The activity took place in the capital of the province Ngozi, at AMICIZIA Lodge, on June 30, 2021 with a total presence for the agents since all the communes of the action zone in which APDH operates were represented. These communes are Kirundo and Ntega from Kirundo province, Ngozi, Nyamurenza, Gashikanwa, Busiga and Mwumba from Ngozi province, Kayanza, Muruta, Kabarore, Matongo and Gatara from Kayanza province, and Gashoho from Muyinga province.
This activity which started around 10 am on a small exchange of satisfactions and dissatisfactions of each of the agents in their respective services since our last meeting.
The objective of this workshop is to restitute and exchange on the results of the data analysis for the communal land agents of the action zone. It is also a time to exchange experiences in order to decide together on a strategic orientation to increase the performance of land certification in the intervention zone in the future.
What are the expectations of the FAs on this analysis? Satisfactory answers to the questions asked by the FAs, especially in relation to the finances of the communal land services, to know if one or the other land service is doing better or not than the other, to learn from each other on how to increase their yields in their services, to understand the levels of collaboration of the APDH with the communal land services of the intervention zone, to be able to compare their results with those of the other communal land services
Before continuing with the activity itself, APDH wanted to clarify its level of collaboration with the communal land service via the PAGF, while specifying to the agents present that the land service is 'communal' and that the commune must at all costs take ownership of it and make it sustainable for it to function properly.
During the analysis of these data, it was noted that some communes received more requests for land certificates than others. Out of the 13 functional services, the total demand is 4117 from January to June 2021. The average is 317 and only 3 communal land services were able to reach the average (Ngozi, Matongo, and Muruta).
The managers of these land services tell us about the reasons that led the population to respond massively: Awareness-raising and proximity to the population came first, and in particular by senior officials from these communes (Matongo, for example). Participants also mention effective means of explaining to the population when they come to look for documents attesting land property ownership. Some also mention the recent ministerial order abolishing the ‘Acte de notoriete’.
Of the 13, 4 land services were unable to reach half of the average (158). These are the communes of Gashoho, Kabarore, Nyamurenza, and Kiremba. Some officials of these services mention as reasons, the lack of legal understanding of the matter by the administrative staff concerned (at the communal level), while others justify it by the lack or insufficiency of personnel at the level of the communal land services, as well as the problems of means of reaching out to the population in general.
In terms of the production of land certificates, 2780 certificates were produced, and three communes did better and produced more certificates than others; these strengths can be explained by the fact that the agents have access to the commune's means of transportation, awareness-raising, and good collaboration with other commune services. This is also due to the fact that the staff is sufficient and the seniority in the work.
The services of Gashoho, Gatara and Ntega are below the average (214) and have a low rate of production of FCs. The reasons for this low rate are those mentioned above (causes of low rate of applications because the fewer the applications, the lower the production rate).
The rate of application and certification of women's land property remains low in all communes. This observation calls on the administration and actors in these sectors to do more to ensure that their rights are respected.
The participants made recommendations for better performance in the future. These recommendations include good collaboration with the actors and all those who support communal land services, the approach of the administrative authorities to help in the understanding of the perpetuation and taking ownership of the communal land service by the commune, etc.