Where do I report my land dispute? The impact of institutional proliferation on land governance in post-conflict Northern Uganda

Abstract

In Sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda has been hailed for embarking on an intensive decentralization programme. Whereas a lot of literature assumes that decentralization leads to improved service delivery, it is unclear to what extent this is the case in practice, especially when it comes down to decentralized land governance. This paper, which is based on ethnographic research carried out between 2011 and 2013, argues that decentralization of land governance in postconflict Northern Uganda fails to realize the expected benefits and instead has increased tenure insecurity. Decentralization of land governance gave rise to institutional multiplicity by creating new institutions that add on to the already existing authorities and regulations. Institutional proliferation in land governance that is fuelled by legal pluralism and decentralization results into confusion in land dispute resolution and the failure of institutions to effectively resolve land disputes in post-conflict settings. This exacerbates the dilemma of people who do not know where to go to seek redress to land disputes. While this multiplicity of both statutory and customary institutions creates choices and opportunities for both people and institutions in relation to land governance and in particular land conflict resolution, they are also used by power holders and authorities in political competition at local level, complicating the process of land dispute resolution. The struggle for authority between representatives of the state and of customary land institutions becomes especially problematic because it merges with local and national politics.

Defusing Land Disputes? The Politics of Land Certification and Dispute Resolution in Burundi

“…More specifically, this article aims to further our understanding of how land registration impacts the dynamics of land conflicts. Land policy reforms and the ensuing reshuffle of the roles of land‐governing institutions can either reinforce or subvert particular interpretations of legitimate claims to land and relations of authority in local land governance (Justin and van Dijk, 2017; Kobusingye et al., 2016; Lund and Boone, 2013). Effectively, this may worsen existing disputes over land, or generate new contestations.…”

Gender and forum shopping in land conflict resolution in Northern Uganda

“…Thus, since power often plays out strongly against women, forum shopping has been seen to work to the disadvantage of women, because the powerful (usually men) tend to choose a forum that will determine the outcome at the expense of the vulnerable who are able to exploit only a limited number of opportunities (Chopra and Isser 2012, 353;Adoko and Levine 2009). This manipulation by the powerful is perceived to water down the advantages that arise from the possibility of choice created for disputants, but also from the possibility for the fora involved in dispute resolution to collaborate and complement each other (Kobusingye, Van Leeuwen, and Van Dijk 2016).…”

Improving local land governance? Exploring the linkages between land governance reforms, institutional pluralism and tenure security in Burundi

“…In analysing the intersection among land tenure, legal pluralism and peace-building, Unruh (2003) points out that efforts aimed to address secure access to rural land and property claims during and following violent conflicts are likely to foster the precarious rise of multiple and overlapping systems of norms, rules and conventions, and thus add more confusion in already existing settings of tenure insecurity. As a matter of fact, such transformations in land governance have significant impacts in the rearrangement of power relations among a diversity of actors at different levels, in unfolding profuse avenues for dealing with land access and property claims, and even in intensifying struggles over land tenure (Kobusingye, van Leeuwen, and van Dijk 2016;van Leeuwen 2017).…”

“…Consequently, land governance processes underscore ideas of broader, often complex processes, and dynamic interactions within and between diverse formal and informal land governing actors with different relations of legitimacy and authority and notions of which rules to apply. The ensuing competition with respect to whom is authorized to take charge and under what specific circumstances, and which regulatory framework or norms to apply for particular land and property issue greatly determines the outcomes of governance reforms (Kobusingye, van Leeuwen, and van Dijk 2016).…”

“…Actually, land governance reforms may often fail to reach the expected outcomes of regulating and enforcing land management and mitigating land disputes, or increasing localised and participatory decision-making processes (McCallin 2012;Unruh 2005). They may fuel the proliferation of new rules and institutions, and induce competition among land-governing actors, and even (re-) activate questions of identity and ethnic belonging (Justin and van Leeuwen 2016;Kobusingye, van Leeuwen, and van Dijk 2016).…”