37 Non-Formal Mechanisms n Community mediation. In Nepal, there is a community mediation program which is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for people who have weak access to the formal justice system, and have inadequate means of resolving local disputes. Under this system, disputants select a panel of mediators available in the village community who provide a neutral and confidential venue for dialogue between the parties, and assist them to find solutions to their disputes. In some cases, for instance, poor people and small farmers may be unable to initiate dialogue with landowners, for fear of being evicted from the lands they have been cultivating. The mediation approach has proven to reduce the frequency of disputes, and has helped improve understanding, coordination and cooperation among community members. Women and members of marginalized communities are able to participate both as beneficiaries and as providers of mediation services. The community mediation program was introduced in 2002, which the Nepali government later recognized through the 2010 Mediation Act, which recognizes the validity and importance of community mediation within the Nepali context. However, the community mediation approach requires building people’s capacities to solve problems, to analyze situations and other perspectives, and to make effective decisions independently. n Customary justice systems. These have proven to be accessible and effective in settling internal land disputes within and among indigenous communities and tribes. However, these mechanisms are gradually coming out of practice. Customary justice systems have limited scope and are Regional Summary: A Perspective Overview of Land Conflicts in Six Asian Countries dispute resolution of conflicts between members of the same community. In Cambodia, Commune Councils have the role of “reconciling differences” among community members, but do not have the power to make decisions (arbitration). Although not a requirement, in practice most local disputes are heard by Commune Councils before they are brought to higher levels. In Nepal, resolving land disputes through local authorities has not proven effective, because the elected local officials tend to fuel conflict, perpetuate feudalism, and fail to work for the poor (as cited in CSRC, 2018). Also, when adjudication processes are managed through local political leaders, this can exacerbate existing social discrimination vs. certain sectors (women, IPs) and minority groups.