Indicator 16.3.3 Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism

Indicator 16.3.3: Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism

Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Definition:

Number of persons who experienced a dispute during the past two years who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, as a percentage of all those who experienced a dispute in the past two years, by type of mechanism.

Concepts:

A dispute can be understood as a justiciable problem between individuals or between individual(s) and an entity. Justiciable problems can be seen as the ones giving rise to legal issues, whether or not the problems are perceived as being “legal” by those who face them, and whether or not any legal action was taken as a result of the problem.^[1]

Categories of disputes can vary between countries depending on social, economic, political, legal, institutional and cultural factors. There are, however, a number of categories that have broad applicability across countries, such as problems or disputes related to:^[2]

• Land or buying and selling property
• Family and relationship break-ups
• Injuries or illnesses caused by an intentional or unintentional act or omission of another person or entity
• Occupation/employment
• Commercial transactions (including defective or undelivered goods or services)
• Government and public services (including abuse by public officials)
• Government payments
• Housing (Tenancy and landlord)
• Debt, damage compensation, and other financial matters
• Environmental damage (land or water pollution, waste dumping, etc.)

Dispute resolution mechanisms vary across countries around the world. While in many countries courts represent the main institution dealing with disputes of civil nature, the same may not be true in countries or societies where the first point of reference in such cases are informal systems, traditional or religious leaders. The formulation of the indicator, and the formulation of the questions in the survey, have to account for these differences and make sure to include all relevant institutions or mechanisms that are generally recognized and used.

A list of dispute resolution mechanisms could include:

• Lawyer or third-party mediation
• Community or religious leaders or other customary law mechanisms
• A court or tribunal
• The police
• A government office or other formal designated authority or agency
• Other formal complaints or appeal procedure

To improve the accuracy of the indicator it is important to define precisely the denominator (the population at ‘risk’ of experiencing the event of interest, i.e. accessing a dispute-resolution mechanism) by identifying the ‘demand’ of dispute resolution mechanisms. This demand is composed of those who use dispute resolution mechanisms (users) and those who - despite needing them - do not have “access” to such mechanisms for various reasons such as lack of knowledge on how to access them, lack of trust in institutions, lack of legal advice/assistance, lack of awareness about justice mechanisms, geographical distance or financial costs, to mention a few. It is important to exclude from the demand those who experience disputes and do not turn to dispute resolution mechanisms because they do not need them (voluntarily self-excluded). This refers to cases where the dispute is simple or when respondents solve the issue with the other party through direct negotiation.

Percent (%)

The Indicator is based on four questions to be included in a household survey. The four questions can be part of an add-on access to justice survey module, to be incorporated into other ongoing general population surveys (such as surveys on crime victimization, corruption, governance, quality of life, public attitudes or surveys on other topics) or be part of dedicated surveys on access to justice and legal needs.

Data should be collected as part of a nationally representative probability sample of adult population residing in the country, irrespective of legal residence status. The sampling frame and sample design should ensure that results can be disaggregated at sub-national level. The sample size should be sufficiently large to capture relevant events and compute needed disaggregation.

Data are collected through official nationally representative surveys. In most countries and most cases, such surveys are conducted by National Statistical Offices (NSOs). In some cases, other national institutions or other entities may conduct surveys on access to justice according to the same methodological standards.

A major challenge is that the concept of dispute (justiciable problem) is subject to different interpretations and the propensity to consider a disagreement or conflict in terms of a justiciable problem can vary greatly across individuals and between societies. A way to address this issue is to focus on a number of possible disputes that can be considered of justiciable nature across most countries, as for example the one listed in the section above^[4]. Standardised descriptions of the most common types of disputes are also to be used in surveys in order to maximise comparability across different legal systems and countries.

In order to identify the group of people in demand of dispute resolution mechanism it is necessary to identify the group of people voluntarily self-excluded. A way to identify this group is by including an additional question about the reasons why people did not use a dispute resolution mechanism. This question would allow to differentiate cases of voluntary and involuntary exclusion and define the denominator as the population who experienced a problem minus the voluntarily self-excluded.

Another challenge refers to identifying possible dispute resolution mechanisms as they vary considerably in different countries around the world. The formulation of the questions in the survey has to take into account these different possibilities and make sure to include all relevant institutions generally recognized in the community. This proposed list of dispute resolution mechanisms identifies those that are common in most countries in the world but it can be adapted to the country context.

The share of population experiencing the disputes under investigation can be of relatively small size and this can influence the statistical significance of results. A way to address this is to increase the question’s reference period, recognizing that respondents’ ability to recall specific issues becomes increasingly unreliable the further back in time it extends. For these reasons, this proposal follows the recommendation from the Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice methodological guidance and suggests a reference interval of two years. With such reference period resulting data would be suitable for monitoring recent changes in contexts/policies while being based on a sufficient number of cases to ensure statistical significance of analyses.^[5] Possible telescoping effects (the effect of misplacement in time of events taking place in the past) need to be addressed properly by bounding in clear terms the time interval of reference in relevant questions.

Number of persons who experienced a dispute during the past two years who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism (numerator), divided by the number of those who experienced a dispute in the past two years minus those who are voluntarily self-excluded (denominator). The result would be multiplied by 100.

$16.3.3=\mathrm{\ }\frac{Numer\mathrm{\ }of\mathrm{\ }people\mathrm{\ }who\mathrm{\ }accessed\mathrm{\ }formal\mathrm{\ }or\mathrm{\ }informal\mathrm{\ }dispute\mathrm{\ }resolution\mathrm{\ }mechanism\mathrm{\ }}{Number\mathrm{\ }of\mathrm{\ }people\mathrm{\ }who\mathrm{\ }experienced\mathrm{\ }a\mathrm{\ }dispute\mathrm{\ }in\mathrm{\ }the\mathrm{\ }past\mathrm{\ }2\mathrm{\ }years\mathrm{\ }and\mathrm{\ }did\mathrm{\ }not\mathrm{\ }voluntarily\mathrm{\ }self-exclude}X100$

This is a survey-based indicator that emphasizes citizens’ experiences over general perceptions. Both numerator and denominator are measured through sample surveys of the general population.

The computation of this indicator requires the inclusion of a short module of four questions in a representative population survey. The following table illustrates the content of the four questions needed to compute the indicator.

2023-03-31

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

This indicator complements the other indicators of 16.3 which focus on rates of pretrial detention and reporting of victimization and thereby provides a more holistic picture of people’s ability to access justice mechanisms across a wide range of disputes.

This indicator also relates to several other targets under SDG 16 on issues that may require access to justice. For instance, people need to access justice institutions and mechanisms when they are subject to (or a witness of) corruption (target 16.5), when they have problems in accessing government payments (such as social safety net assistance) or public services (target 16.6), when they have difficulty in obtaining legal identify, such as birth registration (target 16.9), or when they experience discrimination (target 16.B).

In addition, the indicator relates to other Goals that have targets conveying aspirations for more just and fair societies. For instance, people may need to access justice institutions and mechanisms when faced with discrimination in education (target 4.5), when subject to discrimination against women and girls (target 5.1), when seeking ‘equal pay for work of equal value’ (target 8.5), when wanting their labor rights to be upheld (target 8.8), or when demanding that equal opportunity laws be respected (target 10.3).