2015 World Bank Conference on Land and Property The Colombian Land Restitution Programme: Process, results and challenges Washington DC, 24 March 2015 Jemima García-Godos Dept. of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo Henrik Wiig Dept. of International Studies, Norwegian Institute of Urban and Regional Research (NIBR)

Outline Background The Victims’ Law and the issue of land restitution Key features of the land restitution program The process Main challenges: Institutional level; during implementation; return. Conclusions

Colombia: A history of violence and peace La Violencia , followed by establishment of National Front system until Current armed conflict since Peace-negotiations with: –FARC-EP 1982 – 1988 (unsuccessful) –M-19, EPL, and Quintín Lame (blanket amnesties) –Peace-negotiations with the FARC1998 – 2002 (unsuccessful) –Peace-negotiations with the ELN (ongoing) –Peace-negotiations with the AUC (Transitional Justice) Since September/Oct 2012: peace talks with FARC

Transitional justice enters the scene 2002: Peace-talks in Santa Fe de Ralito: Recognition of the political nature of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). 2003: “Alternative Penalties Law” proposal met with intense national and international criticism 2005: Transitional justice discourse introduced in the Law of Justice and Peace (Law 975). 2006: Constitutional Court decision on the constitutionality yet need for amendment in some parts. Subsequent regulations of the law (decrees, rules, regulations, procedures) Additional program: administrative reparations.

A longstanding issue: Land restitution Current armed conflict: 3,5–5 mill IDPs, particularly since 1990s Law for Protection of IDPs Constitutional Court (T-025) –“an unconstitutional state of affairs” –Follow-up Commission in 2005; reports since 2007 –National System for Integral Support to Displaced Population established by government, including legal protection for abandoned lands. 2005: Law of Justice and Peace (Law 975) –CNRR – Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación –Regional Commissions for the Restitution of Property. –6-8 pilot projects –Internal displacement identified as a violation in the administrative reparations program. 5

Law 1448 of 2011: The Victims’ Law Pending issues in previous legislation: victims of state actors, effective implementation of victim reparations and the issue of land restitution. Main objective: To implement victim reparations and protect victim’s rights in the framework of transitional justice. –Reparations for victims after –Restitution for victims of internal displacement after New institutions created: –The Victim’s Unit: National Victims Registry, specific reparations programs –The Restitution Unit (URT): technical and legal handling of claims, land courts, land registers –National Commission for Historical Clarification Great expectations!

Land restitution in the Victim’s Law Guiding principles: Good faith; inversed burden of proof Implementation gradually and progressively Differential treatment Preferential treatment for women Many actors involved: URT, IGAC, SNR, INCODER, and more URT: 17 regional offices, broad mandate, considerable resources. Coordinating function. Prepare restitution cases/files. Present cases to Restitution Judges Represents the victim in the judicial phase

Who is entitled to restitution? Owners: formalized property rights Possessors: has formalized property on someone else’s name Occupants: no formal title deeds Not included: Tenants, worked somebody else’s land.

Zonas macro Zonas micro URT-hompages 12/9, not anymore…

Zona micro-focalizada del Municipio El Carmen de Bolivar

From claim to sentence: The restitution process Victim Min. Def. URT Nat & Reg. URT IGAC, SNR, other Judge (URT) SNR, IGAC, INCODER SNR (URT) Public agencies

Challenges at the institutional level A heavy process: –Highly demanding information gathering –High levels of institutional coordination among many actors. Restitution judges: comprehensive mandate Institutional challenges met with a flexible, self- reflective approach Institutional, political awareness of what is at stake Progress slow

Restitution on the ground IDPs: a heterogenous group Occupants might have more land than entitled to by the restitution program. Third-parties: In good faith, in bad faith. Changes in land use

Return: dream or reality? Return as premise for restitution But, many reasons not to return: –Limited opportunities, infrastructure at place of origin –New lifestyle, occupation –Generational aspect –Security still a challenge

Conclusions High expectations, much at stake Realities of return make restitution an option, among others Serious consideration of alternatives: –Monetary compesation –Housing support –Formalisation programs Closer coordination with other forms of reparation and Victims Unit