When communities face major development projects that disrupt their daily lives, they often struggle to navigate the complex information and uncertainty that follow. In these situations, community advisers play an essential and often demanding role. They help communities understand their rights, articulate their concerns, and engage constructively with project promoters and public authorities, creating the foundations for meaningful dialogue and effective dispute resolution.
A wastewater project in a built-up residential area of a Colombo neighbourhood presents a good example of this kind of situation. Here, in the Narahenpita neighbourhood of Sri Lanka's capital, excavation works for a new wastewater pumping station began just metres from family homes. The works brought noise, vibrations, and deep trenches into a built-up residential area, and raised fears amongst residents about structural damage, health risks, and displacement. Poor initial relations between the community and the project proponent left residents feeling they had no meaningful recourse to have their concerns heard or addressed.
In this case, it was a dialogue-based dispute resolution process that offered a different path to addressing the issues that arose. Rather than framing the problem as a legal dispute, the case illustrates how advisers can support communities in engaging with complex projects through structured dialogue, expectation management, and trust-building.
These experiences from the Greater Colombo Wastewater Project, funded by the European Investment Bank, show how community advisers can play a crucial role in helping bridge gaps between affected residents, government agencies, and project teams. Through a facilitated process involving community members, advisers, and government officials, a long-standing conflict was transformed into a collaborative effort that improved living conditions, allowed the project to move forward, and rebuilt working relationships. The process was not easy, but when handled with patience, empathy, and strategy, it proved to be both positive and transformative.
Helping communities chose dialogue over litigation
In the community affected by the development project in Colombo, residents faced a difficult choice. Construction of the wastewater pumping station had already begun in the Narahenpita neighbourhood, and early interactions with government agencies and contractors had been strained. To the affected people, the information about the project was unclear, concerns went unanswered, and residents feared damage to their homes, health risks, and possible displacement. Against this backdrop, pursuing litigation appeared likely to be lengthy, adversarial, and quite possibly ineffective.
Instead, the community chose to pursue a collaborative dispute resolution process through the EIB Complaints Mechanism. This shift was made possible by advisers who helped residents understand their options, weigh the risks, and recognise what could realistically be achieved through dialogue.
The community adviser in this case was the Sri Lankan NGO Policy Pillar, represented by its Executive Director, Gayan Perera. As Perera noted, “The decision to choose dispute resolution in this case required both realism and compromise. Community expectations needed to be managed carefully: outcomes would not be perfect, but they could be better. By focusing on what was achievable through negotiation, the process secured improvements in living conditions that litigation or arbitration could not have delivered.”
The adviser’s evolving role
The shift from traditional advocacy to community-centred negotiation marks a profound change in the role of advisers. Gayan Perera reflected on his own evolving career path: from prosecutor to defence counsel, and ultimately to an advocate for community-led dialogue. This shift was driven by his desire to achieve greater impact and help communities reach more tangible outcomes than formal legal processes often allow. Perera's experience proved invaluable in guiding communities on their rights, mobilising government agencies, and filing complaints.
Equally important was knowing when to step back and understanding how to support community leadership without taking control of the process. In the Colombo case, Gayan's team drafted letters under residents' names, helping them articulate and present their concerns directly and strengthening their sense of agency. Advisers also played a key role in managing expectations realistically, explaining what could, and could not, be achieved, while working to ensure that any agreements reached were fair and sustainable.
Throughout the process, advisers supported communication, documented issues, and helped identify practical solutions, but they never replaced the community’s voice. By balancing advocacy with facilitation, advisers helped transform initial mistrust into constructive engagement, empowering residents to negotiate effectively with the promoter and government officials.
Helpful elements of the dispute resolution
In this case, the advisers supporting the community highlighted several elements of the dispute resolution process, which were carefully facilitated by the EIB Complaints Mechanism. Crucially, their role was not only to participate in this process, but to actively support communication between parties, ensuring that concerns were clearly expressed, understood, and addressed:
- Respect and preparation: Advisers worked to ensure that meetings reflected the parties' priorities and that each participant was adequately prepared. This preparation signalled that everyone's concerns mattered.
- Separate and joint meetings: Early meetings were held separately with community members and the project proponent. Advisers played a key role in these sessions by listening closely to residents' concerns, helping them articulate their experiences, and ensuring that even the more hesitant voices were heard. These allowed issues to be clarified without pressure, and laid the groundwork for more constructive joint meetings.
- Facilitating understanding through active listening: Advisers supported the process by summarising, clarifying, and reframing issues between parties. This was particularly important in translating community concerns into terms that project proponents could engage with. For example, the community initially wanted the pumping station relocated. Through active listening, they came to understand why moving the station was not feasible and were then able to articulate more specific concerns about potential smells and risks to nearby houses. In response, the proponent arranged a visit to a similar operational pumping station, helping residents see how it functions and how measures, such as air filters, reduce odours.
- Using facilitation tools to shift perspectives: At key moments, facilitators used simple role-play exercises to help parties move beyond entrenched positions. In one such exercise, participants were asked to divide an (imaginary) shared resource, with all sides initially assuming that they were in direct competition for this resource. Through guided questioning, advisers helped them uncover that each side actually needed different parts of the resource. What appeared to be a conflict was, in fact, a set of compatible interests. As Gayan later reflected, this moment proved to be a turning point in the process, helping participants to see the value of looking beyond stated demands, and setting a more constructive tone for negotiations.
- Exploring alternatives: By helping broaden the conversation beyond rigid positions or fixed demands, advisers supported the identification of acceptable solutions, such as tailored temporary relocation arrangements and adjustments to construction schedules.
- Maintaining confidentiality: Advisers reinforced the importance of confidential discussions, helping create an environment in which participants felt safe to speak openly and honestly.
These strategies are simple in principle, but in practice they require patience, discipline, and a clear understanding of both the community's and the promoter's perspectives. Advisers played a continuous and demanding role in supporting this balance, helping ensure that the process remained credible, inclusive, and focused on workable outcomes.
Lessons for future advisers
Perhaps the most powerful lesson from Narahenpita is that communities must remain at the centre of the process. Advisers play a critical role, but they cannot substitute for community ownership. When residents took the lead—asking questions, voicing concerns, and negotiating directly—they not only secured better outcomes, such as temporary relocation packages and clearer communication channels, but also strengthened their long-term ability to engage with authorities.
Advisers balance two commitments: advocating strongly for community rights while helping communities understand the constraints faced by government agencies and contractors. In Colombo, this involved explaining why the project could not be relocated, for example, while simultaneously negotiating adjustments to working hours and compensation for affected households. Striking this balance requires honesty, empathy, and courage, along with a willingness to guide without dominating the conversation.
A model for replication
The Sri Lankan experience shows that dialogue-based dispute resolution can succeed even in contexts marked by mistrust and power imbalances. In Narahenpita, the collaborative process enabled 37 households and project officials to move from conflict to cooperation—improving housing conditions, adjusting the project's working schedules, and establishing clear communication channels. At the heart of this transformation was the sustained and strategic engagement of community advisers.
This experience highlights the varied and adaptive nature of the advisers’ role. Legal knowledge formed part of their contribution, but it was combined with careful listening, and an ability to move between community concerns and institutional constraints. At different moments, advisers helped residents articulate their priorities, clarified misunderstandings between parties, and helped maintain communication when trust was fragile. This flexibility, and the willingness to adjust their role as the process evolved, was critical in sustaining engagement over time.
As Aparna Mukerjee, the facilitator, reflected, “Initially the parties in this case had taken extremely adversarial stances, but with the right approach and support, communities and government officials were able to find common ground.”
For communities facing the uncertainties of development, this case offers hope. And for advisers guiding them, it is a reminder that success in dispute resolution is not about winning arguments; it is about listening attentively, building relationships, managing expectations, and creating pathways to practical and lasting solutions.