ANALYTICAL STUDY OF LAND RIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA Valentin CIUBOTARU, Nicolae CIUBOTARU Non-governmental Organisation BIOS, member of NES Moldova Platform 72/3 Columna str., office nr. 3, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, MD-2012, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The Study was conducted in 2018-2019 within the National Engagement Strategy, supported by International Land Coalition. According to our study, there are over one million cases of land rights infringement. Thus, it is necessary to develop urgent actions to harmonise national policies with international ones, including to commitment of International Land Coalition: - Secure Tenure Rights: respect, protect and strengthen the land rights of women and men living in poverty. The Government and Development Partners support correction of the committed errors in land title deeds, however due to lack of conflict resolution mechanism for all types of errors, only some of them are corrected. The percentage of errors after their correction in some communities exceeds 50%. As a result of Governmental reform, the mandates of some institutions are overlapping. This inter- institutional arrangement results in a lack of clarity over implementation procedures. Key words: land, rights, infringement, title, error. INTRODUCTION The agricultural sector has traditionally played a central role in country’s economy. Since its independence in August 1991, Moldova has taken significant steps to strengthen its legal and institutional framework for transition of agriculture from a centralized to a market-oriented format, as part of country’s wider economic change processes. However, changes in the legal framework and decisions taken over this period have not succeeded in bringing about essential economic and social changes in agriculture and rural development. According to the Human Development Report (UNDP, 2017), in Moldova the gap between absolute urban and rural poverty is significant – 19% of population living at poverty line in rural areas vs. 5% in urban areas. Currently, agriculture accounts for 10–12 percent of gross domestic product, and employs about 26–28 percent of the labor force. The average sector growth rate has been rather low over the last 28 years, mainly due to inadequacy of reforms, including the ones related to land tenure. The land privatization program has laid the foundation for a new economy based on private ownership. According to the legal framework, all citizens of the Republic of Moldova have the right to private property. The right to land ownership in the Republic of Moldova was declared on 29 May 1991 by introducing the respective amendment in Art. 11 of the Constitution of the country. The Parliament approved on December 25, 1991 the new Land Code, which became a major piece of legislation to regulate land privatization. according to Land Code, more than 1.2 million people have acquired the right to private ownership of the land. The Government approved the National "Land" Program in 1998, (by Decision No. 1022 of 06.10.1998). The goal of the Analytical Study was to evaluate to which extent in Moldova is respected the ILC Commitment - Secure Tenure Rights: respect, protect and strengthen the land rights of women and men living in poverty, ensuring that no one is deprived of the use and control of the land on which their well- being and human dignity depend, including through eviction, expulsion or exclusion, and with compulsory changes to tenure undertaken only in line with international law and standards on human rights. The Study was performed by NGO BIOS in July-November, 2018 and February-May, 2019 with farmers and local public administration in rural communities in framework of the National Engagement Strategy (NES Moldova). MATERIALS AND METHODS The Study is based mainly on opinions and perceptions of beneficiaries. The following methods were used: semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, SWOT analysis, transcend walks, studying the land related materials and others. The Study was carried out on a sample of 212 people, 84 women and 128 men, a number of 70 communities being visited and from another 70 we received information; however, we did not visit them. The geographical location of businesses and respondents was also taken into account, so as to identify the views of those in the North, South and Centre. The obtained sociological results reflect the public opinion, real attitudes, appreciation, perceptions and wishes of the inhabitants from the survey area and may be used with a high degree of reliance. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS There are many cases of land rights infringement which exist in rural localities and the obtained results exceeded all our expectations (Table 1). Table 1. Number of land owners who face land rights infringement problems in some communities Total number The percentage Number of land owners No Community of land of land rights who face land rights owners infringement infringement problems 1 Tigheci, Leova district 1200 20% 240 2 Hanasenii Noi, Leova district 1300 70% 910 3 Filipeni, Leova district 3000 80% 2400 4 Antonesti, Cantemir district 780 4% 31 5 Sadova, Calarasi district 3000 80% 2400 6 Buteni, Hincesti district 2028 15% 304 7 Ciuciuleni, Hincesti district 3100 85% 2635 8 Miresti, Hincesti district 700 80% 560 9 Nemteni, Hincesti district 1115 25% 280 10 Rudi, Soroca district 800 100% 800 11 Darcauti, Soroca district 600 35% 210 12 Bulboci, Soroca district 1000 12% 210 13 Singerei Noi , Singerei district 1000 34% 340 14 Izvoare, Singerei district 440 22% 97 15 Bilicenii Noi, Singerei district 2000 40% 800 16 Coscodeni, Singerei district 2400 24% 576 17 Copaceni, Singerei district 1834 30% 550 18 Prepelita, Singerei district 3000 100% 3000 19 Cazangic, Leova district 612 7% 42 20 Colibabovca, Leova district 600 30% 180 21 Orac, Leova district 500 15% 75 22 Bujor, Hincesti district 1500 1% 15 23 Balciana, Hincesti district 900 3% 27 24 Stolniceni, Hincesti district 900 10% 90 25 Bravicea, Calarasi district 1400 100% 1400 26 Niscani, Calarasi district 1200 10% 120 27 Horodiste, Calarasi district 1800 25% 450 28 Jora de Mijloc, Orhei district 2977 40% 1191 1 2 3 4 5 29 Susleni, Orhei district 8000 25% 2000 30 Mitoc, Orhei district 1400 15% 210 31 Scoreni, Straseni district 1085 50% 542 32 Panasesti, Straseni district 2347 30% 704 33 Radeni, Straseni district 1600 30% 480 34 Sireti, Straseni district 3300 50% 1650 35 Pelinia, Drochia district 4500 30% 1350 36 Suri, Drochia district 3800 20% 760 37 Chetrosu, Drochia district 3200 15% 480 38 Popesti de Sus, Drochia district 1150 20% 230 39 Moara de Piatra, Drochia district 900 There were no 800 40 Pervomaiscoe, Drochia district 1050 massive 1000 41 Antoneuca, Drochia district 235 measurements 200 42 Baroncea, Drochia district 1222 20% 245 Art 11 -1280 90% 1152 43 Popeasca, Stefan Voda district Art 12 -1280 5% 64 Art 11 - 1400 0% 0 44 Ermoclia, Stefan Voda district Art 12 - 2000 20% 400 45 Cioburciu, Stefan Voda district 1200 20% 240 46 Antonesti, Stefan Voda district 1000 20% 200 47 Ciutesti, Nisporeni district 1600 5% 80 Art 11 - 2000 5% 100 48 Varzaresti, Nisporeni district Art 12 - 2100 50% 1050 49 Bursuc, Nisporeni district 247 14% 35 50 Cristesti, Nisporeni district 600 25% 150 51 Baurci-Moldoveni, Cahul district 700 10% 70 52 Rosu, Cahul district 2000 15% 300 53 Manta, Cahul district 1200 20% 240 54 Valeni, Cahul district 2674 10% 267 Art 11 - 400 100% 400 55 Capaclia, Cantemir district Art 12 - 532 0% 0 56 Porumbesti, Cantemir district 700 10% 70 57 Tiganca, Cantemir district 1055 10% 105 58 Gotesti, Cantemir district 1465 5% 73 59 Pirlita, Ungheni district 4000 10% 400 60 Todiresi, Ungheni district 2800 14% 200 61 Busila, Ungheni district 1000 40% 400 62 Chirileni, Ungheni district 990 10% 99 63 Batir, Cimislia district 2140 10% 214 64 Selemet, Cimislia district 1600 45% 720 65 Mihailovca, Cimislia district 860 5% 43 66 Gradiste, Ungheni district 1890 10% 189 67 Criuleni city 4000 40% 400 Art 11 - 1400 15% 210 68 Boscana, Criuleni district Art 12 - 600 5% 30 1 2 3 4 5 69 Magdacesti, Criuleni district 1200 15% 180 70 Drasliceni, Criuleni district 1107 50% 555 Total: 124,495 39,220 The average percentage of land rights infringement in 70 visited communities is 31,5%. According to our analyses, only in 15% of land rights infringement identified in interviews in visited communities correspond to the information presented of LPAs to district authorities; in the rest of the communities these differ substantially. (Table 2). Table 2. Comparable analyses of land owners who face land rights infringement problems in some localities Land rights infringement, % Number of land owners who have land rights infringement Number problems No Community of land- Based on Based on owners Based on Based on information information interviews interviews presented by LPA presented by LPA Tigheci, Leova 1,5 18 1 1200 20 240 district Hanasenii Noi, 31 403 2 1300 70 910 Leova district Filipeni, Leova 41 1230 3 3000 80 2400 district Miresti, Hincesti 77 539 4 700 80 560 district Rudi, Soroca 24 192 5 800 100 800 district Darcauti, Soroca 12 72 6 600 35 210 district Bilicenii Noi, 20 400 7 2000 40 800 Singerei district Copaceni, 5 92 8 1834 30 550 Singerei district Prepelita, 6 180 9 3000 100 3000 Singerei district Cazangic, Leova 4 25 10 612 7 42 district Colibabovca, 4 180 24 11 Leova district 600 30 Orac, Leova 4 20 12 500 15 75 district Balciana, 3 27 13 900 3 27 Hincesti district Stolniceni, 3 27 14 Hincesti district 900 10 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pelinia, Drochia 13 585 15 4500 30 1350 district Suri, Drochia 10 380 16 3800 20 760 district Moara de Piatra, 13 117 17 900 90 810 Drochia district The average 27,146 12,804 331 4,331 Thus, in selected 17 communities the average percentage of land rights infringement based on interviews of visited communities is 3 times higher as compared to information submitted by LPAs to district authorities.