Access to land is an important driver of development in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. But how can access be safeguarded? This briefing paper by the UK Department for International Development (DIFD) demonstrates that dispute resolution mechanisms are extremely important to safeguard the success of pro-poor land reform. It discusses DFIDs experience of supporting Third Party Arbitration Courts as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that is both faster and more cost effective than the formal court system.
DFID experience in Eastern Europe and Central Asia has demonstrated that provision of the right to land ownership as a legal entitlement in its own right does not improve the socio-economic situation of poor people. The poor need additional support to turn these rights into livelihood benefits. Access to information and advice on protection of ownership rights, plus an effective dispute resolution mechanism are key aspects of successful pro-poor land reform. Building affordable, locally appropriate and gender sensitive mechanisms for reducing disputes that arise over land ownership can contribute to maintaining social peace during times of social and economic upheaval and post-conflict.
Since 1998, DFID’s sustainable livelihood and agrarian reform programmes in Russia, Kyrgystan, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia have assisted the establishment of more than 70 third party arbitration courts (TPACs). This includes supporting the development of TPAC guidance manuals and the adoption of supporting legislation across these countries. This work has demonstrated the following advantages inherent in TPAC principles:
- Cost-effectiveness; speed; flexibility; access and mobility; genuine mediation between disputing parties. TPACs reach a higher percentage of amicable agreements than government courts and there is a high proportion of voluntary compliance with TPAC decisions.
- Mandatory enforcement of TPAC decisions is available where voluntary compliance does not occur. Measures relating to security for a claim can also be undertaken.
- Confidentiality of third party arbitration proceedings.
- A TPAC may issue a decision governed by compromise rather than the letter of the Law where disputing parties agree to comply with such a decision.
- Disadvantages of third party arbitration include: a TPAC decision may be reviewed if it infringes on the interests of third persons; efficiency relies on the willingness of the disputing parties. Mandatory enforcement depends on their recognition by the government courts.
- Where the disputing parties are represented by numerous people, TPAC proceedings can become complex.
The project has delivered evidence-based policy advice on alternative methods for land and property dispute resolution to high-level stakeholders in the 29 member countries of the LFDP.
- Lesson sharing and networking has strengthened TPAC expertise in Russia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia.
- Key government delegations from Albania, Slovakia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Bulgaria have visited DFID supported TPACs in Russia and Moldova and concluded that implementing TPACs in their countries would be desirable.
- A formal request to DFID from the Tajik Government has resulted in the start up of a Tajik TPAC project in March 2004.
- TPACs are widening their remit from land disputes into property, micro-credit operations and commercial contracts, thereby becoming a vital element of civil society.
- The widening of TPACs remit contributes to its overall institutional and financial sustainability.
- As policymakers and beneficiaries acknowledge TPACs public-good function, partial public funding may be made available, maintaining and/or increasing its access and affordability for poor people.
