|
     
   
4.7 Possibilities for Conflict Resolution
4.7.1 Institutions for Conflict Resolution
In many
partner countries new innovative institutions for conflict resolution and conflict arbitration are created, or inactive ones reactivated. This can
be done through state initiation or through autonomous self-help of the concerned parties.
On national, regional and local levels, structures have to be created that are suitable to
contribute to the conflict resolution between the different interest parties (e.g. the
state's and the smallholders' interests). |
Creation or
improvement of structures |
|
|
| Institutions and mechanisms for
conflict resolution / management in West Africa Local level institutions for conflict management:
among pastoralists: joros (Mali), sudu baba (Burkina Faso), djaiza
(Senegal), ardo (Niger)
among fishing folk: djitigui, batigui (Mali)
among farmers: land chiefs, customary chiefs (Ghana, Nigeria,
Niger..), council of elders (Guinea, Ghana), religious leaders (Senegal, Niger...),
village associations and socio-professional groupings
Administrative and judicial institutions:
formal institutions: courts, administrative authorities, House of
Chiefs (Ghana), resource tenure commissions (Niger), farmer / forestry commissions
(Côte d’Ivoire) and rural councils (Senegal)
informal instituions: negotiation fora (Nigeria, Niger), ad hoc
commissions (Nigeria), stakeholder committees (Niger),
village land management committees (Burkina Faso), management committees for agricultural
lands (Côte d’Ivoire), management committees for water and woodland, local political
leaders
(GRET/IIED 1996:XIII) |
|
|
In Kenya, for example, "land control
boards" exist, in Tanzania cooperative models for conflict resolution have been
created together with the post-Ujamaa land tenure reform and in Botswana these organs are
called subordinate land boards. |
|
|
|
| Land Boards in Botswana One of the main functions of the Subordinate Land
Boards is the settlement of land disputes [...] Previously, all disputes went to the
customary court system, which was also under the administration of the Ministry of Lands.
However, this has been changed. All parties and witnesses concerned with the dispute meet
with the Subordinate Land Board (or the Main Land Board, if there is no Subordinate Land
Board). Often, the Board might have to go to the plots for on-site investigation. If
appellants are dissatisfied, they can appeal to the Main Board, and then to the Minister
responsible for all land matters. People aggrieved by the Minister’s decisions can
appeal to a court of law.
Land disputes are inherently judicial and not administrative, whereas
the Land Boards are solely administrative bodies and have no judicial authority. Moreover,
the Land Boards have often been actors in the events leading up to disputes, which results
in a conflict of interests. Hence, the 1993 Amendment to the Tribal Land Act empowers the
Minister to establish Land Tribunals, which are to handle land appeals, and to enforce the
Board’s decisions.
(Bruce et al. 1995) |
|
