systems implemented indeveloping countries indicates that costreduction is a reasonable goal for ADR systems,

and that well-designed systems can effectivelymeet this goal.

Relatively few comparative studies have


21/156

Many other ADR programs seem to besuccessful in reducing the cost of disputeresolution and providing access to justice for thepoor. Most programs operate with only amodest fee, either because they are managed byvolunteers or because they are supported bygovernment or donor funds. In Sri Lanka, forexample, the cost of filing for mediation is only5 rupees, and the number of cases filed with theMediation Boards has increased from 13,280 in1991 to 101,639 in 1996. Almost all the casesinvolve disadvantaged and poor members of thepopulation. (See Sri Lanka Case Study.)

B. How can ADR help accomplishother development objectives?

Although this Guide focuses on ADR's

ability to promote development objectivesrelated to the rule of law, ADR programs canalso help accomplish other developmentobjectives, as briefly discussed below.

1) ADR programs can preparecommunity leaders, increase civicengagement, and create public

processes to facilitate economicrestructuring and other social change.

Use ADR when:

clarified to reduce uncertainty aboutdispute resolution options.

Change is needed quickly (the impactof ADR training and programming isincremental and long-term).

South Africa is an interesting, and inmany ways unique, example of the potentialimpact of dispute resolution and conflictmanagement systems on social structures. Anumber of ADR programs have been part of thesocial fabric in South Africa, both before andafter the transition in government. Manyobservers credit the example set by black laborunions in their negotiations with miningcompany management with demonstrating theability to work out differences between blacksand whites at the bargaining table. It was not acoincidence that the lead negotiator for the

African National Congress in the transition talkswas Cyril Ramaphosa, who had led negotiationsfor the miners unions.

South Africa: Labor ADR InfluencedOther Sectors

The experience of IMSSA itself demonstrates

the power of an effective ADR program in onesector to influence other sectors of thecommunity. When IMSSA began in the early1980s, it focused exclusively on the labor sectorh h d l l


22/156

mediation skill play a major role. In thePhilippines, conflict resolution processes arebeing used to manage land reform (COTRAIN1996), and in Ukraine, mediation training andfacilitators are helping to manage economicrestructuring issues in the mining and steelindustries. Past authoritarian governments inUkraine did not encourage public participationor public processes to develop consensualinitiatives or solutions to social problems.Mediation training in individual manufacturingenterprises is helping to develop an ethic of civicengagement that is not general in the society.(See Ukraine Case Study.)

The impact of ADR programs on socialchange is often felt through the increased skillsand abilities of local leaders. In South Africa,observers note that NGO-sponsored ADRprograms helped develop and train communityleaders. Many of those trained as part of ADRprograms have gone on to hold significantpositions in the post-apartheid government. TheADR training and experience helped build skillsin consensual approaches to problem-solvingand policy development. As a further sign of theimportance of the problem-solving andmanagement skills associated with ADRexperience, USAID and other internationaldonors have supported IMSSA's disputeresolution training of industry groups andcommunities, as well as its elections and

balloting project. USAID also gave IMSSAresponsibility for supervising an umbrella grantfor community-level dispute resolutionactivities. (See South Africa Case Study.)

Programs aimed at providing disputeresolution and problem-solving skills forgovernment leaders have been conducted in avariety of other transition countries, includingAngola (CMG and Search for Common Ground(Search), Rwanda (e.g., Search), and Russia(e.g., CMG, International Alert, InternationalResearch and Exchanges Board). Programshave also been developed to pursue specificdevelopment objectives. For example, theWorld Health Organization has recentlydeveloped a negotiation training program forhealth officials in developing countries to helpthem negotiate more effectively withinternational donors to obtain a larger share of assistance for health care initiatives.

Like most capacity-building initiatives,ADR programs require a substantial amount of time to have a significant impact on leadershipskills, the ethic of civic engagement, and publicproblem-solving processes. The significantimpact felt in South Africa evolved over adecade, and only with the support of a variety of ADR initiatives.


23/156

2) ADR programs can reduce the level of tension and prevent conflict in a

community.

Use ADR when:

Ongoing structural conflicts heightenthe level of tension in or betweencommunities.

Unresolved individual disputes add

to the level of tension in society. Moderate ethnic or class conflict isfocused around particular issues.

Do not use ADR when:

Group leaders will not negotiate untilthere are structural changes in thebalance of power between classes orethnic groups.

Individual disputes cannot beresolved until some structural changetakes place.

ADR systems may be designed to havean impact on the level of social tension andlatent conflict, as well as on individual disputes.The focus of these systems is somewhatdifferent from the programs normally designedfor rule of law projects. For example, conflictprevention efforts generally focus more on

the community is difficult to assess.Nevertheless, other countries have undertakensimilar efforts to manage social tension. InCyprus, USAID through AMIDEAST and theFulbright Commission, has fostered thedevelopment of a variety of conflictmanagement efforts to reduce tension betweenthe Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities,including joint camps for youth, bi-communalarts events, and other bi-communal activitiesAlthough the level of tension remains high,these efforts have been credited by theinternational community with reducing thepotential for conflict.

Similar efforts to manage social tension,including ethnic and class conflict, are underwayin many other countries, including projects inEstonia (Carter Center with the University of Virginia), Hungary (Project on Ethnic Relations,also known as PER), Slovakia (PER), Bosniaand Croatia (MercyCorps, Balkans PeaceProject), and Rwanda (Search, Council onForeign Relations). The evidence for managingconflict and tension around discrete policyissues, such as education policies (Foundationon Inter-Ethnic Relations) and land reform(Philippines Department of Environment andNatural Resources) is positive.

3) ADR programs can help manageconflicts that may directly impair


24/156

practical limit on economic development.Disputes over water are also the source of international and intranational tension.Preliminary work in Jordan and Egypt indicatesthat government officials recognize the need tomanage these tensions as part of an overalldevelopment strategy. Training programs forgovernment water development and resourceofficials are underway in those countries.

The success of labor-managementmediation and arbitration in South Africa led tothe creation of other NGO and government ADRprograms to manage disputes in other areascritical to development. For example, mediationor arbitration initiatives are now developing todeal with land claims, economic developmentplanning, conflict and tension in the schools,disputes within the health care system, and avariety of other issues. Certain ADRmechanisms, such as facilitated negotiation,conciliation, mediation, and regulatorynegotiation are particularly suited to bringingstakeholders together to reach consensus ondevelopment initiatives.

ADR programs have been designed toaddress labor-management disputes in thePhilippines (Department of Labor, NationalConciliation and Mediation Board),environmental disputes in Eastern Europe(RESOLVE, UNITAR), and commercial


25/156

Part V

The Limitations of ADR

Although ADR programs can play animportant role in many development efforts,they are ineffective, and perhaps evencounterproductive, in serving some goals relatedto rule of law initiatives. In particular, ADR isnot an effective means to:

Define, refine, establish and promote alegal framework.

Redress pervasive injustice,discrimination, or human rightsproblems.

Resolve disputes between parties whopossess greatly different levels of poweror authority.

Resolve cases that require publicsanction.

Resolve disputes involving disputants orinterested parties who refuse toparticipate, or cannot participate, in theADR process.

Furthermore, ADR results are private and rarelypublished. As long as some other judicialmechanism exists to define, codify, and protectreasonable standards of justice, ADR programscan function well to resolve relatively minor,routine, and local disputes for which equity is alarge measure of justice, and for which local andcultural norms may be more appropriate thannational legal standards. These types of disputesmay include family disputes, neighbor disputes,

and small claims, among others.

In disputes for which no clear legal ornormative standard has been established, ADRmay not be able to overcome power imbalancesor fundamental disagreements over normsamong disputants. On the other hand, insituations where there is no established legalprocess for dispute resolution, ADR may be thebest possible alternative to violence. Forexample, in South Africa, a variety of ADRprocesses used before and during the transition

h d i l


26/156

standards of group or individual rights. In India,for example, the lok adalats were generallycredited with resolving large numbers of casesefficiently and cheaply in the mid-1980s beforethe system was taken over by the government judiciary. Women, however, did not like thesystem, especially for family disputes, becauseresolution of disputes was based on local norms,which were often discriminatory towardswomen, rather than on more recently definedlegal rights. The same was true for members of

lower castes. (See Whitson, 1992.)

C. ADR programs do not workwell in the context of extremepower imbalance betweenparties .

These power imbalances are often theresult of discriminatory norms in society, andmay be reflected in ADR program results. Evenwhen the imbalance is not a reflection of discriminatory social norms, most ADR systemsdo not include legal or procedural protections forweaker parties. A more powerful or wealthyparty may press the weaker into accepting anunfair result, so that the settlement may appearconsensual, but in fact result from coercion. Forthe same reason, ADR programs may not workwell when one party is the government.

D. ADR settlements do not haveany educational, punitive, ordeterrent effect on thepopulation .

Since the results of ADR programs arenot public, ADR programs are not appropriatefor cases which ought to result in some form of public sanction or punishment. This isparticularly true for cases involving violent andrepeat offenders, such as in many cases of domestic violence. Societal and individualinterests may be better served by court-sanctioned punishment, such as imprisonment.It is important to note, however, that victim-offender mediation or conciliation may be usefulin some cases to deal with issues unresolved bycriminal process.

E. It is inappropriate to use ADRto resolve multi-party cases inwhich some of the parties orstakeholders do not participate .

This is true because the results of mostADR programs are not subject to standards of fairness other than the acceptance of all theparticipants. When this happens, the absentstakeholders often bear an unfair burden whenth ti i t hift ibilit d t t


27/156

F. ADR may undermine other judicial reform efforts.

There is a concern that support for ADRmay siphon money from needed court reforms,draw management and political attention fromcourt reform efforts, or treat the symptomsrather than the underlying causes of problems.While these concerns are valid, they will rarelymaterialize if ADR programs are not designed to

substitute for legal reform. In most cases, ADRprograms will be far less expensive to start andoperate than broad-scale judicial reform efforts.In Ukraine, for example, the USAID missionconsiders the mediation program to be veryinexpensive compared with other rule of lawprograms. And, in Sri Lanka, the MediationBoards resolve cases at a fraction of the cost thegovernment would incur through the ordinarycourt system. In general, ADR programs reducecosts for the state, and therefore for donors, atleast as much as they reduce costs for disputants.

In sum, ADR programs do notnecessarily draw attention away from problemsthat can only be addressed through formal justice processes, as long as both development

officers and government officials keep in mindthe limitations of ADR programs.


28/156

Part VI

What Background Conditions AreImportant?

ADR programs, like any otherdevelopment programs, are more likely toachieve their objectives when they operatewithin an hospitable context. The particularbackground conditions (i.e., conditionsindependent of the specifics of program design)that are especially relevant to ADR programsinclude: adequate political support, supportiveinstitutional and cultural norms, adequate humanresources, adequate financial resources, andrough parity in the power of disputants.

These conditions are almost too obviousto state, but the particular way they influenceADR programs is worth considering beforedeciding whether to launch an ADR effort.

While no one of the conditions is alonesufficient to create a context in which ADR willsucceed, the absence of any one of thesecontextual elements could prove fatal to an ADR

Constituencies whose support may benecessary:

Local community leaders (mostcritical for success)

National and state government Judges and the bar Advocates and representatives of user groups Foreign donor nation/foundation(s)

The level and source of political supportfor dispute resolution programs is an importantfactor in determining the potential success of,and appropriate design for, an ADR system.

Different kinds of ADR programs requiresupport from different constituencies.Community-based programs will need at leastthe support of the beneficiaries and the local


29/156

adequate statutory basis for the system,protecting the system from attacks by otherprograms that may feel threatened, and ensuringadequate financial resources. Such supportshould also be "popular" in the sense that thesource of that support should hold theconfidence of the people. If the program isfostered by an agency or government alreadydiscredited by corruption or ineffectiveness, thesystem will not gain popular acceptance.

Ideally, a high level officiala ministeror agency headwill lead the effort, with asupporting coalition including representatives of the court system: administrators, judges andlawyers, representatives/advocates of potentialADR user groups, and foreign donors. Themediation program in Uruguay has successfullydeveloped a strong coalition that has been ableto build financial, political, and popular supportfor the program. So far, the strong coalition inUruguay has been able to overcome oppositionfrom judges. (See Blair and Hansen, 1994.)

Good program design can help buildpolitical support, intentionally or not. InBolivia, for example, the USAID missionsupported the first ADR program (commercial

arbitration and conciliation) for the benefit of apolitically influential sector (small business),and implemented it through a politicallypowerful ally, the Chamber of Commerce. Once

strong opposition to ADR programs. Lawyersfelt they were losing cases and fees to the lokadalat ("people's court") system in India, forexample, and probably helped persuade thegovernment to take over the system andundermine it. (See Kassebaum, 1989.)

If initial analysis indicates oppositionfrom such powerful groups, then programdesigners must choose whether to rely on highlevel supporters to overcome that opposition,

build financial and other incentives into theprogram to reduce the opposition, or to bypassthe opposition by establishing a program thatfunctions locally and independently. It may bepossible to co-opt opposite groups by involvingthem as ADR program supervisors and/or staff.This is a risky strategy, however, and hasprobably failed at least as often as it hassucceeded. In India, the lok adalat system wasfunctioning well and widely supported whenindependent of the judiciary. When thegovernment passed legislation forcing the lokadalats to be managed by the court system, itwas thought that the judiciary would support thesystem once it was in control. Instead, the judiciary cut funding and mismanaged theprogram, which quickly lost the confidence of

the users. (See Whitson, 1992.)

At a minimum, political support may benecessary to pass legislation authorizing ADR,


30/156

The Importance of Political Support: CEM in Costa RicaSuccess is no guarantee of support. Programs that develop a successful reputation outside the formalgovernment structures, with the hope and expectation that the government will adopt responsibility for theproven programs, remain vulnerable to jealous and threatened officials. In Costa Rica, the Centro deMediacin (CEM) was established to help resolve family disputes in poor neighborhoods. During thefirst year of operation, the Center achieved a high level of success in case resolution (60%), highpenetration of disadvantaged parts of society that did not normally find access to the court system (71-78% of users had not completed high school and 25% were unemployed), and high indices of usersatisfaction as measured in subsequent Gallup polls (100% said they would use CEM again, 81% said themediation was "useful" or "highly useful" and 90% thought the mediation outcome was "just").

CEM was started as a joint venture between the Supreme Court and the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia(PANI), a family/child welfare agency of the national government. Although PANI signed the agreementwith the Supreme Court to start the center, none of the bureau chiefs at PANI took responsibility forCEM. When the pilot period ended, the agreement called for PANI to take on institutional responsibilityfor CEM. Despite the documented success of CEM, the PANI bureaus refused to take responsibility for

the CEM budget. None would reduce other areas of their budgets to accommodate CEM. More than 50%of the CEM staff were fired, and the lease was terminated.

The CEM experience suggests that successful experimentation with new judicial models is not enough.Individual and bureaucratic support remains essential (Eduardo Garro, 1995 and 1996).

3) Bypassing the National Level

Proponents of ADR may find oppositionto the program at a national level, but supportfor the program at a local level. In such cases, itmay still be possible to establish local ADR

adequate financial resources, and as long as theydo not spark an "immune system" reaction froma national government that might seek toactively close such systems. The experience of IMSSA in particular, and of NGOs working inSouth Africa in general, has been that political

h i l l l b


31/156

supported by the corporate community.Management found that informal NGOmediation and arbitration services could resolvecases more efficiently than the governmentstructures. This corporate community supporthelped protect the NGOs from efforts toundermine the programs.

B. Supportive Cultural Norms

Reasons for needing supportivecultural norms:

User acceptance of informalprocesses

Appropriate standards for settlements Enforcement through community

customs and sanctions

Important elements of culturalnorms:

Traditional usage of informal,community-based dispute resolution

Shared, reasonable standards of fairness and equity

An absence of generally accepted andstrong discrimination or bias, at leastregarding potential users of the ADRprocesses

short term, ADR programs can provide areasonable degree of justice if a tradition of informal dispute resolution exists. Many studiescite the importance of these traditions as abackground condition for success. (Seediscussions regarding Taiwan, China, Sri Lanka,and Korea in Huang, 1996; Jandt and Pederson,1996; Hanson, Said, Oberst and Vavre, 1994;Sohn and Wall, 1993.) Such favorabletraditional and cultural norms are difficult tobuild if they do not exist, and should be

considered carefully as a prerequisitebackground condition.

The absence of cultural norms whichsupport informal third party dispute resolutionshould not automatically eliminate considerationof ADR programs. During the years of Communist Party control in the Ukraine, theonly third party with authority to decide disputeswas the local party leader. All other forms of traditional dispute resolution or informal villageauthority were squeezed out of the system.When the Communist Party structure collapsed,there were no traditional dispute resolutionmechanisms on which to build. Experience withthe authoritarian party dispute resolution systemhas made the population reluctant to submit

disputes to a third party. In addition, the conceptof voluntary mediation, in which the mediatorhas no authority to force a settlement, is foreign.If the program design is able to incorporate an


32/156

2) Existence of Standards of JusticeWidely-Perceived as Fair

Sufficient normative background conditionsshould include not only support for informaldispute resolution processes, but also reasonablestandards of justice and equity. If the culturalnorms of behavior are fair and reasonable, ADRmay be an appropriate mechanism for applyingthose norms to resolve individual disputes in aninformal manner. If the norms are unattractiveor unfair, however, then mediators drawn from apool of citizens reflecting those norms are likelyto mediate or impose unfair settlements.

Fair and reasonable standards of justiceshould not include strong discrimination or biasagainst any potential user group. If the acceptedstandards of justice embrace discrimination

against part of the population, or abuse the rightsof certain individuals, informal disputeresolution systems will usually reflect thesestandards. In the absence of any legalrequirement to resolve cases according to legalguidelines, mediation and arbitration systemswill generally produce results that followcultural norms of justice. On the other hand, asnoted earlier, even in countries wherediscrimination is present, ADR programsspecifically designed to compensate for suchdiscrimination may provide better justice than abiased court system Many women found this to

will be widely accepted by the part of thepopulation. Assessing the support for suchinformal dispute resolution among the targetpopulation is critical.

Norms Supporting Discrimination:ADR in Japan

Following World War II, the reformed Japanesegovernment established the Civil LibertiesBureau (CLB) to mediate disputes relating tosocial rights. One goal of the CLB was thecreation and protection of individual and grouprights for disadvantaged parts of the population.Although the strong normative culture of Japanese society helped the CLB resolve manydisputes, cultural discrimination against certaingroups was also part of the accepted normativesystems and could not be redressed effectively

through the CLB mediation and ombudsmanprocesses. (See Rosch, 1987.)

3) Cultural Norms Against Corruption

Corruption in the formal legal system maybe a motivation for creating an alternativesystem. If local norms and local control of ADRsystems can avoid corruption, and if alternativemeans of enforcement can avoid the need todepend on the formal judicial system forenforcement ADR systems can succeed where


33/156

regarding compliance with agreements are oftenimportant for ADR program success. In theMiddle East, traditional cultural norms have heldfamilies responsible for the agreements of family members. This norm is extremelyeffective in promoting compliance. As Westernlaw has taken precedence, and as families havebecome more mobile and less cohesive, thiscultural norm is losing strength, and traditionalmediation by village elders is losingprominence. It is not clear whether a

community-based ADR system can reinforce orsubstitute for these traditional mediators.

C. Adequate Human Resources

Reasons for needing adequate humanresources:

A sufficient pool of skilled and respectedmediators or arbitrators to managecaseload efficiently and effectively

Important elements of human resources:

Community members and leaders whohave the respect of the community

Honesty and a sense of communityservice among potential mediators Resources and skills necessary to prepare

an adequate training program

Hansen, et al., 1994.) Several factors affect thequality of the ADR staff.

1) Honest and Respected Personnel

A large pool of educated, honest, andrespected personnel is not always available, butit may be critical for success. In Sri Lanka, theMediation Board system has depended on highnumbers of educated citizens who havevolunteered to be mediators, including manyschool teachers, clerics, postal workers, andother civil servants respected in theircommunities. The strong sense of communityservice among these mediators has beenimportant, and may not be present in allcountries. Mediators must have a minimumlevel of education. However, the respect of thelocal community is often more important to

success than substantive knowledge.2) Training

Good training, and sufficient resourcesto maintain such training on an on-going basis,has been important to create a cadre of qualifiedand respected mediators. Many successfulprograms, like those in South Africa, Sri Lanka,Bangladesh, and Argentina, have had goodtraining programs as an integral part of thedesign.


34/156

4) Sufficient Numbers of Personnel

It is important that the pool of skilledADR staff be large enough so that the systemdoes not become overburdened and to avoidpersonnel frustration and burn-out. In SouthAfrica, the large pool of mediators andarbitrators trained by IMSSA was a significantasset since it meant that the system gained areputation for immediate response. Conversely,the enormous increase in the mediation caseloadof the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation,and Arbitration (CCMA) following changes inthe South African legal system threatens tooverburden the mediators and erode confidencein the system. In Sri Lanka, the most pressingconcern facing the Mediation Board system isthe excessive level of work for the volunteermediators and trainers. (See Sri Lanka and

South Africa case studies.) Beyond such basicissues as honesty, training, literacy, andnumbers, the program design will affectsignificantly the adequacy of human resources.

D. Financial Resources

Reasons for needing adequatefinancial resources:

Costs of administration, third partypersonnel, evaluation, and outreach

allocated enough financial resources to pay forprogram administration, and/or have not trainedenough volunteer mediators to make mediation areasonably small time commitment forvolunteers.

The Mediation Boards in Sri Lankarepresent one of the most successful ADRprograms among developing countries,particularly with regard to the developmentobjectives of USAID. The system is in

jeopardy, however, because of the low level of financial support and the increasing burdens onthe volunteer mediators. Not only are themediators unpaid, but they must often covertheir own expenses. The mediators have nooffices or staff, and may need to use their homesfor mediations. They document their own workand pay for their own office supplies. Althoughthe system has been successful at resolvingincreasing numbers of cases, the increasingburdens on the mediators are leading to aconcern that mediators may quit and that newmediators may be difficult to find. In addition,some observers are concerned that somemediators may become susceptible to corruptionunless they are paid, or at least their costs arecovered. (See Sri Lanka Case Study and Hansen,

et al., 1994.)In some instances where the government

is unwilling or unable to give sufficient


35/156

E. Parity in the Power of Disputants

Reasons for needing parity:

To avoid coercive results To persuade participants to use the

process

Important elements of parity:

Balanced legal rights for disputantsas a context for ADR Parity between individual disputants

in specific cases Procedural protection for those in

weaker position

ADR systems are unlikely to overcome

wide disparity in the power of disputants, or toredress discrimination, unless they can bespecifically designed to do so. In most cases,informal processes are less able than formal judicial systems to produce fair outcomes incases of wide power disparity. As noted earlier,powerful parties retain the ability to intimidateweaker parties in conciliation or mediation andcoerce them into accepting unfair settlements.In addition, since participation of the disputantsin most ADR programs is voluntary, strongerparties are unlikely to participate if they feelthey can obtain better results by relying on their

legal or social system, and ADR staff do nothave incentives to favor one disputant overanother, ADR programs should be able toresolve particular disputes despite systemicinjustice. Village dispute resolution by localofficials in Cambodia appears to be functioningeffectively in many interpersonal cases, althoughit is problematic in cases involving the state,particularly land disputes. (See Collins, 1997.)

Second, a fairly balanced legal

framework defining disputants' rights may allowADR programs to deal with disputes despitepower imbalances. One of the factors in thesuccess of IMSSA in mediating labor disputes inSouth Africa, despite obvious discriminationagainst black and colored workers, was therelatively strong legal framework protecting therights of workers. These legal protectionshelped balance the otherwise unequal power of the parties, and allowed IMSSA to mediatedisputes effectively. In direct contrast, however,IMSSA has found that it is unable to mediateeffectively disputes between landlords andtenants. Tenants have so few legal rights thatmediators have not found landlords to beamenable to voluntary settlements. The lack of legal sanction means that landlords have little

incentive to agree. (See South Africa CaseStudy.)

Third, carefully designed ADR


36/156

Some ADR programs includeprocedural provisions to protect against theeffects of undue disparities in power betweenparties. In Bolivia, for example, the Arbitrationand Conciliation Law empowers the "weaker"party in a dispute to withdraw from acommercial arbitration or conciliation procedureunilaterally and resort to the formal courtsystem. Furthermore, the structure of ADR inBolivia has evolved to focus on disputes that arelikely to occur between parties of similar

backgrounds and power. Commercialconciliation and arbitration through the Chamberof Commerce Conciliation Centers is focused ondisputes between commercial enterprises.Court-annexed conciliation focuses on familyand labor disputes and is most likely to involvemiddle-class litigants. Extra-judicial communityconciliation centers are being designed toprovide dispute resolution for low incomecitizens. (See the Bolivia Case Study.)

* * *


37/156

Part VII

What Program Design ConsiderationsAre Important?

This section describes program designconsiderations that will contribute to the successof ADR. Many of these design factors arecommon to all USAID program designstrategies. The Guide describes some of theparticular considerations necessary in applyingthese design factors to ADR programs. Some of the design factors relate to the backgroundconditions described in the preceding section,and suggest ways of designing successful ADRprograms under more or less favorablebackground conditions.

Given the diversity of ADR programsand their institutional and cultural settings, it isimpractical to define a standard set of ADR

procedures or guidelines. On the other hand, anADR program will be more likely to meetUSAID development objectives and gainpopular and political support if the design

2. Employ a participatory designprocess.

3. Establish adequate legal foundationsto specify jurisdiction, procedures,and enforcement, and to define arelationship with the formal legalsystem.

4. Find an effective local partner.

Operations and Implementation

1. Establish effective procedures forselection, training, and oversight of mediators and arbitrators.

2. Find or create a sustainable sourceof financial support.

3. Create an effective outreach andeducation program to reach users.4. Create support services to overcome

user barriers


38/156

1) Assess dispute resolution needs andbackground conditions, and articulate

program goals.Any program design should be grounded

in an analysis of needs and the backgroundconditions discussed in the previous section.The first step in a design process should,therefore, be a careful analytical assessment,including, but certainly not limited to, thefollowing elements:

a. Dispute resolution needs

What are the needs for disputeresolution in the country? What kinds of disputes are going unresolved? Are parts of thepopulation excluded from or underserved by theexisting formal structures? Are the costs of the

existing system so high that many citizenscannot participate? What disputes areconsidered appropriate for informal resolution?All of these factors should be assessed as part of an evaluation of the needs of the country.

Once an analysis reveals a need fordispute resolution in certain areas, theassessment should investigate the barriers thatprevent individuals from using existing formallegal structures to resolve these issues. As notedin the previous section, these barriers mayi l d t illit di i i t

with a large number of cases submitted formediation. (See DPK Consulting, 1996.)

Surveys of users of the existing formallegal system may provide insights on usersatisfaction, systemic bias, or corruption thatwill be important for ADR system design.Interviews of interest groups and advocacyorganizations can provide information onilliterate or other underserved parts of thepopulation who may not respond to public

opinion polls or other surveys.b. ADR goals

As in other development programs, aclear articulation of program goals and prioritiesbased on the needs assessment is essential to theprogram's success. A single ADR program maynot be able to accomplish simultaneously all thebenefits enumerated in Part IV. A clearlyarticulated set of goals will allow programdesigners to make necessary trade-offs whenADR goals conflict with other developmentgoals or when ADR goals are inconsistent.

c. Assess appropriate relationship tothe judiciary

(i) Judicial training and attitudestoward ADR


39/156

Needs Assessment: Understanding Public Attitudes in BangladeshPrior to establishing the goals of the ADR program, or even establishing ADR as a viable program option,USAID-Bangladesh conducted an extensive study of needs. (See "The Democracy Needs of USAID/Bangladesh's Customers," May 1995.) Pairs of interviewers talked with approximately 320people from a variety of occupations, religions, ethnic groups, backgrounds, and regions. After USAIDhad established initial goals based on this survey, a second round of interviews, including approximately500 respondents of various backgrounds, tested the accuracy and desirability of the initial goals.

The validation assessment concluded: "As was made clear in the earlier needs assessment, the formallegal system has no attraction for [the poor, especially women]. Interviews and focus group meetingsconfirmed the preference for people involved in a dispute to keep the resolution process as close to homeas possible.... By far and away the most accessible, most commonly used, and relatively trusted agency isthat of the localshalish [traditional mediation]. ...

"While theshalish was accepted as appropriate for poor peoples' disputes, most respondents (and womenwere in general more critical than men) felt that this committee was usually biased, as well as ill-informed

as to the law and to procedures."The assessment concluded that a reformedshalish should incorporate more participation of women onmediation committees, more training, and better monitoring of judgments.(See "Validation Synopsis Report," Democracy Partnership, August 1995, and the Bangladesh CaseStudy.)

(ii) Public attitudes towards the judiciary

If the public mistrusts the government,and/or the judiciary, it is unlikely that the publicwill patronize an ADR system that is managedb h I I di h l k d l

d. Sources of potential opposition

As noted above in the discussion of theneed for political support, several constituenciesand interest groups may be threatened by newADR I i i id if h


40/156

any case, the assessment should identify themost likely critics and opponents of any programand determine whether and how such oppositioncan be overcome.

e. The legal basis for informal disputeresolution

As noted elsewhere, ADR may needlegal authorization for programs to operate.Some legal systems may prohibit dispute

resolution by private groups, others may prohibitthe collection of user fees for such services, stillothers may not provide for legal enforcement of settlements or arbitration awards.Understanding the legal context will beimportant for assessing the feasibility of an ADRprogram, and the appropriate design for such aprogram.

A related issue is whether the type of formal legal systemcivil law, common law,based on indigenous traditions, or a hybrid of thesewould affect the ADR program3. To theextent that the actors in ADR are linked to orinformed by the formal legal system (e.g.,neutrals with legal training, businesspersons inurban areas), they are likely to be more

comfortable with ADR programs that areconsistent with the underlying values of theformal system and that have a clear relationshipto it (especially for enforcement of agreements)

traditional legal and conflict resolution systemsthan with civil or common law systems imposedby a colonial power with which they areunfamiliar.

2) Employ a participatory design process.

The extent of participation needed in thedesign of a dispute resolution program dependson a number of factors: the nature of theprogram; the source and strength of politicalopposition to the project; the sophistication of the constituents; and the knowledge andsensitivity of experts who might otherwisedesign the program on their own. If the needand demand for the program is clear, politicalopposition low, and the sophistication of expertshigh, the design process may succeed well underthe direction of experts. In general, however,

broad participation by the affected population inthe design of a program is more likely to resultin a workable program. This is especially truewhen the needs are less clear, when the potentialfor political or popular opposition is high, whenmultiple constituencies may have an interest inthe design of the system, or when traditionalsystems already exist and should be consideredas potential models for a program.

In the Philippines, for example, wherelabor, management, and the government hadlong been frustrated by ineffective dispute


41/156

Including and Excluding Stakeholder Groups in Project Design

USAID-Bangladesh used a highly participatory process to develop the ADR program based on traditionalmediation committees,shalish . Two rounds of extensive interviews gathered the ideas and comments of potential users from a variety of backgrounds, religions, occupations, and regions. The government wasconsulted and was invited to participate in the implementation of the program. Although it declinedparticipation, this initial consultation and periodic updates ensured government support, or at leastdefused any potential opposition. Local traditional and elected leaders were invited to submit theircomments and design suggestions.

At the same time, certain stakeholder groups were purposely left out of the design process. Academic andlegal experts were not consulted because it was felt that they would focus their input on issues related tocourt reform, which USAID had already decided against as ineffective in the short term for helping thepoor. At the end of this process, most stakeholder groups actively supported the goals of the program.(See Bangladesh Case Study.)

ADR systems designed to operate on alocal community level may need to reflect localcommunity norms and traditions. For such

systems, participatory design may be veryimportant. For example, in rural areas of Kwazulu Natal in South Africa, NGOs foundthat they needed to consult extensively withtraditional leaders and tribal chiefs who wantedto retain their jurisdiction over most family andcommunity disputes. Some local traditions of mediation require multiple mediators,widespread participation of the community, orextensive rituals. Other traditions andcommunity norms may limit the gender or statusof those who will be accepted as mediators.T d ff h h ADR

3) Establish adequate legal foundationsto specify jurisdiction, procedures,and enforcement, and to define arelationship with the formal legalsystem.

a. Clarify the relationship of ADR tothe judicial system

ADR programs usually require a legalbasis for operation, or at least a legal structurethat allows ADR programs to operate. Inaddition, some explicit relationship with the judiciary may be appropriate. Potentialrelationships include full integration with court


42/156

In the United States, there is a sharpdebate on whether judges or administratorsshould be able to require disputants to use ADR,and an equally sharp debate on whether and howADR settlements should legally be enforced.Experience in the US suggests that mandatoryreferral to mediation does not necessarily reducesatisfaction with the mediation process or itsoutcomes (Stienstra, et. al., 1997.)

(ii) Degree of judicial control

The degree of connection to the courtsystem should depend largely on the reputationand legitimacy of the courts and the nature of theADR system. State control and support of theADR process has been important and successfulin some countries (for example, Argentina,Chile, Taiwan, and the Philippines). In others,however, state control and management haveundermined the success of and confidence in thesystem (for example, India, Costa Rica, andMexico). In India, for example, where thecourts were widely discredited, making ADRsettlements enforceable by the courts madedisputants more reluctant to use ADR (Whitson,1992). In South Africa, by contrast, theenforceability of arbitration decisions in the

courts was important for the success of the laborarbitration system.

As the experience in Sri Lanka suggests,

with the judicial system would be fatal. TheMediation Boards Act of 1988 revised therelationship to the judiciary, so that the newMediation Boards retain a clearly authorizedrelationship to the court system. First, uniform,mandatory referral to mediation before any courtaction could be initiated was established fordisputes valued below 25,000 rupees and manyminor offenses. Second, the Act provided foroversight by a Mediation Commissioncomprised of retired Supreme Court and

Appeals Court justices. The act also providedthat all appointments be based on merit ratherthan patronage and that all mediators be trained.Finally, the new Mediation Boards weredeprived of the court-like powers of the oldConciliation Commissions, such as the power tosubpoena or issue decrees. With these changes,the Mediation Boards have been widelyacclaimed as successful. (See Hansen, et al.,1994 and the Sri Lanka Case Study.)

Concerns about Government Control of ADR in Bangladesh

The initial assessment by USAID in Bangladeshindicated a clear preference for a system basedon traditional local mediationshalish thatwould remain independent of the judicialsystem. The assessment process reported a deepsuspicion of the court system, particularly on the

t f d th h f lt th t th


43/156

(iii) The importance of clarity

Whatever the relationship between ADRand the legal system, it is essential that ADRusers and providers understand that relationship.Providers should inform potential ADR users if using ADR means giving up options to use theformal legal system. They should also informusers if information they disclose during ADRmight later be used by another party in a formallegal process.

b. Establish a clear legal foundationfor ADR

In addition to a carefully definedrelationship with the judiciary, ADR systemsneed enforcement mechanisms. Where thecourts are seen as legitimate (even if costly andslow) by ADR users, the courts may be theappropriate recourse for enforcement.

Successful examples of ADR systemsmay be found operating with a variety of legalfoundations. As long as informal disputeresolution is not prohibited or undermined by thelegal system, and as long as some mechanismfor informal enforcement exists if judicial

enforcement does not exist, then informaldispute resolution can work well without supportfrom the court system.

than between two individuals. If one party doesnot comply with the agreement, the honor of theentire family is discredited.

In general, however, it will be difficultto launch a successful ADR system when therelationship with the formal dispute resolutionsystem is ambiguous, and potential users maybelieve the results of the ADR system may beoverturned or undermined by the judicialsystem. The voluntary arbitration system of the

National Conciliation and Mediation Board inthe Philippines was created in 1986. Prior to1989, however, the system attracted few of themany labor-management disputes for which thesystem was intended, in part at least because thelaws creating the system did not articulate aclear legal jurisdiction or procedures for thesystem. In 1989, legal changes provided clearerlegal foundations for the system, and providedfor more active public promotion of the process.(See NCMB, 1996.)

Likewise in Bolivia, an absence of alegitimizing legal framework inhibited ADRoperations prior to 1997. The new Arbitrationand Conciliation Law, which establishesconsistent arbitration and conciliation

procedures and the ability to enforce arbitrationawards in the courts, gives potential usersconfidence that they will not be wasting theirtime in ADR. Service providers also feel more


44/156

Other laws may have an indirect impacton ADR organizations. As noted below,Ukrainian laws forbid NGOs from charging feesfor services. Although this law is not intendedto affect ADR specifically, it has had the effectof threatening the financial sustainability of theUkraine Mediation Group, which must nowdepend on charitable contributions orquestionable kick-backs from mediators whoreceive direct payment from users. (See UkraineCase Study.)

USAID influence can help create thelegal foundations for ADR. In Bolivia, theUSAID mission linked its support for judicialreform to the passage of the Arbitration andConciliation Law. This linkage created aconstituency of support for ADR and a clearlegal foundation for operation and enforcement.

4) Find an effective local partner.

Dispute resolution and conflictmanagement projects are more sensitive to localnorms and culture than many other developmentprojects. When choosing local partners for ADRprogram design and implementation, the normalconsiderations of sustainability, effective and

honest management, and local acceptability areimportant. In addition, those implementingADR programs must be carefully tuned to thepolitical and social culture of the communities in

The USAID mission in Ukraine creditsmuch of the success of the Ukraine MediationGroup to the enthusiasm and commitment of thedirector, as well as his intuitive understanding of the needs and norms of the society. Hisleadership has been critical to the growth andacceptance of the program, despite a culture thathas been less receptive than many others toinformal third-party dispute resolution. (SeeUkraine Case Study.)

B. Operations and Implementation

1) Establish effective procedures forselection, training, and oversight of mediators and arbitrators .

The success of an ADR programdepends on the quality and reputation of themediators or arbitrators employed by the system.Selection and training are critical components of program design. In addition, ADR programsshould incorporate safeguards to ensuremediator and arbitrator impartiality and quality,including procedures for regular evaluation andoversight.

a. Selection and training

The choice and training of mediatorsand arbitrators are probably the most crucial


45/156

least, to the fact that the mediators are respectedresidents of the local villages or towns (SeeShir-Shing Huang, 1996.) The selection of notables or village elders bases the credibility of the system on the individual reputations of themediators.

These local notables may have closerelationships with and influence over disputantsin particular cases, and may use their influenceto push for settlements that uphold community

norms. Notables may have little formal trainingin ADR techniques. Nevertheless, they may bewidely respected and sought out because theyrepresent and uphold community norms thatdisputants accept as fair standards for resolvingdisputes.

One of the several factors contributingto the decline of the lok adalat courts in Indiaafter they were placed under formal governmentmanagement in 1988 was the change in thecharacteristics of the "conciliators." Whereasconciliators had been chosen from within thelocal community when the lok adalats wereoperated outside government control, theconciliators chosen by the government werefrequently not members of the community in

which they operated. This led to a decline inpublic confidence in the system. (See Whitson,1992.)

There may be a trade-off betweenchoosing "notables" and choosing "progressives"or "representatives of disadvantaged groups" asADR providers. Notables may have greaterauthority to resolve disputes according toexisting norms, but little interest in mitigatingpower imbalances between parties in particulardisputes. Progressives (e.g., social workers orteachers from outside the community) andrepresentatives of disadvantaged groups (e.g.,women, members of low-income or low-status

groups) may have less authority, but greaterinterest in mitigating power imbalances.

(ii) Familiarity with the legal systemmay not be essential

Familiarity with the formal legal systemmay be another qualification trade-off. Wherethe legal system is widely agreed to be byzantineand unjust, it is not clear that familiarity with itshould be a criterion for selecting third parties,even for court-annexed, labor or commercialdisputes that are mediated or arbitrated in theshadow of the law. In the Philippines, laborarbitrators from a private voluntary association,who are generally less familiar with labor lawthan the official government labor arbitrators,

appear to be more popular with disputants thanthe government labor arbitrators. Somedisputants believe that the government'sarbitrators are more likely to take bribes to


46/156

(iii) Cultural norms affecting selectionand credibility

Cultural norms may influence thecriteria for selection of effective and appropriatemediators. For example, in many Asiancultures, the welfare of the whole community isseen as more important than the rights of individual members. In these cultures, the mostwidely respected and accepted mediators may bethose who best promote community interests.

Likewise, many Asian cultures focus on long-term reconciliation as a more important goalthan short-term dispute resolution. Mediatorswho are more adept at promoting reconciliationwill be more effective. Finally, Asian culturesoften place more importance on credibilityrather than neutrality, and highly respectedcommunity members may be more effectivemediators, even if they are not completelyneutral, than neutral mediators of lowercommunity stature. (See Jandt and Pederson,1996.)

(iv) Training as a means of establishingcredibility

Some systems have been effective in

establishing the credibility of third partiesthrough effective training. The success of IMSSA in South Africa depended on the qualityand intensity of its mediator and arbitrator

Training at IMSSA

The extent of IMSSAs training for labormediators (panelists) in South Africa isinstructive. The training includes a number of formal courses with increasing levels of specialization, observations of actual mediationsand arbitrations, and pairings with experiencedmediators and arbitrators. The trainees arereviewed and assessed throughout t

Alternative Disute Resolution

Documents

Transcript of Alternative Disute Resolution