DOCSLIB.ORG

Myjustice Mid-Term Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Myjustice Mid-Term Review MyJustice Mid-Term Review Final Report Submitted to: British Council 23 March 2018 Integrity Somerset House, West Wing Strand London, WC2R 1LA T +44 (0) 207 759 1119 E [email protected] W www.integrityglobal.com Acknowledgement This report has been written by Integrity as part of its Learning & Evaluation work undertaken on behalf of the British Council in support of its MyJustice programme in Myanmar. This report does not necessarily reflect the views of each of the contributing partners in all its content. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. For further information, please email [email protected]. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... v Glossary of key terms.................................................................................................................. vi 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Review purpose and objectives ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 MyJustice programme overview ........................................................................................ 1 1.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Review findings ................................................................................................................. 4 2 Relevance ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Understanding the justice needs of target groups ............................................................. 5 2.2 Responsiveness to context changes ................................................................................. 7 2.3 Alignment of activities to the programme’s theory of change........................................... 11 3 Efficiency ................................................................................................................................ 11 3.1 Factors supporting efficiency .......................................................................................... 12 3.2 Factors limiting efficiency ................................................................................................ 15 4 Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Supporting communities to increase knowledge of their rights and pathways to justice .. 20 4.2 Increasing the availability and quality of justice services ................................................. 22 Case Study: Yangon and Taunggyi Justice Centres ................................................................. 25 4.3 Strengthening Community Based Dispute Resolution ..................................................... 28 4.4 Using evidence and knowledge sharing to inform justice policy development ................. 29 5 Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 30 6 Sustainability .......................................................................................................................... 34 6.1 Sustainability of the programme ...................................................................................... 34 6.2 Sustainability of MyJustice partners ................................................................................ 35 7 Coherence and EU value added ............................................................................................ 37 7.1 Coherence with EU priorities ........................................................................................... 38 7.2 EU value add .................................................................................................................. 39 7.3 Other justice sector programming ................................................................................... 40 8 Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 43 9 Annexes .................................................................................................................................. 48 9.1 MyJustice Logical Framework ......................................................................................... 48 9.2 Review Framework ......................................................................................................... 55 9.3 Mid-Term Review Terms of Reference............................................................................ 60 9.4 CV of evaluators ............................................................................................................. 66 9.5 List of organisations consulted ........................................................................................ 79 9.6 List of key programme documents reviewed ................................................................... 81 www.integrityglobal.com i Executive Summary MyJustice programme The MyJustice programme (MyJustice) is a four-year European Union (EU)-funded programme implemented by the British Council. MyJustice has completed over two years of implementation in a complex context where communities have significant justice needs but also a deep distrust of the formal justice system, and quality justice services are difficult to access. MyJustice aims to enhance access to justice for these communities through four programme pillars (Result Areas) that broadly focus on: I) awareness raising activities; II) strengthening justice services; III) strengthening community-based dispute resolution mechanisms (CBDR); and IV) engaging with justice sector policy. MyJustice prioritises a learning and adaptation approach to implementation underpinned by three core principles: being people-centred, community-led and evidence-driven. Implementation is predominantly undertaken in partnership with local Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and International Non-Government Organisations (INGOs) through grants or other contract mechanisms. Through these partnerships and some direct implementation, MyJustice delivers community-focused and responsive programming to ‘enable more people to have the knowledge, confidence and opportunities to have their disputes fairly and equitably resolved.’ Mid-Term Review This report consolidates the findings from the Mid-Term Review that took place in from January to March 2018. Integrity, the MyJustice Learning and Evaluation partner, conducted the review to provide evidence-based findings about MyJustice’s progress against desired results in its third year of programming. The review aims to highlight ‘what is working and what is not’ to inform planning and decision-making during the remainder of the programme period. The review is delivered against a framework of nineteen review questions that assess aspects of programme relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, coherence, and EU value add (see Annex 9.2 for questions). The findings are based on a systematic review and analysis of existing programme data and primary data collection. Findings and recommendations MyJustice has adopted a flexible and contextually responsive programming approach that is both relevant and necessary given the complexity of the Myanmar justice sector context. The programme has developed and tested a range of tools and approaches, including the result areas strategic framework tool, to support staff to identify whether programme-level activities remain relevant and are achieving the desired effect. Where activities or approaches are not working, the program has processes to adapt and refocus resources to better promote the achievement of its objectives. One example is the design and implementation of the CSO Capacity Development Strategy in response to capacity issues among partners. Currently, MyJustice is on track to meet its output level results through its awareness raising activities, establishment of justice centres, and training of justice service providers. While the programme aims to support the most vulnerable, gender is not mainstreamed in the programme approach and limited attention is given to ensuring ethnic and religious minority justice needs are addressed. MyJustice has contracted a separate gender and social inclusion (GESI) assessment to review these gaps. The programme’s learning and adaptive approach is integral to ensuring programme relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. However, there is limited evidence that this approach has been adopted by local partners, who are constrained by limited technical capacity and knowledge regarding strategic adaptive approaches. The programme’s monitoring system captures some key data, but there are weaknesses that limit the effectiveness and www.integrityglobal.com ii efficiency of the system to track programme progress. There is limited data available for some indicators that measure knowledge, attitude and behaviour change of beneficiaries. As a result, progress towards higher-level objectives is difficult to ascertain at this point in the programme. While the theory of change
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Myanmar: Overview of Corruption and Anti-Corruption
    U4 Helpdesk Answer 2019:21 Myanmar: Overview of corruption and anti-corruption. Overview of Author(s): Mathias Bak, [email protected] Reviewer(s): Matthew Jenkins, Transparency International Secretariat, Ondrej Cakl, Transparency International Czech Republic Date: 08 April 2019. Amended 22 November 2019 Myanmar has transformed since moving towards democracy. Anti-corruption is a priority and the government is working to implement an anti-corruption framework. This is at an early stage, but there are some promising initiatives. Nonetheless, the rule of law is weak, and systemic issues enable high levels of corruption and organised crime. Of particular concern is the influence of military-linked cronies and the military is still able to act with impunity. The fragility of the state and disputed state authority in Myanmar’s peripheries are also problems. Despite this, there seem to be genuine attempts to tackle corruption in some sectors. U4 Anti-Corruption Helpdesk A free service for staff from U4 partner agencies Query Please provide an overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Myanmar, with a focus on the justice, extractives, fisheries, education, police and agriculture sectors as well as on illicit financial flows. Please provide an overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Myanmar, with a focus on the justice, extractives, fisheries, education, police and agriculture sectors as well as on illicit financial flows. Caveat To complement information available from the Main points literature, the Helpdesk spoke with a number of — Corruption is a widespread issue in academics, experts and practitioners with Myanmar and is parparticularlyticularly worrying knowledge of governance and corruption issues in in the extractive industries, land Myanmar.
    [Show full text]
  • Usaid Promoting the Rule of Law Project
    USAID PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW PROJECT QUARTERLY REPORT NO. 19: APRIL - JUNE 2018 USAID PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW PROJECT QUARTERLY REPORT: April – June 2017 USAID PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW PROJECT QUARTERLY PRLP completed REPORT: a April “Judging – June in 2017 a Democratic Society” program for judges i USAID PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW PROJECT QUARTERLY REPORT: April - June 2018 Task Order No. AID-486-TO-13-00008 CONTRACTOR: TETRA TECH DPK DATE: July 23, 2018 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech DPK. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii Table of Contents I. List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................. ii II. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 III. Program Activities by Objective/Component ................................................................. 1 Objective 1: Promote More Effective, Accountable, and Accessible Justice Sector Institutions ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Objective 2: Increase Legal Literacy, Access to Justice for Marginalized Populations in Target Regions/States ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Provision in South East Myanmar
    REPORT Justice provision in south east Myanmar Experiences from conflict-affected areas with multiple governing authorities February 2019 Justice provision in south east Myanmar Experiences from conflict-affected areas with multiple governing authorities SAFERWORLD FEBRUARY 2019 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank everyone who contributed to this study – in particular, the residents and the leaders interviewed for the four case studies used in this research. These studies draw on extensive research conducted by the EverJust project from 2016 to 2017. The EverJust project (Everyday Justice and Security in the Myanmar Transition) is coordinated by Helene Maria Kyed with the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) and is implemented in partnership with Yangon University’s Anthropology Department, Enlightened Myanmar Research Foundation (EMReF), and Aarhus University. The authors wish to acknowledge the researchers, including Lue Htar, Thang Sorn Poine, Myat Thet Thitsar, Myat The Thitsar, Saw Hay Htoo, Annika Pohl Harrisson, Than Pale, Lwin Lwin Mon, Mya Mya Khin and Mikael Gravers. The EverJust project is financed by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The report was written by Helene Maria Kyed, with substantive inputs and edits from Kim Jolliffe, Dr Theo Hollander (Saferworld) and Charlotte Watson (Saferworld). It was reviewed and edited by Dr Tamara Duffey-Janser (Saferworld) and John Bainbridge (Saferworld), copyedited by Jatinder Padda and Ilya Jones, and designed by Jane Stevenson. Saferworld, Conciliation Resources and International Alert are collaborating on a three-year research programme, the Peace Research Partnership, which generates evidence and lessons for policymakers and practitioners on how to support peaceful, inclusive change in conflict-affected areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Access to Justice Through Community Based Dispute Resolution (Cbdr) for Housing, Land and Property Disputes in Myanmar
    IMPROVING ACCESS TO JUSTICE THROUGH COMMUNITY BASED DISPUTE RESOLUTION (CBDR) FOR HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY DISPUTES IN MYANMAR HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS LEGAL AWARENESS INFORMATION MATERIAL October 2018 In partnership with: IMPROVING ACCESS TO JUSTICE THROUGH COMMUNITY BASED DISPUTE RESOLUTION (CBDR) FOR HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY DISPUTES IN MYANMAR HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS LEGAL AWARENESS INFORMATION MATERIAL October 2018 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Housing, Land and Property (HLP) rights internationally and in Myanmar. 6 I.1. What are HLP Rights? 6 I.2. Are HLP Rights found in International Law? 7 I.3. Does Myanmar national law also recognise HLP rights? 7 I.4. What are the land laws, rights of use and practices in Myanmar? 8 II. How do HLP rights work in practice in Myanmar? 9 II.1. How do I access HLP rights in practice? 9 II.2. What are the different types of land in Myanmar? 9 II.3. How do I register my land? 10 a) Farmland 10 a) Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land 11 b) Forest Land 11 c) Town and Village Land 12 d) Town and Village Housing 12 II.4. What if I face problems trying to register my land? 12 II.5. I want to register my land, but I do not have the money to do so. What should I do? 12 II.6. How can I protect myself from “land grabbings” (illegal taking of land without a clear, fair legal process). 13 II.7. How can I obtain compensation in case of an expropriation? 13 a) Government Departments or Military Confiscation 13 b) Companies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Murder of U Ko Ni
    The murder of U Ko Ni: IBAHRI trial observation highlights fair trial concerns in Myanmar A report of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute Acknowledgments The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) would like to thank all those who contributed to the production of this report. We are especially grateful to Kari Ann Rotkin for her trial observation and preparation of the report. Further gratitude goes to Georgia Drake, our initial trial observer, as well as Catherine Cooper and Laura Milne for their support with trial observations. In addition, we thank Charity Nwe Nwe Lwin, who provided translation support, and L Khun Ring Pan and Myat Tun Thein, who stepped in when Charity Nwe Nwe Lin was unavailable. The writing, development and publication of this report were overseen and supported by IBAHRI Deputy Director Muluka Miti-Drummond, Director Baroness Helena Kennedy QC and former IBAHRI Director Phillip Tahmindjis AM. The IBAHRI would also like to thank interns Valeriia Hershkovych, Daniel Vollmer and Anja Bossow for their assistance in carrying out research and support in editing this report. International Bar Association Human Rights Institute Trial Observation Report 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 I. Overview 8 II. Background 10 A. Introduction 10 B. Political and historical background of Myanmar 11 C. The criminal justice system in Myanmar 13 D. Myanmar’s relevant international and national legal obligations 15 III. The Trial Observation 18 A. Observation methodology 18 B. Charges against the accused 20 C. The case 21 IV. Findings – Fair Trial and Due Process Concerns 23 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizations' Names and Acronyms As of August 23, 2019
    3W ‐ Organizations' Names and Acronyms as of August 23, 2019 No. Organization Organization Acronym Organization Type 1 A Lin Yaung Metta ALYM Community Based Organization 2 ACTED ACTED International NGO 3 Action Aid Myanmar AAM International NGO 4 Action Based Community Development ABC Community Based Organization 5 Action Committee for Democracy Development ACDD Community Based Organization 6 Action Contre la Faim ACF International NGO 7 Action for Green Earth AGE Community Based Organization 8 Action for Social Aid (Pyapon) ASA Community Based Organization 9 Advancing Life And Regenerating Motherland ALARM National NGO 10 Adventist Development and Relief Agency ADRA International NGO 11 Agency for Basic Community Development ABCD National NGO 12 Agriculture and Farmer Federation of Myanmar AFFM National NGO 13 AgriProFocus APF International NGO 14 Aha Man Thit AMT Community Based Organization 15 Akhaya Women AW National NGO 16 Alin Thit Social Development Group Alin Thit Border Based Organization 17 AlinDanLay Myar ALDLM Other 18 Alliance for Gender Inclusion in the Peace Process AGIPP National NGO 19 American Red Cross USRC Red Cross 20 American Refugee Committee ARC International NGO 21 Another Development AD National NGO 22 Anti-Trafficking Task Force (MPF) MPF Other 23 Ar Yone Oo Social Development Association AYO National NGO 24 arche noVa - Initiative for People in Need AN International NGO 25 Asia Light AL Community Based Organization 26 Asian Development Bank ADB Donor 27 Asian Disaster Preparedness Center ADPC International
    [Show full text]
  • My-Justice-Customary-Land-Disputes
    The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of NRC and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the British Council. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 (1) RECOGNITION OF CUSTOMARY LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 8 THROUGH LEGISLATION (2) COLLABORATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TRAINING 9 (3) RESTITUTION 9 (4) INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND TRANSPARENCY 10 (5) ENHANCING THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY 10 (6) IMPROVING GENDER EQUALITY IN HLP 11 CONCLUSION 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 12 GLOSSARY 13 1. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 15 2. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 17 3. BACKGROUND: OVERVIEW OF GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES 21 4. CUSTOMARY LAND DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN KAYIN STATE 35 5. CUSTOMARY LAND DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN EASTERN BAGO 65 6. CUSTOMARY LAND DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN SHAN STATE 83 7. ANALYSIS 107 COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES ACROSS RESEARCH AREAS 107 (A) ACTORS 109 (B) POWER RELATIONS 109 (C) PERCEPTIONS OF CUSTOMARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION 110 (D) CUSTOMARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION VS NATIONAL STATUTORY 113 FRAMEWORKS 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 117 • RECOGNITION OF CUSTOMARY LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 118 THROUGH LEGISLATION • COLLABORATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TRAINING 119 • RESTITUTION 120 • INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND TRANSPARENCY 122 • ENHANCING THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY 122 • IMPROVING GENDER EQUALITY IN HLP 123 • CONCLUSION 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 ANNEX I 131 • NLUP PROVISIONS RELATED TO RECOGNITION OF CUSTOMARY 131 LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND RESTITUTION. ANNEX II 135 • KNU LAND POLICY PROVISIONS ON CUSTOMARY LAND 135 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Riverside Village Hopong Township EXECUTIVE SUMMARY his report provides an in-depth understanding of customary land dispute resolution in Kayin State, Eastern Bago Region and Shan State and its T interaction with the formal statutory Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (GORUM) system.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption in Myanmar
    Overview of corruption and anti- corruption in Myanmar Author(s): Mathias Bak, [email protected] Reviewer(s): Matthew Jenkins, Transparency International Secretariat, Ondrej Cakl, Transparency International Czech Republic Date: 08 April 2019. Amended 22 November 2019 Myanmar has undergone a significant transformation since the transition towards democracy. Anti- corruption has become a national priority, and the government has worked towards implementing an anti -corruption framework. This legal anti-corruption framework may be in a rudimentary stage, but adjustments are being made and relevant initiatives taken. Nonetheless, corruption is still rampant in Myanmar, rule of law is weak, and many of the systemic issues that enable corruption and organised crime are yet to be addressed. Of particular concern is the influence of military-linked cronies in various sectors, the continued ability of the military to act with impunity, the fragility of the state and the disputed state authority in Myanmar’s peripheries. Myanmar is therefore likely to continue to face challenges with high levels of corruption. In spite of this, there are trends that could be interpreted as genuine attempts to tackle corruption issues in some sectors. U4 Anti-Corruption Helpdesk A free service for staff from U4 partner agencies Query Please provide an overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Myanmar, with a focus on the justice, extractives, fisheries, education, police and agriculture sectors as well as on illicit financial flows. Caveat To complement information available from the Main points literature, the Helpdesk spoke with a number of academics, experts and practitioners with — Corruption is a widespread issueissue in knowledge of governance and corruption issues in Myanmar and is particularly worrying in Myanmar.
    [Show full text]
  • Myanmar's State and Region Governments
    STATE AND REGION GOVERNMENTS IN MYANMAR New Edition October 2018 1 © 2018 The Asia Foundation No. 11, Ko Min Ko Chin Yeik Thar Street All rights reserved. No part of this report West Ngar Htet Kyi Ward may be reproduced without written Bahan Township permission by The Asia Foundation Yangon, Myanmar ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author and the research team would like to thank everyone who contributed to this study including respondents from government, political parties, civil society, community based groups, donors, NGOs, and national and international experts, who took time to meet and share their experiences. The researchers would also like to acknowledge all of the additional contributors and those who reviewed the report for providing invaluable feedback and advice. Finally, a special thank you to Matthew Arnold and Kelsey Atwood of The Asia Founda- tion for their continued support and guidance throughout the research and writing. Any faults in substance or analysis rest with the author. LEAD RESEARCHER AND AUTHOR Richard Batcheler CORE RESEARCH TEAM AND LEAD CONTRIBUTORS Kyi Pyar Chit Saw Matthew Arnold Ildrim Valley Kelsey Atwood Thet Linn Wai CONTRIBUTORS Heesu Chung Su Phyo Win James Owen Stephanie Guo Alison Chan Aye Moh Moh Khaing Jane Sail Billy Ford Saw Hsar Gay Doh Elzemiek Zinkstok John Rieger Nicola Williams Ye Htut Oo Hein Aung Kyaw Hillary Yu Zin Htoon REVIEWERS Tin Maung Than Anki Dellnas Myat The Thitsar Susanne Kempel Roger Shotton Kim Jolliffe Hamish Nixon Jared Bissinger Mael Raynaud Lwin Lwin Aung Design and layout: Significant Science Communication 3 PREFACE Myanmar’s state and region governments matter, and their importance has only continued to grow since their creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses to Questions About the Justice Centres CFP Dated: 06/08/2019
    Responses to Questions about the Justice Centres CFP Dated: 06/08/2019 A Question The guidance note explains that applicants may apply to “operate” justice centres in one or multiple regions and states in Myanmar. We note that the regions, states and districts that MyJustice has identified are locations where justice centres or satellite offices already exist. Will successful candidates be expected to take over entire justice centre offices in these locations, even if they are managed by other organizations – e.g., hire all their lawyers, paralegals, support staff; and take over leases of their physical space? How will MyJustice consider proposals that do not plan to absorb existing justice centres in full or in part, or proposals to operate new justice centres in one or more of the locations indicated? Answer Depending on the relative strengths of applicant organisations, overlap in geographical coverage and the complementariness of proposed activities, MyJustice may accept multiple grantees intending to operate in the same region or state. Successful grantees will be free to determine whether to engage existing staff, assets or operations of any existing Justice Centres in consultation with those organisations. B Question If we set up the training for Ward & Village tract Administrators, are we able to do this training in Sagaing Region? Answer As stated in Section 2.3 of the CFP Guidance (page 9), applicants may propose additional locations near the regions/states indicated, so long as they can demonstrate that their proposal will deliver against the specified MyJustice results, and that there is a demonstrable need for the services offered.
    [Show full text]
  • External Valuation of European Union's Cooperation with Myanmar
    FJPF External valuation of European Union’s Cooperation with Myanmar (2012-2017) Volume 2 Indicators January 2020 ___________ Evaluation carried out on behalf of the European Commission International Cooperation and Development This report has been prepared by Consortium of ADE, PEMconsult and IRAM Consortium leader: ADE s.a Contact Person: Edwin Clerckx [email protected] Contract No COM 2015/Lot 1 Evaluation N° 2017/390539 This evaluation was commissioned by the Unit in charge of Evaluations of the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (European Commission) The opinions expressed in this document represent the authors’ views; these are not necessarily shared by the European Commission nor by the authorities of the countries concerned. PEMconsult A/S ADE SA Wilders Plads 9 A, 2. Sal Rue de Clairvaux 40, Bte 101 1403 København K (Denmark) 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) +45 32 95 26 26 +32 10 45 45 10 [email protected] [email protected] www.pem.dk www.ade.eu EVALUATION OF EUROPEAN UNION’S COOPERATION WITH MYANMAR (2012-2017) PEM-ADE Table of contents EVALUATION QUESTION 1: Strategic Relevance .................................................................. 1 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: Education .............................................................................. 64 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: Peacebuilding........................................................................ 39 EVALUATION QUESTION 4: Governance .......................................................................... 16 EVALUATION QUESTION
    [Show full text]
  • Report Obstacles to Housing, Land and Property Rights on Northern Mon State.Pdf
    The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of NRC and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the British Council. Table of Contents Executive Summary 6 Glossary 10 Assumptions and Limitations 11 Methodology 11 Maps of Mon State 13 1. Mon State Background 15 1.1. Conflict and Ceasefire in Mon State 16 1.2. Land-grabbing in the southeast 17 1.3. Legal Pluralism 19 1.4. The Union-recognised Formal Legal System 19 1.5. Land Legislation 21 1.6. Ethnic Armed Organisations’ legal systems 27 1.7. Customary land management practices 30 1.8. Dispute Resolution at the Community Level 33 1.9. Dispute Resolution Actors 34 2. Feedback from FGDs and Key Stakeholders 36 Typology of Conflicts and Resolution Actors 38 2.1. Type 1: Intra-village boundary disputes (Win Phone) 38 2.2. Type 2: Inter-village boundary disputes (Win Phone) 38 2.3. Type 3: Military and government / company land grabs (Ahnan Pin and Dawn Ywar) 39 2.4. Feedback from CSOs regarding Legal Assistance 43 3. Analysis 48 3.1. Lack of documentation weakens HLP protection 49 3.2. CDR assistance in intra-community disputes 51 3.3. CDR and legal awareness assistance in intercommunal disputes 52 3.4. Legal assistance in disputes between villagers and outside actors 54 3.4.1. Military Land grabs 55 3.4.2. Government Land Grabs 55 3.4.3. Companies 59 3.4.4. Legal Action 59 4. Conclusions 62 4.1. CDR interventions can improve HLP rights protection 63 4.2.
    [Show full text]