International Peace Initiatives:

The conflict situations in some parts of the globe today particularly in some parts of Africa in recent years have posed serious challenges to peace builders not only in those countries affected, but also across the international community. The devastating effects of these conflicts such as killings, maimings, kidnappings of innocent citizens and foreigners alike, destruction of human and natural resources, unlawful arrests and detention of innocent citizens have become a global concern to peace builders, citizens and the governments of the affected countries.

Some conflicts can arise within a country out of economic, religious, cultural, or ethnic and environmental differences. Such conflicts are special kinds of conflicts and require specific approaches. In some countries and cultures of Africa, culture becomes the way of life a group creates during the course of its history. It is the way its members think and behave. It includes the values and beliefs they hold, social practices and structures influencing their conduct (customs, food, art, dress, etc.) and the languages they may speak. In some cultures in Africa, parties prefer to communicate through a go-between or third party because direct confrontation may hurt or impede the relationship. Some parties may prefer to talk to a third party who will give suggestions and may act as intermediaries. Whereas in some other cultures, dealing directly with the other party to a conflict is ideal; talking to others may be seen as gossip or increasing the conflict unnecessarily. A third party may be asked to intervene if it feels like they will help ease the already tense situation.

CMMS believes that the local actors who are directly involved in a conflict or war path are critical to peace-building efforts, if progress is to be made in attaining the needed peace. Our aim is to ensure that these actors in the dispute are empowered to make decisions, and not making the decisions for them. Through training in Alternative Dispute Resolution among actors in a conflict, we will locate, support and empower and work with local actors as they deal with conflicts in their communities.
It is important to note that understanding the root causes of any dispute could lead partly to resolving the dispute. In this situation, our method will begin by conducting an in depth assessment of all dispute situations involving the local actors before attempting to deal with the conflict.

What is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

The term "alternative dispute resolution" or "ADR" is often used to describe a wide variety of dispute resolution mechanisms that are short of, or alternative to, full-scale court processes.

The term can refer to everything from facilitated settlement negotiations in which disputants are encouraged to negotiate directly with each other prior to some other legal process, to arbitration systems or mini-trials that look and feel very much like a courtroom process.

Processes designed to manage community tension or facilitate community development issues can also be included within the rubric of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR systems may be generally categorized as negotiation, conciliation/mediation, or arbitration systems.

Negotiation systems create a structure to encourage and facilitate direct negotiation between parties to a dispute, without the intervention of a third party. Mediation and conciliation systems are very similar in that they interject a third party between the disputants, either to mediate a specific dispute or to reconcile their relationship. Mediators and conciliators may simply facilitate communication, or may help direct and structure a settlement, but they do not have the authority to decide or rule on a settlement. Arbitration systems authorize a third party to decide how a dispute should be resolved.

It is important to distinguish between binding and non-binding forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Negotiation, mediation, and conciliation programmes are non-binding, and depend on the willingness of the parties to reach a voluntary agreement. Arbitration programmes may be either binding or non-binding. Binding arbitration produces a third party decision that the disputants must follow even if they disagree with the result, much like a judicial decision. Non-binding arbitration produces a third party decision that the parties may reject.

It is also important to distinguish between mandatory processes and voluntary processes. Some judicial systems require litigants to negotiate, conciliate, mediate, or arbitrate prior to court action. ADR processes may also be required as part of a prior contractual agreement between parties. In voluntary processes, submission of a dispute to an ADR process depends entirely on the will of the parties.

Aspects of ADR and Peace Building

Adversarial proceedings such as litigation/adjudication are necessary and appropriate for serious crimes and for some types of offenders. They are associated with transparence, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, public denunciation, vindication, and safety, if only during the period of time individual offenders are incarcerated.

For many less serious crimes committed by young person and/or first time offenders, these benefits may be outweighed by their costs. These include:

• high transaction costs (e.g. time, money, stress);
• relationship damage;
• zero-sum (win-lose) outcomes;
• inflexibility;
• loss of direct control over process and outcomes;
• relative neglect of victims.
• engage the community in the process

Unlike adversarial proceedings, alternative dispute resolution procedures such as mediation and restorative justice:

• are, consensual, collaborative, problem-solving and fully participatory;
• yield win-win outcomes;
• have relatively low transaction costs;
• focus simultaneously on relationships and substantive outcomes;
• place equal emphasis on the emotional, physical, and material effects of conflicts;
• are an appropriate and effective response to both acts defined as crimes or offences by the state, and to conduct defined as wrong by members of community or society even though it is not defined as criminal by the state.

Mediation

In their book, Conflict Resolution: An Introductory Text (2005), authors Ellis and Anderson define mediation as a process in which one or more third parties facilitate healing, story-telling, negotiations, communication and problem-solving between parties-in-conflict who make decisions on outcomes. Self-determination is the heart of mediation. The parties are authors of their own fate. Because the parties themselves create the terms of agreements, they are more likely to conform to them than if the terms of agreements were created by others and they were ordered to comply with them. Of course, if parties-in-conflict can settle conflicts through negotiation, they would also be authors of their own fate, and to a higher degree, because no facilitative third party was involved.

The reality is that negotiations frequently fail because parties involved in resource, values and identity conflicts are often unable or unwilling to negotiate a settlement. At this point, the parties can select from a menu of adversarial (e.g. use of force, litigation, arbitration) procedures, or a collaborative/consensual/problem-solving procedure such as mediation. The presumptive Rule of Mediation states that mediation is, or should be, the first alternative selected save for the presence of specified exclusions. These include, where a serious (indictable) crime has been committed and punishment is warranted, or where one or both parties seek public vindication or set a precedent. Compared with litigation-adjudication and arbitration, mediation is far more likely to yield a "Wise Agreement".

A wise agreement is one that has the following attributes:

• reconciles underlying causes and/or stated positions
• does not damage/may improve relationships
• has relatively low transactions costs (e.g. money, time, stress, loss of control over process and outcomes)
• yields more reliable compliance with the terms of agreements

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice has been defined as a community-based response to criminal conduct and wrong-doing that brings together the victim, the offender and community members with a view to repairing the harm caused by such conduct". Restorative Justice is an innovative way of responding to conflict-related harmful conduct that focuses on relationships among victims, wrong-doers/offenders and community members. It is grounded in how individuals actually experience conflict rather than in conflicts as they are framed in legal language. As it is legally framed, conflict is defined as harms against the state or the individual, and always involves two parties, the accused and the state or the offender and the victim.

As it is experienced, many conflicts involve multiple parties and conflict is defined, not in terms of harms against the state, but in terms of harms against human beings. Specifically, crime occurs when the actions of one party toward another are defined as being so far outside the bounds of what is commonly regarded as normal and appropriate that it merits some form of response. The response defines what is right and wrong and in so doing, reinforces shared moral sentiments and traditional values. Crime/conflict then, represents both a challenge and an opportunity for moral growth.

Restorative justice rests on the premise that the most effective response to criminal and other wrongful acts is to repair the harm done by them. Specifically, restorative justice aims at the restoration of relationships built on trust, respect and dignity. Communities characterized by the predominance of such relationships are healthy, harmonious communities.

The five pillars upon which restorative justice rests are:

• facilitation by a respected member of the community
• face-to-face communication among victims, offenders and representatives of the community
• accept responsibility for one's actions
• redress the harm done to victims and the community
• hold offenders accountable

A Brief History of ADR

Dispute resolution outside of courts is not new; societies world-over have long used non-judicial, indigenous methods to resolve conflicts. What is new is the extensive promotion and proliferation of ADR models, wider use of court-connected ADR, and the increasing use of ADR as a tool to realize goals broader than the settlement of specific disputes.

The ADR movement in the United States was launched in the 1970s, beginning as a social movement to resolve community-wide civil rights disputes through mediation, and as a legal movement to address increased delay and expense in litigation arising from an overcrowded court system. Ever since, the legal ADR movement in the United States has grown rapidly, and has evolved from experimentation to institutionalization with the support of the American Bar Association, academics, courts, the U.S. Congress and state governments.

Innovations in ADR models, expansion of government-mandated, court-based ADR in state and federal systems, and increased interest in ADR by disputants has made the United States the richest source of experience in court connected ADR. While the court-connected ADR movement flourished in the U.S. legal community, other ADR advocates saw the use of ADR methods outside the court system as a means to generate solutions to complex problems that would better meet the needs of disputants and their communities, reduce reliance on the legal system, strengthen local civic institutions, preserve disputants' relationships, and teach alternatives to violence or litigation for dispute settlement. In 1976, the San Francisco Community Boards programme was established to further such goals. This experiment has spawned a variety of community-based ADR projects, such as school based peer mediation programmes and neighborhood justice centers.

In the 1980s, demand for ADR in the commercial sector began to grow as part of an effort to find more efficient and effective alternatives to litigation. Since this time, the use of private arbitration, mediation and other forms of ADR in the business setting has risen dramatically, accompanied by an explosion in the number of private firms offering ADR services.

The move from experimentation to institutionalization in the ADR field has also affected administrative rule-making and litigation practice. Laws now in place authorize and encourage agencies to use negotiation and other forms of ADR in rulemaking, public consultation, and administrative dispute resolution.

Internationally, the ADR movement has also taken off in both developed and developing countries. ADR models may be straight-forward imports of processes found in the United States, Canada and other developed countries or hybrid experiments mixing ADR models with elements of traditional dispute resolution. ADR processes are being implemented to meet a wide range of social, legal, commercial, and political goals. In the developing world, a number of countries are engaging in the ADR experiment, including Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and Uruguay. Nigeria should not be an exception and the Nigeria Police should take the lead in experimenting the ADR pilot project in Nigeria, now that the country is a purely democratically led country.

ADR in Socio Development Context

Conflict grounded in social, structural, cultural, political and economic factors is endemic in all societies. At the same time, recurring conflicts with more serious consequences are more likely to be present in some societies than in others.

The government of Nigeria is concerned about the deleterious consequences of recurring conflicts over the distribution of resources, secession, opposing religious values as well as recurring conflicts between rival youth street gangs. The government's concern is expressed in its desire to settle or resolve such conflicts in ways that promote a more peaceful Nigeria without increasing the already heavy burden placed on adversarial criminal and civil justice systems. The implementation of collaborative alternative dispute resolution procedures will promote the achievement of both objectives.

The increasing importance of dispute resolution in the African context is a reflection of the global growth in ADR and what are the preferred methods of resolving disputes, a trend that is likely to continue into the 21st Century. Since the 1970s there has been a surge in the participation in alternative dispute resolution by less developed countries. It is therefore important for officials in developing countries to be aware of the issues and problems involved in the various stages of ADR programmes.

There are several methods available for resolving disputes between two parties. The first and most important method is through the courts. When a dispute arises between two parties belonging to the same country, there is an established forum available for the resolution of the same. The parties can get the said dispute resolved through the courts established by law in that country. Generally, this has been the most common method employed by the citizens of a country for the resolution of their disputes with the fellow citizens.

Alternative dispute resolution methods are becoming more popular for resolution of disputes between parties. So much so that some persons have started calling them "appropriate" dispute resolution methods rather than "alternative" dispute resolution methods. The alternative dispute resolution methods offer distinct advantages over litigation.

Alternative dispute resolution encompasses a variety of methods for the resolution of disputes between the parties. The availability or deployment of any particular method of alternative dispute resolution in any specific case depends on a number of factors. The clause relating to alternative dispute resolution in the agreement between the parties, the availability of persons well versed in the process of alternative dispute resolution, the support provided by the legal system of a country to the alternative dispute resolution methods, the national or international institutional framework for alternative dispute resolution, the availability of necessary infrastructure facilities, etc., play a significant role in the selection of any particular method of the resolution of dispute.

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Constitutional Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa

Disagreements and misunderstanding are key characteristics of human relationships whether the relationship is a domestic, national or international one. The potential for disputes is even higher where the parties are from different cultural, economic and political backgrounds with different legal systems. Since disputes are such a critical part of human relationships, many countries have mechanisms to resolve them in a manner, which maintains the cohesion, economic and political stability of the state. This is particularly so with regard to disputes related to commerce because commerce is the engine of growth.

The adjudicatory system of dispute resolution or the civil court system as we know it today evolved to resolve disputes among citizens. In each country of the world, the local court system has a history of development behind it but modern court systems all over the world have been influenced by the common law system which originated from England because England was at one time the dominant world power exporting its culture, ideas and system of governance to the rest of the world through the activities of its famous explorers. This adjudicatory or common law system is what has been exported to many developing countries, which were former colonies of Britain. In particular, many sub Saharan African countries which were colonies of Great Britain have retained the system of dispute resolution inherited from the former colonial governments.

The point made above is not to say that African nations did not have their own indigenous system of dispute resolution before the advent of the colonial government. In fact as we shall see, African traditional system of dispute resolution is closer in nature and character to arbitration than to the colonial system of adjudication. But since African lawyers are trained in the common law system of adjudication which is integrated into the system of governance by the constitution backed by the establishment of courts, judges, the rules of procedures and the enforcement of the judgments, African lawyers have come to rely on and trust the common law system more than any other form of dispute resolution.

But the common law adjudicatory system of dispute resolution is widely known to be fraught with a myriad of shortcomings especially when applied to the resolution of commercial disputes.

These shortcomings range from the delay in the process of litigation, the cumbersome rules of procedure, the corruption of judges and court officials in some countries, the cost of litigation, the publicity which goes with the hearing and the judgment etc.

Whereas developed countries have managed to develop dispute resolution mechanisms which reduce the impact of the shortcomings identified here and conform to modernity and the demands of economic growth, many developing countries especially in Africa are still saddled with old forms of adjudication which they inherited from colonial governments.

One of the reasons for this is the conservatism of lawyers in these countries who prefer to resolve disputes within their familiar adjudicatory system in spite of all the problems. Another reason is that they are not familiar with the modern forms of dispute resolution. In spite of the imposition of the foreign system of adjudication and its promotion by British trained African lawyers, many Africans still believe in and use the traditional system of dispute resolution although its scope and application to commercial disputes is limited.

Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution

The shortcomings in the adjudicatory system of resolving disputes led to the emergence of other methods of dispute resolution now popularly referred to as ADR. The value of ADR over and above the common adjudicatory system is that any of the techniques can be implemented very early in the dispute thereby giving the parties an opportunity to air their views and to involve decision makers within their respective organizations long before the subject of dispute eats deep into the fabric of the relationship and cause irreparable damage.

African Customary System of Dispute Resolution

Customary law is generally known to be the accepted norm of usage in any community. A community may accept certain customs as binding on them. In Africa, such customary laws may be accepted by members of particular ethnic groups and may be regarded as ethnic customary law. Customary law is unwritten and one of it's most commendable characteristics is its flexibility, apart from the fact that it is the accepted norm of usage. In one Nigerian case, the court said:

"One of the most striking features of West African native custom ... is its flexibility; it appears to have been always subject to motives of expediency, and it shows unquestionable adaptability to altered circumstances without entirely losing its character."

ADR methods vary and their processes overlap but are all designed as alternatives to litigation and complement arbitration which is the most popular form of ADR. The methods include negotiation, early neutral evaluation or neutral fact finding, conciliation, mediation, mini trial, med-arb etc. The key factor is that all these methods are designed to assist the parties resolve their differences in a manner that is creative and most suited to the particular dispute.

Some people see ADR methods as supplanting the adjudicatory system but if considered from the angle that the courts in many jurisdictions are unable to resolve all disputes in a manner appealing to litigants, and then ADR methods will be accepted as complementary to the litigation system of governance.

The role was taken up by the elders or the chief and was meant to maintain social cohesion. In its operation, African dispute resolution was very much like arbitration in that resolution of disputes was not adversarial. Any person who is concerned that a dispute between the parties threatened the peace of the community could initiate the process. In the process, parties have the opportunity to state their case and their expectation but the final decision is that of the elders.

Whereas the western type arbitration is attractive because of its private nature, customary arbitration is not private but is organized to socialize the whole society, therefore, the community is present. Another distinction is that the process is gender sensitive as such women were excluded from male driven communal dispute resolution. Parties could arise from the whole process and maintain their relationship and where one party got an award the whole society was witness and saw to it that it was enforced. Social exclusion or ostracism was a potent sanction for any erring party therefore enforcement of an award was not a problem.

There are however several limitations of this process in modern times. One is that it is mostly applied to land and family disputes. It is hardly applicable to monetized commercial transactions and certainly not to transaction of an international character. Furthermore, it is community focused and does not contemplate transactions where the parties are from different cultural backgrounds.

Although African dispute resolution mechanisms cannot be applied to commercial disputes except perhaps those dealing with community land, nevertheless, it offers an insight into the options available outside the adjudicatory system offered by the common law. By comparing it to arbitration and the parameters of litigation, lawyers, particularly government lawyers ought to be able to advise their governments on the need and basis for arbitration in commercial arrangements especially those of an international nature. And this is the purpose of our proposal.

The Role of Nigeria in Peace Building, Conflict Resolution, and Peacekeeping since 1960

Over the past twenty-five years, Nigeria has emerged from a relatively obscure position under colonial domination to a major power in international affairs. This position as well as the commitment underpinning it has been expressed more forcefully in the defense of Africa which, in cooperation with other countries within the continent and in the Diaspora, has helped in keeping alive the pan-African ideal.

Between 1960 and 2005, Nigeria has been actively involved in various ways in the struggle against colonialism in Southern Africa; in demonstrating the cultural richness and diversity of Africa; in building and maintaining peace throughout the West African region; and in helping to establish, and continuing to support the Economic Community of West African States [ECOWAS (1975)] the Organization of African Unity [OAU (1963), now AU (2001)], the Non-Aligned Movement, and other organizations concerned with bringing peace to regions and peoples across the world. Nigeria's membership of the "Frontline States" during the struggle against Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa; its long-term chairmanship of the UN Special Committee against Apartheid; and its leadership of peacekeeping missions in Chad (1979-82), Liberia (1990-98), Sierra Leone (1996-00), Guinea Bissau (1998-00) and Cotê d'Ivoire (2000-Date) are all reflections of its commitment and role to peace building, peace keeping, and conflict resolution.

Key Observations of ADR

Below are a number of the key observations with ADR programme implementation

• ADR programmes cannot be a substitute for a formal judicial system. ADR programmes are instruments for the application of equity, rather than the rule of law, and as such cannot be expected to establish legal precedent or implement changes in legal and social norms. However, ADR programmes can complement and support judicial reforms.
• ADR programmes can increase access to justice for social groups that are not adequately or fairly served by the judicial system - they can also reduce cost and time to resolve disputes and increase disputants' satisfaction with outcomes.
• When courts are systematically biased against women, ADR may be able to improve women's access to justice, especially when discrimination against women inherent in local norms or traditional dispute resolution mechanisms can be overcome in the new ADR mechanism.
• ADR programmes can support not only rule of law objectives, but also other development objectives, such as economic development, development of a civil society, and support for disadvantaged groups, by facilitating the resolution of disputes that are impeding progress toward these objectives.
• Before developing an ADR programme, it is critical to determine whether establishment of rights, strengthening of the rule of law, and/or creating a more even balance of power among potential users should precede the use of ADR.
• If ADR is appropriate in principle, public sector agents, community and civil society must assess background conditions to ensure that ADR will be feasible in practice. These include political support, institutional and cultural fit, human and financial resources, and power parity among potential users.

If ADR appears feasible, it is important to ensure that the ADR programme involves needs assessment and identification of goals, adequate legal foundation, and effective local partnerships

Key Features of ADR Approaches

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 address development objectives in a manner different from judicial systems.

1. Informality

   Most fundamentally, ADR processes are less formal than judicial processes. In most cases, the rules of procedure are flexible, without formal pleadings, extensive written documentation, or rules of evidence. This informality is appealing and important for increasing access to dispute resolution for parts of the population who may be intimidated by or unable to participate in more formal systems. It is also important for reducing the delay and cost of dispute resolution. Most systems operate without formal representation.

2. Application of Equity

   Equally important, ADR programmes are instruments for the application of equity rather than the rule of law. Each case is decided by a third party or negotiated between disputants themselves, based on principles and terms that seem equitable in the particular case, rather than on uniformly applied legal standards. ADR systems cannot be expected to establish legal precedent or implement changes in legal and social norms. ADR systems tend to achieve efficient settlements at the expense of consistent and uniform justice.

   In societies where large parts of the population do not receive any real measure of justice under the formal legal system, the drawbacks of an informal approach to justice may not cause significant concern. Furthermore, the overall system of justice can mitigate the problems by ensuring that disputants have recourse to formal legal protections if the result of the informal system is unfair, and by monitoring the outcomes of the informal system to test for consistency and fairness.

3. Direct Participation and Communication between Disputants

   Other characteristics of ADR systems include more direct participation by the disputants in the process and in designing settlements, more direct dialogue and opportunity for reconciliation between disputants, potentially higher levels of confidentiality since public records are not typically kept, more flexibility in designing creative settlements, less power to subpoena information, and less direct power of enforcement.

Benefits of ADR Programme

1. ADR Supports And Complement Court Reform.

   ADR is used when:
   • Case backlog impairs court effectiveness
   • Complex procedures impair court effectiveness
   • The poor cannot afford the courts or manage their way within them
   • Small informal systems can better reach geographically dispersed population

   ADR programmes can support a mission objective to reform the court system in several ways. ADR can be used by the judiciary to test and demonstrate new procedures that might later be extended to or integrated with existing court procedures. ADR systems can be created as an option within the judicial system, either associated with the courts as a way of managing existing caseloads, or separate from the courts to provide dispute resolution for conflicts or constituencies not well served by the courts.

   ADR programmes can provide streamlined procedures to accelerate case disposition. In some cases, these procedures may serve as models that can later be incorporated into formal court procedures. If so, court-annexed ADR may turn out to be a catalyst for more extensive court reform.

2. ADR Can By-Pass Ineffective or Discredited Courts.

   ADR is used when:
   • Working with or within the existing judicial system is unlikely to be effective or receive popular support.
   • Complex or technical disputes can be handled more effectively by specialized private ADR systems.

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

   1. Justice for Populations Not Well Served By The Courts

      In South Africa, India, and Bangladesh, ADR programmes were developed to by-pass corrupt, biased, or otherwise discredited court systems that could not provide reasonable justice for at least certain parts of the population (blacks, the poor, or women). In Sri Lanka, the reputation of the courts is relatively good, but they were ineffective in resolving many local and small disputes because of high costs and long delays. The Mediation Boards there have evolved as a substitute for the courts, but enjoy the support of the judicial system. Bolivia, Haiti, Ecuador, and El Salvador are developing systems involving government support for independent, local, informal dispute resolution panels to serve parts of the population for whom the courts are ineffective (Davis and Crohn, 1996).

      An ADR programme functions as the primary institutions for resolving civil disputes, and effectively replaces or pre-empted courts. Taiwan and China have the best examples of broadly and deeply institutionalized, community-based ADR (Huang 1996; Jandt and Pedersen 1996b). In both countries, local government officials and well-respected citizens act as conciliators, mediators, and arbitrators for the vast majority of local disputes. Taiwan's ADR system appears to be growing more popular over time, despite social changes that have begun to erode Confucian norms of deference to local notables.

      In China, there are now more than one million 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 to court if mediation fails. The PMCs handle more than seven million civil cases each year, including family disputes, inheritance issues, land claims, business disputes, and neighbor conflicts. These ADR institutions have evolved not as attempts to substitute for a failing court system, but rather as an outgrowth of traditional, local institutions that have long functioned as alternatives to the civil courts.

   2. Efficient and Satisfactory Resolution in Highly-Technical, Specialized Areas

      Specialized ADR programmes focus on particular types of technical or complex disputes can be more effective and produce better settlements than courts. In the United States, Canada and other developed countries, specialized ADR programmes deal with construction, environmental, and patent disputes, among others. These programmes act as substitutes for the courts, which may not have the expertise necessary to make the best decisions. In developing countries, specialized ADR programmes for commercial disputes are being tried in Uruguay, Thailand, Bolivia, and Ukraine. Private labor-management ADR in South Africa has been so successful that the government has adopted mediation and arbitration as the primary mechanisms for resolving labor-management disputes.

   3. Ethnically-Based, Public and Family Disputes

      An ADR programme is more effective than the courts for addressing particular types of disputes, such as ethnic conflicts, public environmental disputes, or family disputes. In such cases, specifically designed ADR programmes may create more attractive alternatives to the courts even when the courts are functioning reasonably well.

      National government agencies may develop issue-specific ADR systems designed to precede or parallel formal administrative hearings. In the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has created provincial multi-stakeholder committees to receive and resolve land claims by indigenous peoples (NRMP 1993). In Malaysia, national government officials are being trained by the Department of National Affairs to manage interethnic disputes that arise in the course of their work (Othman 1996).

3. ADR Increases Satisfaction of Disputants With Outcomes.

   ADR is used when:

   • High cost, long delay, and limited access undermine satisfaction with existing judicial processes.
   • Cultural norms emphasize the importance of reconciliation and relationships over "winning" in dispute resolution.
   • Considerations of equity indicate that creativity and flexibility are needed to produce outcomes satisfactory to the parties.
   • Low rates of compliance with court judgments (or a high rate of enforcement actions) indicate a need for systems that maximize the likelihood of voluntary compliance.
   • The legal system is not very responsive to local conditions or local conditions vary.

   When evaluations of ADR systems have included an assessment of overall user satisfaction, the ADR systems have generally compared favorably to formal legal structures.

   In Sri Lanka, for example, satisfaction with the Mediation Board system is quite high. In addition to the accessibility of the system, and the low cost, disputants indicate that the way they are treated, the disputants' control of the process, and the community-based nature of the system are all factors leading to high satisfaction. Satisfaction is also reflected in the settlement and compliance rates. Nearly 65% of all mediated cases are settled, and compliance rates, while not accurately measured, are reported to be quite high. The chairman of one Mediation Board indicated that compliance with debtor dispute settlements, which constitute a large proportion of the cases, is nearly 95%.

   In the United States, Canada and other developed countries, many users of ADR services cite the flexibility and creativity of the process, and note that the settlements are generally better for both parties than decisions produced through litigation. This advantage is reflected in the comments of users in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh who note the benefits of a local mediator who understands local conditions, knows the parties, and can help guide a settlement that fits the situation.

4. ADR Programmes Increase Access to Justice for Disadvantaged Groups.

   ADR is used when:

   • Use of formal court systems requires resources unavailable to sectors of the population.
   • Formal court systems are biased against women, minorities, or other groups.
   • Illiteracy prevents part of the population from using formal court systems.
   • Distance from the courts impairs effective use for rural populations.

   Many poor are denied access simply because they cannot afford to pay the registration and representation fees necessary to enter the formal legal system. Since cost is probably the largest barrier to formal dispute resolution for many people in developing countries.

   • Reducing The Formality Of The Legal Process

     Several studies indicate that the formality of court systems intimidates and discourages use. In India and Bangladesh, for example, the court requirement of legal representation is both costly and intimidating for people who may not be comfortable interacting with lawyers from a different caste or class. In these and other countries, users of ADR programmes have expressed a preference for submitting cases to mediators who are local residents and understand the local community. In Sri Lanka, users expressed their satisfaction at having their "stories" heard in an informal process. All of these factors contribute to greater usage of and preference for informal processes.

   • Overcoming The Barrier Of Illiteracy

     In some countries, access is effectively denied because the formal system requires a level of literacy that many in the country do not have. In these countries, the formal legal processes are especially intimidating for large numbers of illiterate citizens. In Bangladesh, the Madaripur Legal Aid Association was originally established to provide assistance and representation for the poor and illiterate. Their services are now dominated by their mediation programme, in part because they found mediation to be more effective and accessible for this part of the population. ADR programmes can be designed to rely on oral representations. Oral agreements may be enforced by traditional means of community peer pressure, eliminating the need for written documentation or formal enforcement mechanisms.

   • Serving Rural Populations: Reducing Geographic Dispersal Of Centres

     Access may be impaired because the courts are located far from the homes of those who need them. One advantage of ADR programmes is the ability to set them up with relatively little cost to local communities. The lok adalat ("people's court") system in India succeeded in reaching a large part of the population because they were located in villages (see Whitson, 1992). Similarly, the Mediation Boards in Sri Lanka are distributed throughout rural villages, as well as larger cities and towns.

     In China, more than one million People's Mediation Centers are located in villages and serve parts of the population that could not easily reach existing courts (see Jandt and Pederson, 1996).

   • Counteracting Discrimination And Bias In The System

     When courts are systematically biased against particular groups, such as minorities or women, ADR programmes can sometimes help provide some measure of justice. In Bangladesh, for example, women are often poorly protected by the courts. The MLAA mediation programme has recruited women to serve on mediation panels in the village mediation programme. Women who have used the system believe that they receive better protection and more compensation from this system than from the formal court system

     In many circumstances, however, ADR will not improve access for discriminated against populations and may, some argue, even worsen their situation. Informal dispute resolution services may offer "second-class" justice to users, particularly minorities and women who may be subject to bias in ADR programmes as well as in the formal judicial system. Informal dispute resolution systems are ineffective at changing policy and systemic injustice since they deal with individual cases and do not establish legal precedent. Where, as in Bangladesh, the ADR programme design is able to address the issue of bias through recruitment of minority mediators and thorough training, justice can be improved for these disadvantaged groups.

   • Public Outreach To Increase Awareness Of ADR

     In some situations, the judicial system or new ADR mechanisms may have changed in ways that could increase access, but the disadvantaged may be unaware of the changes because of inadequate public outreach. If one of the goals of the ADR programme is to increase access to justice for a particular target population, the programme design must include adequate means for reaching that population.

5. ADR Programmes Reduce Delay In The Resolution Of Disputes.

   ADR is used when:

   • Delays are caused by complex formal procedures.
   • Court resources are insufficient to keep up with case backlog.

   Delays are endemic in most court systems throughout the world and affect a number of development objectives. In some cases, delays are so extreme that they effectively deny justice, particularly to disadvantaged groups who may not be able to "grease the wheels" of the justice system. In other cases, delays in the resolution of commercial disputes impair economic development and undermine the efficiency of the economy. Informal dispute resolution (mediation and settlement programmes), or simplified procedures for dispute resolution (arbitration systems), can significantly reduce dispute resolution delay, and indirectly reduce court backlog by redirecting cases that would otherwise go to court.

   Experience indicates that ADR can have a significant impact on the time required to reach a resolution. A study conducted by the State Justice Institute at the University of North Carolina compared cases assigned either to a mediated settlement conference (MSC) or directly to the superior court. The MSC programme reduced the median filing-to-disposition time in similarly contested cases by about seven weeks, from 407 days to 360 days. In addition, participants were significantly more satisfied with the process and the outcomes of the MSC process than they were with the normal court process.

6. ADR Programmes Reduce The Cost Of Resolving Disputes.

   ADR is used when:

   • High costs in the courts are driven by formal procedures or the requirement of legal representation.
   • Court filing costs are high.
   • Court delays impose high costs on parties.

   Many ADR programmes are designed with a goal of reducing the cost of resolving disputes both to the disputants and to the dispute resolution system. The experience of the ADR systems implemented in developing countries indicates that cost reduction is a reasonable goal for ADR systems, and that well-designed systems can effectively meet this goal.

7. Expected Outcome

The ADR programme is designed to meet a wide variety of different goals. Some of these goals are directly related to improving the administration of justice and the settlement of disputes. Some are related to other development objectives, such the management of tensions and conflicts in communities, developing an efficient capacities and consensual ways to resolve disputes that will be critical to a social development, strengthening the rule of law.

The training immediate expected outcomes are to:

• prepare public agents, civil society and community leaders, and increase their capacities to help reduce the level of tension and prevent conflict in their communities, work place and in the broader public
• help public gents and civil society manage conflicts that may directly impair social and economic development

Within the context of rule of law initiatives, the ADR programme:

• supports and complement court reform
• by-passes ineffective and discredited courts
• increases popular satisfaction with dispute resolution
• increases access to justice for disadvantaged groups
• reduces delay in the resolution of disputes
• reduces the cost of resolving disputes

In the context of other development objectives, the ADR programme:

• increases civic engagement and create public processes to facilitate economic restructuring and other social change
• helps reduce the level of tension and conflict in a community
• manages disputes and conflicts that may directly impair development initiatives

Experience suggests that ADR programmes can have a positive impact on social economic (sustainable) development objectives, although the extent of the impact is very much dependent on other conditions within the country and the fit of the design and implementation of the programme with the development objectives.

Certificate In Dispute Resolution

What is Dispute Resolution:

Having a disagreement with a neighbour, peers, roommate, friend, spouse, parents, siblings, co-worker or business associate can make an individual confused, afraid, unsecured, lose self esteem and angry. Sometimes, a small conflict can get worse, if not resolved, whether domestic or otherwise. Conflicts can be made worse by bringing in other conflicts from the past. It is important to deal with conflicts as they arise.

Conflicts occur inside individuals, within on-going individuals and group relationships, and also between different individuals and groups (may be gangs). Conflicts affect relationships. People get angry and frustrated when their relationships fail. Miscommunication leads to wrong assumption and entrenched positions. People need help to break the cycle of violence and escalation that often sets in with conflict.

Mediation is further seen as a voluntary meeting between the parties involved in a conflict where trained community volunteer mediators help the disputants resolve the conflict in such a way that is safe, fair and satisfactory for both parties. Alternative dispute resolution is both new and old. According to Mark Bennett and Michelle Herman: “it is a recent and explosively growing movement which seeks to reduce litigation, increase participants’ satisfactions, and control court congestion”. Many elements of modern ADR methods, however, have roots in ancient traditions of problem solving valued for centuries in a variety of cultures throughout this country and around the world. Since 90% of cases filed in courts can be predicted to settle, while less than 10% proceed to trial; negotiation is by far the most pervasive dispute resolution process. Therefore, in mediation, the mediators do not make a decision but help the parties promote the use of constructive problem solving skills through a structured process, which has been developed to enhance their ability to achieve a resolution, which is fair, satisfying and durable.

ROLE OF CONFLICT MEDIATOR IN CONFLICTS

A Mediator in this setting is a neutral third party who has been trained and assigned to facilitate a mediation process between two aggrieving parties in a conflict in such a way that is fair, safe and satisfactory for both parties. Here the mediator uses the interest-based approach, which asks what problems underlie or cause the conflict, what the parties need and want. The mediator uses good communication skills such as attentive listening, restating and clarifying what has been said by both parties, asking neutral and open ended questions, becomes sensitive to cultural, language, power differences, putting into consideration the socio-political dynamics of the parties’ culture, language and power power-base. The mediator should not be afraid to name differences and talk about power imbalances, such as inequalities. The mediator should be able to detect the underlying cause of the conflict through interaction with both parties without telling the parties what the conflict is. Validates each party and help each party or person to see the other’s point of view. Helps the parties to identify the points of disagreement and common interest. Diffuse anger while developing empathy between the disputants or rival parties or gangs

Strives for Win-Win-Win Resolution always. By this the mediator focuses on finding solutions that meet the interests of both parties or gangs or individuals.

Using this approach, the mediator tries to facilitate the process of finding solutions that meet all parties’ needs and wants. This approach generates the Win-Win Negotiation, which takes the interest based approach to solving the parties’ differences. By looking at what both parties want to achieve and finding creative ways of coming to a solution that both parties are happy with, you have nip the conflict in the bud (parties in this case could be rival gangs, neighbours, friends, associates, etc.)

WHY MEDIATION?

Mediation or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is fast becoming the option of choice for managing conflicts, and preventing it from escalating to violent behaviour by the conflicting parties or gangs. When mediation is effectively used, it becomes a tool for crime prevention in our community.

ADVANTAGES OF MEDIATION

Mediation can turn conflicts into advantages if explored. Mediation can turn conflict into benefit for those who are in it. It could become a lesson for those who are yet to be in it as well. Below are some benefits that mediation could bring into conflicts.

• Conflicts when resolved enable us to become aware of problems within relationships and in the community.
• Conflicts when resolved can bring about positive changes in the community
• Conflicts become energizing and motivate us to look at problems for possible solutions.
• Conflicts when resolved spice up life. They make things interesting.
• Conflicts when resolved can relieve stress, tension, etc.
• Conflicts when resolved can help us learn about ourselves and others
• Conflicts when resolved can bring people closer together
• Conflict when resolved can create a peaceful loving community

CERTIFICATE COURSES IN "ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION" (ADR)

Our flexible and responsive certificate program is designed for learners from all walks of life and educational backgrounds. The program is offered in an exciting and stimulating format and draws on the expertise of the finest dispute resolution practitioners and educators in the profession. Our classes blend lectures, interactive teaching models and role-playing techniques that are used exclusively in our program. Our students become engrossed in an invigorating and realistic learning process that provides them opportunities to experiment and to acquire their own distinct mediation styles.

Co-Sponsor

Canadian Multicultural Mediation Service (CMMS) is a community based conflict resolution service provider based in Canada. Since its inception, it has helped disputants in conflicts resolve their disputes through trained mediators who are specialized in the skill of problem solving. They resolve the conflicts in such a way that is safe, fair, unbiased and satisfactory for both parties who are in dispute. In the end, it will help restore, repair and build damaged relationships among individuals, families, groups, peers, associates, in our communities.

Since its inception, it has helped thousands of disputants resolve their disputes, as our mandate is to help support and conduct research, and also to disseminate the results of the research on violence and conflict resolution in broad sense.

Who Should Attend

This program will be of interest to those who wish to become professional mediators in the field of their choice or who simply want to acquire specific skills for use in their current or future jobs. Our graduates include professionals working in administration, business, education, finance, government, healthcare, law, policing, real estate, prisons, faith organizations, community organization, correctional services, social work and several other disciplines.

Admission Requirements and Prerequisites

Certificate Candidates must have:

• A minimum of School Leaving or Teacher Training Certificate
• A minimum of one year experience using dispute resolution skills or techniques in their paid or volunteer work; OR
• The approval of the Program and Logistics Manager.

Program Structure and List of Courses

The following topics will be covered in the Mediation Training:

Section 1: Techniques and Skills:

Defining Mediation:

• Distinguishing mediation
• Some key elements of mediation

Communication Skills for Mediators:

• Why should a mediator listen well
• The attitudes of a good listener
• Active listening techniques
• Different ways of asking questions

Win/Win Problem Solving:

• Approaches to Conflict

Section 2: The Mediation Process

Mediation Process:

• Mediation Process: An overview
• Mediation Process: Goals and Techniques

Preparation and Assessment:

• Case Development
• Helping Disputants think about BATNA (Better Alternative to Negotiated Agreement)

Special Topics:

• Maintaining Mediator Impartiality
• Mediator's Constructive Response to Bias
• What is Caucus?

Cultural Perspective in Mediation

• Working it out Cross-culturally
• Intercultural communication
• Role of cross-cultural mediator
• Prejudice and Stereotyping

Violence and Conflict Resolution

• Suggested reactions to conflict when they occur
• What we must not do at conflicts
• Advantages of conflict Resolution

Section 3: Role-Plays

Preparation Notes

• Sample Openings
• Case Development Checklist
• Role-play Preparation Materials
• Guidelines
• Sample Memorandum of Understanding Form
• Sample Agreement to Mediate Form

Restorative Justice Victim Offender Mediation

Victim-offender mediation training and skills development

Victim-Offender mediation training and skills development training will offer state institutions (the courts, the judicial system) and public agents the ability to have different ways of dealing with the aftermath of a crime.

The Restorative justice training programme will be offered to both agents of the state who refer offenders to them and to community workers who facilitate them.

As there are at least five entry points ( pre-charge, post-charge, pre-sentence, post-sentence and parole-revocation) into the criminal justice system where offenders may be referred to a restorative justice programme, Victim-Offender mediation will be offered to Police officers, Customary Court Judges, Warders, Correctional Staff and Parole Officers, Road Safety Officers, Traffic Wardens, etc.

Programme Content:

The following topics will be covered in the Restorative Justice – Victim Offender Mediation Training:

Section I

• Introduction
• The traditional Criminal Justice System
• Retributive Justice versus Restorative Justice System
• Principles and Benefits of Restorative Justice System
• Working with Restorative Values
• History of the Restorative Justice Movement
• Restorative Justice in Communities

Section II

• Overview of Victim Offender Mediation
• Victim Offender Dialogue – Process Overview
• Working with the Criminal Justice System
• Victim and Offender Issues

Section III

• Working Restoratively with Victims
• Understanding Victimization
• Victim Concerns
• 15 Elements of Healing for Victims by Wilma Derksen
• Pointing out the Benefits of Mediation for Victims

Section IV

• Working Restoratively with Offenders
• Offender Concerns
• The Healing Stages for Offenders
• Pointing Out the Benefits of Mediation of Offenders

Section V

• Mediator Roles, Tasks and Skills
• Essential Qualities of the Victim Offender Mediator
• Restorative Mediator’s Role and Responsibilities
• Listening for Interests
• Constructive Ways to Raise a Concern
• Appreciation and Request-Making

Section VI

• Working Through the Mediation Process
• Case Development
• Assessment and Preparation Issues
• Responding to typical Questions and Concerns
• Special Issues and Concerns
• Intercultural Communication
• The Mediation
• The Agreement
• The Evaluation
• Follow-Up and Reporting

In a bid to extend its conflict resolution services to some parts of Africa, CMMS recently designed and initiated a training and skills development program in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), to be offered to State Institutions, Public Agents, Civil Society, and Non Governmental Agencies in some of these countries currently plagued by conflicts, civil unrests, kidnappings and militancy.

In December 2008 CMMS planned and delivered a training program in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for State Legislators from Edo State of Nigeria. The program was a success. Since the training, CMMS has been in close and continuous communications with the participants and there is the likelihood that there will be a follow up program with some other institutions in the state and other parts of the country. With the interest and the momentum, it is CMMS' objective to extend the program to other public institutions such as the police, the military, the prisons services and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs).

Below is a Toronto Based Community Newspaper “Nigerian Canadian News” coverage of the training program in its December 2008 Edition captioned on page 9 with the Program pictures at Centre spread of the newspaper as follows:

EDO STATE LEGISLATORS IN TORONTO FOR
TRAINING WORKSHOP ON
“ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)”

The Executive Members of the Edo State House of Assembly led by the Majority Leader of the Legislature, Hon. Frank Okiye were in Toronto recently to participate in a training workshop organized for them by “Canadian Multicultural Mediation Service (CMMS)”, a community based organization serving the African Canadian Community in the Greater Toronto Area of Canada. The title of the workshop was “The Role of the Legislature in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The workshop lasted from November 17th to 21st 2008.

Before progressing to the subject matter of the training workshop which was “The Role of the Legislature in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)”, the Legislators were first taken through relevant topics in Conflict Management with emphasis on the following areas of mediation:

“Overview of Mediation” which includes; Definition of Mediation and its prospects, When is Mediation appropriate and what issues are mediatable, Helping Disputants Consider mediation ideas, Dynamics of Conflict Escalation, Preparation and Assessment, Techniques and Skills of a Mediator, Communication Skills of a Mediator, Case Intake and Case Management, Win/Win Problem Solving, The Mediation Process, The Mediator’s Role, Helping Disputants consider BATNA (Better Alternative to Negotiated Agreement), Cultural Differences in Conflict, Co-Mediation Process, Caucusing, Role Plays, Debriefing, Memorandum of Understanding, Supportive Feedback techniques, Follow up after mediation, etc.

The following approaches to conflicts using the “orange example” were also discussed at the training workshop.

• Power-Based Approaches to Conflicts
• Rights-Based Approaches to Conflicts
• Interest-Based Approaches to Conflicts

In the second phase of the workshop “Role of the Legislature in Alternative Dispute Resolution”, the following topics were covered.

• Definition of ADR, Categorization of ADR as Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration.
• ADR in the Context of Good Governance and Democratic development in Africa: Improving Governance Environment in Africa, Existence of Efficient and Accountable Institutions, Democracy building as an intrinsic part of conflict management and vice versa, Mediation seen as a catalyst for judicial reform, sustainable human development, economic growth, security, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution and good governance all being intricately intertwined.
  
• The Necessity for Institutional Reform and Social Development Aspects;
  - Cost to Government
  1.- Rising burgeoning court queues
  2.- Rising costs of litigation, and
  3.- Time delay continue to plague litigants
  
• Social and Economic Development Aspect
  1.- Public Peace and Order
  
• ADR Mechanisms and Constitutional Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa
• African Customary Systems of Dispute Resolution
• - Administrative Justice: Legislation, Acts, Bills, Statutes (National and States)
• Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs)
• Business Enterprises: Business and Professions Code, Employment, Financial Institutions, Minimum wage, Trade Regulation
• Employment Law: Agriculture, Collective Bargaining, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Labour and Employment Laws, Labour and Industrial Safety, Workers Compensation, Workplace Safety.
• Role of the Legislature and Government: Law Making, Public Engagement, Regulations, Policies and guidelines.
• Key Features of ADR Approaches in Nigeria: evolution, traditions and norms Long-term impacts: opportunities for collaboration in government, etc.

The new breed of Legislators from this frontline state of Nigeria led by the charismatic Majority Leader; Hon. Frank Okiye surprised the training team with their enthusiasm, dedication, attention to detail and seriousness of purpose throughout the workshop. Their contribution and interactive role throughout the workshop was very encouraging. While awaiting their arrival in Canada for the workshop, our training team had pondered on how to make the lawmakers who have tasted the corridors of power, opulence, pleasure and great exposure confine themselves to another classroom environment. We were proven wrong by all of the above qualities exhibited by the Legislators at the training.

Speaking on behalf of the Delegation, the Majority Leader, Hon. Frank Okiye expressed their appreciation to the organizers for a well-organized training package put together for the workshop. He said they found the seminar useful, and a learning experience. The leader further commented that the planners of the event had made their stay welcoming in Canada and that it was difficult for them to go back, but however, the program had made their return all the more imminent so as to put to practice what they have learned. He said they were looking forward to further studying the materials provided upon their return, and were confident that the learning and experience would be applied and shared with their colleague and staff on their return to Nigeria.

Other participants in their individual conversations with the organizers and facilitators were grateful about what the program meant to them as Legislators. In summary they said they found that ADR would be a useful dimension to the work they do as lawmakers, and that what they would do on their return is to pursue opportunities for others to be

exposed to such great learning, which they believe will create greater depth and impact on the work they do as Lawmakers, and also help their constituents.

In closing, Mr. Robin Edoh, the Executive Director of CMMS, who himself is a York University trained Mediator, a member of the Ontario Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution, a member of the Ontario Community Mediation Network, a holder of Advanced, Intermediate and Basic Certificates in “Alternative Dispute Resolution”, “Victim Offender Mediation”, “Basic Civil Procedure for Non-Lawyer Mediators”, and “Train the Trainer in Interpersonal Mediation” and who himself also facilitated at the workshop, thanked the Legislators for the good leadership example and qualities they displayed throughout the workshop. He said he and other members of his team were greatly moved by the Legislators’ charisma, patience, dedication, self discipline, attention to detail, and above all, their useful contribution and interactive style throughout the training. He encouraged the Legislators to come back for another workshop on “Victim Offender Mediation” in future, which he described as a different branch of Alternative Dispute Resolution. To view the activities of Canadian Multicultural Mediation Service (CMMS), you may visit their website at www.metros.ca/CMMS.

Below are Pictures of the ADR Training Program of the Edo State Legislators in Toronto Canada for your viewing.

EDO STATE LEGISLATORS IN TORONTO FOR
2^nd TRAINING WORKSHOP, TITLED
"DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE: AN IMPETUS FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN GOVERNMENT"

The Executive Members of the Edo State House of Assembly led by the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Aigbogun O. Levis, Chairman, Committee on Tenders Board were in Toronto Canada recently to participate in a training workshop organized by "Canadian Multicultural Mediation Service (CMMS). The title of the workshop this time was "Democratic Governance: An Impetus For Sustainable Development In Government".

One year before now, the Hon. Members of the Edo State House of Assembly had attended another workshop organized by the same organization. The title of that workshop was, "Role of the Legislature in Alternative Dispute Resolution". Both workshops were hands on and very interactive in nature. The following areas were covered during the training workshop on "Democratic Governance: An Impetus to Sustainable Development in Government":

Framework for Training for
State Legislators and Public Sector Institutions
Republic of Nigeria

November 2009

SECTION ONE: Democratic Development & Good Governance

COMPONENTS

1. Millennium Development Goals (MDG)
   • Achievement of MDGs
   • Open Government & Economic Growth
   • Country & State coverage, partners and resources
   • Action Plans
2. Parliamentary & Democratic Institutions
   • Electoral Reform, and Participatory Democracy
   • Public Sector Reform
   • Public Sector Modernization
   • Capacity Issues: policy research & planning, legislative and regulatory framework
3. Local Governance & Civil Society
   • Local institutions; roles and functions
   • Local Leadership
   • public service delivery at the local level
   • Public participation
   • Public education/communications
   • Institutional and Capacity Issues
4. Accountability and Transparency Framework
   • United Nations Convention Against Corruption, OECD Anti-Corruption Framework
   • Shortfalls and institutional constraints
5. Case Studies

SECTION 2: Human Rights, Justice & Equality

COMPONENTS

1. Justice and Human Rights
   • Background and Principles
   • Enabling laws and legislation
   • State Institutions
2. Human Rights Based Development
   • Gender based Development
   • Governance and human rights - MDG-based planning
3. Community/Government Partnerships
4. Case Studies

SECTION 3: Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction

COMPONENTS

1. MDG Checklist
2. National/State planning and development frameworks
   • National/State poverty reduction & sustainable development strategies
   • Evidence-based policy analysis and formulation
   • Policy advice on pro-poor macroeconomic policies
3. Poverty Reduction Strategies in National Development
   • National/State Sustainable Development Strategies
   • MDG and Pro-Poor Policies
4. Private Sector Development and Entrepreneurship Development
   • Private-sector focused regulatory environments
   • Entrepreneurial capacity building
   • Private sector partnerships
   • Medium & Small Micro Enterprises (MSME)
   • Advisory services on policy and strategy options
   • Rural livelihoods approaches and models
5. Environment, Energy and Sustainable Development
   • Integrating poverty-energy-environment nexus into MDG-based NSDS
   • Building capacities building of key stakeholders/ local institutions
   • Access to environment and renewable energy services
   • Use of PPP modalities
6. State MDG Network

SECTION 4: Alternative Dispute Resolution

COMPONENTS

1. ADR Definition, Principles and Application
2. Relevance of ADR
3. ADR assuring Democratic Development & Good Governance
4. Accessibility, understanding and convenience of ADR as adjudicatory body
5. Challenges of Traditional Judicial Systems in Developing Countries: Case Studies
6. ADR in Local Development, Regional Planning & Sustainable Development
7. Role Play and Simulation

SECTION 5: Civil Society, Local Governance & Sustainable Development

COMPONENTS

1. Development of civil society organizations
• Harmonization of traditional governance and local government systems
• Enabling laws and legislation not just for Civil Society Organizations
• Citizens voice, Accountability initiatives
• Communication and outreach
• Civil society's priority concerns
• Civil society engagement with governments
• Civil Society participation in various governance processes
Civil Society Roles in Achievement of MDGs
• Civil Society & the achievement of MDGs
• Developing capacity of civil society organizations at the regional and national levels
2. Case Studies

Please view Photos and Activities during the training workshop.

The general content of this website are All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Canadian Multicultural Mediation Service