Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Land Sector Corruption in Ethiopia 313
Key public information issues that create opportunities for corruption
include the following:
• The spatial location and extent of registered holdings has not been
defined, which reduces the ability to validate records and makes issuing
forged documents easier.
• Only about 25 percent of individually held urban properties have been
recorded in one way or another, but the records are not reliable or
conclusive—which reduces confidence in the records systems and creates
opportunities for corrupt practices such as the issuance of forged
documentation or the illegal alteration of records.
• About 70 percent of rural holdings have been registered, but the records
are not being kept up to date, which reduces the usefulness of the
records and fosters future disputes over land, particularly among family
members.
Dispute resolution and conflict management. First Instance courts in
Ethiopia are available at the woreda level, and social courts are available
at the kebele level. However, in many places, even though formal institutions
exist and personnel have been assigned, the institutions are not
functional. In many rural areas, it can take a day or more to get to a
woreda, so access can be difficult.
A more fundamental problem is the fact that the laws themselves are
not accessible. Language barriers and the costs required for translation
can also inhibit access in some localities. As a result, about half of the
local communities lack access to First Instance conflict resolution but
instead have the option to use informal institutions (arbitration by
elders) that are recognized by the local community in most areas of the
country. However, the decisions passed by local traditional elders may
not always be equitable.
There are parallel avenues for dispute resolution in Addis Ababa and
the regions. These alternative venues include land administration boards,
land clearance appeals commissions, federal courts, municipal courts,
regional courts, and other institutions with adjudication mandates. No
mechanisms are in place for information sharing among institutions.
Although those within the same institutional structure do meet, the collaboration
and coordination across institutions is limited and often informal.
As a result, three or four venues may entertain the same case at the
same time, especially when one of the parties has resources. The practice
in Addis Ababa involves initiating cases in two or more venues, such as