Repairing Loss and Restoring Trust (Compensation for Damages and Restitution)

Standardised crop and livestock damage assessment refers to the use of clear, community-agreed methods to determine the extent and value of harm to crops, pasture, or animals. It ensures that losses are assessed fairly and consistently, reducing disputes and mistrust.

Practitioners should support communities in jointly developing and applying standard criteria for assessing crop and livestock damage. These criteria should consider factors such as crop type, growth stage, number of animals lost, size of the affected area, and the likely cause of the damage. Using shared standards promotes fairness, limits exaggeration, and strengthens confidence in compensation outcomes.

When damage occurs, trained community representatives, together with the affected farmer and herder, and neutral witnesses from both sides, should apply the agreed criteria during a joint site visit. Findings should be explained openly and recorded in simple, accessible formats. These shared assessments then guide dialogue on restitution, helping parties reach fair and timely agreements while preventing retaliation and future disputes.

Compensation negotiation committees are inclusive community groups that support fair and peaceful resolution of disputes involving crop damage, pasture loss, or other land-use harm. They provide a trusted space where affected farmers and herders can discuss loss, responsibility, and repair with the support of neutral community members.

Communities should be supported in establishing compensation negotiation committees composed of farmers, herders, elders, women, youth, and other respected representatives. These committees should facilitate dialogue between affected parties, ensure balanced representation, and guide fair, transparent, and restorative compensation processes.

Committee members should be selected through open community processes and trained in basic mediation and negotiation skills. When damage occurs, the committee should meet promptly, hear all sides, and use agreed assessment standards to guide discussions on appropriate restitution. Agreements reached should be publicly acknowledged and followed up on to ensure compliance, helping restore trust and prevent retaliation.

Participatory Communication is recommended for use in customary arbitration, mediation, and facilitated meetings between disputing parties. The role of the mediator, arbitrator, or facilitator is to create an environment that fosters open discussion between the parties. They are made to own the process. Parties may jointly identify the areas of dispute, including the underlying issues and the manifestations of the conflicts. They are also allowed to jointly propose solutions to the identified problem and an implementation plan that aligns with their joint interests. Interveners only wade in when parties are distracted by issues not directly relevant to the dispute or that both parties regard as deal breakers.

Roleplaying (socio-drama) can be an effective way for parties to build mutual respect. Roleplaying is recommended in closed conflict cultures, where parties may be less comfortable discussing underlying or taboo topics openly.

Joint fact-finding by a neutral third party helps parties achieve a shared, accurate understanding of what happened. It also tends to improve their relationship and increase the chances of resolving the issue. We find variants of joint fact-finding already in use in customary arbitration. Chiefs and members of customary courts make arrangements for a locus visit where each party to a land dispute takes them to the land in dispute, calls witnesses who are interviewed in the presence of disputants on the land and other boundary men (if it is a boundary dispute) are called to identify the boundary. For more formal methods, such as mediation, parties value being carried along through every stage of the dispute resolution process. Efforts will require that the parties jointly bear any burden associated with fact-finding (e.g., financial or logistical needs). In large groups, members can nominate representatives they trust. The rules should be clearly defined and implemented transparently to build confidence.

In-kind restitution refers to non-monetary ways of repairing harm caused by crop damage, pasture loss, blocked routes, or other land-use incidents. This may include labour, replacement crops, fodder, shared harvests, temporary access to resources, or community support. The aim is to restore livelihoods and relationships, not just replace material loss. Practitioners should support communities in using in-kind restitution as a practical and culturally acceptable way to repair harm, especially where cash compensation is not feasible or appropriate. These mechanisms should be agreed through dialogue, guided by local norms, and designed to be fair, timely, and focused on restoring trust.

When damage occurs, affected parties supported by elders, mediators, or negotiation committees should discuss and agree on suitable in-kind restitution. The type of support, time frame, and responsibilities should be clearly understood and publicly acknowledged. Linking restitution agreements to monitoring and mediation processes helps ensure follow-through and prevents renewed conflict.

Follow-up and compliance monitoring are community-agreed processes for ensuring that compensation, restitution, and repair commitments are carried out as promised. They help maintain trust by showing that agreements are taken seriously and that responsibilities are shared.

Practitioners should support communities in establishing simple, trusted systems to track whether compensation and restitution agreements are fulfilled. Monitoring should be conducted by neutral, respected community members and focus on encouraging compliance through dialogue and support rather than punishment.

Once an agreement is reached, a small group or trusted individuals should be designated to follow up on progress and address delays or misunderstandings. Where challenges arise, early dialogue and mediation should be used to find solutions. Regular check-ins and public acknowledgement of completed commitments help reinforce accountability and restore confidence between farmers and herders.

• Restitution is treated as a relational process, extending beyond monetary compensation to include apology, forgiveness, and reintegration, recognising that trust is rebuilt through a combination of moral accountability and practical restitution rather than payment alone. Other Practice
• Restoring trust is best achieved through settlements that are seen as fair, inclusive, and humane. This requires acknowledging the harm done, validating the community's experience, and establishing a foundation of negotiated restitution to rebuild relationships and ensure peaceful coexistence. In accordance with the literature research
• Reconciliation follows a clear restorative sequence that begins with public acknowledgement of harm. The offending party is invited to speak first, openly accepting responsibility before traditional leaders, elders, women, and youth representatives from both sides. Apologies are expressed in culturally appropriate and non-humiliating language, creating space for dialogue and reducing anger. Only after acknowledgement has occurred do communities proceed to discuss compensation or restitution. This process prepares the ground for meaningful and durable settlements, promotes emotional healing, and restores dignity on all sides. By prioritising truth-telling before material discussion, communities strengthen trust, reduce resentment, and increase acceptance of the final agreement. In accordance with the literature search
• Compensation should be determined through an inclusive, consensus-based process that gives equal voice to farmers and herders. Rather than relying on fixed tariffs, mixed committees comprising farmer and herder representatives, alongside neutral elders, jointly assess the actual loss, seasonal conditions, household vulnerability, and the responsible party’s capacity to contribute. Compensation options are discussed openly and may include cash or non-cash restitution, such as farm labour, seedlings, or livestock. Other practice
• The presence and affirmation of respected witnesses give settlements spiritual, cultural, and moral weight, increasing legitimacy and reducing the likelihood of breach. Social accountability complements dialogue, reinforcing compliance without coercion. To enhance legitimacy and reduce breaches, agreements should be presented before respected witnesses (e.g., religious leaders, elders, women leaders, age-grade representatives, farmers, and Herders linked to the agreement process). These witnesses verbally affirm the agreement and commit to encouraging compliance. Other Practice
• After restitution is agreed, practitioners should facilitate a brief reconciliation moment following payment or the first instalment, encourage religious or cultural blessings that affirm renewed coexistence, and support follow-up visits by mediators to ensure relationships are normalised and tensions do not resurface. Other Practice
• Practitioners should treat apology as a mandatory first step in any restitution process; design compensation arrangements that are flexible and context-sensitive rather than standardised; use narratives of reconciliation to counter revenge and retaliation; anchor agreements in public witnessing structures to strengthen moral enforcement; and link final forgiveness to clear evidence that restitution terms are being honoured. In line with literature research