 |
 |
|
Introduction:
East Timor was a Portuguese colony until 1975 when
Indonesia took it over. In a referendum in 1999, the East Timorese voted
overwhelmingly in favor of independence and the departing Indonesian military
destroyed most official records of land ownership. After independence, there was
a great deal of refugee repatriation and disputes arose over conflicting land
claims. With no court system in place to deal with the fallout, the United
Nations asked Chris Moore and Peter Woodrow of CDR associates in Boulder, CO to
design a mediation system for the country's land tenure conflicts and disputes.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Land Tenure Conflicts and East Timor
Peter Woodrow
Partner and Program Manager, CDR Associates
| |
Q: Talk to me about East Timor a little bit.
A: Okay, well the context of East Timor is that it was a Portuguese colony up
until 1975, when the Portuguese left pretty precipitously. The Indonesians
invaded and took it over, claiming that it was, from their point of view,
legitimately a part of Indonesia. And they have a legal argument that they put
forth about that, that the East Timorese don't buy, but they allege that. There
really was a military occupation for 25 years from '75 to 1999 when there was a
plebiscite. After the Suharto regime folded the successor regime agreed to hold
a referendum in East Timor regarding the question of independence. That was I
think August or September of '99 and the vote went strongly for independence,
and those forces within East Timor who were allied with Indonesia, either
militarily or for whatever other reasons, then withdrew. The military then
trashed the country on the way out, destroyed 70 percent of the buildings,
gutted government buildings, including the Land and Property Directorate, which
is the equivalent of the county clerk's office in Colorado where you register a
deed. So it's a place where property records are kept, deeds and land titles are
registered there. So they trashed that facility, although a copy of some of it
was on microfilm and had been sent to Java to a national archive in Indonesia,
but the Indonesians have refused to give a copy of that record to East Timor. Or
it's part of a negotiation process between the two, trying to settle a bunch of
issues.
Meanwhile, the staff of the Land and Property Directorate, the ones who
remained behind who were East Timorese, then sifted through the rubble and got
some records and found some things, but it's a really incomplete set of
documents. So, you've got a very complex situation with regard to land ownership
in East Timor. You've got folks that have Portuguese titles, which are pre-'75
titles. You've got people that have Indonesian titles, which might be for land
that was expropriated by Indonesia. Say somebody left in '75, and went into
exile because they were associating with the independence movement in East
Timor. So Indonesia might have just expropriated that. Let's say we're talking
about a house in the capital, in Dili. They might have just taken it
over. And then, you know, whatever Indonesian official might have sold it to
someone else and the new person was given an Indonesian title, and then they
might have sold it to a third person and a fourth person, so you might have
three or four owners over a 25-year period, all based on an expropriation by
Indonesia, which would be viewed by East Timor as illegal. And then you might
have an exile coming back, who left in '75, and he says where's my house, and
here it is and somebody's living in it, and he says well I have this piece of
paper from Indonesia that says I own this place. And the guy from pre-'75 says,
but it's my family's house, we lived here for 50 years. So, who's house is it?
Those are the kinds of conflicts that are coming up.
Also inheritance, you know,
people who died at various times during this whole chaotic period, and then who
gets the inheritance, and does anybody have any record or are there any wills,
or things that show how property should be transferred. Then, aside from the
Portuguese and Indonesian titles, the vast majority of the land in East Timor is
not owned personally, but by tribe. And then individual families are granted use
rights on those tribal lands through an informal process of the tribal
leadership saying, well, you and your family, you can have these, you know, five
hectares, and that's yours to plant. And, you know, you get the results of your
labor on that land, but you don't own it, it's still held by the tribe. Those
tribal lands are under a set of laws, which are called Adat laws.
Adat is the traditional legal system, which varies from area to area
throughout Indonesia, and even can vary from valley to valley, because you have
different ethnic groups, and so different interpretations of those traditional
legal practices. So, you've got three different legal processes, one of which is
incredibly varied, the Adat system, because it is culturally variable and
locally determined. You know, it's completely topsy-turvey if you look across
those areas, but usually within a particular area everybody is clear about who
is a decision maker and how the decisions are made. It sounds very simple.
However, there's political overlay in the question of which families have land.
Were they in a militia, funded and given arms by Indonesia, and then did they
shoot their neighbors during the '99 chaos? Did they flee as refugees to West
Timor for a period of time? Is the tribal decision maker more allied with the
liberation forces, and therefore if a family comes back and claims the land,
will the decision maker have a bias in determining whether that family gets to
use the land that they may have used for hundreds of years? The recent political
events create some difficulty. And, does it even make sense for that family to
come back, because they might be shunned or attacked or whatever by their
neighbors for events that happened. So these things are very complicated.
Q: It sounds like the standards by which you determine whose property it is
are completely un-firm.
A: Variable, right. And, I can't remember what the numbers are, but very few
lawyers in East Timor are left, some who were in exile and came back and a few
that were lawyers under the Indonesian system that are remaining. But there are
no judges and no courts. The buildings were destroyed and most of the judges are
gone. All of the other judges during the Indonesian period were Indonesian, and
it was all mostly military law anyway. It was military occupation, not civilian
rule. So there's essentially no court system right now in East Timor. So that's
the challenge that we were working with the East Timorese on.
Q: When you say we, you mean the people at CDR?
A: Yes, at CDR.
Q: CDR gets a call from...?
A: It's a complicated way of entrée. After '99 the UN set up an
administration that lasted until Spring, 2002. So for three years it really was
a UN administration in East Timor. One of the UN advisors to the Land and
Property Directorate, in the Ministry of Justice, a general, was a Canadian who
Chris had worked with in post-war Guatemala on setting up some systems there.
So he said, oh, I know exactly who can help us here. So he knew Chris
and e-mailed him and then they had an e-mail correspondence back and forth. The
Canadian government agreed to fund some work on setting up a mediation system
for land and property disputes. And then it went back and forth, and various UN
advisors came and went, and three advisors later things had settled down and the
new East Timorese administration had taken over, but the Canadians were still
willing to pay for this mediation process. So the present UN advisor, who's an
Ecuadorian who works closely with the Land and Property Directorate, thought
that this was a really good idea and really supported it, and worked with the
director of the Land and Property Directorate to set this up. So eventually this
all happened. Chris went out in December and did a basic mediation training
program with the guys. It turned out that they didn't really know what their
mediation system was going to look like, so Chris actually spent the first
couple of days doing a dispute resolution system design.
Q: Right, so when you get a call, they say, we want to develop a mediation
system to determine who owns what property and how to settle
?
A: Resolving disputed claims.
Q: Okay, and that was the UN idea before the CDR, and they said we know who
should do it, it's CDR.
A: Right.
Q: But you didn't come in and say, okay, you guys need a mediation structure
here?
A: No. And by the time we came in last December, we thought they would have
resolved a lot of questions of who the mediators were going to be, how they were
going to work at a community level, how cases were going to be received, what
kind of cases were in, what kind of cases would not be done this way. We thought
all that would be in place, but no, it wasn't. So there was more of a design
question, not just training individual mediators, but those larger systems
designs questions had to be resolved as well. So Chris spent the first couple
days of what was supposed to be a five-day mediation workshop working on dispute
systems design. And what they determined was that rather than have the mediators
all come from the Land and Property Directorate, the Directorate's staff
mediators would work with local leaders to co-mediate cases. Of course then
there were going to be these other political questions about whether the local
leader is trusted. So you had to do some discernment about which local guys to
train up as mediators and which not to. And I don't know how they're going to do
that, but that's up to them, essentially.
Q: That's not CDR's choice to decide?
A: No. No, no, no. I mean it's not our choice even to designate who the
mediators are going to be. That's up to the Land and Property Directorate.
They're the ones who recruited the folks into the mediation training program.
And the initial group was all their staff, and those staff members will be
mediating cases, but they'll be doing it as co-mediators with local leaders. So
we had a mediation program in December, we followed that up with a multi-party
mediation program in February. We were looking where the dispute was not just
between two people, but might involve other folks, neighbors, multiple folks
that are claiming something, multiple family members that are claiming
inheritance, where it might involve some tribal representatives as well as
individual families. So, we were looking at a whole range of different ways that
you might have multiple parties involved. And then in March we went back, and I
went on the March trip to do a training of trainers, because they need to train
all these local folks as mediators, not just go out and assume they'll be able
to become mediators, but to have a training program for that. So we were
training people to go out and train other people.
There's going to be a fourth training. It's still undetermined exactly what
that's going to cover. It could be an advanced mediation program, but there are
several other topics that could be a part of that. This is a case where what
we're really talking about is institutional development. It's not the same as
going out and mediating a single dispute. We're trying to help them set up a
system for handling multiple disputes in the context of the society, which is
trying to recover from fundamental trauma and destruction, and they're really
building a government, and it involves infrastructure, from the ground up.
In this situation a mediation process is going to be faster and cheaper
than trying to get a judicial system up and running. They may ultimately need
some kind of an appeals process from mediation to a land court or something like
that. In the next couple years they may be able to set that up, but meanwhile
they have to do something to resolve these disputes, and lacking lawyers and
courts and judges, which is going to be expensive to set up, this mediation
process seems to make a lot of sense for their context.
Q: It seems that if there were a justice system, standards could be
established by which to determine what property belonged to whom. There's sort
of a tradeoff between individual settlements of cases versus large
legal-rights-based understanding of who owns what.
A: Well, everything still has to be done within the context of laws. They've
passed a land ownership law that determines who can own land. For instance, that
law says foreigners can't own property in East Timor, and then they define what
a foreigner is or who is East Timorese. That law also provides for mediation of
disputes as one way to handle disputes, but there'll be subsequent laws that
will enshrine in law this process of mediation with an appeal to some kind of a
land court. And those laws are in draft at this point. There's another law that
provides a process for people making claims, and they're in the process of
developing the regulations for that, what the form looks like and where you can
file it and what language it needs to be in and how many copies and what kind of
documentation you need to provide along with your claim and those kind of
things. All that stuff is in development around the land thing.
So there is a
legal framework, but if you use the power-rights-interest framework to think
about this, for the last couple years there's been a power framework because
there hasn't been any legal framework, so people are just sort of taking stuff
and doing what they want because they can, or forcing other people off of land
using the point of a gun or whatever they have to do. Or local leaders who have
pretty unquestioned power at the local level may just say, now this family's in
and that family's out. Just, bam! And that's where some of these legal claims
are going to come from, where a local tribal leader has made a determination and
another family decided that that wasn't fair, that there was some kind of bias
in that determination. So now the country is in the process of establishing a
rights-based framework, which includes all these laws, but that legal framework
will include within it the interest-based provision, i.e. mediation using an
interest-based approach to resolving claims, so that eventually those nested
paradigms will come together in the process.
Q: When you hear about mediation you hear about win-win situations, you know,
expand the pie; it's not a zero sum situation. It sounds like a lot of these
situations are zero sum-you get the property, you don't get the property. How
does that work?
A: That could be, but during that first training program, Chris got them to
tell him multiple stories, so has like 25 different cases, he has some sort of
little capsule summaries of those cases and what the issues were and all that.
And some of them he subsequently wrote up into simulations for the following
training. And in a lot of the cases it's just not as cut and dry as that. Let's
say somebody acquired a piece of land ten years ago and planted banana trees,
and so there's a crop from those banana trees. And perhaps he's also put on a
new roof because the old roof was falling down, and has done some other
improvements to the property. Somebody else comes in and has a pretty clear-cut
claim to that property, you know, the guy who'd been there for ten years maybe
with an Indonesian title, one of these transfers, is ultimately determined to be
illegal. And it was through no fault of his own. I mean, he thought he was
buying something in good faith and so he didn't violate law, but he doesn't have
a legal to claim to the property.
This other landowner is coming back and then the other question is what do
you do? Well, does the guy get payment for the improvements he made to the
property? Do you find some way for him to get income from the bananas for X
number of years? Say for the next five years he gets the banana crops and he has
access to come in and work on that. Or maybe he gets all of it for the first two
years and then the third year the other landowner gets a quarter of the income
and then the fourth and fifth year they split it in half and then the sixth year
the landowner, the guy that's going to be the full landowner, gets the full
value. So you have ways to sort of figure those things out, and then you would
resolve the roof, you know, the owner would need to maybe over time pay back the
value of the roof, or they use bananas as payment, I don't know. But there are
ways to sort of figure that kind of thing out.
The other deal is that is
there's some way to do land swaps with other properties that the government has
at its disposal, or in the countryside the tribal leaders have, so that it isn't
just a cut and dry, well, you're out, you're in. And then does that just leave
you homeless or is there a way to meet your needs for a home, or some way to do
the timing of the transfer that makes it less burdensome, or you know, provide
for some government resources for subsidy to people who've been displaced due to
lands claims or something like that, which might be a small amount of money, but
enough to sort of get somebody started on finding another location. So it isn't
always as completely win and lose as it might be. You find ways to accommodate
folks. And some people who are sitting in those properties know full well that
they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Maybe during the chaos they sort of
said, well, I need a house. Mine was burned, this one's whole, I'm moving in.
And then they know they didn't have legal title. So we find some way to resolve
that.
Q: Some people have argued that the impartial-neutral model of mediation
where the person who's sitting there and facilitating the conversation doesn't
know anything about the parties, doesn't really know the parties, and is just
sort of trying to lead an objective conversation, that that doesn't necessarily
work in some situations in Latin America.
A: Absolutely. And this goes to the cross-cultural deal. So, in East Timor
we're not giving them a North American model and saying this is the way you
mediate. We're giving them principles, you know, some fundamental principles of
mediation and some fundamental skills, but then they've got to find their own
way that works for their context. We've already noticed in watching them
role-play that they're much more evaluative and directive in their mediation
style than we would be here. And they're going to be co-mediating with village
leaders, who intimately know the parties at one level or another who also will
understand the cultural context. Because the Land and Property Directive folks
are going to be urban-educated government employees, it's difficult for them to
understand the cultural context among 33 language groups on this tiny island,
some of which are mutually unintelligible languages. I mean, the language
difficulties there are really hard because there's no dominant language.
A guy from the Land and Property Directive that grew up in X city, and is working
on a case in the countryside with a tribe that he barely knows the name of, he
has to depend on working with the local leadership in figuring that thing out.
Because a local guy will know, you know, whether that family has legitimately
been there for years and years, and those kinds of things. They'll also be doing
some investigation. The land and property folks have learned a lot about going
out and just walking around the land and talking to the neighbors and figuring
out who was here when and what happened over the last 25 years, and was there a
change in '75 and was there another change when the Indonesians left and what
happened in between, and who's been occupying the land since '99, and who gave
them permission to be there. Just all kinds of pulling together the facts, which
in our context a mediator doesn't usually do. I mean, we might do a conflict
assessment, but that's usually talking with the parties. In this case the
mediator is also a fact finder.
Q: A researcher.
A: Yeah. They're doing some basic research on a case to get a sense of what's
going on, and that means that then they're a source of information on the case,
which means it's a different mediation model.
Q: And that's not something that you all suggested?
A: No, no, it's based on their situation and what they need to be doing, and
what the role of the role of the Land and Property Directorate staff are. Now
eventually it may get so that one set of staff people is doing the research and
providing essentially a file to the mediator, and another staff person is then
playing the role of mediator so that they're not mixing those roles. But, you
know, they're understaffed and overworked, so maybe for a while everybody will
be doing everything.
|
 |
 |
 |