LEMU RESEARCH REPORT. A woman showing her boundaries during boundary harmonization. Principal Investigator: Anthony Okech

Transcription

1 LEMU RESEARCH REPORT Evaluating the impacts of protecting communal lands and resources and Comparing the impacts of state and customary land justice systems A woman showing her boundaries during boundary harmonization Principal Investigator: Anthony Okech FUNDED BY: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) Land and L E M U Equity Movement in Uganda (LEMU) Making land work for us all March,

2 LEMU RESEARCH REPORT Evaluating the impacts of protecting communal lands and resources and Comparing the impacts of state and customary land justice systems Principal Investigator: Anthony Okech FUNDED BY: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) Land and L E M U Equity Movement in Uganda (LEMU) Making land work for us all March,

3 Table of Contents Abbreviations...ii Executive Summary...iii 1.0 Introduction Background LEMU s Work on Customary Land Tenure and Land Rights Protection Research problem and Justification Research Objectives Research Design and Methodology Overview of the design and methodology Research implementation Data handling and analysis and presentation of preliminary findings Findings on the impacts of community land protection Leadership and governance Use and access to land and natural resources Land dispute and conflict resolution Empowering the vulnerable persons in the community and how decision is made Social cohesion and sustainability Findings on performance and impacts of customary and state land justice systems Efficiency Speed in reaching resolution of cases Costs involved in seeking justice Efficacy Success rate Acceptability and enforceability of judgments, rulings and agreements After-effects of resolved cases Positive outcomes Positive roles played in Land Justice Structural factors hindering just and equitable land dispute resolution and way forward Conclusions and recommendations i3

4 Abbreviations ADR Alternative dispute resolution C1 Component 1 C3 Component 3 CLP Community land protection CLPP CLRT CSO CTV FIDA FLPP FLRLT ICU IDRC KEF LC LCF LEMU MLHUD PPRR PWD SDI UHRC Community Land Protection Programme Community Land Rights Tool Civil Society Organisation Centro Terra Viva (Mozambique) International Federation of Women Lawyers Family Land Protection Programme Family Land Rights Lineage Tree Iteso Cultural Union International Development Research Centre Kumam Elders Forum Local Council Lango Cultural Foundation Land and Equity Movement in Uganda Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development Principles Practices Rights and Responsibilities Person with disabilities Sustainable Development Institute (Liberia) Uganda Human Rights Commission ii

5 Executive Summary Background, objectives and methods Land and Equity Movement in Uganda LEMU was started in 2004 with the aim of working to secure land rights under the customary land tenure system as provided for in the 1995 Constitution of Uganda and the 1998 Land Act. LEMU s initial aspect of focus was family owned land under customary tenure. Recent interest in community land protection was concretised through the launch of the Community Land Protection Project (CLPP) in Under CLPP, LEMU worked in collaboration with Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) in Liberia and Centro Terra Viva (CTV) in Mozambique brought together by a funding partner called Namati. These organizations decided to evaluate the impact of community land protection in the three countries. The research in each country is independent at the operational level, but there is always convergence in terms of comparing findings and using it to devise broader recommendations for improving land governance systems at the National levels. In Uganda LEMU proposed to carry out an additional study to compare impact of customary and state land justice systems. In evaluating community land protection, the study assessed its impact on: leadership and governance; use and access to land and natural resources; land dispute and conflict resolution; empowering the vulnerable groups of persons and social cohesion and sustainability. In evaluating customary and state land justice systems, the study assessed: efficiency; efficacy; positive outcomes and positive roles in land justice. The study, financed by IDRC, was undertaken by LEMU using an Action Research approach integrated into LEMU s program implementation, gathering information during the community land protection activities in Lango sub-region and tracking and analyzing land cases of land disputes reported to LEMU offices in Apac, Lira and Soroti. Land cases are categorized into two; those in which LEMU worked with the customary system known as the clans to mediate and those in which LEMU worked with the LC courts and those that later went to magistrates courts. All data collected were entered into an online database called Salesforce and analyzed from there. Findings The community land protection programme has had a significant impact on community land management and usage and on community life in the communities that cooperated well with LEMU in the process. In a few communities where the cooperation was not so good the process did not have all the expected outcomes. a) In leadership and governance, the community land rules adopted and published by the communities are guiding the management of the community lands and the leadership procedures and powers. They have given the community the confidence to hold the transparently elected leaders accountable. b) Access to and use of community land and natural resources have undergone positive change, with over 90% of the communities reporting easier and more orderly access and use due to: better governance systems; reduced or no conflicts and encroachments; community living together in harmony and more natural resources available. c) Land disputes and conflicts over community lands were completely eliminated in many communities and drastically reduced in others. One of the final stages of the community land protection process, boundary harmonization, signals the end of disputes and helps to prevent further disputes from arising. d) Empowering the vulnerable groups of persons: The adopted set of rules by communities contain various clauses relating to the protection of the vulnerable groups including women s rights in membership, decision making, composition of the Management Committee, and resources use. Women in all the communities appreciated that they are now listened to and that they have better access to resources like firewood, water and vegetables from the community lands. People in great need are at times allocated a portion of the community land to cultivate. iii

6 e) Social cohesion and harmony: The absence of conflict and reports of mutual and community support are some of the evidence of improved social cohesion and communities living in harmony. In studying the customary and state land justice systems the cases in the database and analyzed are those that LEMU has handled in its support to the customary system. Those cases that had been through the LC system or later went to the LC or magistrates courts were analyzed for comparative purposes. a) Efficiency in handling the cases is low, with the average total time in following cases ranging from 6.5 months in the customary, through 13 months in the LCs to 38 months in the magistrates courts. The costs incurred are also much higher in the magistrates courts than in the customary system. b) Efficacy (1) measured in terms of completion success rates, efficacy is also rather low: below 50% of cases analyzed were heard and ruled on in all institutions; 24% in customary institutions, 15% in Local Councils and 35% in magistrates courts were pending and 23% in customary, 38% in LC systems and 4% in magistrates courts referred. There was a rather high degree of movement of cases among different institutions (forum shopping). (2) In terms of enforceability and after-effects, the analysis so far done shows on the average 84% of the rulings were respected, and 81% had resulted in good relations between the parties in the customary system. c) Positive outcomes analysis is being undertaken especially with regard to the extent to which the handling of land cases in the different systems is leading to change in vulnerability and use or abuse of power. Not much can be said with confidence yet in this aspect the July 2017 final report will have more definitive findings on this d) Positive roles in land justice Here, analysis has been done only on cases handled by clans with or without LEMU support. Subject to further analysis, LEMU s strategies of land dispute resolution such as use of the FLRLT, PPRR, boundary tree planting and sketch map drawing seems to lead to increased capacities of the clans in dispute resolution by at least 33%. Conclusions The community land protection programme has successfully taken the communities through the stages that have led to adoption of community land rules and election of community land governance leaders. Apart from a few communities, the programme has brought unity and harmony and significantly increased access by all, including the more vulnerable, to the resources from their community lands. The people expressed appreciation for the increased benefits to which they have equitable access. They appreciate the performance of their leaders and the leaders in turn appreciate the participation and orderly response of the community members. There are indications that the capacity and the gains will be sustainable: the community and their leaders have been trained by LEMU, know what to do and are doing it. They are confident they are capable of doing what it takes to protect and benefit from their community lands. They particularly feel confident because they have the rules they have adopted to guide them and it is those rules that are already guiding action and decisions. Access to land justice has weaknesses in both the customary and state systems particularly in the delayed completion of the processes and the high degree of movement of cases among different institutions (forum shopping). The customary system is comparatively much faster than the magistrate s courts and much cheaper for those seeking justice. However, the very high referral rate of cases through the customary system renders it more of a transitional centre. Recommendations a) The community land protection process applied by LEMU is beneficial for building capacity in the communities to protect their community lands and should as much as possible be replicated in other communities with similar needs. iv

7 b) In particular, the documentation of community land rules provides communities with a powerful tool that guides their community land management and their community governance in general. LEMU should seek resources to publish standardised basic rules and disseminate them to communities even where it may not be possible to go through the whole community land protection process. c) Justice, law and order sector should increase the efforts to reduce delays in handling land cases through the magistrates courts d) The state should support the customary system to have its procedures and rulings more standardised and respected through legislation, training of those involved and operational support. e) The processes of seeking justice through the different systems should be harmonised to reduce openings for forum shopping. Community Education on Land Laws by the ED LEMU v

8 1.0 Introduction. 1.1 Background In 2013, four partner organisations, Land and Equity Movement in Uganda (LEMU), Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) based in Liberia, Centro Terra Viva (CTV) based in Mozambique and Namati, an international organization based in USA, prepared a proposal for a research that arose from previous collaboration among them in the implementation of Community Land Protection Program (CLPP). The proposal was submitted to the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), which accepted to finance the research for a period of three years (2014 to 2017). The first component (C1) of the three-part research proposal is to evaluate the impact of CLPP and is being implemented in Liberia, Uganda and Mozambique. This component has an aspect undertaken over a three year period and a longitudinal study aspect of longer duration. The longitudinal study is not being implemented in Uganda. The second research component (C2), implemented in Mozambique only, focuses on understanding how to most effectively protect the land rights of women and other vulnerable groups. The third research component (C3), implemented in Uganda only, focuses on LEMU s support to land conflict resolution, especially by the clans in the customary land tenure system. LEMU implemented the research in Uganda and is handled the first component without the longitudinal aspect and the third component. This research report is therefore documents only the part of the research being implemented by LEMU. The report covers all relevant activities from the time the research started in June 2014 up to February It presents a brief explanation of LEMU s work and a summary of the research methodology and its implementation. The main part of the report then presents the findings of the research, lessons learnt, conclusions and recommendations. The final report, covering the research done up to the end of the research project in June 2017, will be completed in July LEMU s Work on Customary Land Tenure and Land Rights Protection LEMU started in 2004, working to secure land rights under the customary land tenure system as provided for in the constitution of Uganda and the 1998 Land Act. LEMU s concern has particularly been to support and build capacity for land dispute resolution through customary systems the clans, especially for the vulnerable. LEMU has also focused on advocacy for policy recognition and support to customary land tenure by according it equal status to other land tenure systems. While doing this, LEMU realised that there is need for empirical evidence to support the advocacy, hence the justification to conduct a research such as this one. LEMU is a national Non-Government Organisation (NGO) but its area of district and community level activities were initially in the Lango and Teso sub-regions of northern and north-eastern Uganda and to a less extent in Acholi. More recently, LEMU has worked in Karamoja, Bunyoro and West Nile subregions mainly with customary institutions and to a less extent with government and non-government agencies. LEMU s information and advocacy activities are carried out both in these sub-regions and at national level, engaging with the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MLHUD), National Environment Management Authority, the Judiciary, the Police and national and regional NGOs. LEMU also engages with international agencies and organisations. 1.3 Research problem and Justification While implementing the CLPP project, the networking partners saw it important to evaluate the process and its impact. CLPP promotes an integrated community land documentation model designed to support communities to protect their customary lands and natural resources and galvanize positive intra-community change. Evaluating the efficacy of the partners work with communities, that is, the extent to which it produces the desired results, is key to understanding how to most effectively 1

9 facilitate successful community land protection processes. Establishing proof of the positive impacts of community land protection efforts is also essential to the partners efforts to impact national and international policy. For the FLPP Project; the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda recognizes four land tenure systems in Uganda: Leasehold, Freehold, Mailo and Customary. In many rural areas of Uganda 80% of the country communities administer, manage and transact their lands completely within the bounds of customary paradigms. Yet although the Ugandan Constitution defines and recognizes customary tenure, the Ugandan government has not set up streamlined processes and institutions to manage and administer customary tenure. The 2013 Uganda National Land Policy also refers to land administration under customary tenure as informal and it is in practice considered inferior to the State/formal system. Alternatively, people may choose to use customary mechanisms to govern and resolve their issues because in certain contexts customary institutions are better suited to the local context than state institutions. To this end, LEMU has been providing legal aid services to poor Ugandans involved in land conflicts in the Lango and Teso regions since 2008 by working with the traditional/customary leaders to mediate and peacefully resolve land disputes. As part of her efforts to support and strengthen land administration under customary tenure, LEMU has been advocating that the Ugandan judiciary formally make clan/ customary dispute resolution systems the first forum for all customary land disputes. LEMU hopes to use this research generate data and findings concerning the efficacy of clan/customary land dispute resolution systems that may help to substantiate these advocacy efforts. 2.0 Research Objectives. C1 general objective: Evaluating and establishing proof of the efficacy and positive impacts of community land protection efforts C1 specific objectives: To systematically document long-term community land documentation needs, strategies, challenges and successes and then widely share all findings in real time, so as to: Directly impact national and global policy by bringing observations and analysis from the field to policymakers; Improve the partners ability to provide technical support to other NGOs community land documentation efforts, both nationally and in other countries In evaluating community land protection, the study assessed its impact on: - leadership and governance; - use and access to land and natural resources; - land dispute and conflict resolution; - empowering the vulnerable groups of persons and - social cohesion and sustainability. C3 general objective: Investigating the impacts of customary land justice systems in comparison to state justice systems 2

10 C3 specific objectives: 1. To compare the performance and outcomes of the state and the customary systems. 2. To compare the outcomes of both systems for female claimants and claimants from other vulnerable groups. 3. To document important customary cases that set precedence, supporting customary justice systems in Uganda to build a system of legal precedence that can strengthen customary justice and be relied upon by the formal justice system when ruling on land disputes concerning customary land claims. 4. To illustrate the positive role that customary institutions play in land justice 5. To analyze factors hindering (or facilitating) just and equitable land dispute resolution In summary, evaluating customary and state land justice systems assessed: efficiency; efficacy; positive outcomes, positive roles in land justice and factors hindering (or facilitating) just and equitable land dispute resolution 3.0 Research Design and Methodology. 3.1 Overview of the design and methodology LEMU designed its part of the research to apply a form of Action Research model carried out within the framework of LEMU s work 1 with the community, as it supports the community to develop capacity to protect their family and community lands. This is in line with LEMU s practice of integrating learning in its work and in line also with the proposal for this research. The integration of the research and work is illustrated below in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 for the two research components. Table 3.1: C1 Evaluating the Impact of Community Land Protection Entry Engagement in the community About 1 year after completion of CLP Process Intervention Community accepts to work with LEMU The Community Land Protection process: 1) Orientation and Visioning; 2) Rules writing and adoption; 3) Committee Formation; 4) Boundary Harmonization; 5) Rules enforcement and registration Livelihoods (land used for production/ development) 1 Through the established M&E systems to track both CLPP and mediation programme aspects of LEMU s work 3

11 Evaluation Pre-service survey (Baseline) Issues: Existing boundaries of the community land Rights of access and use Existing conflicts Boundary harmonization efforts Community leadership and governance Community rules for land management Community practices concerning women s and other vulnerable groups land rights Current investments and Threat(s) to community land Methods to use a) Monthly Data Collection and Entry b) Quarterly Analysis and Reporting c) Bi-annual sharing of reports with stakeholders d) Final analysis, interpretation and report writing The data collection and analysis is to assess outcomes in: Community leadership and governance Use and access to community land and natural resources Land dispute and conflict resolution Empowering vulnerable groups of persons Social cohesion and sustainability Methods to use Post-service survey (Summative Evaluation) Same issues as for the pre-service survey Methods to use Interviews, Focus groups discussions and observations Interviews and observation at field visits and meetings Interviews, Focus groups discussions and observations covering the issues in the baseline Table 3.1 presents the methodology for evaluating the impact of community land protection. At the point of entry into engagement with a given community, a pre-survey is carried out to establish a baseline on key issues that the engagement is expected to influence positively. During the period of engagement, lasting from one to three years, ongoing data collection is carried out on those and other issues that show or affect the progress of the initiative to build the capacity to protect community land. The data collected are analyzed every quarter through Salesforce and reports shared with other stakeholders bi-annually as part of the ongoing learning process. At the end of the engagement period all information obtained during the process is put together and interpreted to provide pointers and possible conclusions on the process. After a period of about one year from the end of the engagement with the community, a post-survey is carried out on the same issues studied during the pre-survey, so as to assess the impact that the initiative has had. Table 3.2 below presents the methodology for investigating the impacts of customary land justice systems. This component of the research is integrated specifically into LEMU s mediation/land conflict resolution work that is part of LEMU s work of building the capacity to protect family land rights among rights holders, their clans and other land management and conflict resolution institutions. The mediation/land conflict resolution work is divided into 4 stages: case intake as they are reported to the office, building clan capacity for mediation, mediation by the clan and cases moving on to be handled by others, and assessing the impact of the cases that are successfully resolved. This component of the research is focusing on studying the handling of land cases reported to LEMU field offices in Apac, Soroti and Lira. 4

12 Table 3.2: C3 Investigating the Impacts of Customary Land Justice Systems Intervention Cases handled before LEMU involvement Cases handled by clans Cases handled by state agencies During LEMU involvement LEMU s facilitation in: Cases that came to LEMU after clan handling After LEMU involvement Cases handled by clans Cases handled by state agencies Cases that came to LEMU after handling by state agencies Cases first reported directly to LEMU Evaluation Seeking information on: Clan handling of cases State agencies handling of cases Issues: Tracking the process of: Clans handling cases with LEMU support State agencies handling of cases supported by LEMU Analyzing records or tracking the process of: Clan handling of cases State agencies handling of cases Efficiency Efficacy Positive outcomes Positive role played in land justice Structural factors hindering (or facilitating) just and equitable land dispute resolution Methods to use Methods to use Methods to use Analysis of records; interviews; analysis of data for timelines and trends. The main data collection tool was: Case intake tool Interviews; family tree land rights analysis; discussions; observation; analysis of data for timelines and trends. The main data collection tool was: Case tracking tool Analysis of records; interviews, both face to face and by telephone; analysis of data for impact. The main data collection tool was: Impact assessment tool The cases in which LEMU previously ( ) and is currently facilitating the clans or supporting the rights holders in state institutions are tracked to analyse performance on the variables and issues under study, mainly Efficiency, Efficacy, Positive outcomes, Positive role played in land justice and Structural factors hindering (or facilitating) just and equitable land dispute resolution. The progress of cases handled before this project is traced back and analysed in a similar manner to study the same issues. This component of the research is intended to provide comparison between performance of the customary and state institutions. 5

13 3.2 Research implementation The research was initially scheduled to start in January However, the necessary research clearance from the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), which LEMU had applied for in December 2013, was received only in March. After that, there arose procedural issues to be sorted out about the funding of the project and the sorting was not completed until June, when a memorandum of understanding was finally signed. The new start date was therefore June 2014 and the final reporting will be July The research has been regularly implemented according to plan since then, with a six-monthly progress report submitted to IDRC in December 2014, June and December 2015 and June and December The final technical project report is due in July The team implementing the research is composed of: Mr. Anthony Okech, a Consultant Principal Investigator; Judy Adoko, LEMU s Executive Director and co-principal investigator, the LEMU Monitoring and Evaluation Managers David James Arach and Samson Ongebo, LEMU s Directors of Programmes Theresa Auma O. Eilu and Suzane Irau, and LEMU monitoring and evaluation assistants Anolo Stephen with other LEMU field staff doing some data collection. 3.3 Data handling and analysis and presentation of preliminary findings LEMU subscribed to an online database, Salesforce, and hired a data-base management consultant in based in Boston -USA to help manage the database together with LEMU s Monitoring and Evaluation Manager. All CLPP activities on the 30 communities being tracked have been uploaded on Salesforce and so have the records of about 800 cases from the family land component and are being analysed. The data are also available in paper (hard) copies in LEMU s field offices. The data have been partially analysed for the biannual progress reports to IDRC and will have been comprehensively analysed by the end of June for the final reporting in July The analysis already carried out provides adequate information for the findings presented in this report. The feedback received from the sharing of this report will, it is expected, provide the research team with useful insights and suggestions to come out with the clearest and richest final report. 4.0 Findings on the impacts of community land protection Women in Arumu community inaugurated into the Land Management Committee 6

14 In CLPP, LEMU works with willing communities to develop their capacity to protect and make optimal use of their community lands, which do not belong to individual families or individuals. Communal land protection programme promoted five core themes that have been assessed in this research and the findings presented in this section, namely: 1. Leadership and Governance; 2. Use and access to land and natural resources; 3. Land dispute and conflict resolution; 4. Empowering the vulnerable groups of persons; 5. Social cohesion and Sustainability Findings under each of the themes are first compared to the summary of baseline findings and then further explained. 4.1 Leadership and governance LEMU s CLPP model supports communities to strengthen their leadership and governance capacities through facilitating communities to: 1) write Community Land governance & management rules/ constitution as provided for in Section 17 of the Uganda Land Act CAP 227; 2)reinstate/elect/identify leaders to manage the governance of the lands; 3)support communities to live out their written rules and use their land productively. Community land governance and management rules a general description The rules mainly elaborate the following sections based on how the community members and leaders wish to manage their land and resources but generally within the context of collective rights: - Governance: defines a governance structure and how the structure will work towards protecting the community land - Resources: How the land and the natural resources will be governed and used as well as how the finance generated shall be managed. Most communities reportedly prefer to collect resources such as firewood, timber, fruits etc. freely for domestic purposes but paid for if an individual collects with business intentions (for sale). ( Each palm stem shall be 10,000shs, each timber stem shall be charged according to the size of the stem, but it will cost between shillings 15,000-60,000shs. Wilyec, Section FF). - Access: ( Cattle track stretching from residences to the Grazing Land should be large enough, measuring three meters on each side. Teaduru, Section 25.i) - Encroachment and Illegal Settlement/Cultivation: rules on land grabbing and acts of greed and impunity and ( Nobody is permitted to use the Grazing Land as a personal land to do any of the following: a) Building a house; b) Cultivating/Gardening; c) Planting trees, even if for timber. Awangi, Section 32.L) - Property damage: rules to deal with property damage on the community land such as animals that destroy crops in gardens. Most communities have been shown to resolve to issuing fines and compensation for destruction of property. - Social issues: rules governing social conduct of the community land users such as insults, violence and fighting. 7

15 The first 10 sections of each community s constitution read very similarly, with only minor differences in the number of meetings to be held, fee amounts, and quorum sizes. The last section the Natural Resource Management (NRM) Plan is where the unique priorities of each community are best displayed, and where most of the thematic bylaws occur. Rules enforcement and adherence to rules An assessment was carried out in 2015 in seven communities that had adopted community land rules to determine the level by which the communities were living-out their adopted rules, any outcomes and contributing factors arising from rules adoption, what challenges had been met and solutions to overcome them. The assessment found that there are rules that are more likely to be broken than others. Rules more likely to be broken: Resource-related rules and Access- and encroachment-related rules were cited as the most commonly broken rules in the 7 communities because: - encroachers feel their personal cause of cultivation and settlement is more worthy than leaving the land idle for community use; - people easily forget to close the gate or bring their cattle home so they don t spend the night in the grazing land; - when leaders and elites are the very ones extracting the resources illegally, community members find it difficult to hold them accountable. As the women of Awangi explain, some people are friends with the Committee members and are used to cutting the tugu trees freely Governance-related rules were also reported or found to have been broken in 50% of the communities, especially with regards to management of the finances. Only 1 of 5 women focus group discussions and 2 of 5 men groups knew how funds raised by the community were used by the Committee. Rules more likely to be followed Seasonal user or neighbor-related rules were cited by community members and leaders as the type most likely to be followed. The collectively agreed upon and marked boundaries seem to be the main deterrent Property damage-related rules were also found to be among those most likely to be followed since they are already known to be part of the national laws of Uganda. This may also be helped by the fact that now the community s grazing land is protected, effective zoning has taken place: cattle owners now have a place for their cattle to roam freely out of the range of people s gardens. Social-related rules were found to be rarely broken, perhaps, because very few communities included such types of rules in their by-laws beyond membership criteria Strengthened intra-community governance and leadership A photo showing election of leaders in one of the communities would be good here Before LEMU s arrival, defined governance structures for communal lands existed only in the 8

16 form of overseers of different activity zones : cattle kraals 2 (called Adwong Awii, chief of heads ), grazing grounds (Adwong Bar, chief of the field ), and hunting grounds (Adwong Tim, chief of the bush ). These leaders only managed affairs of their distinct zones : kraals, grazing, and hunting, respectively. This means that the project may have introduced a new concept of all-encompassing Land Management Committees. In addition LEMU s teaching on communal land rights challenged the customary practice (or, rather, abuse) of a custodian functioning as the owner, especially regarding the powers of the Adwong Bar who have been at the center of disputes in several CLP supported communities. In fact, the ultimate success of the project in Okeng may be due to the fact that this community did not have a pre-existing Adwong Bar to deal with, and consequently, none of his relatives to contend with the community that this was our grandfathers land. Historically, the Adwong Bar worked with a small committee he appointed, but would consult only prominent cattle owners to make decisions. The coming of LEMU s CLPP generated public pressure on the old Adwong Bars to open up both their management team as well as their own private family land holdings. The project s intervention required that all households and all clans in the community whether cattle-owning or not be included in decision making over this land. Interviews with some Adwong Bars of the (former) grazing lands like Wilyec, revealed that they still referred to the community land as their personal property, but that it was given to the community by LEMU during the course of the boundary harmonization process, in which an agreed portion of land was cut out of the grazing land for the Adwong Bar and his family. An assessment of 5 Phase 1 communities in 2015 reported that rules adopted during LEMU s Community Land Protection Program had helped to improve intra-community governance of lands and natural resources four years later but only where those leaders tasked with enforcing the rules were not implicated in encroachments themselves and boundaries were sealed/completed on every side. However, nearly all respondents agreed that the level of respect for rules in their community members was different than it had been in The February 2017 impact assessment reported the rating of community leaders presented in Figure 4.1. In assessment, the communities reported also high levels of trust for their committees: 74% said completely, while 8.5% said mostly and 17% said fairly. Even in Burlobo, where conflict and encroachment persisted, the trust was reported as fairly high or complete. 2 Similar to corrals or pens for keeping cattle, sheep, and goats each with their own leader (who was usually the owner of the most heads of cattle). 9

17 The evidences of effectiveness of the leaders reported in most communities are: - Resolving issues fast and fairly - Preventing new encroachment and conflicts on community land - Keeping the community in unity - Enabling the land to be used by everybody e.g. collecting firewood and vegetables and grazing cattle Governance in the project communities seems to have gone through three general stages as presented in Table 4.1, with the most conflict occurring between Stages 1 and 2: Table 4.1: Changes in governance across 3 stages Stage 1 (Pre-project) Separate chiefs for kraals, grazing, and hunting grounds May involve only one clan, or multiple clans as time goes by and land is given or vacated. Not usually inclusive of all clans or of women, youth, etc. Land zones understood according to existing use and decided by chiefs and elders Stage 2 (Post-Phase 1 of project) Comprehensive 9-member Land Management Committee introduced this time not based on being the most accomplished hunter or top cattle owner, but based on public vote or individual merit as well as women, youth, and elders Existing land zones documented for major uses (cattle keeping, grazing, cultivation) Stage 3 (Years later) Governance options are shared with communities and the preferred option is included in the governance structure in the constitution All clans select four representatives from their clans into the constituent assembly where the management committee is elected from (All 9 officers actually hail from any clans within that community) Land zones debated among community members and committee and new plans agreed and implemented The project was also said to have increased the legitimacy of clan leaders and the Adwong Bar structure in the eyes of the State, since they have been sanctioned by sub-county officials and adhere to 1995 Constitutional principles more than before, especially regarding women s rights to participate in decision making (thereby addressing the ubiquitous chief criticism of customary authorities in Uganda). Local Council (LC) 1 and 2 chairpersons, in addition to parish and sub-county officials, indicate that they are confident that these customary structures are managing their people and community lands better than before LEMU s intervention. Effective community participation in the management of their community lands and protection of their land rights is determined also by their knowledge of the relevant laws. The impact assessment in February 2017 showed significant levels of awareness of provisions in the state laws that apply to customary tenure, what the law says about compulsory acquisition and what they should do in case the government wants to compulsorily acquire their community land. 10

18 4.2 Use and access to land and natural resources A photo of a general community meeting indicating how people deliberate issues of access to resources would be good here The main reason for seeking proper management of the community lands is, as already stated, for optimal use of community lands. LEMU s engagement with the communities revealed that the level of engagement with different resources is differentiated by gender: men and women gather, use or engage with some categories of community land resources more than others. The pattern of engagement is presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.2: Gender-based engagement with resources from communal lands Resources that men mostly engage with 1. Graze cattle 2. Hunting 3. Cattle dip Resources that women mostly engage with 1. Water for domestic use 2. Wild fruits/vegetables 3. Firewood for cooking 4. White ants 5. Herbal medicine Resources engaged with by both men and women 1. Building materials wood and timber by men and grass by women for thatching 2. Fishing 3. Handicrafts 4. Honey 5. Farming The communities that have documented and adopted their land rules have sections within their rules that stipulate how their land and natural resources will be used and managed. The rules explicitly state who and how they will use the communal land and benefit from its natural resources e.g. Anyomorem Community land rule number 9 (bylaw 9) provides a list of all the resources the community can benefit from in the community land, this rule also goes ahead to make it explicit that all the community members should benefit from these resources equally. Assessment in 2015 showed changes registered in access to resources as displayed in Table 4.3. The data presented there showed that community members (men and women) access to natural resources had generally improved in about half the communities while nearly another half reported that resource access had become generally difficult. Members of communities that had generally improved cited two main reasons for this: 1) Reduced conflict and encroachment and 2) Community living in harmony (rights respected). Communities who reported a decrease in accessibility to natural resources cited one main reason for this: More conflict and encroachment (as evident in Barapworocero and Burlobo which have cases in court and police). The impact assessment carried out in 6 communities in February 2017 sought to find out what changes had taken place in access and use of community land resources as a result of the adoption of the rules and the work of the committees. Of the 13 different types of resources used 7 were rated as much easier to access, 5 as easier and one as no change. The reasons given were similar to those at the 2015 assessment: 11

19 1) Better governance systems 2) Reduced or no conflicts and encroachments 3) Community living together in harmony (cohesion) 4) More natural resources available now Table 4.3: Level to which resources are Easier or Harder to access Much easier Easier No change Harder Much harder N.B: Empty fields imply no data/no response # Community Name 1 Anyomorem 2 Bar Odir 3 Awita 4 Burlobo 5 Alyecmeda/Barkitwe 6 Oulo/Alemere Level of change as per community leaders rating (State and cultural) Building materials Grazing Fishing Collecting Water Firewood Vegetables/Fruits 4.3 Land dispute and conflict resolution Level of change as per men s rating Building Material (wood) 7 Barapworocero Not using land at all due to encroachment 8 Aketo 9 Oding 10 Agudu 11 Abunga/Aboti Grazing cattle Fishing Level of change as per women s rating Building material (grass) Collecting water Grazing Cattle Firewood Fishing Vegetables/Fruits 12

20 Interference with the community s access and use of community land resources usually lead to dispute and conflicts whose resolution opens opportunities for greater benefits from the lands for the community. At the impact assessment carried out in 2015, it was found that intra-community conflicts over communal land either increased (steadily or sharply) or decreased to zero from the beginning of the project (2009) to the time of impact assessment study as Figure 4.2 shows. Fig. 4.2: Change in encroachment overtime in Phase One Communities Focus Group data reveals that encroachers in communities that did not fully harmonize their boundaries before the project s end in 2011 actually felt emboldened to take even more advantage of their communities after LEMU s exit in As women in Akwic explain, Before LEMU came, the encroachers used to construct only grass thatched houses; but once LEMU left and didn t come back, they constructed permanent buildings. Anecdotal evidence had suggested that the Community Land Protection Project had also had an effect on family land disputes. Community members and their leaders alike often cited reduction of family land cases as one of the foremost changes LEMU brought to their communities. In addition, the four LC 1s of Awangi, in 2015 reported a significant (over 50%) reduction in disputes over family land reported to them (see Figure 4.3). Similar data were reported by the LC 2 of Akwic, who said that in 2009, he used to hear about 5 land cases per week in the rainy season (60+ cases per year), but registered only 19 total in all of As of May 2015, only 7 family land cases had been reported in all of Omolo Parish. Table 4.3 shows a similar impact on family land protection initiatives the planting of boundary trees. Interviews suggested that by the time LEMU s CLPP began in Iceme and Aleka sub-counties in 2009, extremely few (if any) community members had intentionally planted boundary trees along their family land borders, beyond mere pre-existing natural features. But by the time of the study in May 2015, the Local Council 1 Chairpersons who supplied information generally agreed that many more of their villagers had planted omara-omara (Jathropha boundary trees) on their family land boundaries. 3 This aspect of the impact was not followed up in the February 2017 assessment. 3 Due to time constraints, the research team was not able to verify this data beyond asking community members to estimate how many households in their village had planted trees along the boundaries. These percentages are intended to be suggestive of realities on the ground, not empirical statistics. 13

21 Fig. 4.3: Family Land Disputes trends in Awangi Community Table 4.3: Estimated percent of households with boundary trees planted on family land Community Percent of households Wilyec 30% Akwic 70% Okere 5% Awangi A=50%; B=30%; C=50%; D=70% Okeng A=5%; B=60% In the eleven phase 2 and phase 3 communities assessed, the community members cited two (2) stages of the CLPP that led to either encroachers willingly leaving or forcefully stopping their encroachment activities. The change in number of encroachers realized is displayed in Figure 4.4. Table 4.4: Change in encroachment overtime in phase two and three communities The data above show a 8.67% reduction on encroachment by The six communities assessed in February 2017 had all, except one, harmonized their boundaries. Practically no conflicts were reported in those that had harmonized their boundaries, while in Burlobo, where the boundaries had not been harmonized, the conflict was serious and the encroachers had indeed had members of the community arrested for trespass. 4.4 Empowering the vulnerable persons in the community and how decision is made The adopted constitutions or set of rules by communities contain various clauses relating to the protection of the vulnerable groups including women s rights in membership, decision making, composition of the Management Committee, and resources use. These include the mandate that all persons including widows, women who have returned to their maiden home through divorce or widowhood, and women who never married living in the specified villages of the community are 14

22 considered members of the communal land association. LEMU has supported the communities to ensure that of the 9 community leaders elected; at least 3 women, 1 youth and 1 person with disability are elected into the community governance structures. This ensures that discussion of issues are made inclusive so that the decisions made are agreed with respect to effects on each interest group. Changes in women s land rights and empowerment As mentioned above, one third of the members of the management committee are to be women in line with the statutory requirements (Land Act) including one Women s Leader who is tasked to ensure that women are making effective use of the Grazing Land; educating and advising women on matters that concern them regarding the Grazing Land, reconciling women in case of any conflict, collecting women s views, and helping them to perform any task demanded of women in the Grazing Land. (Wilyec Community Grazing Land Constitution S.17) In the 2015 assessment all women s focus group discussions reported that they were More Able or Much More Able to participate in decision making. This is evidenced, they said, by the fact that they were now invited to share their views at both LC and clan meetings. The leaders at their focus group discussions also acknowledged, We leaders used to take women to be useless in decision-making debates. They explained that this perception changed after LEMU s teaching from the PPRR and staff s facilitation of meetings that accorded equal respect and validity for the contributions of men and women in meetings. An example of the women s feeling of empowerment is this statement from a focus group discussion in Okeng community, In 2009, if our leaders had wanted to sell our community land, we women would have refused but our leaders would not have listened to us. But now [in 2015], if the leaders wanted to sell our land, we would refuse but they would listen to us - we d stand up boldly. If they refuse to hear us, then we would refer to our rules and take them to the law! At the February 2017 impact assessment the women focus group discussions and indeed all focus group discussions overwhelmingly agreed that the benefits resulting from the adoption and use of community land rules were being enjoyed by all categories of people. They explained also that everyone is now sharing the use of community land resources. Other vulnerable people The February 2017 impact assessment also reported findings on whether and what the community and individuals in the community is doing for vulnerable groups % said something was being done, while 23.84% said no. What was reported as being done was in the categories of: - Sensitizing and advising them about their rights and how to protect them - Helping them plant boundary trees - Allowing those in need to cultivate a portion of the community land - Helping them to report cases to leaders and NGOs like LEMU and others One group explained that the youth could not be helped much because they are not organised. 4.5 Social cohesion and sustainability The conclusion that CLP has contributed towards building cohesion and unity among the community members can easily be reached from the many responses by community members and leaders on the benefits received from the programme including: - Reduced or no conflicts and encroachments 15

23 - Community living together in harmony - Equal benefits from community land resources, etc. The following can also be summarised from the December 2016 progress report: In Arumu where the community land had long outstanding conflicts since 2009 in which 48 cases of encroachers were reported on the community land, at inception, the community members were very bitter and wanted to start by removing the encroachers and asked that LEMU should first wait till they force out the encroachers. However, due to CLP interventions in this community, the members were willing to negotiate with the alleged encroachers and all 48 confirmed consents had been signed by encroachers to vacate the community land. The community has adopted rules and now view the constitution as a powerful tool to use to eliminate encroachment into the land instead of brutal means such as use of pangas and fights over land. In Oyitodero (which had 4 villages initially for the programme), where meetings were demobilized in 2 villages of Apipit and Odole by their leaders, the community members in those villages became disunited and rejected the CLP implementation in their villages. However, continuous meetings facilitated by LEMU and involving other stakeholders like Lango Cultural Foundation, community members in 2 remaining villages of Oyitodero and Tegweng A realized that their neighbours of Apipit and Odole were misguiding them and decided to commit themselves to the CLP programme. The community members of Oyitodero are now more empowered and united as their attendance and participation has been observed to have increased from below 150 participants at inception to over 300 participants at rules adoption in this community. Oyitodero has now adopted their rules, elected leaders and harmonized their community land boundaries. A rapid assessment was done in February 2017 in Tegweng B, a neighbouring village to Oyitodero community. A community member was met in Tegweng B who revealed that members in their community are also benefiting from the positive impacts the CLPP has had in Oyitodero. He mentioned that their community leaders now invite leaders from Oyitodero to support them in resolving disputes in their community land using knowledge received from LEMU s trainings. He added that community members in Tegweng B now regret turning their backs to LEMU and hope that LEMU should as well their help to protect their community land of Odole. In contrast, the stalling of the CLP process in Burlobo has been accompanied by poor coexistence amongst the community members. Due to the ongoing court case, the community members are disunited arising from the arrest of 32 community members charged with criminal trespass, assault and malicious damage. The Chairman of the Adwong Bar clan land committee was waylaid and assaulted by assailants believed to have been connected to the encroachers. As already reported above, the Burlobo community had very divided views of their leaders with some of them rating the leaders as having done nothing at while others rated them as performing very well. 16

24 5.0 Findings on performance and impacts of customary and state land justice systems. Women participate in in Boundary Tree planting in in Soroti upon peaceful conclusion of a of family a family land land dispute. dispute. In this component three (C3) the research is investigating the impacts of customary land justice systems, assessing the efficiency, efficacy, and positive outcomes of the land justice systems as well as the structural factors that hinder just and equitable land dispute resolution. For comparative analysis between LCs and cultural institutions, cases received in LEMU are grouped in 3 different categories: 1) those previously reported to cultural institutions ONLY before coming to LEMU; 2) those previously reported to state institutions (Local council courts) ONLY before coming to LEMU; and 3) those previously reported to both cultural and state institutions (LCs) before coming to LEMU. This analysis on outcomes across cultural institutions and LCs is drawn from the total of multiple responses received for respective institutions across all 3 scenarios. Using cases from 2013 to 2016, 114 cases previously reported to cultural institutions ONLY, 48 cases reported to LCs ONLY and 85 cases reported to BOTH institutions, making a total of 247 cases, were analyzed for comparative analysis. In the period February March, 2017, LEMU conducted an assessment on 55 LEMU court cases filed with Magistrate Courts in Apac, Lira and Soroti and held informant interviews with 3 court clerks in order to analyze the performance of the magistrates courts in terms of efficiency and efficacy. The findings are included in this report. 5.1 Efficiency To investigate efficiency, the research studied speed in reaching resolution of cases, costs involved in the process while seeking justice and the ease of access of the institutions by the rights holders. The following sections provide a report on the above points using the cases explained above Speed in reaching resolution of cases An analysis was drawn on the total times of follow up on cases with the cultural and state institutions, total hours spent per trip for hearing case and the total time spent (in months) following case to have 17