*5.2. Land Tenure Dispute Resolution Mechanisms*

Land tenure disputes in the study areas have been resolved by employing various processes and mechanisms. These processes include both alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADRMs), which are informal in nature, and administrative decision and litigation, which are formal in nature.

Though, as noted in the results, most of the disputes have been resolved in both areas, a higher percentage of disputes are resolved in rural areas compared to peri-urban areas. The difference was justified by the experts in the focal group interviews, who said that the rural disputes are usually symmetrical (between farmers) and can be easily resolved by employing ADR methods. As identified by Moore and Jayasundere [5], mediation is most effective when the parties have symmetrical power relationships. In peri-urban areas, most of the land tenure disputes are between farmers and municipalities or other institutions. These asymmetrical disputes are usually more difficult to resolve.

Communities tend to employ alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, as these are seen to be the most effective methods of land tenure dispute resolution. This finding is confirmed by results of other studies documenting that land disputes can be solved within a short period using local dispute resolution mechanisms rather than being handled by courts [8,28,29,56]. Additionally, less formal techniques, especially mediation and to some extent negotiation, are encouraging mechanisms to resolve disputes, in contrast to adversary litigation [79–81].

This research identified that the majority of the landholders in both peri-urban and rural areas used the ADR mechanisms more than the formal means to resolve land tenure disputes (Table 6). State missionaries, such as court and government administrative organs, are normally involved in the formal ways of land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms [21,32]. These land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms are often noted as JDR (juridical dispute resolution), court litigations, or administrative means of land dispute resolution mechanisms. Court litigations are applied to resolve symmetric land tenure disputes in situations when the resolution by the other methods is not feasible. As reported by the discussants and informants, court litigation is only applied when the parties are confident enough to win the dispute. At the same time, parties who are not confident in winning the dispute are likely to send older neighbors to the opponent to negotiate with them. The confident opponent feels honored by the involvement of the older neighbors and agrees to settle the dispute out of court. However, this does mean that the numbers of respondents going to court is insignificant. The discussions with civil judges revealed that the majority of the civil cases lodged to the civil benches have been directly or indirectly related to land issues. In the group discussions, judges described that most of the instigated caseloads in each year are land-related disputes. Administrative authorities may also resolve issues which are not very controversial. For example, at the kebele level, land administration committees play an important role in resolving land disputes. However, formal means of land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms are recommended as the last resort of dispute resolution mechanisms in Ethiopia in general and in Amhara National Regional State in particular [23,71,74]. The discussants and the interviewees indicated that the formal procedures for resolving land tenure disputes are mainly applied when one of the parties in the dispute is a government organ or a judicial person3.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia's (FDRE) constitution gives regional states the option to incorporate the informal land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms in their land administration and use legislations [22]. Moreover, the Federal Land Administration and Use Proclamation No. 456/2005, used as a framework for regional states to enact their own laws, explicitly recognizes negotiation, conciliation, and arbitration as appropriate means of setting rural land disputes [23]. Almost all the rural land administration and use legislations emphasize informal dispute settling institutions in addition to administrative tribunals, regular courts, or special courts. As the Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) recognized the informal resolution mechanisms for land tenure disputes in the ANRS rural land administration and use proclamation No. 252/2017 and the consequent Regulation No.159/2018 and prioritizes informal land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms [71,74], negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration are practised in the study area. In ANRS, informal land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms have equal (sometimes favored) status with the formal means of land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms.

As noted in the results of the study, ADRMs are most widely used to resolve land tenure disputes, though the extent widely differs from place to place. Negotiation, mediation/conciliation, and arbitration are the most commonly used ADR mechanisms to solve land tenure disputes in the study area. This finding is according to Article 52(1) of the Amhara National Regional State's revised rural land administration and use proclamation No. 252/2017. Gowok [24] also reported that Ethiopia has been using alternative dispute resolution methods for centuries, and that negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration are the key dispute resolution mechanisms in Ethiopia.

Arbitration, also known as 'shimaglle'4, is one of the oldest forms of dispute resolution practiced in Ethiopia. It relies on solving disputes by appointing arbitrators who are persons with particular knowledge on custom or have experience in shimglina [24].

Farmers and experts interviewed in the study confirmed that parties usually try to solve land tenure disputes by negotiation. Sometimes the parties solve the land tenure disputes by negotiation, but there are many cases where this is not possible. For example, disputants find it difficult to solve problems in negotiation when they are entangled in competing positions or when there are interpersonal problems between the parties [80]. Due to these problems, negotiation assistance processes (i.e., mediation/conciliation) were applied to effectively resolve land tenure disputes. Mediation is seen as an integral model to dispute resolution [5,35,81]. This is because mediation has the advantage of empowering parties and improving communication [82]. Though the practice of mediation has often been used to settle labour disputes or family and divorce disputes, the technique is now widely in use in interpersonal disputes [5]. As an example, mediation has been espoused as a central land dispute resolution model in Ghana [37]. Norwegians also widely use mediation to resolve boundary disputes [53]. Though mediation is not a panacea for all land tenure disputes, it plays a significant role in managing problems between disputants.